2017-03-23 45 1 2 House of Reps 0 1

Thursday, 23 March 2017

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

BILLS 1 BILLS Australian Immunisation Register and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 1

Australian Immunisation Register and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017

First Reading 1 Second Reading 1 09:31 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I am pleased to introduce the Australian Immunisation Register and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. It is part of the government's firm, clear and absolute commitment to a No Jab, No Pay program, which is ultimately about encouraging immunisation and vaccination to lift the rates of safety for our children and for the children of others with whom each of our offspring play. This is about ensuring safety against measles and mumps. It is about rubella, it is about shingles and it is about the tragic outcomes that we have seen from whooping cough. Only a week ago, the Prime Minister and I met with a magnificent mother, Toni McCaffery. She lost her little daughter Dana some years ago to whooping cough, almost certainly acquired through a childcare centre at a drop-off. That little girl was only a few weeks old, and the courage, the dignity and the decency of Toni struck both the Prime Minister and me. Although we were already committed to further strengthening vaccination levels in Australia, the degree of galvanisation which came out of it was shared by both of us. I look across the table and acknowledge the bipartisan approach to vaccination for young children from both sides of this parliament. Against that background, the Australian Immunisation Register Act 2015 (AIR Act) was created as a new, consolidated legislative framework for the establishment and ongoing management of Australian immunisation registers. This bill implemented measures to improve immunisation rates across Australia and complemented other government initiatives, including No Jab, No Pay and new catch-up incentives to GPs and other immunisation providers. As I said at the outset, immunisation is critical to maintaining public health and preventing the outbreak of infectious diseases. The advice to me and to the Prime Minister from the Chief Medical Officer, the extraordinarily capable Professor Brendan Murphy, could not be clearer: vaccination saves lives, vaccination protects children and vaccination protects our elderly. It is something which is a fundamental achievement of the 20th century and the 21st century, and the evidence of those who come from a different perspective is simply unfounded, unsubstantiated and antiscience, and cannot and will not be tolerated by this government. The Turnbull government is therefore committed to further improving vaccination rates. Since the introduction of the No Jab, No Pay policy, the government has seen 200,000 extra children vaccinated in just over a year. That has meant that vaccination rates have increased to 93 per cent for the general childhood population and to 94.5 per cent for those covered by the particular measures which would withhold benefits to those who would otherwise receive benefits under the No Jab, No Pay program. It is a tough program, but it is fundamentally good public policy to ensure good public health and, at the most important level—the level of individual families—it is good policy that saves and protects lives. Implemented on 1 January 2016, the AIR Act improved the arrangements surrounding the medical exemption process such that only general practitioners could assess for medical exemptions. Since the introduction of the AIR Act, immunisation clinicians have requested that other specialised medical professionals have their assessments for medical exemptions recognised under the act, in addition to general practitioners. This is a fair, reasonable and sensible proposal put forward by the medical profession to further advance the objectives of No Jab, No Pay. These additional practitioners include paediatricians, public health physicians, infectious diseases physicians and clinical immunologists. Specialists have advised that having to send patients back to general practitioners to get medical exemptions has added an unnecessary burden of time for patients and, in some cases, may risk the correct recognition of those families that have done the right thing. The four specialist groups identified in the legislation today, therefore, provide care to the most vulnerable children in the country, including those with complex illnesses and healthcare requirements. This is a humane and sensible response put forward by the profession, which we welcome and thank them for. I particularly want to acknowledge the work of the AMA and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, as well as the other specialist disciplines. They include, therefore, paediatricians working in specialist immunisation clinics who GPs call for advice on whether medical exemptions are warranted. This legislation enables these highly qualified specialists, who are often best placed to assess children for immunisation, the opportunity to provide comprehensive care for their patients. Allowing these specialists to notify medical exemption to the Australian Immunisation Register will maintain and enhance the integrity of the No Jab, No Pay policy because it ensures that the most qualified clinicians are able to make this assessment. That is right, proper, sensible and an important advancement. Based on this feedback, the bill will make minor amendments to paragraph 9(c) and subparagraph 9(d)(iii) of the AIR Act to allow paediatricians, public health physicians, infectious diseases physicians and clinical immunologists to assess that a young person should not have a vaccine for medical reasons or natural immunity to a disease. The inclusion of these immunisation specialists will reduce the number of referrals and appointments that patients currently need. This will save time, cost and effort for health providers and patients. In conjunction with the amendment to the AIR Act, the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (FA act) is also being amended. Schedule 2 of this bill includes provisions to amend the FA act for consistency. The amendments will expand the medical practitioners who can certify medical exemptions in line with the amendments to the AIR Act. The bill also makes a minor amendment to paragraph 9(b) of the AIR Act to make it explicit that the Australian Immunisation Register can only accept vaccination information provided by recognised vaccination providers, and not members of the public. This removes any uncertainty associated with who can provide vaccination information and removes the opportunity for the very small number of parents who may seek to do the wrong thing. Through the bill, the AIR will continue to operate to support the continued efforts of health professionals to improve the health of individuals. The bill will reduce the burden on those professionals and also the individuals that require medical exemptions from immunisation. I want to thank the medical profession for their cooperation in not just the amendments which we are proposing at their suggestion today: again, the AMA, under the very impressive and august leadership of Dr Michael Gannon; the Royal Australian College of GPs, who are equally well and ably led by Dr Bastian Seidel; the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine, which has been a very forceful activist in this space; and the other colleges involved. I also want to acknowledge the bipartisan support lent by the opposition. They have been a constructive partner in the push to ensure that vaccination becomes a universal outcome for Australian children other than those with a genuine medical exemption. I thank all of those in the department and within my office. In particular, I want to acknowledge the work of the extraordinary Alex Best in advancing this legislation. Above all else, I acknowledge that the Prime Minister has made this a signature, personal area of investigation and action in terms of preventive health, public health and protecting children. For those reasons, I commend the No Jab, No Pay policy and the Australian Immunisation Register and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 to the parliament. Debate adjourned. Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Amendment Bill 2017 2

Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Amendment Bill 2017

First Reading 2 Second Reading 3 09:42 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Amendment Bill 2017 will provide minor amendments to the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011. This bill will build on the success of the Emissions Reduction Fund. The Emissions Reduction Fund is helping to reduce Australia's emissions at the lowest cost. The government has contracted 178 million tonnes of emissions reductions at an average price of $11.83 a tonne. The fund provides a broad range of opportunities across the economy to reduce emissions and sequester carbon. Pastoralists and Indigenous groups can earn carbon credits by implementing fire management practices, farmers can store carbon in their soils and improve productivity, and businesses can improve the energy performance of their lighting systems, industrial processes and transport operations. As well as reducing Australia's emissions, the fund generates income for participants, employment for rural communities and investment in innovative technologies. More than 70 projects are registered under the act, which reduce emissions by undertaking early dry season burns in Australia's northern savannas that reduce the intensity and the size of wildfires. This bill will help unlock new opportunities to reduce emissions and store carbon in the landscape in northern Australia by facilitating new savanna fire management project types. This will provide Indigenous communities and farmers with opportunities to increase employment, earn revenue, support biodiversity and protect their land from wildfires. The bill will also reduce regulatory burden and increase flexibility for projects. It will help participants in the fund by clarifying consent requirements to conduct projects. It will make it easier for projects to adapt their project areas to their evolving needs, preserving emissions reductions and business flexibility. It will also ensure the requirements to return credits if a proponent reduces the size of their project or ends a project as appropriate. These amendments demonstrate the government's ongoing commitment to reduce red tape, streamline administrative processes and reduce emissions. Debate adjourned. Social Services Legislation Amendment (Seasonal Worker Incentives for Jobseekers) Bill 2017 3

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Seasonal Worker Incentives for Jobseekers) Bill 2017

First Reading 3 09:44 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I move: That the bill be now read a second time. This bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Seasonal Worker Incentives For Jobseekers) Bill 2017, introduces a measure announced in the 2016-17 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook that will provide a two-year trial of incentives aimed at increasing the number of eligible jobseekers who undertake horticultural seasonal work, such as fruit picking. The measure responds to concerns about the ability of the Australian horticulture industry to attract sufficient numbers of seasonal workers by introducing three incentives, each aimed at increasing the number of jobseekers who undertake horticultural seasonal work. The incentives will commence as a trial from 1 July 2017 for two years and will be capped at 7,600 participants over the two years. There are three incentives. Under the first incentive, Newstart and youth allowance (other) recipients who have been receiving those payments continuously for at least three months will have access to a seasonal horticultural work income exemption. Under this exemption, they will be able to earn up to $5,000 each year without that amount being assessed under the social security income test. A period during which a person did not receive Newstart and youth allowance (other) because of employment income (known as the employment income nil rate period) will count towards the period of three months continuous receipt. Eligible jobseekers will be able to access the $5,000 income test incentive in each of the 2017-18 and 2018-19 financial years. Eligible jobseekers who participate in the second year of the trial will have access to the $5,000 income test concession for up to 12 months from when they enter the trial in the second year. However, if they participate in the second year of the trial, any unused balance from the first year will expire. The concession will only apply to earnings from specified horticultural seasonal work. Eligible employment for this measure will be seasonal short-term employment in the horticulture industry, such as picking and packing fruit, nuts or other crops in rural or regional Australia. The employment secretary may determine by way of a legislative instrument what constitutes qualifying seasonal horticultural work. Employment could be directly with a farmer or with a contractor or labour hire company where the principal business is the supply of labour for the purposes of the harvest. Qualification rules will be relaxed for this group so that they continue to qualify for Newstart and youth allowance (other) while undertaking eligible horticultural seasonal work. The amendments in the bill mainly relate to this incentive. This income test concession will provide a very strong incentive for jobseekers to participate in the trial and undertake horticultural seasonal work and a practical opportunity to build work experience and skills. As an example, presently a recipient of Newstart allowance who is single and has no children can earn up to $104 a fortnight before their payment starts to be reduced and $1036.34 a fortnight before their Newstart allowance reduces to nil. Under this measure, if the Newstart allowance recipient participates in the trial they could earn up to $5,000 from qualifying horticultural seasonal work over a 12-month period and still continue to receive the full rate of Newstart allowance. Under the second incentive, Newstart and youth allowance (other) recipients who have been receiving those payments continuously for at least three months and participate in the trial would be eligible for a seasonal work living away and travel allowance of up to $300 a year if they undertake horticultural seasonal work more than 120 kilometres from their home. This payment removes a disincentive to undertake seasonal work by recognising the additional expense that may be incurred by jobseekers travelling significant distances from their principal place of residence to take up an eligible seasonal job. The payment will generally be made on a weekly basis ($50 per week to a maximum of $300 over six weeks), although employment providers will have the flexibility to tailor the payment to suit the needs of the jobseeker. For example, a provider may provide a greater amount up-front to cover higher initial accommodation or transport costs. There would be no requirement for the jobseeker to acquit the payment. If a jobseeker's employment ends part way through a working week, the jobseeker would only be entitled to the payment for the completed part of that week. The bill also includes a provision so that the seasonal work living away and travel allowance would not be assessed as income for income support purposes. Under the third incentive, employment providers, including jobactive, Transition to Work and Disability Employment Services, will be paid a $100 per week placement incentive fee for a maximum of six weeks for each jobseeker that they successfully refer to a seasonal job as part of the trial. Providers will remain eligible for the payment for as long as the jobseeker remains employed, for a maximum of six weeks, in the seasonal job. The seasonal work incentives measure is expected to cost $27.5 million over the forward estimates. Conclusion The incentives for jobseekers to undertake seasonal work will help to respond to the concerns of the Australian horticulture industry about their ability to attract sufficient numbers of seasonal workers. They are aimed at helping to increase the number of unemployed Australians who participate in seasonal work, and therefore the number of seasonal workers available to work on Australian farms and orchards. The incentives will also provide jobseekers with a practical opportunity to enter the workforce and to build work experience and skills. It is in the best interest of the Australian horticulture industry and jobseekers for this bill to pass. I seek the support of the parliament for the passing of this measure. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016 4

Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016

Second Reading 4 09:51 The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. 09:51 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher Many members have already spoken in support of elements of this excellent bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016. I want to focus on the impact that the enterprise tax plan will have on Australia's small businesses. I have spent most of my adult life operating my own small businesses. As we all know, the work of a parliamentarian involves long hours and a lot of difficult work, but this is nothing compared to the life of a small-business owner. I remember the nights spent staring at columns of numbers after a full day on site, trying to square my accounts and doing my book work. I remember the constant stress of being so close to the edge in business, where a few hundred dollars here or there often makes a difference between success and failure. It is not a comfortable life, nor is it an easy one, but it is a choice made by thousands of Australians and a choice that this country relies upon. Small businesses employ 44.8 per cent of working Australians—more than any other type of business. This percentage has been growing every year since 2012. Some 4.8 million people already work in a small business. At a time of challenging economic circumstances for Australia, this already crucial contribution to employment is only going to become more important. Though less talked about, small businesses also contribute nearly 36 per cent of all the industry value-added in Australia—more than $379 billion and growing. The fact is small businesses have been practising innovation and agility since Adam played fullback for Jerusalem. That is how they survive. Small businesses are the future of Australia and we must now act to support them. Unfortunately, it is tough for many small businesses and in far too many cases they do not survive. In 2014-15, 280,000 new small businesses started up in Australia—280,000 new ideas and fresh visions from bold proprietors willing to take a risk, 280,000 opportunities for growth and new employment for Australians. But, unfortunately, in the same year there were more than 258,000 small businesses that cancelled their registrations or stopped remitting GST. If this country is to go forward, we must do more to help these fledgling employers to grow. Just last week I had the opportunity to visit the university in my electorate, the University of the Sunshine Coast, where I inspected the university's Innovation Centre, which is a start-up hub. It is a group of great individuals who are looking to start up their own small businesses. It is in this Innovation Centre at the University of the Sunshine Coast that many small businesses have been floated, with some fantastic ideas. I fully support the university in its attempts to help people start up these businesses. It is a great thing for the Sunshine Coast. But taxes and business rates are a significantly bigger problem for small businesses than they are for larger ones. With comparatively few staff, even fulfilling their taxation reporting obligations can represent a considerable opportunity cost. Studies have suggested that as many as a third of small-business owners do their tax reporting on weekends. When your turnover is modest and every dollar is precious, handing over 28½ per cent of your profit to the taxman does not leave you a great deal to invest in your company. The numbers may be small, but the difference they make is immense. Under the bill before us today, around 870,000 incorporated small businesses will benefit from an immediate tax cut of 2.5 per cent, rising to five per cent over 10 years. These businesses alone employ more than 3.4 million workers. An additional 2.3 million unincorporated businesses will benefit from a similar decrease to their tax rate. In many cases, for a business in the top half of the eligibility threshold these tax cuts alone will be enough to allow them to take on another full-time member of staff. For others it will provide the capital to invest in new equipment or cost-saving technology to double down on those gains for the future. It is not, however, only extra investment which will result from this measure. For some companies it is a question of long-term survival. Competition in many sectors is fierce—more fierce than ever, perhaps. Globalisation has brought low-cost products from overseas countries, many of which enjoy considerably lower tax rates than ours. It is already tough for many of our mum-and-dad business owners to compete with these newcomers. For some, a reduction in their tax bill will give them a chance to lower their prices and compete without compromising their family income. The benefit can go beyond the purely financial. Many business owners would love to invest more in the development of their staff, but we know from ABS statistics that small businesses are half as likely as large companies to provide structured training. They often simply do not have the resources to make investments of that kind. Similarly, others want to lessen their environmental impacts, provide more time for staff volunteering or take part in community initiatives. Being allowed to keep more of their earnings would give many the chance to follow through on these good intentions. All too often debate over measures like this revolves around statistics and economic modelling. I would like to take a few minutes to tell the House about some of the real impacts that this bill will have on the extraordinary Australians who are building successful businesses in my community. I spoke to Kel McNamara recently at the Glasshouse Mountains RSL AGM. He owns a fantastic business in Glass House Mountains called KLM Energy Services, which he has been operating since 1999. KLM supplies LP gas to homes and businesses within our community. As Kel says himself, the company is and has always been a family business. Starting with only himself, first Kel's son and later his wife came to help him. Though growing all the time, and employing eight local people today, by any reasonable standard KLM remains a small business. Kel is keen to make clear how important this bill's change to the threshold for what constitutes a 'small business' is. The $2 million definition has been in place for many years no longer reflects the situation on the ground of what it means to be a real small business. If this bill passes and the tax rate paid by his company is lowered, Kel, like many other business owners, intends to use the money to pay for solar panels and batteries to reduce the costs of his business. With lower costs, Kel might be able to strengthen his employment position and even, perhaps, look again at the remuneration he is able to offer his staff. Husband and wife team, Ian and Pat Humphries, run Humphries and Fisk in the beautiful town of Maleny. They are well-known local names, sharing expert knowledge of that area with people looking to buy or sell property. Pat wants to spend all of her time providing the value-added consultation that she is uniquely able to deliver to her clients. She also wants to be able to offer more opportunities to her part-time support staff to learn about other parts of the business and to develop their careers. A company tax cut for her business would give her the chance to offer more hours to her support staff, give them more space to grow, and give herself more time to value-add for her clients. In Little Mountain there is another innovative enterprise called Australian Off Road, founded by Steve and Rhonda Budden. It is a 100 per cent locally owned and operated business. Steve knew all about the rough terrain that Australia can throw at camper trailers when they go off the beaten track, and he knew that there was a market for building a much better off-road camper trailer. So, what did Steve do? He set to work in his carport building a better camper trailer. Sixteen years later Steve and Rhonda Budden's business is a sensational Sunshine Coast success story. But Australian Off Road faces tough competition from cheap and cheap-quality products coming into Australia from overseas. Australia's high rate of company tax is a serious burden on Steve and Rhonda Budden's business. Firms in other countries can use more of their profit to invest in their business and can offer lower prices without risking that investment. Labouring under the 30 per cent tax rate, it is harder for Australian Off Road to compete against those offshore companies. Finally, I want to tell the House about Geoff Lyons Solicitors in Caloundra. His firm is one of the Sunshine Coast's longest standing practices, and Geoff has practiced for almost four decades. He helps a great many people to pass on their estates to the next generation. Geoff employs eight people and recently was able to take on a new member of staff. But, for Geoff, his practice is a vocation. After four decades he knows that his clients want to feel secure in their planning for their family's future. He would love to respond to their needs by taking on another new solicitor. That way, he could offer the reassurance of a more comprehensive, all-round service to his clients in-house. A reduction in the company tax rate that his firm pays could give him the extra resources that he needs to make that happen. Of course, these examples illustrate only a small selection of the thousands of small businesses in Fisher which would be able to prosper and invest as a result of this bill and only a small part of the benefits that would flow to my community. We know in our area what great things can come from small businesses when they have vision and the right regulatory environment. Demographer Bernard Salt recently called the Sunshine Coast the entrepreneur capital of Australia. How right he was! As I reported to the House last year, the example of another local icon, Maleny Dairies, shines out—not only in its success in providing employment, but in the benefits that flow from it to others in our community. Maleny Dairies began as a single family farm in our region. Today, operated by Ross and Sally Hopper, the company employs 50 locals and pays farmers in our district higher rates per litre than other companies, allowing them to keep their cattle healthy, their own farms viable and to stay on the land. As Kel, Pat, Rhonda, Geoff and the Hoppers prove, a successful small business is much more than a generator of wealth. Often close-knit, collaborative and intimately tied to their local community, small businesses have an in-this-together attitude that breeds purpose—it breeds a social conscience. If successful, these enterprises can become a hub for locals, providing economic and social benefits across decades. As we have seen, these benefits include not only new employment opportunities, but improved services, lower prices, training and development schemes and even reduced environmental impacts. This enterprise tax plan could not have been more central to the mandate given to our government by the people last year. The Prime Minister, the Treasurer and colleagues on this side of the House knew how important it was to Australia's future. That is why, in literally hundreds of speeches, interviews, listening posts and community forums, coalition members and candidates talked about our plans for the future for a strong and vibrant Australia. 10:06 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne There comes a point where being crazy brave just becomes being plain crazy, and that is what we are seeing from the government with the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016. Only the Liberals would come to this parliament and say: we want a small business to be defined as a business that earns up to $1 billion a year. That is what this bill is asking us to do. Only the Liberals would come to this parliament and say—at the very same time that they are asking single parents to take a hit to their pockets and have their benefits cut—that we need to be giving a tax handout to some of the biggest companies in this country. Members of the government would have you believe that this bill is only about the genuine small businesses—the small firms, the takeaway shops, the solicitors firms—that are working hard and may well deserve some assistance. But what they do not tell you, when they come up and put this bill in front of you, is that the government has a plan to give a tax cut to some of the biggest companies in this country. It is going to hit the budget to the tune of $50 billion. That money is going to have to be found somewhere, and what we know from yesterday's moves from the government in the Senate is that it is going to come out of the pockets of some of the people who are doing it toughest in this country. It is going to come out of the pockets of single parents, who are going to lose out because of family tax benefit cuts. It is going to come out of the pockets of people who find themselves between jobs and are looking for a helping hand, but who are, instead, going to have to wait longer before they are able to access welfare payments—and it comes at a time when we know that there are many, many large companies operating in Australia that pay no tax at all. They pay no tax at all! Faced with a choice, should we be asking Glencore Investments—which, according to The New Daily and the ABS, had a total income of $7.7 billion in the 2014-15 financial year but paid zero in tax—to pay a bit more to the public purse, so that single parents do not have to get cut and so that we do not have to pay more to go and see the doctor, instead of holding back funding from schools when they need it? No. The government does not say: we are going to go and ask some of those very big companies to contribute a bit more to the public purse, to at least pay something in tax. Are we going to go back to Origin Energy, which had an income of $12 billion in the 2014-15 financial year and paid zero tax, and say, 'Could you please pay a bit to the public purse so that we do not have to take the axe to the young, the old, the sick and the poor to balance the budget?' No. It is not interested in doing that. Instead—in the very same week that it attacks single parents and families—it comes in in here and says: we want to progress our plan to give a $50 billion handout to Australia's biggest companies, and we will do it by waving the fig leaf of a small business tax cut. What it does not tell you is that its definition of 'small business' slowly ramps up, year after year after year, to the point where it covers every company in the country. I do not think that the Big Four banks in Australia count as small businesses. I do not understand why the government wants the Big Four banks to benefit to the tune of over $7 billion, which will come at the expense of Australian taxpayers, because that is not going to create one single extra job. All it is going to do is say to the Big Four banks, who are already making world-leading, record profits: you now have an extra $7 billion—'billion' with a 'b'—courtesy of the government, and that is going to hit the public purse. We hear every day from this government that there are pressures on the budget. It says that it is running out of money that we need to fund the services that Australians rightly expect, like good quality health care, like being able to send your kids to a good school without having to dip your hand into your pocket, because you know the public education system is well funded. It comes in here and says: there are pressures on the budget, and we need to fix it because we need to make sure that our kids and our grandkids are not left with a debt. Well, a good place to start would be not giving $50 billion to some of the biggest companies in Australia and not giving over $7 billion to the Big Four banks. The government has this trickle-down argument that we have heard mounted by the likes of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. It has been promoted for many, many years, but it has been discredited. All it does is join in an international race to the bottom on tax rates. If we say, 'We had better cut our company tax rates because Donald Trump is doing the same' then pretty soon there is going to be no money left in the public purse for anyone—and that, can I say, is probably this government's secret aim. It will not tell you this, but this government's aim is actually to implement the strategy the hard Right calls 'starving the beast': implement tax cuts when you get into power, give billions of dollars back to some of the biggest companies in Australia and the biggest companies in the world, and then come and wring your hands and say, 'I am sorry, there is just not enough money left for public schools, public hospitals, renewable energy or infrastructure, so we are going to have to cut those.' The people in this country do not want that. These tax cuts are unpopular, and there is a reason for that. People in Australia want Australia to be a good place to do business, but they also know that paying a fair share of tax is the price for coming and operating in a very prosperous country—a prosperous, stable, peaceful country like Australia, with we hope has and will continue to have high standards of living for people. Well, it depends. We cannot do all of that unless we ask those who are running business here to pay a fair share of tax. I have to say, people are getting sick of being asked to put their hand in their own pockets more and more to go and see the doctor, to pay so-called voluntary fees when they are sending their kids off to school, or to pay more out of their own pockets when it comes to tax, at the same time as watching these big companies get away with murder. And then, to add insult to injury, the government comes in here and says: we want those companies to pay even less tax. If the government were serious about looking after small business, we would not have one bill that tries to redefine a big business as a small business. We would have a separate measure for small businesses—for genuinely small businesses who might need some assistance. But the government is not serious about that. The government wants to give a big handout to their big-business mates. This parliament should be about standing up for the public interest, and that means standing up to big corporations. I have had enough of this place simply being a plaything of the biggest corporations in this country. What happens in parliament is that the big corporations send their lobbyists and they say, 'We want this,' or 'We want that,' and the government says, 'Well, we'll happily write you a blank cheque; when would you like it by?' It should be the job of this place to stand up to those powerful interests when they come. It should be the job of this place to say that we probably have something wrong in this country when Japan makes more tax on Australian natural gas than Australia makes, according to some reports. What an absurd situation. We probably have something wrong in this country when companies can make between $7 billion and $12 billion a year in turnover and not have to pay any tax at all. Something is deeply wrong when this government says, 'None of that is a problem; in fact, let's ask companies to pay less tax.' Everyone wants Australia to have a strong and prosperous economy, but we know that, in order to have the services that we rightly expect in a wealthy country, we need to ask people to pay some tax. We are at a turning point in this country. We have just seen a once-in-a-generation mining investment boom come and go, and people are looking around the country and saying: 'What have we got to show for it? Did we capture some of the money from the minerals that all Australians own and we only get to dig up once and then sell off? Did we capture some of that money and put it into infrastructure? Did we do what some other countries have done and take some of that money through a proper tax system and put it into a sovereign wealth fund so that we can build industries when the mining boom is over? Did we take some of that money and grow the industries of the future in science, research, innovation and education, so that we have something to sustain us when the mining boom is over? No. What are we left with? We are left with plummeting house prices and high unemployment in some parts of the country. We are left with next to nothing to show for it. We have had a bunch of people come in from overseas, work on those projects and then leave, so we have lost the skills that could have come from working on those projects and the capacity to skill up local workers. We have done it all because governments have been so deferential to big companies that they have forgotten to act in the public interest. This bill is yet another example of that. If you want to know why the Liberals got a thumping in the Western Australian election and if you want to know why, all of a sudden, hard-right forces like One Nation start to do well around the country, you need look no further than this bill and the fact that many people are being left behind in this country because governments have not had the guts to stand up to big companies that operate in Australia and say, 'If you are going to operate here, then you need to pay your fair share of tax so that we can build this country for the future.' They do not seem to be learning the lesson. They seem to be doing the same thing over and over again and, in fact, saying: 'How can we do it more? How can we ask you to pay even less tax when you come to this country?' It is absolutely no wonder that there is an increasing disrespect for politicians, because if all that politicians do is write blank cheques for some of the biggest companies in this country then we are selling out the Australian people. We are at a tipping point. This might be the parliament and the government that leaves standards of living for our kids and those who come after us worse than the ones that we inherited. The government talks a lot about making sure we fix the debt burden for children and grandchildren. Perhaps one way to do that, if that is seriously what you are interested in, is to not give $7 billion of public money back to the big banks. You tell me, government, how giving the big four banks $7 billion creates one additional job. The big four banks are not about to go overseas because of lower tax rates. They are operating in Australia and taking Australian deposits and banking here. Given that, why do they need a handout? What is that going to do for the economy? Even if you accept this ridiculous trickle-down argument that tax cuts stimulate jobs and growth, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary anywhere, give me one single example of how giving the big four banks an extra $7 billion is going to create one extra job. Everyone knows that they are not going to put that into extra jobs. It is going to go straight into profits. That is why this government's plan for giving tax cuts to those who do not need them is ridiculous. It is not only ridiculous; it is positively harmful. If the government continues down this road, we will not have the money to fund the services that Australians rightly expect. A free bit of political advice: as a result, you are going to see yourself, government, kicked again and again at election time by the people of Australia, who know, in their hearts, that corporations are getting away with murder. Every day, they see parliament giving in and they want parliament to stand up. The Greens will stand up for the public interest over the big business interest, and sometimes that might mean we have to cop the mining industry running some ads against us or the pokies industry coming to town and threatening a campaign in our seats. Well, so be it. Because if parliament does not stand up for the public against big corporates and their massive power, then no-one will. So I hope the government has heeded the lessons it has been given and ditches its plan to give big tax cuts to those who do not need them. 10:21 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley As an electorate of over 16,000 small businesses, Dunkley is centrestage to this legislation. We have the highest economic growth of any Victorian federal electorate. One could almost say that Dunkley is a natural home for business and innovation. I am a proud member of the Frankston Business Network and I proudly display my membership in my office. The network is a non-political, voluntary, not-for-profit organisation, representing all businesses operating within the greater Frankston region. Frankston City Council and Mornington Peninsular Shire council have an abundance of resources for local businesses and start-ups including grants, support and business development programs. You would be hard pressed to find a better place to begin a small business than Dunkley. Obviously, of course, the Minister for Social Services' electorate of Pearce would not be far behind. That is why this legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016 has my full support. Starting with businesses with an aggregated turnover of less than $10 million, the Turnbull coalition government is supporting industry in Dunkley and across Australia by reducing the corporate tax rate to 27.5 per cent and then down to 25 per cent within 10 years. By providing this initially to small businesses then progressively lowering the tax rate for all businesses, we will boost Australian jobs and Australian wages and we will boost our businesses' competitiveness both in the Australian market and internationally. Small business employs approximately a quarter of Australia's working population yet only one in 10 small business ventures succeed. That is why we must help them first. This legislation is an example of the long-term visionary planning that Australia needs. The 10-year plan will invite investment and demonstrate continued confidence in Australian industry. Paying less tax frees up more money to pay employees and to give them more hours of work. These tax reforms will provide a boost to 1.8 million people seeking additional work. On the Mornington Peninsular we had a rolling average unemployment rate, as of September last year, of 5.1 per cent and a youth unemployment rate of 10.1 per cent. Many would gladly work if businesses could afford to hire them. This does not of course include underemployment, which is even higher. Australia is not unfamiliar with fiscal competitiveness. Lower tariffs result in lower costs and greater production. Currently only five of the 35 OECD nations have a corporate tax rate higher than ours. Compare this to 15 years ago when Australia had the ninth lowest corporate tax rate among advanced economies. The United States' administration now has plans to reduce their corporate tax rate to 15 per cent. We have an uncompetitive business tax rate and our businesses are being stifled. The Turnbull coalition government will fix this, and will bring commerce and small business policy back to the heart of governing for Australia. We are in a period of transition. With the end of the mining boom, we absolutely must support our other industries and give our local businesses a hand up. Excessive taxation cripples business, and we on this side of the House are determined to lessen the burden. By reducing the corporate tax rate for businesses with a turnover of less than $10 million on 1 July this year, we will be delivering a lower tax rate for around 870,000 companies which employ over 3.4 million workers. That means more income, more jobs and more employment for the community in Dunkley and across Australia. We will in turn bring greater investment into Australia and make sure that Australia continues to be an attractive place to do business. While prioritising small business, we will ensure that all businesses receive the benefits of a lower corporate tax rate over time. When there is less tax to pay, the profit margins are greater. When there is more money and more room to move, there is the opportunity for expansion, acquiring more staff, higher wages and a higher standard of living. You would have to be a fool not to jump at the chance to improve the security of our industries and have an expected permanent increase in the size of our economy of just over one per cent in the long term. Dunkley, my electorate, has above the average number of small businesses so my focus is naturally primarily on the small business aspect of this legislation. During the 2013-14 financial year, small business added approximately $340 billion to the Australian economy. According to 2015 figures, approximately 97.7 per cent of businesses in Dunkley employ fewer than 20 people and approximately 99.5 per cent of businesses in Dunkley had a turnover of less than $10 million. We even have start-up hubs like the Frankston Foundry, which I visited last week, where people can set up and host their businesses from under the foundry's roof. Small business is the keystone and the driver of our economy, particularly in my electorate, which is the federal electorate with the highest economic growth in Victoria, as I have noted. We as a government therefore have a duty to reduce the tax burden and free up investment as well as provide growth opportunities for our local communities. Frankston City Council figures note that the gross revenue generated in my local economy per job created is $254,914. If we can free up businesses to potentially create additional employment opportunities by reducing the amount of tax that business needs to feed back into government, just think of the potential growth of our local employment figures, our economy, our investment opportunities and our standard of living. This in turn will have a long-term positive impact on government revenue by increasing the overall pie. From 1 July this year, all businesses with an annual turnover of less than $10 million will: be subject to simpler depreciation and trading stock rules, be able to use simpler clearer methods of paying pay-as-you-go tax instalments to the ATO, have flexibility in how GST is paid, have access to tax concessions previously only available to a small segment of businesses, and have reduced GST compliance costs through trials of simpler business activity statements. We are also introducing changes to benefit crowdfunding. This is how we, in the Turnbull coalition government, are the government for small business. By putting small business first, we will provide a boost to our economy and to national revenue. The prospect of the reverse or even just the rejection of these changes would be extremely harmful for small businesses right around the country. Both the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer have previously advocated for reductions in company tax, and I call on them to show that it was not just talk but to translate this into real action and support of this legislation. For example, the Leader of the Opposition said: Cutting the company income tax rate increases domestic productivity and domestic investment. More capital means higher productivity and economic growth and leads to more jobs and higher wages. The Leader of the Opposition should take a leaf out of his predecessor Paul Keating's book, who twice reduced the corporate tax rate for all businesses—that is, all businesses at once, not a graduated approach favouring small businesses first as we are doing. This week we had The Big Small Business Expo in Dunkley in Frankston. It was hosted by yet another business hub, The Garden, and its founders, Emily and Jo. This is a hugely positive event with attendees offered marketing tips, exposure and networking opportunities, as well as opportunities for innovators and entrepreneurs to be connected to business people, along with mentors. I challenge any members opposing this legislation to come to Frankston and look at my constituents in the eye and tell them why they refuse to support tax relief for small business. There are small-business owners like Cecile, who has run the Vogue House Cafe for over 15 years—first in Mount Eliza and now in Frankston. Cecile is the sole permanent staff member at the cafe. These tax cuts for businesses could potentially allow Cecile to hire other staff and have support in running the cafe. I challenge those members opposite to explain to Cecile why they refuse to give her a break. There is also George, owner and manager of Digital Reprographics, a local printing business that has been around for almost 20 years. George and his hardworking staff can professionally print and deliver several thousand flyers with half a day's warning, and they have plenty of capability for expansion. George invests in the local Frankston and the wider Dunkley community and is a small-business operator and a strong supporter of business networking and mentoring opportunities for newcomers to the business sector. In opposing this legislation, those opposite do not believe George deserves any help and will not allow him to expand or develop his business. That is what opposition to this legislation comes down to. It is opposition to investment, opposition to more jobs, opposition to job security and opposition to wage growth. The opposition are exactly that: opposition to opportunities for hardworking individuals and to opportunities for their economic competitiveness. By demanding that small- and medium-sized businesses pay nearly $5 billion extra in tax, those members opposite have Australian business in a stranglehold that is economically irresponsible and pure opportunism. It is a fact that higher corporate taxes hurt workers. The economic burden of corporate taxes are ultimately passed on to employees in the form of lower wages, fewer hours and less job security. The Tax Foundation in the United States found a consistent occurrence of reverse correlation between tax rates and wages—that is, when there is an increase in tax, ultimately a fall in wages follows. When a tax cut is implemented, there is a proportional increase in wages for ordinary employees. Add to this the increased investment in a growing company that is exploring and working its way into overseas markets, and a person such as Perry, of Nutech Paint in Seaford, finds themselves with additional opportunities for growth and investment, hiring additional staff and producing more, selling more and exporting more. And so the cycle continues. We are the government for small business, including businesses like Nutech Paint. We have a positive record on fiscal policy, and this legislation goes some of the way towards the taxation reforms I indicated during my maiden speech, which are ideals of classical liberalism and central to Liberal Party ideology. I would be inclined to think the shadow Treasurer's amendment perhaps reflects his concerns about his own party's policy, characterised by wasteful spending, fiscal irresponsibility and a complete apathy to our industries and our international competitiveness. It is no wonder that the opposition are trying to block this legislation. They need the extra tax income to fund their unfunded promises, yet they concurrently continue to try to block our savings measures. This is a confused opposition. Who knows what they want? I am sure that every one of us knows people, including me, who have attempted to start up small businesses. They may be successful or not. It is quite common for people to mortgage their own houses, their own homes, and to put everything on the line for their business, including the lifestyles of their families. We have all heard of or met small-business owners who take home no pay because they need to put that money into taxes or wages, just to keep afloat. These include people like Andriy, a successful migrant story and the owner of Blue Bay Cheese in Mornington; Mark and Dianne of The Bramble Farm in Langwarrin; Sally of The Cake Cottage in Frankston; and Armadeo of Globeline Automotive in Seaford. These are the very people that this legislation would help. There is never a point when these people stop working or stop worrying about the impact of governments' economic policies. Let us give them one fewer thing to worry about and give them the security and predictability of easing tax rates over the next decade. These are the reasons I am strongly supportive of this legislation. Secure economic modelling outlines the positive trajectory of wages and investment with a reduced corporate tax rate—lowering the tax rate for businesses with an annual turnover of less than $10 million by 2.5 per cent by 1 July 2017, extending the reduced rate of 27.5 per cent to all corporate tax entities by the 2023-24 financial year and then progressively reducing that rate to 25 per cent for all businesses by 2026-27. This is not a tax cut for big business. This is a tax cut for all business. In doing so, we will improve job security, wages and investment in our industries, both in Dunkley and across Australia. This is a positive plan for more jobs and economic growth that is backed by evidence and is completely funded. I call on members opposite to support this legislation and to give our local businesses the help that so many need and deserve, and to make Australia competitive again. Debate adjourned. Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 11

Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017

First Reading 11 Second Reading 11 10:37 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 seeks to secure the next instalment of remaining unlegislated savings from previous budgets. This bill secures further savings of $2.4 billion over the 2017-18 forward estimates period building to a $6.8 billion dollar saving over the medium term. This new bill contains three measures from the original omnibus bill, including: 1. Maintaining income free areas and means test threshold for certain payments and allowances at their current levels for three years; 2. Automating the income stream review process which will lead to improvements in the accuracy of income support payments and reductions in customer debts; and 3. Extending and simplifying ordinary waiting periods for the parenting payment and for youth allowance for a person who is not undertaking full-time study and is not a new apprentice. The bill also includes a new schedule to maintain the current family tax benefit payment rates for two years at their current levels from 1 July 2017. This measure will achieve savings of about $2 billion over the 2017-18 forward estimates which will build to $5.5 billion over the medium term. It is important to note that under this new measure there will be no cuts to family tax benefit payments. Indeed, over the two-year maintenance period many families will still see some increase in their payments as a result of increases to particular income thresholds for family tax benefits. The government has also reversed a previous decision to increase FTB payment rates to offset in part the effect of the phase out of FTB supplements, which was contained in the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill. Not proceeding with that increase in FTB payment rates will reduce costs by a further $2.3 billion over the current forward estimates period compared to the previous social services omnibus savings bill and will reduce costs over the medium term by about $8 billion. This bill further builds on the $6.3 billion in budget improvements achieved over the forward estimates through the first omnibus savings bill which passed the Senate on 15 September 2016—which included a saving of $1.6 billion over the forward estimates and $7.1 billion over the medium term from abolition of the family tax benefit supplements for households with income of more than $80,000. It is the government's intention to secure the passage of both this bill and the childcare bill through this House in due course. I would like to acknowledge the positive way in which the crossbench in the Senate has worked with the government to deliver this significant reform package that will make a real and positive difference to nearly one million Australian families. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016 12

Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016

Second Reading 12 10:40 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I rise to speak in support of the amendment moved by the member for McMahon to the second reading of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016. I was interested to be in the chamber for the contribution of the previous government speaker, the member for Dunkley, a few moments ago. A couple of his assertions require some response. He invited those of us on this side to come to Frankston and look his constituents in the eye in respect of our opposition to the measures contained in this bill. I am very happy to do that. I am very happy to go to Frankston and other suburbs in his electorate and ask his constituents whether they would like their member of parliament to be preferring $50 billion of tax cuts mostly going to big business, in particular the big banks, or whether they would like a government that is on their side, a government that is committed to standing up for penalty rates, a government that is committed to maintaining our social compact. I think I know the answer, and I hope that the member for Dunkley is prepared to have these conversations all the way through to the next election. There were a couple of additional matters that he raised. In supporting the bill, he spoke about job security and he spoke about wages growth. These are pretty extraordinary contributions in the times that we find ourselves in. If the member for Dunkley is concerned about job security, there is plenty he could do. He could start perhaps by dusting off former Minister Abetz's Productivity Commission inquiry into our workplace laws and reject pretty much everything that is in it. There is much that could be done by this government and any government concerned about Australian people if it were minded to look at the way the world of work is changing, and not for the better, for everyone who works for a living. The attack on penalty rates, the refusal to stand up for the 700,000 Australians who depend on penalty rates to make ends meet, is the tip of the iceberg in terms of what is happening in Australian workplaces. Job security is an enormous issue. It requires the attention of a government that takes developments in the world of work seriously and looks at measures which should be taken to increase job security. Of course, the agenda of this government is precisely the opposite. He also talked about wages growth. This is quite extraordinary but perhaps goes to the heart of the ideological presumptions that underpin this bill and indeed this government. Wages growth, as you would be well aware, Deputy Speaker Mitchell, is at a record low in Australia, and the government has no interest in doing anything about it through the measures contained in this bill or otherwise. Government is, of course, about choices and it is about priorities. This bill actually makes that pretty clear. The Prime Minister and his Treasurer have chosen to stake Australia's future wellbeing on a $50 billion tax cut. This is the sum total of the much-vaunted economic plan they trumpeted last year. It is all they have to say. So much for the sophisticated economic narrative that the now Prime Minister promised in the course of his job audition, when he took the leadership from the member for Warringah. This is the sum total of the plan, but it is also telling that they have taken their time to say it, given that it is not exactly complicated stuff. We are well into March now, 10 months after the budget which announced these measures with such fanfare, and this bill continues to meander its way through this place. It was introduced into the House last September, roundabout when the Prime Minister was still of the view that section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act should not be changed, in part because it would not create any jobs. I wonder how many jobs the current amendments will create. I think we know the answer to that. We have seen a government this week—and every week in the life of this parliament—which is deeply ideological and which at the same time lacks the courage of its convictions. We saw that demonstrated far from eloquently yesterday in question time by the Treasurer, who was asked a couple of pretty simple questions by my friend the member for Rankin and also by the shadow Treasurer about the status in the budget of the tax cuts—the centrepiece of the government's economic plan and of this legislation. He could not answer the question—well, he did not answer the question, and I suspect it was because he could not answer the question. He is obviously waiting on instructions. Perhaps he will find out the answer when he is given his speech to read out on budget night. We saw bluster and ranting—a long way from an economic plan, much less a good one. The Treasurer is sound and fury which signifies absolutely nothing. That is the government's plan; that is their commitment to implementing it. On the other hand, Labor makes different choices and has different priorities. We are concerned to maintain our social compact, and we are for a couple of reasons. The moral basis, the moral reason which brings all of us on this side into parliament, is to ensure that every Australian can have a decent standard of life, that they are supported through the vicissitudes of life and that they are entitled to every opportunity based not on the circumstances through which they begin life but through being part of Australian society. That is the moral case, but there is also an instrumental case, which makes the government's attitude to these issues all the more galling, We now know that excessive inequality, which is the trend that is being experienced in Australia as well as across the developed world, is not only inherently bad in a moral sense or according to how some of us see the world and our obligation to those who are less fortunate than us but also instrumentally bad. Bodies like the IMF have formed a very clear view that excessive inequality such as that we are trending towards in Australia is a very significant brake on economic growth. A government which was serious about maintaining economic growth as the basis for maintaining the living standards of Australians into the future would be concerned about this. This government cannot even bring itself to speak the words, much less attend meaningfully to solving this problem. Labor does see this as a problem, and we see it as our obligation to respond to it. Over the life of this parliament we have made it absolutely clear that there is an approach open to Australia that is very different from this blind faith in trickle-down economics. There are decisions and interventions government could and should make to improve the position of Australians and improve the position of the Australian economy. A stark contrast to the government's proposal contained in this bill is the approach that Labor took to the last election and continues to prosecute: the changes to negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount in order to improve our revenue but also to improve the distribution of wealth and to restrict the growth of wealth inequality in Australia, at the same time opening up to more young Australian families the prospect of home ownership. This is a critical decision we have taken on a critical issue that is of concern to all of my constituents—and I am pretty sure the constituents of the member for Dunkley as well—but a matter upon which the government has nothing to say. If you listen to the Minister for Urban Infrastructure—and I do not advise that you do that, as a matter of general principle—housing affordability is not something that people should be talking about. He is wrong on this, as in so much else. It is not just about negative gearing and capital gains tax changes, as important as these are; it is about an entirely different approach to boosting economic growth and making sure that the foundations of that are in equity. In this regard I think of the key difference between our philosophical approaches, which is made evident through the provisions of this bill: $50 billion in tax cuts, or critical investments in productive infrastructure. Government members' contributions to this debate have seen many references to our productivity challenge, but not an answer to some of the big questions that we have to grapple with. Perhaps this is some recognition that it is not so much labour productivity that is the brake on economic growth in Australia but questions about managerial performance and the incentives that drive managerial performance or underperformance, and our failure to have proper investment in infrastructure, with the tearing up of the work of the last Labor government in supporting Infrastructure Australia in turning Australia's infrastructure investment around—fundamental failings. It is not just hard infrastructure; it is investing in human capital. Yesterday we had parents, teachers and principals attend this parliament to make their case for investment in schools funding based on need. On this side of the House we are confident in the capacity of Australians. We are confident that, if we bring the best out of every Australian child, that will be a critical enabler of our ability to compete in the global marketplace. It is the high road to competitiveness, as opposed to the low road of simply dropping our corporate tax rates. There are other investments that maintain a decent society, which is so important to how we see ourselves, so important to maintaining trust and confidence in the political process here and so fundamentally important to people's lives. These decisions will continue to confront us, perhaps later today when the minister at the table, the member for Pearce, resumes our debate over changes to early learning and child care, and at some stage shortly thereafter, no doubt, further attacks on family payments as well as the pension. As we speak, we on this side of House are very conscious that the wage share of the economy is falling. Income growth, wages growth, is at its lowest level on record, so it strikes me that one of the many canards put in support of this $50 billion giveaway is the suggestion that benefits will trickle down to workers through higher wages. This, of course, is complete nonsense. There is no evidence to support this. In fact, the evidence runs completely in the opposite direction—that the benefits will go not to workers but of course to shareholders, many of them overseas. Who wins? Not Australian workers but big business. Extraordinarily, we have before us a plan to boost the deficit and increase inequality. It is quite a remarkable thing, isn't it, especially in circumstances where the evidence is in that excessive inequality is a handbrake on growth? The position of government members here is a homage to the position of the Treasurer: it is all rhetoric and no substance. We see in contributions to this debate the most lukewarm reheating of trickle-down economics, which failed the United States and would drag Australia backwards. Jobs and growth were once the watchwords of this government. This is a bill that will do nothing for jobs and almost nothing for growth. The Treasury modelling, which appears from the available evidence to be generous, suggests one per cent growth in 20 years. It is pretty thin stuff, as are the arguments about competitiveness. Of course, company tax rates are an element of international competitiveness, but just one. There are many others. I touched earlier upon the high road that we could go down, which is a surer path to international competitiveness in the medium and the long term: investing in skills, maintaining all the reasons that make Australia an attractive place for businesses and people to settle as well as invest; and, of course, meeting the infrastructure challenges that are so critical but have been sadly neglected by this government. They have been neglected by this government not in isolation but consistent with a wider series of attacks. This is a government ultimately with no direction. It relies on a series of ideological standbys, sometimes in the area of economic policy but increasingly away from that. This is a government that seems to be led by reactionaries on the backbench and reactionaries on the crossbench. It has an agenda that says nothing about Australia's future and everything about internal preoccupations. It seems that in this place we get to witness what it must be like to be in the coalition party room as these debates, these culture wars, play out in our parliament. It is not edifying and it is not good enough. What Australians need is a government that is prepared to make serious decisions about boosting productivity and about attacking inequality, not reinforcing it. That is the challenge that faces Australians. It is the challenge that we on this side of the House are firmly committed to overcoming. That is why I support the amendments proposed by the member for McMahon. 10:56 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I rise to speak in favour of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016. I think this debate is highlighting some core values and, dare I say it, some disappointing changes that have really had bipartisan agreement and support in this country for about the last 30 years. For the last 30 years in this country, starting, dare I say it, with the Hawke-Keating Labor government, there has been a belief that we have had to open up our economy to overseas competition and trading, and we have had to remain competitive with tax rates with other countries, because, increasingly, over the last 20 or 30 years the world has become increasingly globalised with interconnected trade and companies much more agile, with digital technology and improved transport, and opportunities for getting goods and services around the world happening very quickly. That means you cannot take your bat and ball and go home and play the game by yourself. You have to play the economic game, the commerce game, which we are involved in as a trading nation, with everyone else. Really, there has been bipartisan support for the last 20 or 30 years, starting with Hawke and Keating. Things like tariffs have been lowered, and they started that. The first governments that started to really drop—not drop, but slash—company tax rates, and not just small company tax rates but big business tax rates as well, were the Hawke and Keating governments. That was continued by the Howard government in the Howard-Costello years. Through that period the coalition government also lowered our company tax rates, because we knew that we needed to remain competitive as many companies have a choice, not only where they establish themselves and where they have their tax domicile but also where they might open up and expand the goods and services they trade in and offer. This is a worldwide phenomenon. This is not a debate that is unique to Australia. I want to quote some figures that might be worth understanding and digesting, especially for those on the other side of politics. Back in the Howard days we had one of the most competitive and lowest corporate tax rates in the world. We are now the sixth highest in the OECD. We are currently just below 30 per cent, but the United Kingdom has a tax rate of 20 per cent; Canada, 26½ per cent; China, 25 per cent; Korea, 24½ per cent; the EU average is 22 per cent; the OECD average is 24 per cent; and the global average is 23 per cent. Our current tax rate is five per cent higher than the global average. Obviously, we need to and want to remain competitive. The current term that everyone likes using—not just in economics or politics but in business enterprises, in health and in education—is 'evidence based'. What is the evidence? Rather than just listening to, dare I say it, people on both sides, what has the evidence of lowering company taxes been? What has happened to the corporate tax rate of a country when the country or the government has lowered corporate or company taxes? There is very simplistic, jingoistic and obstructionist Labor opposition to this—it is very easy to take a jingoistic line on something. Intuitively, you might think, as Labor are saying, 'You're going to cut company tax rate so, therefore, we're going to receive less tax.' Well, that is not what the evidence suggests and that is not what this is about; this is about allowing for and creating the environment and the goalposts so that private enterprise can flourish and grow. When private enterprise is flourishing and growing, guess what? They make more money, they employ more people and the tax that you collect increases. If we started putting company tax rates up, we would not collect more tax; because you are going to shrink the size of the pool, you are actually going to collect less. When you lower company tax rates, even though, intuitively, you might think you are going to go to collect less, you are actually going to collect more, because that side of the economy is going to grow and flourish. I am not just making this up; I am actually talking about evidence here. Let me give you an example. I go back to the Hawke-Keating days. The other side of politics will laud them as wonderful people, ex-prime ministers. This is what they did: they lowered the company tax rate by 10 percentage points. They lowered the company tax rate, for big business and for small business, by 10 percentage points. What happened? In 1987-88, they collected $8.6 billion in company tax receipts. They lowered the tax rate by 10 per cent, and what had happened by 1989-90? It had gone to $12.7 billion. We were actually collecting more tax at the lower rate than we were at the higher rate. Let me give you another example. Again, this is about evidence-based decision making. In 1999-2000, the Howard-Costello government also cut the tax rate from 36 to 30 per cent. This is another quite big adjustment—a six percentage point drop in the company tax rate. What happened then, Deputy Speaker? I know you are asking; I know you cannot wait for me to tell you. I will tell you what happened: they collected $26 billion in 1999-2000, they lowered the company tax rate by six percentage points and the tax collected went up to $35 billion. Again, this is not about this very simplistic, jingoistic idea that tax cuts to big business is giving them money at the expense of everything else; it is exactly the opposite. We want to maintain a competitive tax rate, because then we can do what we obviously want to do. We always have to remember that every single cent that we spend on any government program, whether it be education, health, infrastructure or any other thing that we think is a good way to invest taxpayer dollars, comes from the private sector. It comes from the people who, through their own sheer hard work, their own initiative and their own idea of working in the private sector, are adding value to a good or a service. Obviously we tax that good or service from the private sector, and that enables us to pay every public servant we employ throughout this country. As I said at the start, we are actually discussing and having a debate in this place that we have not had for 30 years, because for 30 years there has been agreement on both sides of politics that if we free up the private sector, if we lower the company tax rate, the result is going be a healthier, more productive private sector and, from the figures that I have just given you, we are going be collecting more money at the lower rate than at the higher rate. In fact, there is a very famous example from a few decades ago: Ireland. In the 80s, Ireland was broke and they had a company tax rate approaching something like 60 per cent. If you are broke and you are thinking like the Labor Party, you would say, 'I'll put the tax rate up to collect more money.' But they realised that they needed to attract more business, more initiative and more companies to operate in their country. Do you know what they did? They slashed the rate to close to 10 per cent. Do you know what they were doing within three years? They were collecting more money at a rate close to 10 than they were at 60. Again, this is evidence-based stuff that proves that, if you set the agenda, if you set the theme for the private sector to flourish, it will. In Ireland's case, what happened back in the eighties was that—operating, obviously, as close to Europe as they do—the whole Europe IT sector, as it was starting to get established and starting to grow and get critical mass, moved to Ireland and set up their businesses in Ireland. So Ireland had a whole new sector, and the other sectors and service industries associated with that, and that meant that they were collecting a lot more money. And, of course, what else did they have? They had more money as a government to put into the issues that we as a government are talking about. This very simplistic almost dumb-it-down idea that tax cuts for business come at the expense of social infrastructure is a fallacy. It is going back to a debate that we have not had in this country for 30 years. The next time the Labor Party want to mention Hawke or Keating and the great things that they did for our country, these ex-leaders that they laud, they can remind themselves that they were the first government to start slashing company tax rates. They got it, and the Howard-Costello government after them got it and gave us one of the most competitive tax rates in the world. We had a private sector that was doing quite well, and the government was collecting more money at that lower rate than it was previously. I think it is very important that when we are making this decision we are very conscious of these facts. We live in a global world. Whether we like it or not, we are competing with many other countries around the world. Countries compete with us in agricultural production—the things we have advantages in—in the manufacturing sector and in a whole array of areas. Countries compete with us in education, with foreign students deciding where to go to study. Tourism is a good industry for us, but we compete with other tourism destinations as well. We compete in everything. There is nothing that people cannot do or get without having a choice other than Australia. The figures that I started my speech with, which I am about to repeat, are very salient. In the early 2000s Australia had one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the world. That was as a result not just of the Howard-Costello government but also of the Hawke-Keating government, because they got that we needed to be competitive. Australia's corporate tax rate is currently just below 30 per cent. I want to compare that to the rate in other countries. The United Kingdom has a tax rate of 20 per cent; Canada, 26½ per cent; China, 25 per cent; and Korea, 24½ per cent. The EU average is 22 per cent, the OECD average is 24 per cent and the global average is 23 per cent. We as a government want our economy to grow so that we generate more revenue to provide essential services. We know from empirical evidence over the last 30 years that if you want to increase your tax rate you have to be competitive. You have to set an environment whereby businesses will come here and provide goods and services at a competitive tax rate; otherwise, they will not come. Counterintuitively, if you believe the Labor Party, you would just start putting tax rates up to collect more money. They are not saying that, because they know—from the empirical evidence I have just cited—that we would end up lowering the amount of tax collected, because companies would literally shut down, move elsewhere or not operate. So, as simplistic as their argument is in this discussion, I think the Hawke-Keating Labor government—the previous leaders and treasurers—have said that what they did was right in lowering company tax rates. I think Paul Keating would certainly believe that what he did was right in lowering tax rates for big business and small business to make us a more competitive country, as did the Howard-Costello government. We are introducing a measure to maintain our competitiveness. We are not aiming to go below the OECD average or the world average tax rate. We just want to maintain a competitive rate so that our businesses can compete and flourish in today's environment. 11:11 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I rise today to voice my deep concern with the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016—the Turnbull government's $50 billion ramraid on the federal budget for big business. When Mr Turnbull undertook his infamous 2015 coup, he told us that he would be different. He told us that he would deliver the strong economic leadership that had been so lacking under the member for Warringah. He told us that he would run a constructive parliament driven by the national interest. Since then, Australians have watched in dismay as the Turnbull government has devolved into chaos, unable to maintain a single idea for economic reform for more than a few days, let alone last the distance to legislate for it. And no amount of government spin and bluster can counter the fiscal reality facing our country. The 2016-17 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook is sobering reading indeed. It shows deficits blowing out by another $10 billion over the forward estimates since the budget. It reveals that the deficit for this financial year has more than tripled since the government's first budget. And it exposes the fact that net debt has blown out by $100 billion since this government came to power. That is more than $4,000 for every single Australian. The myth that the Liberals are effective economic managers has been thoroughly quashed. They have trashed the budget, hiked the deficit and threatened the AAA credit rating that the former Labor government secured from all three major ratings agencies for the first time in our nation's history. The second solemn promise Mr Turnbull made to the Australian people after his coup was that fairness would be at the centre of all of his government's decisions. Mr Turnbull said fairness would be 'absolutely critical'. Again, the Prime Minister has colossally failed to deliver. He has attacked jobseekers, pensioners and low-income families while giving millionaires a $17,000 tax cut. He has consistently asked low- and middle-income Australians to do the heavy lifting on budget repair while fighting to maintain tax subsidies for the big end of town. And he has belligerently refused to rein in excessive tax deductions for property investors, who are driving up house prices and stretching family budgets to breaking point. It is no coincidence that Australian households overtook the Swiss to become the world's most indebted last year. To add insult to injury, the government's attacks on workplace conditions and its relentless attempts to shackle unions have contributed to stagnating living standards and record low wage growth. Even the Treasurer has admitted that this stagnancy in wages is one of the greatest threats to our economy. But that has not stopped this Prime Minister from backing in further wage cuts to some of the lowest paid workers in the country. The fact that the government is happy to stand by while 700,000 working Australians lose up to $77 a week due to those cuts to Sunday penalty rates is astonishing. Clearly, Mr Turnbull has been unwilling or unable to do the things ordinary Australians so desperately need. Still, Mr Turnbull has no credible plan for economic reform or, at least, no plan that he is able to get past the extreme right-wing masters in his party room. In fact, the only idea that Mr Turnbull has had approved by the conservative cabal that runs the Liberal Party is a $50 billion handout for big business and the banks—the very plan that we are discussing here today. Make no mistake, this $50 billion corporate cash splash is an egregious waste of precious taxpayers' dollars that will deepen the debt, smash the budget and necessitate crippling cuts to vital public services. This is a gift to big business, but a rank betrayal of the Australian people. It is particularly galling when you consider that the significant number of the largest companies operating in Australia have already found ways to reduce their tax bills to zero. In fact, the most recent ATO data revealed that 670 of the largest companies paid no tax—I repeat, no tax—at all in the 2014 financial year. That is more than one-third of all large public and private companies in Australia. This is shocking. Working Australians have every right to ask why they are being forced to pay the full rate of tax when the government is doing nothing to close the loophole that is available to companies. It has been estimated that the Australian budget is losing $4 billion a year—possibly more—to multinational tax avoidance. A sensible government would be doing all it can to ensure that these companies are paying their fair share of tax, but this government is not—and far from it. Rather than calling big business to account, Mr Turnbull wants to give them a $50 billion reward. Those opposite have ruthlessly gone after jobseekers for debts they do not owe and threatened families with cuts they cannot afford. But when it comes to the billions of dollars in foregone revenue from tax avoidance, the government suddenly becomes spineless. We have seen too many times that we have a government that is soft on tax avoiders but tough on vulnerable Australians. Those opposite have been trying to prosecute the preposterous argument that handing over $50 billion to big business is somehow a good thing for ordinary Australians. They have argued that it will be a massive boost to growth, creating a bounty of jobs and boosting everybody's pay packet. That is what the government purports. In fact, the outrageous hyperbole that we have heard from the conservatives about the miraculous impact of this corporate tax cut has been so far-fetched that it is a wonder the government is not trying to claim that it will also fix climate change! Their own modelling shows the extent of their extreme exaggeration, showing that this growth and wasteful largess will only deliver a miniscule one per cent to growth. That is not next year or the year after. It is not even going to be in 2020. In fact, this tiny payoff will not be seen for 20 years. Even if Mr Turnbull manages to get the legislation through the parliament in full, which, frankly, it looks unlikely to do so, in the process it will cost close to $4 billion in extra interest payments on the debt in addition to the $50 billion that will be ripped from the federal budget. So those opposite are happy to threaten our AAA credit rating and plunge our country into even further debt on the hope of a one per cent boost in a generation's time. So let's be clear: on an annual basis, this is little more than a rounding up error. The same Treasury modelling also reveals that these big business tax cuts will have a remarkably small impact on pay packets, given the brutal toll it will take on the federal budget. In fact, it shows that the boost to wages will be a disappointing 1.1 per cent. Again, this is not for next year or even in 10 years' time. No; workers will be waiting 20 years to get an extra $2 a day in their pay packets. Conservatives and the business lobby have also suggested that a jobs bonanza will follow these tax cuts. To suggest that job creation is a direct and necessary outcome of cutting taxes is disingenuous at best and a wilful misrepresentation of corporate reality at worst. It is no secret that companies' primary loyalty must always be to their shareholders, not to Australian jobseekers. The pressure to increase dividends year on year is relentless. The more profit companies make, the more they can direct to their shareholders. And the more they reduce their cost bases by cutting labour costs or jobs, the more profit they make. If there was a direct causal link between profits and job creation, it would follow that when companies record large profits a workforce boost would follow soon after. Let's take the banks, for example. They have benefitted from record high profits in recent years. So, according to the government's logic, we would have seen a parallel hiring frenzy. But this simply has not happened. Instead, despite record profits, banks have embarked on cost-cutting and restructuring exercises that have seen thousands of jobs culled. In the first-half period of the last financial year, Westpac, CBA and ANZ shed a combined 2,547 full-time jobs. Clearly, that makes a mockery of this government's argument. Of course, I would not deny that there will, indeed, be winners from this legislation; they just will not be the Australian people. The banks, foreign shareholders and, of course, big business will have reason to celebrate if this bill gets through parliament. The big four banks alone will get a $5.7 billion windfall. That is $5.7 billion of precious federal taxpayers' money handed over to the companies that have been racking up record profits on the back of a string of scandals and high-profile consumer rip-offs. On this important issue, there could not be a clearer difference between Labor and the coalition. Labor thinks the banks need a royal commission. Mr Turnbull thinks they should get a tax cut, and he has been running interference for them for nearly a year now to protect them from any scrutiny. Even members of Mr Turnbull's own government have seen that this legislation is a slap in the face to the thousands of innocent Australians who have lost millions to the unconscionable conduct of the banks. Indeed, we saw reports recently that some have been putting pressure on the Prime Minister to carve the banks out from this multibillion-dollar windfall. While the banks would have breathed a sigh of relief when the Prime Minister came out swinging against this proposal from his backbench, ordinary Australians should be very concerned about where this Prime Minister's loyalties lie. The government wants you to believe that Australia will become uncompetitive and that investors will flee if we do not proceed with these tax cuts. If this were actually the case, then you would expect to see a clear pattern of companies from countries with a higher tax rate avoiding their home territories and choosing Australia as a destination for investment. Conversely, you would also expect that companies from countries with a lower tax rate investing here in Australia would be few and far between. The data shows us, however, that nothing could be further from the truth. A recent analysis by the Australia Institute found that a full 97 per cent of investment applications to Australia's Foreign Investment Review Board came from countries with lower company tax rates. By value, 71 per cent of applications came from countries with lower rates. Not only that, but when our tax rates rose to 49 per cent in the 1980s we saw investment grow, not decline. The Foreign Investment Review Board data demonstrates that there are many factors that drive investment. Tax is just one. So if we are clearly attracting investment despite having higher tax rates—and the link between tax rates and investment levels is tenuous at best—why on earth would we embark on a revenue-slashing race to the bottom? If we do start to play the 'How low can you go?' game, where does it end? When a 25 per cent rate fundamentally fails to boost growth, do we drop it to 20 per cent, or 15 per cent? How about five per cent? Or do we forgo tax revenue entirely? There are many things aside from the tax rate that attract investors. A skilled workforce, a stable regulatory system and a low-risk business environment are just a few. This government is throwing precious public money out the window, in our view, and it is doing so at the expense of many ordinary Australians. Students will be paying for this. Families will be paying for this. Cities will forgo vital infrastructure. Young jobseekers will be paying for these cuts. Of course, every single Australian will pay for it because of this government's ongoing attacks on Medicare, bulk-billing, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and hospitals. Make no mistake: if this government gets its way and this bill passes parliament, generations of Australians will pay the price. 11:26 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie 'Friends, corporate tax reform helps Australia's private sector grow and it creates jobs right up and down the income ladder.' Who said that, Member for Newcastle? That was Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, at the ACOSS National Conference at the Melbourne convention centre on 30 March 2011. Let me say that again: 'Friends, corporate tax reform helps Australia's private sector grow and it creates jobs right up and down the income ladder,' said the Leader of the Opposition. If that is not enough for you, you might want to listen to what the member for Lilley said. He might recall telling the ABC in 2012: We intend to fight tooth and nail to get this general company tax cut through which flows first of all to small businesses and then to all companies … We want a general company tax cut. That is what Swannie said. Well, come on, tiger—get onboard! What are you doing? He said, 'We intend to fight tooth and nail for it,' and now he is running around the country and around his electorate of Lilley talking about trickle-down economics, if he is not over in the UN for three months. The hypocrisy of those opposite on this issue is astounding. And what do we hear from the member for Hotham and others opposite? Absolutely nothing on this issue. If that is not enough for you, the former Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard said upon her 2010 election campaign launch: … we will cut taxes for all businesses in this country. Like her, I also 'stand for tax cuts, tax benefits, tax relief for every Australian business', because I know that supporting business supports jobs. Most people in this country are employed in the private sector. Party politics and differences aside, we all agree, because we know that tax relief for business makes good economic sense. The difference between this government and the Labor Party opposite is that we are not scared to make the tough decisions. Unlike the Labor Party, we are not scared to stand up for what is in the best interests of the nation. We are certainly not scared to stand alongside business. In fact, when we went to the last election we promised to do just that, because we know that for the students up there in the gallery, who are just heading out now, the company tax cuts will create many jobs around the country, if we support business. As we heard from the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Lilley and the former Labor Prime Minister, at one stage they agreed. Now the Labor Party is playing bitter party politics in relation to this issue. That is what we are getting from those opposite. At the last election, the coalition was the only party with a strong plan for jobs. There was no plan from the Labor Party, I would say. We are taking a multipronged approach to job creation which will help Australian businesses, workers, families and young people. Those babies who are being born today will benefit from our plan in 20 years from now. This plan includes our free trade agreements. With a population of 24 million people here in Australia, we know that it is a great advantage if we can export and sell our products into markets with billions of people. Whether that is China, India or Indonesia—wherever it is—we know that our free trade agreements will help future Australians. In the last 12 months alone, we have seen agriculture exports increase from $46 billion to $60 billion—so $46 billion in sales to $60 billion in sales. I suspect a lot of that has to do with FTAs. In my electorate, whilst they do not have much agriculture, people are interested in agriculture. They want to see our Australian farmers do well, and this is an important point that I make here. We have, also, a strong plan for our defence manufacturing sector. We know that manufacturing in the defence sector will provide jobs right around the country and not just in South Australia and Perth where close to 60 new ships will be built over the next two decades—welded up using Australian steel. It will help create jobs in my electorate and other electorates around the country for other items that go in that equipment. This is an important point. At the time of the last election, we made no secret of the fact that company tax cuts were a significant part of our plan. We wanted company tax cuts in companies up to a billion dollars. Unfortunately, despite my opening lines in relation to those Labor leaders of the past, they are not budging at all on this. The Nick Xenophon Team on the crossbench is giving one per cent of what we are after. That is not a negotiation. That is us getting done over. That is the Australian people getting done over. We have a plan for a billion dollars worth of tax cuts, and crossbenchers want to deliver on $10 million. That is not a plan. The Labor Party is even more guilty. They are delivering nothing—absolutely nothing—despite what the Leader of the Opposition said just a short time ago. The member for Melbourne's comments in his address on this issue were absolutely disgraceful when it came to the way he spoke about companies that employ people right around this nation. In relation to the member for Newcastle, who just spoke, I have never heard so much rot in my entire life in relation to this bill. What she was saying there was absolute rot. It just goes to show the fearmongering that those opposite rely on to win their seats in parliament, because what she was saying is totally incorrect. I know that company tax cuts will help medium-sized businesses in particular in my electorate—those businesses that turnover up to $50 million, $100 million or $250 million. I have a business in my electorate that turns over less than $50 million. They turnover about $40 million. They are a bull bar company that sell Australian made bull bars for the front of your Toyota HiLuxes and things that are imported. For those people in the gallery, they employ 140 people in my electorate. If jobs are increased by 10 per cent, that is another 14 local jobs. But, listen, for those in the gallery who are listening to those opposite from the Labor Party: do not hold your breath. They will never talk about medium-sized businesses with up to $50 million turnover or companies with up to $100 million turnover. All they talk about is big business and multinational tax avoidance. Yet they all voted—every single one of them in this place, apart from the new members—against the Tax Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill in December 2015. That is an important point. All they talk about is the big four banks, yet we did hear the member for Newcastle say that the company tax reductions would only benefit banks to the tune of 10 per cent. They never talk about the other 90 per cent. This is an important point. I would like, if you will allow me, to play a little game. I will read you a list, and I would like you to consider what the common thread might be here. Angola, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, Kenya, Malawi, Mexico, Nigeria, the Philippines, Sierra Leone, Tanzania and Uganda—what ties these countries together? How did you go? Perhaps the Minister for Health might know. Mr Hunt 00AMV Lower tax rates? Mr HOWARTH 247742 Almost. The fact is they all have the same company tax rate, and it is the same as ours. But if you look at all other countries, what the United States are doing with their company tax rate is talking about lowering it to 15 per cent. Britain has lowered it down to 20 per cent. The United Kingdom has a 20 per cent company tax rate and are soon lowering it to 17 per cent to be in line with Singapore. We know what those opposite think, but do you people in the gallery really think a business is going to base themselves in Australia and pay 30 per cent company tax when the US is about to drop it to 15 per cent, the United Kingdom is about to drop it to 17 per cent and Singapore has it at 17 per cent? They talk about jobs, but we are going to see jobs go out the door and continue to go out the door if they do not just do what the opposition leader said not long ago. Let me remind you again, for those in the gallery. I do not know if you were all here. This is Bill Shorten— The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY I remind the member for Petrie to use the correct titles. Mr HOWARTH 247742 Through you, Chair, the opposition leader said: Friends, corporate tax reform helps Australia's private sector grow— That is what the Leader of the Opposition said— and it creates jobs right up and down the income ladder. That was the Leader of the Opposition not too long ago, and now, in this place after the election, they come in here, play politics and vote against everything the government wants to do to help Australians right throughout the country. As I said before, we are the only party with a plan. We are the only party with a plan for jobs. Those opposite have absolutely no plan at all. We need a more competitive tax rate to attract foreign investment so that domestic households will not need to sacrifice current consumption to fund the investment. Reducing Australia's corporate tax rate would increase Australia's appeal as a place to do business. It would encourage higher levels of investment in Australia and lead to capital deepening, promoting growth in productivity, innovation, employment and wages. It is a point not lost on the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, Philip Lowe, who has emphasised the 'need to make sure that our tax system is internationally competitive'. We need to be internationally competitive in the global economy. He is not alone. In the United States, President Trump has pledged to slash company tax to 15 percent. I know that Qantas has just opened up a new maintenance facility in the United States, employing people to maintain planes. At the same time, people in my electorate who were working for Qantas in Brisbane have had their hours reduced. That is what has happened. I think that if we are stuck on a high company tax rate for decades into the future because of the Labor Party opposite we are going to see more jobs go to countries where they have a lower company tax rate and lower wages. The estimates in the US are that a one percent cut in local business taxes will increase the number of local establishments by three to four percent over a 10-year period. The United Kingdom predicts that reducing the company tax rate to 20 per cent—and they are going further—would result in a permanent increase in investment of up to 4.5 percent over a 20-year period. So we are not alone in our push to reduce the burden on business. The government's enterprise tax plan is a clear and defined road map. It is a solid and well-drafted plan that harnesses maximum opportunity for growth and shared prosperity. A five percentage point reduction in business tax will deliver a permanent boost to the Australian economy. The benefits to workers and the economy of lower tax will begin to flow immediately. Importantly, it will help 1.8 million Australians looking for extra work to boost their take home pay. It will give them more hours and assist with affordable living. If we do not cut company tax rates, we stand to stifle progress and to derail hope, confidence and achievement. I love representing the people of Petrie. I take it very seriously. I come to this place because I want to see an improvement in the lives of all Australians. Whilst I am a politician, it is not in my nature, I must say, to play politics with a lot of these things. I want to actually get things done that help people. One of the most frustrating things about being in parliament is listening to those opposite—and sometimes maybe even those on our inside—play politics with issues that do not help the Australian people. I call on the crossbench and the Labor Party to get on board with what the leader of the Labor Party spoke about just a few years ago and support these company tax cuts, because I know that it will make a real difference not just in my electorate but right throughout the country. If these tax cuts do not pass through the Senate then it will not be me who is standing in the way; it will be those opposite, and they will have to answer to future generations. (Time expired) 11:41 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I, too, rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016 which relates to the government's budget measures to reduce company tax. Talk about living in a parallel universe! I was listening to the member for Petrie as he was spruiking all the government's lines about this bill. But if you turn to some of the media speculation today, it looks like they are about to shelve most of it. It is quite interesting. I think it is quite symptomatic of the absolute chaos and mismanagement of this government. It is interesting, if you look at one of those reports in The Australian, to see that it says 'Company tax reform shelved in bid to save small firms' cut'. It says the Turnbull government are preparing to shelve most of the $50 billion company tax cut. The AFR article today says, 'Doubt grows over future of company tax cuts.' Yesterday, the Prime Minister and Treasurer were asked about that. Of course, they refused to give any clear statement. So we really can see that the government are in absolute chaos and that maybe they are about to abandon their great plan for jobs and growth. It certainly does reflect the chaos and mismanagement that we see from them. The measures of the government in this bill are ones that we disagree with. We disagree with them because we know it is a matter of priorities. Our priorities are different to their priority—a $50 billion tax cut for multinationals and big business. Let's also look at the context of this bill and how long it has taken to get to this point. Months and months after the last budget was delivered, this, the absolute centrepiece of it—the so-called great economic plan—is finally before us. It has taken months and months to get here. The government have dragged their feet for a very long time, and who knows what will happen now with all this speculation that we are seeing. Make no mistake: this is an economic plan in which the Treasurer's response to the deficit is to actually increase the deficit by $50 billion over the next 10 years. That is his big answer to reduce the budget deficit—make it bigger. That is it. It really, again, highlights the government's economic mismanagement and their very chaotic state. As I said, budgets are all about choices. On this side of the House we make very different choices to those opposite. We make choices that are based on assisting all Australians, not just the very wealthy, corporates and multinationals. We choose budget repair which is fair—for example, through reforms such as our negative gearing and capital gains tax reforms. We took those to the last election and there was a very positive response. I know in my area there was certainly a very positive response to those proposed reforms. Our priorities are based on better and fairer funding for our schools, hospitals and families. We make the choice to not to give away a $50 billion tax cut to multinationals and big business, because it is essentially unfair. We also, very importantly, prioritise and choose to ensure there is proper funding for rural and regional Australia such as my area on the north coast of New South Wales. It is only Labor that support and stand by those country areas and deliver for them. As I said, this bill gives effect to a series of budget measures. It has taken months and months to get here. You would not believe, would you, that an economic plan could take so long to actually reach the House? We are not opposed to sensible tax incentives for business, but what we are opposed to are cruel cuts to the most vulnerable in our community whilst the government are out there spruiking its $50 billion of tax cuts for multinationals. The government continue to pursue this at the expense of those who can least afford it. That is why we are opposed to this bill and, of course, why I support the amendments put forward by the shadow Treasurer. The bill sees the government giving that $50 billion in tax cuts to the big end of town whilst, at the same time, slashing funding to the most vulnerable individuals and organisations in our community. Out of this $50 billion tax cut, this government are going to hand over a $7.4 billion gift to the big banks—the same banks that the government refuses to hold a royal commission into, despite the very widespread community concern about the need for a royal commission. I will continue to advocate for that. Many locals constantly approach me about the need to have a royal commission into the banks, and we will continue to raise it in the parliament and the community. Those on the other side continue to block it. At the same time that they have this tax cut underway, we are seeing their massive cuts to family tax benefits and pensions. We are also seeing this government continuously slash funding for education. I also note a recent statement by Goldman Sachs, who said that around $30 billion of the government's $50 billion corporate tax giveaway will actually go overseas. That is 60 per cent of the funds that could be invested into Australian jobs, health and education. That is truly shameful. That is $30 billion that this government would rather see go offshore. There will be few, if any, tangible benefits to Australian families but lots of big benefits to the multinationals and big business. The fact is, this corporate tax rate is not going to generate the jobs that any of them claim—at all. It just will not happen. As I said at the beginning, the government are completely devoid of an economic plan or a jobs plan. There is just chaos and mismanagement throughout the government. I would like to point out some of the areas that they should be prioritising and funding—areas that are very important in my electorate and, indeed, throughout the country. They should be investing in Medicare but, of course, they are not. It provides a very stark comparison of our side of the House with theirs when I look at their priorities and how they are really hurting many Australians. We have always been committed to properly funding Medicare. We understand how important universal health care is and we believe that your health care should be determined by your Medicare card and not your credit card. We made it clear before the election that we are committed to lifting the government's very cruel freeze on the indexation of the Medicare Benefits Schedule. Let's just take a step back and remember what this government did. They tried three times to introduce that GP tax. They were very keen to do that. They could not do it, so they imposed a GP tax by stealth, by freezing the indexation on those rebates. They are still very much committed to that. Remember, in the Prime Minister's first budget, how much they ripped out of Medicare by extending the freeze even more. The reality is that this makes going to the doctor unaffordable for so many Australians. Labor understands that, and that is why we are committed to changing it, because that is what drives our health policy—we created Medicare and we will always fight to protect it. The government should be investing in Medicare and not investing in the $50 billion in tax cuts. Another area where they have been particularly harsh with their cuts has been those welfare cuts. We have seen the cuts to family tax benefits and paid parental leave, with a lot of families worse off. We have seen other cuts—such as the cut to the energy supplement to pensioners, people with a disability, carers and Newstart recipients—across the board, to those most vulnerable. We even saw that late-night deal last night in the Senate with some of their cuts. How shameful was that, when they are cutting $1.4 billion from Australian families? Of course, this latest cut is straight from the horror 2014 budget, in which we saw a freeze on the family tax benefit payment rate for two years. How harsh is that going to be for families across the country? These cuts will affect every single recipient of family tax benefit, leaving 1.5 million Australian families worse off. It is truly shameful. We saw the Liberals—and let's not forget our old friends the Nationals, of course, who were right there—voting for it. That is what the Nationals do. I have said it many times and I will repeat it again: National Party choices hurt. They hurt people in the country when they choose to do things like this, when they choose to vote to cut family payments. They have certainly done it again and they should be very ashamed of what they have done to cut the family payments to 1.5 million Australian families. We have seen that this government does not have a plan to help families either, except for cutting all of those benefits. It is certainly right across the board. It is only Labor that has been standing up for Australian families, to try and protect them from these very harsh cuts. We will continue to do that, because we understand how important these family tax benefits are in providing for families. Obviously, the government do not understand it at all. Instead, they are just committed to making sure that they have that huge $50 billion tax cut for big business. Education is another very important area, and we have seen some massive cuts from this government. In fact, nationwide, they are cutting $30 billion from our schools. That is like sacking one in seven teachers. If we look at my electorate of Richmond on the New South Wales North Coast, our schools will lose more than $20 million. That is absolutely devastating. It means fewer teachers, less one-on-one attention and students simply being left behind. When we look at some of the education outcomes for those in regional and rural Australia, we already have a lot of challenges, particularly in accessing higher education. With the cuts to schools that we have and the government's plans for $100,000 university degrees and cutting funding to universities, it makes it extra hard for our children from those regional and rural areas to actually get the education that they do deserve. Those cuts to schools that I mentioned mean that students are getting less help with the basics. This is where it is truly annoying: this government cannot find money to fund a very needy regional school but, again, they have that $50 billion tax cut for big business. It really shows how twisted their priorities are. On this side, we believe getting a good education is vital for accessing all of the opportunities throughout your life. We also believe it is absolutely critical to ensuring that we have a strong economy and secure jobs by making sure we have fully funded, needs-based education systems. That is why we are absolutely committed to the Gonski reforms. We understand it is important that we have funding so that every child in every school gets the support that they need. On top of those cuts to schools funding and plans for $100,000 university degrees, we have also seen them decimate the TAFE sector with their cuts to apprenticeships and training. Another area that I would like to focus on, in terms of the government's twisted priorities, is their cuts to community legal centres and what that means for my community and my electorate. Again, they can give that massive cut to big business, but the cuts to community legal centres across the country mean that the Northern Rivers legal centre in my area will have funding cuts of nearly $180,000. Some might say that is not a lot of money, but I can tell you the impact of these cuts will be very harsh on the Northern Rivers legal centre. What it means is that from 1 July their Tweed office and its outreach service at Pottsville and Murwillumbah will be forced to close—that is, essentially three offices that will be closed because of this government's harsh funding cuts. The Northern Rivers legal centre and its dedicated staff have been helping our local community since 1996. Now their funding will be cut by 23 per cent so it will seriously jeopardise their ability to actually operate and to provide those services. They provide free advice and services to individuals and groups in financial hardship and, indeed, to some of the most disadvantaged in our community. The community legal centres across the country help hundreds of thousands of people in need of free legal assistance. They are in the front line sometimes in assistance for those who are fleeing domestic violence or for people with tenancy disputes or employment issues. There is a whole array of financial issues they assist people with. I know that in my community the centre has been utilised right across the board. I would like to take the time to thank the shadow Attorney-General for recently visiting my electorate, meeting with the representatives of the Northern Rivers legal centre and hearing firsthand what those cuts are going to mean for our community. I asked the people in the Northern Rivers legal centre, 'What happens now when you have to shut these outreach offices? They said, 'These people will just not get help.' One of the lawyers said they were mediating a family law court dispute. What happens to those people? How do they get access to any financial assistance? I will continue to call on the Turnbull Liberal-National government to reverse these cruel cuts as a matter of urgency. Throughout the country, these cuts are devastating but, in the regional areas, we just have no capacity to get access to those legal services at all. I sometimes think those on the other side do not understand how vulnerable and disadvantaged people are or how really severely impacted by these cuts they will be, so I will continue to call for that funding to be restored. I want to touch on another example of this government's twisted priorities—that is, the failed roll out of the second-rate NBN. This is really hurting people right across my electorate whether it be their business access, their home access or their educational access. The government used to say their second-rate NBN would only cost about $29.5 billion. It later went to $41 billion. It is now $56 billion. But of course their second-rate copper NBN is a complete failure and, like the government, is in total chaos. We know the NBN is the largest and one of the most important infrastructure projects in this country and it is important that it is done properly. In my electorate, thousands of households are still waiting for the NBN. I have a wonderful creative hub of people who desperately need the NBN to be able to communicate worldwide so they can run their businesses effectively. All small businesses need it. From an educational perspective, people need it. It tends to be in complete chaos because this government are not able to manage anything. Their internal dynamics are so chaotic— Mr Dick 53517 Toxic. Mrs ELLIOT DZW Toxic indeed, absolutely toxic. That is all that is driving them. We have got massive mismanagement. In conclusion, budgets are about priorities and this government's priorities are all wrong. As I said, our priorities are based on better funding and fairer funding for schools and hospitals and families, and on proper budget reform of negative gearing and capital gains tax. It is certainly in contrast to the government's only commitment—a $50 billion tax cut to multinationals. I started out talking about the parallel universe the member for Petrie was talking about because it now looks like the government are in so much chaos they may be shelving some of these reforms. I do not think they even know what they are doing. They could not answer in question time and tell us what was going on. Nobody seems to know what is going on in this show, and the chaos continues. We on this side have many concerns about this bill, as I have raised today. 11:56 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley Is this what it has come to? The centrepiece of the Turnbull government pre-election strategy, the big jobs and growth strategy, and the government have given up. There are no speakers. They have stopped speaking. This was the one single reason we had the election and now you can see the government are flat lining on their centrepiece. We know that when we have asked questions and when the shadow Treasurer has asked pretty straightforward questions such as: will you stand by your one economic plan, a failed economic plan, but a plan so-called nonetheless? They could not answer the question. We know this is unravelling, and I would suggest that is why we are not seeing any more speakers from the government, because they know this is a dud plan. This is a dud economic plan for our nation. When I return to the electorate of Oxley and consult with the residents on the weekend, I will be reporting to them that not only have the government run out of ideas but their one centrepiece for this week was not about creating jobs, was not about delivering increasing economic productivity. By their own admission, they have given up by not speaking on this legislation, by not investing in our skills base, and by not looking at the infrastructure needs of the growing communities that I represent in the south-west of Brisbane. No, the centrepiece, the one key announcement by this government for this week was about enabling racial hate speech. As the former member just said, governments are about priorities. And time and time again we see the priorities of this government laid out for the nation to see, priorities which will give $48 billion tax to big business over the next 10 years. At the same time, the government wants to ensure there are cuts to families through changes to family tax benefits, cuts to pensioners through scrapping the energy supplement, cuts to jobseekers by forcing them to wait longer times for Newstart, cuts to young people by forcing them from Newstart onto the youth allowance, and of course cuts to new parents and families by changes to paid parental leave. On top of this, if this so-called strategy was not enough, we are now seeing the government delivering a $77-a-week pay cut to some 700,000 Australians who rely on penalty rates to put food on the table, put books on desks and simply to pay the bills. This is all about the government's priorities—ensuring there is a tax advantage for large multinational companies but at the same time ensuring some of the most vulnerable in our community are hit to pay for it. My community will not stand for it, and, as a representative in this parliament, I will not stand for it either. We know that the government is hell-bent on making it more and more difficult for everyday Australians, whilst at the same time handing over this $50 billion tax cut. But let us have a look at the facts. We know from the government's own modelling that, in 10 years time, we will not see a huge return on investment from this tax cut. The first point I want to make is that there would be an annual ongoing cost of $8.3 billion to the Australian taxpayer. That is according to modelling that was released this week. On top of this handout, Australian families, pensioners, new parents, young people, students, people living with a disability and jobseekers will be disadvantaged. They will be forced to do the heavy lifting, with the ongoing cost to the budget of that $8.3 billion per year. New calculations which have been released show that the $50 billion big tax cut in the Prime Minister's budget—do not forget this is the centrepiece of the government's economic strategy—will cost the Australian people an extra $4 billion in interest charges. As we have heard in the debate so far, that equates to $162 for every man, woman and child in the nation. The total interest bill will hit over half a billion dollars in 2021-22, before blowing out beyond $1 billion in 2023-24. So we are attempting to give multinationals a big tax cut, whilst at the same time sending ordinary Australians an interest bill. After all the lectures from this government about debt, deficits and spiralling interest costs, there is a $50 billion big tax cut in the budget, which will vandalise the budget and which will potentially threaten Australia's important AAA credit rating. After all this is said and done, what is the endgame? We know from the government's own modelling—released by the government on budget night—that the economy would potentially be one per cent bigger as a result of this. That is one per cent over a decade. The economy would not be one per cent bigger every year—just at the end of the 10 years. This means the economy would grow at just 0.1 per cent each year. But that begins at the end of the decade of the tax cuts. So the claimed one per cent dividend is actually 20 years away. That is 20 years—two decades—of the Australian people waiting to see what that growth will mean for them. It is 20 years of waiting to ensure that they will be $8.3 billion worse off per year and that they will be slugged with an interest bill of $4 billion per year. Like many in the community that I represent, we are struggling to see any positives in this bill at all. We know from Treasury research showing the economic benefits of these company tax cuts that it will take 20 years for any long-term value, with half the benefit coming in 10 years. So we are deeply concerned. As the Leader of the Opposition has continually said, we want budget repair with fairness. Clearly, we know that this government is so out of touch that their No. 1 priority, their No. 2 priority and their No. 3 priority are ensuring that we look after big business, that we look after the big banks, whilst Australian families bear the cost of this irresponsible and disastrous economic plan. It is a plan that will deliver cuts to Australian families, pensioners, new parents, young people, people living with a disability and jobseekers. As I have said, this comes down to priorities. I am proud to represent a diverse community in southwest Brisbane, and I know from speaking to local small-business owners just how hard they work. I know the efforts and sacrifices that they make, away from their family, working long hours and putting in long days. In the electorate of Oxley, there are around 8,700 businesses. I am here to support them and to represent them. I am not here to represent large multinational companies. I am not here to represent the large national banks. They will take care of themselves, and they do. I am here to stand up for the hardworking men and women who I proudly serve in this parliament. This is about a government full of wrong priorities. Just this week, there was a report about the significant contribution that the previous Labor government delivered in education reform. The Gonski reforms, which are transforming the power of education across the nation, are Labor's vision and legacy. It is about using investment to ensure we are investing in our young people, in our schools and in our skills sector. We know that the Gonski funding has been invested across the nation to lift the performances of all students in literacy and numeracy. They are Labor's priorities. When I speak to the school principals in my electorate, I know how important that investment has been for the kids and for the mums and dads in my community and in schools like Forest Lake State High School. Principals like Tom Beck have told me about the power of Gonski funding, which has paid huge dividends. The school has seen major gains in reading skills for students in years 7 to 9, with double the expected gains and achievement scores on reading tests. Those results are there and that sort of investment is there for the world to see. We can see the transformational nature of investment in things like education, especially early education. The shadow minister at the table, the member for Adelaide, understands the importance of this and has been a long-term advocate for proper, adequate funding for and investment in early childhood. What we see from the government is the complete opposite—wrong priorities after wrong priorities. We understand that, with this $50 billion big business tax cut, the government will be cutting funding from a whole range of areas that we know the community support. They will be cutting $30 billion from education funding over the next 10 years, including $20 million in 2018-19 from schools in my electorate of Oxley. That is $20 million that the government do not think is important. We had this ridiculous argument in the parliament yesterday, where the government seemed to pride themselves on wanting to cut funding from schools. This could be potentially the only modern government in Australia's living history that have proudly advocated reducing the amount of funding that we want to spend on our schools. They will be taking money from primary schools and lining the pockets of some of the largest multinational companies in Australia. It is clear to see that, by giving them that tax cut, the government are interested in the wrong priorities, not in investing in the future. But we have also seen the crab-walk away, with the government now trying to look as though they are saying: 'We're open to new ideas. We're going to look at how we can target businesses elsewhere.' We have heard from the Treasurer in the last couple of days all this wriggle language, as he tries to walk away from their centrepiece. That is why I am not surprised that they have given up speaking on this bill today, that they have walked away. We have to remind ourselves that this was the government's centrepiece. This was the slogan of the election campaign. They said, 'Trust us; we'll deliver jobs and growth.' Well, we know that economic growth is not moving forward. We know that jobs growth is not moving forward either. As a result of them hoodwinking the Australian community, they have given rise to false hope, and they are now delivering a failed economic plan. Labor has committed to a reduction in the small business company tax rate, provided there is bipartisan support from the coalition and it is conducted in a fiscally responsible fashion and in a fair way. I am proud to work alongside my chambers of commerce—the Greater Springfield Chamber of Commerce and the Centenary & Districts Chamber of Commerce—to support the 8,748 small businesses in the electorate of Oxley. The presidents of those local chambers do a fantastic job advocating and arguing for small business and jobs in our local community. I know that these local businesses are the backbone of our local economy and they provide hundreds, if not thousands, of local jobs. It is these small businesses—the mum-and-dad operators in my community and right across Australia—who deserve our support, who deserve to have Labor and the coalition work with a constructive and bipartisan approach. That is how we will see economic growth improve and that is where we will see the jobs growth. But I will not stand here today and support a $50 billion tax cut to some of the largest multinational companies in our nation, when mum-and-dad operators—the coffee shops, the cafes, the service industries—in my local community need support. This is what the government should be focusing on, not worrying about the millionaires and billionaires across Australia. Labor supported the cut in the company tax rate for small businesses to 28½ per cent and we will support the further cut to 27½ per cent proposed in the 2016 budget, which will cover small businesses who represent 83 per cent of Australian companies. However, billion-dollar corporations are not small businesses, and it is time the government heard this message. Let us be clear about the government. They do not stand up for pensioners. They do not stand up for young people. They do not stand up for jobseekers. They do not stand up for Australian families. All the government are interested in is looking after the big end of town. Labor will stand by those who need it. (Time expired) 12:11 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo There is no doubt that the Nick Xenophon Team have shown that we have been a long-time supporter of small businesses. Small businesses, including over 100,000 farmers, are the backbone of the Australian economy, accounting for over 90 per cent of all businesses and just under half of all employees. It is an inescapable reality that Australia now operates in an internationally competitive market for investment. In order to entice more investment, to help grow our small businesses and to increase employment, we need to make Australian small businesses as attractive a destination as possible for investment. The Nick Xenophon Team is therefore supportive of extending the tax cuts to small businesses of up to $10 million in annual turnover. We can see that many small businesses do have a turnover higher than $2 million, particularly when you look at businesses like independent petrol stations, small supermarkets, restaurants, family accountants and even local lawyers and tradies—your average small businesses. In my electorate of Mayo, 99.6 per cent of businesses have an aggregated turnover of less than $10 million. To put it another way, of the almost 11,000 businesses in Mayo, only 43 are major enterprises with turnover in excess of $10 million. Tax cuts can make a big difference to small business cash flow, and this has a real impact on how well a small business operates. It can mean the difference between taking on an extra employee or not, or opening a second shop. It can mean the difference between keeping their doors open or shutting down. Big businesses, on the other hand, enjoy economies of scale. They do not face the same disadvantages in managing cash flow or attracting investment that small businesses face. Whilst a lot of big businesses do pay their fair share of tax, many unfortunately do not. The Australian people are increasingly aware of how big a problem multinational tax avoidance is for our country and how it is undermining Australia's prosperity and future. This is because every tax dollar that multinational businesses do not pay is another dollar that must be taken out of the pockets of honest Australian businesses, workers and families. Businesses that engage in multinational tax avoidance are leaning heavily on Australian taxpayers, forcing them to put more than their fair share in to fund the services and infrastructure that multinational businesses also get the benefit of. As I mentioned in my speech on the Diverted Profits Tax Bill 2017 in the parliament earlier, there are many examples of multinationals not paying their fair share of tax. For example, Google had an estimated income of $2.5 billion from local advertising in 2015, and yet they declared revenue in Australia of only one-fifth of that amount and paid only $16 million in tax. Why would they be entitled to receive a tax cut? That tax represents just 0.64 per cent—one fraction of one percent—of their estimated revenue. I cannot see why we would be kicking goals for them. In 2015, Facebook Australia's gross revenue figures were reported to be a measly $33.5 million, yet investment bank Morgan Stanley estimated that Facebook Australia's actual earnings from advertising in this country were between $500 million and $600 million. Facebook in that year paid only $814,000 in tax. Tell me, do we really need to give them a tax cut? Do we really need to support legislation that would give a company with those sorts of figures further ability to reduce their tax? According to documents released by the tax commissioner in 2015, Transfield, a company with a $2.8 billion turnover, paid zero tax in the 2014 financial year. That same financial year, Adani Abbot Point Terminal in Queensland, which had a turnover of $268 million, also paid no tax—zero tax! How can it be possible that such huge companies can operate in Australia and pay zero tax? Something is seriously wrong if we think that that is okay and at the same time we are trying to put through this parliament $50 billion worth of tax cuts. According to Oxfam: … as a result of tax dodging by Australian-based multinational corporations, the Australian public missed out on an estimated AUD $5-6 billion in 2014— alone. To put this in perspective, this is roughly equal to the size of the annual South Australian health budget, and it is not too far off twice the annual South Australian education budget. Just imagine what we could do with that money if it were spent on our communities, not just in South Australia but all over Australia. People are doing it tough all over this country while the big multinationals are laughing all the way to the bank and being supported by government to do so. The government continues to reduce funding for health and education instead of focusing on efforts to combat multinational tax avoidance. It continues to rip money out of public hospitals and rural roads instead of getting the Googles and Facebooks to pay their fair share of tax. Beyond this fundamental issue of equity is the broader question of whether tax cuts to big business would actually return the benefits to Australian society that the government argues that it could. Work by The Australia Institute indicates that a third of all benefits from the company tax cuts would accrue to just the largest 15 publicly listed companies in Australia. These include the big four banks and Macquarie, BHP, Rio Tinto and Woodside Petroleum, the supermarket duopoly, Telstra, QBE Insurance, CSL and Westfield. You will note that most of these companies operate in markets with high concentrations of market power. The predominant strategy of these duopolies and oligopolies and is to maintain their market share, through which they derive their market power and their ability to keep prices high. Innovation is far less important than advertising and strategic competition in these markets, and where there is innovation, it is to reduce costs—for example, by automating jobs through ATMs and self-serve check-outs, or outsourcing their domestic call centres to countries across Asia. I have read very carefully what The Australia Institute have reported on this. They say: If the aim of the company tax cut is to increase investment and employment much of it will be wasted if it is given to— these large businesses. For example, in 2015 the large banks and insurers in this country made nine per cent of taxable income yet only 1.2 per cent of the total private investment in Australia. The evidence is thin on the ground that larger profits from these large banks would translate into more domestic employment or higher salaries, except for upper management or those who are in a better position to capture the super profits. I had a look before I came down to the chamber: as reported in The Australianin November 2015, Westpac cut more than four per cent of their workforce—more than 1,300 people lost their jobs—despite in the same season stating that they earned a $4 billion profit, increasing their profits by seven per cent. Where is the evidence that if we give these big banks a tax cut then they will somehow magically put on more staff? There is no evidence. Besides which, the real profit of the company tax cuts is meant to be to attract foreign investment to Australia, the argument being that the benefit in terms of jobs and innovation that the foreign investment will bring in will outweigh the cost of the tax revenue forgone. But if our domestic companies are already making more than enough profits to enable them to reinvest in their own businesses, all a tax cut does is create a leakage of tax revenue via their foreign shareholders. This is a substantial leakage. In 2015, total foreign ownership of Australian non-financial corporations was over 40 per cent. For financial corporations, a group that includes the big banks, total foreign ownership was about 55 per cent. This means that, on average, 55 per cent of the value of a tax cut to a bank will be sent overseas to the pocket of a foreign shareholder. It is no wonder that even some of the coalition backbenchers have spoken about making the big four banks exempt from company tax cuts, although I note that that was quickly shut down. This is an absolutely rubbish return for the Australian taxpayer. There is no reason to think that foreign shareholders are necessarily investing their fatter dividends into brand-new projects and enterprises in Australia. A tax cut for big business is simply not a tax cut well spent for the Australian economy. Even if you were trying to encourage foreign investment, it does not seem fair to tax the Australian firm more than the foreigner, even if one is a lazy domestic big business and the other is an innovative foreign investor. However—and here I return full circle to my original argument—it makes more sense to give tax cuts to smaller firms than to larger firms, because small business tends to be more competitive, more innovative and—dare I say—more agile, because they have to be in order to survive. In conclusion, the Nick Xenophon Team will support tax cuts to businesses with an aggregated turnover of up to $10 million. We understand that those are your neighbourhood petrol stations, we understand that those are your small supermarkets in your townships and we will continue to stand behind the small businesses run by hardworking Australians every day. But we cannot in good conscience support tax cuts for the biggest Australian companies, which do not necessarily reinvest a strong percentage of their profits in domestic activity that would generate additional employment. And we cannot in good conscience support a tax break for big business while multinational tax avoidance remains meaningfully unaddressed. We need to ensure that big national businesses pay the fair share of tax they are meant to be paying before we as Australians give them another tax cut. 12:22 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin It is my pleasure to follow so many colleagues who have made so many good points about the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016, including just now the member for Mayo. But there are also the points that have been made on this side of the House by the member for Oxley and others as we oppose this big business tax cut, a $50 billion ram-raid on the budget. I am proud as well to support the amendments moved by the member for McMahon, who made the very sensible point that when the budget is in the condition it is in right now it is just madness to contemplate taking $50 billion off people and off the bottom line of the budget and hand it to the big multinationals and the big four banks. So I am proud of our position. We are part of a bizarre spectacle where we are debating a bill about a tax cut that we do not know will even make it to the weekend. When you read the articles that have come from well-placed sources in the government, when you look at the fact that the Treasurer stood at the despatch box a couple of times yesterday, and many times in the media, and could not even back-in this tax, which he says is so important to give to big multinational corporations and big banks. He has refused to back that in in the last little while. So everyone in this place and everyone in the media, and people in the broader Australian community who follow this important national debate know that in the House right now we are debating a bill that the government is about to gut. When they do gut this bill, it will be a humiliation for the Treasurer. It will be the final humiliation for the Treasurer, who has made a habit of humiliating himself, whether it be from his connection with the bright idea of holding the NDIS hostage to vulnerable people, or holding child care hostage to making cuts to the payments to vulnerable people, this Treasurer is generally at the seam of the biggest debacles. The best summary of this shambles we are debating right now really is the fact that for some time now this Treasurer, this Prime Minister, all the ministers and all of those opposite have been going around the country saying that this tax cut is absolutely essential to jobs and growth. It is their only policy for jobs and growth in this country. They have gone around for months and months saying that it is absolutely imperative that we have this, because without it there will be no jobs and growth. In the short time since the election this tax cut has gone from essential to expendable, and now we get all these weasel words from the Treasurer about whether or not this tax cut will survive at all. This was their one-point plan for jobs and growth and that one-point plan is now in tatters. The problem for the Treasurer, and the reason he cannot come to the despatch box and say whether or not the tax cuts still exist, is that he is in the unenviable position of knowing that he cannot keep the tax cuts, but nor can he ditch the tax cuts. The reason is that he has been given the choice between keeping the tax cuts or keeping his credibility, and, in his usual way, he has found a way to smash both. He has found a way to abandon the tax cuts, while simultaneously abandoning his credibility—it is quite an effort. It seems that if the government cannot hang on to its signature policy there is very little reason to hang on to the Treasurer. Already, we are seeing that process beginning, with the Prime Minister putting it about that the Treasurer is not quite up to the task of selling the budget and he, the Prime Minister, will probably have to do it himself. There are all of the sneaky little leaks in the pages of our newspapers, with all the colleagues on that side of the House, including the Prime Minister himself, considering that the Treasurer is not up to the task, not just of selling the budget, but he could not even get his one-point plan for jobs and growth through the parliament. It is important to understand that these tax cuts are likely hitting the fence not because the government has come to the realisation that they are unaffordable and unfair, which is the point that Labor has been making for some time and not because of some conversion or some realisation, or finally seeing common sense. These tax cuts are hitting the fence because they are so incompetent that their highest priority, their reason for being, the whole purpose of those opposite, and they cannot even convince the parliament and the Australian community, and not even sections of the business community, that these are a good idea. We have never supported this bill. We have not at any stage supported a $50 billion ram-raid on the budget. This budget vandalism sees more than $7 billion go to just four of Australia's biggest banks. We do not support it and we are proud that position. We are proud to support tax cuts for genuinely small businesses, the businesses that do fuel our local communities, the businesses in my area and right around the country that do work so hard and deserve some tax relief. We have supported them from the beginning. But we have not support of a tax cut for the very biggest businesses. The reason we have never supported this bill and these tax cuts is that they will smash the budget at a time when we have a deficit that has tripled between the first coalition budget, in 2014, and now, and we have a $133 billion blowout in net debt from the day the government came to office to now. It seems just common sense that Australia cannot afford a $50 billion tax cut for the biggest businesses, which is the point made in the amendment to this legislation moved by the member for McMahon. With a fiscal record like that—a fiscal reform of tripling the deficit and big blow-outs in debt—it is no wonder that the ratings agencies are circling this government and warning that the AAA credit rating, which matters for mortgages out in our neighbourhoods and towns and matters for confidence in our economy, is at risk because of the gross incompetence of those opposite, because of the shambles they have made of the budget. In that context we should never give $50 billion away in such an unfair way and in a way that smashes the budget. That is before we even get to the point the member for Oxley made about the $4 billion in interest that Australians would pay when the government borrowed $50 billion to give to others. I have said it before, and I will say it again— Ms Kate Ellis DZU Say it again. Dr CHALMERS 37998 thank you, Member for Adelaide—if you say to those opposite, 'Can we find the money to properly fund the NDIS,' they say, 'No, that's impossible.' 'Can we properly find the money to fund child care?' 'No, that couldn't possibly be done.' But if you say, 'Can we give $7 billion to the big banks?' They say, 'Of course we can.' 'Can we give $50 billion to the big companies in this country?' 'Of course we can.' They can find $50 billion then, but they cannot find it when it comes to the things that we really care about in this country: a decent social safety net or looking after people with disability. Even their own Treasury analysis of the tax cuts, and analysis that has been done by others, shows that the growth dividends from these tax cuts, despite being such a huge cost to the budget, will have a negligible impact on growth and a negligible impact on wages even some decades down the track. They are not worth the money that the government wants to spend on them. That is one of the reasons why people from the business community have started to come out and say: 'You know what? The company tax cut the government proposes is not the be-all and end-all for us.' Businesses make decisions on a whole range of issues: on infrastructure, on human capital, on the regulatory environment and on consumer confidence. All of these sorts of things matter, and it has been pleasing and it has been heartening to see elements of the business community make that point in recent weeks. Those opposite like to claim that if we transfer this money to the bottom line of companies there will be some miraculous impact on jobs and on wages. They are failing to understand that we have got booming company profits at the moment. There are really high company profits—I think the last available data said it was a boost of about 20 per cent—at the same time that we have record low wages. That link between company profits and wages that are paid to people who do the work for these companies has been severed. We have record low wage growth and we have these extraordinarily high company profits, so the claim that somehow, if you transfer another $50 billion to the bottom line of these companies, it will have some kind of boom in wages or employment is a laughable claim. It should be dismissed. Mr Howarth interjecting— Dr CHALMERS 37998 It is very tempting to take the interjection from the member for Petrie, but— Mr Howarth 247742 The member for Lilley supported them before and he was a member of staff. Dr CHALMERS 37998 The member for Petrie could not be more wrong. Mr Howarth 247742 The member for Lilley clearly supported them. Dr CHALMERS 37998 The member for Petrie comes in here and makes a laughable point. We have never supported these tax cuts, and nor should he. Mr Howarth 247742 The member for Lilley clearly supported them. Dr CHALMERS 37998 The member for Petrie has some kind of obsession with the member from Lilley. Mr Howarth 247742 It is the first time I have spoken about him in four years. Dr CHALMERS 37998 Every time the member for Petrie comes in here, he proves again why he is such a struggler in this place. The member for Petrie would do well to learn his facts before he pipes up. Mr Howarth 247742 Mate, I have got quotes from the member for Lilley. Dr CHALMERS 37998 In fact, the member for Petrie really should not pipe up in this context. Without any protection from the Deputy Speaker, who lets this fool interject over and over again without any intervention, I will just persevere. The DEPUTY SPEAKER MT4 I think the member for Rankin is quite able to look after himself. Dr CHALMERS 37998 I do my best. The DEPUTY SPEAKER MT4 He does not need my protection. Dr CHALMERS 37998 The biggest problem with these company tax cuts is their divisive nature. In a time when we have people looking for political alternatives, in a time when we have record low wages, in a time when people are struggling to get by, the government's bright idea is to cut family payments, to support cuts to penalty rates at the same time as they give $7 billion to the big banks. It is hard to imagine a more divisive agenda than this. The member for Petrie will not be able to say whether the tax cuts are coming or staying. He is probably a few days behind as usual, and he has probably come in here not realising that the Treasurer is going to ditch the tax cuts that the member for Petrie is speaking in favour of. Mr Howarth 247742 Well, if you vote for them, they will not be going anywhere. Dr CHALMERS 37998 My advice to the member for Petrie is to go and have a gander at the papers and see that the Treasurer has abandoned this tax cut that the member for Petrie is still arguing vehemently for. You are generally a couple of days or a couple of weeks behind. I will let you catch up. What we have got in the omnibus bill that was in the Senate last night, what we have got with the government's support for wage cuts for low-income earners, is an extraordinary contrast not just between this side of the House and that side of the House but also an extraordinary contrast between what they propose to do on that side of the House and the fair go that we cherish in this country. What they want to do over there—the member for Petrie and all of his colleagues over there on that side of the House—is make the fair go in this country an aspect of Australia's history and not an aspect of Australia's future. We will not stand for it. That is why we are proud to oppose these tax cuts that are about to hit the fence anyway, no matter what the member for Petrie says. The member for Petrie can charge into the debate saying they still should be going ahead; at the same time the Treasurer, in his office right now, is trying to work out how to slink back from these big business tax cuts. Whether the tax cuts stay or go, they will remain an aspiration of those opposite. They will remain a symbol of the government's intention to take money from the most vulnerable people in our community and to shower largesse on the wealthiest people in our community. They will remain a symbol of this redistribution of wealth that they drool over, which is to take money from people who are on family payments or take money from the NDIS or take money from people who work on Sundays to serve them coffees. They want to see money come out of the pockets of ordinary working people, and they want to see it go to the bottom line of the big four banks. That is a disgrace. For as long as they have that view, the Australian people will continue to turn on them. Some of them will continue to look for political alternatives in the extremes of our politics, but, mostly, people will judge them harshly for an agenda that takes money off the weakest in our community and showers largesse on the strongest. That is the main reason why are we oppose these big business tax cuts. We do not think that money should be showered on the biggest companies. We do not think that the big banks should get $7 billion tax cuts. It is very important to us. When the budget is in the mess that it is in, when the deficit has been tripled by those opposite and debt has blown out so substantially, the country cannot afford a $50 billion tax cut. The fact that so many speakers have dropped off the list for those opposite shows they know, as we know, that these tax cuts are probably going to hit the fence. We know that when that happens not only will they be humiliated—particularly if they stand up in a moment and defend these tax cuts—but also the Treasurer will be humiliated. If the government is not prepared to cling to the Treasurer's own policy, it is hard to see how the government will cling to the Treasurer himself. 12:37 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest I am not sure whether the member for Rankin has ever bought, run or owned a small business, but by the content of his speech I would have to say, no, he has not. I have. My husband and I bought our first small business, a dairy farm, on the day we got married. We learnt very, very early on how important interest rates and tax cuts are. We built a business at a time when interest rates went from 18 to 23 per cent. If you were a small business operating in that environment, every single point or per cent of a tax cut was critical to whether you survived or failed. Now, I would suggest that that is an experience that the member for Rankin has not had the courage to take a risk with. From the content of his speech, he has not. He does not understand small to medium enterprise or the people who are actually having a go which is what we support on this side and why we are so supportive of the measures in this Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill. I am very pleased to speak on this bill. I have every confidence in our Treasurer and the measures that we are taking as a government. In fact, when we look into the medium term it is a saving of around $250 billion on the mess left to us by Labor. So I will not be lectured by the other side. Australia might well be a geographical island; we are certainly not an economic one—which is the rubbish we hear from the other side, that somehow we stand in isolation. Well, we do not. In economic terms, the world is a much smaller place and a smaller and very competitive marketplace. As a dairy farm, my products are competing with those around the world. If a German group is landing a milk product into China at 65c a litre, I know that that is what I have to compete with. That is the nature of the market—the real world, not the fantasy world of the member for Rankin. When we were a group of independent colonies, early on in our Federation, we could survive easily on our domestic consumption, as we saw, and easy agricultural exports to the Old World. The nation did indeed ride on the sheep's back—and perhaps on dairy cows. But in the world of this 21st century, it is entirely different. As a small, open economy competing with the nearby fiscal giants, Australia's living standards are determined by the level of the terms of trade, our labour productivity, labour force participation and population—all of those. Improvements in our living standards must be driven by a higher level of labour productivity, which we as a government believe will be driven by lower company income tax rates. It is no longer sufficient to believe that the investment will simply come to Australia because of our stable government and safe investment environment. They were the staples underpinning our economy in the second half of the 20th century, and we constantly heard businesses talk of Australia being a safe investment option. But safe is no longer the determining factor. Today, a raft of nations are seeing a massive influx of capital, including many which were, until the turn of the century, considered developing just decades ago. Asia and Africa are both now magnets for investment capital and we in Australia are at risk of being forgotten by the policies of those opposite and seen as a wallflower in the global economic dance. The rewards available from investment in countries previously labelled as unsafe are too attractive to ignore. That is the competitive world we live in. Yet, within this new economic paradigm, ongoing investment in Australia is critical as one of the key drivers of our labour productivity and economic growth. That investment will demand a competitive corporate tax rate. Corporate tax rates that are increasingly uncompetitive will make it harder for Australia to continue to attract the necessary investment. Our corporate tax rate is high compared to many countries that we compete with for investment, especially those in the Asia-Pacific region. Of course, as we have heard from the other side and from the member for Rankin, Labor are arguing that this tax burden is better placed on corporations than on individual citizens. However, company tax usually is passed on so that the burden is carried ultimately by shareholders, consumers and employees. So the individual bears much of the burden anyway. A more competitive business tax environment would encourage higher levels of investment in Australia, which, as an absolute net exporter of capital we need, given the falling levels of private investment we have seen as we transition from the mining investment boom to broader based economic growth. The increased investment will benefit all hardworking Australians through increased employment and wages in the long run, predominantly through permanently higher after-tax real wages and consumption. That is how it works. As economies become more open, barriers to investment can have a greater impact on economic growth and real wages growth. In response, corporate income tax rates have fallen worldwide in recent years. This is our competitive environment. The loss of this competitive edge will have real impacts in the future. The United Kingdom reduced its main corporate tax rates in stages from 30 per cent in 2008 to 20 per cent from 1 April 2015. Over the period from 2008 to 2014, Canada reduced its main corporate tax rate from an average of 36.1 per cent to 26.5 per cent. And an extreme case, Singapore has reduced its corporate tax rate from 20 per cent to 17 per cent. So we do need more competitive tax rates just to be in the game, not to be ahead of the game just to be in the game. So reducing Australia's corporate tax rate would increase our appeal as a place to do business and that is what the opposite side used to agree with as well, and it would encourage high levels of investment in Australia. In Western Australia this is particularly relevant. We back small businesses and we understand their value to the economy. We are reducing their tax rate to 27.5 per cent, starting with businesses with a turnover of less than $10 million on 1 July of this year. This will deliver a lower tax rate for around 870,000 companies who employ over 3.4 million workers in this country. That is a great result for those small to medium businesses. Over 10 years, the government will encourage investment and higher-paid jobs by decreasing tax rates across the board. This helps to make Australian companies more internationally competitive, because it is a very tough global marketplace. That results in much better, higher living standards for Australians, and it is of benefit to all of us. On this side, we know that small businesses are a key driver in our economy. I see it at the local level all the time. It is the small to medium businesses that carry much of the weight of the economic multipliers in the $16 billion GDP region that is my South West. There are over two million actively trading businesses in Australia. Almost 96 per cent of those are small businesses and 3.8 per cent are medium businesses. The combined numbers of those two business types employ 70 per cent of the nation's private sector workers, and 59 per cent of all Australian workers are employed in small to medium businesses. It is no wonder we are focused on small to medium businesses. Small businesses, those with less than 20 employees, alone account for nearly 46 per cent of all Australia's businesses in the private sector. That is an extraordinary effort by the small business sector. As I have said previously in this place, so often it is a small business that will give the individual their first employment opportunity, and often, in the more senior years, it is a small business that will give somebody the final employment opportunity in their working life. The DEPUTY SPEAKER MT4 That is correct. Ms MARINO HWP They do an amazing job in this space. In my community, and in so many others that I see, the small to medium businesses support my football clubs, my sporting clubs and my community service organisations. The small businesses are often the glue that helps to hold our small communities together. It is important for me, as a dairy farmer, to be able to drive into my home community of Harvey and buy the basic items I need for my business. When we break down or we need an item for a repair or maintenance, whether it is for the milking machine or to do with our vehicles, we often to draw on other small businesses that are providing services in our community. That is the importance of small business right around Australia. I am very pleased that we in this government have been very proactive in supporting small businesses with many of the initiatives that we have taken. The instant asset write-off has been an absolute boon for many small businesses. Some of the businesses in my electorate are doing such a great job. I want to talk about Traffic Force. Traffic Force is a 100 per cent WA owned and operated business involved in traffic management solutions, and they are doing a fantastic job in Bunbury. I look at all of the farming businesses, the small to medium enterprises and, of course, our food manufacturers. So many of them are small to medium enterprises, and we have heard how agriculture has overtaken mining as our major exporter. How many other small to medium businesses, both direct production and manufacturing businesses, sit beneath them? There are thousands of them. These are the ones driving the exports. I have been able to secure nearly $10 million from this government to help upgrade the Busselton-Margaret River Regional Airport to enable it to manage international freight. That is going to be a transformative opportunity in the South West. Not only are we going to see the potential of 120,000 new tourists coming from, perhaps, this side of the world, some of the members in the House might choose to fly directly into the Busselton-Margaret River area and enjoy some of the amazing experiences and food. Outside of Perth, it is the events capital of Western Australia. We have so much to offer, and the fact that very soon you will be able to fly directly into this area is going to be an absolute economic multiplier. All sorts of small to medium businesses that we are seeking to offer tax relief to will be part of that growth and, in fact, will drive that growth and opportunity. I look at other small businesses like Think Water in Bunbury. Some of the work they do with irrigation systems is just amazing. Hastie Waste at Donnybrook has grown from a small business to be a key part of managing waste in our region. Accountancy and all sorts of service providers in my part of the world are also doing a great job. I want to finish on a company called BCE Surveying. They have the only 3D-survey-grade, mobile laser scanner in the Southern Hemisphere. They have taken a risk, invested their own money and gone out and bought and perfected this particular equipment. It is an amazing piece of equipment that can have a significant impact on the cost of building major roads and bridges, bringing them up to 3D-survey grade by driving through and capturing all of that information. They are doing an amazing job. Now they are going even further, investing in the type of laser that brings up all the services beneath the surface. There are opportunities in construction and maintenance of long-term assets with the sort of picture that that will give. If you were tunnelling and you were able to do a run-through with this 3D-survey-grade laser scanner to look at the top level, at all the buildings, you would be able to bring up the finer details of each building. Then, if there were claims made about, perhaps, increased damage to buildings, you could do another run with that particular piece of equipment and you would be able to bring up if and when there had been any damage. So this particular piece of equipment has incredible capabilities, and I commend BCE Surveying for actually investing and taking a risk and employing people to do so. And that is why we are so committed to the measures in this bill, and so committed to offering tax relief to small and medium businesses and to making sure that everybody investing in this country gets the opportunity they deserve. The DEPUTY SPEAKER MT4 Member for Forrest, just to clarify for Hansard: did you actually say, at the beginning of your address, that you purchased your farm on the day you were married? Ms MARINO HWP Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker—on the day we got married. My husband actually said to me: 'I hope you're not marrying me for my money. It is all printed in red.' And it was! 12:52 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde It is always a pleasure to rise in this House and speak about the tremendous things that this coalition government is doing to support business and economic growth in this great country. I rise to speak today on the coalition government's plan for greater investment and more jobs through the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016. Reducing the amount of tax that business pays, through this enterprise tax plan, is designed to help 1.8 million Australians who are looking for extra work to boost their take-home pay—and not only to boost their take-home pay. For those who are presently employed, there is the understanding that the businesses they work for are more stable and more financially secure and that that improves their job security and their prospects for the future. The concept is simple, albeit that those opposite do not seem to be able to grasp that concept so well. It is that business paying less tax frees up their money—and this is the important aspect: it is their money—to pay employees more and to give them more hours of work, and to invest in new equipment and to grow their businesses. It is important that, as a government, we continue to ensure we have a long-term, sustainable, social services security net for those in our community who are genuinely in need, including funding for health and education and the welfare budget. This will help those people in the community who need that hand up. But these important measures in this space cannot be achieved without having a strong economy, and to have a strong economy we need strong businesses of all sorts but in particular small business. To improve this, we are looking to reduce the tax burden on these businesses so that there is more money to employ people and to increase their hours of work and pay. This is why we do need a company tax cut. Those opposite have rejected the enterprise tax plan and want to deny small business and their hardworking employees access to further investment and growth opportunities. If those opposite get their way, our economy and the hardworking people in it will be the worse for their actions. Compared to many countries around the world with which we compete on a daily basis, we are now seeing that our corporate tax rate is coming to be at the high end of rates globally. And corporate tax rates which are increasingly uncompetitive are going to make it harder for Australia to continue to attract the necessary investment. This is important because we, as a nation, have had a history of requiring external capital investment in our country to grow and develop. That ongoing investment is one of the key drivers of growth in our economy, while company tax paid by companies is ultimately a burden that is passed on to consumers and employees. A more competitive business tax environment will lead to or encourage high levels of investment in Australia—or, importantly, will retain the existing levels of investment in this country, because, as I said before, as a net importer of capital, we need to ensure we have a competitive framework to attract and, importantly, maintain that capital. This is especially important in the current environment where we have falling or plateauing levels of private investment, as we have made the transition from the mining investment boom to broader-based economic growth. This increase in investment will benefit all hardworking Australians, not only those directly employed by those businesses but also those who are customers of or suppliers to those businesses, through an improved range of products and the purchase of new equipment. It is the flow-through and multiplier effects of this investment through our economy that do such a great job in growing the economy through a broad range of businesses. That is the value of this enterprise tax plan. And the big winners out of this plan are Australia's small businesses and those hardworking mum-and-dad businesspeople who are having a go and making an enormous contribution to our economy. Small businesses in Australia employ more than three million workers and, in 2013-14, added some $340 billion to our economy. Australia needs our small business sector to succeed. It is the home of enterprise and opportunity and often the place where big ideas begin. Leading into last year's federal election, the coalition government provided its vision for the future of Australia, and that vision was to see our great nation grow and prosper and to give every opportunity to Australians to excel. When we shared our vision for Australia, we also presented our plan for that vision, and the Australian people endorsed our plan and returned us to government so we could see it through. With our government's major plan to grow the economy and create more jobs, we promised to stimulate small business by cutting the company tax rate to 27.5 per cent for businesses with an annual turnover of less than $10 million. Many of us in this chamber have small businesses in our electorates. In my electorate of Forde there are more than 15,000 small businesses. Reducing the company tax rate for these 15,000 small businesses in Forde creates a tremendous opportunity for these small, and in many cases family, business operators to grow and develop their business. It reduces financial pressures and gives them the cash flow they need to reinvest and grow their business. As I said before, this money is not the government's money; it is the money of these business people. It is money that they and their employees generate through their time, effort and ideas. Reducing the company tax rate means the difference between a business potentially stagnating or using that opportunity to reinvest and purchase new assets that help grow the business, new plant and equipment. It means the difference between potentially struggling to manage current operations and expanding their workforce to improve customer service, product development and business turnover. My electorate of Forde, located in South-East Queensland, is one of the fastest growing regions in Australia and one of our most prosperous areas is the Yatala enterprise area. The businesses in the Yatala enterprise area are of a wide variety, large to small. They produce a range of products that many would never hear about because they go into some other bigger product. Our population is growing, new homes are being built and our road infrastructure is getting busier. It is why we need growth in our business sector: to provide the government with the revenue and funds necessary to be able to build the infrastructure and services we require to support this growing community. The government needs to support this growth. We want to see our electorates prosper, and this is what this enterprise tax plan is designed to do. The coalition government recognises that business taxes represent a higher cost for small business, which is why we will reduce the tax burden on small business first. Since many small businesses are not companies, the government will extend the unincorporated small business tax discount from 2016-17. The discount will be available to businesses with a turnover of less than $5 million, up from the current threshold of $2 million, and will be increased to eight per cent. Further support will be provided for small businesses to expand and create jobs. Access to a number of tax concessions will be provided by increasing the threshold for those concessions to $10 million, up from the current threshold of $2 million. These changes alone will benefit over 90,000 small businesses in Australia. I am proud to say that the many hardworking small business owners in my electorate of Forde are ready to embrace these opportunities that these tax concessions will provide. For some it will mean investing in new equipment, expanding their workforce or taking on trainees and apprentices, for others it will mean investing in marketing, improved technology or expanding into the international market. However these businesses decide to reinvest their hard earned dollars, it means more opportunities for Australians. This is the value of the enterprise tax plan and why is it so important that this enterprise tax plan passes the parliament. What is the alternative? Well, there isn't really one from those opposite, other than higher taxes for hardworking Australians and small business people. Those opposite have rejected our enterprise tax plan and want to deny small businesses and their hardworking employees' access to further investment and growth opportunities. This is despite the fact that the Leader of the Opposition said in 2011: Cutting the company income tax rate increases domestic productivity and domestic investment. More capital means higher productivity and economic growth and leads to more jobs and higher wages. This was despite the shadow Treasurer writing in his book: It's a Labor thing to have the ambition of reducing company tax, because it promotes investment, creates jobs and drives growth. I find it fascinating that those opposite now consistently claim that we do not need the enterprise tax plan because education will deliver a bigger and more immediate economic benefit. The problem with that is that if we want education to deliver those benefits, then those people who are educated need a job. If we do not have lower taxes and create the opportunities for businesses to grow, develop and prosper and if we do not have jobs, then what are they going to use their education for? This is why it is so important that this plan is passed in this parliament, so it creates the opportunity and the incentive for business to grow, prosper and develop. It will provide opportunities for employers to invest in their businesses; it will give businesses the certainty they need to make long-term investments. That certainty also creates the opportunity for business to grow, because the business owners have a confidence in investing that capital. It also gives foreign investors the opportunity and the security they need to make long-term business decisions. It is only the coalition government that has a plan to support business growth and economic development. We are supporting Australians who want to work more hours, we are supporting Australian who want to earn more and we are supporting Australians who care about securing their future. The government's enterprise tax plan will boost the Australian economy and we will see benefits in every electorate, in every home and in every business. I commend this bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Competition and Consumer Amendment (Misuse of Market Power) Bill 2016 34

Competition and Consumer Amendment (Misuse of Market Power) Bill 2016

Second Reading 34 13:07 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner There are species of animals known as tardigrades—or water bears or moss piglets—which are considered to be some of the most resilient species in the universe. They can go without food or water for 30 years. They can survive at temperatures of 150 degrees Celsius and minus 200 degrees Celsius. They can withstand pressure of 6,000 atmospheres, six times the pressure at the bottom of the Mariana Trench. They can be dehydrated for 10 years, withstand 1,000 times more radiation than other animals, cope with environmental toxins and survive in outer space. They are indestructible—and so too are bad National Party economic ideas. They just do not die. That is what we are debating today. We are debating the tardigrade of economic policy: the effects test—a policy which has been recognised by serious economists and by formerly serious economic thinkers on the other side of the House to be a bad economic idea but which, like the tardigrade, has survived the pressure, the temperature and the attacks upon it to come before us today in this bad bill, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Misuse of Market Power) Bill 2016. Let's be clear: an effects test has been to a coalition cabinet before and been rolled. In the Financial Review, Phillip Coorey wrote, on 2 September 2015: For reasons the government has not explained, the debate was shelved indefinitely. Had it gone ahead, Mr Billson risked being rolled with the cabinet heavy hitters, many of them lawyers, opposed to his proposals. These included Attorney-General George Brandis, who has extensive legal experience in the area— These are Mr Coorey's words, not mine— Julie Bishop, Joe Hockey, Malcolm Turnbull, Mathias Cormann and Andrew Robb. It was made clear in other reportage, by Lenore Taylor, that the member for Higgins and the member for Wentworth were not comfortable with an effects test. It is very clear that, when making a decision on the merits of the policy, the member for Wentworth, Malcolm Turnbull, opposed an effects test. Bob Baxt said that it was his understanding, as he put it: There is a clear body within the cabinet including Kelly O'Dwyer and Malcom Turnbull that will not be comfortable with this proposed change. In opposing an effects test, they would be in good company, because many who have looked carefully at this have taken the view that an effects test is a bad idea. Richard Goyder of Wesfarmers said: Every year we look at … 20 new Bunnings warehouses, 30 new Coles stores, 20 new Kmart stores … does that mean now every time we have a capital expenditure proposal come to us that we've got to look at the likely effect on competition? Former ACCC chair Graeme Samuel said: Under the Harper amendment, businesses would curb their competitive behaviour because of the legal risk. This would have drowned the commercial activity of big business in a sea of uncertainty. Lawyers and economists would need to sit at the right hand of business CEOs to guide them on the legality of every significant transaction. One only has to go through the series of competition reviews conducted since 1976 to see recommendations against an effects test. The 1976 Swanson committee recommended against an effects test on the basis that 'the section should only prohibit abuses by a monopolist that involve a proscribed purpose'. The Blunt review in 1979 recommended against on the basis that it would 'give the section too wide an application, bringing within its ambit much legitimate business conduct'. The 1984 green paper did recommend an effects test, one of only two of the last 12 competition reviews to do so. The 1989 Griffiths committee said that there was 'insufficient evidence to justify the introduction of an effects test'. The 1991 Cooney committee said that an effects test 'might unduly broaden the scope of conduct captured by section 46 and challenge the competitive process itself'. In 1993, the Hilmer committee recommended against an effects test, saying it 'would not adequately distinguish between socially detrimental and socially beneficial conduct'. The 1999 Baird committee said 'such a far-reaching change to the law may create much uncertainty in issues dealing with misuse of market power'. The 2001 Hawker committee recommended against an effects test and said it would 'await the outcome of further cases on section 46 before considering any change to the law'. The 2003 Dawson review said 'the addition of an effects test would increase the risk of regulatory error and render purpose ineffective as a means of distinguishing between pro-competitive and anti-competitive' conduct. The 2004 competition inquiry by the Senate Economics References Committee said that, while the committee was sympathetic to some of the arguments, the difficulties with introducing it meant that the committee did not recommend the inclusion of an effects test. So, of 12 competition reviews, 10 recommended against an effects test. Writing in the Financial Review on 9 September 2015, Graeme Samuel and Stephen King wrote: The proposed amendment was a fundamental contradiction to the economic philosophy underpinning our competition laws. They went on to say: Let us hope that this unfortunate blight on an otherwise excellent Harper report is dead, buried and cremated. And dead, buried and cremated it would have been had it not been for the change in prime ministership. Under former Prime Minister Abbott, an effects test had been sent to the dustbin of history, where it belonged. But, because of a dodgy deal between the National Party and the member for Wentworth in order to gain the prime ministership, an effects test came roaring back. The member for Wentworth, Malcolm Turnbull, knows it is bad economics and argued as much when the question came to cabinet. Yet, for the sake of getting some National Party votes, the effects test, this tardigrade of economic policy, has found its way back. As the shadow Treasurer has noted, one only needs to consider the real-world impact of an effects test for business. He gave the example of a business considering a discounting campaign. If a business notices its sales are down and wants to win back some customers by engaging in vigorous discounting, right now that kind competition is safe, because the law looks to the purpose of the discounting. Under the proposed effects test, the business decision makers would have to consider the effect their discounting would have on competition, considering the different geographic and product markets, and the impact of that might well be to chill competition. Major retailers often put in place uniform pricing on dry goods across their stores. That means if you are buying toothpaste it costs the same at a Woolworths store whether it is in Toorak or Toowoomba, but if you put in place an effects test then the effect of that might well be to hamper competition. Those retailers have warned that an effects test could do away with uniform pricing, which would mean that the price of an effects test would be paid by customers in regional Australia, who currently benefit from uniform pricing. The possibility an effects test might drive up prices, though, does not seem to trouble the Deputy Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister was asked in an interview last year, 'What about $1 milk?' and replied: I obviously believe that the proper price of milk is above a dollar. He went on to say that we sell milk to China for up to $11, so the Deputy Prime Minister clearly believes the proper price for milk is not $1 a litre; it could be as much as $11 a litre. $11-a-litre milk would certainly be a drag on the cost of living for many Australians and a burden on many Australian households, yet we have a Deputy Prime Minister championing an effects test, untroubled by the notion that an effects test might lead to the price of milk going to $11. This is a government which is adrift from good economic policy. As former Treasurer Costello has said: If you take the view that competition is there for the consumer, which is what I believe is the fact, everything else will fit into place. That's why I'm against the so-called effects test. The so-called effects test is designed to protect competitors, particularly less efficient ones, from a competitive challenge. Indeed, the member for Hughes, Craig Kelly, has, in this place, described an effects test as 'a Trojan Horse'. I am delighted to see him on the speaking list for this debate and I look forward to seeing whether he still regards this as being a Trojan Horse and as being bad policy, which is what he told this House when he last spoke about it. We also had the announcement in the papers today that the government is going to make further tweaks to section 46. These are hasty, last-minute amendments being thrust upon this House. Just as we have seen this week on the diverted profits tax, with further amendments being foreshadowed, we have further amendments being foreshadowed on section 46. We are, today, 723 days on from when the Harper review was ordered to be released by then Prime Minister Abbott. It has been 372 days since the Turnbull government responded to the misuse of market power recommendations and yet today, with the bill in the House, the government is foreshadowing amendments to its own bill. It is a further demonstration, if any were needed, that the tardigrades are in control; that the bad economics of the National Party just will not die; and that the government has given up careful, considered reform and the consultation that involves in favour of simply doing whatever they feel like doing when they wake up and have their breakfast. On the Labor side of the House we have been absolutely clear and consistent in our commitment to good competition policy. At the last election, we proposed increasing civil penalties under the Australian Consumer Law from $1.1 million to $10 million, bringing penalties in line with the competition provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and ensuring that, when you have consumer rip-offs like the Nurofen and Dulux examples, the penalties are sufficient to meet the offence. We proposed adopting the European Union's penalty system for anticompetitive conduct, based on 30 per cent of the annual sales of the relevant product or service multiplied by the number of years the infringement took place, limited to the greater of 10 per cent of annual turnover or $10 million. We proposed using some of the revenues from increased penalties to increase the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's litigation budget, giving it greater teeth by increasing its budget from $24.5 million to a maximum of twice that level—$49 million. At the last election, we proposed amending the Competition and Consumer Act to give a market studies function to the ACCC so that it could look systematically at industries, with a power to compel witnesses and really go to the bottom of what is going on with anticompetitive conduct. Every now and then, the ACCC is able to look into an industry—as it is has recently done with the beef auction industry—but it does not have those compulsory powers that its British counterpart does and that Labor's proposal, the market studies power, would give it. We proposed amending section 76 of the Competition and Consumer Act to allow the court to apply higher penalties for conduct that targets or disproportionally impacts disadvantaged Australians. We proposed to introduce a requirement in the Competition and Consumer Act that the ACCC prioritise the investigation of conduct that targets or disproportionally impacts disadvantaged Australians and, at last election, we proposed tasking government to investigate the impact of increased market concentration on income inequality. We also took to the Australian people a proposal for access to justice for small business. This would see small businesses have an opportunity to bring on cases that are in the public interest without the fear of adverse cost orders. We proposed that the Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman be given the power to advise small businesses who want to bring cases with a general application and not have costs awarded against them. Labor is serious about competition, but the government is not. The government has caved to the tardigrades in the National Party and to this bad economic idea of an effects test. 13:22 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax I found it hilarious that the member for Fenner compared the idea of an effects test to a species that simply will not go away, a species that will outlast any condition and live in any habitat. Well, all I can say in response is that a good idea never dies. But I am not surprised that the member for Fenner and the Labor Party are so adamantly opposed to this legislation, because, at the end of the day, this bill seeks to contain, to curb, misuse of market power. Put in a different way, it seeks to contain any misuse of monopolistic power. Since the union movement effectively controls the Labor Party—the union movement made up of a series of monopolies—it is understandable that, out of principle, the Labor Party will oppose anything that looks, smells and sounds like a restriction of monopolistic misuse of power. But the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Misuse of Market Power) Bill 2016 is a good bill, which is why I rise in support of it today. The bill seeks to deal with one of the fundamental challenges in free market economies everywhere, which is to ensure that competition flourishes. Competition inherently creates winners and losers, and, at a Darwinian level, that is what the free market is all about. Dare I say, it is what makes the problem of dealing with monopoly situations so difficult. As the High Court has said in a passage that is often quoted in this context, because it is just so compelling and clear: Competition by its very nature is deliberate and ruthless. Competitors jockey for sales, the more effective competitors injuring the less effective by taking sales away. Their Honours said: Competitors almost always try to 'injure' each other in this way … and such injuries are inevitable consequences of the competitive environment our laws seek to foster. Herein lies the challenge that this bill seeks to address. The competitiveness of the marketplace—the opportunity to fight, to win, to lose—must be protected. This requires acknowledgement of the fact that, if one misuses the power they accrue as a result of winning in the marketplace, then in doing so they compromise the process of competition itself, thus weakening the competitiveness of the very market in which they operate. This concept of balancing the right of companies to compete with them having a commensurate responsibility not to misuse the power they accrue in the process, to my mind, is an attempt to address what Lord Acton pointed out nearly 130 years ago—that power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Monopolistic power is the antithesis of competition, for it tempts the misuse of power—and that, I hope all members would agree, is something our laws must militate against. We are of course not the first Australian parliament to grapple with this question. Our first effort to deal with it was in 1915, but it was not until the Menzies era, post World War II, as the pace of the global economy picked up, that major efforts began to reduce the adverse consequences of excessive market concentration. In 1960 the Governor-General, William Morrison, said: The development of tendencies to monopoly and restrictive practices in commerce and industry has engaged the attention of the Government which will give consideration to legislation to protect and strengthen free enterprise against such a development. What flowed from that commitment of the Menzies government was a historic piece of legislation, the Trade Practices Act 1965, which sought to establish principles of fairness in business across a very broad canvas, but especially in relation to this issue of appropriate use of market power and constraints on the misuse of market power by the then emerging big operators. Since 1974 until here and now, section 46 of the act, which has now become the Competition and Consumer Act, has sought to define 'misconduct' in relation to the use of market power through two legal tests. The first involves the question of whether the entity was taking advantage of its market power, and the second involves an entity's intent. That is the question of purpose—whether the purpose of an activity seeks the elimination or the cause of substantial damage to a competitor, or the prevention of another entity entering the market, or the deterrence of a person from engaging in anticompetitive conduct. The legal arguments, and indeed the arguments in this place around the explicit, practical meaning of both the 'take advantage' and the 'purpose' tests of section 46 have been long, complex and, frankly, confusing. But the bottom line in the view of the government, and in the view of a recent root-and-branch review of this issue, is that these tests have ultimately proved to be inadequate. The 'take advantage' test has faltered in the courts, with an effective defence being that a particular form of behaviour that is alleged to be inappropriate for a firm with market power is permissible for a firm without market power. Thus it prompts the reasonable question: how then can it be considered to be taking advantage? If the behaviour is okay and legal for a firm without market power, how can it not be the same for a firm with market power? But it is the 'purpose' test that has really been assessed— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member for Fairfax will be given an opportunity at that time to conclude his contribution. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 38 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS New South Wales: Gosford By-Election 38 13:30 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell The Gosford by-election is in full swing. This will be the first chance for New South Wales voters to have their say on the new Premier and health minister. Labor's candidate, seven-time Paralympic champion and local schoolteacher Liesl Tesch, is bringing her formidable gold-medal-winning dedication and performance to standing up for local health care. Residents on the Central Coast will go to the polls on 8 April. This will be a referendum on health. Labor has announced that it will set up a nurse-led, walk-in centre at Gosford in the peninsula as part of its new approach to health and hospitals on the Central Coast. A nurse-led, walk-in centre is run by a small team of 10 nurses providing free medical advice between 7.30 am and 10 pm seven days a week. Patients are aged two and older and present with minor ailments and injuries. This is in response to a lack of access to GPs on the Central Coast and the overstretched emergency department at Gosford Hospital, which has long waits. Gosford Hospital's emergency department has some of the longest waits in the state, and almost half of the emergency department presentations are in the two least urgent categories. New South Wales Labor has reiterated its opposition to the privatisation of Wyong Hospital—our community hospital—and has grave concerns that Gosford Hospital is next on the hit list. Labor is committed to public hospitals and public health, not the Americanisation of the New South Wales health system and not the privatisation of our community hospitals. I call on everyone to vote Labor. Chisholm Electorate: Crossway LifeCare 38 13:32 Ms BANKS 18661 Chisholm It was my great pleasure to attend the opening of the new LifeCare centre at Burwood East on Sunday afternoon. The new centre is described as Crossway's 'heart response' to those struggling in the local community. LifeCare is a community services organisation passionate about helping people in tough places flourish. It provides help for people in our local community who are experiencing hardship, such as relationship issues, depression and anxiety, domestic violence, addictions and other challenging life situations. Put simply, LifeCare is rebuilding lives. One person whose life is being rebuilt is Sam. He shared his heart and truly inspirational story to well-being and success with the integral support of LifeCare. LifeCare's services include counselling, mentorship, financial coaching, community meals, as well as an incredible women's centre—a safe haven run by women for women. It was truly wonderful to join the Crossway community to open their new centre and celebrate their amazing work in Chisholm and the broader community. The centre is a haven ably run by the fantastic employees and numerous volunteers. The new centre will make it possible to help even more people. Congratulations to Pastor Dale Stephenson, board chair Tim Wilson, chief operating officer Gail Thannhauser and the entire community on this fabulous milestone. I would also like to extend my particular best wishes to Gail and her partner on their upcoming wedding tomorrow. Perth Electorate: Lifeline Brunch 38 13:33 Mr HAMMOND 80109 Perth On Sunday just gone, something wonderful happened in the middle of my electorate. On Central Avenue, the wonderful and larger-than-life Vince Garreffa and his lovely wife Anne hosted the 21st Aspinall Family fundraising brunch. I tell you what, Deputy Speaker, you could not move for those who were there to either donate to the wonderful cause of Lifeline, for the wonderful 'Perth-onalities' that were around, for the celebrity chefs who were cooking the breakfast to make sure that everyone who was there was in a terrific position to donate to this amazing charity that had been supported by Vince and Anne over 21 years. It was supported not only by Vince and Anne but by another icon of the Western Australia community. Of course, that person was Graham Mabury, the host of 33 years' of the 6PR Nightline family, as we have come to be known. And, of course, there was Verity James, who did a wonderful job of keeping things moving along. The auction started, and did it what! Over the last 21 years Vince and Anne, the Mondos team, the Nightline team and Perth community have raised over $2 million for Lifeline. Due to some fast and furious auctioneering and some lovely, warm and generous hearts—and wallets!—of the Perth community, I am very proud to acknowledge that Vince and Anne and the team raised over $403,000 on Sunday morning for Lifeline—a wonderful cause to help prevent suicide. Well done, Vince and Anne. Well done, team. Australian Democracy 39 13:35 Mr BROAD 30379 Mallee One of the best parts of my jobs is meeting young Australians and going into the schools and talking to them. And these are things that I tell them: the Parliament belongs to them; this is the people's House; a country gets a government it deserves. I say to them, 'You either have your say or you get involved, and if you get involved you can change the world.' I also say, 'We value your ideas. We are not here to come up with all of the solutions. When you have ideas and solutions, tell us, and then we can pass them on.' I also say that the parliament is at one end of Canberra and the War Memorial is at the other end, commemorating the death of 102,000 Australians. I tell those young Australians, 'Don't waste your vote; it's been bought at a price.' 'Our system of government is very special. I say to them, 'There's only one degree of separation between you, the young Australian, and the leader of the country—and, that is, your federal member of parliament. You can talk to them. They can talk to the Prime Minister. That is a very unique and special thing.' And I say to them that if we get lazy, if we get corrupt, then they could perhaps run and replace us. When I go out and talk to the schools, I am really inspired by our young Australians. We do a bit of a role play; we have a lot of fun. We implore them that this parliament is for them. Coming up, the Mildura council is putting forward applicants for the youth parliament. This is an opportunity for them to get involved to put forward their ideas. Apply. We want to see young people having their great say about this democracy. Macquarie Electorate: Legal Aid 39 13:36 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie Did you know that even with current funding levels, 160,000 people are turned away every year from community legal centres because they simply do not have the resources to help. Turned away, and to what? They are turned back to a violent partner, to homelessness and to simply not knowing what to do or where to go. Thanks to this government, from July 1 these centres will be forced to turn away even more people as they cop a 30 per cent funding cut—a cut that will hurt the Elizabeth Evatt Legal Centre and the Hawkesbury Nepean Community Legal Centre in my electorate. This is a cut to services that are a place of last resort for many people, services that help with a range of things from tenancy issues to domestic violence, child support and fines—services that will now, at the hands of the Prime Minister, struggle to stay open. Both the Hawkesbury and the Blue Mountains centres tell me that hours of operation will have to be cut and staffing levels will be lowered. The member for Calare should care about this too, because our centre services many people in Lithgow, Oberon and Bathurst. We cannot expect pro bono work by lawyers to bridge this gap, as the Law Council of Australia President warned today. They already provide many hours of work but need a supported community legal centre structure to operate within. If something as valuable as a community legal centre is not safe from this government, then nothing is. I am wondering if anyone opposite has a conscience because, if you did, you could not let this happen. North Sydney Electorate: Lavender Bay 39 13:38 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney A priority for me since my election to parliament has been the protection of our harbour environment and its foreshores. It is a passion that I share with local residents and why I have been supporting a campaign to ensure the future of Lavender Bay on Sydney Harbour. Residents have been working to see the little-used Lavender Bay rail line given a future worthy of its location beside this bay. I pay tribute to all those residents—several hundred of them—who have been involved in this campaign. The track once formed part of the North Shore Line before the completion of the Harbour Bridge and is now used for training and stabling. We have urged the state government to ensure this land remains in public hands and to adopt a visionary approach for its future. We want to see it become Sydney's own high-line—one that would rival those in Paris and New York. What an incredible feature it could become for both Sydney residents and visitors to our city. I am therefore excited that this week the Berejiklian government announced it was giving an iron-clad commitment to ensure the Lavender Bay rail line will remain in public hands when it is no longer required for railway purposes. Just as importantly, the government has committed to investigate the high-line proposal and will establish a process bringing together the community and state agencies for this purpose. I want to congratulate the New South Wales Premier, Gladys Berejiklian, and the Liberal candidate for North Shore, Felicity Wilson, for their commitment to this outcome. I know it is an issue Felicity raised with the Premier as one of her highest priorities for our area. It is a great outcome and the most concrete start we have had to creating a future for Lavender Bay which will reflect its extraordinary beauty. (Time expired) Racial Discrimination Act 1975 40 13:39 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra Multicultural communities around Australia are uncertain and they are anxious. They are uncertain about whether this government cares about them, and they are anxious that their basic human right to freedom from discrimination will not be protected anymore. They are scared about the message that this government is sending to bigots and racists across the country with its changes to 18C. I was there in the beginning, at the birth of 18C. I began my career in Attorney-General's and I was involved in the public consultation on 18C. I was struck by the people I met during that consultation—Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory, Italian and Greek communities in Western Australia and Melbourne, and Jewish communities in Sydney. They told me stories about their traumatic experiences of racial discrimination. They gave me a sense of the pain, embarrassment and humiliation of racism and bigotry. Nobody should be subject to this behaviour. What sort of hate speech is the government willing to accept? We need to protect our multicultural communities, not allow them to be bullied and oppressed. We are a successful multicultural nation that needs these protections in place to ensure we remain a success. The government has claimed these changes will strengthen both discrimination laws and freedom of speech. Which is it? Is it protection of freedom of speech, or strengthening of discrimination laws? I was there at the beginning and I do not intend to be there at the end of 18C. (Time expired) Trade with China 40 13:41 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright It gives me great pleasure to rise and inform the House that, as we stand here in our nation's capital, in the parliament, in the Great Hall at this very moment is a formal welcoming reception for none other than the Premier of the State Council of China, Premier Li Keqiang. We welcome him to our country and welcome the benefits that he brings as a result of the free trade agreement. If I can just indulge and lighten the room, I was not able to stay for all of his speech but in his opening remarks he spoke, in light of last night's atrocities in London, about our willingness to stand together and uniformly fight the fight against terror. But he also spoke about his admiration of and his longing for good Australian steak. Being in the Great Hall, he was looking forward to enjoying a nice juicy rib, or a rump or something, and we gave him chicken. It was quality chicken that nonetheless probably came from my electorate. Most of the stuff on the plate probably came from my electorate—the chicken could have. The vegetables could have come from my electorate. It is what we want to do in the electorate of Wright: we want to feed the world. It is only the free trade agreements that we have negotiated that will provide opportunities for us, in particular our cattle market. The Brazilian market collapsed last night, and as a result there are enormous opportunities for my local growers. National Disability Insurance Scheme 40 13:43 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson Labor, as the author of the NDIS, is committed to its success, but there are problems and they should not and cannot be ignored. Today, for the second time, the Newcastle Herald has reported on the despair of Dawn Lhota, of Mallabula in my electorate of Paterson, over her son Graham Roberts's NDIS experiences. Since the New South Wales government privatised home care services, Graham has been charged $320 per day for two EpiPen injections. That is because a nurse, not a carer, has to give them, at a cost of $92 an hour plus travel. Dawn is worried that Graham's package will run out. She has asked the provider for a breakdown of his account and they said they do not have to provide it. Sometimes the carers do not show up. Graham is 37, wheelchair bound, catheterised and an insulin dependent diabetic. He cannot get out of bed by himself. One day when a carer did not show up Dawn phoned to complain and was asked, 'Can't he just stay in bed for the day?' Seriously! Dawn complained to the New South Wales Minister for Disability Services, who handballed it to the federal Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services. She has been helpful in the past and I am hoping that she can help Graham. A bigger problem, Dawn says, is that the NDIS does not deem reasonable and necessary the physio, massage and personal training that Graham used to get. He does not go to the gym to get buff; he goes to keep using his hands. The NDIS is too important. We must make sure it is functioning properly. (Time expired) Dawson Electorate: Employment 40 13:44 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson The $500 million Mackay Ring Road stage 1 project will create 600 jobs for concreters, plant operators, drivers, labourers and many more. The project will turn around a lot of dirt, a lot of gravel, a lot of steel and a lot of concrete. We have businesses already in the community who do just that, and we have people with the necessary skills and experience. All that business and all those jobs should mean a huge boost to the local economy at a time when we badly need it. The Mackay Region has done it tough in the mining downturn and for the region to truly benefit from the Mackay Ring Road a fair share of those jobs must go to people who live and spend their pay packet in the local community. While the federal government has stumped up the bulk of the funding for stage 1 of the Mackay Ring Road, the project is administered by the state government, so it falls on the state government to decide who gets the tender and the jobs. I am asking locals in the Mackay Region to join the fight by signing a letter to the Premier of Queensland voicing the community's concerns. We do not want a southern contractor giving all the jobs to southerners and leaving locals in the lurch. We are calling on the Queensland government to do the right thing by the Mackay Region and make jobs for locals a priority. The letter is available to be signed at a website that I have set up—www.jobsforlocals.com.au. That website will be operational by the weekend, and I encourage anyone who wants to see more jobs for locals, whether they be local workers or local contractors, to sign that letter so the Premier gets the message that we want jobs for locals. Green, Mr Bryan 41 13:46 Ms KEAY 262273 Braddon Last Friday the former Tasmanian state Labor leader and member for Braddon, Bryan Green, retired after 19 years of service to the Tasmanian people. Bryan was first elected in 1998, and I first met him in 2002. Bryan has been my employer and is my friend. He encouraged me to stand for public office, just as he encouraged the new state Labor leader, Rebecca White, to stand for state parliament in 2009. Bryan has made enormous contributions to Tasmania and to my electorate of Braddon. Some of the examples of Bryan's contributions to Tasmania are the Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement, the expansion of the salmon industry, the creation of the last marine reserves in Tasmania at Port Davey on the west coast and Kent Group in Bass Strait and the massive expansion of Tasmania's irrigation schemes—the same schemes the Deputy Prime Minister takes credit for, but they are Labor projects started by Jim Bacon, David Llewellyn and Bryan Green. In Braddon, Bryan's achievements were many, including the Circular Head Community and Recreation Centre, the Ta Ann veneer mill in Smithton, Bass Highway upgrades through Sisters Hills, Wynyard wharf redevelopment, North West Renal Unit in Burnie, Burnie waterfront development, Ulverstone wharf upgrade, Ulverstone to Turners Beach shared pathway, TasPorts headquarters in Devonport and Meercroft Park multi-use sporting centre. On top of this, he has helped thousands of constituents over the years, which has been reflected in the strong support he received at multiple elections. I wish him well as a citizen of Tasmania. Banks Electorate: Yeramba Lagoon 41 13:47 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks Yeramba Lagoon at Picnic Point is in a completely unacceptable condition and has been for a number of years. The lagoon, which was previously enjoyed by locals, is now a marshy wasteland. It is completely unacceptable and it needs to be fixed. What we have done is we have secured a $300,000 grant from the federal government to provide for the weir through which the water runs to the lagoon to be fixed. What that is going to mean is that the water will once again flow into the lagoon, and that will deal with the very bad environmental issue that we have there at the moment. We also going to be sending a Green Army team there for six months this year to get rid of all of the weeds, marsh and all that material that should not be in the lagoon. It is going to go. It should have gone years ago, but it will go this year. Today I met with John and Ashley from Skillset Environment, who are the main contractors on the upcoming Green Army project. It was great to see them and talk through the detail of this project. For Panania, for Picnic Point and for the surrounding community, we need to restore Yeramba Lagoon to what it used to be, which is a lagoon, from what it is now, which is a mess. That is what will be occurring this year. New South Wales: Floods 41 13:49 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam For the last two weeks, the Illawarra has battled wild weather. After a week of being hit by hard, heavy-hitting rain we had flash flooding, which resulted in road closures, public transport disruptions and damage to many properties throughout the region. It was a difficult time for our local SES, police and rescue workers. There were over 400 calls for help across the region and at least 30 rescues in the Unanderra area alone, with people in cars getting stuck in floodwaters, damage to property and roads closed, causing lots of traffic disruption. I want to thank the rescue workers, the police, the SES and the volunteers for their service to the community and for all the work they have done over the last couple of weeks and every week throughout the year. I want to make special mention of the Illawarra South Coast SES, the City of Shellharbour unit and the men and women of the Lake Illawarra Local Area Command. Amidst all of this, our local community suffered a terrible, terrible loss. On Thursday last week, an 11-year-old boy, Ryan Teasdale, went missing in the floodwaters. The community rallied around the SES, the police and the hundreds of volunteers in search for young Ryan. Amongst the volunteers were two off-duty firefighters who searched waterways near Riley Park into the early hours of the morning. Tragically, after an extensive search, young Ryan's body was found and recovered. Words cannot express the sadness the entire community feels, and my thoughts, and I am sure every man's and woman's thoughts here, go out in support of the community and this young boy's family. Murray Electorate: Disability Services 42 13:50 Mr DRUM 56430 Murray Last Friday I had the opportunity to visit Echuca and to visit Community Living & Respite Services' new project that is getting built in Eyre Street, Echuca. It is a $1.1 million residential building that has the opportunity for four supported living apartments. There will be two independent living apartments and a separate room for an activity area. It certainly is amazing construction that is going on. I congratulate Mark O'Mahoney, the builder. That project looks like it is due to be finished in the middle of this year. There was a $350,000 commitment from the coalition government towards this construction of these living arrangements, and that money was delivered through the NDIS Sector Development Fund as part of the Specialist Disability Accommodation Initiative. We also took an opportunity to go and visit Kim in her house, because her building was built last year. She has been living there along with three others who need supported accommodation and along with some supported-accommodation workers, as well as a couple of other independent living clients who the Community Living & Respite Services from Echuca are able to provide accommodation for. This project is only $50,000 short of being fully funded, and I call on all of the Echuca community to continue to get behind this— (Time expired) Queensland: Business 42 13:52 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert As this government does not appear to have a plan for jobs in regional Queensland and specifically my electorate of Herbert, I have taken up the challenge myself. Since taking up this role last year I have had numerous people raising concerns with me about Townsville projects going to southern businesses. This is deeply concerning for businesses in our community, especially as our unemployment rate is so high and our economy is struggling. There appears to be no good reason why local businesses and contractors cannot secure this work. Many businesses have also discussed with me that the definition of 'local' being Australia and New Zealand is somewhat problematic in the region. Our local businesses and contractors have excellent technical skills, but sometimes they are challenged by the daunting requirements of writing tenders, identifying and managing risk, and managing contractual obligations. That is why I looked for a local business that I could work with to assist small businesses and contractors. I found and collaborated with LEAD Consultants in North Queensland, a local business that offers advice to businesses, community organisations and contractors to assist them to develop successful tenders and contract management. Together we agreed to run a free workshop that would be beneficial for local people. On 13 March I co-hosted a free workshop which was well attended by businesses, community organisations and contractors. The workshop offered an overview of tendering, contract administration, risk management and security-of-payments processes. Participants were given a booklet to take home. We must create jobs for our local communities. (Time expired) Foley, Mrs Dorothy 42 13:54 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley I rise today to speak about my constituent Flying Officer Dorothy Foley— service number 500454—who sadly passed away earlier this month at the age of 97. Mrs Foley, formerly Maroney, was born on 18 March 1920 in Melbourne. On 27 September 1943, Dorothy enlisted for the Royal Australian Air Force at St Kilda. Dorothy was sent to England to aid in the treatment of injured RAF and RAAF pilots, with a particular focus on burn injuries. Dorothy's husband, John, has a framed letter from Sir Robert Menzies to the British government requesting Dorothy be granted every assistance in her treatment of WWII air force casualties. Dorothy also has a very interesting family history in the electorate of Dunkley. Her brother, Dr Stewart Maroney, had his doctor's surgery in the building in which my electorate office resides while he was in partnership with Dr Plowman Jr. Dorothy spent the latter part of her life in Mount Eliza with her husband, John. In 2016 she was the guest of honour at the Mount Eliza Anzac Day service as the oldest decorated Air Force officer on the Mornington Peninsula. Today we remember Dorothy and acknowledge her incredible service to her community and country. Lest we forget. Northern Territory Government 43 13:55 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I want to acknowledge that the Northern Territory Treasurer, Hon. Nicole Manison MLA, will be in Canberra over the next couple of days. Nicole is a brilliant woman, a great minister and a good friend. She is a strong advocate for the Northern Territory and I know she will fight hard for all Territorians in a very constructive way with the federal government to get the investment in the Northern Territory that we need to realise the developing of the north for the future of our northern capital and our territory. This support for Darwin in a challenging economic environment is more important than ever. We have seen recent job losses at the large Inpex plant. But, luckily, the Gunner government of the Northern Territory has a plan that will be focused on delivering jobs. Part of that is engaging with Defence. I was lucky enough to have the shadow assistant minister for defence, Gai Brodtmann, come and meet with the chamber of commerce recently. Defence expansion in the Northern Territory is going to be an important part of us moving forward with our economy. So we will be having further meetings in the near future with Defence. I am also running an 'ideas fest' weekend for entrepreneurs to get the commercial activity in the Territory happening in the right direction. (Time expired) Mossman Botanic Garden 43 13:57 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt My wife, Yolonde, and I are both very proud to be new members of the Mossman Botanic Garden, a unique project in the world of botany and conservation. Mossman Botanic Garden began an incredible journey seven years ago with an idea of a botanical garden run as a not-for-profit organisation situated in a world-class tourism destination. It is in the heart of the world-famous, World Heritage listed Daintree Rainforest. The garden's vision is to provide much-needed jobs and employment in the Douglas Shire, deliver conservation and education outcomes, and support a sustainable business in a regional economy. It has already grown into so much more. As an organisation, the Mossman Botanic Garden has spent a lot of time creating a business and governance structure and developing a truly stunning master plan for the site. This will allow the garden to work with government agencies, research and education facilities, philanthropic groups and the local and global communities. The garden has welcomed the support it has received from the Australian government and the Douglas Shire Council to date. Now the garden needs the community to show its support for this great initiative. For just $50, you can join. If you are keen to encourage the development of a world-class botanical garden in a world-class rainforest, showcasing the Daintree Rainforest and the Wet Tropics, I urge you to become a member. London: Attacks 43 13:58 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I rise today to express my condolences for those killed this morning outside Westminster, to share my hope that those injured recover quickly and to admire the character of Londoners as they overcome this terrible event. As I do so, I acknowledge the presence in the chamber of the High Commissioner from Britain to Australia, Her Excellency Menna Rawlings. Britain is obviously a country with which we have a great affinity. I spent two years of my life living in Britain, like many Australians who have spent time in that country. So many of the freedoms that we enjoy today in Australia were fought for, won and defended at Westminster. I think it says everything about the strength of the democratic will and about British determination in the face of challenge that the House of Commons and the House of Lords will resume their business at their regular time tomorrow. Today all of us in this place should take inspiration from their strength in the face of terror and from how Londoners rush to help each other in times of danger. I am sure we all hope to never have need to show that strength here and that we do not have such an event here. I am also sure we all hope that, if that moment were to come, we would show the character of the member of the House of Commons Tobias Ellwood and his determination to help those around him. Energy 43 14:00 Mr EVANS ( 61378 Brisbane ) ( ): Following the Prime Minister's visit to the Snowy Hydro scheme last week, I visited South-East Queensland's equivalent, the Wivenhoe Power Station. I went there last week. It is a pumped storage hydro facility, and I learnt a lot. Hydro power is, after all, the only renewable energy source today that is capable of producing base load power with the technical aspects that we need around inertia and so on. But pumped hydro is also really the only type of renewable energy that is supported by South-East Queensland's terrain. I want to make the point that it is the type of solution that a competent government should be looking at to solve the problems imposed by increasing reliance on intermittent power sources, such as wind and solar, if you do try to introduce a renewable energy target. This government has announced initiatives to support exploring pumped storage. The PM has announced Snowy 2.0. We are the ones with the vision and the plan to be competent deliverers. Do not confuse the current debate as anything other than a debate about competence in delivery of energy policy. Debate adjourned. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 44 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:01 The SPEAKER 00APG Members, given the tragic events overnight in London, you will understand that I have invited the British High Commissioner, Her Excellency Menna Rawlings, to join us on the floor of the House today. Honourable members: Hear, hear! STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 44 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE London: Attacks 44 14:01 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth This morning, Australians woke to the shocking news of a terrorist attack at Westminster—an attack on the parliament, on police, on citizens. It was an attack on parliament's freedom and democracy everywhere in the world. Westminster is rightly known as the mother of parliaments. Almost every element of our parliamentary tradition is modelled on the parliament of the United Kingdom. It is the birthplace of our free parliamentary democracy and the rule of law which sustains it. When the Palace of Westminster was under attack from the Nazis in 1943, Churchill described the House of Commons as: …the citadel of British liberty; it is the foundation of our laws … able to face the possibility of national destruction with classical composure. Consistent with this, Prime Minister Theresa May has said that parliament will resume tomorrow. This will ensure, as Churchill went on to say, that the House of Commons will continue to play 'its part in all its broad freedom in British public life'. We send our heartfelt condolences, especially to the families of the victims, including the police officer murdered by the terrorist as he attempted to enter the houses of parliament, and we wish all those injured a full recovery. Our heartfelt sympathy and resolute solidarity is with the people of the United Kingdom, with whom we stand today, as we always have and always will, steadfast allies in freedom's cause. As the Speaker noted, we acknowledge the presence of Her Excellency the High Commissioner of the United Kingdom, Menna Rawlings, in the House today. Your Excellency, you have our full sympathy, solidarity and support. At this stage, it appears that four people were killed by the terrorist and around 40 injured, including a woman who resided in South Australia. Our agencies and our High Commissioner, with whom I have spoken several times, are engaging with their United Kingdom counterparts as the investigation continues. We praise the quick action of the first responders and all those who came to the aid of the injured. In one example, the British MP Tobias Ellwood—whose brother died in the Bali bombings in 2002—in the frantic minutes after the attack desperately attempted to resuscitate the critically injured police officer, who subsequently died as a result of the murderous attack upon him by the terrorist. This act of heroism is just one of the extraordinary stories that are emerging from this tragedy. As Prime Minister May said so powerfully and in language we know reflects the values of Australians as much as it reflects the values of Britons: Those first responders rushed towards the danger at the same time as they called on citizens and civilians to flee. Australian should be reassured that our agencies are today, as every day, working relentlessly and tirelessly to keep our people safe. We are very alert to the vulnerabilities of places of mass gathering and open spaces and the risk of relatively unsophisticated attacks like that perpetrated in London. We have experienced them in Australia, most recently and tragically in Melbourne. Keeping Australians safe is our highest priority. It is our most solemn, our supreme obligation. My government has and will continue to provide our agencies with the resources and the powers they need at home to protect us and the powers they need to ensure that our armed forces have the ability to kill the terrorists in the field, whatever they may be doing. But we must be clear-eyed about the risk. It is real. And that is why the terror threat level has been set at 'probable' since September 2014. We work very closely with all our allies, including the United Kingdom. Our relationship—our strategic, our security relationship with the UK—is as close as it could be. And we work with many other partners around the world. The aim of the terrorists is to prey on vulnerability and divide us, but we will never let the terrorists win—not on the battlefield, not here at home. We will never change the way we live. As I have said before, including when we launched our multicultural statement on Monday, Australia is the most successful multicultural society in the world. A necessary precondition for our harmony is national security, a resolute determination to defend our nation, our people and our values. Security is the foundation on which our freedoms have been built and maintained. The fact that we are a secure, diverse, well integrated nation means we confront these challenges from a position of strength and unity, and that is why I am so confident when I say that our people are our greatest assets, all 24 million of them. They are people with much diversity but united as patriotic Australians, proud of our nation—multicultural, safe, secure and free—with a shared destiny. As Prime Minister Theresa May said earlier this morning, the values of the British parliament command the admiration and respect of free people everywhere and so they do because they are our values too. We stand, all of us, with the United Kingdom comforted that we share those values—they are ours—freedom of speech, democracy, the rule of law. We will never give in to terror. We will never stop fighting for our hard-won freedoms and standing resolutely side by side with free nations that fight for freedom too by our side. 14:09 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I thank the Prime Minister for his remarks just then. Today Australia offers our oldest friend our deepest sympathies. The hearts of this nation go out to the people of Britain. High Commissioner, we welcome you here most warmly on this most tragic day. Please tell your nation that this parliament is united in our support for your nation. Our parliament stands united with all parliaments in condemning this attack on arguably the world's oldest democratic institution. I think the Prime Minister was right to call this an attack on democracy itself, an attack on the right of people's representatives to gather in peace. It was an attack on the right of citizens to see their democracy in action, because the streets near Westminster Bridge were populated not just with the members of partly parliament, including a minister who tried in vain to resuscitate one of the victims, but also with the schoolchildren, with visitors, with the staff who help this vast and complicated exercise and enterprise run smoothly. All of them were endangered by this crime of hatred. The murder of the metropolitan police officer reminds us of the risks our security agencies take on our behalf to keep us safe. On behalf of all honourable members, I want to acknowledge and thank our Australian Federal Police and the parliamentary security officers for whom this news must strike a particular chord. I would also like to reassure our police and security services that they have the full support of this parliament for the invaluable and sometimes dangerous work that they do to keep our people safe. Australians should take comfort knowing their country is guarded and protected by those who are amongst the best in the world. And Australians should also take some solace that, despite the fierce arguments we have here and indeed may well in this question time, for this moment we are united in our support for the security of the Australian people. We are united in our commitment to respect the bravery and skill of our police and security services. We are united in our solemn focus on keeping people safe. We are united in our unwavering determination to eliminate terrorism and to bring its perpetrators to justice. Today our screens are full of Westminster Bridge, the London Eye, the houses of parliament, the tower which holds Big Ben. The place names and scenery are so familiar to us; unfortunately too, so is this ritual. These instances of offering condolences to the victims of terrorism and standing in solidarity with the nation affected have become too common, too frequent. Too often these days Australians wake to wall-to-wall coverage of attacks that have claimed innocent lives. One glimpse of the television confirms our sinking feelings—helicopter angles of cordoned off streets, shaky iPhone footage of distressed crowds. Because it is Britain, with so many connections to Australia, we call people we know who take the Tube to work, who sent us a selfie with the Thames in the background the day before. In this highly connected world, we are closer than ever. We check Facebook for the statuses of those letting us know that they are okay. It has become almost a routine we go through. But there is nothing routine about terrorism. It is a crime wholly foreign to our values, to our way of life, to our human values. All Australians unequivocally condemn this act of murder and we say to those who seek to spread fear, who shed blood to spread fear, 'You will not succeed. You will not divide a people or a world determined and too strong to defeat your ideology of evil.' These very dispatch boxes from which the Prime Minister over there and I here send the parliament's condolences to Britain were given to Australia by King George V in 1927. They are replicas of the original boxes which sat in Britain's House of Commons and which were destroyed by German bombing in 1941. Even then, in Britain's greatest challenge, Australia always stood alongside it. Australia was there steadfast in solidarity, unshakeable in the bonds of friendship and kinship. As we always have, we will stand with the people of Britain today. They are not just by ties of family but by common values and old affection. United in our continuing determination to defeat terrorism in all its forms, we hope and pray that those who have been frightened find comfort, that those who mourn find solace, that the injured recover and that those taken from us rest in eternal peace. 14:14 The SPEAKER 00APG As a mark of respect to the deceased and in recognition of those injured, I ask all present to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the House. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 46 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Child Care 46 14:15 Ms KATE ELLIS DZU Adelaide My question is to the Prime Minister. Today, Early Childhood Australia said of the government's childcare changes: 'We call on the Senate to block the bill today unless there is an amendment to increase the base entitlement to 15 hours a week.' Why will the government not agree to a minimum of at least 15 hours a week so that this legislation can pass through the parliament without hurting the most vulnerable Australian children? 14:15 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce Over the six years that members opposite presided over the childcare system that so many Australian families rely upon, the cost of child care in this nation went up 53 per cent. The bill that is before the Senate means that 230,000 Australians who presently say that they cannot get work or cannot work more hours because child care costs too much will benefit immeasurably. Failing to support the reforms means that one million Australian families would lose a very significant benefit from the incredibly significant reforms to the childcare sector. Failing to support the reforms would mean that we fail to focus our resources on the hardest-working families on the lowest incomes in Australia. That is where child care is critical. If a working family earns less than $65,000, they would pay no more than $15 a day. Where there is an agreement, we could find that failing to support these reforms means that we are failing to support a mother with two kids in child care who would, under these reforms, be $2½ thousand a year better off. Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Sydney is warned! Mr PORTER 208884 The government's position is that the savings that are being found in the family tax benefit system can be appropriately allocated to these reforms. The issue of 12 hours versus 15 hours is an issue that the education minister, Senator Birmingham, has worked on during a very long period of consultation. There have been a variety of views. The determination of this government—and we believe it will be agreed to by a majority of crossbenchers—is that, in all the circumstances, that is the best balance and the best approach to provide those million Australians with better, more flexible, more affordable child care and balance the interest in making the package financially sustainable. Trade with China 46 14:18 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise the House on the importance of the visit by the Chinese Premier, Li Keqiang, to Australia? How will the Premier's visit strengthen the already deep economic ties between Australia and China and deliver more opportunities for trade, investment and jobs, including in my electorate of Fairfax? 14:18 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. The honourable member has a deep understanding of China, its people and culture, having worked in China for many years. He understands just how significant trade, including trade with China, is for jobs, opportunities and investment in Australia. We heard today from the Chinese Premier about the remarkable new opportunities that are being opened up for our exporters. We will have more to say about that tomorrow. He identified the huge opportunities for increased exports of chilled beef—a massive opportunity for our farmers, providing more jobs and more support for regional Australia. We welcome Premier Li and his wife, Professor Cheng Hong, here. We have built on a remarkable connection between Australia and China going back hundreds of years. It is accelerating now with the opportunities created by the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. This is an agreement that has created and now built on $150 billion worth of two-way trade. Last year alone, Australia exported $86 billion in goods and services to China. This is creating so many opportunities. Of course we want 24 million Australians to buy Australian, but we also want 1.4 billion Chinese to buy Australian. Demand for 'made in Australia', for the quality of our fresh produce and services, has never been higher. Last year we exported enough iron ore to China to build Sydney Harbour bridges from Perth to Sydney and then back. But it is not just about resources. Our universities and services sector are helping the Chinese economy continue its transition from one based on investment to one based on consumption. Our people-to-people ties grow stronger all the time. We are home to a growing Chinese-Australian community, a growing Chinese expatriate community. Nearly 200,000 Chinese students call Australia home each year. This enormous growth in trade, in goods, in wine, in beef, in minerals, in services, in education and in design is all being supercharged by the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, which was vehemently opposed by the trade union movement, particularly the CFMEU, and described as 'a dud deal' by the Labor Party, which engaged in a shameful campaign to try to block it. Mr Bowen interjecting— Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 Right around the country, jobs are being created, businesses are growing and opportunities are growing because of the great deal we have with China and the relationship that we are strengthening every day. The opposition should support it, not stand in the way. The SPEAKER 00APG Before the Leader of the Opposition asks his question, the member for McMahon is warned, as is the member for Gorton. While I am at it, I will remind the member for Sydney that she has been warned. Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG I warned you, the member for Sydney. I am reminding you, because you have been warned every day this week on multiple occasions. I am making it very clear now, for your benefit, as an assistance. If you intervene again, you will be leaving. Taxation 47 14:22 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. This week the Prime Minister and his Treasurer have repeatedly refused to confirm whether their centrepiece $50 billion handout to big business is still in the budget. But this policy has just been supported by government backbenchers in the House—just minutes ago. Prime Minister, will the government's centrepiece policy still be on the books in this year's budget, and what is the point of this government when it cannot hold onto its centrepiece economic strategy from one hour to the next? 14:22 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The only people who have changed their minds on the value of cutting business taxes are the Leader of the Opposition and his sidekick, the member for McMahon. He used to say cutting company tax was good for investment, productivity, employment, jobs. The member for McMahon said, 'It's a great Labor tradition.' He said, 'It's the Labor way.' He said, 'The Labor Party wants to have 25 per cent company tax.' He did. He wrote it in a book. Dr Leigh, the member for Fenner, has always been a keen enthusiast for cutting it. But now, entranced by the lure of populism—they have no integrity, no consistency—they have done another backflip. How are this mob going to look if the new American administration succeeds in reducing US company tax to 15 per cent? I mean seriously. Paul Keating had the courage to say that the need to cut company tax—and he cut it, from 36 to 33 per cent—was in order to remain internationally competitive. What the Labor Party want to sign us up to is being uncompetitive. They will not support the Australian jobs and the investment that depend upon lower business taxes. That is their inconsistency—no support for business, simply a war on business, a denial of business. If you support Australian jobs, if you support Australian businesses, then you must support the companies that employ those workers, that build those businesses. We do. Labor do not. National Security 47 14:24 Mr BROADBENT MT4 McMillan My question is to the Minister for Justice. I refer the minister to the tragic terror attack in London today. I feel an attack on London is an attack on us. Minister, what actions have the government taken to continue to protect Australians from terrorist attacks of this kind here? 14:25 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling I thank the member for McMillan for that question. I join with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in condemning these horrific attacks that we saw in Westminster overnight, or this morning, Australian time. Our thoughts and prayers are with the people and the government of the United Kingdom. Australians should be reassured, as the Prime Minister has said, that their security is this government's highest priority. Since we raised the terror threat alert level to 'probable' in September 2014, we have successfully disrupted 12 terrorist attacks on Australian soil. Sixty-two people have been charged, as a result of 27 counterterrorism operations. This is a direct result of the resources that we have put into our policing and intelligence community and the extra powers that we have given them to deal with the way that this terrorist threat has evolved. We have invested $1½ billion in our law enforcement capabilities and our intelligence community and to enhance screening at our borders. We have passed eight tranches of legislation to counter terrorism and to enhance our national security. Specifically we have given our agencies powers to modernise the way they collect intelligence—and information is absolutely key in the battle, considering the way this threat has evolved. We have strengthened the control order regime, which allows us to regulate the behaviour of people of national security concern. We have reduced the arrest threshold, the threshold at which our police can take action, so they can stop things from happening before they occur. And, most recently, we have instituted a regime of post-sentence preventative detention. So, if you are a terrorist, you have gone to prison and you have served your sentence but you have not rehabilitated, we will continue to detain you if you present a threat to Australia's national security. We have also, Mr Speaker, as you are very well aware, spent time and resources making sure that this place, the Australian Parliament House, remains safe—$114 million for the Australian Federal Police presence here, which gives them significantly increased capability, including the presence now of long-arm rifles, explosives dogs, bomb dogs, a bomb response and a protection liaison capability. We have also spent $126 million on upgrading the physical security around Parliament House, and I congratulate you and the President for your stewardship of those changes through the parliament. Very importantly, we have invested $180 million to directly protect the Australian Federal Police who protect us. Every single sworn officer now has a stab-proof vest, and the rest of that money makes sure that their institutions and buildings around the country are protected. And I am sure I do not need to remind members that two of the four terrorist attacks we have had in Australia have directly been on members of our law enforcement community. We will continue to do everything that is required to protect the Australian people from this terrorist menace, and it does remain the most important focus of this government. Taxation 48 14:28 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga My question is to the Treasurer. The government continues to keep cuts to pensions as government policy and in the budget, despite repeated failed attempts to get them through the parliament. Why then can't the Treasurer also commit to keep his centrepiece $50 billion handout to big business in the budget? 14:28 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook At the last election, the member opposite from the Labor Party who posed this question to me was running a petition, up to the very day that they supported the government's position on changes to pensions. For years, the member opposite went around the country scaring pensioners, saying to them that the Labor Party was opposed to the changes to pensions. But what did they do at the last election? After several years, at the last moment, on the eve of the election, they slunk into the press chamber and they backed the changes, just days out from the election. Ms Macklin interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Jagajaga will cease interjecting. Mr MORRISON E3L That was an act of gross insult to pensioners around the country. At least the government respected older Australians by being up-front with them about the changes that we knew were necessary to bring the budget into balance. Those opposite wanted to play political games, playing with the fears and anxieties of older Australians. They said they would go in there, they would change it and they would turn it over. Once again what we saw from the Labor Party on that issue was a cruel hoax. It was a cruel hoax. They never planned to change those arrangements, not once. They went out and misrepresented their position to the Australian people. They played pensioners for fools in this country and they should be ashamed. At least the government was prepared to look the Australian people in the eye and say, 'We must get these expenditures under control.' We put those measures into the parliament. We ensured that they were able to be passed through the parliament and implemented, and on the eve of the election, like on everything else—the Schoolkids Bonus and all of these things they beat their chest over—they flipped, and they lied to the Australian people in doing so. Youth 48 (Mayo) (14:31): Ms SHARKIE 265980 My question is to the Prime Minister. In 1978 former Prime Minister Fraser appointed the first minister for youth affairs. Successive prime ministers from that date until 2013 appointed youth ministers, including three ministers during the Howard government years. Given that there are 2.6 million young people aged between 15 and 24 in our country, deserving specific representation, Prime Minister, will you appoint a minister for young people in this parliament? 14:31 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for her question. I can say to her that I am honoured to lead a thoroughly youthful ministry—some of us more young at heart than young in years, but all of us thoroughly committed to delivering great opportunities for young Australians. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Member for Bruce, member for Moreton, member for Grayndler! Mr TURNBULL 885 I thank her very much for her question. Of course, everything we are doing is designed to deliver greater opportunities for our children and grandchildren. I can say to the honourable member that it would be a mistake to imagine that only the young care about the young. The reality is that everything we do is building a better future for the generations to come: paying off the debt, ensuring that future generations do not have fewer services and have to pay higher taxes, ensuring that they have greater opportunity. I can assure the honourable member that the young people of Australia are always very much in the forefront of our minds, whether we are very young members of parliament or perhaps grandfathers like myself. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER: Member for Griffith, member for Reid. Budget 49 14:33 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how the government is acting to responsibly manage the budget on behalf of hardworking Australians? What barriers exist to the government's policies to bring the budget back to balance? 14:33 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Banks for his question. I acknowledge again the excellent work he has been doing as the chair of the House Standing Committee on Economics, and particularly in ensuring that the policies that the Prime Minister and I have been working on with the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services to ensure that banks are accountable in this country and the reforms we are putting in place for banks in this country will mean that Australians will be able to get a better deal at the end of the day. I thank him and his committee for their work. The government is delivering on our plan to restore the budget to balance. Once again we have seen, just like we did last year, some $22 billion of budget improvement measures that we were able to implement after the election throughout the course of the back half of last year. Again, this week we have seen an omnibus bill that was designed to ensure that we could get the growth in welfare spending under control, something that taxpayer Australians desperately want to see. Eight out of 10 taxpayers go to work every day just to pay for the welfare bill in this country through their personal income tax—eight out of 10! Our bill was designed to ensure that we are going to rein in the growth in that welfare expenditure—an important task for the government. With no help from those opposite, no help from the Labor Party, who want to see taxpayers pay higher bills for welfare in this country— Mr Burke interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L On the interjection from the member opposite, I remind him I am talking about the omnibus bill which is being considered in this chamber right now. Ms Macklin interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Jagajaga! Mr MORRISON E3L There was $6 billion worth of savings in that bill, the omnibus bill on social services, being considered in this parliament. Those opposite refused to support it. The government, through our negotiations with the crossbenchers in the upper house, in the Senate, has been able, through those measures passed and other arrangements we have been able to agree on, to see $4 billion of that $6 billion in savings realised. That is $4 billion. We were able to do that because this government just gets on with the job, despite the opposition from the Labor Party, who work against the budget being returned to surplus every single day of their existence. They are to budget management debates what a Twitter troll is to public policy in this country. They are like the pimply teenager sitting in their basement, trolling away daily, seeking to undermine and undercut the Australian taxpayer. We have been able to deliver those savings to the budget to ensure that we can pay for more-affordable child care for Australian families. It has been two years that we have been working to achieve this result, and the Labor Party has worked against working families every day and made sure that for two years they have had to pay a higher cost for child care, because the Labor Party simply refuse to understand that when you deliver services, you have to pay for them. This government has done the work to ensure that we can deliver affordable child care. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 00APG I call the member for Rankin. Mr Laundy 247130 Batting up the order again, Jim? Batting at four? The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Reid is warned. Budget 50 14:36 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin My question is to the Treasurer. If a deficit of $11 billion was a budget emergency in the 2014 budget, what does he call a deficit of $37 billion, which has more than tripled on his watch? Ms Henderson interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Corangamite! Dr CHALMERS 37998 Given this Treasurer has tripled the deficit, doesn't this just prove that the Treasurer is completely incompetent and hopelessly out of his depth? Honourable members interjecting — The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Corangamite will cease interjecting. The member for Fadden is warned! The member for Hume. The Treasurer has the call. 14:37 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The member opposite who asked the question used to work for the Treasurer of the Labor Party, when he was in government, who was supposed to deliver four surpluses—'I deliver tonight.' I have been looking for those surpluses. They were not there, Swany! I don't know where you left them. I looked in the cupboard. I looked everywhere but the surpluses were not there. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Treasurer will resume his seat and the member for Moreton will resume his seat. I will deal with a number of matters here as efficiently as possible. The member for Shortland and the member for Gellibrand will leave the chamber, under standing order 94(a). The Treasurer has the call, and he will refer to members by their correct titles. The member for Shortland and the member for Gellibrand then left the chamber. Mr MORRISON E3L I will, Mr Speaker. I am referring to the member for Lilley, and the member for Rankin, who worked for the member for Lilley, will remember that it was the member for Lilley who supported reducing company tax. It was the member for Lilley who supported the idea of getting to surplus but was never done able to achieve it, despite declaring it had been achieved. The member for Rankin forgets that at the last election the Labor Party went to the Australian people and they said that the budget deficit should be $14 billion bigger than what the government was proposing. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Rankin. Mr MORRISON E3L So the member for Rankin, as he stood before the Australian people at the last election, said that the state of the nation's finances should be made worse. That was the policy he took to the last election. So the hypocrisy of the architect of the fiscal bonfire that they left this government to deal with would turn up with the matches still flipping out of their pockets, and the stench of the kerosene that they used to literally make the bonfire go even higher—to come here and ask this government that is restoring the budget to balance, while they sit opposite and oppose every single thing the government is seeking to do. That extends to the important work we have to do to grow our economy. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Rankin is now warned! Mr MORRISON E3L And it extends to their gross hypocrisy when it comes to opposing the government on company tax cuts they themselves have articulated for many years. The shadow Treasurer's book Hearts & Minds:A Blueprint for Modern Labor—on company tax— The SPEAKER 00APG The Treasurer knows the rules on props in the chamber. Mr MORRISON E3L He has lost his heart and he has lost his mind when it comes to this. It is published by Melbourne University Publishing. Do you know what their motto is? 'Books with spine'. You have lost yours, Shadow Treasurer. Child Care 50 14:40 Ms BANKS 18661 Chisholm My question is to the Minister for Social Services. Will the minister update the House on how the government is ensuring hard-working Australian families will be supported with better, more-affordable child care? Are there any alternative approaches that would increase cost of living pressures? 14:41 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I thank the member for her question and for her great interest in this area. As was noted slightly earlier, 230,000 Australians will be able to get more involved in the workforce, and involved for the first time, because of these childcare reforms. A million Australians stand to benefit, because they access child care to try to make better lives for themselves as they work very hard in our economy. All of this is being achieved as a result of the government being able to save close to $1.4 billion through the very simple mechanism of a two-year pause on family tax benefit. That is a savings measure that Senator Xenophon described in the debate as 'a reasonable approach which ensures there are no reductions in payments to families, while supporting a substantial investment in better childcare assistance', which we think is a quite reasonable description. I am asked if there are any alternative approaches. The alternative approach of members opposite is simply to leave one million families without simpler and more affordable child care. Why? Why would they deny those one million families simpler and more affordable child care? Because Labor says that a two-year pause on family tax benefits is a sledgehammer blow, or alternatively, a cruel attack. Given those descriptions, it is an interesting exercise to see how Labor described very similar savings to the family tax benefit system that they are engaged in through pauses in FTB when they were in government. Would you believe it, there are some descriptions of similar FTBs savings from Labor. They appear in a press release entitled 'Reform of family payments', which was a joint release by the member for Lilley and the member for Jagajaga. They explained in that press release that Australian spending on family payments is very generous by international standards, with which we would tend to agree. They then go on to say that they have some measures that will 'limit growth of family payments and save $1.4 billion over the forward estimates', which is almost exactly the same amount that we also are saving. They then go on to say 'Australia's spending on family payments is generous. The rate of growth of family tax benefits will be slightly reduced to ensure effective incentives to work remain and are built into the transfer system. This also ensures sustainability of the system overall.' So, they engage in pauses on family tax benefits and that is a sustainability measure. Indeed, it is built into the system to keep work incentives. We do a very similar thing and we use the money to pay for child care, and that is a sledgehammer blow. So, what is the definition of a fair and reasonable pause on family tax benefits? It is the one that they do. And what is the definition of the unfair one? The one that they do not. (Time expired) Budget 51 14:44 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Treasurer. As the Treasurer aware that just a few hours ago the member for Dunkley said that the $50 billion handout to big business has 'his full support'. Why is the Treasurer hanging his back bench out to dry expecting them to support a $50 billion handout to big business that he will not fully commits to being in his budget? 14:44 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for his question. The tax cut for businesses, from small to large, was in the budget delivered in May. It was taken to the election in July. It was introduced to this parliament. It is about to be voted on. I am going to be voting for it. I support this heart and soul. I took it to an election with the Prime Minister. We won the election. We put it in the budget. We put it in the legislation, it is coming into the parliament and we are going to be voting for it. We are going to be voting for it in this chamber and we are going to be voting for it in that chamber. The shadow Treasurer, having written extensively, is going to come into this chamber and vote against it. This is the man who said that we should be aiming for a 25 per cent corporate tax cut. He could not hit anything; he is certainly not going to hit 25, because he will not vote for what he says he believes in. This is the problem for the shadow Treasurer—he has become a shadow of his former self. He is being cowed into a position of policy cravenness by the Leader of the Opposition. He has been cowed into that position because he no longer believes or cannot stand up for what he said he once believed in, and that is a great tragedy. This is a man who pretends to wish to be the Treasurer of this country, and he is failing that test. We support company tax cuts; those opposite will vote against those company tax cuts. Our record on this issue will be recorded in this chamber and so will that of those opposite. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 51 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:46 The SPEAKER 00APG Before I call the member for Bonner, I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon Mr Patrick Secker, the former member for Barker. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 52 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Cost of Living 52 14:46 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on actions taken by the government to support the household budget by keeping electricity prices down and childcare affordable, including in my electorate of Bonner? 14:47 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. The government has taken decisive action to address the challenge to energy prices and energy availability and security caused by years of Labor complacency, operating particularly in the states of South Australia and Victoria. We are about to see the closure of the Hazelwood power station, which provides nearly a quarter of the electricity for the state of Victoria. This is a power station which has seen the cost of generating power increased by the state government increasing royalties on brown coal— Mr Frydenberg FKL Tripling! Mr TURNBULL 885 It has tripled the royalties. It is a state where the Labor government wants to get out of coal but will not let anyone get into gas. It has put a ban on gas exploration and development, whether it is conventional or unconventional. It is clearly determined to head down the same road as South Australia, where we know, following more than a decade of Labor government, the state has the least reliable and most expensive electricity in Australia. The gas shortage on the east coast of Australia has approached crisis levels, and what we have done is secure from the gas producers a commitment, a guarantee, to make gas available for peaking power needs. This is critically important, because as coal fired generation is allowed to close, recklessly in the case of Hazelwood—what has happened there is a state Labor government has allowed that plant to close without any plan to make provision for it to ensure security and, of course, has put its own opposition in the way of making more gas available. So we have done that. We have also got underway the work to deliver the largest addition of storage capacity in our history. The Snowy Hydro 2.0 is a 2,000-megawatt step to deliver storage capacity that can power half a million homes. It will enable renewables to be more reliable. It will enable Australians to have more security. We are getting on with that as well. That is the big difference between our side of politics and Labor's. We are committed to delivering results based on economics and engineering. We want to bring electricity prices down. We want to support families. We want to take the pressure off the cost of living and we are doing that right through our approach to energy. Economics and engineering—that is the way to go. Labor's ideology has driven gas out of the market and it has driven renewables into the market and they have had no plan to back it up. Taxation 52 14:50 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Treasurer. Will the $50 billion business tax cut be in your budget? 14:50 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The enterprise tax plan is in the budget. Energy 52 14:50 Mr BROAD 30379 Mallee My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on the impacts increasing power prices are having on the agricultural sector in regional Victoria? Is the minister aware of any other threats to the jobs of hardworking regional Australians? 14:51 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I thank the honourable member for his question. I know that I have the full attention of the opposition, including the member for Grayndler, who seems to have found a new seat in the aisle, which is great to see—out there talking to his friends and no doubt collecting the numbers. The SPEAKER 00APG The Deputy Prime Minister will bring himself to his answer. Mr JOYCE E5D The member for Mallee is very aware of how much agriculture has contributed to Victoria's economy—from 2012-13 at $11.6 billion to 2014-15 at $13.1 billion, Mallee is yet another reflection of the turnaround in agriculture. Whether it is wheat or almonds or sheep and lambs, grapes, wine contracts, barley, wool, dairy, cattle and calves, it is all part of that massive turnaround which gave us a 23.7 per cent increase in the figures to December 2016. It was a massive increase—three, four or five times that of any other sector—and agriculture is doing its part. But there is a threat to this, and of course one of the major threats is the price of power. The price of power has been going through the roof because it has been incredibly badly managed. What we are seeing—and this is very topical—is that, for Heyfield mill, Australian Sustainable Hardwoods, in 2016 it was $1.3 million and in 2017 it was $2.1 million—a 62 per cent increase in power. It was not just the power that was causing problems; it was also the Labor Party of Victoria's inability to deal with the possums, because they are putting possums before people. They are making sure that Australian working men and women are losing their jobs, because the Australian Labor Party has decided that the votes of St Kilda are vastly better than the working men and women at the Heyfield timber mill. It is interesting in the past that the member for Maribyrnong would go down to Tasmania and rightly look after miners, look after working men who have been stuck down a mine, but he is not going down to Victoria to look after the working men and women who are about to lose their job at the Heyfield mill. No, he has no care about them. We have not got boo out of them. They have never come to the dispatch box. They do not care about them, just like the 750 who are going to lose their job at the Hazelwood Power Station. What is the Labor Party's response to that? When will they start standing up for working men and women? When will they start taking it seriously? When will the member for Griffith start standing up for forestry workers and when will the member for Hunter start standing up for people in the coal industry? When will the member for Gorton start standing up for his brother, start helping out his brother, and actually stand up for workers? When will they stop giggling with the Greens and start standing up for working men and women? Ms Butler interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Griffith is warned, yet again. Racial Discrimination Act 1975 53 14:54 Mr BURKE DYW Watson My question is to the Prime Minister. This morning the Deputy Prime Minister has given an extensive interview to Fairfax papers about the watering down of protections against racist hate speech, an issue he says: … lives in the extremities of the bell curve. Where do you meet those people? At party meetings, they are absolutely blessed people and they are terribly politically involved and they have an intense interest in some of the minutiae of debate. They come into your office to rant and rave about it, all four of them. Does the Deputy Prime Minister's statement reflect government policy, and can the Prime Minister name all four? The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will answer the question, because at the very end— Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER 00APG I will hear from the Leader of the House on a point of order. Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, honestly, we have a pretty long bow in this building about questions to the Prime Minister, but how on earth is that question within the Prime Minister's responsibilities, especially the end of it? None of those points are points made by the Prime Minister. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left will cease interjecting. Mr Pyne 9V5 And, while I am sure he is happy to answer it, the point is we have to draw the line somewhere with what is or is not within the standing orders. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left will cease interjecting, or I am going to ask the Leader of the House to begin all over again. I have listened very carefully to the question. The Leader of the House makes a reasonable point—that most of the question, which took the entire 30 seconds, was quotations and not relevant to the Prime Minister. There was one very small aspect of the question that asked whether the statements reflected government policy. As the Prime Minister is responsible for government policy—I have tried to be consistent—I am going to rule the question in order. But I am flagging, as I have flagged before, that questions that are just completely out of order, apart from a very small number of words, I do not think are going to have a very long life under my speakership, because I think it is an abuse. Mr Albanese R36 Except if they're funny, Mr Speaker! The SPEAKER 00APG Well, Member for Grayndler, you did not ask the question. The Prime Minister has the call on this occasion. 14:57 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I am glad you have acknowledged that the member for Grayndler has a personality that perhaps his colleague is not able to bring to bear to make even a dull question humorous—so you are clearly earning the pleasure of the support of the member for Grayndler. The government's policy is contained in the legislation that has been presented in the Senate, and the policy is to ensure that our laws are stronger, fairer and clearer, that section 18C is an effective law that protects Australians from racial vilification and also protects free speech, one of the very foundations of our parliament, of our democracy, of our nation. Getting the balance right is absolutely critical. I was asked who supported changes to 18C. It is a very long list. The criticism of the language has come from right across the political spectrum. I quoted yesterday Chief Justice James Spigelman and former commissioner, Irene Moss. But it is a very long list, including many members of the Labor Party, who have made the point that the language lacks the credibility to be an effective law. One of the more remarkable things about the Labor Party's opposition to these changes is that they also oppose a change which would reinstate the original intent of the law as set out by the Labor Attorney-General Michael Lavarch when he introduced the bill. The original intent of the law was that the test of whether conduct offended the section was to be judged by the standards of a reasonable member of the Australian community as a whole. Apparently that is not acceptable to the Labor Party. Apparently Australians as a whole are not to be trusted. Well, we put our faith in the Australian people. We believe in the fundamental decency and good sense of Australians and we are committed to them and their freedoms. We support them, and that is the policy of the government—a more effective law, a clearer law that better protects freedom of speech and better protects Australians against racial vilification. Ms Madeleine King interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Brand will cease interjecting. Energy 54 14:59 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Will the minister please update the House on action the government is taking to reduce energy cost pressures for hardworking businesses and families, including the Golden Ox, an iconic restaurant in Margate in my electorate of Petrie which has watched its power bill almost double. Is the minister aware of any obstacles to delivering energy reliability and affordability? 15:00 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Petrie for his question and acknowledge his deep concern for the rising electricity prices in his electorate, including the businesses on the Redcliffe Peninsula, including the Golden Ox. I spoke to the owner of the Golden Ox, Nick, who with Virginia has run that business from many, many years. They employ 20 people. They have seen their electricity prices increase nearly 300 per cent in the last five years alone. Nick says that this is holding him back from employing new people in the electorate of Petrie. That is why we on this side of the House have been focused on important reforms for the energy markets—getting more gas out of the ground, getting more liquid and transparent markets, speaking to the LNG suppliers and getting a commitment from them to meet future shortfalls, ensuring that we can reduce the price of the transportation of gas through the pipelines, getting more storage into the system. The Prime Minister has led the charge when it comes to pump hydro. Whether it is Cultana, Kidston, Snowy Hydro 2.0 or innovative battery technology projects, we are focused on reducing electricity prices and getting a much more stable system. But I am asked if there are any obstacles to this approach. While the Golden Ox is being kicked for having higher electricity prices, those on the other side are praying to their golden calf—the 50 per cent renewable energy target. They do not know what it is called, they do not know how much it costs, they do not know whether it will be legislated or not, but they are persisting with a 50 per cent renewable energy target. No wonder Graham Richardson calls their policy a farce. No wonder the CFMEU has written to everyone every Labor member— Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Sydney will leave under 94(a). The member for Sydney then left the chamber. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL The CFMEU has written to every Labor member saying that their energy policy will increase electricity prices. The AWU head in Victoria said it has the potential to crucify hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs. That is what those on your side of the House are telling you about your own policies. It is not just the federal Labor opposition; it is also Labor governments like the Queensland Palaszczuk government. It has a 50 per cent renewable energy target which the independence Grattan Institute has called 'magic pudding' economics. So it is time that the Labor Party—whether it is the Labor Party in South Australia with their 50 per cent RET, the Queensland Labor Party with their 50 per cent RET, the Andrews Labor government with their 40 per cent RET or the Leader of the Opposition with his 50 per cent RET—put jobs first, energy security first and energy affordability first, and stop idolising the golden calf of a 50 per cent RET. Workplace Relations 55 15:03 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Submissions to the Fair Work Commission on the penalty rates decision are due by 4 pm tomorrow. Will the government's submission ask the Fair Work Commission not to implement the penalty rates decision—a decision which could cut the pay of nearly 700,000 hardworking Australians? Or is the Prime Minister continuing to support these cuts to penalty rates? 15:03 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The Leader of the Opposition, again and again, pledged his support for the Fair Work Commission in its penalty rate inquiry. In April last year, he was asked repeatedly by Neil Mitchell, 'Will you support the Fair Work Commission's decision even if it reduces penalty rates?' and he said he would. The Fair Work Commission is bringing Sunday rates closer to Saturday rates because they have satisfied, after an exhaustive inquiry, that it will increase employment, create more jobs, more opportunities for small businesses to remain open on weekends and create greater opportunities for employment. The Fair Work Commission, after that careful examination, decided to back small business. We are backing small business, too, and so should Labor. The Leader of the Opposition should stick to his word. That would be a bit of innovation—stick to his word. That is what he could do—stick to his word and back small business. Veterans 55 15:05 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Will the minister inform the House of any support he is aware of for children of current and former members of the Australian Defence Forces with mental health conditions, including in my electorate of Dunkley? Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG There was an unsavoury interjection. I am not sure who it came from. The minister can now address the question. Mr Dutton 00AKI Own up! The SPEAKER 00APG No, Minister of Immigration and Border Protection. 15:05 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I would like to thank the member for his question. I note his continued interest and support for improved mental health services for our Defence Force and our veterans. Yesterday, the member for Dunkley, the Treasurer, Lady Cosgrove and members from both sides of this House attended an event for the launch of a new initiative put forward by Kookaburra Kids. At the event, we heard from two children who have participated in their programs, Jasmine and Ronan Duff. Their mum Karen was also with us. As everyone who was there would know, the story that these young children told was incredibly moving. The courage in which they told it was something which left a mark on everyone who was there. They told of the issues they have to confront living with a parent with mental health conditions. Kookaburra Kids is a fantastic organisation which runs recreational and educational camps, activities and events for children who have a parent with mental illness. It provides age-appropriate mental health education, focusing on developing coping skills and resilience while also allowing children to bond with peers who are facing similar challenges. Most importantly, Kookaburra Kids has put up its hand to assist in the case of children whose parents are current or former ADF members with mental health conditions. Yesterday, at the event, the government confirmed its support for this important work—and I know it was bipartisan—providing $2.1 million in funding to expand their activities to children of the Defence Force. Kookaburra Kids is using the funding to develop, deliver and evaluate a pilot program for these children. It will include activity days, weekend camps and family picnics, with enhancements, where necessary, to support the unique needs of the Defence services and the ex-serving community. The pilot program will begin in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory in the middle of the year. The program will be open to kids between eight and 18 who have a parent with mental illness as a result of their military service. Most importantly, the program will be free. I thank the Treasurer, in particular, for his support of this program, because it was his initiative which first brought it to my attention, and I say, on behalf of all the House, that I know that what Kookaburra Kids will do with this money will be incredibly important going forward. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Kingston, on indulgence. 15:08 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I would like to offer the opposition's support for this very, very important program. I joined the minister at this launch and spoke to those young people. The trials that they have been through have been significant, but the support that that program offers is phenomenal. So, on behalf of the opposition, I offer our bipartisan support for this program. Mr Turnbull 885 The House began question time united, and it has ended question time united on this important issue of mental health. I ask that further question to be placed on the Notice Paper. DOCUMENTS 56 DOCUMENTS Presentation 56 15:09 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 56 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 15:10 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for Port Adelaide proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's continued failure to address the national energy crisis. I call upon all 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— 15:10 Mr BUTLER HWK Port Adelaide For two years now, Labor has been warning of a looming crisis in the eastern Australian gas market and urging the government to take action. Even that far back, as far as 2015, it was becoming clear to us, at least, that the LNG exporters that had been set up in Gladstone were using gas that was previously supplied to Australian users—Australian manufacturing companies, Australian power generators and Australian households. At our national conference in the middle of 2015, there was a full debate on this looming gas crisis about policy options that we would consider as an opposition going into the 2016 federal election to deal with this looming crisis. As I think most people observing this debate know, we adopted at that conference, and took to the federal election, a national interest test for gas exploration—a form of gas reservation to ensure that enough of eastern Australia's gas was going to be available to Australian businesses and Australian households before starting to ship it off overseas. The response from the Prime Minister was perhaps predictable: he rubbished it. He said it was old-style leftism. He had no other ideas, of course, because he thought—and he reassured the Australia people and Australian businesses—that everything was fine in the eastern Australian gas market. Well, everything is not fine. We are now in a full-blown gas crisis in this country, and this government has been asleep at the wheel. Without decisive action, this crisis is going to have a devastating impact on the Australian economy and on thousands and thousands of Australian jobs. It has already become apparent in the power generation sector right across the National Electricity Market on the eastern seaboard. Power generation from gas-fired power over the last 12 months has fallen by more than one-third. It is impacting reliability—as we have seen across the NEM over the course of this summer—and it is the key factor driving electricity prices up across the NEM. But it is a particularly severe crisis in manufacturing, particularly in manufacturing sectors that rely on gas not just for reliable and affordable electricity but also as a key feedstock. These manufacturing companies have operated for decades on the basis of an historic price of around $3 or $4 per gigajoule, which was the price that was in place when we left government in 2013. Under this government, prices have spiked. Mr Frydenberg interjecting— Mr BUTLER HWK I hear the minister talking about parity pricing. Mr Frydenberg interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The minister for the environment will remain silent. Mr BUTLER HWK Well, the spot price in Sydney is about $10 per gigajoule at the moment. Last week it was $12.40 per gigajoule. The AiG and Manufacturing Australia are talking about their members being quoted prices upwards of $22 per gigajoule, up from the historic price of $3 to $4. The minister well knows that is not parity pricing. That is scarcity pricing, because this government has mismanaged a serious supply crisis in the gas market, such that manufacturers operating overseas, in other countries, are able to purchase Australian gas at the moment at about half the price being quoted to manufacturers in Australia—an utterly outrageous outcome. Last week the Prime Minister finally woke up and recognised a gas crisis. He called, as is his wont, a gas summit, to talk. He brought the gas companies to Sydney. Mind you, there were no manufacturers, no power generators, no state governments involved in this area—just the gas companies. True to form, he talked and he talked and he talked. Then he wagged his finger and 'Malsplained' what the problem was in the gas industry. The problem with this Prime Minister is all he could do was talk. He has this problem with the banks. He thinks if he goes to one of their birthday parties and gives them a stern talking to that they will change their behaviour. That is not how this mob works. I will go to the communique coming out of the PMO about this summit. 'Gas producers guarantee Aust. supply: PM' is the heading. I thought that maybe there was something that came out of this summit, but the 'gas supply guarantee' is just that the gas will be available to meet peak demand periods in the NEM, such as during heatwaves. There is absolutely nothing for manufacturing, absolutely nothing for the power generation sector and absolutely nothing for all of those other days during the year other than heatwaves. Many have made the point—and did the day after—that more talk is not going to work. More talk is going to do nothing to relieve this very serious crisis. We need action. But we know that around this chamber and out in the community this government is not very good at action. They are very good at talk, particularly this Prime Minister, but not very good at action, particularly when it comes to energy policy. That is because this is a government paralysed by ideology and paralysed by their internal divisions as well as their fondness for sitting back in the cheap seats and blaming everyone else. They are taking no responsibility as the nation's government. We know that it is not just in gas. You see this approach as well in the electricity sector, where there is a supply crisis emerging too. You ask: why is there a supply crisis? Essentially, it is for one reason. Three-quarters of our existing coal- and gas-fired generators are already operating beyond their design life. As we will see only next week, the Hazelwood power station—a 50-year-old power station—is closing. Mr Frydenberg FKL Who did that? Mr BUTLER HWK It is 50 years old! Do you know anything about the electricity sector? The problem is, with 4,000 megawatts closing under this government, there are no replacements because there is no policy framework. Mr Hawke interjecting— Mr BUTLER HWK Everyone agrees what the policy framework should be—everyone except this government. The member for Mitchell says, 'Rubbish.' Well, the Business Council of Australia, BHP Billiton, AGL Energy, EnergyAustralia, the National Farmers' Federation, Origin Energy, the Australian Energy Market Commission, CSIRO, Energy Networks Australia, the Chief Scientist, the Climate Change Authority, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the Prime Minister's former energy adviser Danny Price, Labor and Liberal state governments alike—we hear from the New South Wales government—and many other energy stakeholders agree. We look to find who is opposed to an emissions intensity scheme. We know this government is. We suspect, probably, One Nation is. Everyone else knows the solution to this supply crisis. It is just that this government, particularly this minister, is not able to deliver his party room. Honourable members interjecting— Mr BUTLER HWK Danny Price nailed it in December when this minister was overridden because of a revolution from Cory Bernardi. That worked really well. Placating Cory worked really, really well. There was a bit of a revolution from the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, and this minister got overridden in just 36 hours. Danny Price nailed it when he said, because of that terrible decision in December, 'This party of government will be the party of reduced electricity security and increased prices.' That is what Danny Price said. Prices have already been an issue in this country for more than 10 years because of the gold plating of the networks that goes back to the Howard era. Gold plating of the networks, which has seen, particularly, the coal-fired states of the eastern seaboard see the largest price rises, as The Australian newspaper helpfully pointed out a couple of months ago. The largest price rises are in Queensland, then Victoria and then New South Wales. But now we see wholesale prices spiking under this government. They have doubled under this government. Wholesale prices have doubled under this government because of their inability to deal with the supply crisis. Over the last summer period, the NEM average wholesale price was $134 per megawatt-hour—$134. That is more than twice the wholesale price in the two summers during the carbon price mechanism. In Queensland, it is almost triple the price it was during the carbon price mechanism. There was a wholesale price over the summer just finished of $200 per megawatt-hour. That is one-third higher than the South Australian wholesale price over the course of this summer. Dick Warburton, who chaired a review for the former Prime Minister, said, 'There is a good way to put downward pressure on wholesale power prices—expand renewable energy.' But this government has done nothing but attack renewables, which is hurting prices, the ABS told us on Friday, and killing one in three jobs in the renewable energy industry. Those jobs are gone under this government. While around the world there is 45 per cent growth in renewable energy jobs, this government has lost thousands upon thousands. To be fair, this government does have one plan, or at least the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator Canavan, has a plan: build new coal-fired power stations. Honourable members interjecting— Mr BUTLER HWK The Prime Minister announced it at the Press Club and waited for the clamour. There was deafening silence until one person said they would be willing to take the taxpayers' dime to build coal-fired power stations, and that was Clive Palmer. Clive Palmer said he would partner with the Minister for the Environment and Energy and build coal-fired power stations. This is the bloke whose last brilliant idea was to build Titanic II. That is the great supporter of this government's energy plan. All this government can do is rest on tired ideology framed by tired old scare campaigns. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Before I call the Minister for the Environment and Energy, I will remind members that, although this is a team event, one on the field at a time is appropriate. I will ask members to restrain themselves. I will not be throwing anyone out because it is Thursday afternoon and that is what everyone wants. 15:21 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong The Labor Party must think that offence is the best form of defence because they must have written this MPI for us. We are happy to talk about energy policy and we are happy to talk about the legacy that we inherited from the Labor Party and our plans for getting it right, because Australians deserve better energy outcomes than the Labor Party ever delivered for them. During the time that we had the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, we had electricity prices increase by more than 100 per cent. There were some one dozen different policies. My colleagues may remember the 'cash for clunkers' and the citizens' assembly—whether it is a CPRS, an ETS or, indeed, the carbon tax. A $15 billion hit on households was the legacy of the Labor Party when they were in office. Of course, we have seen this headlong pursuit of a 50 per cent renewable energy target by Labor governments, including the great big experiment gone wrong in South Australia under Jay Weatherill's leadership. What we saw from the Labor Party there was denial of a problem until for the first time 1.7 million people across the whole state of South Australia last their power. This was devastating. It was devastating for households. It was devastating for business confidence. It was devastating for those high-energy users such as Nyrstar at their Port Pirie smelter, BHP at Olympic Dam and Arrium at Whyalla. Obviously they are trying to sell that asset. This could not have come at a worse time. That is what happens when you put ideology ahead of practical policy focused on energy security and energy affordability. Let us turn to Victoria where the Andrews government and a minister described the continued operation of Hazelwood as 'disgraceful'. It is no wonder, then, that the Andrews Labor government tripled the coal royalties on those operating in the Latrobe Valley, putting extra pressure on the balance sheet of the owners of Hazelwood—namely, Engie and Mitsui. They pursued the 40 per cent renewable energy target which again made it more difficult for the thermal generators in that state. Then there were those mad moratoriums on conventional and unconventional gas extraction in Victoria. To think that Geoscience Australia tells us that Victoria has some 40 years worth of reserves and in the Northern Territory there may be up to 180 years worth of reserves. In other parts of the country governments have been putting in place these moratoriums on conventional and unconventional gas extraction. That is the legacy that we inherited and those are the wrongs we are now trying to get right. We are pursuing important reforms through the COAG Energy Council, particularly to get lower prices for the transportation of gas. These are some historic reforms, the most significant in some two decades, bringing the pipeline operators together with their customers and avoiding the unequal bargaining situation. The meeting that the Prime Minister called with the LNG suppliers focused on getting more gas out of the ground and more gas into the domestic market by getting a commitment from those big players that they will meet future shortfalls in the domestic market. This was critical because we have heard from the Australian Energy Market Operator that there would be shortfalls ranging from 10 to 54 petajoules from the summer of 2018-19 hitting the states of Victoria, South Australia, New South Wales and, later on, Queensland. They are practical results. We are now reining in the network costs that make up to 50 per cent of a household bill by getting a significant agreement through the COAG Energy Council to prevent the limited merits review process operating in the scope and on the scale that it has to date. There has also been the record investment in storage through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, ARENA, Kidston in Queensland, Cultana in South Australia and Snowy Hydro 2.0, which has the potential to boost the output of the snowy scheme by some 50 per cent—2,000 megawatts—creating more than 500 jobs and empowering 500,000 homes using renewable energy power and pumped storage. This is absolutely critical for the future stability of our grid. Mr Perrett HVP How do you get it up the hill? Mr FRYDENBERG FKL I am interrupted by the question, 'How do you get it up the hill?' This is like three projects we currently have in Australia with pumped hydro. You have a reservoir up the top, a reservoir down the bottom, and you pump it up. When the power is cheap you send it down the hill to create the power when you need it most. It is important to meet the peak demand. We have also commissioned the Finkel review. The Finkel review, commissioned by COAG, will look at energy security with our Chief Scientist and an independent panel. We look forward to seeing their recommendations. They are all the positive reforms that we now have underway to get energy security and energy affordability as we transition to a low-emissions future. It is worth pointing out to those opposite that we not only met our first met Kyoto target but we are on track to exceed our second 2020 target by some 224 million tonnes. We have halved the ask over the last year as to what we need to do to meet our 2030 target. So we are absolutely serious about meeting our emissions reduction targets. We are doing that through the national energy productivity plan, the Emissions Reduction Fund, the 23.5 per cent RET and a whole range of processes. But we will not compromise energy security and affordability. We will not at a federal level see the mistake of Jay Weatherill repeated and writ large. Those opposite have a quadrella of disastrous energy policies. First and foremost, they have their 50 per cent RET. Depending on the day, they say it will be legislated or that it will not be legislated. Depending on the day, they say it will cost $48 billion or that it will cost nothing. Depending on the day, it might be an ambition, goal, objective or task. We knows what it might be? It depends on how you ask opposite. What we do know is that they have a 50 per cent renewable energy target locked into the election commitment that they took to the last election. They also have a 45 per cent emissions reduction target. Why is that important? It is because it is nearly double what we have at26 to 28 per cent and we know that there is no hope in hell that they are going to meet a 45 per cent target. The member for Port Adelaide has this wry smile on his face. He knows what is coming next. He talks about an emissions intensity scheme and he talks about the Australian Energy Market Commission modelling an emissions intensity scheme, but he fails to tell you that that was modelled on a target of 26 to 28 per cent, not a 45 per cent target. We would love to see the numbers it would produce on a 45 per cent target. We would love to see how much it is going to cost the Australian economy to get to a 45 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030, which is the opposition's policy. It is no wonder that we on this side of the House are pointing to the words of the BCA, who said that the opposition's policy is risky and could jeopardise future economic growth. That is what we hear from the BCA about Labor's 45 per cent emissions reduction target. I have not even finished on their quadrella of policies. I mentioned the emissions intensity scheme. That is the third one. What about their forced closure of coal-fired power plants? We cannot afford to lose that baseload power which provides frequency control ancillary services and the inertia that you need that you get from coal, gas and hydro but do not get from intermittent sources of power like wind and solar. That is why people like AEMO and the AEMC have been warning about this rise of intermittent power and the impact that it would have on the stability of the grid if you do not plan or prepare, which is what we actually saw play out in South Australia. Mr Husic interjecting— Mr FRYDENBERG FKL They have a plan to close coal-fired power stations like Yallourn in Victoria. They want to close Yallourn, not only Hazelwood. The member for Port Adelaide talked about kickstarting the closure of coal-fired power stations. They want to close Yallourn. They want to close Hazelwood. They want to close Muja A and B. They want to close Vales Point in the member for Shortland's electorate. They want to close that. They want to close a whole series of coal-fired power stations. And who do they partner with? Who do the Labor Party partner with in the Senate to pass a motion for the closure of coal-fired power stations? Ms Price 249308 The Greens. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL The Greens. You want to out-green the Greens. That is what the real fixer, Graham Richardson, said: you 'cannot out-green the Greens'. But that is what the Labor Party wants to do. It has become embarrassing and now it is becoming dangerous. Mr Hawke HWO It is very embarrassing. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL It has become embarrassing and now it is becoming dangerous, because the Labor Party and the member for Port Adelaide are leading this charge. They want to win Green votes in the city and, in the process, sell out the blue-collar jobs in the regions. We will not do that. We will promote energy affordability and energy security as we transition to a low-emissions future. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Before I call the member for Eden-Monaro, I remind the member for Chifley that he is much louder sitting there than he was up the other end, and he is warned. 15:31 Dr MIKE KELLY HRI Eden-Monaro There is no issue that symbolises the utter public policy failure and deficit— Mr Husic 91219 Him. Dr MIKE KELLY HRI of this government than the energy policy demonstrated by those in charge of the portfolio, as my friend the member for Chifley correctly points out. Dr MIKE KELLY HRI This is also an embrace of post-truth politics par excellence. We have had the key factors in this energy issue outlined by my colleague the shadow minister. He has talked about the gas issue. Of course, we can also hark back to the gas contracts executed under the Howard and Costello regime, which failed to provide a national interest test in developing our gas resources and gas reserves, which has created the cost dynamic that has had a large effect on this energy market and to the privatisation dynamic created by the coalition. We talk about Hazelwood. This is a business decision that has been made in France and Japan based on purely business factors. That is what you have surrendered. You have surrendered the national control. The secret here is that we have a National Energy Market. The clue is in the title: a National Energy Market requires national responsibility being taken and supported by national leadership, which has been completely absent. We have had nearly four years now of this government sitting back—fat, dumb and happy and sitting on its hands—taking no action to manage the transition we all knew was coming and was happening. No less of a factor in that transition was the Renewable Energy Target, agreed upon and set by this government. The truth about the wind farm capacity in South Australia is that that wind farm capacity was built pursuant to that Renewable Energy Target. That is the truth of it. That is what Mr Price, your former adviser, has advised. He has revealed the truth to the public. The other factor has been this policy uncertainty vacuum that you have created. You tore up a national framework that we put in place that has been a model that conservative governments around the world have embraced. David Cameron, Angela Merkel and Arnold Schwarzenegger were happy to do it, but not you. We were the ones who had to embrace the forces of the market and you were the ones who embraced the command economy approach—happily taking the North Korean path down the track to national ruin on energy policy. What is also missing is a plan for grid management and transition of that grid. If you want to know what a plan looks like, this here is a plan of 41 pages of detailed substance and thought, which deals with that exact issue of grid management, spelt out the electricity modernisation review process that we intended to put in place. What also amazes me in this post-truth politics is the Prime Minister turning up to the Snowy Hydro scheme. Suddenly, after months we have had months of vilification of renewable energy, the Prime Minister is standing in front of the granddaddy of renewable energy projects in the country. Suddenly, he has embraced this as a solution to our power problems after vilifying all this year. The incredible irony of this is that the Snowy Hydro scheme was a great Labor project, instituted by Prime Minister Ben Chifley. I am very proud that my great-grandfather, who stood for the seat of Eden-Monaro in 1940, in a speech in September 1940 advocated for the Snowy Hydro scheme and said, 'Why is this government doing nothing about it?' That was in 1940. Why? Because there were national security implications around that as well while we were in the midst of the Second World War. It is instructive that the Chifley government used the defence power to kick off the Snowy Hydro scheme, taking national security responsibility for a national energy issue. The other irony about that was not only that we had to do that but that the coalition at the time—the Country Party as it then was and the Liberal Party—opposed the scheme when it was announced in 1949 and boycotted the launch ceremony at Adaminaby that year. Nobody was there. Who was there? Governor-General McKell, a Labor appointee; Prime Minister Ben Chifley; the Labor member for Eden-Monaro of the time, Allan Fraser; and the Labor member for the state seat of Monaro, John Seiffert—not a Liberal or Country Party politician to be seen. The irony also is that the Snowy Hydro scheme pumping operations now at the Tumut 3 station are powered by contracted power from South Australian wind farms—the ultimate irony. Of course, that is how they would move forward with the grander pumping operation once it is completed, contracting renewable energy sources in off-peak periods to pump that water. This is a scheme worth getting behind. Of course, we have to see real money being put behind it. But you need to give up your hypocrisy. You need to come up with a plan. You need to serve the interests of this nation instead of lying to the public. (Time expired) 15:36 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax I have to say I was originally a little bit confused when I read the wording of the topic for the matter of public importance today: 'The government's continued failure to address the national energy crisis'. It just seemed like a free kick for the coalition. Maybe the Labor Party is admitting that the state Labor government in South Australia is responsible for the recent blackouts, with a RET of 50 per cent. There is no jurisdiction in the world that has more intermittent renewables per capita than South Australia. I cannot think for the life of me of any jurisdiction in the developed world that is experiencing more blackouts than South Australia. A government member: There is a connection. Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Indeed there is a connection and indeed that government needs to be held to account. Or maybe the Labor Party are talking about the Victorian Labor government, where the Renewable Energy Target is 40 per cent, a state where they are going to see the closure of the Hazelwood power plant, a state that despite wanting to close coal is determined to maintain a moratorium against the exploration of gas. Or maybe it is not actually the South Australia or Victorian governments to which this topic relates but in fact the Queensland state government. The Queensland Labor government currently govern a state that has only four per cent renewables. Guess what their energy target is? It is 50 per cent. It has gone from four per cent up to a whopping 50 per cent. Imagine what will happen to the state of Queensland if they actually seek to pursue that. South Australia's is indeed an example. The previous speaker referred to North Korea of all places. Maybe that is indeed the beacon of hope for the South Australian government. But let's get back to Queensland. It is four per cent and the state government wants to raise it up to 50 per cent. Do you know that will cost $27 billion from the Queensland state government? This is a state government that is dragging its heels on trying to invest in infrastructure. The Queensland state government is a state government that is refusing to complete studies that would enable a joint Commonwealth and state investment in major infrastructure. It is not interested in roads, not interested in rail but, I tell you what, is more than happy to look at more than $30 billion to try to match South Australians energy disaster. Maybe therein lies the insight as to what the topic is all about today. You might ask the question: what if the Labor Party actually won federal government? Guess what, federal Labor have 50 per cent renewable energy targets so they are doing the same. They have a 45 per cent emissions reduction target, double that of the coalition's. There will be forced closure of coal-fired power plants and of course they do want a revised carbon tax. The major instrument that has reduced electricity prices around this country in recent years has actually been the coalition's abolition—taking away Labor's carbon tax. How much would this cost, this Labor plan that basically closes coal and stops gas? It would be $48 billion. That is right. That would be $5,000 per household under Labor's plan. Whereas what you see from the coalition side is action in trying to fix Labor's mess at the state level, action with the Snowy Hydro scheme that will deliver the largest storage capacity has this country has ever seen, action by ensuring that we get a commitment from the gas players to make gas available for peak demand, and a plan for the future with Alan Finkel yet to deliver his report. What we have from Labor is an 'ism'. It is an ideology; that is all it is. We have pragmatism here; they have ideologues on the other side. We believe in security and affordability; they believe in getting preferences from the Greens. We take an agnostic approach; they take a religious zealotry approach. We believe in economics and engineering, and they just believe in false gods. 15:41 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert I rise in this place to stand for North Queensland and to speak out against the Turnbull government's complete inaction in addressing our energy crisis. When I woke to hear the news announcement about the Snowy Mountains hydro, I was livid. Do not get me wrong; I think it is great the Prime Minister has finally seen the light and sees the great value and purpose of ARENA—something created by Labor and saved by Labor after three years of the Turnbull government trying to abolish it. But the fact is the Prime Minister made a rushed announcement to address South Australia's energy crisis and has kept very quiet on the north. Well, I am here to warn this government that I will not be quiet. In North Queensland, we are experiencing sky-rocketing electricity prices and nothing from the Turnbull government. The cost of electricity keeps rising, and the increasing pressure on families from the cost of living is growing. Just yesterday, I had a local business owner, Kelly Bacon, owner of the Organic Pantry, call my office in tears. Kelly's business is a small business that employs three staff. Yesterday, she received her electricity bill of $8,000. Of course Kelly is devastated and she believes that the increasing costs of electricity will force her to close her shop. But it is not just small business this affects; it is large corporations as well. Sun Metals is one of Queensland's biggest electricity consumers and a key Townsville employer. In the last two years, the electricity bill for the Sun Metals zinc refinery has increased over 72 per cent. Their electricity bill has increased from $50 million in 2015 to more than $70 million last year. Here is the best part, and I particularly want the Minister for Energy to listen to this point: electricity prices in Queensland were more expensive than South Australia in 2015 and 2016, despite the fact that Queensland has coal-fired generation. Here is a direct quote from CEO of Sun Metals, Mr Choi, who stated at the end of last year: Considering that the generation profile in Queensland is dominated by stable base-load coal-fired generation, profoundly different from that of South Australia, this is a very surprising fact. What is not surprising is the Turnbull government's complete lack of understanding on energy issues in the north and its lack of action. But where the Turnbull government fails, Sun Metals will pick up having secured a 115 megawatt solar farm at its Stuart property, signalling the start of a $182 million project which is expected to create many jobs. The irony of all of this is that North Queensland has had a plan to address both our energy and water crises for decades. We can kill two birds with one stone with the Burdekin Falls dam. I hold here a report from 1977 that outlines a three-stage progression plan for securing both water and energy for North Queensland, allowing my glorious region to grow and prosper. Stage 1 was to build the Burdekin Falls Dam—a dam five times the size of Sydney Harbour. This was completed in the early 1990s, thanks to the last Labor member for Herbert, Ted Lindsay, and former Prime Minister Bob Hawke. Stage 2 is to build a gravity pipeline directly from the Burdekin Dam—update: we are still waiting. Stage 3 is to raise the Burdekin Dam walls—update: still waiting. Stage 4 is the hydropower plant—current status: still waiting. For the Turnbull government to make their Snowy hydro announcement whilst reports for hydro in the north have been around since 1977 is a slap in the face for all North Queenslanders. The north has the answer, it has been sitting there since Hawke, and now we just need this government to listen and deliver. It astounds me that one of our greatest resources in the north is the Burdekin Falls Dam, and there is no mention from this government on leveraging its power. If the Prime Minister called me and said, 'Cathy, I have finally heard your calls and North Queensland's calls, and we are going to address the water and energy crisis by building the hydro on the Burdekin Falls Dam,' I would roll out the red carpet. But with the government's focus on the south—and nothing for the north—it looks like I will be holding on to that red carpet for quite some time. And businesses like Sun Metals and The Organic Pantry will have to keep waiting for any action from the government. The government are completely out of touch with North Queensland. I demand that the Turnbull government lift their heads a little higher and start looking towards the north and start addressing our energy and water crises. Quite frankly, it will be very difficult for our area and region to grow, flourish and prosper without electricity and water security. 15:46 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker We must be in the post-truth world right now. I can understand why the shadow minister, the member for Port Adelaide, might want to turn this debate on the MPI on energy around. But as he, the member for Boothby and I all know—as do South Australians—we are hostages, as are our constituents. We are now hostage to a failed experiment that is being rolled out in South Australia. Why is that? It is because we have rushed towards renewables. We have rushed towards a technology that provides intermittent power. We have turned our back on baseload generators. In fact, in South Australia, they wanted, on the altar of ideology, to send such a strong message on this that they blew the power stations up. They were not happy with decommissioning them; they had to put gelignite in the boiler and go 'bang'. And what did we get? We got electricity prices on the spot market in South Australia that are just nonsensical. During this month, there have been times when the spot electricity price in South Australia has been $14,000. You can buy the same unit of power from Victoria for $122. It is coming out of the same power station. It does not make any sense at all. I thought I might give a few examples of the hostages that have been taken in my state. I can speak of the irrigators in the Riverland, who lived through the millennium drought but who, very shortly, will live through an energy drought. This is because, although the water is, thankfully, running and flowing strongly down the river, they will not be able to afford to lift it. They cannot pump it. They will see their permanent plantings die and wither because they literally cannot afford to take the water from the river to their farms. They are hostage No. 1. Hostage No. 2 is a very significant manufacturing plant in my electorate. They have been forced to go on to the spot electricity price, despite spending tens of thousands—indeed tens of millions—of dollars on cogeneration plants. They have someone who sits in a room and watches the spot electricity price on an app a bit like the PocketNEM that we have all become familiar with in recent times. This person sits in a room, and, effectively, they press a button, an alarm goes off, and they down tools. The machines are all turned off. I am told they literally pick up the brooms and start sweeping until the electricity price drops again. What does that say about productivity and the need for us to keep driving it? That is hostage No. 2. This is an employer of hundreds of my constituents. Hostage No. 3 is a restaurant in my electorate, of all things. The restauranteur rang me and said: 'You won't believe it, but I've just assessed my electricity price of January 2016 versus January 2017. I've got the bills side-by-side, Tony— An honourable member interjecting— Mr PASIN 240756 What an excellent question you ask. What is the difference? The difference was $18,000. He said to me, 'I'm now dividing that by how much it costs me to employ someone for a month, and that will be the number of people I have to sack.' That is hostage No. 3. I will give you what is perhaps the fourth hostage. He came to my electorate, saw a disused industrial facility and thought he could breathe life into it. The member for Wandin knows this man well. He is a significant investor in his electorate as well. He thought: 'I can breathe life into this facility. I can employ people in Tony's electorate.' So he set about building this facility, which is export focused. It will take products from my electorate, it will process them, and we will export them to the world. The mistake he made was that he entered into all of these arrangements—and he is proceeding with this development; all credit to him—before he worked out the cost of electricity in South Australia. He told me that the cost is nearly $2.5 million a year more than if the facility had been built in Victoria. I think we could comfortably say that is hostage No. 4. I say to those opposite and to the shadow minister and member for Port Adelaide: if you really cared about South Australians, if you really cared about the future of South Australia, you would junk your 50 per cent target and you would tell your state mates to do the same. 15:51 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I am proud to rise to speak on this MPI about the energy crisis created by this government. The previous speaker seemed to ignore the fact that the 'hostages' are hostage to four years of this hopeless government's energy policy vacuum. The government have abandoned any pretence of economic competence when it comes to energy policy. Instead, they are being driven by right-wing, fossil fuel, dinosaur ideology around 'renewables bad, coal good'. They are hopeless on this. They have abandoned any pretence of economic credibility. This vacuum is actually impacting on workers and firms around this country right now. The Australian Energy Council, which is the peak group for generators and energy retailers, has estimated that the policy paralysis created by this government is the equivalent of a carbon price in excess of $50. Let me repeat that: this government's incompetence is the equivalent of levying a carbon price of $50 on the energy sector. This is the price of their incompetence. We are all paying this price, and urgent action is needed. Our generator fleet is very, very old. The average age of a generator in Victoria is 40. In New South Wales it is 34. My home region of the Hunter produces one-third of the coal-fired power in this country, and I am very proud of that, but all four of those power stations have use-by dates set by the companies: Liddell, 2022; Vales Point, probably 2028; Eraring, 2024; and Bayswater, 2035. Those are the expiry dates set by the companies, not any government policy. We need urgent action to replace these generators. The real question here is: how do we replace them at the least possible cost to Australian consumers? I am happy to say that the government commissioned modelling that very clearly recommended the way forward: an emissions intensity scheme. That is Labor's policy and it has been endorsed by a group of people that you would not consider to be friends of Labor. We have got the Business Council of Australia, BHP, AGL, EnergyAustralia, the National Farmers' Federation, Origin Energy, the Australian Energy Market Commission, CSIRO, Energy Networks Australia, the Chief Scientist, the Climate Change Authority, the CEFC, Danny Price—Malcolm Turnbull's old energy adviser—state governments and many more energy stakeholders. And who stands in the way? Two groups stand in the way: One Nation and this government, which is hostage to One Nation. And what is the impact of this? The impact of this is: they are the party that is arguing for a policy that will cost $15 billion more for Australian consumers—and that is the government's own modelling. They do not like it when I throw back to them the government's own modelling, which says that Labor's policy will result in power prices up to $15 billion cheaper than what this joke of a government stands for. This is a great pity, because we need an honest debate in this area. We need a debate amongst adults. But all we get from them is tired old rhetoric. We have got that joke of a Treasurer bringing a lump of coal into this place and pretending that is an answer. Well, I am proud to represent a coal community. My neighbours are coalminers. My friends are coalminers. And the worst thing you can do to workers is to lie to them, and every single member over there is lying to them by saying: 'Nothing needs to change. You can keep your head in the sand and you don't have to worry about anything.' That is a joke. It is a farce. It is disrespectful to those workers in the communities like mine that depend upon them. On this side, Labor stands for a concrete plan that will deliver certainty to investors, to allow them to invest in the next generation of power production, whether it is gas, whether it is renewable, which will provide certainty to our consumers and will deliver power prices at an affordable level and employ more Australians. Those on the other side are betraying future generations. They will not be able to look their kids and their grandkids in the eyes, because they are betraying them for low-rent cheap political tricks. I feel sorry for them, because in 10 years time, if they are still in this place—and not many will be—they will have to recant their ridiculous 19th century views based on a profound cynicism and a disrespect for Australian workers. I proudly stand for the future. Those on the other side stand for the past. 15:56 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I thank the opposition for the opportunity to discuss and debate the merits or otherwise of the 50 per cent renewable energy target which they intend to take to the next election. We had the member for Shortland just reel off a number of bodies and reports, as other speakers have talked about— Mr Conroy 249127 It's called facts. Mr RICK WILSON 198084 Facts? Well, modelling is not necessarily facts. But what we do know is that we have a 50 per cent renewable energy target in South Australia and we have got to 41 per cent of that renewable energy target in South Australia. So, rather than relying on modelling or a report from the renewable energy council or the Climate Council or whatever, we have actually got a living experiment happening in South Australia—Jay Weatherill has quite proudly called it an experiment. And we know how that is working out. I really do not need to work over that old ground. Then we can look at Victoria. Victoria is heading down the same path, with a 40 per cent renewable energy target. The Hazelwood power plant is due to close down. Let us have a look at what they are saying about that. Josh Gordon, on the front page of today's Age, reports: Australia's electricity grid operator has warned that the looming shutdown of the ageing plant, which supplies up to a quarter of the state's power, could lead to breaches of the minimum energy reliability benchmark next summer. Its data shows 72 days of potential "power shortfall". That is over the next two years. The Australian Energy Council chief executive, Mr Matthew Warren, is reported as saying that: … Victoria's energy security was looking increasingly fragile. He said the prediction of 72 days of possible reserve shortfall was unprecedented in recent history. So we have got the example in South Australia—the living experiment, as Jay Weatherill so proudly proclaimed—and we have got Victoria moving down the same path, and we will see how that pans out over the next couple of years. I want to take the debate to Western Australia. I am glad that the member for Brand is still here. The member for Burt was here but he has slipped out. We have had a change of government in WA, so we are in a brave new world. There is no doubt about that. When we look around Australia and we look at South Australia and Victoria, we are definitely in a brave new world. When we look at the current Western Australian energy mix, on the AEMO website at the moment it says that Western Australia is generating six per cent of its electricity through wind power. The other day it was up to 13 per cent, and the day before that it was zero per cent. But 57 per cent of Western Australia's power, at this point in time, is being generated by coal-fired electricity from the town of Collie, in my electorate of O'Connor. I am very proud of that. I am very proud of those hardworking coalminers in the town of Collie. The electorate of Collie is represented by a good hardworking Labor member, Mick Murray. In the election just held, during the campaign, Labor abandoned, apparently, the plans by energy minister Bill Johnston for a 50 per cent renewable energy target in Western Australia. Why did he abandon that? Let's have a listen. This is from Andrew Burrellin The Australian: Labor abandoned plans to unveil a 50 per cent renewable energy target in Western Australia after Mick Murray—the party's veteran MP in the coalmining town of Collie—threatened to quit his marginal seat before next week's state election. Member for Shortland, you could take a leaf out of Mick Murray's book, mate. After the recording— of Mr Johnston's 50 per cent renewable energy target— became public … Mark McGowan promised not to reintroduce any form of state based RET … But what did he say? He said: There will be no renewable energy target, at a state level, under any government I lead. Ms Price 249308 We've heard that before. Mr RICK WILSON 198084 Have we heard that before? I want to conclude with something for you, member for Shortland. Mr Murray said he would quit politics rather than take such a policy to voters who rely on coalmining and power generation for their jobs. That is a member of parliament I can really respect. He comes from the other side of politics, but I can really respect him, because he knows that a 50 per cent renewable energy target is going to damage jobs and damage Western Australia, and he is prepared to put his job ahead of the Labor Party's 50 per cent renewable energy target. I say to Mick Murray: I am looking forward to working with you— (Time expired) 16:01 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand The Australian energy crisis is close to the single public policy issue that causes my constituents the greatest frustration. It really is one of those issues that causes people outside of this building to scratch their head and ask whether this institution is truly broken. It is an issue that directly impacts on all Australians in ways both big and small. Ms Price 249308 Tell us about Victoria, Tim. Mr Pasin 240756 I can't wait till you have a blackout. Constituents love it. Mr WATTS 193430 At the micro level, increasing electricity bills are a growing burden on household budgets. At the macro level, the very future of our planet rests on our ability to reduce emissions from our energy sector to mitigate the impacts of climate change. Yet for the past four years, Australia has managed to have both increasing power bills and increasing carbon emissions. The Australian public desperately want this issue fixed. The good news is that there are solutions that are widely supported by business, energy companies, regulators and state governments. Indeed, an emissions intensity scheme—a market mechanism that would give investors in the electricity sector the certainty that they need to invest—has been estimated, by the government's own modelling, to reduce Australian power bills by up to $15 billion over the next decade. It would allow the investments that our ageing energy infrastructure needs, and it would do it in a way that will reduce our emissions and help us respond to the challenge of climate change. Mr Rick Wilson 198084 Did Adam Bandt write this for you? Mr WATTS 193430 It is supported by: the Business Council of Australia, BHP, AGL, EnergyAustralia, the National Farmers' Federation, Origin Energy, the Australian Energy Markets Commission, CSIRO, the Chief Scientist, the Climate Change Authority, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, Danny Price—Malcolm Turnbull's former energy adviser—state governments, Labor and Liberal alike, and many other energy stakeholders. Yet this government is utterly paralysed in the face of this effective and widely supported policy response. Indeed, in December of last year, when the Minister for the Environment and Energy merely floated the idea of considering the adoption of this popular, effective policy to reduce both power bills and carbon emissions, it was shot down by the Turnbull government in hours. Ms Price 249308 How's it going in Victoria? The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The member for Durack and the member for O'Connor will remain silent. Mr WATTS 193430 Why? The problem is that this policy is supported by the Australian Labor Party. After nearly a decade of politically motivated sabotage on energy policy, those opposite have been left unable to even think about energy policy as anything other than a short-term political tactic. Indeed, when the 'convoy of no confidence' arrived in Canberra in 2011, it brought with it a convoy of incompetence to coalition energy policy. We saw claims that the previous government's carbon price would result in hundred-dollar roasts and would result in the Whyalla wipe-out—both wrong. We saw promises that power bills would fall by $200 when the Abbott government got rid of the carbon price—also completely wrong. Mrs Sudmalis 241586 They did! Mr WATTS 193430 I take that interjection. Power prices reduced by $200, according to the member for Gilmore. I am sure she will be informing her constituents about this very good news. An optimist might have hoped that this would end after the ascension of the member for Wentworth to the top job. After all, the then opposition leader told the nation in 2009 that: I will not lead a party that is not as committed to effective action on climate change as I am. But the short-term, politically driven nonsense on energy policy has continued. We have seen ministers waving hunks of coal in the chamber while promising to use taxpayer funding to build new coal-fired power generators that the private sector call uninvestable and will not touch with a barge pole. We have seen a thought bubble, delivered via a feasibility study, to investigate a pumped-storage plant in the Snowy Hydro scheme that at best could become a reality in five to seven years. Mr Pasin 240756 You can't even keep timber mills open in Victoria. Mr WATTS 193430 And still they completely ignore the solution that is right before their face. As the Australian Energy Council stated in its submission to the Finkel review: … the lack of national policy certainty is now the single biggest driver of higher electricity prices. In a world awash with capital, where investors are looking for safe long-term investments, in a world where we are seeing a tidal wave of investment in renewable energy around the world—more than $260 billion of it in 2015, twice the volume of investment in coal or gas generation—in this world, the failure of our political system, the failure of leadership within the coalition, is sabotaging the Australian energy sector. Mr Pasin 240756 I didn't know Daniel Andrews was a member of the coalition! Mr WATTS 193430 In 1986 Paul Keating warned this country that unless we got our act together and confronted the economic realities of our time, we would become a banana republic, a Third World economy. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The member for Barker is out of his place! Mr WATTS 193430 Under the Turnbull government, Australia is currently drifting towards 'becoming a banana republic' status again: a nation whose government is incapable of confronting the biggest challenge facing our households, our economy and our environment. In contrast, the Australian Labor Party is up to the challenge, and at the next federal election the Australia people will be able to make a choice about the future of this country, a choice about who will tackle this challenge head-on. (Time expired) 16:06 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore I began the day talking about suicide and the 'black dog ride' and I will end the day talking about energy ignorance and the 'blackout slide'. Energy, which to most of us involves electricity and gas for heating or cooling, cooking or entertainment, is more than just a domestic supply issue. We also have businesses that process, pasteurise and refrigerate food and get people to work on trains. In fact I don't believe there is a single part of our lives that is not touched by our energy needs. Consequently a responsible government will make sure that energy supply is guaranteed, which is energy security, and then work on keeping the price at a level we can all afford, not just for domestic use but for every level of our vital businesses and manufacturing. This of course means not just convenience of lifestyle; it also means jobs. So, first, we called on the Chief Scientist, Dr Alan Finkel, to deliver a blueprint for the future security of the National Electricity Market. Then we announced a massive expansion to the Snowy Hydro Scheme, called Snowy 2.0, increasing capacity by 50 per cent. Then we fund feasibility studies into a pumped hydro energy storage project at Cultana, in South Australia, which will help to stabilise that state's energy supply so that the incidence of blackouts is reduced. AGL is about to connect 1,000 batteries and households that will operate as a 5 megawatt solar power plant. We are still working towards the agreed national renewable energy target, which will see 23.5 per cent of electricity generation come from renewables by 2020. ARENA, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, will deliver large-scale solar with 12 new large-scale solar photovoltaic projects that will triple the amount of energy produced from big solar in Australia. We have initiated the National Energy Productivity Plan (NEPP), which will increase our energy productivity by 40 per cent by 2030. Finally, we secured the commitment of major gas producers to make more gas available to the domestic market and guarantee that gas will be available to meet peak demand, which has been worrying people for some time. I dare say that there were six years of Labor when not very much was done then, either. The blackouts in South Australia act as a wake-up call to get our energy house in order. A lower emissions future is our national aim, but not at the loss of energy security and affordability as we transition. One of the most important aspects of renewable energy is the need for base load storage. Investment into this research is critical, so there will be support for variable renewables like wind and solar. This means the feed into the grid will be more reliable. It is absolutely essential that in the process of meeting our emissions reduction targets we do not compromise energy security, which is why we are taking a technology-neutral, sensible approach where coal and gas as base load power sources have a big role. That includes investigating the potential of carbon capture and storage. These could provide reliable base load power at 90 per cent lower emissions. Through the environmental agencies we have invested a record $220 million in storage and pumped hydro-electricity projects to respond to the challenges posed by variable supply. Those opposite have referred to the 'apparent' energy policy development over the past four years. I would counter that by saying that they had six years to develop a policy and all we got was the carbon tax. We are calling on the states and the Northern Territory to drop their counterproductive gas bans and moratoriums. Gas is an important transition fuel, with at least half the emissions of coal. We are calling on Labor states to abandon their RETs, which drive up prices. Australia's emissions per capita are currently at their lowest level in 27 years. We have a strong track record of meeting and beating our emissions reduction targets. We simply cannot keep prices down for everyone in Australia if we even think about a 50 per cent target for renewable energy by 2030. We began the debate today by discussing gas shortages, which is still a relative of fossil fuels. Labor is not talking about that at the end of the debate. Is it because they finally realise that this would blow the Aussie household budget, or that it will encourage businesses to leave our country? I seriously cannot believe the black hole of knowledge regarding energy. While Labor subsidises the development of the renewable sector, the essential investments in more traditional sources of electricity were ignored, and now we are seeing the results. Using a balanced approach, we are going to avoid the big national energy blackout that is looming in front of us. Labor should put more energy into being positive about Australia rather than creating a blackout for Australians. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Order! The time allotted for this discussion has expired. BILLS 67 BILLS Competition and Consumer Amendment (Misuse of Market Power) Bill 2016 67

Competition and Consumer Amendment (Misuse of Market Power) Bill 2016

Second Reading 67 16:12 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax It is the purpose test that has really been assessed as the key failure of the current regime, due to it being too difficult to prove and too specific in its application. How do you prove one's purpose in doing something? How do you prove what one's intent is? It almost reminds me of the song the nuns in the convent sing in the Sound of Music: 'How do you catch a cloud and pin it down?'. It is just all too hard. How do you prove one's real intent? The application of the purpose test has also proven to be too specific, with cases typically seeking to challenge the purpose of an activity undertaken by one firm against other single entities, whereas the idea behind the act was to protect the process of competition itself. Essentially, this bill seeks to address these flaws in the existing act by swapping the test of 'intent' or 'purpose' with a test of 'effect'. What is more, it is to relate not so much to an activity by one powerful firm towards another single entity, but rather to the question of whether such activity adversely impacts the competitive process. In other words, what counts is whether the little guy actually gets done over by the big guy, regardless of whether the big guy says he meant it or not. If, when this happens, competition is lessened, or is likely to be lessened, then that is enough for it to be against the law. Clearly, this bill is to be contested. There is no point in denying that. A number of large corporates and their representative bodies are opposed to what it proposes. Small and medium sized entities, which are the bedrock of our economy, and who are most vulnerable to any misuse of market power, are very much in favour of the bill. Some opposition from the bigger end of town is no doubt based on the fact that the current regime has been in place for a long time; they are familiar with it and they would prefer the certainty it offers, along with simple continuity. I get that. Some have said that it could have a material impact on the speed and nature of business decision making and cause delays or changes in investment decisions. Obviously we want our big corporates to continue to invest, but we want those investments to be in line with community expectations that they will be fair and reasonable, not unfair—especially in regard to small and medium businesses. The Harper review of competition policy, which in 2014 recommended the changes to section 46 that this bill engages, recognised the arguments that were being put by both sides and concluded that, on balance, these changes should be made. The government undertook its own augmentative investigation and discussion around the proposed changes and agreed, early last year, that the Harper review was right and that the changes should be made. The Senate Economics Legislation Committee came to the same conclusion. As we know, the Labor Party opposes the bill, but its position is, as ever, full of contradiction and of opposition for the mere sake of being in opposition. The opposition Treasury spokesman, who is almost as big a critic of big business as his leader and deputy leader, is suddenly animatedly pro the big end of town when it comes to section 46. The shadow Treasurer does not see any need for change, arguing that the amendments will 'dull' investment, while at the same time, almost with the same breath, he argues against corporate tax cuts, which would positively impact investment and, subsequently and just as importantly, jobs. In other words, on this issue Labor is simply playing a tactical game of opposition politics—it supports the big end of town and then it attacks the big end of town, never with consistency in debate but simply with a view to acting as an opposition. But Australians are better than that. I am sure the vast majority of Australians want those that possess substantial market power to be held to account. Some people who oppose this bill argue that it represents a breach of faith with the free market economy in that it meddles with Adam Smith's infamous invisible hand and thus undermines the notion of free trade. With all due respect to some otherwise learned warriors who run that line of argument, they have misread their economic theory and, what is more, they have certainly misunderstood the working of the real market economy. I say this as an unashamed, unabashed disciple of the free market and of free trade. Trade that is not fair is trade that is not free. Small businesses know this best. In my home state of Queensland, there are 414,000 small businesses—that is 97 per cent of all businesses—each employing less than 20 employees. It is even higher in regional Queensland, including in my neck of the woods, on the Sunshine Coast, where around 32,000 small businesses constitute 98 per cent of the total. Should these companies be ring fenced and protected from competition? No, absolutely not—and nor do they want to be, because people who back themselves in private enterprise are not typically shrinking violets who are scared of competition. They are people who are prepared to invest their own bucks in an opportunity and to fight in the marketplace. They are every bit as talented and every bit as competitive as those who operate in large enterprise, but they have a right to compete on a level playing field, and that is what this bill seeks to support. A level playing field is absolutely consistent with the principles of free trade, because free trade is fair trade. It is on that basis that I support the bill and commend it to the House. 16:19 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand I am pleased to be able to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Misuse of Market Power) Bill 2016 before the House today—despite being disappointed at its contents because, in a previous life, I once practiced as a competition lawyer. They are a funny mob, competition lawyers. They are least legalistic of lawyers, because they are more interested in markets than in statutory interpretation, because the rules of the competitive process are sacrosanct to competition lawyers. It is as much about economics and the operation of a market as the statute books. I was proud to be a competition lawyer, because competition is a Labor value. It stands on the principle that success in the marketplace should be a function of quality and efficiency, not inherited power, and successful strategy, not school ties. As Paul Keating once said: 'The only thing that can guarantee our future is competition. Competition leads to higher productivity, lower prices and higher living standards. Competition is a Labor word. It is what guarantees working people a growing living standard and ensures that they are not going to be used and abused by businesses trying to lay off substandard products and services on them. Competition provides the spice to the economy.' National Competition Policy was a great gift of the Keating government, but it has always been a hotly contested space. The use of the law to break down entrenched power always is. Those with power tend to resist it being taken away and, in my experience, it is all too easy to say, 'Competition is good for you but not for me.' We are also confronted by the constant special pleading from businesses who want competition law to be used to protect them from competition. Defending the fundamental economic principles underpinning competition law requires strong leadership. Unfortunately, the bill before the House today reflects a capitulation of the Turnbull government on one of the most fundamental principles of competition law. It is what happens when you let the Deputy Prime Minister run your economic policy. In its present form, section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act prohibits businesses with a substantial degree of market power from 'taking advantage' of that market power with anticompetitive purpose. The government's proposed changes would amend how to determine whether an organisation is acting anticompetitively. Specifically, the amendment proposes the replacement of the 'take advantage' test with an effects test. The introduction of an effects test into Australian competition law has been something of a Lasseter's Reef for the National Party for the past decade or so. It has been a white whale for snake oil salesmen selling platitudes to small businesses in regional Australia. I hear those opposite claiming that the Harper review has changed everything and that it is because it has recommended that this change is required that the government is proceeding. What you do not hear about from those opposite are the 10 previous reviews we have had over the past 40 years that have recommended against the introduction of an effects test in Australia. They have recommended against the introduction of an effects test for remarkably similar reasons. The Swanson committee in 1976, the Blunt review in 1979, the Griffiths committee in 1989, the Cooney committee in 1991, the Hilmer committee in 1993, the Baird committee in 1999, the Hawker committee in 2001, another Senate inquiry in 2002, the Dawson review in 2003 and a Senate Economics References Committee review in 2004—all of these inquiries looked at this issue and said that an effects test is just too hard; it introduces far too much uncertainty into this area of law. According to the Harper review, current legislation is deficient in two ways. The 'take advantage' test does not competently identify the manifestation of anti-competitive practices by a firm; and the 'purpose' test is concerned with conduct that harms competitors rather than conduct that harms competition. As a result, the government's proposed amendment suggests that firms with substantial market power should be prohibited from engaging in conduct that has the 'purpose, effect or likely effect' of substantially lessening competition in the market. This proposition fundamentally misunderstands competition policy. The 'purpose' element targets the operation of the Competition and Consumer Act towards behaviour that is designed to sabotage the competitive process. By broadening this provision to include its effects, the provision will necessarily cover effective competitive practices. We want our businesses to be competing aggressively. That is how products get better, that is how products get cheaper and that is how what is offered to consumers gets better. What this legislation does is create legal uncertainty about what that competition can look like. I put to the House the question of whether this provision would prohibit the invention of the iPhone. Let us look at the provision. The law before the House would prohibit a firm with a substantial degree of market power from engaging in conduct that has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition in that market or in any other market in which the corporation operates. 'Substantially lessening competition' is a vague term in case law. It means not merely discernible, but in a material or real sense—a meaningful lessening of competition. When Apple introduced the iPhone in Australia in 2008, it certainly had market power in the MP3 player market through the iPod. It leveraged this market—the lock-in of consumers using its MP3 player—in the new smartphone market, a market that it entered with a zero per cent market share. Within five years, Apple's smartphone market share in Australia was almost 50 per cent—an effect that substantially damaged competitors like Nokia and Research in Motion—the manufacturer of the BlackBerry, a device that is now lost to time, and their market share plummeted as a result. That is a good thing—I love my iPhone; it is much better than the BlackBerry that I had back in 2003. But it adds the uncertainty: would Apple have had to call the competition lawyers? I used to be a competition lawyer, and this law will be very good for competition lawyers, because it will mean Australian businesses will not be able to walk two steps without calling their competition lawyer and asking them—at a very hefty price, billed at $6 increments—'Can I do this? Can I invent an iPhone? Can I reduce the price of this product? Can I enter a new market?' If you think that is a good way of running an economy, you could have got a job in the Soviet Union. This is directly involving government in the strategy and decision-making of business in an utterly absurd way. The example that I give is a deliberately silly one, and I want to stress that I do not think that argument would get up in the courts, but it is an example of the kinds of arguments that we are opening the door to with the uncertainty inherent in this provision. I should emphasise to those National Party members across the chamber that it is not just large multinationals corporations that will be caught up by this. A market is defined under the Competition and Consumer Act as having dimensions of a product and a geographic space in which rivalry and competition take place. The reality is that there are many fairly small businesses in Australia who have market power within regional markets. They will be caught by this provision. Decisions to open new stores in regional areas will be caught by this provision. If there are competitors who do not like the effects of that competition and if there are other businesses who do not want to try and seek the business of their customers by providing better products but instead by calling up the ACCC and asking if they will intervene, they will do that. It will impose a significant cost on small business in regional areas. Indeed, the Treasury has already conceded that the introduction of the effects test would increase uncertainty for Australian businesses. This will be a boon for competition lawyers. This provision will force major Australian businesses to pick up their phone to their competition lawyer before every new product launch and every new pricing strategy. They will need to ask whether the 'effect' of these actions could contravene the law—and all too often, the response from their highly paid legal counsel will be, 'Maybe' or, 'It's impossible to say' or, 'You could try.' It will impose completely unjustifiable costs and uncertainty on Australian business management. The government's proposal to replace the 'take advantage' test with an effects test means that Australian competition law will enter a new period of risk and uncertainty. In fact, it will be the most significant upheaval since the introduction of the Competition and Consumer Act. The fallout from the introduction of an effects test would ultimately be handed down to consumers, which means that hardworking Australian families will be the ones that lose out. The government's intention to introduce the effects test has the potential to fundamentally stifle innovation and dull competition rather than invigorate it—unless you think getting lawyers involved in everything is likely to produce better products. Stifling innovation and dulling competition is not a plan for jobs and growth. The function of competition law should not be creating jobs for competition lawyers. We do not want to increase risk for businesses when they engage in robust competitive conduct. And we certainly do not want to make businesses less inclined to engage in competitive behaviour. Reluctance from businesses to lower their prices in fear of legal risk will slow economic growth. Submissions to the Harper review described the effects test as a 'legally unworkable' mechanism that will inevitably increase consumer prices. Indeed, the Council of Small Business Owners Australia, COSBOA, has criticised the potential to create a 'lawyers picnic' of litigation for small business owners. This is why Labor will oppose these changes. Labor's alternative is comprehensive, fully costed and robust, and can serve as the cornerstone for a new phase in Australian competition policy. In order to preserve the integrity of Australia's national competition policy, Labor is proposing an access to justice policy. Derived from the successful European competition policy frameworks, the access to justice policy is designed to facilitate— Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 70 ADJOURNMENT Lindsay Electorate: Community Services 70 16:30 Ms HUSAR 263328 Lindsay The community that I represent—I come in here often and I feel like I am bragging about it—is wonderful. We are generous, family-minded and fair. We love Western Sydney and we are proud of our place in the world. We have so many brilliant things—our people, our river and our proximity to the World Heritage-listed Blue Mountains. The country town feel of six degrees of separation is actually feeling more like four degrees every day. We are all incredibly lucky to call Lindsay home. Of course, there are things that could make our area an even better place to live. Every day in this place I fight and I focus on raising those matters. For the benefit of the government, I will happily recap those things that I have spoken up on, including the Western Sydney Airport and making sure we are not being sold a pup about the Nepean Hospital's lack of infrastructure and the urgent need to upgrade and plan for its future and our growing population. I often speak about local schools and how much Lindsay students will miss out on without the unity ticket that was once promised by those on the other side. I constantly raise the unfair priorities of this government— Mr Falinski G86 More complaints! More complaints! Oh, here we go! Mr McCormack interjecting— Ms HUSAR 263328 cutting penalty rates, ripping money away from vulnerable people and forcing two-thirds of Indigenous childcare centres to close their doors, and then debating the less pressing issue of 18C on behalf of One Nation rather than debating what is important for the nation. They do this all the while trying to push through big business tax cuts that will hand billions of dollars straight to the big four banks. And I can hear people on the other side interjecting. I am wondering if they are going to continue that all the way through, especially when I get to the next bit. Government members interjecting— Ms HUSAR 263328 Which is your fault. These priorities are wrong and these priorities are hurting my community. The issue of domestic violence in my community is the second highest in the New South Wales metropolitan area. We have a situation where the O'Farrell-Baird-Berejiklian government have brought in reforms that have devastated the women's sector and forced many refuges to close, including in my own electorate. With the statistics that we have, I am not sure why we would be closing these services. And I hear the bollocks on the other side has now ceased. These cuts are a result of the federal Liberals walking away from the national partnership agreement on homelessness. We have a situation where long-term services that have operated within communities with local workers were forced to tender for continued funding in a process that was unfair and in a process that led to religious organisations taking over or refuges simply closing down. We have seen the disgraceful reluctance by the New South Wales Liberal government and the local MP Stuart Ayres to properly fund the services that did manage to survive the unfair process, including Penrith Women's Health Centre, which was last year returned some of the money. However, it was not given any long-term security over their funding future. As a result of these cuts by those out-of-touch Liberals, women are being turned away because these shelters simply do not have the beds and resources they require to operate. In my community, we have only two women's shelters. I want to take this opportunity to recognise the great work that West Connect Domestic Violence Services do. They run our secular refuge and they offer specialised support services to women and children who most need it. Their work makes a difference, unlike the work of this government. Their work makes a difference to only, though, one of their shelters. Sadly, for my community, the reckless abandonment in this space of the Liberals has meant that the second shelter cannot open and has been unfunded and closed since December 2016. The rates in which desperate women are turned away from crisis accommodation in one month alone in my community were 56 women and 95 desperate children. Meanwhile, this government stands by this 16-bed refuge closure in my community. It is now closed. It does not offer those 16 beds to any woman on any night. Where has the local Liberal member for Penrith, Stuart Ayres, been? He has been missing in action; not a sight to be seen. Our community has been let down. Our vulnerable women and children have been let down by this government and by the local member. They refused to stand up and support and deliver on these vital services for our community. The statistics around Penrith speak for themselves. Our desperate need for these services is obvious. So I call on the New South Wales government and on the member for Penrith, Stuart Ayres, to start paying attention. I am calling on them to support West Connect Domestic Violence Services and help them deliver the vital programs and support services that they offer to some of the most vulnerable people in my community. This issue is not going to go away. More and more people are looking at the situation that we face at the moment and are saying enough is enough. And they are looking to the government to do more. I know that the people in my community are desperate to see our vulnerable women and children supported and kept safe. They are willing to do whatever they can to make it happen. So, again, I call on the government and the member for Penrith, Stuart Ayres, to make this a reality and refund this service to stop the cuts and to support local women's refuges and women's services, and to make sure they have the resources they need to protect our vulnerable women. While we are at it, we might as well raise the issue of community legal services, which are also facing a funding cliff at the end of this financial year with absolutely no certainty to support or protect these women. Energy 71 16:35 Mr DRUM 56430 Murray It is fitting that we end this sitting week with the topic that is foremost in the minds of the people in the Murray electorate—the cost of electricity and the cost of gas. The Nationals are calling for some of these moratoriums that Labor in Victoria have put in place as an out-and-out ban on not only conventional but unconventional gas right throughout the state of Victoria. At the same time, we are being told that the reserves that we currently have are diminishing. The Prime Minister has read the riot act to these gas companies and told them to up the ante when it comes to the production of gas. This is all about jobs. It is all about employment. It is all about providing for the major food processors and major industries throughout regional Victoria who are currently being hit by these incredibly high costs in gas and electricity prices. Agriculture, the coolstore industries, the packaging industry—all ride on the back of agriculture. But, certainly, the processors are the ones who are going to feel these increases in gas and electricity prices the hardest. In Victoria, we have this farcical situation where gas and electricity prices are increasing exponentially. But, at the same time as that, the Victorian government, rather than trying to do something to help, is actually making things worse by putting in place a lifetime ban on fracking and a moratorium up until 2020 on any exploration. So, at the moment, we do not even know what we are not doing in Victoria because we do not know what sort of reserves we have in the state that are untapped. We are not using this time to explore. Let's hand it over to the scientists, and let them find out what sort of reserves we have in Victoria so that we can then make a decision on whether we should be going after those reserves or not. Environmental groups and the Labor Party are trying to latch onto the back of this. In so many arguments, especially in relation to climate change, they squeal and holler: why don't you observe the science? Why don't you look at the science? And yet when it comes to things like coal-seam gas, gas exploration and gas extraction, they do not want to know about the science. They just want to know about the scare campaigns. They just want to make sure that they scare the bejesus out of everybody, including the farmers, as opposed to giving the farmers the right of veto. I think this is what we need to do. These were the amendments that were apparently voted down in the Victorian upper house just recently. The Nationals are calling for further exploration of the gas reserves throughout Victoria while this moratorium is in place. Let's not cloud the issue, at the moment, by introducing fracking into the debate. Let's just leave fracking out of it. We are not even able to talk about conventional forms of gas to add to and supplement the energy reserves that currently exist within the state of Victoria. As I said earlier, this is all about jobs. It is all about protecting our processing jobs. We have some of the biggest processers in Australia: SPC; Campbell's soups; Unilever; Kagome, over at Echuca; Murray Goulburn, with the various yoghurt, cheese and powdered milk manufacturers—all heavy users of electricity and all heavy users of gas. Then you move onto the packaging industry, which sits right on the edge of agriculture, not to mention transport and all of the other labour-intensive industries as well. If we maintain this current stance, and Labor just sit back and do nothing about this, we are not only going to see the jobs leave the Latrobe Valley, in relation to what is going on at the mill at Heyfield, where they have halved the amount of timber that is available for those workers. Not only are we going to see another 700-odd workers leave the Hazelwood power station, but we are also going to put at threat many of the jobs that are involved in the food-processing industry throughout northern Victoria. This ideological policy-making, which is going to see Victoria follow the path of South Australia, has to be challenged, and, as I said earlier, what we need to do in this debate is simply refer to the science. When the science is clear, when the science is saying that we should at least explore, then that is exactly what we should do: explore. Herbert Electorate: Water Security 72 16:40 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert I rise in this place again and I stand here again to talk about the critical need for the Turnbull government to act immediately on Townsville's water security. I am tired of Townsville being referred to as 'Brownsville'. Yes, we do live in the dry tropics, but this does not mean that the largest city in northern Australia has to be drought declared. We have one of the greatest water resources in Australia—the Burdekin Falls Dam, located in our backyard, just 130 kilometres from Townsville. This dam is huge. It is five times the size of Sydney Harbour, and it is currently overflowing. Mr McCormack interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The Minister for Small Business will remain silent. Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Allow me to repeat that point: five times the size of Sydney Harbour, and it is located only one hour from Townsville. Labor delivered the Burdekin Falls Dam, and it has only ever been Labor that has had a strong, long-term vision for water security for regional Queensland. It was through the advocacy and work of the last Labor member for Herbert, Ted Lindsay, who delivered the Burdekin Falls Dam during the Hawke government. Coincidentally, Herbert has had over 20 years of Liberal representation, and not one measure or action has been done since Ted to secure water security for the north. The Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce can talk all he wants about his plans for water, but it is just hot air. It is only Labor that has a history on delivering water security for North Queensland, and it will only ever be Labor who actually delivers. So I am here to pick up where my previous Labor predecessor left off. I am here to fight for water security for Townsville. Addressing water security for Townsville is key to our future growth and development. It is key to industry investment and key to population growth. If Townsville has any hope of being the capital of northern Australia, growing our ties with Asia and expanding our agriculture and tourism sectors, then we have to address the water crisis first. Addressing this is going to take real guts and a deep commitment and belief in northern Queensland. This is something I do not think this government has the guts to do. The Townsville Ross River Dam is currently at 17 per cent. The Ross River Dam was a flood-mitigation strategy, and, as such, is shallow. The Townsville City Council have enacted water restrictions to level 3, and on 16 November last year, the council started pumping water from the Burdekin Falls Dam. There are several points to note once pumping commences. Firstly, it costs the council more than $27,000 a day to pump from the dam. Secondly, 130 megalitres are pumped per day; 40 megalitres are lost through evaporation. This evaporation is due to the fact that the current Haughton pipeline finishes at the Haughton channel. That is 42 kilometres away from the Ross River Dam that the water has to travel before reaching the dam. There are two huge compounding issues that need to be addressed immediately—and they can be addressed. The original vision from the former Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, and the former Labor member for Herbert, Ted Lindsay, was to build a gravity-fed pipeline from the dam. Nothing has changed since Hawke. Townsville is still Brownsville. We are still facing a water crisis, and we are still waiting for the original vision of the Hawke government to be implemented. The stress that our water issues are having on families is evident. I regularly visit primary schools and I meet with teachers and students. I have been absolutely astounded at the degree of anxiety in our young people in grades 4 and 5 over water. Mr McCormack 219646 Why didn't you build a dam? The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The Minister for Small Business is warned. Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Water shortage, to these young children, is a major problem of concern. They are incredibly distressed. At every class and every forum I visit, I tell them not to be distressed, as we have one of the largest dams in Australia just one hour away, and it is full of water. The students, like me, are perplexed about why we are not doing more to harness off the Burdekin Falls Dam—and herein lies the question about what the government is doing about providing water security for Townsville. Besides absolutely nothing, the Deputy Prime Minister is actively excluding Townsville from accessing government funds and resources. The tragedy is that Townsville, as a city, is excluded from accessing the Turnbull government's National Water Infrastructure Development Fund because it is for agriculture and irrigation only. The Deputy Prime Minister needs to cut the red tape and allow for a portion of the funds to include Townsville, especially if Townsville is to be a pivotal trade supply hub. The Deputy Prime Minister created this fund, and he can change it. I demand that he does. Any inaction will foreshadow a loss of investment in the regions and a loss of jobs. Townsville is not going to give up our fight for water security just because it may rain because we know that this drought will happen again. I will not give up my fight for Townsville. I will keep rising, and I will keep demanding in this place for the Turnbull government to take immediate action on addressing water security issues for the north. Leichhardt Electorate: All Saints Anglican Church, Erub 73 16:45 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt I rise here today as the member for Leichhardt and the member for the wet tropics in the real tropical capital of Tropical North Queensland—Cairns, of course. I am here to talk about somewhere even further north. The island of Erub is one of the easternmost islands in the Torres Strait and has a population today of around 300. It is a lush, hilly island, and it is quite beautiful. Fish traps made of stone form striking patterns on the surrounding reefs where the waters are every shade of turquoise. Coconut palms fringe the sandy beaches, colourful fishing boats line the foreshore and schools of sardines blacken the shallows. Islanders have lived there for generations. It is a simple life where traditional customs and beliefs are strong. Like many remote communities, it suffers today from welfare dependence, the departure of its young people to the cities, the high cost of living and low employment. There is, however, an active arts centre where intricate works are created from recycled ghost nets and exhibited in places like Singapore and Monaco, and Erub boasts the Torres Strait's only community-based commercial fishing operation. Visiting the island in February to catch up with local leaders, I was struck by the worn beauty of one particular building—the All Saints Anglican Church. The building represents a significant period in Torres Strait heritage—when Christianity was brought to the region. The London Missionary Society arrived in the Torres Strait on the vessel HMS Surprise and were led by two Englishmen: Reverends MacFarlane and Murray. They landed on Erub on 1 July 1871. This was the first contact between islanders and missionaries, and it has come to be known as the Coming of the Light. Dabad, one of the tribal elders of the island, befriended the missionaries and introduced them to the rest of the islanders. His role in bringing Christianity to the Torres Strait is recognised by a monument that reads, 'In loving memory of Dabad 1871: a man who denied his tribal laws and accepted the good news of salvation.' In 1872 the London Missionary Society revisited the islands, reporting that weekly services were being held at Erub conducted in a pidgin form of the local language. By 1890 the London Missionary Society was beginning to slow its operations in the Torres Strait. By 1914 the Anglican Church had assumed responsibility for the mission. They initiated the annual Coming of the Light celebrations—a tradition which continues today. The All Saints Anglican Church was built in 1919 using locally produced lime from burnt coral and basalt under the direction of an Erub Islander by the name of Manai and a South Sea Islander named Albert Ware. It was remodelled in 1963 with limestone from surrounding reefs, but since then it has slowly declined from erosion and lack of upkeep. Nevertheless, there is still a grandeur about the Romanesque-style building and the surrounding lawns that are still neatly mown. The church is full of character, from the baptismal font, which is made from a giant sea clam shell and dedicated to Albert Ware, to a beautiful stained glass window installed in 1964 in memory of the first priest, Father Joseph Lui. The base of the altar is inlaid with local pearl shells, while faded icons adorn the walls and the pulpit is made from the bow of a wooden fishing boat. As we approach the 100th anniversary of the construction of the church, the community is coming together and seeing the value of restoring the building to its former glory. During my visit, I met with Councillor Patrick Thaiday, the Torres Strait Island Regional Council representative, and senior church elders Walter Lui and Dick Pilot. They have certainly got a desire to see the building refurbished, but they need a little bit of help. I have spoken to My Pathway, which runs the CDP activities on the island, and they are very keen to train up the local jobseekers with the skills they need to carry out the work. There is a very early interest from the arts centre in repairing and repainting the icons, and I have pledged to work with the community to rally support among the significant metropolitan Anglican community and to investigate possible funding streams. At the end of the day, though, the local community must drive this. They had the skills in the 1920s to build a church; they had the skills in the 1960s to restore it. I hope those skills are lying dormant, and I am sure they are, ready to be reawakened. On 15 February 2019, let us celebrate the church's centenary and its full refurbishment thanks to the Erub islanders regaining their practical skills of the past. Of course, I hope, with the very strong support from those outside the community, to be able to get them trained and to give them the opportunity not only to do the refurbishment but also to be able to maintain this beautiful building into the future. Thank you. Workplace Relations 74 16:50 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle The decision of the Fair Work Commission to cut Sunday penalty rates for as many as 700,000 hardworking Australians was as shocking as it was unprecedented. In the past month, I have received so many calls, messages and emails from people in my community who are angry and, indeed, worried about this decision, which the Turnbull government supports. I have heard from parents who are worried about how their children will get by when their wages are cut from July this year. I have also heard from workers who have been directly affected but are terrified about speaking out for fear of losing their jobs. On the positive side, I have also met with local employers, like my local cafe, Terminus on Darby, who have decided from day one not to go down this path of cutting Sunday penalty rates. I will be writing to the Prime Minister to communicate the sentiments that I have received from my community, but I also want to share some of those with the House today. Many people who spoke against the cuts raised the sacrifices that weekend workers make as they forego recreational and family time to serve their communities—people like Ms Margie Rushton, who challenged us all when she said: 'Ask a Monday-to-Friday person if they would work weekends for the same money. The answer is a resounding "no".' She notes that in this era of a 24/7 economy, it is right to assume that a Monday-to-Friday job is no longer the norm for so many people, but she makes the point very clearly that workers should be duly compensated for all the things that they give up whilst working on weekends. Others made clear that penalty rates are most certainly not a luxury item but a necessity helping low-income workers meet their ever-increasing cost-of-living expenses. Without them, these low-paid Australians would struggle to pay the rent and keep the lights on, let alone cover unexpected bills or ensure the car is maintained. Mr Tait wrote to me that his daughter relies on Sunday penalty rates to keep her car on the road and to pay for her board. Malcolm Turnbull argues that cuts to low-paid workers' wages are actually a good thing, suggesting they will somehow drive jobs and growth. But there is simply no evidence of this. In fact, if these cuts proceed, millions of dollars will be ripped out of workers' pockets and out of regional economies. What Australian businesses stand to gain through reduced labour costs they will pay for through greater competition for a reduced pool of customers. The fact the Turnbull government is backing in pay cuts for low-paid Australians while it continues to mount a case for $50 billion worth of tax cuts for big business is utterly appalling. It also highlights how blind the government is to inequality, which now sits at a 75-year high. I received a very well-thought-out letter from Mr Lindsay Gardner, who lives in my electorate. He rightly warned that inequality will only get worse if these cuts proceed. On this issue, he said: The removal of penalty rates advantages the powerful and punishes the poorer members of our society. The removal of penalty rates accelerates further division within our communities. Mr Gardner has raised an important issue and one we must heed. And we need to understand that this is just the beginning. Today, it is hospitality, retail, fast-food and pharmacy workers in the firing line. Tomorrow, it may well be nurses, teachers and cleaners facing these savage pay cuts. But there is another way. This week, Labor introduced legislation which would not only protect the pay of workers affected by the recent decision but also prevent future decisions that would slash minimum wages. This has never been more important. Only last month, ABS data showed companies recorded a massive 20.1 per cent boost to profits in the last quarter. In the same period, workers' wages went backwards by 0.5 per cent. Mr Falinski interjecting— Ms CLAYDON 248181 Members opposite protest at this, but there is very clear evidence that company profits are up and workers' wages are down. The Turnbull government needs to reverse this trend by standing up for Australian workers and supporting Labor's legislation. I would like to end with a few words from Mr John Kelly, who sees the penalty rates cuts as just the latest in a series of attacks on workers' pay and conditions. Mr Kelly's passion was clear when he said: Please, give me and these defenceless people a break. I couldn't agree more. (Time expired) Small Business 75 16:55 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane This is not the first time I have risen in this House to speak on behalf of small business. I might just mention in passing right from the outset that the response to the former speaker's arguments just then were so eloquently put last year by her own leader and her own frontbench. I would like to take this opportunity in the House today to report on a small business roundtable I recently held in Brisbane with the Minister for Small Business, Michael McCormack. We had quite a big number of attendees. Quite a number of local small business owners and operators—almost 100, in fact—came along to listen to the minister as well as to the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, Kate Carnell, and representatives of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Australian Taxation Office. The roundtable was part of a much larger and very successful, I believe, small business roadshow that the minister has been conducting in recent weeks and months with the very clear intention of wanting to hear directly from small business owners and operators about the government's priorities and the government's progress in key areas of reform, as well as addressing the next steps to turbocharge small business, which is, after all, the engine room of our economy. I have said it in this House before and I will say it again: collectively, small businesses are the biggest source of jobs and opportunities for all Australians. There are about 400,000 shopfronts, cafes, food outlets and stores around the country. Those are the types of small businesses that my family has been in for generations and which I was so proud to represent when I was the CEO of the National Retail Association. There are about 10,000 of those shopfronts in the electorate of Brisbane. Those shopfronts form a very big portion of the roughly 30,000 small businesses right across the electorate of Brisbane. The majority of these small businesses are family owned, of course. If every small business could be encouraged to employ one more additional worker tomorrow, our unemployment rate would be zero, meaning that the majority of youth jobseekers, mature-aged Australians, Indigenous Australians and disabled who are looking for work would find the dignity they want and deserve. So it is not just good policy to ensure that small businesses are looked after. It is not just about the economy. It is vital to our entire community and society. This is about the real local stories of people who live, street by street, suburb by suburb, right across Brisbane and, indeed, right across the economy. I felt that the small business roundtable was a really good event in allowing local small businesses to speak directly to the minister, the government and me but also especially because it gave access to some important officials from some of the government agencies which at times have been seen as fairly unapproachable and maybe large bureaucratic machines. I wanted to say that the efforts of the ACCC and the ATO, one of which I used to work for early on in my career, to reach out and proactively engage with small businesses was certainly noticed by those present and by the Brisbane small business community. As somebody who has spoken before about the need for Australian regulators to change their approach to and their engagement with the small business sector, I commend them. I will continue to make small business policy a central focus of my efforts both in my constituency of Brisbane and down here in the parliament in Canberra. I spoke earlier this week at some length about cutting taxes for small businesses. Between the tax cuts that this government is proposing, the Youth Jobs PaTH program, which I think is starting in about eight days, our measures to reduce unnecessary regulation and red tape, our simpler BAS, our instant asset write-offs and small business support that was the centrepiece of our last two budgets, our reforms of the banking sector, our innovation agenda and our trade agreements opening up trade possibilities for our businesses in Korea, Japan, China and Singapore, this is a government trying in every way possible to make it easier for the small businesses in Brisbane to grow, to invest and to create that single extra job each that would turbocharge our economy and cut unemployment. I want to thank all of the business operators who took time out of their busy days to come along and participate. I want to thank the small business ombudsman for her participation. I also want to thank the ATO and the ACCC, and I want to thank the small business minister. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN It being 5 pm, the House stands adjourned until 10 am next Monday. House adjourned at 17:00 NOTICES 75 NOTICES

Thursday, 23 March 2017

The ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Vamvakinou ) took the chair at 10:02

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 77 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Songkran, Passover, Theravada 77 10:02 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I extend Labor's best wishes to everyone celebrating Songkran, Thai new year. Over three days in April, people visit Buddhist temples to perform the ritual of merit making by making offerings to Buddha and monks, reuniting with family to seek blessings from elders and gathering with community to welcome the new year. One of the unique traditions of Songkran is the engagement of whole communities, families and even strangers in a water festival, a water play fight. On the streets and in cars, people throw water at each other to symbolise the washing away of misfortunes in the past year. The beauty of Songkran lies in its power to unit families, friends and communities, regardless of age, in a celebration of hope, prosperity and good fortune for the year to come—values that are interwoven into the fabric of our multicultural society in Australia and embraced by all Australians regardless of faith, culture or background. Jewish communities in Australia and around the world will mark the beginning of an eight-day celebration of Passover, or Pesach, on 10 April this year. Passover is a significant event for Jewish communities. It is firmly established in the historic account of freedom from persecution. It is a story of exodus and inspiration or tale of liberation for Israelites who, under the leadership of the prophet Moses and faith in God, were freed from slavery and oppression. Some of Passover's most dominant traditions include gathering with family, friends and community around a table to eat unleavened bread, matzo, while telling the story of exodus over four glasses of wine. It is stories like this that reaffirm our devotion to values and principles of freedom, hope and unity in Australia. Labor extends best wishes to everyone observing Passover in Australia and around the world. I extend Labor's best wishes to all Buddhist communities in Australia celebrating Theravada new year. Theravada new year is a Buddhist festival celebrated by followers of the Theravada doctrine, translated as 'school of the elder monks'. Theravada teachings encourage and promote discipline, knowledge and critical reasoning through deep reflection. Some of the most powerful traditions and practices of Theravada come from the oldest recorded Buddhist text, the Pali Canon. The seven stages of purification form the foundations of the Buddhist path, some of which include the purification of conduct, the mind and knowledge that lead to the attainment of nirvana, a transcended state of peace and the ultimate goal in Buddhism. Values and principles of peace, self-reflection and virtue are part of modern multicultural Australia and cultivate our sense of pride in the diversity of our nation—the beauty of which lies in myriad cultures, beliefs and people who together call Australia home. Suicide 77 10:04 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore On this day, 23 March, in 1775, a man named Patrick Henry proclaimed, 'Give me liberty or give me death,' in a speech to Virginian troops joining the US Revolutionary War. Death for some in our community is seen as liberty from tough times and depression. Last weekend was the annual Black Dog Ride in the Shoalhaven, or it would have been if it had not been such a lousy weather. Paul Gaffney, I know it will be brilliant next year and headspace will again be helped by your fundraising. Depression can be helped and we need to do more. Many people move from depression to suicide, especially men. Australia has had a National Suicide Prevention Program for 20 years. In that time, more than 40,000 Australian men have taken their own lives. Andrew Humphreys, an advocate and social worker, says that 20 years of awareness-raising, psychotherapy and pills have had no appreciable benefit and that these strategies have proven to be as harmful as throwing a drowning man a brick. The majority of Australia's suicide deaths are adult men who are not mentally ill and who make one attempt and die. Our current prevention strategies target the young, hospital presentations, mostly females, and mental health. Andrew believes that our current system demonstrates little knowledge of how to recognise and assist distressed men. We cannot reduce suicide rates in this country unless we recognise and sympathetically assist the men, who make up the majority of those dying. I believe that men truly are from Mars and women from Venus. We are different in the way that we deal with tough times and depression. In 2015 we had an average of 8.3 deaths by suicide per day in Australia—a total of more than 3,000, including 2,292 males and 735 females. That is about three to one. The highest suicide bracket for males is aged over 85, almost 40 per cent—considerably higher than all other age groups—with the next highest groups being those aged 45 to 49, 40 to 44 and 50 to 54, each about 30 per cent of the overall numbers. The highest age bracket for females is 45 to 49 years, just above 10 per cent, followed by 50 to 54, 35 to 39 and 55 to 59—each less than 10 per cent. Consistently over the last 10 years, the number of suicide deaths was approximately three times higher in males than females. So just what are our solution options? Can we encourage more young men to become social workers or counsellors, psychiatrists or psychologists? Can we talk to both male and female suicide survivors and determine which factors convinced them to live? It is probably all of the above and much more. Let's hope our new MIND the GaP facility on the Shoalhaven campus of the University of Wollongong is a step in the right direction on the pathway of mental health assistance, especially for those who need liberty from depression—sometimes called 'the black dog'—and Winston can continue as a strong symbol of hope. Suicide leaves a legacy of doubt amongst family and friends asking themselves, 'Could I have done more? Why didn't I see it coming?' On this day in 1066, most people did not see—(Time expired) Lyons Electorate: Australian Rules Football 78 10:08 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons Congratulations to the member for Gilmore. That was a good speech on a very important issue. I rise today because Tasmania has always punched above its weight when it comes to Australian Rules Football, the only real football game in this country, not that run-and-fall-over game with men looking like brick walls when they play in New South Wales and Queensland. There are names like Hudson, Baldock, Croswell, Lynch and Richardson, just to name a few. They are champions who have come from the island state to dominate the great game. This is a game that, unfortunately, does struggle to accept that Tasmania and its people have played a huge part in making the game what it is today, and we still do not have our own team. That is not what I rise for today. That is an argument for another time. Today I want to bring forward another injustice done to Tasmanian supporters and, in particular, a fellow in my electorate called Kim Crawford. Kim is a humble Tasmanian, a former schoolteacher and now respected real estate agent and football lover who lives in the south of Tasmania in a beautiful little area called Carlton Beach in my electorate. Kim, in his own time, developed the current AFL finals system back in the late 1990s, in the days of the disastrous McIntyre system, which had left the AFL looking to improve its final eight. Why was the system flawed? Adelaide won the flag in '98 despite losing the first final. They should have been out. Kim developed the system back in '94. The AFL introduced his system in 2000 but it has not recognised his contribution to its finals system. It has not recognised that Kim Crawford developed the final eight system, and Kim deserves this recognition. He is not looking for money, he is not looking for fame; all he is looking for is the recognition that he is behind this system that the AFL uses. It is long past time that the AFL recognised this. Just recently, I wrote directly to the AFL CEO, Mr McLachlan, requesting confirmation and acknowledgement, but still there has been nothing. Kim has written to clubs that acknowledge that he is the architect of the final eight system but, of course, they are subject to the AFL and the official recognition is still wanting. Again, he is not looking for money or fame, just recognition that he is the architect. I stand shoulder to shoulder with Kim Crawford on this matter, as does every Tasmanian. The AFL should come forward and do the honourable thing—not hide behind its big corporate doors and flash lawyers—and recognise Kim Crawford. On a final note, I would like to thank the Evandale Football Club. I will be launching the women's Eagles jerseys on the weekend. I am a proud sponsor of women's AFL football and look forward to playing my part in developing that great game. Diabetes 78 10:11 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey Just a short report to the parliament on the success of the diabetes testing day conducted by Pathology Australia in conjunction with the Parliamentary Friends of Diabetes yesterday, right here in parliament. One hundred tests were carried out yesterday in the old FCM travel offices adjacent to Aussies, and a successful luncheon was held, with very good attendance from members and senators, in the Senate alcove. I thank them for their attendance. We were addressed by John Carruthers from Pathology Australia, Greg Johnson from Diabetes Australia and Associate Professor Graham Jones from the St Vincent's Hospital pathology unit in Sydney. We also had a strong personal testament from Pat, a local Canberran—even though she hailed from Melbourne originally. Pat's message to us was quite simple: seek diagnosis if you suspect anything might be amiss and then take an active part in your disease management. The health system, the doctors, the nurses are all there to help and have many of the answers to make sure that diabetes sufferers can live well with diabetes, but their ability to help is limited to you, the patient. If the patient does not follow instructions, it is all much harder. I thank Greg Johnson for his focus on demonstrating that this epidemic is a global issue. Many people think it is just a problem of the First World. It is not. It is wreaking havoc through the developing world. Currently, there are 450 million sufferers worldwide, a total heading for 642 million by 2040. There are projected to be 140 million sufferers in South-East Asia. There are 109 million sufferers in China now and there will be 150 million by 2040. By comparison, the US—oft-quoted as the most obese nation in the world, even though there is not a lot of difference between them and us, I must say—has 29 million now and is projected to have 35 million by 2040. In Australia, the number of people registered under the National Diabetes Services Scheme has risen by more than 40 per cent in the last 10 years. I have some further figures: 30 per cent of hospital admissions in Australia are diabetes related; there are 840,000 diabetes-related hospital admissions a year, and 320,000 of those are diabetics with cardiovascular and/or kidney disease; there are, sadly, 4,400 diabetic amputations each year; and almost everyone with type 1 diabetes and 60 per cent of people with type 2 will develop eye disease within 20 years of diagnosis. However, great work is being done in the area. There are strong government commitments to ongoing medical trials and support for continuous glucose monitoring machines. There have been advances in retinal screening and electronic monitoring, and there is fabulous research striving to find cures here in Australia and abroad. There is much to be optimistic about. Next week, the Parliamentary Friends of Diabetes will be hosting the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation in parliament, with lunch in 1R1 as well—on Tuesday. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT I thank the member for Grey for the advertisement. Macquarie electorate: International Women's Day 79 10:14 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie International Women's Day is an opportunity to celebrate, and events in my electorate of Macquarie demonstrated to me the enormous commitment many people have made to ensure that women are more able to fulfil their potential than ever before at the different stages of their lives. I attended a number of events organised by North Richmond Community Centre, Women with Altitude, the community sector in the Hawkesbury, The Women's Cottage and Springwood Neighbourhood Centre. One of the highlights was singing with Suze Pratten and her choir, and also meeting at North Richmond Belinda Greene, a mum with two young children, who told her story of joining the CWA to learn to crochet while there was still a generation around to teach her, and finding herself playing an integral role in the Wilberforce branch. I should also note that Belinda has been chosen as the face of the latest Hawkesbury phone book. The Women with Altitude panel, chaired by founder Andrea Turner-Boys, covered a range of issues that working women face—everything from glass ceilings to quotas on boards. I happily explained that quotas are one of the reasons why this side of the House is so well represented by women. It is not that there are not capable women on the other side; there is simply what I hope is an unconscious bias that sees them passed over. I was pleased to receive a petition from Hawkesbury community groups, including Bligh Park, North Richmond and Glossodia community centres calling for equal pay for men and women. Their research shows that, in the Hawkesbury, men are 50 per cent more likely than women to earn $1,000 a week or more. I think that shows that we must not value the jobs that men tend to do more than those that women do. Former Hawkesbury councillor Christine Paine joined me for another event with The Women's Cottage, a terrific women's service in Richmond. One issue that I spoke of was the vital role of the 1800RESPECT phone and online counselling service for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. For seven years 1800RESPECT has been run by specialist counsellors from Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia, but last month they were given less than a week to tender for the service they deliver. This service needs to stay a specialist counselling service and not become a call centre. I would urge Medibank Health Solutions to show some respect to the victims of rape and domestic violence, and urge the government not to allow organisations to profit from providing these services. My week ended by sharing the stage at Springwood with Denise Newton from Grandmothers Against Detention; Delilah Scott, a representative on the Blue Mountains Youth Council; and Chell Ellery, founder of the Queen of Hearts Community Foundation. Spending the week with all these women was an absolute delight. They are incredible women, and I was proud to be bold with them. Child Care 80 10:17 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I wanted to talk quickly about the childcare bill we have in the parliament—the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care Package) Bill. I am pleased to see the parliament beginning to make headway on addressing what is a most ridiculous situation—one that can mean it is cheaper for parents to stay home than it is for them to go out to work. We are failing in our duty as guardians of the public purse, if we continue to allow this absurd situation to continue. Without change, we are prioritising handouts over hard work for parents who are not only willing and capable but keen to earn a wage. Last night I listened with my head in my hands as a constituent told me of her own despair. Families, she explained, are deserting the childcare centre her children attend, because they can no longer afford to stay. She told me five parents have pulled out in the last few weeks since they have hit their cap. The parents work hard, but it is more cost-effective for them to quit their jobs, pull their kids out of care, stay home instead and take welfare instead of a wage. She went on to say she knew other parents who are home to look after their kids but put them in care for three or four days a week, and she was furious that this came for free when other parents—working parents—hit their cap and are shelling out $2,100 a month and $1,200 a week during school holidays, which are coming up in April this year in Queensland. The more she spoke, the more I was left wondering: who does this system serve? When you are better off on welfare than in the workforce, who benefits? The parents who want to work but just cannot afford it? The childcare centre that is losing families and trying to keep its doors open, like the one in Clontarf in my electorate? The children? I know it does not serve those children to learn that welfare is an option, a choice for the capable, as opposed to a safety net for those in dire straits. So who does this serve? This constituent is a mighty hard worker; I know her quite well. She is a mum to three children—two are at school, one in child care and the other two do a couple hours one day a week at child care before school. She and her husband are decent people. They are unable to take leave to be home with their kids over school holidays because competition is fierce, so they will put their three children in care and pay $1,200 a week in April for the privilege. They have reached their $7,500 childcare cap and she is worried about how they will limp through to July. I would like to think that this family is an anomaly, but they are not. I hear similar stories time and time again. What good are we, all of us here, if we incentivise workers to do nothing? Make child care affordable, assist parents to work, incentivise those who want to contribute and are able—these are fundamental functions of an effective parliament. In order for the system to be sustainable, we need to be supporting working parents and those with a genuine need for support to be able to deliver to keep their children in care. (Time expired) Braddon Electorate: Manufacturing 80 10:20 Ms KEAY 262273 Braddon In my first speech, I spoke about how the people of Braddon are resilient in tough times, how we get on with the job and—as I have seen as the federal member—produce world-class, premium manufactured goods. Tasmanians are leading the way in a number of sectors and products, demonstrating quality, consistency and adaptability. One such sector is our advanced manufacturing. The relocation of Caterpillar's Hard Rock vehicle manufacturing from Burnie to Thailand in 2015 has been a catalyst for change in advanced manufacturing. Rather than give up, Braddon's advanced manufacturers are meeting the challenges. Managed and operated by the Tasmanian Minerals and Energy Council, the Tasmanian Manufacturing Centre of Excellence has opened in Burnie. TMEC is an industry-led initiative focused on innovation, research, collaboration and continuous improvement, which will support the sector along the continuing path of global competitiveness. Within the TMEC is the Elphinstone Simulated Work Environment, or SWE, which opened in Burnie on 3 March this year. The Elphinstone SWE is only one of three Lean training facilities of its kind in the Southern Hemisphere, and the only facility in Australia. The SWE is as an interactive training system used to promote the Lean production system and enhance continuous improvement initiatives, including team building, effective communication, developing people and teams, identifying and reducing waste, supply chain effectiveness, identifying and setting performance targets and increasing productivity through the SWE. The SWE demonstrates how working together can help a team to become more productive, cost-effective, improve quality and reduce safety-related issues. The SWE offers a one-day training course using the Elphinstone production systems or a three-day course delivered by a local company, Productivity Improvers. Training and assessment is delivered on behalf of the University of Tasmania and the Australian Maritime College. This is an example of local industry and our tertiary institutions working together. Congratulations to all involved in the development of the SWE: Wayne Bould and all the team at TMEC; Dale Elphinstone, Kelly Elphinstone, Lee Whiteley and all their team at Elphinstone; Clinton Jaffray and Michael Bonney from Productivity Improvers; the University of Tasmania; the Australian Maritime College; the officers from the Department of State Growth, who work in advanced manufacturing; and TAFE Tasmania. The SWE is an example of the local advanced manufacturing industry in my electorate getting on with the job. Braddon has a highly skilled, productive and stable workforce that is capable of producing anything—from igloos for Antarctica at Penguin Composites to large, off-road haulage trucks at Elphinstone. The recently opened Elphinstone SWE adds to this capability. Forde Electorate: St Philomena School 81 10:23 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde I would like to take this opportunity to share with the House my recent visit to St Philomena School at Park Ridge, where I was invited to officially open the school's new science and art building. The new building was the result of a $340,000 investment through the capital grants program. During my visit, I had the opportunity to chat with the school's year 12 students and teachers, who are overjoyed with their new block of classrooms. The old building was no longer conducive to learning or new teaching methods. This new facility gives students a comfortable learning environment and new technology, all under the one roof in a state-of-the-art building. The new classrooms include a science preparation area, a chemical store, two mini laboratories as well as an art room and a design room, plus amenities and an undercover area. I was very pleased for these students and the whole school community at St Philomena because of the benefits they will gain from these new facilities. Importantly, it was great to see the joy on the faces of the students at the new opportunities that they now see ahead of them. I am very proud of the coalition government's continued investment in school facilities but also the coalition's focus on putting science, technology, engineering and mathematics at the heart of school education. As we go around to schools in our elections, we see more and more of the school curriculum and the school activities focused on those critically important STEM subjects. These are critical to our nation's future as more students study science and maths subjects. I had some scientists with me in my office yesterday who are visiting Canberra this week to discuss the importance of what they do everyday. I made the comment to them that most of us actually do not hear about the great work that our scientists do in our community. So it is terrific to see the practical outworking of that encouragement to follow science and maths and that we, as a government, can provide the facilitates necessary for our students to develop that love of science and mathematics. I have no doubt the students at St Philomena School are looking forward to using the new facilitates and will enjoy their learning environment. I would also like to congratulation my colleague the minister for education for his commitment to providing another great investment in one of the many great schools in my electorate of Forde. JobAccess 81 10:26 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan I am delighted to take this opportunity to acknowledge and celebrate a recent success and international recognition. On 22 February, the Australian government's JobAccess service received an award at the annual Zero Project Conference held at the United Nations in Vienna in the category of Innovative Policies and advancing Employment of Persons with Disabilities. The Australian government is committed to improving employment outcomes for people with disability. Only 53.4 per cent of people with disability participate in the workforce compared to 83 per cent of those without disability. Unemployment for people with disabilities is 10 per cent, almost twice the rate of those without disability. We must do more to address this issue. JobAccess was established in 2006, and in the 2015 budget the coalition government provided additional funding to develop a new streamlined JobAccess service. Following a rigorous co-design with people with disability and representatives of employers and employment service providers, the new JobAccess service commenced on 1 July 2016. JobAccess now provides a central entry point to employment services for people with disability, employers, employment service providers, the disability service sector and the broader community. JobAccess combines four previous stand-alone services to improve usability and accessibility of services, particularly for people with disability and employers. This service delivers free, accessible, tailored and confidential expert advice on disability employment through a telephone inquiry service and a redeveloped website, including support from trained health professionals. JobAccess engages with employers to educate them on the benefits of employing people with disability and to inform them of the supports available to them. One of my goals as the Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services is to give employers the tools to become confident about employing people with disability, to help remove barriers and misconceptions and to promote employment opportunities for people with disability. Since 2006, the consolidated JobAccess service has responded to 245,000 inquiries, dealt with 33,000 funding applications and identified 2,500 job opportunities for people with disability. I thank WorkFocus Australia for nominating JobAccess for the Zero Project award. The Zero Project received 48 nominations of innovative policies from almost 30 different countries from across the world, with 20 nominations shortlisted. The Zero Project team will now promote the award winners to decision makers and opinion leaders worldwide. I encourage each of you to visit the JobAccess website—www.jobaccess.gov.au. Congratulations to the JobAccess service for making a real and meaningful improvement to the lives of Australians with disability and helping to break down the negative stereotypes that are too often held about people with disability in the workforce. Muir, Mr Ali 82 10:29 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I rise to acknowledge the life of Ali Muir, a great Territorian who served his country in the Army during the Vietnam War and was a football legend in Darwin. He was a great man. We had a funeral service for him at the Marrara basketball stadium. I want to pass on my condolences to the Muir family and to the Buffaloes. Old Buffaloes never die! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 82 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2016-2017, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2016-2017 82

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2016-2017

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2016-2017

Second Reading 82 10:30 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes It is sometimes mistakenly said that money is the root of all evil, but the real question we should concentrate on in this parliament is: what is the root of all money? There are many here in this parliament who think money simply grows on trees—that it comes from anywhere; we just spend what we want. There are others who think we can just make money by borrowing it, without realising that the consequences will be higher taxes and fewer government services for future generations of Australians, plus the obligation of future governments to continue to pay the interest bill. Our interest bill is now running at over $1 billion every month. That is money we have to divert from this parliament, money that could otherwise have been spent on health, child care, education, aged care, pensions and kids with disabilities. A billion dollars every month gets diverted just to pay that interest bill. When we ask the question, 'What is the root of all money?' there is an answer, and it is value added production. As Ayn Rand wrote, wealth is not static; it is not there 'to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained by favour'. We can actually, in our society, make money and create wealth. That is what I believe this parliament needs to focus on more. We hear so much in our debates about taking wealth from one group and giving it to another group, thinking of wealth as static. We need to refocus our attention on our job in this parliament, which is to allow the citizens of this country to get out there and create wealth, to make money. If we do that then we will be able to have more money to pay for all those things in our electorates—road networks, our kids with disabilities, aged care, schooling—that so many of us see the need to invest in. We all want to see more money put into those areas, and the best way to do that is not to quibble over who gets what but to grow the economy to allow wealth to be created. When it comes to creating wealth, what is at the root of all wealth creation? I say it is two things. Firstly, it is human ingenuity and entrepreneurialism—people willing to try new ideas and have a go. Secondly, and most importantly, it is low-cost and affordable energy. Energy is the lifeblood of every single thing that is important in our society. It is the combination of those two things—energy and human ingenuity—that creates all the wealth in our country, so our job as parliamentarians should be to do everything we can to increase human ingenuity, increase entrepreneurship and make sure, above all, that we have low-cost and affordable energy. I look around me, Madam Deputy Speaker, and everything that I see here in front of me, from the leather in the chairs to the timber in the lectern and the metal in the speakers, has needed electricity in its production. As I speak, it is electricity that is driving the cameras, the microphones, the lights on the ceiling. Every single thing that we touch on a daily basis involves electricity, yet we have had policies in this country that have not only driven up the cost of electricity, making it unaffordable for many in our society, but made it unreliable. If we look back over the last decade and look at all the misguided—though well-intentioned—policies that have backfired and have cost this economy wealth, we need look no further than the policies that we have had on energy. I will just give a few examples. The Grattan Institute's report Sundown, sunrise: how Australia can finally get solar power right, by Tony Wood and David Blowers, says in the overview: But lavish government subsidies plus the structure of electricity network tariffs means that the cost of solar PV take-up has outweighed the benefits by almost $10 billion. By the time the subsidies finally run out, households and businesses that have not installed solar PV will have spent more than $14 billion subsidising households that have. So it has been nothing other than a massive wealth transfer from those who have not been able to put solar panels on the roof—often the most less fortunate in our community—to those who have been able to. It has been a $14 billion wealth transfer, with a net cost to the economy of $10 billion. Their report concludes: Governments have created a policy mess that should never be repeated. But it is locked in. And there is another one that we can look at to see the damage that we have done to ourselves, another one which has prevented us from creating wealth. A recent report from BAEconomics on electricity production in Australia details the annual—every single year—cost of the renewable energy mandates. The total cost of the renewable energy mandates this year are $2 billion. It is actually $2,073,000. Then you have the feed-in tariff schemes. That is another $772 million. When you add up all those subsidies, this year alone it amounts to $3 billion. Yet next week we will see the closure of the Hazelwood power station, the generator that provides 20 per cent of Victoria's electricity production and five per cent of our nation's electricity production. In a war, the first thing that you would target is your enemy's electricity grid and their power stations. We saw that in the Second World War, the conflicts in the Gulf and even in the NATO attack on Serbia. The first thing they did was to take our the power stations. So, if our nation was at war, the first thing an enemy would target—if they had a list of priorities of what they would target to damage our country and prevent our country from creating wealth—would be Hazelwood power station. That is the first thing they would bomb. But the Victorian government, with their policies, are doing exactly the same thing. Opposition members interjecting— Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Members opposite laugh, but I would like to see if you are still laughing when people start getting their electricity bills next year and start seeing that 10 per cent increase. I want to see if you guys are still laughing next year when, because of the closure of Hazelwood, there will be a 75 per cent chance of blackouts in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia. I would like the Hansard to record that members of the Labor Party here in this chamber are laughing at that prospect. When people are trapped in lifts, let us see who is laughing then. When the traffic lights go out at a major dangerous intersection, let us see who is laughing then. When people have to cancel their operations because the electricity has gone out in the hospital, let us see who is laughing then. When millions, if not billions, of dollars worth of food is wasted because people cannot keep their refrigerators on because there is no electricity, let us see who is laughing then. And let us see who is laughing when jobs are lost in this country because of the high cost of electricity. Competitive electricity costs are one of the most important things that we should safeguard. Anyone who has had to work in private business knows that if you get a competitive advantage in any area you guard it with your life, because it is your competitive advantage that enables you to maintain and protect your lifestyle. The competitive advantage that our nation used to have was our low-cost electricity, but we have surrendered that. In an act of vandalism and sabotage, we have surrendered our competitive advantage in electricity. You only have to look at some of the comparisons. Someone living in Australia pays double or even triple the prices paid in the US or Canada. In fact, in South Australia, as compared to Vancouver, they are, incredibly, paying four times the price. How can anyone run a business paying four times the price for such an important business input as electricity? This is what is preventing us from creating wealth in this country. The real risk, as I have mentioned before, is the risk of the power going out next year. We only have to look at the mess that we have seen in South Australia. Let us have a quick look at the numbers. When the power went out earlier this year in South Australia, they needed around 3,300 megawatts of electricity generation. From gas, they were able to get just over 2,000. They have a total gas installation of 2,600 megawatts, but that is spread over about 20 different power stations. You are always going to expect that, of your 20 different power stations, some will be out for repair, some will be out for maintenance and some will be down. So they had just over 2,000 megawatts from gas and they also have a diesel capacity of around another 100 megawatts. That took them to about 2,200 megawatts. They also have an installed wind capacity of around 1,600 megawatts, but the problem is that, when the wind does not blow, the power does not flow So, whatever investment you spend on wind turbines and solar, you have to back those up almost 100 per cent with some other type of on-demand electricity generation, which can be hydro, gas or coal in this country. South Australia were also relying on the capacity of 800 megawatts through their interconnector—800 megawatts through to those brown coal stations in Victoria. So they needed another 200 megawatts of electricity to cover the gap. But the real question is: what happens if they cannot get any power through the interconnector from Victoria? This is what happens: they will have an 800 megawatt shortfall. This is where it comes back to the closure of Hazelwood. The closure of Hazelwood will make Victoria a net importer of electricity. So, by definition, there will be times when the amount of power that Victoria has available to export will be zero. Where will South Australia get their electricity supplies if they cannot get a single megawatt of power through the interconnector from Victoria? We have seen the effect on the South Australian economy of this policy. We have seen businesses leaving and companies abandoning the state. But the real damage is the damage that we do not see. The damage that we do not see is the decision that is made in company boardrooms around this nation and overseas when a proposal comes up: 'Should we invest our capital in South Australia to create jobs and wealth in South Australia?' When they look at the disaster that the South Australian government has imposed upon that state and they look at how the South Australian government is in complete and utter denial over the problem, they will probably laugh and say, 'We are not putting our shareholders' money in that.' That is what is not seen, but that is what is going to happen in South Australia, which already has one of the highest unemployment rates in this nation, and it will get even worse. We are facing a crisis in this nation, and yet we have the Labor Party wanting to copy the exact same policy of a 50 per cent renewable energy target for this nation. I call on you to abandon that policy. (Time expired) 10:45 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari It is not my intention to spend too much time on the diatribe we have just heard, but I would just make the obvious point that is being made by all informed commentators around the country, which is that the reason we have a crisis in energy policy in this place is that there is no national energy policy. There is no coherent national climate policy. There is a reluctance to adopt what almost all informed observers want, and that is a price on carbon. The government will not do it because they are ideologically opposed. So, instead of the claptrap that we have just heard, let's have a discussion around coherent national policy and understand entirely that this government have been at the wheel for four years and have done absolutely nothing. I do not want to say any more about that, because I think the member's contribution spoke for itself, and it was not that flash! I am actually a little sad today; sad and disappointed that we are now seeing, through this government's policy, a narrative that is clearly articulated around attacking the most vulnerable, the poorest, the sickest and those least able to defend themselves in our community. The government are doing this because they want to redirect money to big business that might otherwise be spent on the welfare of ordinary Australians. We have seen the Prime Minister, in my view, make an absolute clown of himself in successive question times by avoiding the real questions here, just as we heard him avoid the real questions about 18C—another disappointing approach to public policy. What is it that he wants to be able to be said that cannot be said by people in this country? Why would he be appealing to the worst of the demons in our community for their support, at the expense of the interest of the majority of Australians? Why would he be doing this? And so it is that we are seeing exactly the same thing in economic policy. Sadly, last night, the Senate passed legislation that will have the effect of cutting $1.4 billion from Australian families. This, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, was a budget measure from 2014—that horrid budget. The reward for the then Treasurer was to become Ambassador to the United States. The then Prime Minister is, of course, no longer Prime Minister; he paid the real price. He paid the price by losing the prime ministership of this country while his Treasurer gets, one might say, rewarded for leaving the parliament by being offered the job in Washington. No doubt he is doing his best—I do not know what that will be, but nevertheless he is no doubt doing his best. This is a budget measure which was made in 2014 and they have regurgitated it in this current budget round by freezing family tax benefit rates for two years. One point five million families will be worse off, more than two million children will be worse off, and a significant proportion of these families are on the maximum rate of FTB A, which means their household income is less than $52,000 a year. These are unfair cuts and, again, they are made on the weakest, poorest, sickest and most vulnerable in our community, deliberately made by a Prime Minister and a government who believe, somehow or another, that it is okay to do this. Remember: this is the same Prime Minister who, while attacking Labor's opposition to the Fair Work Commission's penalty rate decision, is effectively abandoning 700,000 Australians and making sure, inevitably, that their incomes will fall. These are not people who, I might say, can afford to have their incomes drop. We do not see the Prime Minister suggesting that members of parliament, for example, should take a 10 per cent or 15 per cent pay cut, but that is the effect of what he is doing by endorsing the Fair Work Commission's penalty rate decision. Instead of coming out to defend the interests of Australian workers and their families, he is more intent on attacking the opposition for not supporting the Fair Work decision. It is entirely appropriate for us to disagree with the decision made by the Fair Work Commission, just as it is entirely appropriate for the Prime Minister to do the same, and to make representations to the Fair Work Commission, which the government did not do in the first instance—they did not bother putting in a submission—to look after the interests of the Australians who rely on these penalty rates for their income. So it is us. They are attacking the poorest working Australians who are in jobs. They have their penalty rates reduced and have their incomes fall at a time when wage growth is at an all-time low, and he expects us all to support the idea that we should give the top end of town a tax cut. Well, whoopee. Why are we so disappointed in this man? He purports to represent the interests of all Australians. He does not. He is captive to the reactionaries in his own party and the top end of town. He has not lived the experience of these people who will suffer as a result of the cuts to FTB. He has no lived experience of people surviving on $30,000 or $40,000 a year, working Saturdays and Sundays. He has no lived experience. He does not understand the cost pressures upon these families and what it means in terms of providing an opportunity for young people in this country, for families to have the confidence that not only can they provide housing for their children and themselves in a safe and secure environment but they can actually put food on the table, send the children to school, occasionally with a new pair of shoes, and maybe, just maybe, have a motor vehicle and can put petrol in it, but they have no time for luxuries. These are poor Australians that this man is attacking. Last night I heard the Minister for Finance say that no-one is going to lose any money as a result of these changes to FTB. Of course, we know that is just nonsense. Failure to index means a real cut to their income. We are not stupid, and the finance minister will soon learn that the Australian people are not stupid. You cannot have it both ways here. You are either in this job to look after the interests of all Australians, or you are in it to look after your mates, and he is in it to look after his mates. That is obvious to all of us. The Prime Minister can parade around the dispatch box, as he does—turning red, bleating and moaning, insulting—but what he is doing is attacking the very heart of the Australian people. He can try and deny what the impact of these policy changes will be, but it cannot be clearer. It cannot be clearer. These policies will have a devastating effect on Australian families, just as the penalty rate decision will have a devastating effect on many Australian workers. There is a whole panoply of areas where these attacks are taking place. One of these is an area which I have raised in this place before, and that is the cuts being made to community legal centres, particularly local women's legal services in my own electorate. These legal services are there to protect the interests and the rights of the most vulnerable in our community—women who have been the subject of family violence. You can hear the Prime Minister all the time as he parades around talking about advancing the interests of Australian women, looking after the interests of the community. But he and his government are endorsing cuts to community legal services which will effectively mean that the people who have been the subject of wicked attacks may not have representation. How could he possibly do this? How can he possibly stand up in the parliament and defend these cuts? We know that the Attorney-General, who we think is bound for overseas—another person getting a reward for doing an asinine job—is the person responsible for implementing these proposals. He is cutting the funding to the Central Australian Women's Legal Service, for example, the Katherine Women's Information and Legal Service, the North Australian Aboriginal Family Legal Service, the Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Women's Council Domestic and Family Violence Service and the Central Australian Aboriginal Family Legal Unit. All of these will have their funds cut. You can tell by the descriptors who their clients are, but no matter—inevitably, these will be many of the same people who will be affected by the FTB cuts. So the Prime Minister is not only walking away from his responsibilities to protect their incomes; he is also walking away from his responsibilities to protect their legal rights. That is not what a responsible Prime Minister does. He can hurl as many insults, personal invective and all that sort of rubbish as he likes. But, at the end of the day, the Australian people are not fools, and they have found him out. We know by the decisions he has taken in his own party that he has been beholden to a right-wing rump, that he is no longer the man we all thought he was when he first got the job. He has changed his policy decisions on almost every conceivable area and he has made himself beholden to stupidity. That does not make him a good Prime Minister; that makes him as weak as water. I see him stand up there at the dispatch box, opening his mouth and letting the wind blow his tongue around, but he makes no sense. What he is doing is insulting the intelligence of the Australian community, and they will not tolerate such stupidity. A final issue that I want to raise very quickly is that the bill that passed through the Senate last night would also freeze for three years the income-free areas for all working age and student payments. What is going on in this country? What is going on in this country? This would mean that, for three years, the income tests applying to payments for single parents, jobseekers and students will not keep pace with the cost of living. These people are not earning high incomes. What if they are living in a city like Sydney or Melbourne? Perhaps they are a student from Alice Springs who has to leave to get an education, who comes from a family that cannot support them, so they have to support themselves. They have to work. What we are seeing now is another effective cut to their income. This will affect 204,000 Australians on the lowest incomes. It is just ridiculous! I am almost lost for words—and that is very hard for me—in describing the disdain I feel for the Prime Minister and this government and for the attacks that they are making on Australian families and on Australian workers. They are indefensible. They are absolutely indefensible. Many of them emanate from that stupid, absurd 2014 budget. We are seeing that reflected in proposals coming before us again now in the parliament. We expect a lot more from our government. We expect a lot more from the Prime Minister. He is not doing the right thing by any of us. 11:00 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2016-2017, and today I want to focus my comments on our environmental commitments, our achievements and future considerations. I find it remarkable, even today, that I was the only candidate in Brisbane in last year's election who made local environmental commitments. There was a Labor candidate; there was a Greens candidate. But I was the only candidate, it seemed, who had thought deeply about the local environment, who had considered local environmental priorities and who had successfully lobbied my party and my minister, seeking resources to make local environmental commitments. It was my strong belief then and it remains the case now that, while some inner-city Brisbane residents may not immediately be conscious of our significant local environmental concerns, in fact, right there under our noses, is the Brisbane River connecting the Brisbane River catchment, which contains most of the green space in South East Queensland, with the vitally important Moreton Bay. The Brisbane River, its catchment and Moreton Bay are without doubt our biggest and most significant local environmental assets. The river is also culturally important to our people. It is significant to our traditional owners of the land, and every day, subconsciously or consciously, it forms a backdrop to the lives of local residents going about their business. The Brisbane River and Moreton Bay, incidentally, are also economically important. Some estimates of the economic activity around the Moreton Bay and catchment rival the total economic activity and value of the Great Barrier Reef. But back to its environmental significance. The Brisbane River catchment obviously contains most of South East Queensland's fresh water. It links many of our important parks and forests, and it also contains most of our iconic and endemic species. Moreton Bay itself includes a Ramsar site of international significance for dozens of bird species, including some of those famous migratory species that Attenborough documentaries showcase travelling such tremendous distances all around the globe. It supports iconic and threatened species, including three species of large turtles, and it is also one of the top 10 habitats in Queensland for the dugong. I conclude that all of these factors mean that the Brisbane River and its catchment are a logical place for policymakers to start when we consider the priorities for our local environment and when we consider the opportunities and the strategies for protecting and growing the resilience of the local environment right across South East Queensland. Following my advocacy, informed as it was then by my work with Seqwater and my tree planting and catchment activities over many years, this government has committed over three-quarters of a million dollars to projects that will protect and improve the environmental condition of the Brisbane River and its catchment. The projects include $80,000 for water-smart street trees, rain gardens and other water-sensitive urban design to reduce stormwater and road run-off into the catchment; $70,000 to tackle sediment run-offs, specifically at Tenerife Park; $360,000—over a third of a million dollars—towards riparian planting and erosion control projects for tributaries into the Brisbane River, including around the Enoggera Creek; and $50,000 to support the waterways clean up program to directly remove litter from the river. The commitments also include a Green Army project, which will enhance the local Brisbane River riparian areas to improve water quality and species retention, to protect and improve habitat, working in conjunction with the other elements of the local plan, and looking at rejuvenating the local environment through the removal and the control of invasive species and replanting with native species. These projects, in conjunction with projects being delivered by others, such as the Brisbane City Council, have been prioritised and chosen in consultation with groups like SEQ Catchments and other catchment groups, and they should help to improve the environmental condition of the Brisbane River, in line with the priorities and the challenges and opportunities outlined in Healthy Waterways's annual report on the condition of our catchment areas all along South-East Queensland. While I represent the mostly inner-urban seat of Brisbane, the Brisbane River catchment is obviously a much broader environmental asset, and I want to encourage my colleagues right across South-East Queensland and right across all three levels of government to work together to consider regional priorities. Yesterday the South-East Queensland Council of Mayors was here in Canberra, and I spoke to some of their representatives about these issues. We discussed, actually, the South-East Queensland Resilient Rivers Initiative, a document that I am very familiar with because it has formed a part of my discussions as I have been seeking out and meeting with all of the different stakeholders and leaders in the environmental space across South-East Queensland. The Resilient Rivers Initiative is a good document. It is an important vision. The costs of implementing this vision are not insignificant, but the potential benefits are also substantial, and the vision, I believe, is a commendable one, considering the conclusions that I have just outlined about the central role of the Brisbane River and its catchment and how they play out in terms of habitat conservation, biodiversity and environmental management across South-East Queensland. I understand that some of the biggest opportunities for environmental work in some of the locations where the condition of the Brisbane River catchment is most challenged mean that the responsibility could fall disproportionately and unrealistically on some of the areas least equipped and least able to afford to contribute to such a vision. I accept that, in some cases, the residents of Brisbane will be better equipped and better placed, and possibly also very willing, to contribute and to lead in terms of the holistic approach that may be required. The South-East Queensland area is characterised by a fairly contiguous and mostly coastal urban footprint, stretching right from the New South Wales border up to the Sunshine Coast. Some say that that urban sprawl is reaching its natural limits, and others say that further steps need to be taken to limit that urban sprawl. While inner-city development certainly causes challenges for those of us who represent inner-city areas, in terms of managing the strain on the local services and amenities, it is also the case that inner-city residential development has lower environmental impact, if the alternative is bulldozing bushland and commuting from the fringes. Either way, though, it strikes me as a sound observation that South-East Queensland already has the makings of a natural green belt around it, if you consider the Border Ranges and Lamington national parks down south around the Gold Coast, heading up through the main ranges and state forests at the end of the Scenic Rim and around the Darling Downs, to Brisbane Forest Park, Wivenhoe, Somerset and the D'Aguilar National Park and forests, up to Jimna, Imbil and all the state forests around the Sunshine Coast, leading up to the Great Sandy National Park and Fraser Island. The rough semicircle created by these parks and forests, incidentally, holds a significant proportion of Australia's native species. I wanted to be a zookeeper when I was a kid, and here I am now in this house of animals! And when I was a kid, at every Christmas and every birthday, and on every trip to the library, I wanted to get my hands on books describing our native species, showing their photos, their habitat and their distribution. When you look at those texts, it does not matter whether you look at bird species, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish—you name it—a disproportionate number of Australia's native species seem to fall within the semicircle created by the parks and forests surrounding South-East Queensland. We are talking thousands of species, actually, of native fauna and flora, some of which are found nowhere else in the world. My best research indicates that there are about 4,000 plant species and about 800 freshwater and terrestrial vertebrates native to the region and distributed across our mountain ranges, hills, valleys, rivers, lakes, flood plains and islands. When we consider how we balance population growth and productive development, along with the need to conserve and protect native species and habitats, it is a good start, I feel, that we have the makings of this green belt around South-East Queensland. Yet I am also coming to the conclusion, following my discussions with stakeholders in this space, that there is no comprehensively planned approach to the management of these areas or specifically looking at how we could take advantage of the opportunities that they present. There are some very good initiatives and programs at all three levels of government as well as projects led by corporations and not-for-profit organisations, but I am seeing evidence that these projects could be better coordinated. Specifically, by way of example, some of the initiatives aimed at tree-planting, reforestation, carbon sinks and habitat corridors do not seem to be led or guide by any South-East Queensland wide strategy that could help to direct their proponents to the best locations to carry out those endeavours. Not all habitat corridors, for instance, are equal. Some initiatives are being taken in areas where there is possibly marginal benefit compared to other potential projects which would be of much greater significance to the local environment. When you think about what the underpinnings of a good strategy might look like and where it would start, I think we will find ourselves looking very closely at river catchments, given how they spread right across the region and link so many of our existing green spaces, parks and forests, and can act as natural corridors for wildlife. The Resilient Rivers Initiative is probably the closest thing that we have to that strategy, along with the priorities and the projects that are being prioritised and worked on by groups like Healthy Waterways. I have already spoken to a number of stakeholders about these issues, about the local priorities and the opportunities for us to take a more coordinated regional approach to the environment in South-East Queensland, and I certainly invite other interested parties to contact me with their thoughts and their ideas. I just want to make two points here in passing. Firstly, I am not proposing that it should be a priority of any government to fight over access or rights to productive land. I want our farmers, our industrialists and our developers to be more gainfully productive, not less. I observe that the places around the world that are doing the best environmental work today are the societies most able to afford meaningful environmental investments. Our environmental work here in Australia, and all the funding that underpins it, is probably most threatened whenever our economy is threatened. Everything that I have seen so far in terms of practical and local environmental achievement, makes me a big believer in mixed-land use solutions. As a policymaker in a past life, my experience is that blanket bans are generally a terrible and clunky first response to most policy problems. I am realistic about the history that we inherit. South-East Queensland is not one of those Northern Hemisphere sort of alpine glacial waterways where the terrain prevented human activity. We are working with what we have. It is already a mixed-use catchment. That is an unavoidable fact. So I consider that some of the most productive and gainful steps that we can take will not necessarily involve locking up land presently being used for various purposes. Rather, the quickest and the most critical environmental wins in front of us in South-East Queensland are likely to come from working cooperatively with landowners, farmers and businesses. By way of a quick example from a former life of mine: half a million dollars might have bought Seqwater a block of land near Wyaralong Dam, for instance, so that they could lock it into a catchment and it might provide some marginal future gains in terms of water quality and environmental habitat, and that would come at the cost of a farmer's livelihood. But that same half a million dollars could be used to work with up to 10 farmers, say, to encourage them to plant quite widely for kilometres and kilometres along a creek or a river that flows into the Brisbane River and ultimately into Moreton Bay—so the same half a million dollars but very different impacts for the environment and for the productive capacity of our region and very different forward management costs to continue to manage those outcomes. That brings me to my second point. My experience already as a new MP is that there are, unfortunately, some groups and bodies in the environmental space that I feel do their members and their supporters a disservice by their approach to government and to politics. I want to remind everybody that it was a Liberal government that declared the Great Barrier Reef a marine park. It was a Liberal government that banned whaling in Australian waters. It was a Liberal government that placed the Great Barrier Reef on the World Heritage List—and Kokoda, Willandra Lakes, Lord Howe Island and South-West Tasmania. And, when the Great Barrier Reef was, sadly, recently listed on the World Heritage Committee watch list, because of how the former Labor government planned five massive dredge disposal projects, it was this Liberal government that took the action to stop those dredge projects and followed that step up by now being the government that is making the biggest investments—more than any government ever before—in measures to protect the Great Barrier Reef. I encourage stakeholders to engage with me and with the party that has this strong record of environmental achievement. Achievements matter more than words and promises, and I consider conservation actually to be an inherently conservative thing. We are probably the party who are best placed to work constructively with farmers, industrialists and business interests to make many projects a reality through collaboration. In closing, I want to refer to one more significant Liberal environmental achievement that ties everything together. When the Howard government made what was then the biggest investment ever in Australia's environment by setting up the Natural Heritage Trust, they established the NRMs, the natural resource management bodies, and these have become the managers of our nation's river catchments—managers including SEQ Catchments, which has just merged with Healthy Waterways in Brisbane. When we consider the future challenges and opportunities for environmental conservation—for instance, when I talk about the significance of the Brisbane River—we are predominantly working with and following, today, the great work that was done by the NRMs set up by a Liberal government. I encourage feedback on the projects I have discussed today and I encourage interested parties to contact me with their thoughts and contributions. (Time expired) 11:16 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt The debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2016-2017 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2016-2017 affords members the opportunity to speak in the parliament about a broad range of topics of import to an MP. However, for my contribution to this debate, it is actually fitting that we are debating the appropriation of funding across government, because it is the concept of 'cross-government' that is my area of concern. For decades now there has been debate and discussion about the importance of joined-up government: working across government and removing and dealing with silos within government. While it can never be said that the great reforms have all been accomplished, we are clearly in a space where great reforms involve greater and greater complexity, difficulty and political risk. Great reforms are indeed, as Sir Humphrey Appleby would describe them, 'courageous'. One of the great challenges for government, and for us as legislators today, is what we can do to improve economic growth and productivity and, at the same time, reduce inequality. It is important to note that right now in Australia economic growth is anaemic. Wage growth is negligible and the gap between the wealthy and poor, between the haves and the have-nots, is increasing at a faster and faster rate. This means that more than ever we have a need for joined-up, cross-agency solutions to the complex needs of our community as a whole and the individual Australians who make up that community—solutions between agencies at federal, state and local government levels and, just as importantly, between agencies at each of those levels. For example, there is a particularly high correlation at state level of people who have access to services such as police, hospitals and health services, mental health services, public and community housing, education department behavioural programs, justice and corrective services, and child protection and family services, as well as the court system. Similarly, such people with complex needs are often also reliant on Centrelink payments at a federal level and have many interactions—or, rather, difficulties in interacting—with Centrelink, to name just one federal agency. Then there are the myriad local government services of various sizes, with coverage and service levels that differ from council to council. There is also the not-for-profit sector, which provides many other services that are often partly funded by government at various levels. The grim reality is that it can be difficult to navigate each of these services on its own, let alone when there are multiple services. Of course, some processes—such as those involving the police, courts or corrective services—have a high degree of compulsion about them. Being able to properly respond to, deal with and navigate such processes to best effect and in the best interests of the individual and the community is exceptionally difficult. Such difficulties are further compounded in services and systems that involve a more voluntary participation element and where people who need to access such services do not know how to access them or, worse, are unaware of the service's existence in the first place. This is the task of joined-up government: assisting individuals with complex needs to access and navigate government and not-for-profit services at all levels. A key issue that stands out is the degree of buck-passing that can be involved. So often we hear stories of people who require the assistance or engagement of multiple agencies and are told: 'We cannot help you. You have'—a particular issue—'therefore you need to speak to this other agency.' At such point, for many in our community, the lack of awareness of how to deal with that other agency or how it acts is a very real barrier to accessing the required assistance. But, worse, even when such a service may be accessed, those with complex needs may well be told that they should have been serviced by the original agency that they had approached in the first place or that they need to go see a third service, erecting further barriers in their way. In truth, those with complex needs either fall in a crack between services or genuinely do need the assistance of multiple agencies. Even where the services of multiple agencies are engaged, coordination and consistency of approach is, of course, vital and, all too often, not provided. Part of the key difficulty here is that such coordination is not anyone's job. What many complex-needs individuals or families require is someone to assist in the access and navigation of all required services. A stark example of this can be seen in our lower courts. As a junior prosecutor, I spent many hours in the magistrates courts of Perth. Dealing with my own matters and observing many other police matters, it was clear to me, as it was clear to the police and the magistrates, that many of the difficulties that had led to individuals appearing on charges before the courts had, in part, arisen due to their inability to access and properly navigate government and community services. If they had, they would likely not have ended up where they now stood. The real shame of it all was knowing that there are solutions but that they had not been available for these people and they need not have found themselves in this position. Now, such an example cannot be made without pointing out just how disadvantaged such a person would find themselves when dealing just with the courts. Even as an experienced lawyer, the court system can appear impregnable. However, some of the most experienced people working in that area are those that work in legal aid and legal assistance services as they are able to provide better outcomes for not only those finding themselves in courts but also the community as a whole. I could go on for another whole speech about the need for properly funded legal aid—no doubt, I will do so before not too much longer in this parliament—but let me just say this: there can be no doubt that our entire community is disadvantaged by the chronic underfunding of legal aid and legal assistance services in this nation. This has always been difficult, but it was made catastrophic by the severe cuts to legal aid funding by the Howard government in 1996—cuts from which legal aid funding has never recovered. This also demonstrates the need for coordination in funding between the Commonwealth and the states, because the states have also been cutting such funding. Then, of course, we have the community legal centre sector, which this government has completely gutted, with 20 per cent funding cuts about to come into effect. Now, some will say that there is a tight budget situation and that everyone has to tighten their belts, but what the government continues to ignore is the fact that this sector has already been running on the smell of an oily rag. That said, the key point is that the government maintains its funding-cut line in the face of a recommendation by the Productivity Commission—hardly some lefty, socially-progressive, artsy-type organisation—that the government should actually increase funding to the legal assistance sector by some $200 million. The real point that I wanted to get to with this example is that, as well as having the great assistance of a duty lawyer from legal aid—now, unfortunately, withdrawn from so many magistrates courts recently—many of those appearing in the courts would be greatly assisted by a duty social worker. Come to the court, see the duty lawyer, deal with your matter and then see the duty social worker. Have someone sit down and look at what and where those other issues are that the person is having to deal with: how can this person be assisted to make sure that they do not find themselves in the situation again? Duty social workers are seen as more money, but, actually, it is money better spent. It is money spent on helping those people with complex needs, which saves money by them not having to come back to the court on other matters. It saves police time and it saves the many lost hours of agency time trying to track down people or false starts in the wrong services. The reality, of course, is that a duty social worker is only the start. They are only the person who provides initial direction. But what then? We need to redeploy our community services in a way where they all work together, in a coordinated fashion, to meet the real needs of our communities and, particularly, the needs of each individual. That means tailored and flexible service delivery. It also means, where there are inevitably multiple agencies and services involved, that someone, anyone, is responsible for the access and navigation of those services for the person requiring assistance. As a brief example: how on earth do you expect someone with a learning difficulty—functional illiteracy or similar—to be able to fill in forms to get assistance from Centrelink to get money so that they are able to pay their rent, navigate the minefield of mental health services or even know that, if they can find a bulk-billing GP, they can get a referral for psychological assistance that they may be in need of? If, instead of being turned away and referred elsewhere, complex needs were recognised and put into pathways for enhanced assistance, many, many Australians who currently find themselves bounced around services, unable to access community housing, not getting the mental health assistance they need and needlessly in situations bringing them to the attention of the police, courts and correctional services, would instead be turning their lives around. They would be accessing the assistance they need; they would be able to move from welfare to work; they would be better able to contribute to our community as a whole. They would indeed, dare I say, become taxpayers. The broader community benefits from such an approach are huge and I believe they would pay for themselves. This is not just a theory—an idea—it is something that is being demonstrated in my part of the world, in Armadale, in the electorate of Burt, through a partnership project, the Armadale Youth Intervention Partnership. This is a more focused program than what I am talking about broadly, but it is a proof of concept that, if you intensively assist someone with complex needs—in this case, those that are at risk of criminal behaviour and detention—you can help them turn their lives around and become contributors, even mentors to others. The amazing thing is that you can do this—you can change their story—in 12 short months. As a back-of-the-envelope sort of calculation for everyone to bear in mind, it costs over $350,000 per annum to keep one young person in juvenile detention in Western Australia. Where a program like AYIP results in just one person changing their story so that they do not find themselves sentenced but rather are contributing to society, that is a huge saving to make. And, of course, it is not just one person that has benefited from this program; there are many and all of those around them. The work of the Armadale partnership project, and the Armadale Youth Intervention Program in particular, is actually amazing as a proof of concept, but it is only a proof of concept. The point is that it has provided that proof and we should be taking this approach and expanding it to assist people with many different complex needs. We need to do this not only because it is the right thing to do for those individuals but because it will make our whole community better when done right. It will mean that our scarce government and community resources are better targeted, used more effectively and efficiently, and result in better outcomes for all of our lives because they will become less difficult and less complex—because all of our lives are becoming more difficult and complex. This should be a no-brainer, quite frankly, and I urge the federal, state and local governments to work together to get the framework, the funding and the service provision right so that people no longer fall through the cracks and that no Australian is left behind. 11:27 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra The Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2016-2017 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2016-2017 are required to ensure the ordinary functions of government continue for the remainder of the 2016-17 financial year. As Labor has already stated, we will not block supply—we are still smarting from what happened in the seventies. What we will do is work constructively on budget repair that is fair, supporting what we can, opposing what we must and proposing alternative savings of our own. We will not support policies that are not in keeping with Labor values, that cut into our social fabric or that target low- and middle-income earners and the most vulnerable in our community. We have worked with the government to secure $6.3 billion in budget savings so far. That is more than what the government proposed in its first omnibus bill. By working this way, Labor was able to protect vulnerable people who had been targeted by cuts and save the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. Labor is continuing its fight. Last year's Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook showed that this government was still committed to the unfair measures introduced in the Abbott-Hockey 2014 budget—that hideous budget. I remember doorknocking in one of my suburbs just after that hideous budget. I had people on their doorsteps in tears. I had mothers terrified about what was going to happen to their children. Single mothers, wondering whether they could educate their children, were running down the street in tears as a result of that hideous, cruel 2014 budget where we saw the increase of the pension age to 70 and the Medicare freeze. Unfortunately, since then nothing much has changed. The government continues to set its sights on families, treating them as the enemy. More than one million families are worse off with the late-night deal in the Senate last night, and we have all heard about that. More than one million families are now worse off as a result of what happened in the Senate last night. While Labor puts people before politics, the smaller parties side with the Turnbull government, which puts multinational corporations and big banks first. The government does deals in the Senate late at night to increase the burden on families and makes cuts to pensions and parental leave, cuts of $30 million to the funding of community legal centres, and cuts to Australian Federal Police pay and conditions. These are servants of democracy. These are protectors of our community, defenders of our nation, and here is the government proposing to cut the pay and conditions of 280 AFP officers. Those AFP officers protect the Prime Minister and those AFP officers protect the Governor-General. It is endless. We have the $30 million of cuts to community legal centres. Community legal centres provide services to victims of domestic violence and those who are very disadvantaged and cannot access legal aid. These are centres that work with the most vulnerable to give them the basic of human rights, and that is access to legal services and access to justice. This government is proposing a $50 billion tax cut for big business and the big end of town and the big four banks, and yet is cutting $30 million to community legal centres that already run on the smell of an oily rag and already have volunteers because they cannot afford to pay wages. Many volunteers help out and give back to their community—they are helping the most vulnerable in the community—and this government is targeting them. On top of that we have the cuts of $30 billion to schools. The government is doing all this—cuts to families, cuts to pensions, cuts to parental leave, cuts to community legal services, cuts to AFP pay and conditions and cuts to schools—to provide a $50 billion tax cut to the big end of town. Last night's deal in the Senate to freeze the family tax benefit rates for two years cuts $1.4 billion from Australian families. The Liberals, The Nationals, One Nation and Nick Xenophon have all bandied together to vote to cut family payments to 1.5 million Australian families. That is what they did last night. That is straight out of that horror 2014 budget. It is 2014 all over again. The families affected by this freeze are those who receive the maximum rate of family tax benefit part A. These are families with a household income of less than $52,000 a year. That is whom the government and One Nation and The Nationals and Nick Xenophon are targeting. The government says the freeze will be in place for two years, but isn't that what the government said about the Medicare freeze? In my electorate of Canberra, there are many families already doing it tough. The freeze will affect more than 10,000 families in Canberra who are currently receiving the family tax benefit. This will have a real detrimental impact on families in my electorate and right across Australia. Like many other harsh and unfair treatments meted out by this government, they are cutting the living standards of Australians. That is just one way the government are cutting the living standards of Australians. The penalty rate decision will affect more than 13,000 people in my electorate. That is one in eight workers. They work in the retail, food and accommodation industries and will be affected by the penalty rate decision and could lose up to $77 a week. For many of these people it is the difference between putting petrol in the tank, being able to purchase a weekly bus ticket or putting food on the table or not doing those things. This latest pay cut is even more bad news and cuts a living standards of Canberra workers and their families. You have to really ask the question. We have the deal that was done last night with The Nationals, One Nation and Nick Xenophon on the family tax benefit. Then you have the penalty rate decision. What sort of government sets about reducing the living standards of Australians, reducing the living standards of its community, rather than increasing them? Isn't it the aspiration of all of us in this place to improve the lives of our community, to improve the lives of Australians and to contribute to our growth and prosperity? Here is a government that is actually reducing living standards through the family tax benefit cuts and through the penalty rate cuts. It just beggars belief. What is this government's agenda? What is this government's vision for the Australian people and our community? While this government is campaigning for the Fair Work Commission to cut penalty rates, at the same time—these cuts and these attacks are just endless—we have seen the absolutely abysmal, blatant pork-barrelling that the cabinet has been doing with the relocation of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority from Canberra to Armidale, to the Deputy Prime Minister's electorate of New England. This is a government that is targeting low- and middle income families, the most vulnerable in our community, and reducing the living standards of many Australians while at the same time commissioning a cost-benefit analysis, costing $272,000, that showed there is not going to be any benefit as a result of this relocation—no benefit whatsoever. It is going to be all cost and no benefit. What sort of cost we are talking about here? Initially, there were figures of about $23 million, and now that has crept up to $26 million. And here is this government, slashing these community legal services to the tune of $30 million—one-third of each of those community legal services' budgets. This is what it is doing to those community legal services, and yet it is investing this ridiculous amount of money on this blatant, shameless pork-barrelling exercise to win votes for the Deputy Prime Minister. As I stated in my submission to the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee's inquiry into the relocation order, an absolutely outrageous order, the relocation underscores this government's complete and utter contempt and disdain for Canberra, for our servants of democracy—our public servants—and for Sir Robert Menzies's vision and legacy for this city. The relocation has placed the 175 staff members of the APVMA and their families under considerable stress and strain. Eighty-five per cent of them do not want to move. They do not want to be uprooted from their lives here in the ACT. Eighty-five per cent of them do not want their children's education interrupted or their partners to lose their jobs. If the Turnbull government does not care about the welfare of these Canberrans, about the welfare of these staff members and their families—and it obviously does not really care much about Canberrans, given the cuts that have gone on with this coalition government since it was elected in 2013—it could spare a thought for the impact of this morale-sapping relocation on the productivity of the authority and the productivity of the agriculture industry. Ironically, this order, which is already having a significant hit on the productivity of the authority, is an order that has been instigated by the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. It is just breathtaking. Here he is in question time, going on about the fantastic bumper crops and bumper sales figures for cattle this year, and here he is going on about the significant contribution that agriculture makes to the Australian GDP—and it does; it makes a significant contribution. So why would you in any way want to have a hit on that productivity and that growth by affecting the productivity of the authority that regulates so much of the pesticides and veterinary medicines that are used by the industry? Despite the fact that we have had this cost-benefit analysis that showed that this ludicrous idea is all cost and no benefit, despite the fact that 85 per cent of the authority does not want to move, despite the fact that we are already seeing an impact on the productivity of the authority as a result of the morale-sapping plan to move it to Armidale—despite all of this—the most insulting aspect of this relocation, apart from the fact that it is going to have a huge hit on the bottom line and have a significant impact on members of my community, is the fact that they are forcing a relocation to Armidale, which 85 per cent of the staff oppose, and they do not even have an office for these people to move into. An office is proposed in the next few years, in that there is a greenfield site. At estimates, we found out that APVMA staff members are working from McDonald's to access wifi, because they do not have any accommodation. And the greenfield office development is years away—it just beggars belief. It is staggeringly shocking that the government should waste so much money on this blatant pork-barrel exercise, to demand that these people move up to Armidale, essentially just so that the Deputy Prime Minister could win some votes at the last election. The government demands that they move up there—and it does not even have anywhere for them to go! They are sitting in the McCafe using the wifi, trying to access their work. The fact that there is no plan for this relocation, even though it has been mandated by an order—it is just breathtaking. This government has until 1 July. The planning is still underway, and this government still has until 1 July to reverse this ridiculous decision. I am going to continue to campaign, calling on the government to reverse this ridiculous, blatant, shameless pork barrel, which is a complete and utter waste of money and which is destroying the productivity of the authority—an authority that is meant to improve the productivity of the agricultural sector. This decision is destroying the productivity of a very important industry, and it is sapping the morale of my constituents. I will campaign until the end, in an attempt to reverse this outrageous decision and the outrageous cuts which I have mentioned today. This government is breathtakingly ordinary. We have a prime minister who treats the job as a hobby. Everywhere I go, Canberrans tell me that he is just one big disappointment. We have a government with no agenda. We have a government with no vision. We have a government with no plan. We have a government that is looking for savings but just targets the low- and middle-income earners in this community—the most vulnerable in our community—while at the same time having the audacity to promise a $50 billion tax cut to the big end of town—big business and big banks. It is outrageous and shameful. I will continue to campaign against this government's cuts. 11:42 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand As a federal Labor MP from Western Australia, it was pleasing to see our great state turn red once again at last Saturday's state election on 11 March. Western Australia has for a number of years now been considered a fortress for the Liberal Party, a dependable state on which to rely when the going gets tough, and a refuge and a safe haven for what we call the blue team. Beginning at the federal election last July and continuing until last Saturday at a state level, WA is starting to show the rest of the country that this is now assuredly not the case. Western Australians overwhelmingly rejected the Barnett Liberal government in a pointed 41-seat reminder that the Liberal party does not have a monopoly on Western Australian politics. Nor does it have a monopoly on vision or ideas for the future of Western Australia. Since 2008 up until its demise last week, the state Liberal government had enjoyed what could politely be described as a fractious relationship with their federal counterparts in Canberra. With the change of federal government in 2013, Western Australians could have been forgiven for thinking that, with the coalition in power at both levels, they could enjoy more successful outcomes for the state of WA, particularly when many of the senior cabinet ministers in the Abbott and Turnbull governments reside on that side of the Nullarbor. But that was not to be, and we have all seen what has happened. The construction boom has ended, unemployment has risen, funding has been cut, and wealth- and job-generating infrastructure projects have gone out the window in favour of vanity monuments, and a road to nowhere, and a hospital with asbestos in the roof and lead in the water. The Liberals hounded each other across the great divide, each blaming their opposite number for WA's woes. While that went on, our share of the GST revenue continued to decline, along with voter patience for the Barnett government. In the last weeks of the recent campaign in Western Australia we saw some extraordinary scenes as the state Liberals frantically tried to distance themselves from the Prime Minister in the face of an incoming backlash against his comments on the GST floor, on penalty rates and his lack of commitment to public transport—a fact you would not believe if you looked at all the selfies on the trams and trains over the years from our Prime Minister. On 11 March, Western Australians went to the polls and voted for change. They voted for a grown-up government, not tantrums and the blame games. They voted for a sensible and measured approach, not fear and division. They voted for responsible financial management, not a bandaid fix. On 11 March, Western Australians voted for a Labor state government that they believe will do a better job representing their interests to the rest of the country. I am a Western Australian and I am a committed federalist. I believe in the Federation of Australia, and I believe it is time for a new approach to Commonwealth-state relations for Western Australia. The principle of fiscal equalisation of the Commonwealth grants process and GST distribution is important for the ongoing prosperity of all Australians. The fiscal equalisation policy exists because each state has a different capacity to raise revenue at different times in their economic development. This is due to population and demographic issues, and the ability to exploit natural resources, among many other things. It is important for all Australians to recognise that the purpose of the equalisation process is to ensure that each state is able to provide comparable infrastructure and services to people in Australia, regardless of where they live. For instance, if you live in Warnbro in Western Australia and have an accident while on holiday visiting family, say, in Darwin, you would quite rightly expect the same level of health care in the Darwin hospital as you would receive in the Rockingham hospital or the Fiona Stanley Hospital. This is the type of thing that fiscal equalisation seeks to achieve. This is a simple example of the objectives of the highly complex and complicated Commonwealth grants processes that distribute the goods and services tax. There is no doubt that this process needs modernising to reflect modern Australia for the benefit of all Australians today. Screaming from the rooftops about WA's GST share has got Western Australia nowhere with this government. A new approach to Commonwealth-state relations for Western Australia means having a constructive discussion on a modern and sensible model of GST distribution, with both the federal government and our interstate colleagues and friends, to ensure that future GST revenue distribution does not unduly disadvantage individual states when going through periods of difficult transition. This also means presenting the best case from Western Australia to the federal government to provide us with the funds necessary to address areas of greatest need and to create large, sustainable areas of employment—areas such as public transport to help ease the population growing pains that WA has experienced over the past decade. As is now clear to planners and analysts state-wide, we have grown rapidly with insufficient planning and core infrastructure to meet the challenges Western Australia now faces. WA Labor's transport plan, METRONET, still represents the best opportunity for WA to make real inroads into the way we approach the critical issue of transport in WA. The $1.2 billion in federal funding earmarked for the failed Perth Freight Link should now be redirected into job-creating, congestion-busting projects such as METRONET, whereby we increase the scope of rail infrastructure in WA and make public transport more interconnected and more attractive to the public as a whole. We must change the way Australians approach transport infrastructure in this country, and I am confident the McGowan Labor government will become a great example of exactly that. Projects like METRONET are not just good steps in changing transport culture and fixing congestion; they are also significant investments in job creation. At this critical time in the history of my state, we must diversify from an economy reliant on the resources industry. Since the end of the construction boom and the mining industry, unemployment has steadily risen as the investment phase has ended and the production phase continues. In my own electorate of Brand, an area that has traditionally been reliant on the economic sectors of manufacturing, production and defence, we are seeing unemployment rise to unacceptable levels as many struggle to meet the changing needs of the state. In the south of my electorate, the suburb of Port Kennedy has experienced a rise in unemployment from 6.4 per cent in the December quarter of 2015 to 7.5 per cent in the December quarter of 2016. In the west of my electorate, the suburb of Rockingham experienced a rise in unemployment from 10.8 per cent in December 2015 to 12.9 per cent in the recent December quarter, according to 2016 figures. That is nearly double the state average. In the north of Brand the suburb of Parmelia, in Kwinana, where I was born, has experienced a rise in unemployment from an already unacceptable and shocking level of 15.2 per cent in the December quarter of 2015 to 17.7 per cent in the December quarter of 2016—a massive increase of 2.5 per cent in a single year from an already high level of unemployment. The changes that come with such dramatic increases in unemployment do not limit themselves solely to putting strain on the labour market—Centrelink queues become longer; waiting times on the phone increase; community agencies and departments that assist with mental health and welfare and community legal services push back against an exponential increase in downward pressure. Both the Kwinana and Rockingham suburbs within my electorate of Brand are now in the top six local government areas ranked by increase in welfare recipients, with a 34 per cent increase in jobseekers on welfare being recorded in Kwinana and a 39.5 per cent increase in Rockingham. This challenge that we are facing in Western Australia, while daunting, is not insurmountable. It will require careful and considered placement of public funds to help stimulate the economy and a patience and resolve that resides inside every Western Australian, especially in my electorate, to see out this critical challenge. I am extremely pleased, of course, to see that many senior members of the new McGowan Labor government have their state electorates inside the federal electorate of Brand and will be able to share their expertise, experience and ideas as we begin to rebuild WA over the next four years. I look forward to working with Reece Whitby, MLA for Baldivis, in his role as parliamentary secretary for support in areas such as disability services, the environment and finance. I look forward to continuing to work with Paul Papalia, MLA for Warnbro and our new minister for tourism, small business and defence—industries that desperately need an injection of optimism in my electorate. I am confident that under Paul's leadership we are in for a period of expansion and growth in these areas as we diversify the WA economy. I look forward to continuing to work with Roger Cook, MLA for Kwinana, Deputy Premier and Minister for Health and Mental Health. In times like these it is of the utmost importance that we continue to maintain the integrity of our health system and make improvements to reduce waiting times and ensure crucial infrastructure is built to meet the growing needs of an ageing population. It is my belief that health in WA is in safe hands under the Deputy Premier, my friend, Roger Cook. And, of course, I am certainly looking forward to working with the new Premier of Western Australia, Mark McGowan, MLA for Rockingham. Throughout the last four years in opposition Mark has presented a clear vision for WA, an approach to governance that is both consultative in its actions with the community and the stakeholders and refreshing and bold in its ideas to make WA flourish once again. WA Labor certainly has a task on their great collective hands; that much is true. However, I am confident in the vision of the future that Premier McGowan and WA Labor presents. I wish the Premier and the rest of his team all the best for the parliamentary term ahead. I also especially want to add my congratulations and best wishes to the new Treasurer of Western Australia, Mr Ben Wyatt. Ben Wyatt and I studied together at the University of Western Australia in the nineties, and I wish him all the best on this amazing journey he is about to undertake as the first Indigenous Treasurer in an Australian government system. However, success for Western Australia is not possible if we cannot have an environment that is conducive to job creation and the standards of practice that encourage employers and employees alike to work and be paid fairly. The controversy surrounding penalty rates continues to play havoc with people around the country, including those constituents in my electorate. Almost 10,000 people in Brand stand to take a substantial pay cut from the industries in retail and accommodation. It is important that this government protects and does not penalise those who take time out of their weekends to provide the services and amenities the rest of us take for granted. Failure to do so will only increase unemployment and pile more pressure on those who already struggle to make ends meet. I call on the federal government of Malcolm Turnbull, the Prime Minister, to work together with the McGowan Labor government to commit existing federal funding to infrastructure projects put forward by the McGowan Labor government, such as METRONET, and to defend the working rights of my constituents in Brand, who deserve a fair wage for working on the weekend. I would also like to take this opportunity to reflect for a moment on the Turnbull government's determination to weaken the provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act—those provisions that protect the people in this country from serious incidents that offend and insult them because of their race. The arguments peddled by the government and The Australian newspaper at all times ignore the thousands of victims of racism in this country. Absolutely no consideration is given to the victims that suffer real and long-lasting harm from racism. Not a word has been said about the thousands of victims of racism who suffer on a daily basis. I think this is unacceptable and should not continue. There are thousands of incidents everyday in this country that could constitute a legitimate complaint of racial discrimination under the existing act, and I would also say under any changes the government is proposing. But these incidents are not reported, because victims of racism are usually voiceless, marginalised and without power, forgotten utterly in this senseless crusade of this Turnbull Liberal government to change the definitions in 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. These are the people who we should be talking about and protecting. Their right to live free from racial discrimination is of equal importance to the freedom of speech, yet their experiences—the many sad experiences of racial discrimination—are being utterly ignored. I call on the government to stop this harmful action and its utter disregard for the victims of racism in this country, and I hope in its continued prosecution of its case that it sometime might choose to reflect on the people in this country that it is now ignoring. There are people in this country who do suffer from racism. It is not something that we can continue to ignore. It is certainly not something my Labor colleagues and I ignore. My colleagues and I sat on the Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry into the freedom of speech and we spent many days and hours listening to victims of racial discrimination and racial harm. These people have been forgotten by the current government, and I do hope the government might reflect on this—perhaps even read some of their statements and submissions—and get a grip on the reality of racism in this country. Thank you. 11:56 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh I too rise to speak on these two appropriation bills, the Appropriation Bill 2016-17 No. 3 and Appropriation Bill 2016-17 No. 4. We know on this side that this package of bills is necessary to ensure the ordinary functions of government continue for the remainder of the 2016-17 financial year. We understand that, and we are a responsible opposition. However, the members on this side, as we always have, will continue to call out any unfair policies and any unfair decisions that are made by this government, and I have to say there are many. Make no mistake: the current government remains committed to many of those unfair Abbott-Hockey decisions from that era, and those measures that were made back then, which are still on the table for this particular government. Some of those nasties that we saw are still there. For example, we know they want to increase the pension age for hardworking Australians right through to 70-years-old, the oldest pension age in the developed world. There is no other nation in the developed world where people retire at the age of 70. They want to abolish the energy supplement for millions of pensioners, families, people with disability, carers and Newstart recipients—something that will actually affect their hip pocket. It will affect people when they are budgeting for their weekly bills and for their food. When you take away that energy supplement, those people will suffer, and it will make a real difference to them. Something that is affecting my electorate quite a bit—and I am sure the member for Parramatta would agree with me on this one—is the cut to the age pension for pensioners born overseas when they spend an extended period of time visiting their family and friends overseas. This is something that is very wrong. When you are retired and a pensioner and you decide to move to Queensland for a holiday, where it is a bit warmer in the middle of winter, that is fine. That is great—and rightly so: people should be allowed to do these things. But, if you are, for example, of Italian or Vietnamese origin and you want to go for a bit of extended holiday when you have retired and you are a pensioner, we are saying: 'No, you can't. You can't do that. You can't go and visit family and friends' or 'You can't escape the very cold winter months to go and spend a few weeks or months—maybe even two months—in the northern hemisphere.' These people should be allowed to do that. They have worked all their lives and they have paid their taxes here, yet we are punishing them, and it is very wrong. I am being approached every single day by people in my electorate who are outraged by this particular measure of this government. It is wrong and it should not be taking place. People should have the right when they are retired and on a pension to be able to spend as much time as they like in any part of the world. This government also wants to scrap the pension education supplement and the education entry payment. We have also seen that they have yet to reverse the Medicare freeze. It is obvious they do not want to reverse that freeze, which will put pressure on people seeing their doctors. We have heard about the $30 billion Gonski cuts, which are there for our students and for our young people to ensure that they are given a really good foundation in education, so they are able to go on and meet the high-tech jobs that will be there in the future. The government will cut family payments, leaving one million families worse off once these cuts take effect, and will also cut parental leave for around 70,000 new mums. All of these cuts will have detrimental effects on people in my electorate and on people in every electorate in the country. We know that budgets are about priorities, but the Turnbull government has made it extremely clear where its priorities lie. Their priorities lie in giving a $50 billion tax cut to the wealthiest people in Australia while at the same time making all of those cuts that I have just mentioned. They side with the multinational corporations and the big banks who have been making billions of dollars in profits. They offer big business $50 billion in tax cuts while making Newstart recipients wait weeks before they can access payments. This is just wrong. In the recent energy debate, as we have heard a lot in my state of South Australia, and in some of the debates that have been taking place, the government has absolutely shown that South Australia is not their priority. The Prime Minister has repeatedly mocked and ridiculed my state over blackouts without offering any solutions whatsoever. It is one thing to be critical of a particular policy, but you also have to back it up with what your plans are. In this case we have not seen a single plan from the federal government or the Prime Minister. All they have been doing is repeatedly mocking South Australia. They have got in for SA. We saw it in the lead up to the 2013 election, and then straight after when they chased Holden out of the state. We then saw them continuously back down on a promise on the 12 submarines to be made in South Australia. It was only when the member for Sturt's job was at risk that they then came on board. I do not know why they have got it in for South Australia, but here is another example. It was only after the Premier of South Australia announced an outstanding policy to provide SA with energy security that the Prime Minister was compelled to make an announcement—without any backing; just something in 10 years that may or may not take place. This is a lack of regard for my state of South Australia. It is also reflected in the decline in road funding that our state receives. This means that many important road projects in my state are not getting funded. In this respect, the government needs to restore the financial assistance grants indexation and restore a fair share of local roads funding for South Australia. Financial assistance grants are a vital payment from the Commonwealth to local councils; in fact, they make up part of the revenue base of all councils. These untied payments are essential and allow local councils to provide a reasonable level of service to local residents. These funds are used to maintain a range of different infrastructure projects, including local roads, bridges, parks, swimming pools and libraries. In 2010 we were very successful in my electorate under the then Gillard government in getting a $6.5 million grant for the King Street Bridge—a brand new bridge. The old bridge had what was then called 'concrete cancer' and had been shut down. The residents could not get any funding for it for many years under the Howard government. They tried and tried, but it took a Labor government to get the funding for that particular bridge. As well as roads and bridges, community halls that service young people, pensioners and elderly community groups are funded by these grants. The federal government decided in the 2014-15 budget to freeze the indexation of the financial assistance grants for three years. Over this time, almost $1 billion will be taken out of Australian communities, and the total grant space will be reduced by about 13 per cent. This has had a dire impact on my community. Metropolitan councils are also affected, albeit not to the same extent as regional communities. For example, in 2014-15 and 2016-17, four councils within my electorate of Hindmarsh—Holdfast Bay, West Torrens, Charles Sturt and Marion—face a combined loss of $700,000 to $800,000. This is a lot of money for councils. The government has so far been silent on whether it would respect the implied agreement, that the freeze would end after three years, and whether we will see the indexation recommence in 2017-18. We are yet to hear and that worries me. I am calling on the government to come clean about whether it will restore the indexations as indicated in the budget papers. This will go some way to addressing the discrepancy in the share of the local roads funding component of the financial assistance grants that South Australian councils receive. For years SA has received less road funding than any other state. This is manifestly very unfair and means that important road improvement projects cannot be carried out. The disadvantage was recognised in 2003 by a House of Representatives standing committee which agreed that the historical funding formula lacked transparency. It was rectified by successive federal governments via an annual supplementary payment to South Australia. However, this was discontinued in 2015, having a detrimental effect on South Australia and bringing South Australia back to the bottom of the pile. Not only has this decision not been explained satisfactorily by the Turnbull government but also they have not offered an alternative solution to the problem. Together with local councils in my electorate, I am calling on the Turnbull government to re-establish a fairer share of local road funding for South Australia, indexed annually and funded via a top-up to the total grants pool. This would allow councils to access vital funding to carry out important road upgrades. Many road upgrades are needed. One that is needed more than anything in my electorate is the West Beach Road in West Beach, west of the airport. Together with local residents of West Beach and councils, I have been calling for the problems along West Beach Road to be addressed. Applications for funding have been repeatedly ignored by this government since 2014 and, since then, the problems just keep getting worse. West Beach Road has become a high-traffic thoroughfare connecting the beach and major sporting and retail facilities, the airport and a whole range of other areas. Recent improvements include the construction of a new adventure park at West Beach. The Adelaide Shores Caravan Park at West Beach means more motorists travel along this road more often. In addition, the West Beach boat ramp is one of the only facilities boat users can launch their craft from in the metropolitan area, the construction of Harbour Town, airport retail precincts and an increase in passenger traffic at Adelaide airport have contributed, and more nonlocal motorists use West Beach Road to avoid traffic congestion on Tapleys Hill Road. West Beach Road was built for low volumes of traffic to serve the local residents, not as a major thoroughfare to avoid arterial roads which are designed to keep high volumes of traffic moving. As a consequence, I have received numerous complaints from concerned residents, and rightly so, about the congestion. We surveyed the local residents and the main concerns raised included limited visibility when the traffic is bumper to bumper, speeding and poor road conditions. Specifically, residents reported a high number of accidents, car damage and near accidents. For example, residents reported extreme difficulty seeing traffic coming down West Beach Road when exiting driveways or turning from side streets due to the number of cars parked along the road. There have been numerous serious near misses as a result of drivers driving on the wrong side of the road. They think the road is a dual carriageway and swerve at the last minute from oncoming traffic. Increased use of the road is causing significant damage to the road's surface, adding to the likelihood of potential accidents. These are things that the financial assistance grants could help with. This is not just a group of residents complaining; this is a serious road safety issue for those residents. The major sporting and tourist facilities mean that many families, children, the elderly and visitors use the road. Buses drive along the road and cyclists face a dangerous commute. I have long advocated for an upgrade to West Beach Road, but I feel the situation has become very, very serious over the last three years. West Beach Road needs to be upgraded urgently and it needs to be upgraded now to keep up with the significant changes and growth in the area. This includes, for example, improved and safer access, safety for the residents along West Beach Road, a review of the parking arrangements on both sides of West Beach Road, and improved walking and cycling routes. The City of West Torrens and City of Charles Sturt councils share the responsibility of the road—the border is in the middle of the road—and have previously made applications for federal funding to upgrade it urgently. Unfortunately, these requests have been denied; they have fallen on deaf ears. It is time that the federal government turns its attention to this area and funds this road. I welcome the commitment by the federal government to making $500 million available for the Black Spot Programs. They have also made an additional $200 million available from 2015-16 to combat the rising national road toll, under the National Road Safety Strategy and its action plan. I am hoping that some of this funding will be directed to improve the conditions of West Beach Road, to make the lives of those who live along West Beach Road and around West Beach Road a bit easier, and that safety is improved on that road to ensure that people are safe when they are coming out of their driveways, heading back home or using West Beach Road. This is just one example of many projects that could be undertaken for the betterment of local residents if the Turnbull government restores the indexation of the Financial Assistance Grants, and addresses the unfair allocation of road funding to South Australia. But we have come to expect nothing else from this government, a government that has completely lost its way. The government could have improved the budget and locked in Australia's prized AAA credit rating at MYEFO by doing two things: abandoning its $50 billion tax giveaway to the biggest businesses and banks in Australia, and adopting Labor's sensible proposals to reform negative gearing and capital gains tax breaks. 12:11 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta This is an appropriations bill so I am allowed to speak on anything I want, but I am going to speak about money today; in fact, almost entirely about money—because where you put it and where you get it from tells more about your priorities and values than the words that you speak. That has never been truer than for this government. When I go out into my community, when I meet with business groups, and when I meet with associations all around the country, I feel their growing sense of frustration: while the government talks about jobs and growth, it has been four years now with the government—in the most generous description—with their finger on the pause button or, in many areas, they are well into reverse. I have said in this House before that when Tony Abbott was first rolled, even though I thought it would not be good for Labor, I felt a sense of optimism because I did not believe it could go on the way it was—I did not believe, at that time of extraordinary change, where the whole world was facing something as profound as we were, that you could continue governing with your finger on the pause button. So I welcomed the change of leader. But in the last two years, I have to say that my frustration and, at times, my depression have grown almost to the extent that I am really hoping that the government gets its act together. I really am. It is unusual for a member on the Labor side to say that but—quite frankly—at the moment, getting the government back on track and getting the nation back on track has to be our priority. I genuinely wish the government well in trying to get its act together, because we cannot continue the way we are. The world faces an extraordinary range of challenges, and so does this country. We do not talk much about the fourth industrial revolution, but we all know that it is going to be as profound as the first one. It will see massive change. It will see the number of full-time jobs dramatically decrease. It will see the whole way that we manage things within structure—where structure does the work—change to a completely different way: where cooperation, rather than competition, drives prosperity. The world is going to change in ways that we cannot imagine yet. In that change, there will be losers in very large numbers around the world, and in this country if we do not act. We are facing environmental degradation. We have seen species extinction at rates we have never seen before. We have seen several species of bees go on the endangered list in the last few weeks alone. We have seen kilometres of mangroves die completely, up on Cape York. We have seen large sections of the Reef dead beyond recovery. We are seeing rising temperatures through carbon emissions. We know, as a result of that, that we are also going to have water and food shortages. We are going to see a dramatic reduction in the number of full-time jobs and an increase in casualisation, even within the next 10 to 15 years. We are going to see large numbers of jobless—in numbers that we really have not encountered for a couple of centuries. We are seeing in our communities the rising cost of housing. We are seeing around the world the rapid development of high-speed internet, with Australia slipping down the rankings seemingly every month. We are seeing the emergence of data as the new oil. We do not really know what that is going to look like yet, but we know that data itself is going to change the way things are done and is going to become a major determinant of prosperity. So there is stuff to be done in looking at how Australia positions itself in this world. Every year we leave it, other places around the world are getting further ahead and we get further and further behind. In a world where cooperation actually drives prosperity, the places in the world where that cooperation is taking place are accelerating far faster than those that do not—and every month we delay we get further and further behind and we lose some of our best people. I would not say that I am a glass-half-full person. I look at a glass half full and think, 'Oh, goodness; there is room for more.' So I am kind of at the extreme end. I see a glass half full as an opportunity to put more in. So, when I see these massive problems, I actually see possibilities in them. For me, sometimes, economically at least, the problem is the answer. That is what business does. Business sees a problem and solves it. So, when there are these massive challenges facing the world, it is an opportunity for this country to be in there driving its business to solve them and grow because of them. Every problem, every single one, becomes a possibility for business—purely in economic terms. I am not denying that they are terrible problems but, in purely economic terms, every problem is the answer—every single one. If you see a river you cannot cross, someone builds a bridge. If the banks are not lending, FinTec emerges. If the power networks keep upping the fixed costs in the power bill—their Kodak moment will come—batteries will grow so fast they will not know what hit them. Every challenge becomes the answer if you are prepared to think that way—and we as a nation and we in this place have to do that. I take solar as an example. Two years ago when we first started having our really, really hot summers, someone said, 'It is all that sun beaming down on the western roof,' and I said, 'You've got to be kidding; that is the answer.' If the sun is beaming down on your city and making the city hot and you think that is a problem, it is also the answer. The answer and the problem are the same thing. The situation at the time, though, was that our feed-in tariffs assumed that it was more profitable to put your solar panels north. But the answer was right there. Since that time, we have seen the emergence of green-tech, with several companies investigating peer-to-peer power, where, instead of selling it to the power company for six cents a kilowatt hour and they sell it to your neighbour for 26c, you sell it for that. The New South Wales government has said that it will allow it. There are at least six companies that I can find in a quick Google that are already working on that. It is a massive opportunity. There are a few other places in the world, but we can be the first there. We can become the expert. We can actually develop the platform that does that. We are good at this. Australia is a great creative nation. Our greatest asset is actually in our minds, not in the ground. We are incredibly good at this stuff and we should be all over it. With renewables generally, we should be all over it. We have better natural assets for renewables than perhaps any other country in the world. We led the world in solar power—before the Howard government was so slow on emissions trading, back in its time. We had 12 per cent of the world market in solar panels, and we lost it—we gave it away, just by doing nothing and by not recognising the opportunity that was there. Then there is the loss of full-time work. If you take the human aspect out of it, you can explain it in terms that, in the industrial age, where we built factories, a full-time job was the logical economic model. But, in the new cooperative style of businesses that will develop, it is not as logical to have full-time work. So we will see a loss of full-time work and a move towards part-time work. But the reality for communities is that, while the full-time work was incredibly good, the by-product of it was actually the baby. The full-time work was, if you like, the bath and the by-product was the baby. It was the social cohesion of knowing your neighbours, living and working in the same suburb and the financial security that allowed families to have one working person and the other one working on all the social relationships which created the safety net in the community. That social cohesion—knowing your neighbours, feeling financially secure—is the baby that we are going to lose when we start to lose full-time jobs. Around the world now, in academic institutions, social enterprises and financial investment companies looking at impact investing, there are people trying to work out how you commercialise that baby—how you make social good for a community profitable. When we have been in a market where profit comes from one-on-one interactions, how do you turn social good or community good back into an economically viable product so you can scale it? All of the work on impact investing, social impact bonds, social enterprises, benefit corporations and a whole range of other things go back to how you regrow the baby, how you grow the things of value that we will lose when we change from one use of capital to another. This is incredibly important. Billions of dollars are sitting in funds around the world—and there have been billions of dollars for quiet some time. There is a task force in the Prime Minister's office that has been there for quite some time. Where is the action that says that we can be leaders in this? The world money for this flows across international borders, and there are hundreds of billions of dollars from financiers looking for projects that they can scale worldwide. They are looking for it—and where are we? We are talking about 18C. We are talking about cutting the take-home pay of some of the most vulnerable families in Australia. We are talking about ripping the spending capacity out of our communities in every way the government can think of—whether it is cutting family payments, reducing the energy supplement or refusing to deal with the cut in take-home pay for hospitality workers. That is what this government is doing. It is not growing anything. It is cutting the spending capacity of a community, but it is the spending capacity of a community that makes the community grow. Customers make you rich. You do not cut the spending capacity of your customers unless you are crazy, and that is what this government is doing. We have the rising cost of housing. We know with recent research—but it does not take research; you just know—that, if you increase the cost of housing so that you price the majority of people out of the housing market, you increase your pension costs down the track and you increase homelessness because of the vulnerability of people who do not have that housing security. Almost every solution that we hear either improves the capacity of a person to pay for the higher cost of housing, which will just drive up prices, or reduces the size of the land by rezoning for high-rise. If you rezone for high-rise, every block of land gets the developer price and the house prices in the area go up—not down. If you rezone for smaller blocks, like they are doing in WA, then you will not be able to afford a block that is any more than 110 square metres because the development price will go into the block. It seems that every solution we have drives prices up, but there are solutions around the world. The whole world is dealing with this. Where are we? Why is it that when we talk about housing affordability and I Google or do some research—or get the library to do research—on what the great approaches are around the world, I do not find them in Australia? I find them elsewhere. I find them in Europe. I find them in some states of the US. There are incredibly innovative, creative ways of getting people into housing. When was the last time this government got a group of potential customers in a room and found out what they would go for? When was the last time they did anything other than talk to the banks and big developers about this? It is about what a customer will take. It is about what a person in the community—what a young person, a casual cleaner, a fireman, a nurse, a teacher—wants to live in and what they are prepared to do, because they are walking away from the current housing market in droves. We have regtech. I love regtech; I have been talking about it for a while. This is a new form of technology where companies are looking to use software to reduce regulation. A simple example is, if you break down in the middle of nowhere and a windscreen repairer comes to repair your windscreen, he types your mobile phone number and your credit card number into his mobile phone, pushes send and the bank sends you an invoice instantly. And that invoice has everything that you need for your BAS—you do not have staff; it is already there. So why doesn't the act of paying it generate the BAS? For that matter, why doesn't the act of paying a staff member generated the deferred payment for super and the deferred payment for PAYG and all the paperwork? The technology is there. But, instead of putting small business to work on this, we have a government that thinks that big business and big departments are the answer. We see some incredible failures by the government. At a time when data is about to become incredibly valuable, this government gives stuff away just before it becomes valuable: 'Data is about to become valuable, so we are going to privatise a bit of it here and privatise a bit of it there, wipe out the public sector's capacity to manage it, and weaken our skill level'. As a result, we have seen the census fail; the National Disability Insurance Agency unable to process some paperwork for a year—we had kids waiting for up to a year for an assessment; we have also had the robo-debt debacle; we have had crashes of the ATO system—that was down sometimes for a couple of days each week for a couple of weeks; we have had the privatisation of data; and we have had the extraordinary failure of the NBN. We have also had the weakening of the capacity of the public sector. One of the by-products of a public sector is this incredible body of knowledge—who did what when, whether it worked, the connections that they have as a by-product of their job. And when you sack them, you cannot replace that. That is gone. And there is no other source for that—not in academia, not in business. It is the only place where that overview actually exists. We can see the loss of what is going to be incredibly valuable, and we have just given it away. There is much to be done: I really urge the government to get on with it. (Time expired) Debate adjourned. ADJOURNMENT 100 ADJOURNMENT Energy 100 12:27 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith Mr Deputy Speaker, 2016 was the hottest year on record, and last decade was the warmest ever. Climate change is getting more and more urgent. If we do not take action now, our children will pay for our mistakes. There is no doubt that the Abbott-Turnbull government has been loath to accept the scientific realities of climate change. By removing a price on carbon, reducing the RET, and ignoring expert advice advocating an emissions intensity scheme, the Abbott-Turnbull government has completely destroyed the policy plan for certainty of investment in our energy sector. This failure is impacting on Australians through higher electricity prices. In their submission to the Finkel review, the Australian Energy Council stated: …the lack of national policy certainty is now the single biggest driver of higher electricity prices. … the electricity cost of sustained national policy inaction is effectively equivalent to a carbon price in excess of $50 a tonne. That is the view of the Australian Energy Council. This government has overseen a dramatic reduction in investments in renewable energy. In 2014, investment in large-scale wind, solar and other clean energy sources fell by an astounding 88 per cent to $240 million, the lowest since 2002, putting us behind countries like Panama, Sri Lanka and Myanmar. While coal will play an important part of our energy mix for the foreseeable future, all Australians realise our nation must make a transition to a cleaner renewable energy. Governments need to plan to manage this transition. Labor's emissions intensity scheme is widely considered by industry experts and stakeholders to be the most affordable approach to providing investment certainty while supporting our transition to clean energy. An EIS encourages electricity generators to reduce their carbon emissions and to invest in newer, cleaner technology and gain a financial advantage. This ensures a competitive advantage for clean sources of electricity whilst minimising the impact on wholesale electricity prices. Under the Turnbull government, emissions have continued to rise, with recent data revealing a 2.2 per cent increase in emissions in 2015-16 from the 2014-15 levels. So, instead of improving our situation in Australia with respect to global warming and climate change, we are actually going backwards. An EIS would reduce emissions and keep power bills up to $15 billion lower over a decade. A gradual transition to renewable energy sources is the right move for our nation not only in terms of easing environmental impact but by creating new and high-skilled jobs for Australians. The solar sector employs 2.8 million people globally and, in the US, solar now provides twice as many jobs as coal. Costs associated with solar power continue to plummet, dropping 58 per cent in the past five years, with an expected fall of 40 to 70 per cent by 2040. This government's unwillingness to tackle the issue head-on is condemning future generations to clean up the mess whilst denying them those jobs and opportunities that would flow from embracing a solid transition to renewable energy. This is also costing us a lot more money on our power bills. Because the private sector, which owns most of the generation assets in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia, is not investing in new base-load technology and new base-load power, we are all seeing constrained supply, and it is pushing up our power bills The Turnbull government recently announced that they want to use taxpayers' money to invest in new coal-fired power stations, which are only marginally less polluting than the current coal-fired power stations and twice as polluting as gas. The CEO of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, Oliver Yates, recently stated that ultra-supercritical coal plants do not meet the CEFC's definition of low-emissions technologies and are thus ineligible for funding. Mr Yates also said that new coal plants are not commercially viable, because of the strong likelihood of future carbon liabilities. Clearly, seeking to use the CEFC's fund to fund coal-fired power is a backward step. The Australian public deserves better than a government hell-bent on crazy coal plans, bashing renewables and attacking Labor, particularly when the security and future wellbeing of generations are at stake and when it is pushing up electricity prices. 12:32 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I had a disturbing conversation this morning with a friend of mine who lives in a metropolitan capital. I was talking about the economics of regional, rural and remote Australia and how bullish the prospects are at the moment. He told me that was in direct contrast to what he had been led to believe about how the economy in rural Australia was travelling, so I thought I would take this opportunity to perhaps dispel the myth that somehow rural, regional and remote Australia is not travelling well, as it seems—from his assessment of the media—is the myth that is spreading. You could pick almost any commodity group from the rural sector and find that there is a story of bullish prospects and strong prices. Beef is at an all-time high—we have never seen prices like these. Sheep meat is consistently strong. But it is not just in livestock. In my electorate I have a significant amount of horticultural effort, and we see this success right across, from almond and citrus orchards in the Riverland all the way down to crayfish in the south-east of South Australia. But it is not just farming. It is also the forestry sector, which, to put it bluntly, cannot cut enough timber at the moment. These prospects for jobs and economic activity are really welcome. When I think about all of this in the context of what we do in this place, I think: I am not going to be someone who stands here and says that this economic achievement, this economic benefit, is all because of what we have done in Canberra. Far be it from me to say that. It is more or less down to the industry of the farmers, the foresters and the fishermen in electorates across the country, like mine. But, when I think about what we have done, you have to go a long way past the decisions we took, some time ago now, around the trilogy of free trade agreements. Indeed, December last year marked the first anniversary of the groundbreaking China-Australia Free Trade Agreement and the second year of the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Farmers in my electorate are in pole position to take advantage of the growing middle class throughout Asia and its increasing demand for high-quality foods and services that a region like mine has to offer. These critical trade deals are the driving force behind Australia's forecast for agricultural production, which will, for the first time, surpass $60 billion in 2016-17. That is an all-time record. We have never been at that level. This is up 6.1 per cent on last year, and it is 16 per cent higher than the average of $52 billion over the previous five years. We are on a bullish push, and it is being driven from the bush. I would draw the chamber's attention to specific examples, whether it is exports of hay and chaff to China up 37 per cent or an increase of almost $102 million for exported oranges, which is up 56 per cent. These are all fantastic achievements. But I can drill down even further into the detail. I can tell you that, for the very first time for my electorate, stone fruit was exported from Australia into China. So it is not only that we are establishing and have established free trade agreements with China and other nations like Korea and Japan, but we are also working on the non-tariff barriers. It was the breaking down of those non-tariff barriers that meant stone fruit producers in my electorate could get their high-quality stone fruits into China for the first time. That is a game changer. It might not sound like much to others in this chamber, but it is most definitely a game changer. What we have done through that process is prove to the Chinese authorities that we can send fruit from the Riverland into China fruit fly free. That has been a significant barrier to trade for our citrus industry in particular, and it is the reason why we are looking at such great economic prospects in the region. Last Thursday, a small parcel of land, 226 acres, sold in my electorate. If you had bought it four months ago and you had paid $3,600 an acre, you would have paid all of it. I can tell you, it sold on Thursday for $5,100 an acre. That is driving real wealth and real growth. Taxation 102 12:37 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley Today I want to expose a number of myths—four myths actually—that the Liberals use to justify cutting their unfunded corporate tax cut of $50 billion. The first myth is that cutting the corporate tax rate will reduce the incentives for companies to evade tax. The truth is many companies are paying little or no tax, and they will continue to evade tax whatever the rate that is put before them. The fact is, and it is an unfortunate truth, there are a significant number of our most respected companies who are already engaged in very significant tax evasion, and reducing the rate will not in any way impede that activity. These respected companies have become fiscal termites, eating away at the foundation of our corporate tax system. Companies like BHP and Rio have engaged in a very aggressive process of transfer pricing, and have sought to evade, in the case of BHP, $5.7 billion, which has instead been squirrelled away in their Singapore tax shield. To make matters worse, BHP and Rio have also sought to evade state royalty payments in Queensland and Western Australia while engaging in unprecedented political interference and thuggery in state election campaigns—most recently in Western Australia, where they got even with those who stood in their way. What we have in this country is a 'commodities Kremlin', where some of our biggest companies are behaving like dictators, treating the people of this country with contempt and behaving as if they are above the law. This commodities Kremlin, which operates mainly through the Minerals Council, has a darker layer of activity, which eats away at the very foundations of our democracy. The second myth is that cutting corporate taxes will create jobs by encouraging investment and boosting economic growth. There is very little empirical evidence for this claim. If we look at OECD countries between 2011 and 2016, we see that Australia grew 15.6 per cent in terms of GDP growth and ranked 11th, but not one—not one—of the 10 countries that secured stronger economic growth than us over the same period did so by cutting its taxes. For the Liberals' myth to hold, Australian companies would have to be so cash constrained by high tax rates that they were unable to invest but, as the February ASX 200 reporting season showed yet again, most companies increased their profits and increased their dividend payments. Furthermore, when compared with other OECD countries, Australian companies do not face exceedingly high tax rates. At 30 per cent, Australia's corporate rate is still lower than the OECD weighted average of 31.6 per cent. Thanks to the transparency legislation introduced by Labor, we actually know what the effective tax rate is for Australian companies. Public companies in Australia pay, on average, 24 per cent on their taxable income, while private companies pay an average of just 19 per cent. So if the jobs and growth that the government is seeking to propel are not materialising at Australia's effective rate of 24 or 19 per cent, how will any cut in the headline rate make any difference to what they are going to invest? The third myth is that the benefits of cutting corporate tax rates will flow to workers. This one is a farce. The Treasury's own modelling shows the government's five per cent corporate tax rate would increase employment by just 0.1 per cent by 2026-27—all at a budgetary cost of only $48 billion! The only beneficiaries from the company tax rate cut will be foreign investors, who are excluded from dividend imputation. The final myth is that cutting the corporate tax rate will help Australia to stay competitive and attract scarce foreign capital. Global markets are awash with cash; they are looking for safe places to invest, where companies are profitable and where the institutions of the economy are strong. Australia is a safe haven, and global capital wants to invest here because it knows it can make a profit with a secure outlook. If the corporate tax was such a disincentive to capital, we would not have 97 per cent of applications to the FIRB coming from countries with company tax rates that are lower than Australia's. These four myths completely demolish what this government are on about with their corporate tax cut. What they are really on about is concentrating wealth, more trickle-down down economics and pushing all of the resources to the people who put them in power. They are puppets of the commodities Kremlin. (Time expired) 12:42 Ms LAMB 265975 Longman It was only earlier this week that I spoke in this very chamber against this government describing hardworking men and women who are members of their unions as thugs. These 'thugs' are teachers; they are nurses; they are pharmacists; they are educators; they are hairdressers and they are baristas—they are the people the government are calling thugs. You would think the government would have a better understanding of thuggery, considering how NBN Co has treated vulnerable small businesses. Earlier this month I held a small business roundtable to understand the impact of the government's mishandling of the NBN rollout and the impact it has had on our area. Of the countless stories disclosed to me by small businesses owners about the NBN process and how their businesses had suffered, one stood out. It was from a lady by the name of Joanne who manages the Golden Age Retirement Village. She said that the 'downgrade' to NBN had not only cut the reliability of her internet access but taken out her phone line. To her business the line was dead, but to a caller the line would just ring continuously. Because of this she was subjected to some really angry visits from people who thought she was simply ignoring their calls. Joanne was forced to take out some paid advertisements in the local paper to let locals know that the business was still open and had not closed down. She is now very concerned about how she is going to explain these charges that she has had to incur on behalf of the village and the countless hours and dollars that have been wasted to her business auditors when tax time rolls around. How do you explain wasted money even if you really had no choice at all? But what has really scared the Golden Age staff is that most of the people that live there have some pretty significant health risks and there may be implications to their health from an unreliable communication system. It is absolutely inconceivable that somebody would do this. Joanne expressed these issues to NBN Co time and time again. NBN Co ignored her time and time again. They refused to accept responsibility. They refused to help. Finally, there was a glimmer of hope, though: they agreed to come out and meet Joanne at the facility. But then shortly after that those hopes were dashed because NBN did not show up to the meeting. What is quite remarkable is that after all of these months NBN Co finally went out and resolved this issue, and it was only just days after I had released a media release reporting these issues and the plight of Golden Age Retirement Village—and all of a sudden they came out! It is outrageous that they turn their backs on this vulnerable business that needed them, until they actually spoke out. But to make matters worse, they did not just fix the issues and go on their way. Instead, the representative tried to intimidate this business into signing a disclaimer stating that the outages were caused by no fault of the NBN. How are we supposed to believe that the time lines for these outages, which began immediately following NBN Co's intervention and ceased when the team actually bothered to show up, are just a coincidence? How can we be expected to believe that? No reasonable person could be expected to accept that because this is what thuggery is—when NBN Co turn up and try to exploit vulnerable businesses and then bully and intimidate them when they try to speak up. This government should hang its head in shame on the rollout of the NBN. Instead of working for people, they have politicised what should have been the largest and most significant infrastructure project in our history but, instead, is slow, ineffective and an unreliable mess. We know costs have blown out significantly. Countless Australians, including many in my electorate, are still waiting for what they were promised would be delivered by 2016. And now, as Joanne has just experienced, NBN Co are resorting to bullying tactics to silence those who speak out against them. This government has failed small businesses. They have failed our hardworking families, and they are failing to build the infrastructure that our country needs for our future. Wright Electorate: Infrastructure 103 12:47 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright It gives me great pleasure to be able to stand and talk about the achievements of this government. And there is no more appropriate time to speak about the achievements of this government at this very point in time when we have the Council of Mayors South East Queensland in the very parliament today. It is a body of mayors made up of seven shires, predominantly around the south-east corner from Redlands down to the Gold Coast. I have four mayors that cross across my federal electoral boundaries: Gold Coast, Scenic Rim, Lockyer Valley and Logan—exceptional local government representatives in their own right. But when I stand and speak about the government's achievements, I want to particularly draw the attention of the House to the government's national Bridges Renewal Programme. It is such an important and well-deserved program that lands very well in my electorate. I have in the Scenic Rim local council area no less than 132 bridges in need of repair. That is a lot of bridges—132 bridges. So for the local government, in that capacity, to try and get through that on their rates base would take many, many decades. I know that Mayor Greg Christensen is very appreciative of the partnership work that we do in this space. You think, why would it be so important to go to the backblocks of somewhere and repair an old timber bridge? Because it is the amount of commerce that comes out of these areas—whether or not they are silage tankers taking feed in for chickens that feed the Australian landscape with protein, whether or not it is milk coming out of my electorate and whether or not it is the vegetables that end up on the plates. The amount of commerce that comes out of these areas is overwhelming. In my electorate, agriculture is by far the largest contributor to the GDP and, as a result, the government is delivering improved safety through targeted national infrastructure programs, including $360 million for the Bridges Renewal Program and $3.98 billion for Roads to Recovery. Again, it is about partnering with local government. To me, the best value for money that the federal government gets is when we partner with either private enterprise or an organisation which is as closely connected to the people as possible. When we invest and partner with state governments, which we often do on projects, the percentage of administration costs increases exponentially, but when we partner with local government, in particular on Roads to Recovery funding, I suggest that the vast majority of the money that lands at local government level, whether it is in the Lockyer Valley, Logan City, the Gold Coast or the Scenic Rim, ends up as bitumen or grader hours in my electorate somewhere—money well invested. In addition to that, we are also investing just over $600 million for the Black Spot Program. That has been exceptionally well received in the electorate. I have been the recipient of many Black Spot Programs in my area. To give you an idea, it is undulating country, it is range country, there is the Gold Coast Hinterland and there are tight turns. A number of rangers crawl up and down the other side. My electorate is flanked from the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing over to the Gold Coast Hinterland and Tamborine Mountain. That undulating country does lend itself to unfortunate accidents. It plays a role. All three programs, whether it is the national Bridges Renewal program, the Black Spots Program or Roads to Recovery, it is money well invested by the federal government, partnering with local government who are closest to the people on the ground who understand the demands and our local constituents' needs. In closing, I want to thank the mayors for the way that they prioritise these applications in their areas. I want to wish them well with their deliberations and the advocacy that they do for each of their communities while they are here in Canberra. Politics is no different to good commercial business. Politics should always be about strong relationships. I am proud to say that I have a strong relationship with each of the mayors, irrespective of their political leanings. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT I thank the honourable member for Wright for his important and enlightening contribution. I now call the member for Grey and look forward to his contribution. Energy 104 12:53 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to speak this afternoon about electricity. The focus has been on South Australia and what has become the rolling disaster of electricity supply in South Australia, it must be said. The cause of this can be linked back to the premature closure of Alinta's coal fired power station in Port Augusta. It was not so long ago that Alinta expanded their coalfields at Leigh Creek and gave them a life through to 2030. They and we expected that they would operate that plant until around 2030. If that had been the case, that would have given time for the development of the transition away from fossil fuel to renewable energy—time to build storages, and we do not fully understand how we are going to do it, and time to develop new technologies to address the shortfall. South Australia now has an installed capacity of wind of well over 50 per cent, which delivered around 41 per cent of our total consumable electricity in the last 12 months. That led to a period of time when we had oversupply in the market. On average, our wholesale prices were at around $45 per megawatt hour, and Alinta became very concerned about this around 2011 or 2012. I had a lot of ongoing discussions with the company at that time. I also took the opportunity to meet with the commissioner of the Australian Energy Market Commission, and I said to him at the time, 'If we allow Port Augusta to go offline prematurely'—and remember that at that time prices were very low, on an average basis, because the market was being flooded. They were losing money. They were losing millions of dollars a month—'that will plunge South Australia into darkness.' I was assured at the time: 'Mr Ramsay, we are in the process of upgrading the Heywood interconnector to Victoria, and we think, even without Port Augusta, the South Australian grid will continue to operate soundly.' Mr Craig Kelly 99931 Wrong, wrong. Mr RAMSEY HWS My colleague reminds me that that was completely wrong—and, in fact, the upgrade has only just been completed in the last 12 months. No sooner had we completed that upgrade to Victoria than Port Augusta shut down, and we found out that it was not sufficient. Even when it is working correctly it is not sufficient. I emphasise this fact by pointing out that in the 2016 calendar year the average spot price in South Australia was a bit over double Victoria's—about $104 per megawatt hour. Now, remember, I was just talking about what drove Alinta out of business, and that was the $45 per megawatt hour. So once we removed that base load generator the price doubled. We are running at double Victoria's price. A lot of people have raised with me the issue of reliability in South Australia, and they are very right to point to it. But it is an absolutely secondary issue. It is a secondary issue because electricity in South Australia has become so expensive that investors are leaving the state. Our young people are leaving the state. Businesses that were planning to expand are not expanding. Those that can relocate do so, and even those that are using vast amounts of electricity are questioning their operating practices and their reason for being in that space. There are a number of things we can do about that, but it will not be a return to coal for South Australia; I am very confident about that. We do not have high-quality coal reserves; we have brown coal, which is inherently a higher production platform for CO2 emissions. So it will be gas and it will be renewable. Gas is an absolute problem at the moment. I am very pleased that the Prime Minister convened a meeting of people in the gas industry to try and work out how to bring about better domestic supply. That was only caused by scare merchants propagating an argument against tight gas—that it is unsustainable. It has been Science Week in Canberra, and I met with some people from CSIRO who understand the science of hydraulic fracturing. These are absurd arguments that are propagated by the green Left, who are just totally opposed to fossil fuel in any shape or form. We have so many challenges in front of us, and a lot of the answers to them will be renewable. But I say to the South Australian government: no more renewable unless—and I underline 'unless'—it includes storage. Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned 12:58   QUESTIONS IN WRITING 106 QUESTIONS IN WRITING Pelican Point Power Plant (Question No. 679) 106 679 Mr Champion HW9 asked the Minister for the Environment and Energy, in writing, on 13 February 2017: (1) Has the Minister communicated with Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) regarding the failure to fully activate the gas powered Pelican Point Power Station on 8 February 2017.(2) Has the Minister received any advice as to why the Pelican Point Power Station was not in full operation when there was a load shedding event in South Australia on 8 February 2017.(3) At any stage on 8 February 2017 did the Minister direct AEMO to ensure the Pelican Point Power Plant was fully operational. Mr Frydenberg FKL The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) No, I do not have authority to direct AEMO to undertake such an action.