The SPEAKER (09:01): I present the Selection Committee's report No. 41 relating to the consideration of bills. The report will be printed in today's Hansard. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.

The report read as follows—

Report relating to the consideration of bills introduced 8 February 2012:

1. The committee met in private session on 8 February 2012.

2. The committee determined that the following referrals of bills be made:

Standing Committee on Economics:

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2011-2012; and

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2011-2012.

Mr STEPHEN SMITH (Perth—Minister for Defence and Deputy Leader of the House) (09:01): by leave—The government is committed to providing regular reports and updates on Afghanistan, including to the parliament. I last reported to the parliament on 24 November 2011, with a particular emphasis on detainee management. Prior to this, I had updated parliament on Afghanistan on four other occasions during 2011. This is my first report to parliament for 2012.

International commitment, transition and post-transition

I attended the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) Defence Ministers meeting in Brussels on 4 February. Defence ministers met at a critical time for the international community’s commitment in Afghanistan ahead of the NATO/ISAF Leaders Summit in Chicago in May. Defence ministers continued their consideration of the international community’s post-2014 commitment to Afghanistan.

The international community has reached the point where key decisions now need to be made about the post-2014 international commitment in Afghanistan. A clear, consistent message about the future from NATO and ISAF is essential for Afghanistan, its neighbours—especially Pakistan—and also to send a clear message to the Taliban and insurgent groups.

Australia believes that there are three key decisions to be agreed at the Chicago leaders summit:

Firstly, to reaffirm—as defence ministers did in Brussels—the commitments on security transition the international community made in Lisbon, namely to transition to Afghan-led security responsibility across the country by 2014. Important progress has been made with the implementation of the first two tranches of districts and provinces to transition to Afghan-led security. When these two tranches of districts have transitioned, Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) will provide lead security for up to 50 per cent of the Afghan population.

As United States Secretary of Defense Panetta has recently noted, when the final tranche of districts and provinces commences transition to Afghan-led security in mid-2013, the international community and Afghanistan will have achieved a key Lisbon milestone. As both Secretary Panetta and NATO/ISAF defence ministers said in Brussels, ISAF forces will of course still need to be in support and prepared to undertake combat operations in support of the Afghan National Security Force (ANSF) until the end of transition in 2014.

Secondly, at Chicago the international community and Afghanistan will need to determine and agree the size and shape of the ANSF that is sufficient to ensure and sustain security for Afghanistan in the longer term beyond 2014. Having determined this in consultation with the Afghan government, the cost of sustaining the ANSF needs to be agreed as well as a fair burden-sharing arrangement for consideration by the broader international community.

Thirdly, the international community must make an enduring commitment to Afghanistan. The NATO-Afghanistan Strategic Partnership and comparable bilateral national agreements—including with Australia—are an important start. Last month, President Karzai signed frameworks for cooperation between Afghanistan and the United Kingdom and other European partners, including France and Italy. Afghanistan and the United States are continuing to work towards their future strategic partnership framework. These partnership agreements represent an important evolution in the relationship between the government of Afghanistan and its international partners and reflect the international community’s long-term enduring commitment to Afghanistan.

As the Prime Minister said in her statement to parliament on 21 November last year, Australia also seeks an enduring relationship with Afghanistan beyond 2014. After 2014, Australia will maintain links with Oruzgan Province, but our role will necessarily have a more national focus. As well, the international community must, in the context of the Chicago summit, agree a basic mission profile of NATO-led, post-2014, post-ISAF engagement to support, assist and advise the ANSF to ensure stability is sustained beyond 2014 and to achieve our objective of never again allowing Afghanistan to be a training ground for international terrorism.

The mission profile necessary to achieve this could include but not necessarily be limited to:

Support for the further professional development of the ANSF, including through the provision of institutional and high level niche training;

Providing the ANSF with continued access to key enablers and capabilities, and

A continued international Special Forces presence to help the ANSF develop the necessary capability, and where necessary, to undertake operations essential to prevent Afghanistan from again being used by terrorists to plan and train for attacks on innocent civilians abroad. Australia has made clear that we expect to maintain a presence in Afghanistan beyond 2014, potentially through training, military advisers, capacity building and development assistance and a Special Forces presence.

In Brussels, I met senior NATO/ISAF Commanders and my Defence ministerial colleagues from Afghanistan and a number of NATO/ISAF contributing countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom. The resounding view is that good security progress continues to be made on the ground in Afghanistan. We agreed that there has been positive momentum in the mission and that we must continue to consolidate security gains in 2012.

Although the circumstances continue to be difficult and dangerous, we are on track to transition to Afghan-led responsibility to the Afghan National Security Forces by 2014. Combined Afghan National Security Forces and International Security Assistance Force operations continue to maintain gains over the insurgency, despite the high-profile attacks that ISAF has experienced during the past six months. These high-profile attacks have been used by the insurgency as propaganda to undermine the progress made and the confidence in the Afghan government and the International Security Assistance Force.

Combined Team Oruzgan: Progress in O ruzgan

Australia is committed to training and mentoring the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) in Oruzgan Province to enable them to take on responsibility for security in Oruzgan by 2014. Australian forces continue to make steady progress in training the 4th Brigade of the Afghan National Army. The 4th Brigade is increasingly assuming the lead for the planning, preparation and execution of tactical operations, allowing Australian forces to concentrate on mentoring and advising Afghan command and combat support functions.

The 4th Brigade is also demonstrating progress towards operating independently, with a number of infantry Kandaks (battalions) now expected to be capable of conducting independent operations during 2012. On current advice, the 4th Brigade as a whole is expected to be operationally viable and ready to take the lead for security by 2014, and possibly earlier. On that trajectory, there is an expectation that Oruzgan will be included in the third tranche of districts and provinces to transition to Afghan-led security responsibility. There is an expectation that the decision on the third tranche of transition will be made in the course of the first half of this year and that transition to Afghan-led security will then take place over the following 12 to 18 months.

Australian troops continue to work with our ISAF colleagues from the United States, Singapore and Slovakia in Combined Team Uruzgan. Australia’s mission to train the ANA 4th Brigade is progressing well, with an expanded Afghan influence throughout the province. Australian Mentoring Task Force-Three (MTF-3) handed over to Mentoring Task Force-Four (MTF-4) on 24 January. Over the eight months that MTF-3 conducted operations in Oruzgan, the level of Afghan National Security Forces competence grew, with the local forces becoming more and more independent in planning security operations.

The 4th Brigade is now leading operations with the MTF in tactical support and the majority of ANA patrols are now conducted independently. The 4th Brigade Headquarters and the 2nd Kandak are now assessed as being effective with advisor support. The Afghan National Army (ANA) and Afghan National Police (ANP) are more frequently conducting combined security operations, and are increasingly doing so without requests for direct International Security Assistance Force support. This has reduced the freedom of movement and activity of insurgents in Oruzgan.

Detainee Management update

Australia takes the issue of detainee management very seriously and has a robust framework for detainee management in Afghanistan. In developing our detainee management framework, Australia has had two priorities in mind. First, the critical need to remove insurgents from the battlefield, where they endanger Australian, ISAF and Afghan lives. Second, the need to ensure humane treatment of detainees, consistent with Australian values and our domestic and international legal obligations.

Australia’s detainee framework draws on applicable international standards and advice from international humanitarian organisations. Under the framework, detainees apprehended by the Australian Defence Force are either transferred to Afghan custody in Tarin Kowt or United States custody at the Detention Facility in Parwan or released if there is insufficient evidence to seek prosecution through the Afghan judicial system. Arrangements are in place with both the Afghan and US governments that include assurances on the humane treatment of detainees and access to those detainees by Australian officials and humanitarian organisations to monitor their continuing welfare.

Update on detainee allegations

Australia continues to make clear its commitment to open and transparent detainee arrangements in support of ADF operations in Afghanistan. Between 1 August 2010, when detainee management responsibility shifted to Australia from the Dutch, to 3 February 2012, Australian forces apprehended 1,200 detainees. Of these, 159 were transferred to Afghan custody at the National Directorate of Security (NDS) in Tarin Kowt or United States custody at the detention facility in Parwan. The remaining detainees were released following initial screening.

In the same period, the ADF captured 11 people who were subsequently released, then recaptured. Six of the individuals in question were released as there was insufficient evidence to warrant their continued detention. Of the remaining five detainees, there was sufficient evidence to warrant their transfer and prosecution. Two were subsequently transferred to US custody in Parwan, and three were transferred to Afghan custody in Tarin Kowt.

In the same period 71 allegations of detainee mistreatment have been made against the ADF. To date, 57 of these allegations have been fully investigated and found to have no substance. The remaining 14 allegations remain under review. These allegations and the outcomes of the investigations are reported to ISAF and relevant humanitarian organisations.

Deployment of an interrogation capability

In my November 2011 statement to parliament, I announced that the Australian government had approved the deployment of a team of nine, including six trained interrogators to Afghanistan, to question detainees apprehended by the ADF. On 1 February I announced this capability had deployed to Afghanistan and is now operational.

The deployment of this capability enables the ADF to play a greater role in the collection of vital information on the insurgency, and supports the protection of Australian and ISAF personnel as well as the local population.

Inquiry Officer Reports

When an Australian soldier is killed in combat an Inquiry Officer Report is prepared in order to determine the circumstances surrounding the death and any lessons learnt. A number of factors led to a delay in releasing Inquiry Officer Reports into combat deaths in 2010. An inquiry into a fatality requires careful consideration, however, it is clear that insufficient resources and priority were afforded to processing inquiry reports from 2010. There have regrettably been delays in the Inquiry Officer process in respect of a number of our fallen, most recently with the deaths of Privates Chuck, Aplin and Palmer.

The Chief of the Defence Force has apologised for this as have I. I do so again.

The CDF has put in place a number of measures to address the deficiencies identified in the lack of resources and priority attached to processing Inquiry Officer Reports within Defence. In addition to giving priority to closer oversight of the progress of reports, the steps underway to remediate the issues within the Commission of Inquiry Directorate are:

Appointing a high calibre and experienced senior Army lawyer to lead the Directorate;

Appointing a non-legal Chief of Staff to provide oversight, prioritisation and monitoring of all matters that are referred to, and processed within, the Directorate;

Assigning additional legal staff resources to the Directorate and strictly caveating their duty statements;

-Drafting a new CDF Directive and developing a dedicated chapter in the Administrative Inquiries Manual; and

Placing the Directorate under the oversight of the recently appointed Director General Strategic Issues.

A regular Inquiry Watch Group has been established under a One Star Officer to coordinate efforts across Defence to progress combat inquiries and reduce delays. Defence is also reviewing procedural constraints to see if we can release information faster to the families of the fallen.

I have also reinforced with the Chief of the Defence Force and Vice Chief of the Defence Force that Defence and Army have to pay particular care to ensuring that families understand the processes involved, including the detailed processes involved prior to the report being presented to the minister for approval for release.

The past focus of the Inquiry Officer process has been on the public release of the Inquiry Officer Reports and reports have been released as a matter of course. In my view the focus now needs to be on the timely provision of the report to the family of the deceased. As such, I have asked Defence and Army to ascertain the wishes of the family with respect to the public release of the report.

As well, any decision to publicly release an Inquiry Officer Report rightly comes after weighing the wishes of the family members about publication and the public interest in the release of the report wider than family members and affected persons to the general public. Most recently, for example, there was a clear public interest in the public release on 2 February this year of the Inquiry Officer Report into the death of Lance Corporal Jared MacKinney during the Battle of Derapet on 24 August 2010.

There have been 32 combat fatalities in Afghanistan. Regrettably, Inquiry Officer Reports are outstanding for 15 fatalities dating back to 2010. Inquiry Officer Reports relating to six fatalities are currently under consideration with the families of the deceased. Inquiry Officer Reports relating to a further nine fatalities are in the process of preparation for presentation to families by Defence.

Once the Inquiry Officer Reports have been considered by the families, the reports will then be presented to the Minister for Defence for approval for release. I regard the wishes of the family so far as public release is concerned as a relevant material factor to consider in publication of the report beyond the family itself and others directly affected.

The changes Defence has made to the Inquiry Officer process will contribute to finalising a number of the Inquiry Officer Reports into combat deaths in the coming weeks and months.

I thank the House and I table a paper in conjunction with my ministerial statement.

I seek leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Fadden to speak for 16 minutes.

Leave granted.

Mr STEPHEN SMITH: I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Robert speaking in reply to the ministerial statement for a period not exceeding 16 minutes.

Question agreed to.

Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (09:19): I rise to respond to the Minister for Defence's sixth update to the House. He made it very clear in March 2011 that he would seek to make timely, relevant responses on combat operations in Afghanistan. He made five of those ministerial statements in 2011, to his credit, and he continues to keep his word in keeping the parliament and, indeed, the nation up to date with the prosecution of those operations.

I note, Minister, that after the last time we spoke the Speaker's position changed with then Speaker Jenkins seeking to play a more fulsome role in the House. It is nice to see that the Speaker did not change when you spoke this time.

The coalition is very pleased to respond to the Minister for Defence on Afghanistan, this being our first time in 2012. As the minister rightly knows, the coalition offers wide, deep and lasting bipartisan support for the prosecution of combat operations and wider operations in Afghanistan and the Middle East area of operations. This bipartisan support is not conditional, except on the national interest. It is given freely based on mutual respect and trust. We acknowledge though, and we have stated conditionally and completely, that it is not a blank cheque for the government. We do expect to be kept updated, both publicly to the House and privately through the conventions of the minister-shadow minister relationship. I acknowledge the minister does both of those well. The coalition will be looking to return to Afghanistan this year as part of our annual due diligence as an opposition and I know the minister will offer every assistance in this task.

It is a critical year for combat operations, as the minister has well highlighted. As we look towards a metric-based commanders' judgment-led withdrawal by 2014, crucial decisions will need to be made and we will be looking for very strong leadership from the minister during the year, especially as the May NATO ISAF leaders summit in Chicago draws near.

I note the minister has outlined three key decisions he is looking for at the May summit: the reaffirmation of the Lisbon security transition commitments, namely the transition to Afghan-led security by 2014; secondly, to agree the size and the shape of the Afghan National Security Force required to maintain that security; and, of course, the broad enduring commitment from the international community to Afghanistan post transition. Consequently, it will be incumbent upon the minister, post the May meeting, to update the House on some areas of national interest that connect to and form a wider part of those three key commitments. I note also that in 2013 the nation will be having an election, so this anticipated, well-heralded and crucial transition will be undertaken at quite a challenging time in our national history. It is incumbent upon both sides of parliament to ensure that the highest priority is accorded to the transition arrangements, and the coalition pledges that it will ensure that every assistance will be given during that time.

From the perspective of the national interest, key things we will be looking for include actual metric based rules for Australia's withdrawal of the bulk of its combat force. What do those rules look like? What do the conditions look like? What are the key areas of the commander's judgment required to be? We note from previous discussions with the minister that, of the 30-odd forward-operating and patrol bases, fewer than 10 are now manned by Australians—the majority are now permanently manned by the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police, with Australians using mobile mentoring patrols extensively. Thus our transition is already occurring across Oruzgan.

We are keen to understand the likely force disposition which will remain in theatre post 2014 and the anticipated roles for those forces. Note that the coalition will continue to provide bipartisan support for a force retention post 2014, including for reconstruction, training, force protection and overwatch—including an offensive Special Operations Task Group, or SOTG, presence. I note the minister is continuing to look at areas such as training at the artillery school, which Australian gunners continue to run. We think that is a fine initiative and we also agree with the minister about joining with Her Majesty's military from Great Britain in looking to assist with the military academy in Afghanistan.

We are keen to understand the likely aid and related provincial reconstruction task activities and the quantum involved. We are keen to understand the nature of any proposed bilateral agreement between Australian and Afghanistan, as intimated by the Prime Minister on 21 November 2011, and the extent to which Australian assistance will be committed post 2014. The coalition believes strongly that the Al Minhad Air Base in Dubai should be retained and that every effort should be made to work with the government of the United Arab Emirates to achieve that. Clearly the stability of governments at provincial and national levels, including the challenges and opportunities that presents, is also of some interest. We believe there is considerable opportunity for our parliament to assist nations of the world, including Afghanistan, in setting up their parliaments, especially in the areas of processes, procedures, governance arrangements and the like. We are keen to understand Australia's preparedness to commit forces to restore stability in Afghanistan post 2014 if required and what such a commitment would look like.

I note the minister's confidence that it can be expected that Oruzgan province will transition to Afghan led security force control in the third tranche—expected, give or take, in mid 2013. I praise the minister's confidence and I note it is built on the blood, sweat and tears of our faithful Australian military, which has risen to every task the government of the day has set. In saying so, I thank the fine men and women of MTF 3, based around the 2nd Battalion, the Royal Australian Regiment, and I wish the lads and lasses of the 9th Battalion, the bulk of MTF 4, the best as they continue in the fine tradition.

The coalition is under no illusion concerning the tough road to transition. Four of our fine men and women were killed in action and 10 wounded in action from green on blue attacks alone in 2011. Other nations suffered the same types of tragedies. It will be a difficult time; there is no question about it. I note from the minister's update that 1,200 suspects were detained between August 2010 and early February this year, with 159 transferred to either Afghan or US custody and 11 detainees released and recaptured. I also note that there were 71 allegations of detainee mismanagement but that none have been found to have substance. The bottom line is that our enemy is trying to exploit what they see as our weaknesses: our humanity, our rules of engagement and our belief in the rule of law—things that we as a parliament see as great national strengths. I note that we are above our enemy, with our greater moral set and our stronger values. We will continue to investigate allegations where they are raised. But our enemies should know that raising an allegation is not an easy path to achieving release from custody and a return to trying to assist the Taliban in their fight against Australian forces and the wider ISAF. We will continue to investigate allegations but we will not let them be a crutch to our enemy as they are seeking to make them.

Minister, I am pleased that, after I have continually asked you for 12 months, you have finally dispatched an interrogation capability—18 months after the military put up a cabinet submission. I note you have deployed nine people, including six interrogators. If my maths serves me right, with 1,200 detainees over, let us call it, 20 months, that is about 60 detainees a month—on average two per day. As a former trained interrogator, I know that interrogations might take four or five days. If there are only six interrogators—let us put them on a 12-hour shift—that is only three interrogators available at any one time. With two detainees coming in every day on average and with an interrogation taking four or five days, you might have three interrogators working across 10 detainees. I think our interrogators might be stretched. Minister, there may be room for adding a few more interrogators into the order of battle. I note the increase in initial screening from 96 hours to three days plus another three days if deemed necessary to complete the investigation. That is in line with our ISAF partners and the coalition supports it completely.

Minister, I note from your update on inquiry reports that we are still waiting for 15 reports—that is out of the 32 soldiers killed in action. I note the measures you have outlined to ensure that is being addressed—a senior Army lawyer to head up the commission of inquiry plus an admin chief of staff. The coalition agrees that not all reports should be publicly released, but we do demand that the families are provided with them expeditiously and that their views are considered in terms of wider release. We also hope that a clear chain of command is established to ensure that the families who are waiting for these 15 reports, some from 2010, are kept fully informed about any delays and what the military is doing to overcome them.

Minister, there is an issue of taxation which needs to be addressed. The international campaign allowance was legislated in 2001 by the previous government to remunerate defence members for warlike service. It is designed to compensate members for the environmental and dreadful factors of combat operations in specific international campaigns such as Slipper—as in Operation Slipper, Mr Speaker. The international campaign allowance is zoned according to three locations in the Middle East—Afghanistan; Iraq, which has subsequently ceased; and the wider maritime environment. The practice provides tax exemption to ADF members on warlike service. It has been around for 60-odd years, including Korea and Malaya, and is well understood and well supported.

Under section 23AD of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 ADF members serving on warlike operations are exempt from tax on salaries and allowances they earn. For soldiers who are wounded in action, the tax exemption extends to periods of hospitalisation regardless of hospital location or duration. The challenge is that if a soldier is hospitalised but, for reasons of mental health or great concern for family, seeks to leave hospital but go back every single day to receive the care that they would otherwise have received, they are then penalised by virtue of the tax act. It has nothing to do with the minister or indeed elements of Defence; it occurs under the tax act because they have chosen for their own mental health or their own family care to leave hospital, even though they should have remained hospitalised. It is the coalition's contention that something needs to change to allow circumstances where the minister can approve the continuation of tax exempt status to allowances in such circumstances so that soldiers are not penalised if they should be in hospital but decide to go home and then travel back and forth.

Likewise, members who undertake escort duties for wounded soldiers or soldiers killed in action do so as a primary role and they are aware before they deploy that when an escort leaves an area of operations they are no longer providing warlike service and therefore they do not receive the tax exemption, even though they are ordered to leave the combat operation to escort home a wounded soldier or indeed a mate who has been killed in action. I note that on returning a range of allowances are paid such as travelling allowance, which is about half of what they would have received as a taxable amount if they were serving on operations. Again, it is the coalition's contention that there should be an option for the minister to overrule and make a determination in that area that would enable those on escort duties, or other duties, to continue to receive the allowances because they are operating under orders. Cases such as bringing wounded soldiers or those killed in action home could then also be taken into consideration. I will leave those issues with the minister. I know they are taxation issues and not defence issues and they are outside the minister's purview, but I am sure with great goodwill on both sides we can seek to address some of them.

I would like to raise one further issue. It is time for our nation to rise as one and begin to jointly own the support for the hundreds of our wounded warriors who are returning to our shores. It is time for our country to do something similar to what the British are doing through the establishment of their Help for Heroes foundation. Help for Heroes raises money to support members of the UK armed forces who have been wounded in the service of their country. It is a UK based charity specifically set up to help wounded service men and women returning from Afghanistan and Iraq.

Help for Heroes was founded by Bryn—an ex-serviceman—and Emma Parry in October 2007. The charity is strictly non-political and non-critical; they simply want to help wounded service men and women. They want to assist people who are currently serving or who have served in the armed forces, and their dependants. They want to promote and protect the health of those who have been wounded or injured while serving in the armed forces through the provision of facilities, equipment or services for their rehabilitation, and to make grants to other charities that assist members of the armed forces and their dependants. They consider anyone who volunteers to serve in time of war, knowing that they may risk all, is a hero. I think they are right. They believe these are ordinary people doing extraordinary things and some of them, and their families, will live with the consequences of their service for the rest of their life.

Help for Heroes asks supporters in the UK to simply 'do their bit' to show these extraordinary young men and women that they are cared for by the community. Help for Heroes has so far raised over £125 million—A$184 million. Of that, £107 million has gone directly to helping injured men and women of the UK armed forces. Projects include the rehabilitation complex at Headley Court, money for combat stress, adaptive adventure training, extension of the former North Wales Medical Centre and the creation of a £6 million quick reaction fund to support individuals in need, managed by the service charities. It has been able to spend close to the amount raised as it has also set up the wholly owned trading subsidiary Help for Heroes Trading Co., which sells merchandise and gifts in order to cover administrative overheads. The money is used for providing much needed services that aid wounded soldiers' recovery. The money both funds capital projects and provides individual support in conjunction with delivering charities. Individuals are encouraged to raise money through activities and fundraising events, from baking cakes and shaving heads to parachuting, walking and cycling. It is about encouraging a nation to embrace their own.

I propose a unity ticket between the government and the opposition for us to join together to see what we can do about setting up a foundation in Australia to give the community ownership. I know the support government provides is very good, and the coalition provides bipartisan support for it, but this is about the community; this is about us giving the community an opportunity to come together and help. This is the least we can do as our fighting men and women continue to do what they can to provide peace and security for our nation.

I thank the minister for his update. It is welcome. I thank him for his continued commitment to ensuring the House and indeed the nation is aware of the ongoing operations in Afghanistan.

Mr STEPHEN SMITH (Perth—Minister for Defence and Deputy Leader of the House) (09:35): On indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am very happy to indicate to the member for Fadden that the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel and Minister for Veterans' Affairs and I are very happy to take up the suggestions he has made about allowances and support in the community for our wounded warriors.

Mr STEPHEN SMITH (Perth—Minister for Defence and Deputy Leader of the House) (09:36): by leave—HMAS Success is a supply ship used for the supply of fuel, ammunition, food and stores to naval units at sea. In March 2009 Success left Sydney for a deployment to South-East Asia and China. Between March and May 2009, attention was drawn to incidents of unacceptable behaviour. Allegations included: inappropriate conduct towards women; workforce bullying; tribal culture on board the ship; drunken and disreputable behaviour while ashore; a breakdown in discipline; and serious failures of command. These incidents were the subject of an internal Defence inquiry, a Senate estimates examination and a Senate inquiry. In March 2010 the then Chief of the Defence Force commissioned Roger Gyles QC to conduct an independent commission of inquiry into these matters. On 22 February last year I tabled a redacted version of part one of the commission of inquiry report, which made very sorry reading about the failure of personal conduct, the failure of discipline, the failure of authority and the inappropriate culture aboard HMAS Success.

On 7 July last year I tabled a redacted version of part two of the commission of inquiry report, which dealt with Navy administrative inquiries, the management of three landed senior sailors, response to media queries and reporting, the treatment of the legal officer representing the landed senior sailors and Australian Defence Force Investigative Service investigations. Part two identified a number of very significant shortcomings in the management of the three landed senior sailors.

In January of this year I received part three of the commission of inquiry report. Part three deals with military discipline, redress of grievance processes, command decisions and administrative law, equity and diversity and unacceptable behaviour, and inquiry processes. It considers recent influences on the application of military justice and the implications of these for the exercise of command. Part three outlines a range of possible improvements to the conduct of inquiries, the application of military justice and administrative processes within the Australian Defence Force.

The recommendations of part three will be considered in the context of other reforms to the military justice system and the recent review by the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force into the management of incidents and complaints in Defence. I will table a redacted version of part three of Mr Gyles’s report. The redactions have been made on the basis of legal advice. As the majority of part three of the report deals with organisational rather than personnel issues, the redactions are minimal.

I have already provided a copy of the full report, unredacted, in confidence, to Senator Stephens, the Chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee; Senator Eggleston, the Chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee; and Senator Johnston, the shadow minister for defence. This satisfies undertakings made to keep the Senate fully informed of these matters.

The completion of part three of Mr Gyles’s report marks the completion of the HMAS Success Commission of Inquiry. The Chief of the Defence Force and the Chief of Navy have accepted the findings and recommendations of parts one and two and are taking action on those recommendations.

The administrative action required to be taken by Navy to hold individuals to account in respect of the shortcomings identified by Mr Gyles in parts one and two is nearing completion.

Adverse administrative action, including termination of service, formal censure, reduction in rank, formal warnings and formal counselling, was considered against 55 individuals and initiated against 18 individuals, who ranged in rank from able seamen through to star ranked officers. Decisions relating to nine of these individuals have been made. Some of these decisions are subject to the redress of grievance process but the outcomes have included formal censure, reduction in rank and formal counselling. In two instances no further action was considered warranted. I am advised that decisions relating to another four individuals will be made in the coming weeks.

The Chief of Navy has apologised to the senior sailors who were landed. Defence has offered compensation to the senior sailors in accordance with the recommendation made by Mr Gyles in part two of his report. This compensation process is ongoing, with Defence's position on compensation currently under consideration by the sailors and their legal representatives.

I table a redacted version of HMAS Success Commission of Inquiry Allegations of Unacceptable Behaviour and the Management Thereof, Part Three: Further Recommendations. I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Fadden to speak for five.

Leave granted.

Mr STEPHEN SMITH: I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Fadden speaking in reply to the ministerial statement for a period not exceeding five minutes.

Question agreed to.

Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (09:41): This is the second time I have risen to speak in response to the Minister for Defence. My comments last time were intentionally short. They will be intentionally short again. I believe the Senate will have a range of comments to make regarding the issue. I note that the minister has maintained the promise by the previous defence minister to provide the unredacted copy to the Senate, which he has done. He has provided the full report to Senator Stephens, the Chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee; Senator Eggleston, the Chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee; and Senator Johnston. I also believe that he has honoured the promise of the last minister with respect to senior officers providing a briefing to senators as required, and I am sure the Senate will take the issue from there.

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (09:44): by leave—I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following orders of the day, private Members' business, being called on, and considered immediately in the following order:

Meals on Wheels;

White Ribbon Day;

Surf Lifesavers;

Exceptional Circumstances Exit Grants program;

Organ donation in Australia; and

Tuberculosis in Papua New Guinea.

Question agreed to.

Mr SECKER (Barker—Opposition Whip) (09:46): Mr Deputy Speaker, I just want to make a clarification. I think the clerk read out that this was a motion by the member for Lyons. Is it actually a motion by Mr Lyons, the member for Bass?

Mr Tony Smith: I think this was a typographical error. Mr Lyons, of course, was a former Prime Minister of this place and someone that should be admired. I know the Leader of the House would admire him. He was someone that left the Labor Party to pursue fiscal responsibility!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Come on now, the member for Casey! We have got a clarification. It is the motion of Mr Lyons, the member for Bass, not the member for Lyons. I thank the member for Barker for drawing that to the attention of the House.

Question agreed to.

Dr STONE (Murray) (09:47): by leave—I move:

That the motion be amended to read—That this House:

(1)   notes that:

(a)   in the 2011 Budget, the Labor Government announced the extension of the Exceptional Circumstances Exit Grants program as part of its drought assistance measures;

(b)   less than 6 weeks after the program was announced even after being boosted to $14 million, the Government announced that funds had run out;

(c)   this Exit Grant was often the only means by which some farmers could exit their farms with sufficient support to transition to a new livelihood;

(d)   some farmers who applied and were pre-assessed as eligible for the grant, proceeded to put their farms on the market, and had sold their farms through exchange of contracts, prior to the announcement that the funds had now run out; and

(e)   some farmers, on the basis of the possibility of the Exit Grant support, have made financial commitments to buy alternative accommodation so they can transition to their new locality and employment; and

(2)   calls on the Government to now provide payments through the Act of Grace process to farmers who had sold their farms through exchange of contracts by 10 August 2011.

I thank the government for being supportive of this amendment and understanding of the very extreme circumstances that a lot of our farmers are in, having survived the drought but not with any financial assets that give them the possibility of a new life beyond farming. These EC Exit Grants were of very great importance for their futures. We are now asking that people can access an act of grace payment. There are a number of them who managed to sell their farms at the time when the EC Exit Grants closed, prematurely—for example, after a few months. I wish for this amendment to be understood and accepted so that our farmers who are in this dreadful situation, who now have applications before the appropriate minister, will be made eligible for an act of grace payment to support them into a new life.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Entsch: I second the amendment.

Question agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt—Chief Opposition Whip) (09:50): by leave—I move, as an amendment:

That paragraph 3 be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

(3) notes both the Federal and Queensland governments have indicated they will terminate the tuberculosis clinics on Saibai and Boigu islands which currently provide vital tuberculosis surveillance and clinical care for Papua New Guinea nationals, and reduce the risk of the emergence of drug resistant strains of tuberculosis;

This is certainly a matter of life and death, particularly to people living in the western provinces of Papua New Guinea and, of course, those Torres Strait Islander Australians who are very near neighbours to Papua New Guinea. I thank the government for indicating their support for this and recognising the seriousness of this issue. Tuberculosis is now endemic in this region and we are seeing a rising death toll as the medications that are being used there are becoming less and less effective and because of the inadequate delivery of services, due in many cases to difficulty in access. While I appreciate that there is a need to eventually build capacity in Papua New Guinea so that they are able to deal with this problem, that is in fact a long way off and we are seeing deaths now on a regular basis as Papua New Guinean citizens struggle to get access to some level of support. It is critical that we continue to maintain the frontline services that are there. While it is great that we are looking at building capacity at the Daru Hospital, if you have a look at the geography of the area, to get access to those services in Daru people from some of the villages that are scattered to the west in the Western Province area have to travel to that hospital in an open dinghy because there are no roads. At times, they have to travel for up to 14 hours just to get access to those services. As such, it is important that we maintain services in island communities like Saibai and Boigu, which are less than a 15-minute dingy ride from the mainland of Papua New Guinea.

I appreciate the genuine attempt by the government to support this. I look forward to continued negotiations to ensure that we get a very positive outcome. The one thing that we cannot afford to do is to withdraw these services. We need to increase them significantly. I believe that there are alternative ways in which we can do that.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Laming: I second the motion.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The original question was that the motion be agreed. To this the member for Leichhardt has moved an amendment. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (09:53): by leave—Since the darkest days of the global financial crisis, I have regularly updated members on international developments and their implications for Australia. As I do so again today, I cannot assure the House that the outlook for the global economy is any less concerning than it was last time. Indeed, the global economy is in some respects in worse shape than it was last year. Germany and France, the locomotives of European growth and two of the major global economies, are both expected to have contracted in the fourth quarter of last year.

As Governor Stevens noted on Tuesday, growth in China has moderated as was intended, although indicators remain robust. But more broadly in Asia, we have seen some softening in growth. Of the major economies to have released fourth quarter GDP data, the US alone was a little stronger but even so, growth overall remains below trend and under threat from fiscal contraction. Responding to these developments, the IMF has again lowered its forecast for global growth in 2012.

So I cannot offer today an assurance that 2012 will not be as challenging as 2011 for the global economy. But recent actions in Europe, in particular by the European Central Bank, have settled markets somewhat and may have bought Europe and the global community a little space—space that must be used to tackle the underlying problem if further deterioration is to be avoided. Today, just as we should not hold out false optimism, we should never hold on to false pessimism. Despite the global economic challenges, our economy is very much the envy of the world—with solid growth, low unemployment, contained inflation, strong public finances, and a record pipeline of business investment. As the world’s 13th largest economy, we are also the world’s quiet achiever. We punch above our weight with an enviable record of achievement and the knowledge that our fundamentals will serve us well into the future.

Global and European outlook

The recovery from the deepest global recession since the Great Depression was always going to be long and difficult. But a combination of political gridlock and policy half-measures has turned a tough road towards prosperity into a perilous path. I have now been to 19 G20 meetings as Treasurer and the concerns among my colleagues as last year drew to an end were as grave as they were at the height of the global financial crisis. Fortunately, Europe has taken some recent positive steps forward. There is no doubt the active intervention of the European Central Bank—in particular extending the maturity of its lending to European banks—has helped to calm sentiment in recent weeks. The agreement of a new fiscal compact for Europe is also a step in the right direction. But more is needed given the scale and significance of the problems that Europe faces.

In November last year I outlined the government’s Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook in the context of deteriorating global growth, which of course significantly impacted budget revenues. Our midyear update reflected the now widely held view that the euro area is entering recession, an assessment with which the IMF and World Bank have agreed. Sovereign governments in Europe need to take credible action to put their budgets on a sustainable footing in the longer-term. But fiscal austerity alone is not the answer to Europe’s problems. Economic growth in Europe is crucial to achieving debt sustainability. But to achieve stronger growth, Europe must embark on a wide ranging package of structural reforms. These are the tough reforms which Australia has long since introduced—like opening up sectors to competition and reforming pension systems. While this is primarily a European crisis, it cannot be assumed that Europe’s solutions alone will safeguard the world economy. The economic policy choices of the rest of the world are also critical for the global outlook. In the United States, President Obama is trying to introduce measures to support growth and jobs, while putting his budget on a sustainable medium-term path. The United States and the global economy would be well served if Congress put away its partisan politics and got behind the President’s plans.

Closer to home, near-term growth prospects in Asia remain healthy, although the region is also not immune from European developments. Although weaker global demand has weighed on regional growth, China continues to perform solidly. And, underlying all of this, the shift in global economic weight continues to move from West to East. Increasingly, it is our region that is driving global growth in this, the Asian Century. For the first time in our history Australia finds itself in the right part of the world at the right time. We can make our future the Australian Century in Asia, not just Australia in the Asian Century.

Australia

Despite our bright prospects, no economy remains untouched from the fallout from Europe. Ours is no exception. As I outlined in the midyear update, we have seen the European crisis impact on our economy and budget. We have seen global turbulence create volatility in our share market, dampen confidence and unsettle consumers and businesses. Households have become more cautious, and businesses more hesitant in their hiring decisions.

While reflecting our relative economic strength, the high dollar is also a pressure point for our trade exposed industries, such as tourism and manufacturing. Despite these headwinds, our budget is on track for surplus in 2012-13, well ahead of our peers. Through discipline, and the right policy decisions, we have kept our economy strong, fought off recession and secured jobs even in the worst global conditions of our lifetime. Every member of this House should be proud of what our country and our people have achieved throughout this difficult period.

As most of the developed world braces for the prospect of weak or negative growth, we are expecting trend growth—higher than every single major advanced economy. As we saw in the most recent quarterly National Accounts, our economy recorded impressive growth of one per cent in the September quarter. We have seen over 700,000 jobs created since Labor was elected—that is over 700,000 more Australians going home with a pay check—while unemployment queues have grown in Europe and the US. Our unemployment rate is low at just 5.2 per cent, compared to10.4 per cent in the Euro area and 8.3 per cent in the United States.

For the first time in Australia’s history, all three global ratings agencies have awarded us the gold-plated AAA credit rating—something never achieved by any previous government. We cannot lose sight of these strengths, which is why it is so disappointing that some members of this House have sought to talk our economy down and undermine confidence, putting Australian jobs at risk.

Our strong fundamentals mean we are uniquely placed to deal with the worst that the world can throw at us. Our forecasts recognise that we will continue to see uncertainty and volatility in financial markets. But, of course, if global conditions take another turn for the worst, this will hit our revenues and obviously make it harder to return to surplus—that is just plain common sense.

We have already seen $140 billion ripped from government revenues due to global instability, including $20 billion in the six months between last year’s budget and the mid-year update. And we have a tax-to-GDP ratio at levels well below that which was left by the Howard government. As the Prime Minister said recently, we are committed to return the budget to surplus in 2012-13—we are determined to deliver it, and we will deliver it. Putting the budget into surplus will preserve our existing strong credibility with global financial markets and increase the scope for our independent Reserve Bank to ease monetary policy should conditions require.

Global e ngagement

While the fundamentals of our economy are sound, every Australian has an interest in the global community working to put an end to the rolling global economic crisis. That is why later this month in Mexico I will again meet with my G20 colleagues to push for global action. As I have said, the solutions primarily must come from Europe, but the global community has a role to play. At Cannes last November, the Prime Minister along with other G20 Leaders, announced an Action Plan for Growth and Jobs, which outlined the policies G20 countries have committed to pursue to secure strong, sustainable and balanced growth. In 2012, the G20 must hold firm to those commitments.

A global firewall—in the form of an adequately-resourced IMF—alongside a strengthened European firewall will also boost confidence and prevent contagion spreading from Europe to the rest of the world. And that is the message I will take to Mexico, along with the message about the strength of the Australian economy.

Conclusion

Australia's economic fundamentals are rock solid. The Gillard government’s objective is to turn this economic strength into a stronger community as well; to create wealth and spread opportunity with policies that help ensure Australians under cost of living pressures feel the benefits of the Asian Century and the mining boom, not just a fortunate few. It is why we are not only returning the budget to surplus but also investing in the critical skills and infrastructure our economy needs. It is why we are cutting tax on small businesses and corporates. It is why we are investing in national superannuation and building a savings pool for our economy and a more secure retirement for our people. And it is why we are putting a price on carbon pollution to drive investment in a clean energy future.

Australia’s success and resilience over the last four years is not due to luck. We are a young, optimistic nation, and we stand ready to capitalise on our opportunities and show the rest of the world what is possible.

I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for North Sydney to speak for 12 minutes.

Leave granted.

Mr SWAN: I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Hockey speaking in reply to the ministerial statement for a period not exceeding 12 minutes.

Question agreed to.

Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (10:08): In the first ministerial speech from the Treasurer in 2012 I was expecting to hear something a little different. There is no doubt that the global economy continues to face significant challenges, but I take exception to the Treasurer's assessment that the global economy is in worse shape than it was last year.

Government members interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Members on my right are interjecting from outside their places.

Mr HOCKEY: The situation in Europe remains parlous and the spectre of unmanageable sovereign debt still hangs over financial markets, but this is not new news. Europe is an ongoing slow-motion train wreck. The difficulties will not be resolved quickly, and uncertainty and volatility can be expected to continue for years, perhaps even for decades.

Recent news from the United States, particularly on the labour market, provides hope that the United States might finally be entering a period of a sustainable recovery, although I recognise that it is early days yet.

More relevant to the prospects for Australia, China appears to be engineering a soft landing, against expectations in some quarters that the difficulties in Europe would also derail the Chinese dragon. I also note that there has been a significant shift in the attitude of China towards the IMF, and in part I expect that that is a recognition by China that they are more vulnerable to an economic downturn in Europe than they first thought.

Financial markets can provide a more timely reading of economic health than the official statistics on economic activity, which in part lag, and they are telling us that overall the global environment does not seem to be as parlous as it was in the closing months of 2011. The Reserve Bank notes in its latest monthly statement:

Financial market sentiment, though remaining skittish, has generally improved since early December. Share markets have risen and term funding markets have re-opened, including for Australian banks …

So I am a little surprised that the Treasurer scoffed at my earlier statement, given that he completely contradicts his own Governor of the Reserve Bank.

The Treasurer regularly accuses the coalition of talking down the economy. In this case, however, it is the Treasurer who seems to be putting, very publicly, a gloomy spin on the global situation. I am led to wonder why he would do that. The answer is clear. In his statement, the Treasurer refers to the Australian budget surplus five times—a surplus he has never actually delivered. That is right: this ministerial statement to the House is titled 'Ministerial statement on the global economy', yet the Treasurer manages to work in references to the domestic budget surplus he has never delivered, no less than five times. I can only conclude that he wants to link these two aspects so that if he fails to deliver his promised surplus in 2012-13—which we will find out in September 2013, of course—he can just blame the global environment. He blames everyone else for everything that goes wrong in this world. He never accepts personal responsibility for his own actions.

I note that the Treasurer's original commitment to a surplus remains a determination. However, given that he has been boxed in by his own Prime Minister with a 'we will deliver a budget surplus', I look forward to the $38 billion fiscal consolidation that he is going to achieve in one year. In one year he is going to achieve $38 billion of fiscal consolidation. He talks about $70 billion over four years. He is going to be the miracle man and do it all in one year! We look forward to that fiscal consolidation.

This is why the government makes Australia more vulnerable than it should be. It overpromises and underdelivers. Labor constantly blames the global financial crisis for its economic mismanagement. It seems to think it is the only government that has ever faced economic turmoil. Well, the coalition government did not have it too easy either.

We faced the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98, when most of our major trading partners were in recession or depression, unlike now, when our major trading partners have delivered us the best terms of trade in our economic history. It does have an impact on our economy. At that time—because I was there at that time, I well remember the Asian financial crisis—investors fled the region and fled Australia. There was a widespread expectation that Australia would be sucked into the morass. And of course we had the dot-com bust in the early 2000s, which led to a near recession in the developed world. On top of all of that, we had the worst drought in 100 years. So Australian agriculture was hit, Australian mining exports were hit and our export markets were in recession or depression, and at that time the Australian government continued to keep the Australian economy growing. We guided Australia through those difficult episodes with a sure hand and sound policies that were consistent. And do you know what? We were not biting away at each other on leadership issues the way the Labor Party are.

Mr Shorten interjecting—

Mr HOCKEY: How it undermines confidence when we have old Bill here—old Bill wants to go for the job; he is hoping he is the third man. Old Swannie has threatened to resign should the PM go. And where is Kevin? The Labor Party are so committed to the jobs of Australians that they are only worried about their own, while we are worried about the jobs of everyday Australians, the jobs that the Labor Party just do not care about. They are only focused on their own jobs. From our perspective, good governments focus on the challenges to the economy today. They focus on consistency in policies, and that is what matters at a time of global uncertainty. The government cannot keep using everything as an excuse not to get their own house in order and not to have consistent policy. We know global times are tough. As I have said on numerous occasions, they may well be tough, volatile in fact, for the next 20 years. We get that. But we want everyone else to understand that. And the best way to inoculate the Australian economy is to have consistent policies, stable leadership and a focus on inoculating our economy so far as you can against volatility in the rest of the world. A prudent Treasurer would adjust his fiscal settings to take account of this new reality, and he would do that by reducing spending to less than revenue to achieve a solid surplus.

This Treasurer is trying to ride the wave of the best terms of trade in 100 years into a budget surplus. It is not because he is cutting back on expenditure. No, the Public Service has increased by more than 20,000 since Labor was elected here in Canberra. But I say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that if you expect Australians to be careful with their money, to be prudent, then the government has to lead. That is hugely important in a range of areas. Let us remind ourselves of what Labor inherited from the coalition: the lowest unemployment rate in a generation. I was the minister for employment that left Labor in February 2008 with an unemployment rate of four per cent, the lowest in at least 20 years. Under Labor the unemployment rate has risen to 5.2 per cent.

As the Treasurer knows, the participation rate is actually falling, which means that if you look at the Roy Morgan research on employment there is going to be over the next few months potentially a significant increase in unemployment. From October 2011 to December 2011 some 37,000 jobs were lost within the Australian economy, leaving the number of people employed in December 2011 slightly less than a year before. That is right—there were no new jobs created in net terms in 2011. This is the first time in 20 years that there has been no net job growth—the first time in 20 years and the government are praising themselves as good economic managers.

Compare this with the record of the coalition. We inherited from Labor an unemployment rate of 8.7 per cent and more than halved it. We increased jobs in every year we were in office, even during the Asian financial crisis. Despite the global travails we faced, we improved the employment prospects for everyday Australians. That is what good governments do.

The Treasurer said he is pleased about the AAA rating. Well, we are pleased about the AAA rating because it is built on our efforts, it is built on our surpluses, it is built on our Future Fund, it is built on our low unemployment, it is built on the productivity in the Australian economy that this mob inherited and they continue to waste away. When it comes to Labor, you need to look carefully at what they do, not what they say. I can say that this is a Treasurer who said he is fiscally prudent. How embarrassing it is for him that at the last budget he said the budget was about jobs, jobs, jobs. He scurried out of the studio with Fran Kelly the other day after saying, 'Well, we are not going to achieve that jobs growth of the last budget, of course we are not. We said there would be 500,000 jobs created. It will be much lower than that.' At the same time he said the budget deficit for this current year would be $22 billion—and, miraculously, it is $37 billion. So he rabbits on about a $70 billion hole. This year alone, in six months, he has deteriorated the budget by $15 billion—in just six months. Not four years; six months, old sunshine. And they are accusing us of fiscal irresponsibility.

Now he says he is going to have the largest fiscal consolidation in Australian history since the early 1950s and he is doing it, he will claim, by cutting back on government expenditure. If he does it he is riding the wave of the best terms of trade in 100 years, but the structural deficit remains. The pain for Australians is down the track because this is a government that is engaged in the greatest waste of taxpayers' money in modern Australian history. Cheques for $900 to dead people, school halls where people did not want them and pink batts in homes where they did not want them or that caused death. This is the waste of Labor. And when it comes to consistency, particularly on the car industry, don't give us a lecture: it was the Labor Party that announced a green fund of over $1 billion and it was the Labor Party that ripped over $800 million out of it. So when it comes to good government you need fiscal consolidation, you need consistency of policy and you need strong leadership. (Time expired)

Mr GRAY (Brand—Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity and Special Minister of State) (10:30): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill represents the next stage in the government's reforms to the parliamentary entitlements framework. The reforms to the framework are aimed at ensuring that members of parliament are supported by an effective, efficient and transparent system of remuneration and entitlements.

On 15 December 2011, I announced that the government had accepted the recommendations of the independent Remuneration Tribunal (the tribunal) in relation to the Life Gold Pass. The tribunal recommended in the initial report of its review into parliamentarians' remuneration released last December, that the Life Gold Pass scheme should be closed prospectively and that the entitlement of existing Life Gold Pass holders be reduced now from 25 to 10 domestic trips per financial year.

In its report, the Committee for the Review of Parliamentary Entitlements (the Belcher committee) indicated that current Life Gold Pass holders should be permitted to retain a reduced entitlement to travel on the basis that former and current senators and members entered the parliament with the understanding that post-retirement travel formed part of their benefits. The Belcher committee also recommended that the current entitlement of Life Gold Pass be reduced from 25 to 10 domestic return trips per financial year.

The Life Gold Pass has a long history. The provision of travel benefits to sitting or retired senators and members, through issue of a Life Gold Pass, commenced on a limited basis in 1918 in the form of a Life Railway Pass and this was extended to include unlimited air travel in 1959. In 1973, an executive decision extended Life Gold Pass benefits to spouses and widows of Life Gold Pass holders.

In 2002, legislation was enacted to limit the number of return domestic trips available to Life Gold Pass holders, their spouses and widows. However, limiting the number of trips provided for all entitlees has not prevented ongoing criticism of the Life Gold Pass scheme on the grounds that its provisions exceed community standards.

Schedule 1 of this bill proposes to close the Life Gold Pass scheme prospectively so that a member who enters, or re-enters, the parliament from the commencement of the bill will not be able to accrue an entitlement to a Life Gold Pass.

Sitting senators and members will remain eligible to accrue an entitlement to a Life Gold Pass where they serve the remainder of their relevant qualifying period prior to leaving the parliament. A sitting senator or member who ceases to be a member of their house, and who becomes a member of the other chamber within three months will be regarded as having had continuous service in the parliament and will continue to be eligible for a Life Gold Pass.

In line with the recommendations of the tribunal and the Belcher committee, the bill proposes to amend the Life Gold Pass Act to reduce the travel entitlement of existing Life Gold Pass holders, who have never held office as Prime Minister, and their spouses or de facto partners, from 25 to 10 domestic return trips per financial year from the 2012-13 financial year.

In my announcement of 15 December 2011, I acknowledged that some former members use the Life Gold Pass travel entitlement for the benefit of the community. However, I also acknowledged that there has been inappropriate use of the entitlement. The proposed reduction in the entitlement will constrain inappropriate use.

As the tribunal recommended that the entitlement for Life Gold Pass travel be reduced now, the bill includes a transitional provision which limits the number of domestic return trips for the remainder of 2011-12 to a maximum of two. The transitional provision will apply from the later of the day on which the bill receives the royal assent or 1 April 2012.

The closure of the Life Gold Pass scheme to new members and the reduced entitlement will contribute to a more transparent and, in the end, a more simplified parliamentary entitlements framework.

Further, the bill proposes changes to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 and to the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948 (1948 act) to allow the tribunal to limit windfall gains flowing to superannuation benefits for current and former parliamentarians from increases in additional office salaries.

Ministers of state and parliamentary office holders receive additional salaries as a percentage of parliamentary base salary. Any increase in the parliamentary base salary determined by the tribunal would flow to ministers of state and parliamentary office holders.

Additional pensions paid to members of the superannuation scheme under the 1948 act are linked to the additional salaries paid to parliamentary office holders and ministers of state. Accordingly, any increase in additional salaries would create a windfall gain in relation to the superannuation benefits for current or retired ministers or parliamentary office holders who are members of the 1948 scheme.

In its initial report, the tribunal requested that the parliament grant the tribunal power to determine portions of additional salaries paid to ministers of state and parliamentary office holders that would not be included in calculating superannuation benefits paid to members of the 1948 act scheme.

This is consistent with provisions in the Remuneration and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2011 which allow the tribunal to determine a portion of any increase in parliamentary base salary which does not flow to the superannuation benefits of current and retired members of the 1948 scheme.

I announced on 15 December 2011 that the government would implement this recommendation of the independent Remuneration Tribunal. Schedule 2 of this bill proposes the necessary amendments to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973, with consequential amendments to the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948, to implement the tribunal's recommendation. I commend the bill to the House.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Leigh ): Is leave granted to continue the debate?

Leave granted.

Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP (Mackellar) (10:36): The opposition supports the Members of Parliament (Life Gold Pass) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. The Remuneration and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 finally established the Remuneration Tribunal as being truly independent. There was considerable agreement that it was appropriate that an independent tribunal exist and that members of parliament and senators should not be involved in setting their own salaries and remuneration. Accordingly, that bill was passed.

This is a further amending bill, which accepts the recommendation of the now independent tribunal to limit entitlements under the gold pass scheme, closing it prospectively to new members and limiting existing entitlements. It also prevents windfall gains that would normally flow from additional salaries flowing through to contemporary and retired members of the 1948 scheme. This would seem appropriate as, with the two schemes now operating, there is a need for it to be acknowledged that those in the new scheme have been disadvantaged previously.

The opposition makes the point that, now we have a truly independent Remuneration Tribunal, it is fitting that we follow those recommendations. We support the bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (13:45): I wish to congratulate and pay tribute to a number of constituents in my Brisbane Electorate who received Order of Australia awards on Australia Day: Mr Simon Bartlett, for services to engineering, particularly to the electricity supply industry; Mr Michael Baumann, for services to the community of Queensland as a magistrate and through contributions to court procedures and practices; Mr Robert Brice, for services to the tourism industry; Mr David Russell QC, for services to the National Party of Australia and to politics, taxation law and legal education and the community; Mr James McGowan, for services to public administration, through the development and implementation of public sector management and training reforms; Dr Edward Street, for services to dentistry and to the dental profession, to medicine and to the international community.

I also congratulate Professor The Hon. Michael Lavarch, for distinguished services to the law and legal education, particularly in the areas of native title, human rights and constitutional law. Acknowledgements must also go to Dr Ernest Cramond MBE, for services to medicine as a general practitioner and through his great work through the AMA; and Mr Peter Brooke, for services to the community as a pilot with the Royal Flying Doctor Service.

As in previous years, this year's Order of Australia recipients have been recognised for their outstanding achievements and contributions in a broad range of fields and endeavours. I wish to congratulate each and every one of you for your contribution, as well as all past recipients. (Time expired)

Mr MURPHY (Reid) (13:46): The Convergence Review's findings and recommendations are imminent. Madam Deputy Speaker, you know my longstanding campaign against concentration of media ownership in our country. I believe, like all of us, that fair and balanced media reporting is essential for the public interest. That is why I was concerned last week when Australia's wealthiest citizen, Ms Gina Rinehart, made a move on Fairfax, the second biggest media company in Australia. I think it is very important that Ms Rinehart tell all the citizens of Australia whether this is a friendly takeover to maximise the benefits for the shareholders or whether this is about getting control of the second biggest media company in our country to influence public opinion.

Moreover, I am concerned that editors and journalists might lose their jobs, because it is clear that Ms Rinehart has a massive conflict of interest. She is a fierce opponent of the minerals resources rent tax and she is a strong supporter of climate-change deniers. She is entitled to those views but, if she intends to take over the second biggest media company in Australia, she has to guarantee that she will have balanced reporting and that editors and journalists do not lose their jobs because they— (Time expired)

Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong) (13:48): I rise to highlight a graphic example of Labor's gross economic incompetence. Members will agree there are many to choose from, but the government's failure to effectively administer the Infrastructure Employment Projects Program is hard to beat. Established as part of the government's economic stimulus package, it has received a damning assessment from the Auditor-General in a report that exposes a litany of failures in the way the program was devised and implemented. Millions of taxpayers' dollars have been spent on projects that were not properly evaluated. There was no attempt by the department to analyse the quality of proposals that were referred to it by the infrastructure minister's office. Local employment coordinators, who are the repositories of expertise in the relevant areas, were never consulted and not one project was completed in the designated priority employment areas.

It beggars belief that the minister has yet to be fully held to account for this fundamental breach of Commonwealth grant guidelines. Not only was money wasted but the goal of creating jobs was never achieved. In fact, no jobs were reported as created or retained until over a year into the program and, in the words of the Auditor-General, the program did not achieve its 'economic stimulus objectives in the anticipated time frame'. This is simply not good enough. It is time the government accepted the blame and held its head in shame.

Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (13:49): Over recent months I have been gathering stories from colleagues who enjoy living on the north side of Canberra, in my electorate of Fraser. Senator Wong says, 'I love the north side because I can walk to Lonsdale Street Roasters, eat at Italian and Sons and see the balloons floating overhead as I drive across the bridge to work.'

The member for Parramatta says the Gungahlin area has 'some of the best bike paths around'. Senator Stephens tells me, 'I love to start my mornings with a brisk walk on Mount Ainslie.' And the Attorney-General enjoys using Dickson pool during summer. The member for Page says, 'I love living in Watson when I am in Canberra, as it has a nice suburban family-friendly feel. I am beside parkland and enjoy the walks and the birds, which are prolific and colourful.' The member for Kingston describes Dickson Chinese restaurants as 'fast, furious and yummy', and the member for Shortland heartily agrees. Senator Conroy found the north side 'a lovely place to grow up—relaxed and carefree'.

Yet, despite this, too few of those who work in Parliament House live on the trendy north side. Indeed, only 14 members of the Labor caucus live in the Fraser electorate—and I fear the same may be true of the other side of the House. The members for Canberra, Eden-Monaro and Lalor have good excuses, but what about the rest of you? Members of parliament and your staff: it is time to move to the fashionable right-bank of the Molonglo River.

Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (13:51): I rise to speak on an important women's health initiative taking place right across the country. February marks Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month, a national campaign aimed at raising awareness of the risks and symptoms associated with ovarian cancer. The campaign also aims to raise much-needed funds for Ovarian Cancer Australia's support and research programs.

Ovarian Cancer Australia is a not-for-profit organisation founded by people directly affected by the disease. Since 2001 it has worked tirelessly to ensure that every woman knows the symptoms of ovarian cancer. Sadly, more than 1,200 women will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer this year in Australia—that is three women every day, or one woman every 11 hours. Not much has been spoken about ovarian cancer. In fact, it has been labelled a 'silent killer' because there is no early detection test or screening, so awareness is imperative. Throughout February, Ovarian Cancer Australia invites the community to host an 'afternoon teal' or 'cockteal' with friends and family to help spread awareness of the disease and its symptoms.

This month I will be supporting my good friend and Northern Territory Ovarian Cancer Australia ambassador Alice Burton to spread awareness of the disease. A 'cockteal party' has been organised for Friday, 24 February in Darwin and women from across the Top End have been invited. Teal entertainment and raffles will be among the highlights, and our aim is to inform women of the importance of recognising the warning signs of ovarian cancer.

Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:52): Just in response to my colleague the member for Fraser, the south side rules; the south side rocks! Maybe I should go and speak to the Governor-General and the Prime Minister about what they think about living on the south side. Anyway, I am not here to talk about that, much as I love the south side.

Organ donation is on our minds this month as we gear up for DonateLife Week in a fortnight. The theme for the week is 'Ask and know your loved one's donation wishes'. 2011 was a landmark year in consolidating infrastructure to support improvements in organ donation. As members will know, Australia is a leader in transplant surgery, with absolutely stunning outcomes, yet our donation rates are comparatively low. However, after a Labor injection of $151 million and associated resources into the sector, we are now seeing improvements.

Last year we had more organ donations than ever before, which translated to over 1,000 transplants. That is thanks to 337 families who agreed to donate their loved ones' organs, and I pay tribute to them. The ACT continued to lead the way, with 21.9 donors per million population. That is because our community regards discussion about organ donation as an integral part of life in the capital. We have also started this year well with a multiorgan donor in January 2012, and we have Gift of Life working with DonateLife to improve organ donation awareness.

We have the DonateLife Walk coming up on 22 February, which coincides with DonateLife Week. (Time expired)

Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (13:54): I congratulate the City of Wanneroo Australia Day award winners for 2012. The Charles Searson youth award went to Marangaroo Primary School head girl Emily Youard, a member of the singing and dancing group, cheerleader and soloist in the school choir and a school leader committed to supporting the community. Congratulations, Emily, and keep up the good work for the future.

Also congratulations to Banksia Grove resident and Mr Spring in the Grove himself—Spring in the Grove is the local fete and fair—Bill McClelland for winning the City of Wanneroo's individual Australia Day award. Bill is a very hard worker who single-handedly organises Spring in the Grove, a great community event which is appreciated by the small suburb of Banksia Grove.

I also congratulate Marcia Dinnie, the president; the whole committee; and the members of the Wanneroo Senior Citizens Club for winning the community group award. More than 30 years of work has gone into the club for older Australians. Within the club, they offer lawn bowls. They also offer various art opportunities, including pottery. It is a great organisation, and the winning by the Wanneroo Senior Citizens Club of the community group award for the City of Wanneroo for Australia Day 2012 is much deserved.

Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (13:55): I rise to pay homage to an Irish gentleman, Cyril Bell, whom I first met when I came to parliament 12 years ago. He has just retired as the cleaner in my electorate office in Melbourne. I want to tell you something of his great immigrant success story.

Cyril comes from County Tipperary. He married his wife, Carolyn, from nearby Kilkenny. Uncertain of the future in the land of their birth, they decided, like so many others of Ireland's youth have done from generation to generation, to join the Irish diaspora. Cyril and Carolyn have been married for 50 years, almost all of that time in Australia.

Cyril arrived in Port Melbourne on a Chandris liner, decked out in shorts and T-shirt, perhaps eager to get some of that well-publicised sun and surf. He found himself in the midst of the coldest winter in Melbourne in 50 years. Cyril got a job at the old Woolworths, a dream for a couple from Ireland. With the support of his employers in those days—'That was then,' he says—they found themselves with a house, which they still have, and an old Ford Falcon, which they do not. 'I thought I'd landed in heaven,' Cyril said, 'and I still do. No-one like us in Ireland in those days had a car.'

He developed a reputation for honesty, security and reliability, went into business and became a cleaner with many contracts in Melbourne in many parliamentary offices. I guess you would say he is my oldest, longest serving employee. Thank you, Cyril. Thank you, Carolyn, for supporting him all those years. May you enjoy a long and happy retirement together in good health and may you enjoy that trip you are planning back to Ireland in July— (Time expired)

Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (13:57): The Whitsundays is an area with a shortage of GPs as it is right now, and we could lose yet another one, a long-serving and well-respected GP, Dr Paul Joice. And it is all thanks to Queensland Health.

Almost two weeks ago, Queensland Health banned Dr Joice, a local doctor with 33 years service to the community, from providing acute care and from delivering babies in their hospitals, particularly Proserpine Hospital. Why? The answers are very weak. Apparently, he has not seen enough patients in the past year. Maybe it is because he has been busy treating patients in the surgery. Somehow he has forgotten how to treat patients in hospital, and somehow he has forgotten how to deliver babies! What a crock. The real reason, I suspect, is that Dr Joice has been an outspoken critic of Queensland Health, and this is payback by the bullyboys who operate in the upper echelons of that organisation.

The Proserpine community is outraged. I have received letter after letter from residents who have had their babies delivered by Dr Joice, who have had loved ones treated by Dr Joice and who have had lives saved by Dr Joice. I think that heads should roll in this situation. I will be writing to the Queensland Minister for Health and shadow health minister and calling for an independent investigation into this disgraceful treatment of a doctor who should have been given a much better hearing by Queensland Health. They have really done this guy over, and heads should roll.

Mr LYONS (Bass) (13:58): Today I would like to acknowledge a young athlete from my electorate, Jake Sulzberger. Jake is an inline hockey player who will be competing in the inline hockey junior world championships in South America in July this year.

Jake represented Tasmania at the 2011 national championships in Hobart. As a result of this performance, the 18-year-old goalie was selected as part of the Australian team for the Oceania Inline Hockey Championships in New Zealand in April. Jake was the only Tasmanian picked in the Australian junior men's team which will be contesting the world championships in Colombia. This is a great accomplishment, and it is fantastic to see a young Tasmanian athlete making a mark on the world stage in their chosen sport.

I take this opportunity to congratulate Jake on his achievements so far. Representing Australia and Tasmania at an international level is both a great responsibility and a great honour. I wish him great success in his endeavours this year and look forward to hearing how he and his team mates fare. Once again, congratulations and good luck to Jake Sulzberger, from my electorate of Bass.

The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.

Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:08): I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Manager of Opposition Business from moving the following motion forthwith:

That the Prime Minister is called on by the House to make a statement immediately to reconcile her:

(1) statement that Fair Work Australia ‘will be independent of unions, business and government...Labor will remove all perceptions of bias’ with the fact that Fair Work Australia’s investigation of the Member for Dobell is now in its fourth year with seemingly no end in sight and may not even be released to the public; and

(2) assertions that there has been no political interference in the Fair Work Australia investigation of the Member for Dobell with the fact that her Chief of Staff contacted Fair Work Australia at the beginning of its investigation, one of the staff of the then Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations colluded with Fair Work Australia over the media management of statements to the press and she is unable to rule out that the Member for Dobell has been in communication with her or her office over the investigation.

There is a protection racket that surrounds the member for Dobell and we all know why: it is not to keep him in his job, it is to keep the Prime Minister in hers.

There is a smell about this government that reminds me of the smell at the back of a fridge full of old food and the smell is not going away, it is going bad and it is getting worse. It is a smell that is only going to get worse unless the Prime Minister ends the culture of cover-ups, half-truths and dirty tricks that characterises this government. The Prime Minister is damned in this matter by her own words about the Fair Work Australia investigation. Today she had a chance to reconcile them by supporting this suspension of standing orders and speaking to this motion, passing the motion and then debating in the House her previous statements about perceptions of bias and about no political interference. Instead the Prime Minister has left the chamber yet again. She has scurried out of the House to the Chief Government Whip's office to have a cup of tea and eat a Tim Tam to avoid answering questions that the public wants answered about this very grubby matter.

In the parliament today we had the very unfortunate experience of the Prime Minister being clearly on edge, being clearly rattled, being clearly incapable of telling the truth about the investigation by Fair Work Australia and about the member for Dobell. If she had told the truth she would have had to mislead the parliament and so instead she refused to answer the question. The Prime Minister has refused to answer question after question, from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, from the member for Farrer and from me as the Manager of Opposition Business in the House. And we know it is because if she answers them truthfully she will damn herself and she will damn her government.

In 2007 the Prime Minister said that Fair Work Australia must get rid of all perceptions of bias. The Fair Work Australia investigation into the member for Dobell is now in its fourth year. It has taken longer than the Watergate inquiry into President Nixon, longer than the Korean War took from start to finish, longer than it took to build Sydney's Olympic Stadium, longer than the Rudd government's duration, even longer than it took Pat Farmer to run from the North to the South Pole! If you want some examples of royal commissions that were wrapped up earlier than this inquiry into the member for Dobell, we have the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service, the Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry, the HIH Royal Commission, the Fitzgerald inquiry into Queensland police corruption and the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission. Even the royal commission into the Chamberlain case and, in the United States, the commission into the 9/11 bombings were completed in a shorter period of time than this investigation and we know why. It is because there is a protection racket that surrounds the member for Dobell and it is run out of the Prime Minister's office.

There is an old mafia saying, 'A fish starts to stink from the head.' If the Prime Minister wants to avoid the perception that this government stinks from the head she must act now. She must act to give confidence to the Australian people that her office is not run on the basis of half-truths, that it is not run on the basis of cover-ups and that it is not run on the basis of dirty tricks. Far from avoiding the perception of bias, there is now a very real concern amongst the Australian public and amongst the press and the political fraternity that there is a deliberate, institutional go-slow about this investigation. But don't just take the opposition's word for it; people who have been personally involved in this case and people who know how these cases run have got plenty to say about it.

Take Mr Doug Williams, the former Commonwealth Industrial Registrar. He said it was difficult to comprehend how a regulator could be seen to be properly regulating when such an inquiry was so protracted.

He is absolutely right. John Lloyd, the former head of the ABCC said:

You have to do things expeditiously. That is the basic good service you have to give when you are using taxpayers' money.

Finally Kathy Jackson, who is very much at the centre of this controversy—she had the courage others in the Labor Party and the Labor movement did not have, the courage to take these matters to Fair Work Australia and to New South Wales Police, and my how she is paying a price as the Labor movement closes around her and tries to shut her down, but she will not be shut down—said only recently:

Why has it taken so long? Why are we still waiting for answers? And why are we in this position? We need this to end.

She is absolutely right. But we all know why it cannot end: because, should it end, should an adverse finding be made against the member for Dobell, and should he face any charges, the Prime Minister's survival will be at risk, the Prime Minister will be the one who will be in trouble, her government will come to an end—and that is why this will never end.

The Prime Minister must also reconcile her continued assertions that there has been no political interference with the Fair Work Australia investigation into the member for Dobell with what we already know. In 2009 her chief of staff contacted the Commonwealth Industrial Registrar to inquire about the investigation they were doing into the Health Services Union. Quite properly, he was rebuffed at the time by the Commonwealth Industrial Registrar—and all of that comes from the record. But Fair Work Australia knew from that moment that they were on notice, that they were being watched by the Prime Minister. The red flag went up in Fair Work Australia—and that was the purpose of the call. The call was not to inquire about the investigation into the Health Services Union; it was to let Fair Work Australia know that the Prime Minister's office new about it and they were watching Fair Work Australia.

And the warning shot that was fired across the bow of Fair Work Australia had its effect. What happened? An institutional go-slow happened. That is what happened. Almost four years later we are still waiting for the completion of that investigation. The Prime Minister's office's phone call had the desired effect: it stopped the investigation dead in its tracks. It did not matter what the conversation was about; the point was that the Prime Minister's office wanted Fair Work Australia to know, 'We are watching'. That is why there is a smell that hangs over this government like bad food getting worse, and it will continue to hang over this government and be a stench until the matter is dealt with.

We also know there was collusion between the then minister's office and Fair Work Australia about massaging the media. The phrase was used: 'Awesome, that should ensure it doesn't get any run in the morning'. That was a clear indication again, from the government, that they were pleased with Fair Work Australia's work, they were pleased that Fair Work Australia were running it the way they were—they ticked off the media statement; they were colluding with Fair Work Australia to ensure this matter went away.

If it is not bad enough that the Fair Work Australia investigation is perceived to be in institutional go-slow, to sandbag the government in power, it is even worse that claims of political interference hang over the investigation and taint the government. But the worst aspect of this is that the interests of 170,000 workers in the Health Services Union, who are members who pay their dues, are not even being considered. These are amongst the poorest workers in the workforce—170,000 Australians want answers to what happened to their money when the member for Dobell headed up their union. Those 170,000 people deserve answers to how their money was spent when the member for Dobell headed up the Health Services Union.

And there are members on that side of the House who I know agree with me. There are good Labor members from old union backgrounds, like the minister for resources, who must cringe at having to defend the member for Dobell in this place and having him as part of his government—and worse, having to rely on the member for Dobell to stay in government, because without his vote the government will fall. That is what this is all about: protecting the member for Dobell in order to protect the Prime Minister.

The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?

Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:18): I second the motion.

The SPEAKER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has the call.

Ms JULIE BISHOP: The reason this House needs to suspend standing orders and debate this matter is that it is of monumental national interest. The gossamer thread that holds this government in office is provided courtesy of the member for Dobell. Without his vote the government could fall, Australia would be heading for the polls—and what a relief that would be. So it is massively important in terms of the government of this country that the Prime Minister be called to account over the legitimacy of the member for Dobell remaining in this House. And her implausible explanations of her government's involvement in this investigation must mean that she comes into this House and explains.

The Prime Minister has a credibility problem. We know that courtesy of her colleague the member for Lyons. He said she has a credibility problem, and my God she does. Her string of broken promises, her shredding of written commitments, her repeated betrayals—her words mean so little that no-one believes her. When I was in question time, when she was standing up there saying that her staff did not ring the registrar when her staff did ring the registrar, I was reminded of Richard Nixon—'I am not a crook'! I accept that the comparison is unfair to Richard Nixon. Her answers in question time just add to her credibility problem. When she accused me of misleading people by suggesting there had been contact between her chief of staff, Mr Hubbard, and the registrar, Mr Williams, she said I was misleading people. In fact, she could not reconcile the words of the industrial registrar that he received a call from her office. The Prime Minister must explain that lapse to this House.

There is a foul odour around the Prime Minister's office, from her media unit in particular, over its grubby act of inciting a racial riot on Australia Day—one of the lowest acts of a Prime Minister's office in living memory. And it is rivalled by the collusion from another government minister's media unit into the Fair Work Australia investigation into the allegations surrounding the member for Dobell. I note that the member for Dobell denies the allegations. I also note that he is yet to give the full explanation to the House that he promised he would give months ago of allegations that relate to the misuse of at least $100,000 of union funds for the procurement of prostitutes—never specifically denied. This is $100,000 of funds of lowly-paid workers of the Health Services Union. After the member for Dobell parted from his job at the Health Services Union, the allegations were referred to Fair Work Australia in 2009—over three years ago. And yes, the hierarchy of Fair Work Australia has some explaining to do, and no doubt Justice Giudice will do that. I remind members that Fair Work was set up under legislation personally drafted by the Prime Minister as the responsible minister at the time, legislation that requires Fair Work Australia to act in a manner that is fair and just, quick and informal, avoids unnecessary technicalities and is open and transparent. Just what is quick, open or transparent about this investigation and the government's role needs to be explained.

Members will be interested in this web of intrigue. This chart shows the Labor Health Services Union family tree. We have the Prime Minister. We have Tim Lee. We have Craig Thomson. We have the connections between Labor, the Health Services Union and Fair Work Australia. With apologies to Sir Walter Scott, Albo, Labor's mission statement is:

Oh what a tangled web we weave,

When first we practise to deceive!

That is the Labor Party.

This House must be concerned about the part the Prime Minister's office played in the delay of this investigation. We know that the Chief of Staff of the Prime Minister, Ben Hubbard, had contact with the registrar. We know from the words of the registrar. The Prime Minister must come clean. Once upon a time, back when she was in opposition, she would set standards for the government. I recall her words in 2004: 'There is an obligation of honesty and probity in public life that makes the minister responsible for the conduct of their staff.' This Prime Minister can live up to the standard that she set for others by revealing all contact of any nature between any member of the government or any staff in relation to the scope of this investigation and the time it has taken. (Time expired)

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:24): This is the 37th failed suspension from the opposition in the 43rd Parliament. Of those, 22 have been to suspend standing orders to allow a motion critical of the Prime Minister to be moved. Up until this week, 20 out of 20 of them had been moved by the Leader of the Opposition. But today, just like earlier this week, this is based on such a flimsy approach that he has not had the ticker to move it himself. He has had the Manager of Opposition Business stand up and do it for him. And then they have the gall to say, 'Where's the Prime Minister?'

The Prime Minister has been in here this week answering question after question about the economy, because that is what we are interested in on this side of the House. But it is no wonder that again today, after a couple of questions up the front to talk about the economy, the opposition went straight in the gutter, straight in the dirt, because today their plan in terms of surplus is in shreds. Today, indeed, they have the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow finance minister, the shadow Treasurer and Senator Abetz, the leader over in the Senate, all saying different things. Senator Abetz now calls surplus 'an extravagant promise'. They have a Leader of the Opposition whose policy is down to 'aspirations'.

They are happy to ask question after question. I will tell you what. I would like an answer to this. Maybe someone will ask them whether the office of this Leader of the Opposition has ever told anyone in the media the whereabouts of the Prime Minister. I would be very interested in the conduct of the office of this Leader of the Opposition, because if it is good enough to go down these roads then we will go down these roads. This Prime Minister showed the standards that she had and that she expected of her office when she took action against Mr Hodges. So I look forward to an answer about that—just like we know they have the hide to come in here and ask about contact with regard to the investigation into the member for Dobell. We all know—have they forgotten?—what they were doing at the end of last year, ringing people in the police, ringing New South Wales ministers and interfering in investigations directly. The shadow Attorney-General was ringing New South Wales officials in a completely inappropriate manner—and they have the hide!

We would be really interested in the contact they have had with Clive Palmer and Gina Rinehart about giving them a tax break. We would be very interested in that, because we know that the LNP fly around in Mr Palmer's jet during election campaigns. We know about the record amounts of donations that go in there. We would be very interested in all of those questions.

They will do anything but debate the economy and jobs. At the beginning of this year—after last year, when the Leader of the Opposition was parodied as the walking vuvuzela, the bloke who stands for nothing, who just makes one noise, who has turned the coalition of yesterday into the 'noalition' of today—I think we could have expected that there would be some change in strategy when we came into the first week of the parliament this year, but we have had nothing but the same old muckraking over old issues. We have had nothing but the same old personal attacks against the government and, in particular, the personal attacks against the Prime Minister. We have had nothing but the same old negative approach of all those opposite.

You get a few interjections. There has been a bit of an issue, Mr Speaker—you might have noticed—about American presidents. Certainly I am now aware of the movie, but I have also been aware for a longer period of time about American presidential campaigns. I have been an observer of them. I note that it is not unusual, as you look at the Republican contest that is going on here, a fight between the extreme Right, the very extreme Right and the completely-off-the-planet Right. There is precedent for that. There is precedent for these conservative campaigns.

Barry Goldwater was an extreme right-wing candidate in 1964. He went around and appealed to fear. He ran a campaign trying to divide the great nation that is the United States of America. He did that under a slogan, trying to appeal to all the worst elements. He never appealed to the better that mankind is capable of. His slogan said: 'In your heart you know he's right.' That was the slogan when appealing to that sort of prejudice, just as the current Leader of the Opposition tries to do, pressing every button that he can on every single issue. The Democrats very successfully parodied the Goldwater campaign, and it is something that I think fits with this Leader of the Opposition. Their response was: 'In your guts you know he's nuts.'

That is exactly what this Leader of the Opposition shows himself to be in the way that he conducts himself in public life. He has indeed done for public discourse in this country what the vuvuzela did for World Cup soccer in South Africa. He runs around, he says no to everything, he tries to divide the community, he tries to scare people, he has nothing positive to say whatsoever. You would have thought that they had three months after we finished in November, right through December, right through January, through February, to come up with an alternative plan. Anything will do, anything at all—an alternative plan on the economy, on trade, on infrastructure, on health, on education. But what they have is a blank sheet, the blank sheet that we saw with the Fix the Bruce plan. That would apply to every one of their policies. Their fix the health system plan is the same—a blank page. Their plan to fix the education system is the same—a blank page.

The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House ought not to depart too far from the substance of the motion to suspend standing orders.

Mr ALBANESE: Indeed, Mr Speaker. The reason why the suspension should not be allowed is because we want to debate issues of substance. What they are doing in moving this motion today is knocking off their own MPI again because they are not interested in debating any real policy issues.

Mr Hockey: Go on, knock it off. It is on the economy.

Mr ALBANESE: Then he has the hide to say we do not want to talk about the economy. I have got news for the shadow Treasurer: the debate finishes at 4.30 when we go to adjournment. They are not aware of that; they are not too good on standing orders. Old or new, any of them, they do not seem to get it. They come in here and they just have one policy. I will say this: on this side of the House we are the builders, we are the nation builders; they are the wreckers. We are the people who are interested in enhancing opportunity; those opposite are only interested in entrenching privilege, entrenching privilege of the big end of town. That is who they represent. The Leader of the Opposition runs around and says he is the friend of the workers but he is trying to smash the auto industry, he is not prepared to support the steel industry, he is not prepared to support the changes to the economy that we need as we move to a carbon constrained future that will ensure that we continue to be the envy of the industrialised world. Those opposite have a $70 billion black hole. Those opposite cannot talk about anything positive because they do not have any money: they are at minus $70 billion before they start. And that is before you take into account all the other commitments that they have made. The fact is that it is only this side of the House that has a plan to govern. We are getting on with the job of governing. Those opposite just have hissy fits, complaints, negativism and no plan for jobs, no plan for the economy, no plan for social policy, no plan for infrastructure, no plan for the nation. The Australian nation is better than that and it is a lot better than those opposite, which is why we remain on this side of the chamber and why in the lead-up to 2013 we will still be on this side of the chamber, and after the next election, because you stand for nothing. (Time expired)

The SPEAKER: The question before the chair is that the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be agreed to—that is, the motion to suspend standing and sessional orders.

In division—

The SPEAKER: While the tally is taking place, I have noticed, progressively, with motions to suspend standing and sessional orders speakers on both sides have tended to address the issue rather than the reason for a suspension. I would like to give the House notice that hereafter I intend to strictly enforce the standing orders. So, if there is a motion to suspend, the speaker supporting that will support that motion and the speaker opposing it will oppose that motion.

Ms Gillard: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

The SPEAKER (15:47): I present the Auditor-General's Audit reports for 2011-12 entitled Audit report No. 25, Performance audit:administration of Project Wickenby, and Audit report No. 26, Performance audit: capacity development for Indigenous service delivery.

Ordered that the reports be made a parliamentary papers.

The SPEAKER (15:48): I have received letters from the honourable member for North Sydney and the honourable member for Fraser proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46, I have selected the matter which, in my opinion, is the most urgent and important; that is, that proposed by the honourable member for North Sydney, namely:

The failure of the Government to ease financial pressures on Australian families.

I therefore call upon those honourable 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 HOCKEY (North Sydney) (15:50): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and thank you for choosing my suggestion. The Prime Minister has declared that this year there will be a debate on the economy. Despite her best endeavours to close question time on Tuesday and to curtail debate yesterday, we want to have a debate on jobs and the economy. The job I want to talk about is not her job, even though that seems to be the preoccupation of most of the parliamentary Labor Party members and many others. I want to talk about the jobs of everyday Australians. Labor has not delivered on jobs. The Treasurer promised on budget night last year that his budget was all about jobs, jobs, jobs. In fact, he claimed in the budget papers that the budget itself would help to create 500,000 jobs in the following 12 months. He also claimed, by the way, in the budget that he would have a $22 billion deficit. Of course, neither has eventuated. In fact, as he admitted to Fran Kelly on Radio National just a few days ago, on 30 January:

KELLY:

In terms of the positives though, the Government positively forecast half a million new jobs over the next few years to be created. Given the zero jobs growth last year, are you still confident that that figure holds, that it can be achieved?

TREASURER:

Well, certainly we will do less than that ...

Of course they will do less than that. For the first time in 20 years, last year there was no jobs growth in Australia. In fact the jobs news is likely to get worse, given the Roy Morgan employment index and, obviously, the reported news about job losses. Since the beginning of January more than 2,000 job cuts have been announced. At this point I remind the minister at the table, the Minister for Trade, of the comments by the Prime Minister in relation to job losses. This is a very important set of words from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said to the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce:

These are powerful, economy-wide transformations, perhaps best thought of as 'growing pains'.

Just as the Labor Party said when Prime Minister Howard alluded to the fact that families 'have never had it so good', so too will this Prime Minister regret job losses at every stage being defined simply as her own words: growing pains. Is it growing pains for Westpac, who announced 400 job losses just a few days ago, for the Royal Bank of Scotland, with 200 job losses, and for ANZ, with 1,000 job losses within the next six months? These are the Prime Minister's 'growing pains'. Holden will lose 100 jobs, Toyota will lose 350 jobs—but that is just growing pains. BHP will lose 155, Reckitt Benckiser 190, Manildra 70, Norsk Hydro 150, Tomago Aluminium 100, Thales 50, Don Smallgoods 31 and Macquarie Group 1,000 around the world. This is just 'growing pains' according to our Prime Minister.

But growing pains were never meant to hurt this much, and that is the problem. No matter how high the challenge of the increasing cost of living, everyday Australians cannot meet it at all without a job. And the only job this Prime Minister is concerned about is her own, because we know that when she announces job programs they do not work. There is no better example than the Jobs Fund Infrastructure Employment Projects Program. It was set up more than 12 months ago—$150 million and not one job. When asked a simple question today by the Leader of the Opposition about aluminium jobs, what was the Prime Minister's response? 'Well, we've got a $3½ billion fund.' The bottom line is that the only way to create jobs is to have prosperity. The only way to create jobs is to have a growing economy. The only way to create jobs is to give employers an incentive to make money and therefore to spend money to continue to grow. That is the only way you create jobs. We did it; we know. After we left government in 2007, in February 2008—just a few months later, the lag indicator of unemployment—unemployment was just four per cent. That was on top of a budget surplus. That was on top of money in the bank. We left them with the most robust employment indicator Australia had seen in 30 years, yet somehow they are taking pride today in an unemployment rate of 5.2 per cent with a falling participation rate.

The government see that as a great moment of signature achievement. They keep comparing us to Spain or Greece or Italy or a range of other countries—perhaps Ireland would get a mention—all countries where the unemployment rate is well into the double digits, instead of comparing us to the fastest players out there. We are a nation of aspirational people. We want to aspire to be the best. So when we talk about the Asian Century let us compare ourselves to those economies. Do not compare us to Europe and the United States in order to make us look good, because they are no longer our competition. The Asian Century is real. Therefore, we must compare ourselves with the fastest runner in the field because we are a nation that wants to win. We have always wanted to win. Whether it be in sport, the arts or anything else, we want to be the best in the world, and I would encourage the government to start addressing the fact that we have to compare ourselves to the best.

When it comes to the cost of living, the Labor Party must be held to account. Over the four years of Labor, headline inflation has averaged 2.9 per cent. Under the coalition it averaged 2.4 per cent. More telling has been the cost of essential services under Labor. In just four years electricity has gone up 60 per cent, gas has gone up 36 per cent, water and sewerage have gone up 58 per cent. They are the things that people have to buy every day. It is not discretionary spending. It is not a TV or even a second computer at home. These are the things people have to spend money on every day. Health care has gone up 19.5 per cent, education has gone up 23.8 per cent, insurance has gone up 31.6 per cent and basic foods like lamb have gone up 26.2 per cent. Fruit has gone up 39 per cent and of course rent, the one that many Australians cannot avoid, has gone up 24.6 per cent.

What is Labor doing to address that? They are introducing a carbon tax, and the carbon tax is going to increase the cost of everything. It is going to increase the cost of electricity, gas, water, health care and education. It is going to increase the cost of insurance. It will increase the cost of lamb and fruit, and it will increase the cost of rent because it is a tax on the way we live. It is a tax on energy, and as a nation we need energy to propel ourselves forward. The carbon tax is a tax on everything.

Why were many Australians disappointed that the Reserve Bank did not cut interest rates this year? I would say that was because what they are actually paying under Labor is higher than what they paid under us. Let us be very clear: this is a government that keeps using selective data as its basic input. The truth is, under the coalition the standard variable mortgage rate—the one that people actually pay—was 7.26 per cent on average; under Labor, 7.51 per cent on average, and even then that is after the cash rate of the Reserve Bank went down to three per cent, that is even when the economy had a negative quarter. Out of all of that, what people actually pay out of their pocket for a home mortgage is higher under Labor.

What is more dramatic than the typical home loan of $294,800 being $700 a year cheaper under us than it is under Labor? The big one is small business. For small business, the average rate under Labor is 10.23 per cent for an average small business unsecured overdraft. Under us it was 8.89 per cent. For a $200,000 overdraft the difference for a small business is $2,680 a year. It is a huge amount of money when they are thinking about increasing the work commitments of existing staff or employing another person part time.

For all the huff and puff of the Treasurer against the banks, on more than 50 occasions he has warned the banks to pass through the RBA cash rate change and he has been ignored on 50 occasions. In fact, I lie, because it was 51 occasions. I keep forgetting the last interest rate cut when his old mate at the National Australia Bank did not even pass it on in full. So over the four years of Labor, the spread between the Reserve Bank cash rate and the home mortgage and business borrowing rates has averaged 2.73 per cent, almost one per cent more than under the coalition.

Then we come to the deficit of debt. Let me be very clear: the coalition went to the 2010 election promising a surplus in 2012-13 and we did so based on the Treasury data that was released during the course of the election campaign. It is known as the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook. All the other data that comes out of the government during the course of a parliamentary term is in fact the figures that belong to the Minister for Finance and the Treasurer—they are their figures. The only time you have a release of raw Treasury data, which is the starting gun for every debate about surpluses over the course of an election campaign, is during an election campaign itself with the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook.

When we had those numbers we quite rightly forecast that we would have had a surplus in 2012-13. We are as committed as ever to fiscal prudence. We are as committed as ever to smaller government. We are as committed as ever to giving Australians more control of their own money. But we cannot believe the Labor Party's own budget today, which was meant to be at first a $12 billion deficit, and then a $22 billion deficit, and after just six months it turned into a $37 billion deficit. If they manage to have a $15 billion blow-out in just six months when you have about trend growth, when you have the best terms of trade in 100 years, they are now asking us to believe that they are going to have the biggest fiscal consolidation in Australia in 60 years in just 12 months.

They talk about a $70 billion costing hole—that is over four years. The Labor Party says it is going to do half of that in 12 months. They are miracle workers! If the miracle is to be performed then let us all have a look. Now we have the government saying, 'We will deliver a surplus next year.' The Prime Minister says, 'We will deliver a surplus.' The problem is that we will not know until September 2013 and I am prepared, as a betting man, to put a little bit aside. I suggest that the current Prime Minister is not going to be in that job in 2013.

Mr Lyons: Are you giving odds?

Mr HOCKEY: Give me odds, come on, give me odds. I will take the odds. The Labor member wants to give me odds and I am sure he can give me better odds than anyone else. Do you know why? If the Labor Party has a $15 billion blow-out in the budget deficit in just six months, how can they possibly be trusted to deliver a surplus in September 2013, let alone demanding that we commit to it. They cannot commit to it and they are in government. They are the ones with thousands of public servants and they cannot commit to it.

The problem the Labor Party has, as the member for Lyne said, goes to credibility. People no longer trust them at their word. They no longer trust the Labor Party at what it says. When they say they will not have a carbon tax, they have a carbon tax. When they say they will do something about poker machines, they do not do anything on poker machines. When the Prime Minister gave a commitment to the Greens about dental care, she then goes and breaks her word. She has broken her written word to the member for Denison. She has broken her spoken word to the Australian people. She has broken her solemn word to the member for Griffith about loyalty as Deputy Prime Minister. If you cannot trust them with their own words you cannot trust them with the economy. (Time expired)

Dr EMERSON (Rankin—Minister for Trade) (16:05): Earlier in the week, when the Prime Minister said that this year parliamentary time would be devoted to debating the economy, the Leader of the Opposition channelled Dirty Harry—Clint Eastwood—and said, 'Make my day'. They have been running away from an economic debate during question time ever since. They have brought out case after case of what they consider to be issues of interest to the people of Australia and they are nothing but fear and smear.

They are nothing but fear and smear because the coalition is terrified of a proper debate about the Australian economy, including about budget surpluses. We know why because this week the coalition was in a fog of confusion about their commitment to bring the budget back to surplus. We heard from the shadow Treasurer just now that when the Leader of the Opposition made his statement before the last election about bringing the budget back to surplus, he did not have the benefit of the numbers at that time. What the opposition leader said was, 'We will bring the country back into surplus in 2012-13.' There was no qualification. He did not say, 'We will try; it depends on the state of the books.' It was unqualified that the coalition would bring the budget back to surplus in 2012-13.

This week, however, out of this fog of confusion, it has become clear, as the fog lifts, that the coalition has no intention of ever in the foreseeable future bringing the budget back to surplus—let alone if they were given the opportunity to do so in 2012-13. They have walked away from that promise and now blame the official budget figures for doing so. The fog started earlier this week on Monday, when the shadow finance minister was asked about bringing the budget back to surplus and he replied, 'Well, it just depends.' This was the first qualification. Then the shadow Treasurer, thinking that he still had the backing of the Leader of the Opposition, very bravely said, 'As we have said, we would get to surplus next year; we would get to surplus in 2012-13.'

So the shadow Treasurer repudiated the shadow finance minister—that was on Tuesday. But, on the same day, the Manager of Opposition Business in the House said: 'When we get back to power, we will be in a better position to say when our first surplus will be delivered.' So he is walking away from the commitment by the shadow Treasurer and siding with the shadow finance minister. But there is more! On the same day, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, 'Well, let's see what the real figures are.' So the Deputy Leader of the Opposition joins the shadow finance minister and the Manager of Opposition Business in this chamber in saying, 'Let's see what happens; it all depends.'

The shadow Treasurer would have been thinking, 'Well, I will get the backing of my leader, because it was my leader who said, before the last election in an unqualified way, that we would bring the budget back to surplus.' But, no, the opposition leader came out just yesterday and said, 'We will get back to surplus as quickly as possible.' He absolutely left the shadow Treasurer stranded in that fog of confusion.

The reason they cannot get back to surplus is simple: they have a $70 billion funding hole. We heard the coalition just now, through the shadow Treasurer, saying, 'Oh, it is Labor which is talking about a $70 billion funding hole.' But, on 12 August last year, the shadow Treasurer said, 'Therefore, finding $50 billion, $60 billion or $70 billion is about identifying waste and blah, blah, blah.' He referred to the number, the $70 billion. The shadow finance minister backed him up on that occasion. He did not desert the shadow Treasurer. He said, 'The $70 billion is an estimate of the sort of challenge that we will have.' Out of the mouths of the shadow Treasurer and the shadow finance minister come these words: '$70 billion'.

Then the Leader of the Opposition, worried because the cat was out of the bag, said, 'Well, this $70 billion is a fanciful figure; it has been plucked from the air by government ministers and I am surprised you are retelling it to me.' He said that on 25 August. The shadow finance minister was then on the spot as a result of the opposition leader saying, 'This is a myth; it is a Labor creation.' The shadow finance minister was asked, 'Is it a furphy?' and he said, 'No, it is not a furphy; we came out with that figure.' So there it is—the $70 billion funding hole reaffirmed by the shadow finance minister. The shadow Treasurer was then asked, 'You are happy to recommit to that idea of $70 billion in savings?' and the shadow Treasurer replied, 'It is not a figure that I use.' The words came out of his own mouth, but then he tried to walk away from them.

On Friday night on Lateline, the Manager of Opposition Business in this chamber, crying like a baby against alleged bias in the interview—the problem was that he absolutely botched it—talked about how the coalition having $70 billion worth of spending cuts was Labor Party spin. It came from the shadow Treasurer and from the shadow finance minister and he says it is Labor Party spin! Then, on Q&A on Monday this week, the shadow Treasurer said: 'There is no $70 billion hole. I have never said it and I am not saying it now. It is just a myth, a Labor creation and a figment of people's imagination.' Then he was put under pressure, because you cannot scurry away on Q&A, and he said, 'Okay, I should not have said any figure.' He had to admit that he had said there was a $70 billion funding hole, because the tape was there, the transcripts were there and the records were there. He was joined by the shadow finance minister in saying they have a $70 billion funding hole.

That takes us to this problem. This is why they cannot get back to surplus—they have this huge set of unfunded commitments. When you have that, you either slash services—we heard from the member for Mayo what they would be: age pension, childcare services and all of the social spending which is vital to the social fabric and to supporting the disadvantaged in this community; the member for Mayo said that they are the areas which should be targeted—or you do not return to surplus. We know that they will do one or the other and, from the debacle this week, it is clear they are not going to return to surplus if they are elected to government. They have basically said that. They have said it as clearly as you could possibly expect them to. Indeed, Senator Abetz, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, said that it was 'an extravagant promise'. That is what he said today. The whole idea of a return to surplus is an extravagant promise.

That is what the agenda is—they have no intention of returning to surplus. In this fog of confusion, when the shadow Treasurer earlier in the week was asked, 'Will you return to surplus?' he channelled President Obama and said, 'Yes, we can.' But then the opposition leader came out and said, 'No, we cannot.' The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate then said, 'Anyway, it was an extravagant promise.'

What we have seen this week is smear and fear from the coalition—because they do not want us to make their day and have a proper debate about the economy. As soon as we engage on the economy, they revert to fear and smear. But we have seen, in this chamber and this parliament, a triumph of policy over fear and of substance over smear. That has been the performance of the Labor side, the government led by the Prime Minister. We will take on the great economic debates. This is important to the country's future.

Day after day those opposite come into question time trying to smear the government and create fear in the Australian community. The truth is that interest rates are going down because this government has created the capacity for the Reserve Bank to cut the cash rate. Do not ever rely on the coalition to make judgments about the state of the economy and the state of economic management—look at the ratings agencies whose job it is to do that. For the first time in Australia's history, all three ratings agencies give Australia a AAA rating. That was never achieved under the coalition; never achieved under the Howard government. When they come in here and finally engage in an economics debate, at a quarter past four on a Thursday afternoon, by trying to trash talk the economy and talk it down, we should look to the independent assessors, the three ratings agencies who rate us AAA. Our giving the Reserve Bank the capacity to reduce interest rates is the very reason we will bring the budget to surplus in 2012-13 and it is for that very reason that the coalition is running away from that—they know they cannot do it.

The shadow Treasurer just came into the chamber and said that interest rates are higher now than they were under the coalition. It is unbelievable how they can come in here and say interest rates are higher than they were under the coalition. The Reserve Bank cash rate is now 4¼ per cent. It was 6¾ per cent under the coalition. And 4¼ per cent is less than 6¾ per cent. Then they say no, they meant the average variable rate—7.3 per cent now, 8.6 per cent under the coalition. So they cannot come in here and seek to mislead parliament by saying interest rates are higher under Labor. I remember very well the then Prime Minister, Mr Howard, saying during the 2004 election campaign that interest rates will always be lower under the coalition than under Labor, and that they would keep interest rates at record lows. What happened? There were 10 interest rate rises in a row. They want to air brush that out of history. They come in here and say that that never happened, interest rates did not rise under the coalition and they were lower under the coalition than under Labor. That is completely untrue.

I was heartened by one statement that the shadow Treasurer made during his presentation. He said we are now living in the Asian century. Wow, that is a revelation! Labor governments have been preparing for the Asian century since the mid-1980s when Bob Hawke undertook vital economic reforms, with the support of Treasurer Keating, to engage with the Asian economy because we realised we could no longer link our future with that of Europe. That was a pretty good punt; it was very visionary. It actually started back in 1972 when Gough Whitlam formally recognised the People's Republic of China. It is always Labor having the guts to make the big reforms. Now the coalition, at a quarter past four on a Thursday afternoon, decide to tell us we are in the Asian century. Welcome to the club!

What do the opposition do in relation to the Asian century? They adopt a trade policy that breaches the World Trade Organisation rules and invites retaliation against Australian manufacturing workers and Australian farmers. In relation to their anti-dumping policy, they say they will stick one-up China; they will implement a policy that definitely breaches the WTO rules, opening up our farmers and our manufacturing workers to retaliation by China and by other countries in our region. One day—this is hilarious—the shadow trade minister said, 'Look, Emerson and Labor ought to accelerate free trade agreement negotiations with China'. I thought that that was politics and you do get a bit of criticism from time to time. The next day, the opposition leader said it should be put on the backburner because China is not a democracy. He always repudiates the shadow trade minister.

Why wouldn't you repudiate the shadow trade minister? I admit that I have been critical of the member for Moncrieff because of how long it was since he last asked me a question. I can reveal today that the member for Moncrieff last asked me a question 806 days ago. But the shadow trade minister has never asked me a question—not one. In fact, today is her 500th anniversary—she can celebrate going 500 days without asking a question as the shadow trade minister. Every time she sticks her head up, the opposition leader knocks it off. He actually said the member for Kooyong knows something about foreign policy, and he said isn't it a relief to have someone on the coalition side that knows something about foreign policy.

Let us not have this feigned indignation and this concern for jobs. This is a coalition that said it would not have had a budget deficit during the global recession. It would have smashed jobs in this country and it would smash jobs again by taking half a billion dollars out of support for the car industry. It has no interest in that industry. The only political party that supports the working men and women of Australia is the great Australian Labor Party, and we will continue to do that while you support Gina Rinehart and do everything you can to smash jobs in this country through a reckless fiscal policy.

Mr TONY SMITH (Casey) (16:20): Those listening to the debate on the economy through question time and this matter of public importance would surely be amazed to hear the Prime Minister during question time and now the Minister for Trade lecture the Australian public and the opposition on surplus budgets. They would find that unbelievable. Only those opposite, only the minister and those behind him, could suspend their sense of reality on their budget record over the last four years, or over the last years of the Hawke and Keating government, enough to keep a straight face and lecture any member of the Australian public on budget surpluses. I say to members opposite that the more you engage in this ridiculous, unreal argument, the more you insult the Australian families who know that your debt and deficit, your fiscal irresponsibility, costs them dearly at the end of the day. The shadow Treasurer outlined in great detail your failure on jobs and outlined very eloquently your failed fiscal record.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The member for Casey should know he needs to speak through the chair—I do not think I have had a debt crisis.

Mr TONY SMITH: That is right, but you do bear some share of the blame, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not when I am in the chair. You need to withdraw that. You have been here long enough to understand the forms of the House.

Mr TONY SMITH: You are right—not when you are in the chair. I withdraw.

The profligacy and the excess of those opposite—the higher debt and the higher deficits—have costs for Australian families. You have to give the Prime Minister top marks for spin and sheer gall. For those opposite to be lecturing on surplus budgets and on fiscal responsibility when none of them has ever been part of a surplus budget is absolutely ridiculous. Those of us on this side of the House are in no mood to be lectured by those opposite on balanced budgets—not by a political party that has run deficit after deficit every year it has been in office since 1990. If they were a football team they would have a perfect record for all the wrong reasons: zero out of 10. They would surely win the wooden spoon.

Let us have a close look at their record, since they are so interested in this subject. They are so interested in giving lectures and so uninterested in looking at their own record. But their own record is the only thing that matters to Australian families and small businesses. If we go back to 1990-91, we see a deficit of $400 million, rising to $12 billion the following year, to $18 billion the year after that as well as the following year and to $14 billion the year after that. Then—and this will sound familiar to my colleagues on this side of the House—in 1995 the then Labor government promised that the budget would return back to surplus—that it would miraculously turn back within one year. Back in those days, before the Charter of Budget Honesty—introduced by Treasurer Costello—the government did not release the fiscal outlook at the start of an election campaign. So right through that election campaign Labor insisted that the budget was still in surplus. Even those members opposite know about the infamous black hole that the Howard government encountered upon its election. The outcome for the 1995-96 budget was $11 billion.

That was the last six years of the Labor government—back-to-back deficits, helping pile up net government debt of $96 billion. That debt had a tangible cost. It cost $8 billion a year just to service that debt and not pay it off. That was $8 billion that was not spent on roads, schools or hospitals. Luckily, Australia then took a different path. By 1998 the budget was back in surplus and we started chipping away at the debt mountain. It took 10 years from 1996 until 'Debt-Free Day' in April 2006. By 2007, there was $45 billion in the bank as a buffer against the unforeseen. As a result, Australia was uniquely placed when the GFC hit in 2008. Imagine what Australia would have confronted if we had stayed on that path of deficit and debt for all those years—if we had stayed on the Labor path.

For this Prime Minister and Treasurer to claim credit for Australia's performance through the GFC, when it was the work that was done prior to that to prepare Australia against the unforeseen that was responsible, is absolutely shameless. It is like two second-string players appearing on the field during time on in the last quarter of a grand final and trying to convince people that they were responsible for all the match-winning moves. When it comes to economics, it would be embarrassing if it were not so serious.

If we look at the first four years of this Labor government, there is still no surplus. As the shadow Treasurer said, Labor's record has been deficit after deficit. As the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, there has been $167 billion worth of cumulative deficits—$27 billion, $54 billion, $47 billion. Then we come to the 2011-12 financial year. The deficit was supposed to be $12 billion—and this is an interesting point, as the shadow Treasurer pointed out. It was 'supposed to be', but what happened? The MYEFO in December 2010—about 15 months ago—pegged this financial year's deficit at $12 billion. Six months later, in the budget, we were told it would be $22.6 billion. Then, at the end of last year—another six months on—it was $37.1 billion. And the year ain't over yet. Those opposite have the hide to try to lecture on budget surpluses when, in the whole lifetime of one of the members on this side of the House, Labor has never delivered one.

The Treasurer is on some sort of Burke and Wills expedition. The government thinks it can airbrush away its own history over more than 20 years, but the public are very familiar with the debt story in Australia, because they have paid the price, over many years, for Labor's failure. It is always the failure of Labor's fiscal competence right here in Canberra that forces Australian families and small businesses to pay the price in their homes and their small businesses. They know in their hearts of hearts that a lack of competence here by this government is leading to a lack of economic confidence throughout Australian small businesses and Australian families. This is backed up in all the official publications that the minister, the Treasurer and his colleagues will never quote from in question time.

But the record of those opposite, for the last 21 years, is of nothing but deficit—

Mr CHESTER ( Gippsland ) ( 16:29 ): Labor might pretend to be in government, but we all know that it is the Greens that are in charge. I see a wry smile already appearing on the face of the member for Eden-Monaro, because I think in his heart of hearts he knows it to be true. It is the inner-city Greens ideology that has driven the minister for the environment to ban the Victorian government's trial of cattle grazing in the Alpine National Park. I remember seeing in this place last year the minister for the environment ridicule the potential for cattle grazing to reduce the severity of bushfires in the Victorian high country. He has repeatedly admitted his bias against the cattlemen, and he is so blinded by his prejudice against their cause and by his devotion to the Greens that he has never given them the chance to meet with him and present their case. The only attempt at consultation the minister of the environment undertook was a publicity stunt last year, when he flew to Mt Hotham for a photo opportunity. He drove around the bush for a couple of hours, found a deer wallow, said it was evidence of damage by cattle and returned home to the genteel suburbs of Sydney.

I digress for a moment because I want to note that that is one of the biggest problems with the current government. There is not one cabinet minister who actually lives in regional Australia. For this Labor government at the very highest level, regional Australia is a place that you visit sometimes—maybe for a holiday but more likely just for a photo opportunity. What hope do people at the Mountain Cattlemens Association of Victoria have when none of the cabinet ministers have an appreciation of regional life and they see their policy decisions through the prism of suburban experience—not from living amongst the farmers, the fishermen, the forestry workers and workers in other professions which are traditional in regional areas? So it was bitterly disappointing, but absolutely no surprise at all, when the Sydney union organiser who became the minister for the environment decided to ban cattle grazing in the Alpine National Park, despite the fact the Victorian government won a clear mandate at the last state election to introduce its trial.

The minister's reflections in this place in relation to the possibility of using grazing to reduce the bushfire fuel loads was another demonstration of the rank hypocrisy we have seen from the Labor Party on this issue. I want to refer to a media release from the ACT Labor government. It was released in October last year and quotes the Manager of the Fire Management Unit, Neil Cooper, as saying:

'Grazing is a crucial, if oft forgotten, component of the ACT’s hazard reduction program …

… … …

'Strategic grazing serves to not only remove bushfire fuel, but it also ensures the remaining fuels are compacted.

… … …

'This year we intend to graze more than 7000 hectares across 76 separate sites.

I hope the minister is listening to this. Strategic cattle grazing removes bushfire fuel in the ACT.

Let's get this right: it is okay for the Labor Party to use cattle to protect homes in Canberra but not to help save lives, properties and the environment in the Victorian high country! I call on the minister to simply admit that his decision to ban grazing in the Alpine National Park was all about pleasing the Greens. Regional Victorians will never forget this. They will never forgive this government for its contempt for country people and its contempt for the more than 150-year heritage of the mountain cattlemen.

In the time I have remaining I want to refer to some comments made by the Mountain Cattlemens Association president, Mark Coleman, during a recent parliamentary hearing in Traralgon. Mr Coleman's comments are already on the public record, but I think they are worth repeating here, in this, the people's House. Mr Coleman was asked to provide some background information on his group's concerns. He described the Alpine National Park and summarised the issues as follows:

The land ranges from high alpine peaks to low river flats and mid-range country. Management of such a diverse area cannot be a one size fits all. People who live around the edge of this massive park know a lot about management. They talk about it all the time. Every summer, they live and work with the reality of fire. The problem is that decisions of management are influenced by people with other agendas, and those people do not have to live within the park.

… … …

Minister Burke saw an opportunity and took up the issue for political gain for his government. The minister began using the same words as the conservation movement and the Greens, showing that he was working in tandem with them. The minister said a lot of outrageous things that were untrue about the cattlemen and the trials. … The very good name and reputation of the cattlemen has been trashed for political advantage.

Mr Coleman went on to point out the many advantages of bushfire reduction and the opportunity to use cattle as part of an overall management plan. It is there on the public record for people that would like to check.

The mountain cattlemen and their families are typical of many of the types of people you meet in regional Australia. They are very resilient, honest, hardworking and practical people who believe in practical land management. They respect the environment and love the lifestyle they have enjoyed over many, many years. They have cared for the high country over more than 150 years and left it in such good condition that it was declared a national park after 150 years of grazing.

When will someone in this government recognise that attacking the heritage and the lifestyle of regional Australians simply has to stop? To put it simply: country people have had an absolute gutful of being told how to live their lives by city based Greens and Labor MPs who show us no respect and treat us with contempt. (Time expired)

Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (16:35): I present a petition from 11,916 petitioners calling on the House to withdraw federal funding for the proposed new coal fired power station in Victoria, called HRL, and invest in a clean renewable energy future for Victoria instead.

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 Federal and Victorian Governments funding of $150 million toward a new polluting coal-fired power station in Victoria, called HRL. At a time when Australia is taking historic steps to act on climate change, this coal-fired power station will pump millions of tonnes of greenhouse pollution into our atmosphere each year. We believe in a clean, renewable energy future for Victoria not new polluting coal. We the undersigned call on the House to withdraw all federal funding for this project and invest in a clean, renewable energy future for Victoria instead.

from 11,916 citizens

Petition received.

Mr KELVIN THOMSON: Victoria currently has 120 million tonnes of carbon emissions each year. Victoria has a legislated target, it is Victorian law, that this must reduce by 20 per cent by 2020—in other words, come down by 24 million tonnes a year. I am told by Environment Victoria that, if the HRL 600-megawatt power station proceeds, it will produce around four million tonnes of carbon emissions every year.

Mr Chester: Why don't we shut down the whole Latrobe Valley then?

Mr KELVIN THOMSON: The member talked about city members showing country members some respect. I listened to his nonsense about the Alpine National Park in silence. He should provide the same courtesy.

The SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Gippsland will remain silent. He was heard in silence, as will be the honourable member for Wills.

Mr KELVIN THOMSON: It is hard to see how we can meet a target which is minus 24 million tonnes if we proceed with projects that are plus four million tonnes. The only money this project has so far is government money. The Howard government allocated it $100 million in 2007, but the money has not yet been spent, as the conditions for spending the money have not been met. The state government allocated $50 million. I understand most of this money has not yet been spent. The HRL project has no private money. Environment Victoria has advised me that in 2009 HRL lost their major Chinese partner, who withdrew their 50 per cent stake and are no longer involved. In 2011 Australia's big four banks all announced that they would not be involved in the project, and in October 2011 a number of international banks declared that they too would not finance the proposed power station, with HSBC indicating that HRL was too polluting for them to invest in. According to Environment Victoria, HRL's project costs have blown out—from $750 million in 2007 to at least $1.1 billion now.

The Commonwealth government is presently reviewing this proposed outlay, and the state government should be doing the same. The Commonwealth government is committed to producing a budget surplus next year, which is not easy given the global economic circumstances, and there are better ways to spend, or not spend, $100 million. And the state government says it cannot afford to underground powerlines in bushfire prone areas, even though the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission says it is a bad idea to have our electricity infrastructure and assets above ground on days of high fire danger risk.

The state government says this power plant is necessary to meet Victoria's power needs, but they put roadblocks in the way of renewable energy. They are requiring wind energy proposals to have the consent of every person living within two kilometres of the turbines. Seriously, have you ever heard of any other item of energy or transport infrastructure where this is the case—freeways, airports or power stations? I have constituents who are opposing the Brunswick terminal station upgrade who would give their right arm to have a two-kilometre-wide power of veto. The state government is ringbarking renewable energy while bankrolling fossil fuels.

On Monday last week the United Nations High Level Panel on Global Sustainability delivered its report to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. It has some heavy-duty players on it. I had the pleasure of listening to them at the United Nations in New York last year: Tarja Halonen, President of the Republic of Finland; Jacob Zuma, President of the Republic of South Africa; Australia's Minister for Foreign Affairs and former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd; and the former Prime Minister of Mozambique, Luisa Diogo. Among 56 recommendations, this panel recommended that governments should phase out subsidies for fossil fuels by 2020. I repeat: the United Nations High Level Panel on Global Sustainability last week recommended that governments phase out subsidies for fossil fuels by 2020. The HRL grants would be a good place to start.

The member opposite asked about jobs. People will naturally ask about jobs. This power station is likely to be built overseas, so there is not much in the way of construction jobs there. I am told that HRL said to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal that there would be 35 ongoing operational jobs, so there will be more jobs in alternative uses of the money promoting the renewable energy economy, which is the economy of the future. (Time expired)

The SPEAKER: The petition lodged by the member for Wills is received pursuant to standing order 207(b)(iii). I understand that it has been approved by the Petitions Committee.

Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt—Chief Opposition Whip) (16:40): It is no secret that, over the past four or five years, under both state and federal Labor governments and a Labor dominated local government in Cairns, Cairns and the region have been struggling. Labor continually argues that it is all about the global financial crisis, but unfortunately it is a lot more to do with the fact that there has been very little investment in the area from a government perspective. There appears to be an absolute lack of vision. The region is heavily reliant on tourism and it has been suffering immensely, particularly given that the markets from which we take our tourists—Japan, the United States and Europe—have also been suffering,

There has been an effort to maximise opportunities in the region by building on the capacity that we already have, recognising that we have in the vicinity of 26,000 hotel rooms and a whole array of restaurants and other existing infrastructure and recognising that tourism tends to be seasonal, with the summer period being the down time. The idea was born that we should look at setting our region up as the fourth tropical sporting capital in the world. At the moment there is Kuala Lumpur, Hong Kong and Singapore; there is no reason why Cairns could not be the fourth. Over the next decade, many international events will be held in tropical areas. We already send many of our elite athletes into tropical conditions in these destinations for months at a time.

Through that concept the Cairns Business and Sporting Group was born. Members of the group include the General Manager of the Shangri-La Hotel, Rob Weedon; John O'Brien, a well-known Cairns citizen; representatives of the Chamber of Commerce; representatives from tourism; and representatives from hockey and all of the big sporting entities in town. The group worked on a framework to establish what we hope will eventually become the tropical campus of the Australian Institute of Sport. They spent close to 12 months on this project and came up with a comprehensive package.

The project was endorsed by the Queensland Chamber of Commerce, Advance Cairns and Tourism Tropical North Queensland. They all thought it was a great thing for us to strive for to start to make things happen. When the project was finished, as a courtesy it was passed on to council and they were asked to be involved in it. I was absolutely gobsmacked today to read responses from our loony left councillors—obviously one-term councillors. Councillor Kirsten Lesina, who is going to be standing at the next state election, claimed that the group lied about projects, saying that they were ready for construction. Councillor Di Forsyth said they were a waste of councillors' time and the mayor, Councillor Schier, said that it was a bit of a hodge-podge list. While she acknowledged the importance of upgrading facilities, she said that there was really nothing in there that was worth working for with the council.

I find that amazing, when the council, and these three councillors in particular, finds that the most practical way to try to create industry and opportunities for Far North Queensland is to try to get into the Guinness book of records for zumba and to try to create a ukelele festival. The council has been absolutely focused on a performing arts precinct in Cairns, where at least half of the population is totally opposed to the idea of it, but it has locked in the money that is to be spent. At the end of the day it will accommodate something like a thousand patrons and will do absolutely nothing for the economy. Their comments are a slight not just on me, who strongly endorses this vision for a tropical campus for our athletes, but on all those well-meaning sports and business people who have put a lot of their own time into making this happen. (Time expired)

Mr LYONS (Bass) (16:46): I rise this afternoon to inform the parliament about the positive action being taken by the federal Labor government in the electorate of Bass. I am so proud of the Gillard government's support for so many different facets of the Bass community. For instance, we have invested $70 million into local schools in the last four years. Mr Speaker, you should see the great new library at East Launceston Primary School, the wonderful undercover courtyard at Invermay Primary School and the fantastic new language centre at Scottsdale High School. A further $8 million commitment has seen trade training centres open in George Town and Scottsdale High Schools, and a third trade training centre, at St Patrick's College in Launceston, is underway. This is a fantastic commitment to local secondary students, who will have access to state-of-the-art training facilities and who will be able to acquire the skills they need for a trades career. The Bass electorate has the Green Skills Centre for Excellence at the Alanvale Campus of the Skills Institute—with $6.4 million from the federal Labor government—and more than $5.8 million has been provided for Tasmanian Polytechnic's Sustainable Tourism and Hospitality Training Centre.

Between 1997 and 2007, the former coalition government spent $4.4 billion on education infrastructure. This compares to the Labor government's spending of $16.2 billion in just the last four years, thereby maintaining employment across the country and transforming the learning experience for Australian students. The Gillard government has invested more than $160.9 million into Bass for health. Compare this to the piddling $32.31 million from the former government—an amazing additional $128 million from Labor. As well, $3.3 million went to the Windsor Park Multipurpose Community, Leisure and Wellbeing Centre project, and there were grants towards the infrastructure for five improved medical practices. We have delivered 54 new social housing units in Ravenswood, for the Door of Hope and the Thyne Building. Bass has been the recipient of TQUAL grants, Veteran and Community Grants and numerous volunteer grants. The government has also invested in vital water infrastructure in the north-east of Tasmania.

The federal Labor government has committed $18.7 million for the Scottsdale Defence Science and Technology Organisation upgrade. The coalition talked about this investment for DSTO for 11 years, but never delivered. These projects link food production and innovation, food technology, food industry training and service delivery. Forty projects have been funded under the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program, including $4.2 million for Aurora Stadium, which many of you might know as being the home of the Tassie Hawks.

There are another nine projects nearing completion in Bass and I look forward to seeing the benefits these various developments will bring to the electorate. We have committed $11.5 million for flood levees and I remain committed to the long-term health of the Tamar River. In 2010 the Liberal candidate secured a promise of $2.5 million for superficial silt removal in the Tamar River. I ask: is this money part of the Liberals' $70 billion black hole or is it just another hollow pledge by the Liberal Party that it has no hope of funding? The new fly-in candidate for Bass, a bureaucrat from Canberra, claims credit for the $2.5 million which was negotiated by Steve Titmus. Compare this to the $11.5 million from Labor.

Bass is a fantastic electorate and one of the best parts of Australia, and I am proud to represent it. I am pleased the member for Indi has enjoyed her stay in Northern Tasmania. I welcome anyone to come and visit and to enjoy our great Tassie hospitality.

Mr MORRISON (Cook) (16:50): The Sutherland shire is renowned for its hard-working, dedicated volunteers, who make the shire a better place to live and raise a family—it is my job to do all I can to ensure it stays that way. The Cook Community Classic harnesses this community spirit to empower our volunteers to help raise funds and raise awareness for more than 30 local community organisations and charities, including our local Bate Bay surf clubs, who joined with me in 2008 to create this unique event. The classic involves a major raffle and a gala ball, and culminates in a family community event at Cronulla Beach and Cronulla Park, featuring a surf carnival hosted by the four Bate Bay surf lifesaving clubs, which Wanda won this year. Since the inaugural event in 2008, the classic has raised more than $275,000, including just over $75,000 at last year's event. I especially want to thank IMB for its generous support and Julie Adams for her tireless efforts in organising this event.

It is one of the participating charities that I will draw the attention of the House to today. Gymea resident Dr Karen Crawley has for the past few years helped to run the Australian Mitochondrial Disease Foundation, inspired by her daughter's struggle against this debilitating and often fatal illness. Mitochondrial disease is a genetic disorder that robs the body source of energy, causing multiple organ dysfunction or failure. The mitochondria are the powerhouses of our cells, providing the body with over 90 per cent of the energy it needs to sustain life. Mitochondrial disease reduces the ability of the mitochondria to produce this energy. When mitochondria do not work properly cells begin to die until eventually whole organs fail. It is a life-threatening disease that has struck Dr Crawley's daughter Kara. Like most children who suffer from this cruel affliction, Kara is slowly being robbed of her senses, her brain function and, sadly, her life. It is a devastating scenario and unfortunately one that many families and individuals suffer today. Indeed, doctors have told Karen that mitochondrial disease may also affect her 11-year-old son, Braden, and her.

Every year 50 children will develop a severe or life-threatening form of mitochondrial disease. For all of the cruelty of this disease and its prevalence, it remains at the bottom of the ladder in terms of research, knowledge and funding. Due to dedicated volunteers like Karen, the foundation is working hard at advocating for research into this terrible disease and offering support to those affected by it. Known in the medical profession as the 'notorious masquerader', mitochondrial disease can literally defy diagnosis for years and is difficult to treat—and a cure remains elusive. So little is known about it that often sufferers are diagnosed only on their deathbed or autopsy. Many patients are moved from specialist to specialist at great cost and with little result or can be sent to psychologists or psychiatrists, convinced by experts that there is nothing physically wrong with them. Proper diagnosis could lead to more effective and earlier treatment as well as save patients thousands of dollars in consultations and medicines. Researchers also increasingly believe that mitochondrial dysfunction may be a significant factor in a wide range of major diseases and that improvements in mitochondrial medicine may eventually provide a key to better health and quality of life in older age.

Each year the foundation runs an annual Stay in Bed Day in September as part of Global Mitochondrial Disease Awareness Week. It encourages people to dress up in their pyjamas and hop into bed, the significance being that one of the first signs of the disease is a persistent fatigue. Schools and kindergartens in my own electorate of Cook are already getting involved, including Bonnet Bay primary school and the Wyralla Road Kindergarten at Miranda.

This is a matter that I think needs the attention of this House and of people on both sides of this chamber. It is something that Karen and her family struggle with on a daily basis. I am very pleased that in a small way the Cook Community Classic has been able to provide some support in their struggle and fight. I look forward to making announcements over the course of the year on other things we are able to do, particularly in the course of the special awareness week in September where we hope to raise further funds for mitochondrial disease research and support.

I am proud that the Cook Community Classic has been able to, as I say, support not only this worthy cause but so many other worthy causes within our local community. I look forward to that continuing well into the future. There are many who have supported this event. The local surf clubs have done an outstanding job. They joined with me early in starting this event a number of years ago. Our surf clubs are well known for looking out to sea and supporting and saving the lives of people in our community. This is an event where they turn back to the land and provide that same support to people in our community throughout their lives. My thoughts and prayers are with Karen and the rest of her family at this time and we look forward to the support we can give them in the future.

Ms GRIERSON (Newcastle) (16:54): I rise to add my support for jobs in Australia, particularly manufacturing jobs, as manufacturing is central to our Australian economy and plays a vital role in the economy of Newcastle. Hunter Valley Research Foundation figures show manufacturing in the Hunter remains strong, employing 11.1 per cent of our workforce, compared with 8.9 per cent nationally. Our region has created an additional 4,000 new manufacturing jobs in the sector.

But the question for everyone interested in manufacturing is about the future: how will Australian manufacturing fare in the challenges that confront our patchwork economy? These challenges include the shortage and cost of skilled labour, the ongoing impact and uncertainty of the GFC, disparate interest rates for equity loans, the high Australian dollar and the flow-on effect of high commodity prices.

Interestingly, in our first week of parliament we have heard nothing from the opposition on this pressing matter of public importance, just their continuation of 'playing the man' and their promise to slash jobs in the aluminium and steel industries, jobs in the automotive industry and public sector jobs.

Let me contrast this missing-in-action approach with that of HunterNet, the manufacturing cluster organisation in my region. They say:

The message we are getting from government is that to compete in the global supply chain, local industry has to be innovative and focus on high tech and niche market segments. While this makes sense in going forward, it will be a major challenge for most SME's … Nevertheless we have a resilient industry as the Hunter has demonstrated particularly over the last two decades, and our skills and innovative processes have developed significantly over this time.

They continue by saying:

So let's accept the challenges to meet the new paradigm. HunterNet is determined to continue to work with members to facilitate this process, so that together in our 20th year since incorporation we can ensure that we look forward to the next twenty years as a time of even greater progress and growth.

Wow! There are 200 companies in HunterNet and they will work together to confront the challenges of the Asian century. Contrast that to attitude in the new paradigm of the opposition—just say no to assisting industry and blame all job losses on the yet-to-be-introduced carbon price.

The Australian dollar remains high and manufacturers are doing it tough in a competitive international market, but Labor's priority is jobs. We are working with the local manufacturers through the Prime Minister's Taskforce on Manufacturing, we are fostering innovation within the sector and we are driving competitiveness and boosting productivity.

In today's Australian, BHP Chairman and former Ford CEO Jacques Nasser stated that carmakers had invested billions of dollars into the Australian car industry and it would be 'short-sighted not to support them in a very traumatic period'. Car manufacturing is a sector that governments around the world have supported. We are supporting the automotive industry and are determined to provide the sector the certainty required for some long-term investment.

Our $300 million Steel Transformation Plan is supporting Australian steel-makers. In December it was announced BlueScope Steel would receive an advance payment of $100 million. OneSteel is also receiving an advance payment of $64 million under the plan. Our Clean Technology Program is providing $1.2 billion in order to upgrade capital equipment and to carry out research and development in industry, ensuring Australia remains competitive in a carbon constrained world. Our Jobs and Competitiveness Program will provide $9.2 billion to assist manufacturers to remain globally competitive in important industries such as aluminium, steel, zinc and lead. We are supporting research and development through the R&D tax incentive, the single biggest reform to business innovation support in more than a decade.

The opposition, though, say no to supporting manufacturers, no to the car industry and no to Australian workers, intending to cut investment in the sector, slashing $500 million from the $3.4 billion Automotive Transformation Scheme. This is not good enough for the 46,000 Australians employed in the car industry, nor the 200,000 workers that rely in part on that sector for their own jobs—workers in steel, aluminium, glass, precision tool making and engineering. These are all capabilities that we need to retain in this country.

Manufacturing has very wide-reaching benefits. It benefits scientists and engineers. One in five engineers are employed directly in the sector. One-quarter of private research and development in Australia is undertaken by our manufacturing sector. The skills and training fostered by the sector are regarded as the core of a strong, modern economy, as trained workers are able to utilise their skills in other sectors, such as transport, infrastructure, power generation and telecommunications.

By supporting manufacturing, we are supporting Australian knowledge, Australian innovation, Australian skills, Australian jobs and Australia's future. As the Minister for Manufacturing said, 'This is about a fight for jobs, a fight for Australian jobs'—and Labor stands for jobs. These are challenging times, but we are determined to assist our manufacturing sector to enhance innovation, diversity and resilience so that our manufacturing thrives now and into the future. (Time expired)

House adjourned at 17:00