Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:01): I move:

That the House express its deep regret at the death on 8 December 2011 of the Right Honourable Sir Zelman Cowen AK, GCMG, GCVO, QC, a former Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia from 1977 to 1982, place on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service, and tender its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.

On 8 December 2011 Australia lost one of its greatest statesmen with the death of our nation's 19th Governor-General, Sir Zelman Cowen. Born in 1919, Sir Zelman grew up in the marvellous Melbourne of the 1920s where he had two of the finest role models an imaginative and impressionable young boy could have—John Monash and Isaac Isaacs. Like them, he enjoyed the transformative experience of a superb education which took him, as it carried them, to the very summit of achievement and success. Like them, he united innate ability with extraordinary application and hard work, but it was not all seriousness and study. Sir Zelman wrote movingly about long afternoons at the beach, the cricket or the movies, or watching his beloved St Kilda unsuccessfully fight for a flag. It was a very Australian life.

Sir Zelman was awarded a Rhodes scholarship in 1940, which he deferred until 1945 so that he could complete his war service with the Royal Australian Navy. He went on to become a fellow of Oriel College, Oxford, and returned to Australia in 1951 as professor and dean of law at the University of Melbourne, where he was to remain for 16 years. Vice-chancellorships of the University of New England and the University of Queensland followed in what were dramatic years for university leaders around the world. On Bastille Day 1977 came the unexpected but very welcome announcement that Professor Zelman Cowen would be Australia's next Governor-General. It was one of Malcolm Fraser's finest decisions.

Sir Zelman came to office when the role of Governor-General and the fabric of our political system had been placed under enormous duress. He rightly identified the need for a touch of healing and, through his wisdom and dignity, delivered it. The healing continued throughout his 4½ years as Governor-General where he sought to interpret the nation to itself and recognised those whose voice was not always heard. There have been just 25 governors-general since the advent of Australian nationhood in 1901. None has served with more distinction than Sir Zelman Cowen. He set the template for all of his successors.

Sir Zelman's long list of honours and achievements could not alone define him. He was a loving and much loved husband and father, and we are honoured today by the presence in the gallery of Lady Cowen—you are very welcome here—and Sir Zelman's son, Rabbi Cowen. Thank you for being among our number.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

Ms GILLARD: Sir Zelman was a man of enormous warmth and humour, a music lover and patron of the arts, a humanitarian dedicated to justice and public welfare, a proud member of the Australian community, a proud member of the Jewish community and a leader of both, but above all Sir Zelman Cowen was a good and decent man, open-minded, tolerant and wise. To put it simply, he was a gentleman. I am not sure these terms would have sat well with Sir Zelman because his way was understated and humble. Serving his country, whether in the Navy, as a teacher, an administrator or a viceroy was not a chore; it was an honour. He always understood public service as a vocation.

If we measure a life by the void it leaves, then Sir Zelman Cowen's passing has left our nation with a large gap indeed, but the strength of his legacy ensures that it endures in all those whose lives he touched—in his wife and great support, Anna, and his children and grandchildren, in all of the young people he mentored who now adorn the public life of our country, including the member for Kooyong, and in all those who felt included and inspired by his generosity of spirit during that time of healing. If there was one regret it was the fact that St Kilda never won another flag after that miraculous one-point victory in 1966, held on the Festival of Yom Kippur. The Saints are among many who have mourned the loss of a friend.

A life like this deserves to be remembered not only in our hearts but also through institutional means that will endure. Already there is the Sir Zelman Cowen Centre at Victoria University in Melbourne and the Sir Zelman Cowen Trust Fund for Australians studying at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Since Sir Zelman's passing, there have been a number of new proposals for the recognition of his work. Among these is a scholarship proposed by the General Sir John Monash Foundation to honour Sir Zelman's profound contribution to the law, academia, government and the nation. The government will create such scholarships, working with the foundation. The aim would be to create a prestigious award that would enable further study overseas at the highest level. This would be most appropriate, mirroring the life-changing nature of Sir Zelman's own studies overseas. It is also appropriate because the nation should remember. And we will remember.

Sir Zelman once wrote that his old friend, the American jurist Erwin Griswold, had led a great, a distinguished and an honourable life. He could have been writing about himself. Sir Zelman was indeed a great, distinguished and honourable man. We were enriched by his life and are diminished by his passing. He will be long remembered and very greatly missed. On behalf of the government and the people of Australia, I extend to Lady Cowen and her family our sincere sympathy in their bereavement.

Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:08): I rise to support the fine words of the Prime Minister and to observe that Sir Zelman Cowen's life was one of remarkable achievement and enduring benefit to our country. He was, in turn, a Rhodes Scholar, a naval officer and survivor of the bombing of Darwin, an academic, a vice chancellor, a viceroy, the head of an Oxford college, the head of an important regulator and the chairman of one of our most important public companies. He was truly great and he was truly good, and our country is deeply in his debt.

Sir Zelman appreciated the continuities of our culture but he well understood that often things have to change in order to last. To give just one example, he found Oriel College, Oxford to be the last bastion of single-sex education and he left it as part of the 20th century as a mixed college. Sir Zelman knew when to speak and he knew when to hold his peace. As Governor-General he delivered literally thousands of elegant speeches on almost every subject, but not once did he comment on the dismissal of a prime minister by his predecessor, famously saying that no good purpose would come of answering questions on that subject. It was indeed through his judicious silences that he successfully brought about this vital touch of healing to the highest office in our land.

Sir Zelman was very conscious of his Jewish heritage, although he was not especially religious, as his son Shimon so eloquently pointed out at his funeral service in Melbourne. Sir Zelman was a seeker after truth rather than an expounder of dogma. Perhaps one way in which we could further honour his memory is by seeking the ethical principles which might be regarded as common to all cultures and to all people—principles such as keeping commitments, respecting human life and caring for the vulnerable. Sir Zelman sought always the things men and women had in common and hoped always that they might be their best selves. We miss him, we honour him, we seek to be worthy of him and we extend our condolences to Lady Anna and his family.

Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Cabinet Secretary and Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) (14:11): In one of those curious coincidences that life sometimes brings, Sir Zelman Cowen wrote an excellent biography of Australia's first Australian-born Governor-General, Isaac Isaacs, after whom my electorate is named. Isaacs was also the first Jewish Governor-General. Sir Zelman did not imagine that 10 years after the biography was published the Prime Minister would ask him to follow in Isaacs' footsteps and in doing so become Australia's second Jewish Governor-General. Sir Zelman, speaking of the moment at which Malcolm Fraser proposed to him that he should be the successor to Sir John Kerr, said:

Among the thoughts that crowded into my mind was the one that it was an extraordinary thing that I should have been a biographer of Isaacs.

Sir Zelman described his appointment as Governor-General, and service from 1977 to 1982, as 'totally unexpected, but it was the greatest experience of my life'. We are all the beneficiaries of his service to our country. At a media conference after his appointment was announced Sir Zelman was asked what he hoped to do. He said, as always with simple and carefully chosen words:

I hope that I may bring a touch of healing.

He achieved that hope. The Australian newspaper editorialised in 1979:

Call him the healer. Zelman Cowen has achieved in two short years what many Australians believed was impossible after the events of November 1975.

So much of the coverage of Sir Zelman's passing has referred to his healing role in restoring Australians' confidence in the Governor-Generalship, much needed after the involvement of Sir John Kerr in the sacking of the Whitlam government. Some have suggested that Sir Zelman became such a successful Governor-General because he avoided partisanship, but in no sense did he avoid the great issues of public affairs during his life. Sir Zelman had strong, carefully reasoned and clearly expressed views on those issues. He commented frequently in speeches, on radio and on television, opposing the Communist Party dissolution referendum in 1951, opposing capital punishment and the Victorian hangings in the 1960s and defending free speech and the right to protest in the early 1970s. In the 1990s he came to support an Australian republic because he believed the nation was ready for it. He spoke on asylum seekers during the Howard government and his words show us the wonderful man that he was. He said:

I consider that being as generous as we can is the most likely way to get the best result. My background gives me a sense of a powerful urge to find something better. Compared to many nations in the world our circumstances are comfortable, even enviable. We have, I think, an obligation as part of the international community to behave with magnanimity to those who arrive here carrying little else but their hopes for a better life.

Sir Zelman's life was a life of service, both before and after his Governor-Generalship. He served our country in the Navy in World War II. He became the Dean at the Melbourne Law School at 31 and served in that role from 1951 to 1966. He continued to serve the cause of higher education for the rest of his life in the formal roles of Vice-Chancellor of the University of New England, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Queensland and Provost of Oriel College, and in countless other roles. I am very pleased to hear the Prime Minister's announcement of the establishment of scholarships in Sir Zelman's name through the General Sir John Monash Foundation.

Sir Zelman was a great participant in the Jewish community. I saw him from time to time at Temple Beth Israel in Melbourne, the synagogue where his father Bernard was president, the synagogue where in 1945 he married Anna, who is with us here today, and the synagogue where his state funeral was held on 13 December 2011.

He often attended Jewish community events and was always ready to assist the community. Just in August last year he provided a well-written message for the B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation Commission for its fundraising appeal, which included, as so often from Sir Zelman, his care for the future. He said:

We must educate both the youth of our own community and the next generation of Australians to know that racism and anti-Semitism must never be tolerated.

I went to visit Sir Zelman on a Saturday afternoon in July 2010 with Irwin Cotler, a current member of the Canadian parliament and former Attorney-General of Canada but also an eminent professor of constitutional and human rights law—someone with a very long association with Sir Zelman. Sir Zelman was watching the football on TV, following another of his passions, the St Kilda Football Club—a passion I regrettably share, because it has meant mostly disappointment since 1966. He interrupted watching the game to immediately engage with his visitors on issues of the day in Canada and in Australia. That was the Sir Zelman I knew, late in his life, always engaging in matters of public concern and still seeking to serve in whatever way he could.

State funerals do not always capture the essence of the public figure they honour but Sir Zelman's funeral was an exception. There were deeply moving eulogies from Rabbi John Levi; from Sir Zelman's son, Rabbi Shimon Cowen, who is also here with us; from Dr Donald Markwell, the Warden of Rhodes House, University of Oxford; from Steven Skala AO; and from the member for Kooyong.

John Levi spoke from the ancient teachings of the three crowns—the crown of learning, the crown of priesthood or faith and the crown of royalty, all of which Sir Zelman bore—and of a fourth crown, the crown of a good name, which excels them all. Steven Skala said, rightly and eloquently, in words that I cannot improve on, that Sir Zelman's 'life's work in public and private reflected the deepest concern for the dignity of every person', that 'he embedded in us a love of learning, the pursuit of ideas and the power of reason in achieving justice, simply by being who he was', and that 'to understand Sir Zelman Cowen is to understand that the public man and the private man were the same: humane, decent, civil, loyal and committed to helping'.

I end with some more of Sir Zelman's own words from his memoirs, reflecting on something that he used to say at citizenship ceremonies—all of us in this House speak at these ceremonies and we all seek to capture in our different ways something of the spirit of our nation. Sir Zelman drew on the background that he shared with Isaacs. He said:

On occasion, when I spoke at citizenship ceremonies, I would recount the story of Isaacs, the son of poor immigrants, who had arrived in Australia only a year before my birth. I could reflect that my own story, while different in some respects, was not so very different, and I said that I believed that this should carry a message to those who participants in such ceremonies, and who could see the evidence of great human opportunity in such life stories. We have reason to be very proud of a country which makes this possible and actual.

We do have reason to be very proud of our country, but we also have reason to be very proud of Sir Zelman Cowen, a truly great Australian. We mourn his passing and we will miss him.

Mr RUDDOCK (Berowra) (14:19): I commend those who have spoken before me for their very wise and well-chosen words. I believe I am the only member of this House who served while Sir Zelman was Governor-General of Australia. I had the opportunity of meeting with him on numerous occasions but I also had the opportunity of meeting with him afterwards at Oriel College, when he had retired from the role of Governor-General and had taken up a fresh academic appointment. I was there quite uniquely, in a sense, with members of the parliament at that time but also with George Brandis of the Senate, Don Markwell and Tom Harley—all distinguished Liberals who have written on that topic and were at Sir Zelman's feet.

He has been regaled as the great healer. I think it is important to recognise the nature of the events in 1975 for the potential they had to do the Australian democracy enormous harm. We came from those events, notwithstanding those challenges, in a cohesive way. It is by no accident that Sir Zelman Cowen is regaled as the healer, the person who was able to provide very considered leadership in addressing those important issues.

For my own part, I want to simply record that I saw Sir Zelman Cowen as a great Australian, regardless of whether he had been Governor-General or not. To be appointed as a professor of public law and Dean of the Melbourne Law School at the age of 31 years was remarkable in itself. He had been a visiting professor at American universities. Before that time he played a very significant role in modernising legal education. He focused on assimilating legal education with practice. He advised the British Colonial Office on constitutional matters as a dominion liaison officer. He advised governments of Hong Kong and China on legal affairs. It can be seen that even before his leadership roles at the University of New England and as the Vice Chancellor of the University of Queensland his achievements were very considerable.

One matter that has not been noted was that between 1976 and 1977 he was appointed a Law Reform Commissioner and was active in the areas of addressing the need for the law to keep up to date with the times during mass globalisation and of updating law to deal with rapid development in science and technology sectors such as bioethics and, specifically, human transplants and privacy. Later his activities led to the introduction of the federal Privacy Act. I thought it was particularly germane that Michael Kirby wrote of him:

While still Vice Chancellor of the University of Queensland, he agreed to serve with me in the Australian Law Reform Commission. And he did so between 1976 and 1977. What exciting days they were. Two of our projects have grown out his own academic interests. One of them, for the protection of privacy, led to the federal Privacy Act and resulted in my own introduction to the international activities of committees of the OECD. The other concerned bioethics, specifically human tissue transplants. Zelman had also written on the topic. He once let me into his intellectual secret. He urged me to read American law reviews which, he said, would put me ten years ahead of most Australian lawyers.

Michael Kirby said he took his advice. Others may not comment as positively on those matters, but I thought it was of interest.

I conclude my remarks by picking up one of the observations of an earlier speaker, the member for Isaacs. He commented on Sir Zelman having some observations to make about an Australian republic. I conclude with what he had to say about that matter in 1999 when speaking at the National Press Club in Canberra.

He went on to take issue with those who argued for a direct election of a President. He preferred the method offered in a referendum beginning with a public nomination process and ending with a person put forward by the Prime Minister receiving bipartisan support from two-thirds of the parliament.

I might say his comments were particularly perspicacious then and they may at another time be perspicacious again. I am pleased to be associated with this motion of condolence. I regard Sir Zelman as one of the greatest Australians that I have had the pleasure of knowing.

Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (14:25): Sir Zelman Cowen was a second generation Australian. He was born Zelman Cohen in Melbourne in 1919 to a family originally from Belarus, then part of tsarist Russia. Originally from Ballarat, the Cohen family lived in St Kilda, even then a Melbourne suburb with a significant Jewish population. His father was variously employed as a car salesman and manager of an oil company and changed the family surname by deed poll to Cowen in 1922. Like so many of us, he was guided by his mother Sara, who, by his own admission, had strong ambitions for her son, which I would say he more than amply fulfilled.

For all of his national and international repute, Sir Zelman Cowen was a St Kilda man at heart and never forgot the suburb where he was born—a suburb which I am proud, obviously, to represent in this parliament. He never forgot his boyhood on the streets of inner-city Melbourne and his immigrant heritage, as the member for Isaacs so aptly referred to earlier. In his autobiography, Sir Zelman recalls his first day at St Kilda Park Primary School, looking at the blackboard and thinking he would never make sense of what was there. Well, he did, of course, and more than most.

I had the privilege at the end of 2011, just prior to his funeral, of dedicating brand new extensions to St Kilda Park Primary School, just around the corner from my electoral office in Melbourne Ports. I noted the dedication of Sir Zelman Cowen as the school's most distinguished alumni. I know Sir Zelman would have approved of these extensions. His wife, Lady Anna Cowen, told me quite movingly at lunch that, while he was Governor-General, he was actually counted out—Sir Ninian Stephen took the role as his replacement while he was doing his last function at St Kilda Park Primary School.

My friends from the Chabad movement and his son, Rabbi Shimon Cowen, would probably think it is, as they say, beshert—ordained—that that very morning, in a function that was organised long before his death, I would go there to make those extensions and then walk from there to Temple Beth Israel to his funeral service. St Kilda Park Primary School has had many distinguished alumni, including the great cricketers Ponsford, Miller and Johnson, and Sir William Dargie, who won eight Archibald Prizes. But Sir Zelman is the school's most distinguished alumni.

He was a Saints man because the Junction Oval was just across the road, and he was their No. 1 supporter and patron. Lady Cowen very proudly showed me his life membership tag at lunch. Sir Zelman could never be called inconsistent in his lifelong support of the Saints and, until recently, attended St Kilda games. I remember attending one very memorable and sad one with him in the Long Room some years ago against Melbourne. On the Saints football club's obituary page for Sir Zelman, the team has posted a particularly apt and charming photo of Sir Zelman smiling with delight with that great character of Aussie Rules football Kevin 'Cowboy' Neale, who kicked five goals in the 1966 grand final. Perhaps our team, St Kilda, could benefit by inscribing what sometimes was stated in Sir Zelman's philosophy of life: 'the next thing and the next thing'.

I had many experiences with Sir Zelman over the decade since I became active in student politics—including with Steven Skala, who is present in the chamber with the family and Sir Zelman's son Nick—perhaps most memorably during the republic debate, on which the member for Berowra accurately cited Sir Zelman's view in favour of a parliamentary system of electing an Australian head of state. My most memorable encounter with Sir Zelman involved learning about Australian history. One day we fell into deep conversation about the Japanese attack on Darwin, which he was present at as a young naval intelligence officer. He explained to me that perhaps Australians were not quite as brave and as fearless as some of us would like to imagine and that history is perhaps more complicated than we realised. He and Australian naval intelligence played a great role in the defeat of the Japanese naval forces through the signals they sent for the crucial Battle of Midway. Sir Zelman rightly enters the pantheon of great Australians of the character of Monash and Sir Isaac Isaacs.

Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong) (14:30): Zelman Cowen was a giant of a man. His record of achievement as a legal scholar, educator and public intellectual has few parallels in Australian life. As our nation's 19th Governor-General, he set a standard that is the benchmark for all those who have followed. His reputation was impeccable, based on a life lived with honesty and integrity to a degree that is seldom found. Sir Zelman's life and work won equal plaudits from both sides of the political divide. He was always above the rancour of partisanship.

But it was the private man who was so special to those who had the privilege of knowing him. He was humane and decent, humble yet proud. One could not find a more loyal and caring friend, deeply interested as he was in the wellbeing of others. He mentored many of the young people who gravitated into his orbit. Each sought his wisdom and advice, which were always dispensed with a generosity of spirit. Age was no barrier to friendship with Sir Zelman for he would elevate you to his level, making you feel comfortable in his presence.

I vividly remember my first meeting with him, nearly two decades ago, when his humour and wit quickly put this young boy at ease. He never needed to demand respect or command obedience but, by virtue of his very nature and being, he simply earned it. Right to the very end of his life, including the day of his passing, I and many others like me listened intently to his every word, knowing we were in the presence of greatness. He was an example and an inspiration and it is through those whom he mentored and his extended family that his legacy will live on. Sir Zelman's intellectual brilliance and firm moral compass were equally matched by a deep sense of his own identity. It is said that to know where you are going you have to know where you come from. Sir Zelman knew this. He was proud of his immigrant background and his Jewish faith and he never sought to distance himself from his heritage during his long and distinguished career.

He was a devoted family man and one-half of a 66-year-long perfect marriage. Lady Anna Cowen, who is with us in the chamber today, is brilliant in her own right and was the source of much of Sir Zelman's strength. As Governor-General, the touch of healing he brought to the nation was equally hers. His love for Anna knew no bounds and I am not the first to say that, barring a small issue of Jewish tradition, she would be a saint.

Looking back at Sir Zelman's life, it is as if he were destined for greatness from the very beginning, born as he was on the day Alfred Deakin died. As a schoolboy he knew he had special talents and at every step of the way he brought them to bear. He was always grateful for the opportunities that fell his way, describing himself as the most favoured of mortals. It is our nation's good fortune that such a gifted and principled man devoted his life to public service. We are all saddened by his passing but can be proud of his legacy and the many lives he has touched. I am proud to have called such a great Australian my friend.

The SPEAKER (14:34): I would like to associate myself with the remarks made by the previous speakers and to place on record my absolute respect and total admiration for such a great Australian. I would also like to welcome Lady Cowen, Pastor Dr Shimon Cowen and family friend Steven Skala, who are seated on the floor of the chamber. As a mark of respect, I ask all honourable members to rise in their places.

Honourable members having stood in their places—

Debate adjourned.

Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:36): On a matter of an entirely different nature and one that is a cause for celebration amongst those of us gathered here today, I move:

That an Address of Congratulation be presented to Her Majesty The Queen, as follows:

Your Majesty. We, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, express to Your Majesty our warm congratulations at this time of celebration of the Diamond Jubilee of your accession to the Throne. We express our respect and regard for the dedication you have displayed in the service of the Commonwealth and your deep and abiding commitment to Australia and her people.

Since Australia became a federation in 1901, we have had just six monarchs. And for more than half of those 111 years there has been only one: Elizabeth II, whose accession to the throne 60 years ago we honour in this sitting today. As third in line to the throne behind her uncle and father, the young Elizabeth was never expected to become Queen. But with the abdication in 1936 the 10-year-old princess became heir to a mighty empire. Even then, Princess Elizabeth could reasonably have expected decades of time to prepare for her future role as sovereign. But it was not to be. Her father, George VI, died at just 56, exhausted by illness and the accumulated stresses of the abdication and the war years. So today, as we honour the Diamond Jubilee, we also join Her Majesty in remembering a good king.

On 6 February 1952, the Queen took over the burden carried by her father: the task of guiding a nation through the painful work of postwar reconstruction; of adapting the monarchy to a new, less formal era; and of addressing the needs of an empire impatient for change. From the beginning, she never appeared troubled by the burdens of office. Indeed, her very first decision set the course for all that was to follow. She was in Kenya when she heard the news of her father’s death and, even whilst coming to terms with that news and all that it meant in those most difficult of circumstances, when asked what name she would take she answered quickly and calmly: ‘My own, of course.’ It was the crisp, practical, no-nonsense approach we have all come to know and admire—an approach which also embraced, and perhaps sometimes hid, a warm and generous heart.

For Australia, the 60 years of Queen Elizabeth’s reign have been years of remarkable evolution for our society and our economy. The Australia of 1952 was a small agricultural nation whose fortunes were tied to its traditional trading partners on the other side of the world. Her Majesty has seen us grow to be the robust, dynamic multicultural country which proudly takes its place in the Asian region and on the world stage. It has also been a period of remarkable political evolution.

Today we recognise the monarch as Queen of Australia. The power of the British parliament to legislate for our nation and our states has been abolished. The High Court has been affirmed as the pinnacle of our nation’s judicial system. We have created our own system of honours, adopted our own national anthem and appointed Australians to all our vice-regal posts as a matter of course. And throughout all that change and maturation, Elizabeth II has been a wise and encouraging guide, always wanting the best for our nation and its future, ready to allow Australia’s democratic journey to take us where it might. If Australia ever chooses a different constitutional path, it will not be for any deficiency on behalf of our monarch or her predecessors.

Of course, the people of the UK and the Commonwealth want to celebrate the Diamond Jubilee, and they will certainly have that opportunity. Celebrations will be concentrated in the United Kingdom in the coming northern summer, and that is appropriate. There will also be a number of initiatives that will enable Australia to share in the Diamond Jubilee celebrations. Last October, I joined British Prime Minster Cameron in announcing the establishment of Queen Elizabeth’s Diamond Jubilee Trust, which will support charitable organisations and projects across the Commonwealth. The trust will be chaired by a former British Prime Minister, Sir John Major, and will be funded by contributions from Commonwealth partners and private donors. I am proud to announce this week that Australia will contribute up to $5 million to the trust, which will provide a lasting legacy of Queen Elizabeth’s reign. I can also advise that Her Excellency the Governor-General will represent Australia at ceremonial events in London in June. One of the key events will be the lighting of a national beacon by Her Majesty on 4 June, part of a Commonwealth-wide event where beacons will be lit on a chain of hilltops all around the UK and the Commonwealth. That will include Australia, where I will light a beacon on top of Parliament House here in Canberra in support of this celebration.

In addition, Parkes Place, here in the Parliamentary Zone, in accordance with historical protocol, will be renamed Queen Elizabeth Terrace to complement the names of the adjacent streets, Queen Victoria, King Edward and King George terraces. Other commemorative activities will include: a jubilee stamp and coin issued by Australia Post and the Royal Australian Mint respectively; an essay competition for Australian students; and the creation of an annual scholarship or bursary which will focus on women’s leadership and related themes such as service and duty.

Finally, I can also advise that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales will be visiting Australia in the last quarter of the year as the Queen’s representative for the jubilee celebrations accompanied by the Duchess of Cornwall.

There is nothing valedictory in our Diamond Jubilee celebrations, nor should there be. As we saw here, in the Great Hall of Parliament House, on the streets of Australia and then at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Perth last October, the Queen retains a remarkable vigour and appetite for hard work. This is, however, a moment to dwell upon records broken and milestones reached, because the Queen is the longest lived monarch in British history, the second longest reigning monarch in British history and only the second to have enjoyed a diamond jubilee.

But beyond the statistics of this reign lies consideration of its quality and character. Today we honour a woman who has conducted herself with utmost propriety and dignity, who has served her people with wisdom, fidelity and an unfailing sense of duty. Elizabeth II has made history and become part of history. Today we honour her indelible place in the story of our nation. And we express thanks for the sense of loyalty and service she has shown as our monarch but also as our friend. On behalf of this parliament and our people, I offer Her Majesty our sincere congratulations and best wishes for this Diamond Jubilee year.

Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:44): I rise to enthusiastically echo the most gracious words of the Prime Minister on this important occasion and I join her in my own respectful tribute to our Queen on the occasion of her Diamond Jubilee. This is truly a great milestone. Only once before in the 1,000-year history of our monarchy has a queen reigned for more than 60 years. Her first Australian Prime Minister was Sir Robert Menzies. Her first British Prime Minister was Sir Winston Churchill. She is a living link to that age of heroes, a sign of continuity and stability in our national life.

Much has changed in 60 years. Much has stayed the same. We were a great country then and we are an even greater country now. Then, we were still part of an empire. Today, we are part of a dynamic but ever-changing Commonwealth. What has not changed is the Queen's unstinting devotion to those noble ideals of duty and service. What also has not changed is the respect and affection of Australians for the Queen, as demonstrated yet again during the latest royal tour, just last year. This is the paradox of the monarchy: the less actual power the Queen wields the more prestige she has; the fewer the decisions the monarch makes the deeper people's affection becomes.

Much was said earlier today about Sir Zelman Cowen. It is important to remember his comments about the monarchy back in 1966, when he wrote movingly of its role in our system as something 'above and outside politics'. The Crown that was once the embodiment of executive government has become a symbol of all that is best in public service.

I welcome the measures that have just been announced by the Prime Minister. I think they are a most fitting way of marking this important milestone. I particularly welcome the Prime Minister's announcement of a visit later this year to our country by Prince Charles, our future King. May I say, with feeling, something that perhaps is not said often enough in this most modern and contemporary of parliaments: may God save the Queen and may God bless this great country.

The SPEAKER: To signify their support for the address I invite honourable members to rise in their places.

Honourable members having stood in their places—

Debate adjourned.

Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:49): On indulgence, since parliament last met we have seen the passing of Peter Veness. It was a sad duty for me, accompanied by my partner, Tim, to attend Peter's funeral earlier this year along with other members of the parliament and, I believe, almost the entire parliamentary press gallery. He was a young man who fought incredibly hard against cancer—a young, young man taken from us and from his family far too soon. Even as he struggled with cancer and continued to come to work he turned his thoughts to fundraising for others. Many here would have participated in those fundraising events. One was participated in by Tim as a 'shave-off' event. Peter's courage was on display as he went about those good works, even as he battled cancer himself.

At the funeral service his young wife, Bec, made a remarkable tribute to him. I think her speech, along with the other contributions that day, will be in our minds and in our thoughts for a long period of time. Our thoughts continue to be with Bec and with his parents, David and Cheryl, in the depths of their grief, as we mourn a young man lost far too soon.

Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:50): I join with the Prime Minister to pay my respects and the respects of the coalition to someone who was taken away from us far too soon. The phrase 'respected journalist' is normally a bit of an oxymoron, but Peter Veness was not only a respected journalist; he was also a loved journalist. He was certainly very good at his job, as anyone who was grilled by him at the front doors of this building would know. But there was no edge to it and there was no malice to it, as the tributes that have poured in since his passing show.

I particularly liked the tribute that came from the Director-General of ASIO, David Irvine, who noted Pete's meticulous attention to detail. I have often wondered about the clunk on the phone that sometimes happens, and it is good that ASIO are still listening in to the conversations that journalists have. Death is the ultimate mystery, but Peter Veness wrote about it with insight, pathos and humour. We miss him. We mourn him. We particularly grieve with his widow, Bec, and we acknowledge that, more than just about anyone else who has been in this place recently, he filled the unforgiving minute with 60 seconds worth of distance run.

The SPEAKER: As a mark of respect, I invite honourable members to rise in their places.

Honourable members having stood in their places—

The SPEAKER (14:53): Honourable members will not be surprised to learn that during the summer adjournment I was asked a number of questions about my intentions as Speaker. I have had discussions with the Leader of the House, the Manager of Opposition Business, Independent members and other members. I am very grateful for support for proposals I have made to reduce the time limits in question time, to extend the opportunities for members to ask supplementary questions and to rename the Main Committee as the Federation Chamber of the House of Representatives. I understand that some proposals may come before the House in the near future with respect to time limits for question time and the renaming of the Main Committee. In the meantime I want to let members know of my intentions in four matters.

First, I intend to adopt the same practice as Mr Speaker Jenkins in respect of divisions. Should an occupant of the chair wish to vacate the chair when a division is called, he or she should send a message to this effect to me. In these circumstances, I would propose to take the chair.

If I am required to exercise the casting vote, it is my intention to follow the principles set out in House of Representatives Practice—that is, that the Speaker should always vote for further discussion; where no further discussion is possible, decisions should not be taken except by a majority; and a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its existing form.

Naturally I wish to ensure that order is maintained in the chamber. In this regard, I seek the cooperation of all members. Without in any way being pessimistic, I confirm that it is not my intention to warn disorderly members before directing them to leave the chamber for one hour in accordance with standing order 94(a). While I would usually expect to warn a member prior to naming the member, this would not always be the case.

Finally, I remind members that standing order 103 limits the scope of questions that may be put to the Speaker at the conclusion of question time to matters of administration for which the Speaker is responsible.

I look forward to working with all members to ensure that the House fulfils what we all know are the reasonable expectations of the people of Australia. Copies of this statement are available on the table.

Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (15:07): Mr Speaker, on indulgence: I note what the Prime Minister said is being done by the government. I express the thought that this will be of great interest, as well as to Senator Joyce, to the member for Maranoa and to the member for Parkes. When I spoke to the member for Maranoa last Friday, he was helping his community to prepare sandbags in Roma. When I spoke to the member for Parkes last Friday, he was readying his truck and his bobcat to help with the cleanup. It is good that the government is institutionally coming to help these people, as local members have been doing on the ground over the last two days.

The SPEAKER (15:33): I present the Auditor-General's audit reports for 2011-12 entitled Audit report No. 15, Performance audit—risk management in the processing of sea and air cargo imports;Audit report No. 16, Performance audit—the management of compliance in the small to medium enterprises market,Audit report No. 17; Financial statement audit—audits of the financial statements of Australian government entities for the period ended 30 June 2011, incorporating an addendum and a corrigendum, Audit report No. 18;Performance audit—information and communications technology security: management of portable storage devices,Audit report No. 19;Performance audit—oversight and management of defence's information and communication technology;Audit report No. 20, Assurance report—2010-2011 major projects report;Audit report No.21, Performance audit—administration of grant reporting obligations;Audit report No. 22, Performance audit—administration of the gateway review process;and,Audit report No. 23, Performance audit—administration of the national greenhouse and energy reporting scheme.

Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.

The SPEAKER (15:34): I inform the House that I have received a copy of a resolution passed by the Western Australian Legislative Assembly on 10 November 2011 relating to GST revenue distribution. I do not propose to read the resolution to the House. Copies are being circulated to members in the chamber and the full text will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and in Hansard.

The resolution read as follows—

That this House:

(1) notes that GST revenues are distributed to the States and Territories in accordance with a formula driven by horizontal fiscal equalisation principles and legislated for in the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009 (Cth);

(2) notes that for 2010-2011 Western Australia received just 68 per cent of what it would have received if GST revenue were distributed across Australia on a per capita basis - the lowest relativity applied to any State since the formula was introduced;

(3) notes that every other State and Territory, by contrast, received not less than 91 per cent of what it would have received if GST revenue was distributed equally across Australia;

(4) calls on the Federal Government to amend the Act to stipulate a minimum GST revenue-sharing relativity of 75 per cent, which would allow continuing respect for the principles of horizontal fiscal equalisation, but with proper recognition for population and without Western Australia being unfairly penalised for its disproportionate contribution to our national economic prosperity; and

(5) calls on Federal Members of Parliament to support the private Members’ motion as moved by Mr Tony Crook MP, Member for O’Connor, in relation to a fairer GST distribution.

The SPEAKER (15:45): I have received a letter from the honourable Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The failure of the Government to address the day to day concerns of Australian families.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (15:45): There can be no more important topic for this parliament than the economic future of this country. I regret to say that, having told us earlier today in question time that she wanted to bring on an economic debate, the Prime Minister then shut down question time and, of course, is conspicuously absent from this chamber for the beginning of the economic debate that this country needs to have and which this coalition will most assuredly win. Is it any wonder that we have the Prime Minister fleeing the chamber at the beginning of the economic debate which she says she wants when we had this by way of argument from the Prime Minister in question time today:

I accept that the Treasury modelling which I have just relied on and the figures which I have given to the House are the Treasury modelling and should be relied on.

There we have it from the Prime Minister: the Treasury modelling is the Treasury modelling.

Opposition members: We are us.

Mr ABBOTT: As my colleagues behind me remind me, this is the economic equivalent of the vacuous 'We are us' speech which she gave to the Australian Labor Party conference late last year and which I suspect might mark one of the milestones in this Prime Minister's downfall.

The Australian government has two great responsibilities. One of them is national security, which is a responsibility for another day in this chamber. The other is economic security, and that is the subject which should be covered today. What the Australian people expect from their national government is the circumstances in which can be delivered good pay, low interest rates, strong economic growth and more jobs. That is signally what this government has failed to deliver.

This government is constantly congratulating itself because our economy is not as other economies are. That is no thanks whatsoever to the efforts of this government and all thanks to the reforms of previous governments including—let us give credit where credit is due—the reforms of the former Hawke-Keating government, which was in its own way and by its own light a principled government and a government of genuine economic reform. The comparatively, and it is only comparatively, strong position that Australia is in at this present time owes itself entirely to the reforms of previous governments and not at all to the spending spree of the current one. The Prime Minister has the gall to lecture European leaders on economic responsibility when the clear lessons of the eurozone are that a terrible judgment is ultimately pronounced against those countries and those governments which spend too much, borrow too much and tax too much. This government and this Prime Minister are copying failure. The only difference between many of the countries of Europe and this is that we are not as far down that fateful and ill-starred path.

This is a government which has an evil genius for destroying value. This is a government which is proposing to spend $2 billion of taxpayers' money buying back perfectly good power stations in Victoria and closing them down. This is a government which is proposing to spend $11 billion of taxpayers' money buying back Telstra's copper wire network and closing it down. This is a government which is proposing to invest what will ultimately be more than $50 billion of borrowed money that we cannot at this point in time afford to build what is called a National Broadband Network which is one technology and one owner—the government—to deliver a service which Australians do not necessarily need, do not necessarily want and certainly do not want to pay more for. This is a government which excels in stultifying economic activity and at repressing the economic entrepreneurial instincts of the Australian people. The most extraordinary, the most remarkable, the most scandalous case is of course the live cattle trade of the Northern Territory. It was closed down by this government in a panicky overreaction to a television program. But there is more. There is the Tasmanian forestry industry, which is slowly being strangled by this government at the behest of the real deputy prime minister of this country, Senator Brown. There are the oceans which are increasingly being locked up by this government, again at the behest of the green movement. And then there is Senator Brown's proudest monument, the great deception perpetrated by this Prime Minister against the citizens of this country: the carbon tax. This is the worst possible time to introduce the world's biggest carbon tax, and it is just going to get worse and worse and worse as the years go on. The Treasury modelling, which is the Treasury modelling, clearly shows that by 2020 the real wages of the workers of Australia will be $600 a year, or about $12 a week, lower thanks to this carbon tax. Treasury modelling clearly shows that the GDP of this country will be a cumulative $32 billion less in 2020 than would be the case without the carbon tax. This carbon tax is a wrecking ball, smashing through our economy. This carbon tax is the great handbrake on what should be the mighty engine of economic growth, which government should be fostering, not restraining.

It just gets worse. That is how bad it is at $29 a tonne. By the time the carbon tax gets up to $131 a tonne in 2050 there will be a cumulative $1,000 billion—$1 trillion—worth of lost production to our economy because of the carbon tax, and a $4,000 real decrease in the wages of the workers of this country. Do you call yourselves a Labor government, members opposite? What a scandal! What an embarrassment to any decent Labor voter that this government first tells untruths about a carbon tax and then introduces a carbon tax that over time will reduce the real wages of the decent, hardworking people of this country by upwards of $80 a week. Shame! The first impact of the carbon tax, economic modelling shows, is a 10 per cent hit on power prices that have already increased by more than 50 per cent since this government came to office. The next impact of a carbon tax: a nine per cent increase in gas prices, which have already increased by more than 30 per cent since this government came to office.

What a contrast with the record of the Howard government. John Howard would stand up in this parliament and say that the Howard government was the best friend that the workers of Australia ever had. On the record, he was exactly right, because what the Howard government delivered was a 20 per cent increase in real wages, two million-plus more jobs and an increase in the net wealth of every Australian of 100 per cent—a doubling of the net wealth of every Australian. By contrast, what have we seen since 2007 under the Rudd-Gillard governments? We have seen wealth destruction on a scale unparalleled in modern times. We have had stagnating productivity. The greatest embarrassment of all, which none of the braying interjections opposite can cover up: 2011 was the first year since Labor's recession of 1992 when there was no net increase in jobs in our economy—not a single new job in our economy.

Why did we have this? We had this because you could trust the Howard government with money. The Howard government was prudent and frugal with the dollars of taxpayers, which it knew and understood how to husband. The Howard government inherited a $10 billion budget black hole. It turned it into a $20 billion surplus. Over the life of the Howard government, for almost 12 years we had surpluses averaging 0.9 per cent—almost one per cent of gross domestic product. We inherited $96 billion worth of Commonwealth debt and we turned it into $70 billion worth of Commonwealth assets. Look at the contrast. Members opposite have turned a $20 billion surplus into the four biggest deficits in Australia's history. In 2008, Wayne Swan said, 'Peter Costello is just an amateur'—Peter Costello delivered a $20 billion surplus—'I am Wayne Swan, the "me Tarzan" of the Australian economy. I will deliver a $22 billion surplus.' What did our hero, Wayne the wonderful, deliver in that year?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The Leader of the Opposition will refer to members by their appropriate titles.

Mr ABBOTT: A $27 billion deficit, that is what he delivered. But I tell you what: that is his best result so far. That is as good as it gets so far because it was followed by a $55 billion deficit.

Mr Hartsuyker: Now that's what I call a deficit.

Mr ABBOTT: That is right. We all saw the Paul Hogan movie—'That's not a deficit; this is a deficit!' And it was followed by a $49 billion deficit. This year, first of all he said there was going to be a $12 billion deficit; then he said, 'Oops, sorry. Got that wrong. It is actually going to be a $23 billion deficit. But, sorry, got that wrong too.' Now he tells us it is going to be a $37 billion deficit—one of the four biggest deficits in Australia's history. Now he tells us that next year—always somewhere beyond the horizon—we will finally get a surplus. Someone might have said this before, and I would hate to be guilty of the Leader of the House's plagiarism, but we will believe it when we see it.

The Prime Minister said she wants this year to be a year of debate about the economy. Please, please, please bring it on. Every minute, every hour, every day, every week, every month let us debate the economy, because every time she mentions the economy we will say 'carbon tax', the economy-destroying carbon tax that this Prime Minister lied about before the election and now is inflicting on the decent, honest workers of Australia. This is a Prime Minister who has monumentally failed in many respects, but there is one respect, above all others, where she has most clearly failed—and that is in her judgment. Today's demand that all of the debate should be about the economy is yet another failure of judgment—like her failure of judgment in challenging Prime Minister Rudd, her failure of judgment in having an early election, her failure of judgment in announcing an East Timor detention centre without first talking to East Timor, her failure of judgment when confessing that there was no such thing as 'the real Julia' and her failure of judgment in doing a deal with Andrew Wilkie which she never intended to honour. This is a Prime Minister who has failed in judgment, who has failed in honesty and who has failed in commerce. Let us debate that every day between now and— (Time expired)

Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga—Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) (16:00): The Leader of the Opposition leaves the chamber after yet another tirade of abuse—which is actually all that he is good for—a tirade that was comprised yet again of nothing more than a list of everything that he is opposed to. That is what that speech was all about. Every single statement he made was full of things that this Leader of the Opposition continues to say no to at every turn.

This matter of public importance debate is supposed to be about things that are important to families and yet on this very day the member for Mayo, who is also leaving the chamber, has said—and this really bells the cat about what the Liberals are all about—that family payments, childcare support, pensions and disability support are 'the dead hand of government'. That is what the great thinker of the Liberal Party, the member for Mayo, has said—that all of these supports for families are 'the dead hand of government'. On the 200th birthday of Charles Dickens, you want to take this country back into the Dickensian age. That is what a Liberal government would do to this country—

Ms O'Dwyer interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Higgins needs to listen in silence or she will not get to listen inside.

Ms MACKLIN: and, as we have just seen from the Leader of the Opposition, they do not have one new idea for the future. All they want to do is say no and take this country backwards.

I found it extraordinary that the Leader of the Opposition said that the test for this debate was which government would deliver good pay and low interest rates—an extraordinary test. But he had no intention of addressing how he would deliver that in government and he refused to acknowledge that he was a minister in the government which delivered Work Choices. The Labor government abolished Work Choices so that families in this country could have the security that they need more than anything—the security of knowing not only that they have a job but that the good working conditions of that job are protected. It is this government which has delivered 700,000 additional jobs over the four years it has been in office. Just recently we were very pleased to see a very important pay rise delivered to some of the lowest paid workers in this country—150,000 community sector workers who, at long last, are getting a decent pay rise because of the changes that this government made to the Fair Work Act. This would never have been possible under those opposite.

The Leader of the Opposition also talked about the importance of low interest rates. How important would it have been for him to tell the truth that, as a result of this government's good economic management, families are now paying less on their mortgages than they were when the Liberals were in government? Families know that under the Liberals they faced 10 interest rate rises in a row and that now, under the Labor government, families with mortgages are paying less.

All that said, this government does understand that families continue to be under financial pressure. That is why, instead of filling this debate with abuse as the Leader of the Opposition has—filling it with the ways he intends to say no to everything that this government puts forward—I intend to take the House through all the positive things that this government is doing and has done for families. I will start with the most recent change—never delivered by the National Party or by the Liberal Party—to recognise the importance of family payments for parents who have teenagers over the age of 16. Under the Liberal government, when your child turned 16, family payments went down. It is this Labor government which has fixed that. Those families can now expect to see an increase of up to $4,200 in their budgets each year to help them meet the costs associated with having teenagers. All of us know that teenagers do not get cheaper as they get older—as, somehow, the Liberals seem to think. Of course, it was this Labor government that delivered Australia's first national paid parental leave scheme. Now we know what the Leader of the National Party actually thinks about paid parental leave. We know what he particularly thinks about the Leader of the Opposition's paid parental leave scheme. He totally opposes it. This government did not take any notice of their silly internal bickering. We got on with delivering a national paid parental leave scheme and now we have around 130,000 Australian families actually benefiting from 18 weeks of pay at the minimum wage, which is currently around $590 a week. And it will be this government that also delivers dad and partner pay so that dads and partners can make sure that they too spend some time at home with mum and baby after the baby's birth.

We also understand how important it is to make sure that parents get support when they go back to work and they need to meet the costs of child care. These changes were made by this Labor government, not by those opposite but by a Labor government that understands the costs of child care, a Labor government that understands that parents need help when they go back to work. We have increased the childcare rebate to 50 per cent. What that means is that half of parents' out-of-pocket costs, up to $7½ thousand per child, are now being paid—never done by those opposite; never delivered by them but delivered by this government. What we have also done is speed up the delivery of that help to parents as to the costs of child care so that parents are getting that childcare rebate more frequently to help with their fortnightly bills.

It is this government that has also introduced the education tax refund—never done by those opposite. These are real changes delivered by this Labor government because we understand that having a strong economy needs to be in the interests of families. That is why we are making all these changes. The education tax refund is delivering real payments, real money, to parents when they need it. As the children are going back to school right now, all parents understand that this is an expensive time. Australian families can get as much as $397 for every child at primary school and up to $794 for every child in high school. One of the important changes that this government has made is that it is also allowing families to claim for approved school uniforms as well as other education costs. All of these changes mean real increased support for families.

We have also recognised that it is not only families that need increased support. Our older Australians need it too, those Australians who have done a lifetime of work and want to make sure that as they go into old age they will be able to manage on the pension. It is this government that delivered the historic reforms—reforms never delivered by those opposite—that mean a single pensioner on the maximum rate is now $148 a fortnight better off than they were under the Liberal government. If you are a pensioner couple on the maximum rate you are $146 better off—never done by the Liberals.

This government is also delivering a much-needed boost to superannuation so that families can have security in retirement. It is this government that has delivered the tax cuts, and we know how critical it is to continue to do that. We want to see families have more money in their pockets. I will take you through what this actually means to individual families. Someone on $30,000 is paying $750 less in tax than they were when the Liberals were in government. Someone on $50,000 is paying $1,750 less in tax than they were under the Liberals. All of these changes have been made by this Labor government. When you look at what those opposite did you see they did not deliver to pensioners and they did not deliver these childcare changes. It was the Leader of the Opposition who said paid parental leave would be delivered over his dead body. These are all the things that are on the record as facts. It is not about hurling abuse, as the Leader of the Opposition is so wont to do. They are the facts, and we will continue to deliver to pensioners and families.

As we meet the challenges of the future by making sure that we have a clean energy economy, this government will make sure that nine out of 10 households get help as to the modest price rises that will come about as the economy changes. We know how important it is to deliver the tax cuts, the increases in family payments and the increases in pensions. All of these things will be done to make sure that families and pensioners get the help that they need. We also know, and this became very clear in the Leader of the Opposition's statements last week, and families know—and they will be reminded regularly by all of us on this side—that you cannot rely on the Liberals. What was very clear from the Leader of the Opposition's remarks at the Press Club last week is that if they ever get into government they will rip out of the purses and wallets of pensioners and families all the money that this government intends to deliver starting in May and June this year. Given what we have also heard from the Leader of the Opposition, they cannot even decide whether or not—and this became very clear today—they are going to deliver a surplus. Are they going to deliver a surplus in their first term? Asked whether that would be the case, the shadow finance minister replied, 'It depends.' That is what the shadow finance minister has said. Obviously, as to whether or not he can find the $70 billion that they know they have got to find, he is saying: how would you know? We have seen today the member for Mayo, and I will go back to where I started my remarks, saying that all the things that families and pensioners depend on—the family payments, the childcare support, the disability support and the support for older Australians—are, according to Liberal Party philosophy, just the dead hand of government. So, is this where the Liberal Party will find the cuts necessary to fill their $70 billion black hole? Are they going to take it from the pockets of pensioners and families? We know that that is the Liberal Party's philosophy. They are the ones who say that that is where they will take the money from, because they have never delivered for pensioners and they have never delivered for families.

I also made it clear that for those Australians who are some of the most vulnerable, the people who are looking forward to a Labor government delivering a national disability insurance scheme, all the Leader of the Opposition wants to do is put that on the never-never: never give any hope whatsoever to those people with a disability or their carers and families, who know how desperately in need they are. They know that they can rely on a Labor government to deliver a national disability insurance scheme. It was a Labor government that built Medicare—in fact, we had to do it twice, after a Liberal government destroyed it—and it will be a Labor government that has to deliver a national disability insurance scheme. (Time expired)

Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Leader of The Nationals) (16:16): At the beginning of the federal parliamentary year Australians are increasingly alarmed about the Gillard government and its lack of an agenda. The Prime Minister's authority is clearly in tatters. Her cabinet is split. The rank and file are bitterly divided, both philosophically and politically. If you throw in the Greens and a handful of Independents you have all the ingredients for a directionless, dysfunctional government that has no idea what it wants to do. It is completely out of ideas and it is bereft of an agenda.

They were so out of ideas that this past weekend they decided to bring the caucus together in a new-ideas forum to set a new agenda for Labor in the year ahead.

Opposition members interjecting—

Mr TRUSS: And, yes, as the honourable member said, 23 of them did not even bother to show up. They did not have any ideas at all. But I have a bit of an idea that there was not too much love at this love-in. They had the butchers paper out, and also the butchers knives. They were sharpening them up and there is no doubt at all it is the Prime Minister's leadership that was on the chopping block.

This is a government without ideas. Indeed, after the event we seem to have heard no new ideas put forward. They had to bring back former Prime Minister Bob Hawke to give them some ideas—a blast from the past. They did not go to the popular former Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs; they went back a further generation to Bob Hawke to try to give them just a few ideas, but nothing came forward.

We should be thankful that at least the current Prime Minister only brought together her caucus for the barbecue at the Lodge. Her predecessor brought together a cast of hundreds and hundreds for his ideas summit. Labor was elected without any ideas and then they had to bring in people from all over the countryside. They came up with a thousand ideas, and four years later fewer than 10 are still breathing, let alone there being any kind of activity that might change the country. Labor is unable to develop ideas of its own and is now even unable to take ideas from others.

The Prime Minister simply cannot be trusted or relied upon. Labor's national conference was just as bad. Labor forgot all about struggling families and the things that matter to them. Instead, Labor tore itself apart over gay marriage and uranium sales and so on. It is not just the issues themselves; it is also that they represent more broken promises from the Prime Minister and from Labor. Then, as the new year began, there was another broken promise. The written agreement with the honourable member for Denison in relation to poker machines has just been torn up. No wonder the Australian people do not trust this Prime Minister and this government. Then, today, the Prime Minister walked away from the commitment to the member for Melbourne and the Greens about dental reform. Another broken promise. Her word is simply worthless. She cannot be trusted. The Australian people are well and truly aware of that—the government cannot be trusted.

The Treasurer told us that last year was to be the year of jobs. The Treasurer said this in his budget speech and said it repeatedly at the Press Club and at other places. The theme for the year was going to be jobs, jobs, jobs. He said 500,000 new jobs would be created. Labor's primary emphasis in 2011 was creating jobs. And what was the final result? Nil. Labor created no new jobs. For the first time for almost two decades, no new jobs were created in Australia. Labor put all of its effort for the year into creating jobs, and they got none. Indeed, the situation is clearly getting worse. Already this year we have heard of Westpac retrenching 400 people; the Bank of Scotland, 200 jobs gone; the ANZ, 130 jobs gone, with another 700 yet to go; Holden, 100 jobs gone; Toyota, 350 jobs gone; BHP, 155 jobs gone; Reckitt Benckiser, 190 jobs gone; Manildra, 70 jobs gone; the Hydro Aluminium plant near Newcastle, 150 jobs gone; Tomago Aluminium, 100 jobs gone; Thales, 50 jobs gone; Don Smallgoods, 31 jobs gone; Heinz, 146 jobs gone; and, today, at Macquarie Bank, 1,000 jobs gone. This is the government that says it is about creating jobs, but that is a list of some of the job losses that have been announced for this year. Also, bear in mind that this is only a small glimpse at the jobs being lost. Almost every small business is laying someone off, but that is not in the newspapers. Almost every manufacturing business is laying people off. Labor's record in the manufacturing sector—the people they purport to represent and understand—is 130,000 jobs lost in manufacturing under the Labor government. Indeed, if we have a Labor government for too much longer, will we have any manufacturing industry left at all?

All of these just sound like numbers, but each one of these jobs lost is a job for a worker. It is a family without somebody who can meet the bills, a family that has lost a job because of this government's incompetence.

Today we had the announcement of what Labor's theme is going to be for this year: they want an economic debate. This is the year for the economy. The Prime Minister called upon all of us to participate in a debate on the economy. Aren't we so pleased to do this. This is the government, after all, that took Australia from surpluses, from having funds in the bank, to massive deficits. The world's greatest Treasurer produced our country's four greatest deficits. He has no idea how to run the country. Labor inherited $70 billion in the bank. Now we have a net debt of $136 billion. The Treasurer is always running out there complaining about the banks not reducing interest rates as much as they should. I think the banks should reduce their interest rates more as well, but one of the reasons why the banks cannot reduce interest rates is that the cost of borrowing money is going up. One of the primary reasons why the cost of borrowing money is going up is that the government is out there borrowing more, $100 million every day. So when somebody is trying to get a home loan from their bank, they are actually competing with the government, which is there in the marketplace on the same day borrowing $100 million. If this government is serious about reducing interest rates, then it must borrow less. It must start balancing its budget. It must start being responsible and putting together an economic agenda that demonstrates this country can pay its way and can balance its own budget—set an example rather than criticise others.

We are leading up to a budget in May. That is going to be a really dodgy document because the government has already announced that billions of dollars worth of expenditure that was supposed to be in 2011 is being brought forward to this year. Other expenditure is being delayed until 2013-14. What they are trying to do is create one little year, one little window, when the budget might actually be balanced, but that is at the expense of a higher deficit this year and a higher deficit in subsequent years. They have diverted a whole stack of money for road funding into this financial year from the next financial year. There will not be any new roads sooner. It is just paying money across to the states so that they can shovel it out and it is not included in next year's budget. There is a similar story with the mental health program and a similar story with the carbon tax. Even though the carbon tax only starts in 2012, the big compensation payout to pensioners is going to be in this financial year. So they pay out billions of dollars worth of compensation this financial year and then collect the tax from the next financial year.

This is a dodgy surplus, if ever it happens. In fact it will not happen. This government is not competent enough to put together any kind of logical budgeting. When they do put together a program, it is dogged by waste and mismanagement. Now everything is going to have to carry the extra burden of a carbon tax, adding to the cost of everything we do, adding to the cost of living, adding to the cost of manufacturing and making our economy uncompetitive. This is a government with no ideas. The ideas it has had have turned to lemons. They have been a dismal failure. (Time expired)

Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (16:26): Speaking of ideas, I recently read a biography of Michael Foot, who was the opposition leader and Deputy Prime Minister of Great Britain. He said, 'When making a speech, always surprise.' I was waiting for a surprise from those opposite—an idea, a policy or a purpose. I was waiting for some economic credibility, but all we got was economic negativity. I was waiting for the shadow Treasurer to speak and I was waiting for the shadow finance minister to speak. If they had any economic credibility they would be here, but they are off having an argument amongst themselves over the economic circus that we saw in the last 48 hours. When it comes to supporting Australian families, I think the record of those opposite is quite blank. The Leader of the Opposition talked about the golden age of Howardism, but one of the things he did not talk about is Work Choices. We saw a bit of that today with the member for Mayo. I think he has got a new philosophy. We will call it Briggsism. Pensions, family tax benefits and assistance to families are all the dead hand of government. I am waiting for those opposite to endorse Briggsism. We could have Hockeyism, where the member for North Sydney says he agrees with the last person he spoke to. If he says it loud enough, people might believe him. Or we could have Robbism from the member for Goldstein. He waxes lyrical and thinks aloud but he gets himself in trouble. We have got Robbism, Hockeyism and Briggsism amongst those opposite, but there is no economic credibility at all because those opposite have not got any ideas.

We heard about roads from the potential Deputy Prime Minister, were he to sit over here. Roads! It is a bit rich. The Warrego Highway, the Ipswich Motorway and the Blacksoil interchange: those opposite voted against all of these road funding projects that are so important for South-East Queensland. They opposed the Redcliffe railway. For over 100 years we have been wanting a railway in South-East Queensland to Redcliffe, but those opposite opposed it. The member for Wright is over there. He knows how important the Warrego Highway is for his area, but he, like all those opposite, opposed the road funding in South-East Queensland. So we have economic credibility writ large on this side and completely absent on that side. All we hear is negativity and nay-saying. That is what they are on about.

When it comes to what we have done, we have created more than 700,000 jobs. We have got rid of Work Choices so that people have fairness in the workplace. This is so important because those opposite occasionally slip it out when they use the word 'flexibility'. I want the families of Australia to know that flexibility means driving down wages. That is what it means. It means taking away people's pay and conditions. It means penalty rates, long service leave and other things going. Why do we say that? Because it was Labor that built the living wage. It was Labor that built the pension system and the aged care system in this country. It was Labor that built the universal healthcare system in this country. It was Labor that built Medicare—twice, as the minister said—and Labor brought in compulsory superannuation. Those opposite talked with jeremiads about this—alarmist rhetoric—when they were there. They said that this would bring about the ruination of Australian business and the ruination of Australian companies. We did it because we wanted to support Australian families. We did it during this government. We did things like the Paid Parental Leave Scheme. We brought it in. Those opposite never did. The Leader of the Opposition, famously or infamously, said he would never do it; it would be over his dead body. We brought in an education tax refund.

Also, we increased the childcare rebate. We know how important this measure is for electorates. For example, in my electorate of Blair, in South-East Queensland, 7,250 families benefited from childcare payments totalling over $27.9 million in the year 2009-10. The architect of Briggsism, the member for Mayo, in his electorate had 4,800 families benefitting from the childcare payments, totalling almost $12 million in that same year. This is the bloke that describes this as 'a cycle of dependency' and 'the dead hand of government'. We are about supporting families. We are about supporting individuals. We want to keep the country strong. And we want to make sure, as we did during the global financial crisis, that we support jobs.

The Leader of the Opposition was literally asleep at the wheel when we were bringing in the economic stimulus package that saved 200,000 jobs. Last year, when we wanted to spread the wealth of the mining boom to benefit Australian families, he was sitting there dosing with the member for Leichhardt, who nudged him just in time to say no and to vote no. On bill after bill after bill after bill, he voted no. When it came to extending superannuation to help families and to make sure that a 30-year-old gets more than $100,000 more in compulsory superannuation when they retire, he said no. On regional infrastructure funding of $2 billion in my electorate in South-East Queensland as well as across Queensland, those opposite, including all those LNP members, should hang their heads in shame because they voted against it and also other projects.

Why should we be surprised? They have opposed infrastructure spending in my home state, election after election after election—including the Ipswich Motorway, the most important infrastructure project in South-East Queensland. For three elections in a row they have opposed the funding for it. We know that all the mayors and their councils in South-East Queensland support it, as they do all the infrastructure. They have been down here many, many times. Even Campbell Newman supported the Ipswich Motorway upgrade while those opposite opposed it for three elections in a row. I look forward to seeing what their attitude will be towards it at the next election.

There is also the Blacksoil interchange. The member for Wright sits opposite. He knows how important it is, because Steve Jones, the mayor of the Lockyer Valley, which is in his electorate, has told me how important that project is. We know how important that project is for the Lockyer Valley and the Brisbane Valley—the Somerset region. But those opposite opposed it. In South-East Queensland, 40,000 vehicles a day go through that intersection. Mums and dads are driving their kids to schools like WestMAC, to the grammar schools in Ipswich and up to Lowood high school and primary school. At Fernvale is the fastest growing primary school in my electorate. We know how important this intersection is for mums and dads. They and their families use that intersection at the Ipswich Motorway and the Warrego Highway each and every day to drive to work and to school as well as for reasons of recreation or business. The farmers need it as well.

Families are crucial. We know how important families are in the life of this country. Children are a blessing and a heritage but they also cost money. We know that and that is why we brought in the education tax refund. That is why we increased the childcare rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent. We know how important it is to help families. That is why personal income taxes are lower under this government. That is why there is an historic increase in pensions. We increased pensions during the global financial crisis to make sure that people had the money they needed. We know that about 1.5 million Australians work in the retail sector. We wanted to make sure that their jobs were supported. That is why we gave out the stimulus money.

We also know that about 250,000 people work in construction across this country. That is why we did projects like the BER. And those opposite—and I have seen some of them—actually turn up to BER ceremonies, saying how great they are, because this is where school kids go for their education. Those opposite opposed the BER funding that was so important across length and breadth of this country. And not only that, but, during the flood crisis in Queensland, the BER halls acted as evacuation centres. Some of them were used before they were officially opened. We know how important they were.

We know how important families are, and we have supported families. We have supported families historically. It has been Labor governments which have supported families. This Labor government supports families and it will continue to do so. I come back to what Michael Foot said: those opposite never surprise us because they are always on the side of the privileged rather than the many. They are always on the side of the few. There is no utilitarianism at all about them. They really will not help working families or the working class, because they always believe in their divine right to rule.

You only have to listen to the speeches of those opposite—the hard right-wing Thatcherism of those opposite. Michael Foot knew all about it, because he opposed it for years. If they come to this side of the chamber, we know that they will do it. We know that Work Choices will be back and that will impose pressure on working families. We support working families. We know how important they are for this country.

We want to keep this economy strong, and we have done so. We have low inflation, low unemployment and our economy is the envy of the world. When the Leader of the Opposition goes overseas he talks us up. When he comes back here he talks us down. He cannot tell the truth when it comes to the economic credibility of this country, because the Leader of the Opposition has no ideas, no notions, no policies, only aspirations—no commitment, only aspirations. We are going to deliver the NDIS. Those opposite have no aspiration. They should hang their heads in shame because they have no credibility with working families. (Time expired)

Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff) (16:36): I am always pleased to rise after I have been forced to listen to diatribe from members opposite about how the Labor Party has some kind of moral monopoly on the working class people of Australia. For some unknown reason—I should say for some reason only known to members of the Labor Party—it seems to be only people of the Labor Party in this chamber who are concerned with the lifestyles and the cost of living for Australia's working families.

Here is a little secret for the Australian Labor Party: it is not about the rhetoric; it is not about the glossy language; it is not about the glossy brochures; it is not about whether or not Kevin Rudd's photo is big this week and Julia's photo is small or whether in fact it is Julia's photo that is big this week and Kevin's photo is small. What actually matters to those people out there who employ us to make a difference in their lives is what you deliver. It is results that count. It is the difference that you make in their lives that matters to them. What they know about the Australian Labor Party is that it is a complete and utter fraud. It is a fraud on any measure that you are prepared to use. On any measure that you are prepared to benchmark government performance on, the Australian Labor Party is a fraud because its rhetoric does not match the results. What we know is that the Australian Labor Party likes to talk about working families. Who could forget the election of the Rudd Labor government back in 2007? Granted, there are many who would like to on that side, but that notwithstanding who could forget it when we saw Kevin Rudd looking earnestly down the barrel of the TV cameras across the land saying, 'I am here for Australia's working families.' They believed him in large measure and that is why he was elected. What we know, though, is that promises that he would be 'just like John Howard but with a softer heart' and promises that he was an economic conservative meant nothing and they were followed through with nothing.

When you look at Labor's performance in office, it has been abysmal. They have taken Australia from a $70 billion surplus position—from budget surpluses in virtually every single year of the Howard government—to now being $132 billion in debt. Labor members like to say, 'You are misguiding the Australian people because you do not take into account that we have had the GFC; you do not take into account that we have been so adversely affected.' The reality is that simply does not accord with the truth, because the Asian region has been through much greater economic tumult than the GFC. It was called the Asian financial crisis and affected our area of the world much more than the GFC ever did. Dr Emerson, an economist who is sitting at the table, has suddenly gone silent because he knows the truth, and he knows that Peter Costello's economic stewardship of the Australian economy ensured that, despite those economic headwinds, despite severe economic turbulence, the coalition was able to make strong effective decisions that led Australia to the lowest unemployment rate in 33 years, delivered a $70 billion surplus and ensured that we had productivity growth that left Labor's record for shame.

What is more, we have heard Labor Party promises from mountain to seaside all over the country about how the Labor Party is concerned about Australian workers. Think back to 2007 and how Labor was going to make a difference to Australian families. There is one truly important measure on that, and that is what is happening to grocery prices, what is happening with people's budgets and the food they can put on their tables. We recall that at that time the Labor Party promised us this you-beaut initiative, this new policy pronouncement, called GroceryWatch. We all know that Labor walked away from GroceryWatch. It is very unfortunate that the minister responsible is the person sitting at the table there. I did a little Google search on the words 'GroceryWatch' and it was interesting to see that the first result that came up under 'GroceryWatch' was grocerywatch.com.au. It said: 'Hello world! Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post.' This was a $13 million initiative that the Australian Labor Party tipped down the drain and all you have got is a WordPress site that says, 'This is your first post.' The fourth result was much more interesting. The fourth result was an article that ran in the Age by Kelly Burke on 27 June 2009. This was quite telling. It said:

…the Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, Craig Emerson, made the decision to scrap the grocery price monitoring website, just six days before its scheduled launch.

The article said:

The Federal Government's $13 million election promise to force grocery prices down lies in tatters.

I thought how apt because it is not just GroceryWatch you could apply that sentence to; there are so many from this Labor Party. You could say the federal government's election promise to introduce FuelWatch lies in tatters, the federal government's election promise to install pink batts lies in tatters, the federal government's decision to remove pink batts lies in tatters, the federal government's election promise to build school halls lies in tatters, the federal government's promise to deliver a surplus lies in tatters, the federal government's election promise to keep interest rates down lies in tatters, the federal government's election promise to introduce mandatory precommitment lies in tatters; and the most important of all election promises, the federal government's election promise not to introduce a carbon tax, lies in tatters. On every single measure, this is a government that has betrayed the working people of Australia.

Unemployment is up under this government. Debt is up under this government. Let us look at some facts on the Holy Grail that the Labor Party likes to focus on—that is, interest rates. Although the Labor Party is very fond of claiming that interest rates are lower under it, we know in reality that interest rates are actually lower under the coalition. We also know that inflation is lower under the coalition. The reason these things happen is that the coalition controls spending. We do not go on $136 billion spending sprees. We actually make meaningful and considered decisions that deliver solid stewardship when it comes to the Australian economy and deliver results in productivity, inflation and interest rates.

Mr Stephen Jones: The worst productivity in years.

Mr CIOBO: I hear members opposite talking about productivity now, saying we had the worst productivity. That is fascinating. Under the coalition government from 1996 to 2007, there was 1.2 per cent productivity growth and in the same corresponding period for Labor in government it was minus 0.9 per cent. Under the coalition government from 1996 to 2007, average annual labour productivity growth was 2.2 per cent and 0.9 per cent for the corresponding period that Labor was in office. So, once again, we see the facts simply unmask the truth about how this government is completely inept when it comes to economic stewardship.

However, my concern is that real Australian families out there who are trying to put food on the table, trying to service their mortgage and trying to meet all the expenses associated with raising kids in Australia today have been left worse off as a result of this government's policies. We know that inflation is increasing at what seems to many families to be an exponential rate. Electricity prices are up 51 per cent from 2007; gas prices are up 30 per cent; water and sewerage rates are up 46 per cent; health costs are up 20 per cent; education costs are up 24 per cent; and rents on average are up 20 per cent. And it is going to get worse. When Labor introduces the world's biggest carbon tax, midway through this year, we will see that. Expectations are that electricity prices will go up by a further 10 per cent in the first year alone and that there will be a nine per cent increase in gas bills. On Labor's own figures, families will have to fork out an extra $515 a year under the carbon tax—and that is before any of the hidden costs start to wash through the economy.

We also know that Labor is attacking other areas in the cost of living for the Australian population. Labor promised not to do anything to private health insurance. Now it is attacking that large proportion of the population that relies on the 30 per cent rebate to ensure that private medical cover is affordable for them and for their family. We have seen the price of child care escalate, up by an estimated $80 a week, as a direct consequence of Labor's policy decisions. On every measure, this is a government that is big on one thing and one thing only: it is big on talk. But when it comes to real action, real results and providing hope, reward and opportunity for Australia's working families, this government delivers nothing. It delivers higher unemployment. It delivers lower real wages. It delivers higher inflation and higher interest rates. It is Australian working families which have suffered as a direct consequence of this Labor Party being in government. (Time expired)

Mrs D'ATH (Petrie) (16:46): There seems to be a lot of reminiscing and talking about the good old days from the opposition today—and, by the sound of it, how keen they are to get back to those 'good old days' of the Howard government. We have heard a lot of bragging about the surplus of the Howard government, bragging about being friends of the working people and bragging about their fiscal policies. I would like to finish off what the member for Moncrieff started. Let us look at some comparisons between the Howard government and the current Labor government.

Let us look at the unemployment rate, which was 6.4 per cent under the Howard government. Let us look at the participation rate, which was 63.5 per cent under the Howard government. Under the Labor government unemployment is 5.2 per cent and participation is 65.5 per cent. Let us look at taxes as a percentage of GDP. Under this government it is 22.3 per cent. Under the Howard government it was 24.1 per cent. That is what they are proud of—being the highest taxing government in Australian history. Let us look at this Labor government's real government spending. In the next five years it will be one per cent per annum, the lowest since the 1980s. During the Howard government's last five years it was 3.7 per cent per annum. Underlying inflation under this government is 2.3 per cent, whereas at the end of the Howard government's term it was 3.5 per cent. So, if we are going to talk statistics and facts, let us talk real facts. Let us stop the fear campaign that we know the opposition is so proud of and let us start talking about real facts. Let us start talking about the surplus of the Howard government and how they achieved that surplus by flogging off government assets. Selling Telstra—that is what it really was. That is what we need to talk about.

But let us not talk just about the past; let us talk about now. Let us talk about what the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer would do to get back into surplus if they were in government. We heard it again last night from the shadow Treasurer: they would sack 12,000 public servants. That is where they would start. The MPI that the opposition put forward today is about helping Australian families and the day-to-day concerns of Australian families. Their solution to dealing with the day-to-day concerns of Australian families is: let us cut 12,000 jobs straightaway. That will fix the problem. If we look at the shadow Treasurer's idea of where those 12,000 jobs might come from, where did he target on Q&A last night? He said, 'Let's take 12,000 jobs out of health.' That will fix the system! That will look after Australian families!

We heard from the member for Moncrieff that Australia families want results. He said it is results that count; it is delivery. Let us look at some of the results that Australian families got under the Howard government. Let us look at what they did to Australian families. By putting in Work Choices, they did not just rip away penalties and take away job security; they attacked the most disadvantaged in the working community, the casual workers, who are predominantly non-English-speaking workers and women. That is how they looked after Australian families. In question time today we heard how the Leader of the Opposition looked after Australian families when he was the Minister for Health and Ageing: he took money out of health. But he did not just strip money out of health; he did away with the Commonwealth dental scheme. That is helping Australian families! Of course, let us not forget the absolute lack of investment in education and skills or in trades. Look at the burden that this country was left with at the end of the Howard era in relation to the skills shortage in this country, due to the lack of investment in infrastructure and job opportunities.

I am happy to talk about the Howard years. I am happy to talk about the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition as a whole and what their future plans are. They oppose the NBN. They oppose supporting jobs through the financial crisis. They oppose any investment in schools, whether it be halls, libraries, computers or trade training centres. In anything to do with schools, they oppose any sort of reform. They oppose the minerals resource rent tax. Of course they do not want to give companies, predominantly small business, company tax cuts. They certainly do not want to increase superannuation to look after workers in their retirement.

But they do want to do one thing. What they do want to do is take money back from families and business and give it to those hardworking mining owners. Let us look after Gina Rinehart and Clive Palmer because they are really struggling! They are the Australian families that the opposition really want to look after. Gina's family will be looked after. Clive Palmer's family will be looked after. But when we talk about the real day-to-day concerns of Australian families you certainly will not see those on the other side putting their hands in their pockets and saying, 'We need to support these people with jobs, with future opportunities, with health, with education.' It is this government that delivered on tax cuts. It is this government that will increase the tax-free threshold and provide further tax cuts for those earning up to $80,000. It is this Labor government that introduced the historic Paid Parental Leave scheme and it is this government that increased the childcare rebate. It is this government that filled the gap left by the Howard government in relation to family tax benefits and assistance for teenagers. It is this government that is investing in university places and trade training to give our kids opportunities and career paths after school. It is this government that is helping through the education tax refund.

In my electorate alone there are over 10,000 families benefiting from the childcare benefits—over $25,000 in the 2009-2010 year. It is my electorate that is benefiting through the Moreton Bay Integrated Care Centre—our superclinic where for the first time we will be training GPs, as well as bringing dental training to the area and bringing specialists to the area. It is this Labor government making sure that the youth in the electorate of Petrie are being looked after with new youth facilities at North Lakes.

It is this government who has finally stood up and invested in public urban rail across this country. It is only a Labor government that would do that. How much did the Howard government invest in urban rail? It is easy: zero. Absolutely nothing. Not one cent. It is this government that is delivering, in coordination with the Moreton Bay Regional Council and the Queensland state government, with Anna Bligh and her team, the building of the Redcliffe rail link. Those on the other side would never have done it and never did do it; it is this government that is delivering.

It is this government that is not just providing the 35 schools in my electorate of Petrie, and schools all across the country, with important infrastructure but also introducing a national curriculum. The Howard government could not do it in 11 years. This government has done it. For the first time ever in Australia's history, whether you are learning at Mango Hill State School in the electorate of Petrie or at a school in Moreton, whether you are going to school in Tasmania, in Western Australia or in South Australia, you will be following the same curriculum. That is about giving opportunities, lifting skills in education and increasing productivity for the future of this country.

Liberal is about tearing down hopes and dreams; Labor is about building hopes and opportunities and is dedicated to long-term reform. We have seen what happens with Liberal governments in the states. Look at what is happening already in Victoria, in New South Wales and in Western Australia—attacking the most disadvantaged, attacking education, attacking health, attacking essential services and attacking police and nurses. We will see it in Queensland under Campbell Newman and his team if they get in: they will attack the most disadvantaged in Queensland.

It is this Labor government that understands the day-to-day concerns of Australian families, and it is this Labor government that is facing up to the challenges for those Australian families now and into the future. It is this Labor government that makes the tough decisions to create a stronger economy and a fairer society for Australian families. The Liberal Party is about fear and negativity. It always will be. Whether it is Tony Abbott or any other Leader of the Opposition, we will continue to see negativity and we will continue to see fear. It can continue with that campaign because that is what it is about. Labor is about hope and opportunity. It is about caring for Australian families. It has done it since it got into government in 2007, it has done it throughout history and the Labor government will continue to look after Australian families into the future.

Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (16:55): I rise to enter this debate on the matter of public importance and talk about some of the families that those on the other side do not have the guts to talk about. They do not have the guts to talk about these families because they are doing them in the eye. They cannot look them in the eye because they are doing them in the eye. I will start with the families of the auto workers in this country. These are the 46,000 families around the country who rely on the automotive industry to sustain a living and to bring a wage home to look after their families and their kids. There are 46,000 workers—200,000 workers when you look at the downstream supply chain involved in the automotive industry—and those on the other side want to shut this industry down. They use weasel words, but we know what their real agenda is and the member for Mayo has belled the cat: they see this as useless government assistance to an industry that adds no value. We stand for these families in the auto industry because we believe in the value that they bring to the Australian economy.

There is another group of families that those on the other side will not talk to. That is the group of families who work in the steel industry. Those on the other side want to rip out $300 million from the Steel Transformation Plan because they do not believe in the steel industry in this country—$300 million that is going to keep open the doors of the two companies that are our two principal steel producers in this country. Those on the other side voted against the Steel Transformation Plan. Is it any wonder that those on the other side will not talk about the families of the steel workers in this country. But it does not stop there. There are the 12,000 public servants whose jobs they want to cut and send to the unemployment scrapheap. They will not talk about those families and the families of those workers—12,000 Australians who they want to make unemployed to fill the $70 billion black hole in their budget.

I will tell you about another group of families—and this is an eternal shame—that they will not talk about. That is the families of disabled kids. To their eternal shame, their Liberal brothers and sisters in the New South Wales parliament cared so little about the families of disabled kids that they left the kids stranded at the bus stop. They did not even organise a bus to take these poor kids to school on the hottest day in New South Wales this summer. Is it no wonder that those on the other side will not talk about the families of disabled kids. They do not even have the ability to say, 'The National Disability Insurance Scheme is something that we believe in and we are going to put into place.' Those on this side of the House stand for the families of disabled kids—families struggling to give those kids some semblance of normality in their lives.

And what about the families who have opened their doors to poor disadvantaged kids to provide a foster service for them? They will not talk about those families either, because their brothers and sisters in New South Wales are doing exactly the same thing. It is the most heartless policy of slashing the payments made to those families in order to divert that money to some other Liberal boondoggle in the state of New South Wales. We on this side of the House in this parliament stand for those families. You will not hear it from those on the other side of the House, because there are so many families they cannot look in the eye because they are so busy doing them in the eye. While they are doing those families in the eye, we are busy creating decent jobs with decent wages, we are busy keeping interest rates low and unemployment low and we are busy ensuring that we are building the economy for the future so that these families have jobs for themselves and jobs for their kids. That is the stark contrast between those on this side of the House and those on that side of the House.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! The discussion is concluded.

Mr RUDD (Griffith—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (17:01): by leave—This, the first sitting day of the parliament for this year, provides me with an opportunity to inform the House of recent developments in our neighbour Papua New Guinea. Australians were shocked to learn of the terrible loss of life that occurred on 2 February with the sinking of the Rabaul Queen. I offer to the government and to the people of Papua New Guinea our deepest sympathy as they deal with the trauma of this great national tragedy.

As might be expected of a close neighbour and friend, Australia has been heavily involved in support for the PNG-led response to this disaster. Australians can justifiably be proud of our rapid and effective response. Within minutes of the incident, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, AMSA, passed on the distress signal to transiting ships, which responded quickly, and played a key role in coordinating search assets. Within a few hours, two AMSA rescue aircraft were deployed, one from Cairns and the other from Darwin. The aircraft from Cairns was able to drop life rafts into the sea to assist survivors while they waited to be rescued by merchant vessels. They were joined in the search on the first day by a Royal Australian Air Force P3 Orion aircraft. An Australian Border Command Dash 8 also contributed to the search and rescue operation.

AMSA also engaged three helicopters and two civilian aircraft in the search, including a Queensland Careflight jet. These aircraft continued to search for several days after the sinking. AMSA also deployed several Australian rescue and recovery personnel to Lae to assist. The Australian High Commission in Port Moresby deployed a naval officer to the PNG Maritime Safety Authority. Another Defence member of the High Commission staff, based in Lae, coordinated with local agencies there and arranged refuelling of the search and rescue aircraft.

Not long after the first reports of this tragedy, I made clear to my counterpart, PNG Foreign Minister Ano Pala, that Australia will make all assistance available to PNG to deal with this disaster. I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her statement of support for this position on the same day. We are proud of the joint PNG-Australia effort in rescuing 246 survivors. But none of this can take away the awful fact that many did not survive.

The ferry tragedy came in addition to a large landslide in the Southern Highlands of Papua New Guinea on Tuesday, 24 January. Australia immediately offered assistance to the PNG government following the landslide and has been in constant contact with authorities since the incident occurred. It appears from reports from the local community that at least 23 people are missing, presumed dead, from this incident. We mourn their passing, as we do those who have died tragic deaths in the ferry disaster, and we renew today our condolences to all their families.

Political Situation

PNG has been, and always will be, a key priority for Australian foreign policy. It has been a key focus of the Prime Minister, of mine, of the Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs and of the wider Australian government. Our engagement with PNG and its key government figures has been deep and close. I visited PNG from 30 September to 1 October 2011, the third visit that I have made to PNG over the last several years. I co-chaired with PNG Foreign Minister Pala the Australia-PNG Ministerial Forum on 12 October 2011 involving 19 ministers and parliamentary secretaries, including Parliamentary Secretary Marles, who visited PNG from 18 to 21 October on his fifth visit to that country. Of the many phone contacts I have had in recent months, I last spoke to my PNG counterpart, Minister Pala, on 2 February concerning the ferry disaster.

The Prime Minister also spoke to her counterpart, Prime Minister O'Neill, on 5 February. Prime Minister O'Neill was welcomed to Australia for official visits in October and again, of course, for CHOGM. He had a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Gillard at the Pacific Island Forum meeting on 8 September.

PNG is a proud nation with strong economic prospects underpinned by their rich endowments in natural resources. Nonetheless, it is a country that has recently faced constitutional, political and legal challenges. Papua New Guinea is a sovereign country. In its almost 37 years of independence, it has established a record of vigorous democracy. It is for Papua New Guineans to resolve, therefore, their political differences. The ultimate resolution of political differences in a democracy is through the constitutional and electoral processes of that country. Australia respects PNG's sovereignty.

As our closest neighbour, however, and with the historical and contemporary close links between our countries and our peoples, Australia has an abiding and strong interest in PNG's political stability and its economic development. Since the decision of the Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea on 12 December, the political situation in Papua New Guinea has been highly contested. Legal action is being taken by both sides of politics in support of their claims.

During the first crisis in December, both the Prime Minister and I conveyed messages through diplomatic channels to the parties concerned on the fundamental importance of resolving constitutional, parliamentary and other political difficulties peacefully. At the same time, and again consistent with the advice of our high commissioner and as approved here in Canberra, both Australian Federal Police and Australian military personnel were actively engaged with their PNG counterparts in urging and in maintaining calm. The Papua New Guinea Defence Force remained in barracks. And, after some initial tensions, the internal divisions within the PNG police force were also resolved peacefully. Together with political communications through our high commissioner, these combined efforts contributed to the effective settlement of the situation in December.

The same approach was applied in the broad to the January crisis, which involved the temporary detention of the Commander of the PNG Defence Force. Once again, both the Prime Minister and I were in close contact with High Commissioner Kemish on the best response to the crisis. Both the high commissioner and the ADF once again engaged with PNG counterparts. Their efforts contributed to the progressive diffusion of the situation during the course of 26 and 27 January.

The engagement of our key officials in PNG was done in a calm, measured and respectful way, taking advantage of Australia's deep engagement with PNG across all arms of government. It was a dialogue of equals: Australian police spoke to Papua New Guinea police and soldiers spoke to soldiers. I would like to play particular tribute to our high commissioner in Port Moresby, High Commissioner Kemish, and the staff in the high commission for their effective work throughout this period. The calm and effective way they went about their business was a case study in quiet diplomacy.

I spoke to High Commissioner Kemish earlier today to get an update on developments in PNG over recent days. I reiterated to him the strong confidence that both the Prime Minister and I have in the high commission during what has been a sensitive and challenging time. I would emphasise that, throughout these incidents, both the Prime Minister and I have sought continued guidance on the most effective form of engagement with these incidents. The high commissioner's consistent advice, mindful of Australia's historical relationship with PNG as a former colonial power and mindful therefore of PNG's political sovereignty, has been for Australia to adopt a low-key public approach while working intensively behind the scenes.

At this time, the high commissioner has cautioned against high-profile political visits to the country or high-profile political communications with PNG political leaders—for fear that such actions would fuel rather than ease the situation. It is impossible to rule out further political turbulence in the lead-up to PNG's general elections, due in the middle of this year. Our diplomatic, AusAID, defence and police personnel and other government officials in Port Moresby remain vigilant. And, in the spirit of constructive dialogue with their PNG counterparts, they are doing whatever is necessary to support continued stability in what all analysts agree is a difficult, complex and evolving political environment.

The messages that we are sending to our friends in Papua New Guinea as they deal with the challenging issues that they face are as follows: we respect your sovereignty; as your friend and partner, we take a close interest in developments and are there to help in whatever way we can; and it is important that the issues are resolved with restraint and in a way that gives assurance to the international community about the stability of your country.

I want to be clear that the government has for some time now been working closely with PNG to support election preparations. The forthcoming elections are very important. We are providing election assistance and are ready to do more. We have provided support to the PNG Electoral Commission—including in logistics, operations support, voter awareness and twinning between the PNG Electoral Commission and the Australian Electoral Commission—and we are responding positively to a PNG government request for additional operational and logistical support. Australian police are supporting the role of PNG police in election security with communications, training and additional recruitment. Defence is funding the commercial lease of two helicopters for the PNGDF to support the elections process as well.

As PNG works through its current political challenges, we continue to pursue our deep and broad bilateral relationship with the country. Our development program in PNG is our second largest globally—some $482 million in 2011-12—focusing on PNG's greatest development challenges in education, health, transport infrastructure, and law and justice.

Two-way trade between our countries is now some $7 billion. Australia is providing technical assistance to support the establishment of a PNG sovereign wealth fund for its $15 billion liquefied gas project. Our police and defence forces have longstanding and productive partnerships. We have deep people-to-people links. This year marks the 70th anniversary of the Kokoda campaign and the Battle of Milne Bay. Australia will continue to stand by our friends in Papua New Guinea in managing the many challenges that lie ahead.

By leave—I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Ms J. I. Bishop (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) speaking in reply to the ministerial statement for a period not exceeding 10 minutes.

Question agreed to.

Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:12): Papua New Guinea is our closest neighbour and one of our dearest friends. Our deep friendship stretches back particularly to the dark days of World War II, when the people of both of our countries came together in pursuit of a shared and noble end. The bonds that were forged have carried our two countries forward, bridging any and all differences that may have stood momentarily in our way. The coalition is deeply committed to building on the close ties that exist between Australia and Papua New Guinea as two nations with a shared interest in upholding peace and prosperity in the Pacific.

It is the enduring friendship that exists between our two countries that has made the past few months in Papua New Guinea so difficult and, in the case of recent tragedies, that much more distressing to watch. The coalition was deeply saddened to hear the news of the latest tragedy to strike the people of Papua New Guinea. The sinking of the MV Rabaul Queen in waters off Lae shocked not only a nation but all those who have spent time in Papua New Guinea and enjoyed the warm hospitality of its people. As of yesterday, 246 people had been rescued. Sadly, five people on board the ferry did not share their good fortune. Little hope is left for those still unaccounted for. The coalition offers its heartfelt sympathies to those who lost loved ones in the incident.

The people of Papua New Guinea can be assured that the thoughts and prayers of all Australians are with them at this difficult time. We wholeheartedly support the Australian government in its efforts to assist the government and people of PNG in the days and weeks that follow. I particularly pay tribute to the work of our High Commissioner to Papua New Guinea and his staff, who have coordinated our efforts. That this tragedy followed so soon after a disaster in the Southern Highlands, where a landslide destroyed a small village community as it slept, makes it even more distressing.

These incidents have come at a time of heightened political instability in the country. The decision of the Papua New Guinea Supreme Court on 12 December last year, that the removal of Sir Michael Somare from office in August was unlawful, continues to cause confusion and instability in a country that is in desperate need of stability. So complicated had the situation become that at one point the country had two governors-general, two prime ministers and two police chiefs. At that time Papua New Guinea's defence force was to be commended for remaining outside of the political street fight that was taking place all around it. However, this situation took a confronting turn on 26 January 2012 when 20 soldiers, led by Colonel Sasa, entered Murray Barracks in Port Moresby, taking the head of the military hostage in a desperate attempt to reinstate Sir Michael Somare as Prime Minister. Claiming that he had been duly appointed as commander by Sir Michael, Colonel Sasa ordered the Prime Minister, Peter O'Neill, to step down from office or he would 'take all necessary actions to protect and uphold the integrity of the constitution'.

While this stand-off has largely been resolved, the broader issue of PNG's government remains hotly contested, with little prospect at the moment for compromise. The political situation must be resolved within their parliament, within their courts if necessary and ultimately at the ballot box. As Papua New Guinea's national election approaches, it is essential that political stability is restored as soon as possible so that free and fair elections can take place reflecting the will of the people of Papua New Guinea.

In all the confusion that has taken place, one policy before the Papua New Guinea parliament worthy of greater attention is a bill that will set aside 22 seats for female representatives. I congratulate the supporters of the bill, who have worked so tirelessly to get it before the parliament. I had the honour of meeting Dame Carol Kidu, the inspiration and driving force behind the bill, when I was in Port Moresby last year. Dame Carol is the Queensland-born wife of the late PNG Chief Justice, Sir Buri Kidu. As the only female representative in the PNG parliament, she faces challenges that women members of parliament in Australia can barely comprehend. Australia looks to the Papua New Guinea parliament in the hope that it can unite around this common good and deliver the change that is needed for this worthwhile bill to take effect. The women of Papua New Guinea have an enormous contribution to make to the peace, order and good government of PNG, and I look forward to their enhanced participation in PNG political life.

All this comes at a unique stage in Papua New Guinea's national history. The development of its oil and gas industry looks set to transform its economy, with the PNG LNG project alone expected to double the country's gross domestic product and triple its exports. According to an economic impact study by ACIL Tasman:

The project has the potential to transform the economy of Papua New Guinea, boosting GDP and export earnings, providing a major increase in government revenue, royalty payments to landowners, creating employment opportunities during construction and operation, and providing a catalyst to further gas-based industry development.

The project will hopefully help transform PNG and, as a consequence, I hope that the Australia and PNG relationship can move from that of donor-recipient to robust economic partners. It is an ambition that is shared by the government and the people of PNG.

The challenges that come with a booming resource sector are well known. In a country like Papua New Guinea, where the governance institutions are still developing, it can present significant problems as well as benefits. With revenues flooding in through foreign investment, there is also the concern that political will for further reform in other areas may falter. As Aaron Batten has written for the East Asia Forum, 'Those provinces which have recorded the largest earnings from resource extraction have been plagued by the weakest governance, the poorest levels of service delivery and in many cases violence.' It is therefore more important than ever that Australia broaden, deepen and diversify its relationship with PNG. For this to occur, however, greater leadership on Australia's part is needed.

Over the coming months and years ahead Australia will be judged for what it does, not what it says. I am of the view that PNG must be one of our highest foreign policy priorities, and I can state unequivocally that a coalition government will ensure that our relationship with Papua New Guinea is one of our country's highest foreign policy priorities. The coalition believes that Australia must stand alongside the PNG government and its people consistently and unequivocally in their efforts to fulfil the country's immense potential and lay claim to its rightful status as a natural leader in the Pacific Ocean region.

The coalition has been critical of the Australian government for neglecting our near neighbours as it pursues its grand adventure for votes for a temporary seat on the United Nations Security Council. I have repeatedly called on the foreign minister to focus his efforts on our neighbourhood. While there are many pressing issues in the world, as we are seeing on a daily basis in the Middle East, it is within our immediate region that Australia has the greatest influence and can do the most good. As former Foreign Minister Alexander Downer wrote recently, the recent political events in PNG should serve as a wake-up call to Australia. Australia must work to develop a level of intimacy and goodwill in our bilateral relationship that can serve us during times such as these. As the current political crisis has shown us, it is essential that Australia's political leaders, particularly Australia's foreign minister, maintain the closest working relations with our colleagues in Port Moresby. This can only be achieved through close and consistent contact at the highest level.

Mr RUDD (Griffith—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (17:20): by leave—On behalf of the Australian government, I condemn the appalling and escalating violence in Syria. In the last few days alone the world has witnessed the barbaric massacre of civilians in Homs, with over 200 people killed within 24 hours. This violence has shocked the world.

For over a year now, we have seen violence and human rights abuses taking place across Syria. Well over 5,000 people have died—so many more in fact that the United Nations has had to stop counting as numbers are now hard to verify. The UN Human Rights Council has pointed to substantial evidence of gross human rights abuses by Syrian security forces. The regime is targeting innocent civilians, including by directing heavy weaponry, tanks and snipers against civilians and in major population centres such as Homs, Idlib, Hama and Deraa. These abuses are getting worse, as Syrian people are being subjected to unjust detention, sexual violence and torture. This is intolerable and is unacceptable to the international community.

The Australian government is profoundly disappointed at the veto of the United Nations Security Council's proposed resolution on Syria last weekend. What we saw in New York was a failure of key members of the international community to live up to their responsibilities to help, support and protect the Syrian people. This failure was an abdication of responsibility. There was no good reason to explain why this resolution was not passed. It was backed by 13 members of the council. It did not call for military action; it did not call for regime change; it did not call for an arms embargo; it did not even impose sanctions. It was a watered down draft which had been discussed and debated and wrangled over and repeatedly weakened to attract the maximum support in the council. What the resolution did do—crucially—was to call for support for the Arab League's own initiative to bring about a peaceful, Syrian-led political resolution to this crisis. Despite all the compromises on the text, China and Russia still rejected this regional peace initiative. The Arab solution was not supported.

China and Russia now must explain to the people of Syria and to the international community their alternative plans for ending the violence in that country. Under the emerging doctrine of international humanitarian law, the international community has a responsibility to act to protect the people of Syria from this appalling violence from their own regime. Just as the people of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and many other regional countries have now found new freedoms from more representative, democratic political life, so the Syrian people deserve the same opportunity. Freedom is a universal human aspiration. Under both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the subsequent International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, all members of the human family have basic human rights that must be protected: freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; freedom of expression; the right to self-determination; and the inherent right to life.

President Assad has lost all legitimacy and has shown a complete disregard for the rights and welfare of the Syrian people. Assad should step down and he should step down now. The violence by the Assad regime must end and it must end now. The Australian government has condemned the intolerable, intensifying human rights abuses in Syria from the beginning. For over half a year now we have urged the international community to act. We ourselves have taken our own steps:

We have imposed sanctions against the regime targeting 34 individuals and 13 entities.

We have imposed an arms embargo against the supply, sale or transfer to Syria of arms and related materiel.

We have called for the appointment of a UN Special Envoy on Syria.

Back in June last year, we were among the first states to provide dedicated funding to the International Committee of the Red Cross (at its specific request) to support the Syrian Red Crescent in providing support to people affected by the conflict.

We have co-sponsored resolutions on Syria in the UN Human Rights Council on four occasions.

We have called for the situation in Syria to be referred to the International Criminal Court.

I have met with the Syrian National Council in Paris—the principal opposition group to the Assad regime—only a week or so ago.

The key question we now face is: where to from here? What options does the international community have given the UN Security Council has failed to respond to this crisis? There are two key points to be made here. Firstly, the Assad regime is doomed. Assad is isolated and has nowhere to go. The demise of the regime is only a matter of time and, tragically, of how many people will die in the process. Secondly, the UN Security Council's failure does not mean an end to international efforts to help the Syrian people. The Arab League has stood by the Syrian people and has shown great commitment and global leadership on this crisis. The Arab League and the people of Syria should know that they are not alone. Australia is united with our Arab, European and American partners in our commitment to do what we can to help.

Australian support for the efforts of the Arab League is unwavering. I therefore welcome calls by both our United States and EU partners to work with Arab partners to establish an international support group of like-minded countries to work in concert to support peaceful transition in Syria and the earliest end to the bloodshed. This would be a key mechanism for coordinating international assistance to the people of Syria, backing the diplomatic efforts of the Arab League, maintaining pressure on the Assad regime and of course ensuring this crisis remains on the agenda of the UN Security Council, despite the council's repeated failings.

Just last night I spoke to the UK Foreign Secretary, William Hague, on plans to work with the Arab League to set up such a body. Australia's ambassador to Qatar spoke this morning to the Qatari government, currently the chair of the Arab League, to underline Australian commitment to this initiative and to discuss how to build further international momentum for its formation. Over coming days I plan to speak to more of my counterparts, particularly those in the Arab world, to flesh out plans for this group and again to underline Australia's support as a responsible member of the international community.

Australia's commitment to the people of Syria remains resolute. Despite the failure of the UNSC to take action, the Australian government is committed to its own autonomous measures to pressure the Assad regime. Today I announce that we are taking further measures to underline this commitment. In addition to the sanctions we have already imposed on Syria, Australia will impose further autonomous financial sanctions and travel bans on 75 Syrian individuals and 27 entities not already listed by Australia. These measures are designed to hold those who have engaged in human rights abuses, including the use of violence against civilians, accountable for their actions.

The Australian government will continue to work with our partners in the international community to see what further measures can be taken to underline to Assad that he and his regime have no future. Meanwhile, we continue to consider what steps we can take to directly assist those suffering in the conflict now. We in Australia, as always, will play our part.

Australia has provided $3 million to the International Committee of the Red Cross to help alleviate the humanitarian situation currently faced by the Syrian people. Today, I am pleased to announce that Australia will provide a further $3 million to assist the work of the ICRC in Syria. This will help the ICRC's work with the Syrian Arab Red Crescent to support those affected by the ongoing crisis by providing medical facilities and assistance. This funding provides nearly one-quarter of ICRC's current emergency appeal for $13.1 million.

The Australian government believes that the international community still has an important role to play in this crisis. Syria must remain on the agenda of the UN Security Council and we will continue to encourage this. Australia also looks forward to working with like-minded states on a possible resolution on Syria for consideration by the UN General Assembly. Such a resolution would be a critical demonstration of the international community's condemnation of the massacres that we have seen unfold in Syria in recent times.

The Australian government firmly believes that those committing acts of violence, human rights abuses and war crimes must be held accountable for their actions and that the Syrian people, like the other peoples of the Arab world, should enjoy the political freedoms which we in Australia take so readily for granted.

I seek leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Curtin to speak for 8½ minutes.

Leave granted.

Mr RUDD: I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Ms J. I. Bishop (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) speaking in reply to the ministerial statement for a period not exceeding 8½ minutes.

Question agreed to.

Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:29): The violence in Syria must stop. The ongoing slaughter of innocent, largely unarmed, people is a hideous affront to people the world over. President Assad can put a halt to this bloodshed now by ordering his security forces and the Syrian military to stop shooting civilians. President Assad can make this decision without a resolution of the United Nations Security Council. He can show a shred of humanity that has not been seen to date and he must immediately put an end to this indiscriminate violence. There can be no justification for the ongoing crackdown against peaceful demonstrators. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs has said, the Assad regime lost all legitimacy to govern Syria when it turned guns on its own people. President Assad should step aside and allow for the formation of an elected civilian government.

Events in Syria are enormously important, as the conflict is a microcosm of religious and cultural rivalries and tensions that exist across the Middle East and beyond. The regime is dominated by those who follow Alawi Islam, which is related to Shiite Islam. Alawites make up about 12 per cent of Syria's almost 21 million citizens. About 75 per cent are followers of the Sunni Islam faith. The remainder of the population are Christians, Druze and a smattering of other religions. While the minority Alawites believe they were oppressed by the Sunni majority for many years, that cannot be used to justify the behaviour of the current regime.

It is an oversimplification of the situation in Syria to characterise this as a conflict driven solely by sectarian divides; however, this is a critical factor in the situation within Syria and in the actions of other nations. The Sunni dominated government of Turkey has come out strongly in support of the Syrian opposition while the Shiah dominated government of Iran has continued to provide support to the Assad regime. Similarly, there has been strong condemnation of the Syrian regime from many of the Gulf Sunni monarchies, which regard Iran as a strategic rival.

The Arab League has been criticised in the past for not taking a strong stand against atrocities within its sphere of influence. While not free from controversy, the Arab League has been more active with regard to Syria. An observer mission was launched late last year and continued until late last month when Gulf Arab observers were withdrawn in protest at the ongoing violence. Other observers remain in Syria. The Arab League turned to the United Nations for support and drafted a motion for Security Council consideration. That the Arab League nations took this step is to be encouraged and commended. That motion, however, was vetoed by Russia and China. The double veto of the UN Security Council resolution on Syria is particularly disturbing and concerning given that the resolution had the support of all other Security Council members, including temporary members.

The Arab League Secretary General said in a statement released last Sunday that the veto of the resolution 'does not negate that there is clear international support for the resolutions of the Arab League'. He said:

The Arab League will continue efforts with the Syrian government and opposition, and coordinating with all sides related to the Syrian issue, in order to realise the higher objectives which the Arab League is working towards.

Nevertheless, the double veto of Russia and China must give a level of comfort to the Assad regime, which will now feel less pressure to stop the murderous crackdown on Syrian protesters. The actions of Russia, in particular, are deeply concerning, as it continues to supply arms to Syria. What is also disturbing is that neither Russia nor China have put forward a plausible alternative plan, and so the bloodshed continues.

Individual nations can of course take action beyond that of the Security Council and can apply economic and other sanctions. The Australian government has imposed a range of sanctions, including a ban on arms sales, financial sanctions and travel sanctions. I acknowledge the foreign minister's announcement of further sanctions today. The coalition supports these actions and I urge the foreign minister to continue to monitor developments and to consider increasing or adapting sanctions as necessary. I also support the foreign minister's announcement of further assistance to the International Committee of the Red Cross working with the Red Crescent in Syria.

It is important that the international community presents a united face to the regime in condemnation of its actions. A successful United Nations Security Council resolution would have indicated the level of resolve within the international community to end the bloodshed and the violence. There have been calls for military intervention, but that should be a last resort and there are other avenues to be pursued at this stage. I certainly believe that more effort can be made. There is more work to be done with Russia and China and most certainly more to be done within the international community in relation to economic sanctions. United States President Obama has said in recent days that the situation in Syria can be resolved through non-military means and that remains the focus of the United States. The key is for international pressure to be unrelenting on the regime until the violence stops.

Of concern are the reported comments of a former senior military officer from the Syrian army. General Mustafa Ahmed al-Sheikh is reported to have claimed in recent days that the Syrian army and the regime are close to collapse. He said:

The situation is now very dangerous and threatens to explode across the whole region, like a nuclear reaction.

Similarly, the Arab League has warned in recent days that the regime's use of heavy weapons such as artillery was a serious escalation that could see the country slide into a protracted civil war. Other analysts, including Jackson Diehl from the Washington Post, have argued that the conflict will drag on for years if support for the current regime continues from Iran and Russia in particular. The great fear is that a civil war in Syria will destabilise the other countries in the region, including neighbouring Lebanon and Jordan, for example, as well as Iraq. The worst possible outcome would be for sectarian lines of conflict to open up in other nations of the Middle East. Tensions in the small kingdom of Bahrain have been simmering since the majority Shiah rallies were crushed by the security apparatus of the Sunni minority rulers. Large numbers of Shiah live in some of the most productive oil fields of Saudi Arabia, and international concern has been expressed about the potential for conflict in the region that could disrupt global oil supplies and deliver a severe blow to the global economy.

The stakes are very high, indeed. That is why Russia and China should act in support of the efforts of the international community to end the cycle of violence and to allow the Syrian people to peacefully express their desire for greater freedoms and a better way of life than can possibly be realised under the murderous fist of Assad and his cronies.

The SPEAKER (21:30): The agreement reached at the commencement of this parliament for parliamentary reform provided for the Leader of the Opposition or his or her delegate to ask one supplementary question each question time. This proposal was implemented using the flexibility available under standing order 101(b) for the Speaker to permit supplementary questions.

It is my desire to endeavour to make question time more spontaneous, whilst balancing the opportunities available to opposition, government and non-aligned members. With this in mind, from tomorrow I propose to allow up to five supplementary questions on the following basis:

(1) each supplementary question will be limited to 20 seconds notwithstanding the formal time limits;

(2) an answer to a supplementary question will be limited to 1½ minutes notwithstanding the formal time limits;

(3) one supplementary question can be asked by the Leader of the Opposition or his or her delegate specifically, and up to one additional supplementary question can be asked by any opposition member, including the Leader of the Opposition, each day;

(4) up to two supplementary questions can be asked by government private members each day;

(5) when a non-aligned member asks a question, a supplementary question will be permitted;

(6) a supplementary question must not introduce new matter, should not contain any preamble and must arise out of, and refer to, the answer that has been given to the original question;

(7) a supplementary question can be asked in relation to any original question from the same group—that is, opposition, government or non-aligned;

(8) more than one supplementary question can be asked to an original question; and

(9) after any supplementary questions have been asked the call will be given to the side—that is, government or non-government—that did not ask the previous original question.

This proposal will be introduced as a trial to be reviewed at the end of the autumn sittings 2012 with a view to being extended if deemed successful. Copies of this statement are available from the table.

Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (21:32): My purpose in speaking tonight is to recognise the winners and the high achievers in the Townsville Australia Day awards. I would like to quickly go through them and tell you who won what and then go back and speak to a couple.

Citizen of the Year was one of the most well deserved recipients in the history of the awards, Garth Harrigan. Community Event of the Year was the fantastic 60th Anniversary of National Service. The Cultural Award was awarded to Connie Hoedt, a ceramic artist. Young Citizen of the Year was Emily Michelle Moore. The Junior Sports Award was to Shelby Green, an 11-year-old BMX rider. The Senior Sports Award went to Penny Palfrey. Sports Administrator Award was to Bill Whitburn, who shared it with Chris Schell, narrowly nudging out Jayne Arlett, who is the managing partner in Townsville Podiatry, and who also saved Townsville Fire, an Australian Women's National Basketball League team, from extinction. That just shows you how good these sports administrators are. The Spirit of Townsville awards went to Warren Hegarty, Gwenda Richardson and Neighbour to Neighbour Townsville.

Australia Day honours in North Queensland also went to Dr Dorothy Gibson-Wilde, who received a Medal of the Order of Australia for services to heritage preservation in Queensland. Anyone who has crossed swords with Dorothy when it comes to the historical village in Townsville will know what they have come up against.

Dr Jon Stephenson, who died a year ago, was awarded a Member in the awards. During the Commonwealth Trans-Antarctic Expedition in 1958 he became the first Australian to reach the South Pole. Dr Donat Gallagher was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia for his services to the arts and education and to the community of Townsville. Finally, Norma Connolly was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia for services to the sport of basketball through administration and coaching roles on some 382 occasions. That is what you have to do in Townsville to get nominated for an award.

Citizen of the Year was Garth Harrigan, who serves as chairman of the Townsville and Thuringowa Transport Solutions, or NQ Community Transport. He has been a volunteer since retiring three times in the past 34 years. That we had a nominee in Professor Ajay Rane, who has done women's surgery on a volunteer basis in Tibet and Africa, speaks volumes for what Garth is all about. He is about the community and making it a richer place.

The 60th Anniversary of National Service was a truly great community event, driven locally by local people. Warren Hegarty, who won a Spirit of Townsville Award, is the chairman of the Townsville Nashos. My dad was in the second intake in 1952, when it was only three months. He is still very proud of being a Nasho. Most of the guys there were Vietnam veterans and guys who had served real time and had real experience. It was a great afternoon and a great week. They had a lot to do with it being a truly wonderful community event.

Young Citizen of the Year was Emily Michelle Moore. Not only did she attend the Rotary Youth Enrichment Program and also the International Youth Forum in Missouri, USA, but she also organised, led and contributed in many fundraising events, including those for the Cancer Council, the Leukaemia Foundation and the Abused Child Trust. She was also school captain of Kirwan State High School and a fag paper away from getting an OP1. She is a tremendous girl and she will be someone to watch in future years.

Shelby Green is 11 years old and captain of Australia's BMX squad that went to New Zealand. She was unbeaten in all her rides. She won in Australia but unfortunately lost in New Zealand, but she was captain from Townsville in the sport of BMX.

Penny Palfrey was awarded a Senior Sports Award. Penny holds the world record for the longest ever open water swim, between Little and Grand Cayman islands in June 2011. She also broke the record for swimming the Molokai channel, Hawaii. She has been nominated for the title of World Open Water Swimmer of the year for the fourth year in a row. She also swam between Magnetic Island and Townsville without a cage some 20 times.

Bill Whitburn has worked in Aussie Rules for many years. He is an ADF veteran and a tremendous bloke. Next is Chris Schell, who is involved in netball.

I would like to specifically mention Gwenda Richardson, a tremendous lady who was told by her doctor to get out and walk more. So she went out with her three-legged dog and started picking up rubbish. In a Forrest Gump style of thing she just never stopped. She kept on picking up rubbish and did a wonderful job for Townsville. (Time expired)

Mr MITCHELL (McEwen) (21:37): Three years ago the landscape of McEwen was changed forever, changed by the unstoppable force and fury of the worst bushfire this nation has ever witnessed. On this day, 7 February, in 2009, Black Saturday became a scar on the hearts and minds of the McEwen electorate. One hundred and seventy-three people paid the ultimate price on that day and numerous more have since. No-one was untouched in this disaster: friends, families and neighbours were affected directly and indirectly. As the night wore on and as daylight began to break the following morning, we stood and surveyed the enormity of what had happened: towns, communities, houses and property were gone, reduced to ashes in a landscape totally barren but for the smouldering remains of the fury just past. The following days melded into a blur for many people as the loss of their homes, possessions and precious memories started to sink in.

What followed this disaster was a story that can only belong to Australia, a story of mateship in its truest form. People who had witnessed what had happened, from all over the country, from all points of the land, stepped up and gave their all to help those who had lost everything. Politics were put aside as the nation rallied because our people, our mates, were hurting. Our country stood up to lend a hand. It is ingrained in my mind and the minds of those in my communities that, when our very existence was threatened by nature's fury, amidst the tragedy, loss and senselessness of the day, many heroes arose to stand tall. The tales of personal sacrifice and willingness to pitch in and give a hand will never cease to amaze me. One such story is of a lady in Wandong who came to see me; she had just learnt that she and her family had nothing left, but her husband still had his truck and she wanted to know how they could use that truck, their only possession, to help others. That is the true Aussie spirit of mateship and it makes me continually proud and honoured to represent the seat of McEwen.

Now let us fast-forward to today, three years on after this tragic event. The green has returned; homes and businesses continue to rebuild and to grow. I have witnessed in this new normal how the Black Saturday legacy has bonded our communities and our people together, paving the way for a united future in the area. It has been so encouraging to see thousands of tourists flocking back to Marysville, the Kinglake Ranges, Flowerdale, Strathewen, St Andrews and many other towns, ready to experience the many delights of our region. Small businesses, old and new, are opening, the flora and fauna are thriving and wherever you go people are optimistic and excited by the future prospects for their region.

Just recently I joined the Prime Minister in Flowerdale for a great occasion on which we honoured some of the heroes of Black Saturday with National Emergency Medals. To see over the past three years the regeneration and rebuilding of the area has been quite humbling. The process of healing is well underway and I would like to take this opportunity to again pass on my sincere thanks and gratitude to the volunteers who make our electorate so special. What we have endured has not been easy—in fact it has been a hard slog—but it is a testament to the people of McEwen that we are ready and prepared for the challenges of the future.

Today I received an email which said:

This year, the third since Black Saturday, feels like a turning point—as though we are gaining more forward momentum than before. My community is different—it has changed irrevocably since that day—but not all that change has been bad. This change was inevitable and could not be resisted. Time has allowed us to come to terms with it and to realise that, though it took a severe blow, hope did not die that day. Of course the recovery process has been different for everyone and there are those who still have some way to go. However, the community is showing signs of strength and renewal that will allow it to better support those who are still struggling.

So as I sit in my new house and look around at all the physical change that surrounds me, my emotions ebbing and flowing, I am reminded of all those who extended a helping hand when we most needed it.

Thank you again—your kindness and generosity is not forgotten.

kind regards

Kathy

In conclusion, I would like to say on this, the third anniversary of Black Saturday, that we remember the lives lost and honour their legacy, but now is the time for consolidation as the rebuilding of our communities goes on. We will be back bigger and better than ever before. As Murrindindi Shire Mayor John Walsh recently said:

... let's not define the Shire by the fires, rather, let's look on 2009 as a new beginning, rather than an end.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (21:42): Many people in my Melbourne bayside electorate of Goldstein rely for their jobs on the light and mid-tier manufacturing hub situated on the doorstep of my electorate in the Moorabbin and Braeside areas. This hub straddles parts of the electorates of the member for Isaacs and the member for Hotham, and in many ways I am speaking on their behalf with my comments tonight. It is the largest concentration of mid-tier manufacturing in Australia, with an output of over $5 billion from some 8,000 businesses, employing over 70,000 people. This is a centre of innovation and value-add: highly productive enterprises making a major contribution to both the local and national economy.

Its history lies over the last 30 or 40 years. Often these thousands of small and mid-tier businesses have moved on to the next generation of family members and leadership. Often they have moved well up the high-tech value-added chain to stay competitive, spending a considerable fortune in many cases on new technology, adding value to some simpler process that their parents or their predecessors started the business with.

These companies have been paying the price for the Gillard government's manic borrowing, which has pushed up interest rates and reduced the companies' access to finance for three years now. Yet, incredibly, Labor are still in the market borrowing $100 million a day. Every day they are out there competing against these 8,000 companies who are trying to access finance at a rate that allows them to keep their doors open. The average small business overdraft rate, for example, under this government is 10.23 per cent compared to an average of 8.89 per cent under Costello during his time in government. This represents the real borrowing costs to business, yet this government continues to show both its naivety and its lack of empathy by pointing to the base rate of 4.25 per cent. It is irrelevant to these small and mid-tier businesses.

In November 2007, the spread between the RBA cash rate and the average small business unsecured overdraft was 355 basis points. In January 2012 the spread was 600 basis points. Unfortunately, the Treasurer and finance minister have no understanding of, or empathy for, these facts. The record shows that a typical small business with an unsecured overdraft of some $200,000 was on average $223 a month better off under the coalition. Under this government, there is also an enormous extra pressure on local businesses in securing loans and rolling over their borrowing requirements. Many have had to close their doors because finance is not available because the government has been in the market for another $100 million every day of every week for the last three years. That is why we have a debt heading towards $136 billion—the biggest in our history. Compounding this situation for a number of local businesses, many of them in export markets, is the high Australian dollar. Again, Labor's loose fiscal policy has placed upward pressure on the exchange rate.

The government talks about fiscal consolidation, yet its spending in this year's budget alone is $100 million more than it spent in the 2007-08 budget. That is more than a 35 per cent increase in this year alone. What household could sustainably increase their spending by nearly 40 per cent over any three-year period? It is impossible without pushing up pressures on their budget and their ability to stay in good economic shape. On top of all this, this government is whacking on a carbon tax. It is madness. One company from my area with a $200 million business, who saw me yesterday and talked me through their situation, said that, after modelling the carbon tax, they are going to face a new annual tax of $1 million—one business and no compensation. Think of the impact that is going to have on jobs for decades to come in this local area of mine. (Time expired)

On indulgence, I table a petition by those who wish to save the Highett Grassy Woodland.

The petition read as follows—

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives

This petition of Australian Citizens draws to the attention of the House the existence of, and the need to preserve, an environmentally and historically significant area of land, known as the Highett Grassy Woodland.

The Highett Grassy Woodland is approximately a 3 hectare section within the 9.3 hectare Commonwealth and Scientific Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) site in Highett, Victoria. The entire CSIRO site is in the process of being sold through a Federal Government process.

The Highett Grassy Woodland area contains a class of vegetation that is endangered in the bioregion, with the main trees being the regionally rare Yellow Box and River Red Gums.

The Highett area has been assessed by the relevant Council, Bayside City Council, as deficient in open space. This deficiency will increase with the State of Victoria's plans to increase population throughout metropolitan Melbourne.

We therefore ask the House to take any administrative action available to the House, during the sale process of the CSIRO site, which will enable the protection and preservation in perpetuity of at least 3 hectares of the site for the conservation of the Grassy Woodland and for passive open space, which will be a profound benefit to the community, now and into the future.

from 1,960 citizens

Petition received.

Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (21:48): As the House adjourns and the member for Goldstein retires to contemplate how he will fill the $70 billion black hole in the opposition's proposed budget, I would like to make a few observations about governing in the interests of working people and the concept of a social compact between employer and employee and between government and business. I acknowledge at the outset that this compact is changing, particularly between employer and employee. No longer do employees have lifetime employment as the norm. Indeed, over one million Australians change their job each year and 1.4 million Australians are engaged in a way that 10 years ago we would have described as 'nontraditional'. More and more businesses buy and sell on an international stage and employees now contribute as much as their employers do in terms of money and time to their own vocational education and training. Indeed, working hours are increasing and the boundaries between work and home are dissolving.

Parallel with these changes is a demand from business that their relationship between themselves and their employees be governed more by trust than by regulation and the relationship between government and business be one that facilitates rather than regulates their business. These on their face are reasonable requests but requests which are all too often undermined by the action of their advocates. We can have little sympathy for employers who decry the role of an independent umpire, for example, in the resolution of industrial disputes but then lock out their workforce and cripple a country's aviation system in the midst of an industrial dispute. There are employers who demand more trust and commitment and time from their workforce but reward that trust and commitment by increased casualisation, precarious employment or the off-shoring of jobs.

Employees are quite rightly demanding a reciprocal obligation from their employers. With equal force, Australians grow tired of businesses who decry regulation while seeking assistance or concessions. I have spoken at great length in this place about the need for government to assist and facilitate business to make strategic interventions in the market where those interventions are aimed at delivering a greater social good than the roaming hand of the unfettered market would otherwise deliver.

I stand by what I have said. I believe that we need an auto industry in this country. I think it is critical to the future of our nation, its intelligence and how we produce and consume. I think to that end the Automotive Transformation Scheme is critical. I believe the coalition's policy will destroy the automotive industry in this country. I believe we have a need for a steel industry in this country—a clean, modern, high-tech steel industry, and I believe the steel industry transformation plan and the $300 million associated with that by this government will assist. I believe the coalition's refusal to back that plan is a clear threat to the future of the steel industry. I believe that it is incumbent on these businesses to show a reciprocal obligation to Australian taxpayers and their workers. The obligation should include an obligation to keep jobs onshore, to train the next generation of workers to invest in modern equipment, plant and processes and to ensure that their middle management force is up to the task of meeting the challenges of the future. These are not radical socialist ideals. Indeed, the President of the United States recently reflected a very similar sentiment in his address to congress, the address to the nation. I say to businesses quite clearly that your failure to meet your side in this compact, your side of the reciprocal obligation, will not go unchecked. There are many areas of government policy where government is facilitating the demands of businesses: for instance, in the area of 457 visas, industrial assistance, tax relief and industrial relations reform, which are providing real and everyday benefits to business. Indeed, these are a continuation of reform that we have seen since 1983. We have seen an unprecedented shift towards opening up our economy and freeing up our markets. We should not assume that this will be an uninterrupted trajectory.

Australian people as consumers, as neighbours and as voters will respond to the continuing offshoring of jobs on the one hand as business with the other hand holds its hands out to government and demands more and more concessions and more are more assistance. Quite simply, the Australian people will not accept this. So I say to business tonight: the ball is in your court. You must meet your part of the bargain or the rules will certainly change. They will change as Australian governments of all persuasions respond to an Australian population which is demanding a more vigorous response from its governments to the challenges that people are facing. (Time expired)

Mr TUDGE (Aston) (21:53): I rise tonight to express my support for the introduction into Australia of a new cancer treatment called CyberKnife. This is a remarkable technology that has the capacity to save or improve the lives of hundreds of people who are suffering from cancer. In short, it provides a more targeted radiotherapy treatment so that less damage is done to non-cancerous parts of the body. It is available in 26 other countries and should be available here, particularly at our leading cancer hospital, the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne.

CyberKnife was brought to my attention by two of my constituents, Mr and Mrs Keith and Jenny Slater, who came to see me last year seeking my support for its introduction. At the time, Mr and Mrs Slater's teenage granddaughter, Kahlia, was in late stages of a rare bone cancer. They informed me of all the treatments that she had endured in Australia, but nothing was beating the wasting disease. This is when they decided to head to India, the most accessible place for Kahlia to get CyberKnife treatment.

The results were impressive. When Kahlia made the journey for her treatment in July last year, she boarded the plane in her wheelchair. When she came home, she pushed the wheelchair herself, and for the next three months she enjoyed, according to Mr and Mrs Slater, just being a normal teenager again, such was the tremendous impact of the treatment. Sadly, however, after several months the tumours grew again and she became unable to take the long journey back to India.

This brave young fighter touched the hearts of the nation in her appearance on Channel 7 late last year. The local papers followed her journey, which inspired other teens and readers across the board. Locals and fellow students at Norwood Secondary College pitched in to help raise the $80,000 needed to get Kahlia to India and pay for CyberKnife treatment.

Teen cancer patients have been called the forgotten sufferers as there is quite high awareness of the disease and programs for children and for seniors but there is less for teenagers. It is because of this that I want to bring this matter to the attention of the parliament and to press for the speedy processing of the CyberKnife application. Mr David Speakman, Executive Director of Clinical Services at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, says that CyberKnife has two important benefits above existing treatments in Australia. First, it delivers a far more targeted radiotherapy treatment, significantly minimising the damage to non-cancerous parts of the body. Second, it enables radiotherapy to be delivered to some patients that otherwise could not receive radiotherapy, in particular younger people and some other special cases. Mr Speakman strongly endorses the CyberKnife treatment and says that it would be a valuable addition to the treatments available at the Peter MacCallum Centre. He says that current stereotactic radio surgeries using modified linear accelerators are reaching the end of their use-by date. He suggests that this technology would only cost about $4.5million.

I am pleased that Western Australia has announced plans to purchase the technology. The leading cancer centre, Peter MacCallum in Melbourne, should also have it. As well as having the treatment available locally, it is vital for it to receive Medical Services Advisory Committee approval so that these oncology services can be claimed under Medicare by the people who need it most: cancer sufferers with limited resources of their own. I am informed by the Minister for Health, who I have written to about this, that an application is currently before MSAC and is in stage 3 of an 11-stage process. Whilst I certainly uphold our system of checks and balances inherent in the MSAC process, I also want to press the urgency of pushing through this process rapidly for the benefit of the many families touched by the ravages of cancer. I note that this treatment is available in 26 other countries, including the US, UK, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, China, Italy, India, and South Korea. It is clearly not an experimental treatment but one that is widespread elsewhere. It is time we had it here.

We can never know for sure what Khalia's prospects would have been had she had CyberKnife treatment in Australia from the start, but, given the success of the treatment she had from her first trip to India, it may well have made a significant difference. Sadly, Kahlia passed away on December 20 of last year. The sparky teenager asked for pink to be worn at her funeral. Consequently, many of the hundreds who farewelled her were dressed in her favourite colour. Pink balloons floated above her pink coffin, signifying a brave and gentle spirit, who is deeply and sadly missed by her grieving family, friends and community. In her honour, Mr and Mrs Slater have vowed to fight for others in similar situations and particularly for the introduction of CyberKnife. I commend their commitment and proudly support them in their efforts. (Time expired)

Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (21:58): Mr Speaker, I congratulate you on your new position. During the January break I had the opportunity to participate in presenting a view of Australia to the foreign affairs committee of the Italian parliament in Rome on 20 January. Many of the arguments I raised with the 16 Italian MPs present at a private hearing were drawn from some of the brilliant arguments—that is the only way I can describe them—in Mr Peter Hartcher, the international affairs editor of the Sydney Morning Herald's, article in the Spectator, 'The envy of the world', and in his great book, The Sweet Spot. I explained to the Italian parliamentarians that, as Mr Hartcher wrote:

Going into 2011, Australia's unemployment rate of five per cent was half that of Europe or America. Australia astonishes; …

Australia has a higher average income per head of population than Germany, Japan, Singapore or France, a figure one and half times greater than that of its Mother country, Britain ... For the first time since the first world war, its income per head surpassed Americff s.

…   …   …

Perhaps it's too new, or too incredible—

Mr Hartcher argued—

for Australians to absorb, but the country has now become so successful as a prosperous modern power that it can afford to take a little credit for winning the real prizes of international life.

In its annual ranking of countries on earth, the United Nations combines measures of income, education, and health to create the Human Development Index, Mr Hartcher explained. He noted:

In its 2010 assessment of 194 countries, Australia scored second only to Norway in enjoying the best living conditions available to the human species.

A second opinion, as explained by Mr Reacher, is offered by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development in its Better Life Index, which measures the economies of the worlds 34 developed countries. Again, Australia is at the top. This was not simply accomplished, I explained to my Italian interlocutors, by digging gold and other resources out of the ground. In fact, the mining industry constitutes only 8 per cent of the Australian economy. But perhaps I am proudest of the explanation that Mr Hartcher developed in his article and in his book that one of the distinctive characteristics of the Australian model was that we have achieved all of this—sound growth, high living standards and the protection of the social security net—while living within our means. Mr Hartcher asks:

But surely Australia is now so dependent on mining that it must owe everything to the commodities boom?

He answers that question very dearly:

… even at the peak of the boom, Australia's entire energy and mining sectors together constituted only 8.4 per cent of the national economy in 2010.

Peter Hartcher goes on to say:

Australia's accomplishment is far greater than generating wealth and services for an elite. The rich can live well in any country. That is no achievement. The wider picture is that Australia is one of the world's fairest countries, one of the most tolerant, and one of the safest.

…   …   …

Against the tide of events elsewhere in the world, Australian income inequality has become less unequal. The rich have got richer, but the poor have not got poorer, and the gap between them has actually narrowed.

This really impressed my interlocutors in Italy. Mr Hartcher continues:

So Australia has managed to become one of the richest countries in its financial wealth, perhaps the richest of all in its living conditions, and also rich in its spirit of fairness and cohesion.

At the end of my remarks, summarising these findings of Mr Hartcher based on hard evidence from the OECD and the United Nations, my friend the deputy of the Independent Republican Party, Mr Giorgio La Malfa, sprang to his feet, banged the table and denounced the chairman of the Italian Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr Stefano Stefani. I was a little taken aback until the next sentence came. Mr La Malfa said, 'How can you invite this man to speak to our committee to outline the great economic progress Australia has made compared to Italy? It is a shame and makes Italians feel ashamed.'

I do not have Mr La Malfa's pessimism about Italy. It is a great country, it is a centre of culture and of course it will emerge from the European economic crisis. But we have a great deal to be confident about in our great country, and the cries of horror orchestrated by the Leader of the Opposition with his $70 billion black hole nonbudget and his constant decrying of Australia's borrowing overseas—six per cent of GDP compared to Japan, 100 per cent, and other places much more—are really a disgrace. Australia is a confident, exciting and vital country. (Time expired)

Mr IRONS (Swan) (22:03): At the beginning of this 2012 parliamentary year I rise to discuss important issues and recent developments in the suburb of Belmont in my electorate of Swan. I heard the previous member talking about opposition leaders, and Belmont happens to be in the state seat of the former opposition leader in Western Australia, Eric Ripper.

In the past I have spoken about the Belmont Medicare office and Belmont HBF office—two important health facilities that we managed to secure through Belmont community campaigns, with the Medicare office opening in 2009 and the HBF office opening in 2010. Today I am pleased to be able to say that following some joint work with the Canning division of GPs we have managed to secure a new after-hours service for Belmont. My involvement in this issue started back in 2010 after I was approached by Rodney Redmond and the Canning Division of General Practice for assistance with the proposed healthcare boundaries. Original federal government plans for the new healthcare boundaries would have seen Belmont split away from the Canning division to become part of a Northern Suburbs administrative division. This decision would have put at risk a project in the pipeline by the Canning division for an after-hours GP service at Belvidere Street, which was close to being launched by the division. I must say that it is a much needed after-hours GP service as well; Belmont happens to have one of the lowest SES rankings in Western Australia. I joined forces with the Canning division to stop this partition of our local health board and fortunately, after a couple of drafts, the department saw our point of view and reconfigured the boundaries. Last time I checked the centre was scheduled to open mid-year. I am sure the new after-hours GP service will be well used and highly valued by the Belmont community. I would like to thank the Canning division and Rodney Redmond for all the great work they have done on this project and for all the work they continue to do right across the Canning division. I also take the opportunity to thank the member for Brand for his input into the process as well.

Secondly, I am pleased to be able to announce that through working with the City of Belmont we have managed to achieve a half a million dollar grant for a special Belmont community program. The program will subsidise the costs of a number of physical activity, healthy eating and healthy lifestyle programs for City of Belmont residents. This was a project I worked particularly closely on with the council CEO, Stuart Cole, and former Mayor Glenys Godfrey. I hosted them in my office last year during a parliamentary sitting week as we made a major effort to advocate for this funding for the Belmont community. Again, I acknowledge the support and assistance given by the previous minister for health, Ms Roxon. We managed to get them in to see Ms Roxon's advisers. We particularly put forward the fact of Belmont's low-SES rating and the fact that it had not had any grants for a long time.

I have made previous speeches in this place on the WellingTONNE Challenge—a healthy living program which we investigated through the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing. I note that the member for Parkes is also a member of the committee. The committee produced a report called Weighing it up: obesity in Australia. Since then it has been one of my goals to get a scheme like this active in Swan. Through this program we have managed to achieve this for the people of Belmont. I hope as many people as possible will take part.

Another recent development in the city of Belmont has been some positive news for residents of Gild Street in Cloverdale, who approached me about a road safety issue they were dealing with. After being contacted last year by Gild Street residents about road safety at the Belmont Avenue and Fulham Street roundabout, I held an onsite community meeting, to which there was a good turnout. Following the meeting I made a submission to the council, and I am pleased to say that there has been some progress. The council has applied for federal black spot funding to fund traffic calming measures at this roundabout. The council has informed me that should funding not be granted it will likely include the project in its 2012-13 municipal works program to ensure the intersection is made safe. Unfortunately, the further action was taken on this because there was a death in the community nearby, which was a road safety issue as well. I would like to thank the Gild Street community for alerting me to this issue and I hope the planned works will improve road safety in the area.

I would also like to mention the fantastic Australia Day event run by the City of Belmont RSL Club this year, which I attended. This was the first time for many years that the City of Belmont has supported this event but I am sure that it will be the first of many as it was such a success and a credit to the club for organising it. I congratulate the winners of awards on the day, including Anne Owens and Brian Robinson, who won City of Belmont RSL Appreciation Awards; Dot Balcombe and Bob Poole, who received certificates of service and past secretary certificates; former Mayor Glenys Godfrey, who received an RSL Certificate of Appreciation; and Mr Peter Passeri, a former mayor of Belmont, who won the inaugural City of Belmont RSL Australian of the Year award for his contribution over 15 years to the Belmont community. (Time expired)

Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (22:08): If there is one prediction we can confidently make about the Australia of the future it is that our nation will become more ethnically diverse and more enmeshed with Asia. Since the end of the White Australia Policy the share of our migrants coming from non-English-speaking countries has continued to grow. The effects of this immigration can be seen in the diverse cuisine now available in our restaurants, but that is just a superficial picture of how migration has affected the nation. In thousands of workplaces today Australians are drawing on the culture and experiences of nearly every nation on the globe. At the same time, the growth of China and India is placing us closer than ever to the economic centre of gravity of the world economy. This is not just a mining story—in fact, Australia's service exports to China exceed our coal exports. It is a story that illuminates the evolution of our national character. The next generation of Australians will be more likely to have been born in Asia, travelled to Asia, worked in Asia or married someone from Asia.

To look at the economic and social opportunities that this change provides, the Prime Minister has commissioned former Treasury Secretary Ken Henry to produce a white paper on the Asian century. Dr Henry will be assisted by an advisory panel: Peter Drysdale, John Denton, Catherine Livingstone, Gordon de Brouwer, David Gruen and Heather Smith. Submissions for the white paper close on 26 February, and I encourage interested groups and individuals to make a submission.

Growing engagement with Asia means that the parliament needs to keep increasing our Asia literacy. We can be proud to have a Mandarin-speaking foreign minister and representatives of Asian descent such as Senators Penny Wong and Lisa Singh. I hope we can welcome more Nguyens, Desais and Zhangs into this parliament over the years to come.

Some of us have spent time living in Asia. One of the things I have found since coming into parliament is that I have increasingly drawn on my own background growing up as a child in Malaysia and Indonesia, and I have had the chance to tell the stories of people like Jamie Mackie and Herb Feith, who helped forge our nation's relationship with the region. Thanks to the encouragement of Melanie Tait, I even told the tale of my time as an AusAID brat recently as part of ABC 666's 'Now Hear This' event last December. It was a daunting and rewarding experience.

As a local member of parliament, a diverse Canberra is a great source of pride for me. This week, the Canberra Multicultural Festival will be held in my electorate. The festival celebrates differences by showcasing the art, music, dance and food of culturally rich Canberra. The face of the festival is German immigrant Wolf Blass. Performers will include Troy Cassar-Daley, Anthony Callea and Joe Dolce. The event involves 200 community groups, local and national arts groups, up to 70 diplomatic missions, numerous businesses and tens of thousands of people who attend the three-day festival.

Over the summer months, it has been my pleasure to speak at a number of multicultural functions in my electorate. In December, I attended the launch of the new premises for the National Ethnic Disability Alliance in the Theo Notaras Multicultural Centre. I have also had the pleasure of speaking at the Karen New Year celebrations in Cook and the Mon National Day celebrations in at Merici College in Braddon. Both the Karen and Mon communities have proud histories, yet continue to be repressed by the Burmese government. I particularly acknowledge the valuable work of Karen community leaders Nai Shin Thu, Ester Kyaw and Saw Tha Wah, and Mon community leaders Nai Tin Aye, Nai Pe Them Zar, Nai Loka Chanmi and Hongsar Channaibanya.

Canberra is fortunate to have many champions of multiculturalism, including Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Lundy; ACT Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Joy Burch; her director, Nic Manikis; Kathy Ragless of Companion House; John Gunn of the ACT Multicultural Youth Services; and many others who work to resettle refugees, including Geoff McPherson, David Cran and Bevil Purnell.

Finally, I congratulate Sam Wong, who was announced by the Prime Minister last month as one of only 40 'People of Australia Ambassadors' for 2012. As an ambassador Sam will strengthen our capacity as a nation to bring people together and build bridges of understanding and respect.

Mr COULTON (Parkes—The Nationals Chief Whip) (22:13): As I stand here tonight, right across northern New South Wales and southern Queensland, we are seeing a massive flood. In my electorate of Parkes we have seen flood levels that we have not seen for 60 years. The cost to the local community has been enormous. Towns like Moree and Narrabri have seen inundation. We have seen small businesses affected. We have seen householders dealing with water going through their homes. We have seen hundreds of millions of dollars worth of damage to crops, farm infrastructure and council infrastructure such as roads and bridges. That is going to go on for some time. As the water from New South Wales converges with the water from southern Queensland, where it meets the Barwon River and finally the Darling River, we are going to see flooding in towns like Bourke, Brewarrina and Walgett for many weeks to come.

Over the last few days, as I have flown over this flooded area and inspected the damage, what has been brought home to me is the massive force that is the Murray-Darling Basin. We are seeing that nature, not mankind, is in control of the basin. We are seeing water running with scant regard to man-made infrastructure, the way it has for hundreds of years.

What has also become obvious is the complexity of the Murray-Darling Basin system. We saw how the two floods in the Gwydir River during the last three months behaved differently. The results depend on the intensity, location and timing of rainfall events and the reaction of different streams. As we come to terms as a community and a country with managing the Murray-Darling Basin, we should realise the complexity of what we are dealing with. The Murray-Darling Basin is not a plasticine model in a laboratory where you can put water in at point A and it will come out at point B. And flooding is not just from major rivers; we are seeing flooding from streams that are virtually unknown, like Tallaba Creek, causing massive damage in villages like Rowena, where hundreds of thousands of tonnes of grain have been damaged by floodwaters and the local cotton gin has a metre of water through it.

As we are rushing through this artificial time frame to come up with a Murray-Darling Basin plan, it is very important that we stop and think about what is going on. A lot of the speeches in this place over the four years that I have been here have been made looking through the prism of 10 years of drought. We have heard many speeches about the stressed river system. Indeed, after the massive drought we had, that was the case. But the Murray-Darling Basin is resilient, and, as soon as the water returned, the system came to life. We have had several seasons now of bird breeding. We have seen the replenishment of the underground water system. We have seen agricultural production come back to life. It would be a great tragedy if we reduced the ability of this community, this basin and this country to produce wealth and to feed itself because of a lack of understanding.

From consultations I have had with bureaucrats from the basin authority, it has become very clear to me that there is no understanding of the complexity and the variations that can occur. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority at this stage has not announced any hearings in this final round, in an electorate that covers 24 per cent of the Murray-Darling Basin. (Time expired)

Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (22:19): The residents of Dinmore, Riverview and Redbank who live along the Ipswich Motorway have more travel choices thanks to the opening of two new service roads and a new pedestrian bridge. On 3 February 2012, I was pleased to be with the member for Oxley, the state member for Bundamba, Mrs Jo-Ann Miller, and the Queensland Minister for Main Roads, Fisheries and Marine Infrastructure, the Hon. Craig Wallace, to open the Tessman Street pedestrian bridge, which connects the north side of Riverview to the south side of Riverview, and a new service road that runs from Aberdare Street all the way down to Law Street so that residents can avoid going on the Ipswich Motorway when they travel to, for example, Redbank Plaza. This has great implications because residents of Ipswich Central regularly go to Redbank Plaza to go to the movies, to do their shopping or to work. It is a major shopping centre in Ipswich and this will make a big difference.

Right from the start we said that the Ipswich Motorway was a vital infrastructure project in South-East Queensland. It was supported by all the local councils and the state coalition opposition, but it was opposed repeatedly and emphatically by those opposite through three elections in a row. The southern service road will take up to 5,000 vehicles a day off the Dinmore to Goodna section of the Ipswich Motorway, which is used by up to 95,000 vehicles a day, travelling between Ipswich and Brisbane. I have about 84,500 residents in the electorate of Blair who can vote me in or out at the next election. With 95,000 vehicles a day travelling through this section of the motorway, you can see why I so often speak on this topic. This piece of infrastructure is vital for not just the lifestyles but the lives of the people on the western corridor between Ipswich and Brisbane. We have seen a new service road towards Redbank as well, which has made a big difference to the people along the motorway.

I want to talk about the opening of the yellow pedestrian bridge at Tessman Street. I was pleased to be at the community day held the day after the opening. The Tessman Street bridge is three metres wide and has a ramp and stair access, anti-throw screens for safety and a pedestrian rest stop on the southern side. As I said, it is yellow and easily identified. I want to thank Mick O'Dwyer of Origin Alliance—he is the manager—and his team. Origin Alliance, who were doing the construction on the Ipswich motorway between Dinmore and Goodna, have a saying: 'Safe work, safe travel, safely home.' I also thank Cindy Thomas, the community engagement manager, and her team for putting on the community day.

Congratulations to Origin Alliance, who received the QMCA 2011 Project Safety Excellence Award. They are creating a legacy, with jobs being created—4,250 jobs on the Dinmore to Goodna section alone—but they are also giving apprenticeships to Indigenous locals. I also want to thank them for the charity that they have extended and the money they have raised through various fun days for prostate cancer and breast cancer research. They have taken it upon themselves to really be part of the local community.

I want to particularly thank someone who I have not mentioned all that often in parliament, and that is a guy who goes by the name of Mango Murphy. Mango Murphy is the program director for the western corridor and for main roads in Queensland. He has been an absolute champion of the Ipswich Motorway upgrade and has strongly advocated it for many years.

We, this government, are investing a record amount of money in Queensland in road and port infrastructure—$8.5 billion. That is more than double what the Howard coalition government put in. Road infrastructure funding in my area is probably the greatest demonstration of the difference between a Labor government that believes in doing things and a coalition government that, when in power, believes in inertia, idleness and ignorance when it comes to road infrastructure.

Roads are key in my electorate. They are so important. Things like the Warrego Highway, the Brisbane Valley Highway and the Ipswich Motorway connect people. They connect communities, towns, farmers, businesses and workers. The coalition has opposed every road funding commitment in my electorate in the last four years, and the Ipswich Motorway is the worst example.

Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (22:24): I rise tonight to speak on Australia's foreign investment policy and what I believe is a glaring anomaly. The government states that it reviews foreign investment against the national interest case by case, that it prefers the flexible approach to hard and fast rules, that a case-by-case approach maximises investment flows while protecting Australia's interests and that it recognises community concerns about foreign ownership of certain Australian assets. And it does seem to be the case that this is true when it comes to residential real estate. But, sadly, it is not when it comes to rural properties.

Residential real estate is defined by the government as all land and housing that is not commercial property or rural land. In this regard, residential real estate includes vacant land that can be used for residential purposes, hobby farms and rural residential blocks. Regardless of value, foreign persons generally need to notify the government to take an interest in residential real estate—and, as the Foreign Investment Review Board has acknowledged, that includes a one-bedroom unit—or to buy shares or units in Australian urban land corporations or trust estates.

Even though commercial property and rural land are not classed as residential real estate, special rules exist for commercial real estate. Foreign persons also need to notify if they want to take an interest in developed commercial real estate that is valued at $53 million or more, unless the real estate is heritage listed—then, a $5 million threshold applies. And, when it comes to vacant land, foreign persons need to apply to buy or take an interest in land for commercial development, including to start a forestry business, regardless of the value of the land. Compare this to what happens to Australian agricultural land. A foreign person needs approval to buy an interest in a primary production business where the total assets exceed $244 million. As will be highlighted in the media tomorrow, it would seem that we are now starting to see Australian farms being advertised for sale to help foreign persons in their attempts to migrate to Australia, an issue I will now be asking the Senate inquiry into the Foreign Investment Review Board national interest test to take a look at.

Here are the questions I would like answered. Why do vacant blocks, hobby farms and rural residential blocks require a foreign person to get prior approval to acquire an interest, no matter what their value, yet the same rule does not apply to family farms unless they are valued at over $244 million? Why is it that for developed commercial real estate that is heritage listed a $5 million threshold applies, yet it would seem that for heritage listed agricultural properties the threshold is $244 million? Why is it that new forestry plantations require notification to the Foreign Investment Review Board, yet existing forestry plantations, below the $244 million threshold, do not? Why is it that a foreigner must apply for approval to the Foreign Investment Review Board to buy a one-bedroom unit, yet they are required to do nothing if they purchase agricultural land valued at $220 million?

Surely it is time to fix these anomalies. Surely it is time that all land was treated equally by the Foreign Investment Review Board. Surely it is time for the national interest test to be applied without discrimination to all parts of Australia.

Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (22:29): In the time available I will try to make the important points on an announcement that was made late last week by Westpac that over 500 jobs were to be axed. Many of these jobs were to be in South Australia, in my electorate—in the suburb of Lockleys, which has one of the largest Westpac call centres in Australia. Out of the 560 jobs that are going to be axed across the nation, 150 will be sent offshore to places like India, where a lot of the backroom work is being done. This is after Westpac announced more than $6 billion in record profits last year and paid their top executive close to $10 million.

This is not about survival or about a business that is not doing well; this is about making more megaprofits than are already being made. The call centre at Lockleys had a lot of state government support and money put into it so that it could come to South Australia in the mid 1990s. Back then it was set up by Westpac and it was called The Mortgage Centre. It employed 1,400 people. Today, as a result of these announcements being made intermittently, over periods of time, there are fewer than 900 workers working there. What is even more ironic is that the workers have been asked to train their overseas replacements, who have been flown to Australia—under what visa I do not know—and then the workers lose their jobs. It is like asking someone to dig a grave and then jump into it. You can see how upset these workers would be.

I also feel deeply for those workers who are being forced to train their counterparts and then be sacked. I am very pleased that the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has undertaken to investigate how these workers are securing visas to Australia and to ensure that they are not circumventing the intentions of our skilled worker program. As I said, this is akin to being asked to dig your own grave. It is very insulting and very unfair for those workers.

I have had a huge amount of feedback from the electorate about this issue, and the message is unequivocal: we want Australian companies to employ people here in Australia and keep the jobs here. Despite this, many Australian owned companies, like banks and telecommunication companies, continue to busily recruit foreign labour to do these jobs overseas. Anyone who has had cause to deal with some of these companies by phone in recent years has probably noticed it. You would probably—not unreasonably—have questioned why this work cannot be done in Australia.

The short answer is that it can be done here in Australia. Our top four banks—Westpac, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, ANZ and NAB—are among some of the biggest in the world by market capitalisation. Last year they announced record megaprofits of more than $24 billion. There is nothing wrong with that; it is fantastic that they have megaprofits. At the same time, I think they have a duty to the community and the country that they are in. Crying poor is no excuse. It is not the role of the government to tell private companies how to run their businesses. People cannot stop them from sending jobs overseas if that is what they want to do. They are free enterprises. But I think it is important to let the consumer know, at the point of transaction or the point of business, that their information and the transaction they are signing up to is all going to go overseas.

We have 'Made in Australia' products for those consumers who want to purchase Australian goods. I cannot see why we cannot have the same thing in the service industry, so the consumer can choose which company they want to do business with. I can tell you now that a lot of Australian consumers would choose the companies that keep the jobs here in Australia and do not offshore their work to workers overseas.

This could be done simply through a logo, just as we have with the 'Made in Australia' logo. People have the ability to choose a product that is made in Australia. We should give them the same choice for the service industry. The logo could be applied to companies who choose to employ their workforce entirely in Australia and similarly support local Australian economies with those jobs.

Such a certification would give consumers information, certainty and choice when making decisions about services they use. That is currently not available. Right now, if you sign up for a new bank account, insurance policy or telephone account, no-one tells you that your private information could go overseas to be processed by an employee who has taken an Australian job.

With an 'Australian operated' logo, many people in the local community—workers, customers and families—could choose to support the local economy and keep our economy strong. It is not unreasonable for customers to presume that an Australian owned company is operating from within Australia, yet that is not currently the case. I call on Westpac to think carefully about the offshoring of these jobs and the impact that has on those workers in my electorate. (Time Expired)

The SPEAKER: Order! It being later than 10.30 pm, the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 9 am tomorrow.

House adjourned at 22:35