Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (10:19): I move:

That this House:

(1) calls on Australian parliamentarians to endorse the Global Parliamentarian Declaration on the Arms Trade Treaty;

(2) recognises:

(a) that the poor regulation of arms:

(i) results in tens-of-thousands of lives needlessly lost every year;

(ii) undermines peace and peace building processes, human security, poverty reduction initiatives, and prospects for sustainable socioeconomic development; and

(iii) facilitates gender-based violence against women who disproportionately endure the indirect, longer-term consequences of armed conflict; and

(b) the immediate need for a legally binding international agreement on the regulation of the global trade in arms;

(3) congratulates successive Australian governments for their demonstrated commitment to an internationally binding arms trade treaty; and

(4) calls on the Australian Government to continue strong advocacy for an international arms trade treaty at the upcoming United Nations negotiations on the matter in July 2012.

It is difficult to overstate the devastating effect of illicit weapons on individuals and communities around the world. In fact, it is estimated that 1,500 people are killed each day from conflict and armed violence. Incredibly, around 12 billion bullets are produced every year—that is about two for every person on the planet.

Part of the problem is that the multibillion dollar global trade in arms is largely unregulated. As Amnesty International and Oxfam Australia have noted in a letter to all MPs and senators, the trade in arms is more poorly regulated than the trade in bananas or coffee. Weapons are often traded irresponsibly between countries, with no consideration of whether they will be used to commit human rights abuses or diverted to those who will.

In the Democratic Republic of Congo, DRC, for example, weapons continue to pour into the country despite clear evidence of human rights abuses, fuelling ongoing conflict and human suffering—weapons are diverted to war lords, women are raped at gunpoint and children are recruited as soldiers. In the DRC the asking price for an AK-47 is reported to be just US$50.

Most human rights violations are not committed with tanks or other heavy artillery; they involve small arms and light weapons. In small communities, such as in the Pacific, it is easy to imagine that just one armed gunman could hold a whole village hostage.

During July, UN member states will meet to negotiate a new treaty to regulate international transfers of conventional weapons. The purpose of the treaty is not to limit or reduce legitimate arms transfers but, rather, to prevent irresponsible transfers by requiring states to undertake risk assessments of each transfer to determine if they will be used to commit violations of international humanitarian or human rights law or seriously impair poverty reduction or socio-economic development. This is the fundamental purpose of the treaty, and specific criteria achieving this must be included in the treaty text.

A robust treaty should include all types of conventional arms, including small arms and light weapons, and ammunition. Ammunition is likely to be a sticking point, particularly for the US, which argues that it is too onerous to track. However, ammunition must be included in the scope of the treaty. Some weapons, such as the AK-47, are virtually indestructible. So their use continues for decades, by one group after the next as they are traded around, because ammunition for them is readily available. The treaty should also cover all types of trade activity, including transhipments, brokering and gifting. Critically, the treaty should be legally binding and require national implementation with clear reporting provisions.

Successive Australian governments have strongly supported the establishment of a robust treaty. Australia has co-authored every United Nations resolution on an arms trade treaty since 2006 and has played an active role as Friend of the Chair. Australia has advocated widely for the arms trade treaty in the Pacific, the Caribbean and Africa. I encourage the Australian government delegation, led by Foreign Minister Carr, to continue to champion a robust, comprehensive and legally binding instrument. There is no doubt that negotiating this treaty in four weeks is an ambitious task. However, considering the staggering impact irresponsible arms transfers have on humanity, there is certainly an urgent need for a positive outcome. And, where there's a will, there's a way.

The deepening crisis in Syria is indeed a poignant reminder of the critical need for an arms trade treaty. Amnesty International's latest report on Syria, Deadly reprisals, provides further evidence that deliberate and unlawful killings are part of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population, are carried out in an organised manner and as part of state policy, and therefore amount to crimes against humanity. And yet some nations, such as Russia, continue to ship weapons to Syria, despite the high risk they will be used to commit atrocities.

The international community now has a historic opportunity to negotiate a treaty that will prevent weapons getting into the wrong hands and could save hundreds of thousands of lives. I would like to pay tribute to Amnesty International and Oxfam Australia for their campaign to raise awareness and support within the community and among parliamentarians. I note the briefings conducted by Amnesty International last week in the parliament on this subject. I also note and welcome the efforts of the Parliamentarians for Global Action, or PGA, to promote the new treaty as one of its major campaigns, including asking parliamentarians to sign the Global Parliamentarian Declaration on the Arms Trade Treaty. So far, more than 1,500 parliamentarians from all over the world, including more than 50 Australian federal MPs and senators, have signed the declaration.

I thank colleagues for their support of this important arms trade treaty that will play a role in promoting regional and global security and save tens of thousands of lives needlessly lost each year.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): Is the motion seconded?

Mrs MOYLAN (Pearce) (10:24): Yes, I second the motion. I am appreciative of the opportunity to speak on this important motion and I thank the member for Fremantle for bringing it to the attention of this parliament today. Each day the scourge of war directly affects millions across the globe. Countless more continue to suffer the indirect effects, decades after conflicts subside, through human rights abuses, poverty and human trafficking. Weapons are more easily finding their way into the hands of non-state actors, fuelling decades-long conflicts and creating new ones. The toll on civilians continues to rise with each passing year, and women and children are disproportionally affected as existing inequities are magnified and they are exposed to sexual violence and exploitation.

Whilst the causes of each conflict are complex, there is a simple truth: wars require weapons. Limiting the flow of arms into conflict regions would help stem violence. But, unfortunately, arms easily find their way though because the trade has very little regulation. In fact, regulations applying to bananas are greater than those applying to the global arms trade.

To remedy this situation, from 2 to 27 July, the United Nations will host discussions for a global arms trade treaty. The treaty is the culmination of six years of investigation and has involved extensive consultations with countries and non-governmental organisations. I am also pleased to say that the treaty has had strong bipartisan support though successive Australian governments.

The arms trade treaty is intended to outlaw the transfer of arms if there is a substantial risk they could be used in breaching international humanitarian law, be diverted from the legitimately intended recipient, affect regional security or be used by terrorist networks. A revolutionary and welcome aspect of this agreement is its broad scope; covering all weapons, transfer types and transactions. That means any weapon, from helicopter gunships to handguns, will be covered. Transfer types will include import, export, temporary transfer, state sanctioned, commercial transactions, technology transfer, plus so-called gifts and aid; and transactions will also cover brokers and dealers, whether state-sponsored or not.

While there is strong support for the treaty in general, Amnesty International is urging parliamentarians across the world to show their support and ensure that the substance of the treaty is not watered down during the upcoming negotiation process, as so often happens. Last week the Parliamentary Friends of Amnesty was privileged to host Widney Brown, Amnesty International Global Director of International Law and Policy, who outlined the status of the negotiations and the issues still to be resolved. Of particular concern are calls to remove ammunition and technology transfer from the treaty. Some countries have objected to ammunition on the basis that it is too hard to track. But it was pointed out that Australia already has a system tracking its ammunition, and there is no reason why other countries could not adopt a similar process.

The restriction on technology transfer ensures that a more recent and disturbing trend is stamped out. It has come to the attention of Amnesty that in order to bypass arms embargoes, weapons factories are being built in conflict regions. Such factories intensify conflict though easy access to arms, destabilise regions and place even more women and children in danger. The process should be stopped and must certainly remain an area regulated by this treaty.

In conclusion, I would urge all members of this place to sign the Global Parliamentarian Declaration on the Arms Trade Treaty. Once again, I would like to thank Widney Brown and Amnesty for their continued advocacy on this important treaty, and thank the member for Fremantle for moving this motion in this place today.

Debate adjourned.

Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper) (10:28): I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) 2012 is the International Year of Cooperatives;

(b) there are two million more cooperative members in Australia than retail share investors;

(c) cooperatives create diversity in the Australian economy;

(d) cooperatives play an important role in delivering services to regional and rural communities; and

(e) some Australian Government industry assistance is not available to enterprises with a cooperative structure; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) support the role of cooperatives in Australian communities; and

(b) continue working with the States and Territories to implement nationally consistent laws governing the operation of cooperatives.

Cooperatives play a key role in the Australian economy but are often overlooked as a business model and not appreciated for the benefits that they bring to regional communities. 2012 is the International Year of Cooperatives and 7 July is the International Day of Cooperatives, so it is very appropriate for us to be debating this motion at this time. A cooperative is simply an alternative business structure which operates for the benefit of cooperative members, rather than for the benefit of investors or shareholders. To put it simply, a cooperative is just a group of people cooperating for their mutual benefit. Cooperatives around the world operate in accordance with seven guiding principles: firstly, voluntary and open membership; secondly, democratic member control; thirdly, member economic participation; fourthly, autonomy and independence; fifthly, education, training and information; sixthly, cooperation among cooperatives; and, finally, concern for the community. Community is a very important issue in relation to cooperatives.

There are around 1,800 cooperatives in Australia, with more than 7.5 million members. Cooperatives operate in many areas of the economy including agriculture, financial services, fishing, housing, insurance and even child care. Many people would not be aware that cooperatives have a unique top-level domain which is .coop, instead of the traditional .com. The top 100 Australian cooperatives, credit unions, and mutuals turned over $14.7 billion in 2011. Many cooperatives are well-known brands in Australia, including Cooperative Bulk Handling, or CBH, in Western Australia, which turns over $2.63 billion; Murray Goulburn Cooperative, which turns over $2.24 billion; Australian Unity, which turns over $656 million; Dairy Farmers Milk Cooperative, which turns over $497 million; and the NRMA, which turns over $456 million. Other notable cooperatives in Australia include Norco in my electorate, the RACV, RACQ, Credit Union Australia, and a range of credit unions including the Banana Coast Credit Union, or BCU as it is now known, in my electorate.

I would also like to note the Macleay Regional Cooperative and the Coffs Harbour Fishermen's Cooperative. Both are located in my electorate and both are in the top 100 cooperatives in Australia. The Macleay Regional Cooperative has been operating in the Macleay Valley since 1905. It operates and owns the Kempsey Supa IGA supermarket, Macleay 5 Star Fitness and key commercial real estate in Kempsey. The Coffs Harbour Fishermen's Cooperative has been operating since the 1950s. It is owned by 45 local professional fisherman and is a significant part of Coffs Harbour's economy, providing significant local employment opportunities. The Nambucca River Cooperative also operates in my electorate. It started in 1903 and has served the Nambucca Valley ever since. In the north of my electorate is the Clarence River Fishermen's Cooperative, which is a very important part of the Maclean community. I should also mention Oz Berries in Woolgoolga. The blueberry industry has provided a significant boost to our region with hundreds of jobs and continuing investment in the area. The cooperative allows local farmers to focus on growing and picking berries while marketing and sales are left to the cooperative.

Around the world, one billion people are cooperative members and cooperatives collectively employ 100 million people globally. The 300 largest cooperatives in the world are worth a combined value of US$1.6 trillion. Because cooperatives operate in the best interest of members, not shareholders, they are able to provide a range of services that may not be available from organisations with traditional company structures. You only have to look at the role that credit unions and building societies play in regional communities to realise the importance of cooperatives. Mutual banking institutions are accountable to their communities and can often be found serving regional communities long after the major banks have closed their branches and left town. Australian mutual banking institutions hold about $83 billion in assets and serve some 4.6 million Australians. Despite the significant size of the mutual sector, credit unions and building societies have the flexibility to meet the needs of their members because they do not answer to shareholders demanding ever-increasing profit growth. The International Year of the Cooperative secretariat explains the benefits of cooperatives by saying:

Co-operatives’ democratic structure often allows for more prudent business decisions to be made. Not being tied to the merry-go-round of short-term profits means co-operatives can invest in their businesses and their people. Co-operatives have strong links to the communities in which they operate and in which their members live. As such they promote self-reliance of communities and are of general benefit to society.

In short, cooperatives often serve a dual role as both business entities and social enterprises. For this reason, cooperatives are a significant contributor to many Australian communities and they should be recognised.

Unfortunately cooperatives do not attract the same recognition or benefits as organisations with a company structure. In the past, cooperatives have missed out on some benefits available to companies. I have been advised by some cooperatives that the federal government's Enterprise Connect program will only provide advice to organisations with a company structure; likewise, some state government industry advice programs are only available to companies. A number of other government programs, including the Social Enterprise Development and Investment Fund, do not appear to include cooperatives as eligible to receive assistance. Cooperatives are also disadvantaged by the current accounting standards, which treat members' shares in a cooperative as a liability; in contrast, a shareholder's investment in a company is seen as equity. The difference may materially impact on a cooperative's ability to raise finance.

Cooperatives have also struggled to manage the range of different state based regulatory regimes and laws. The states and territories are gradually moving towards nationally consistent cooperative laws but the process is taking some considerable time. I am pleased to note that New South Wales has recently passed new, nationally consistent cooperative laws. The law change will benefit around 680 cooperatives in New South Wales with a combined total of more than 1.5 million members. New South Wales is the lead jurisdiction for cooperative national law and it is now up to the other states and territories to get on board and pass similar laws. Once operating nationally, the new cooperatives national law will remove barriers and encourage growth in the cooperative sector. We need to have a seamless regulatory regime that does not punish cooperatives operating across state borders. I call on the states and territories to pass the new cooperative laws just as soon as possible.

Cooperatives provide diversity and opportunity in the Australian economy. It is entirely appropriate that we recognise and celebrate the contribution made by cooperatives in Australia. I will conclude my remarks with a quote from UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon who said:

Cooperatives are a reminder to the international community that it is possible to pursue both economic viability and social responsibility.

I call on all members of this House to support this motion.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Grierson ): Is the motion seconded?

Mr Keenan: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Mr RIPOLL (Oxley—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (10:37): It is a pleasure to speak on this motion. I thank the member for Cowper for putting it forward and for his contribution on the matter of cooperatives in this country. The government greatly values the social and economic contribution that cooperatives make to this nation. Cooperatives do some excellent work in our community, and the government does some great things to support them in their work. As the motion notes, the United Nations declared 2012 the International Year of Cooperatives—the IYC—in recognition of the valuable contribution made by cooperatives to global social and economic development. This is a truly valuable contribution, and it operates not only at the global level but also very much on a local and national level.

The national peak body for cooperative businesses, Co-operatives Australia, has argued that the strong performance of member owned enterprises around the world during the global financial crisis has led in Australia to renewed interest in the cooperative business model and the benefits of doing business with a member and community focus. It is a little bit surprising—though maybe it is just a sign of a more sophisticated and complex world—that we drifted away from the cooperative model and the type of business focus that cooperatives have, which is often community based. But it is good to see now that people are once again returning to the cooperative model.

The International Year of Cooperatives provides a fantastic opportunity for Australia's cooperatives to celebrate and promote their work. According to Australia's International Year of Cooperatives Steering Committee, Australia has over 2,000 cooperatives and 113 mutual banking institutions owned by more than eight million people. So there is a very strong cooperative base and a very strong cooperative community, both of which are well supported here in Australia.

Cooperatives are defined by their member-ownership and member focused way of doing business. Former federal Labor Minister for Home Affairs and former New South Wales Attorney-General and minister for cooperatives Bob Debus AM is patron and supporter of the International Year of Cooperatives and has noted that ethical investment and corporate social responsibility are at the very heart of what cooperatives do. Ethical investment and corporate social responsibility are great things, and the former minister did a very good job of promoting them. I am sure that the member for Cowper had corporate social responsibility and social investment in mind when he drafted this motion, and I am sure that he shares this government's strong commitment to promoting them.

Australia's cooperatives operate across a diverse range of industries, including book sales, clubs, cotton growing, dairy produce, fishing, fruit marketing, grain handling and marketing, labour hire, plumbing supplies, property sales, recycling, rural grocery and petrol supplies, sugar milling, taxis, tourism and wine sales. I am sure there are probably one or two others as well. Certainly cooperatives are diverse and significant, and certainly they form part of the basis of a very strong Australian economy.

The former Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer and number for Lindsay launched the International Year of Cooperatives on 22 November last year. To celebrate the role that cooperative organisations play in Australia, the government, through the Royal Australian Mint, released a commemorative one-dollar coin in January 2012. One of the goals of the International Year of Cooperatives is to 'encourage governments to establish policies, laws and regulations conducive to the formation, growth and stability of cooperatives'. I look forward to outlining some of the things that this Gillard government is doing to support cooperatives and the good work they do in our community.

The motion notes that some Australian government industry assistance is not available to enterprises with a cooperative structure. Industry assistance programs within the Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education portfolio do not explicitly exclude cooperatives from eligibility; however, program guidelines sometimes restrict eligibility to incorporated bodies or bodies that are required to pay income tax, as most people would expect. For example, the R&D tax incentive can only assist individuals or bodies which are subject to tax, as entities obviously need to have a tax liability in the first place to benefit from the program. If a particular cooperative is not incorporated or is exempt from paying income tax, it will not be able to access most industry assistance programs. I can understand that most people would think that that is fair, because organisations which are not paying income tax already receive assistance and therefore an incentive.

That said, the government recognises the valuable role that cooperatives play in the Australian economy and is working to ensure that future industry assistance programs do not unreasonably exclude from eligibility business structures of any particular type. In the meantime, the government has introduced a number of key reforms across a range of areas such as not-for-profits, banking and regulation. These reforms will go a long way to assisting cooperatives in the valuable work they do. Most cooperatives are not-for-profit entities, and the government has an ambitious not-for-profit reform agenda which implements the most significant reforms the sector has experienced over the last century.

As of September 2009, there were 1,726 cooperatives registered across Australia—three-quarters of them established as non-profit entities. As part of the 2011-12 budget, the government announced that it would establish a regulator for the not-for-profit sector, the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission—the ACNC. The government released draft legislation to establish the ACNC in late 2011 and has engaged in extensive consultation with the not-for-profit sector. This has included targeted consultation meetings in Sydney and Melbourne, attending ACNC task force road shows across the country and working with the Australian Taxation Office's Clubs Consultative Committee and Charities Consultative Committee and the Not-for-profit Sector Reform Council. Try to say all that in one breath!

While initially only tax-endorsed charities will be regulated by the ACNC, the forthcoming ACNC bill establishes a regulatory framework which can be extended to all not-for-profit entities, including cooperatives, in the future. This will help to cut red tape and reduce regulatory burdens for cooperatives so that they can get on with the important work they do—and of which we are all supportive—such as delivering services to rural and regional communities.

In addition, as part of its Competitive and Sustainable Banking System package, the government is taking action to facilitate the competitive power of Australia's mutual credit unions and building societies. The government has introduced a government-guaranteed deposit symbol which informs consumers that the government guarantees deposits of up to $250,000 with any authorised deposit-taking institution—ADI—such as a credit union, a building society or a bank. Basically it means that the government guarantees that your money is safe. The seal is primarily aimed at supporting smaller institutions, like credit unions and building societies, in accessing and retaining depositor funding. The government's guaranteed deposits seal has been available from 31 January 2012. I am advised that, as of 21 June 2012, 97 ADIs have approached Treasury for information on the seal and 67 ADIs have been provided with the seal for use or display. Related to this, the Financial Claims Scheme applies to all ADIs that are incorporated in Australia and take deposits.

The FCS provides certainty to Australian depositors in credit unions and building societies that their deposits will be protected in the same manner as they would be if they were held by a bank. The government has introduced a new, permanent FCS cap of $250,000 per account holder, per ADI, which has applied since 1 February 2012. This will also help smaller institutions, like credit unions and building societies, by enabling them to demonstrate the safety of most of their deposit products.

As at 21 June 2012, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, APRA, has approved the applications of six mutuals, which are now marketing themselves as mutual banks—bankmecu, QT Mutual Bank, Defence Bank, Heritage Bank, Victorian Teachers Mutual Bank and Teachers Mutual Bank—while others are actively considering rebranding. By allowing mutual lenders to market themselves as mutual banks, the government is helping to educate consumers about the safety and competitiveness of mutual lenders. In the end, better competition means better value and better products for consumers, and that drives consumer protection as well.

Finally, I assure the member for Cowper that the government will continue working with the states and territories to implement nationally consistent laws governing the operation of cooperatives. In the past, discussion between the cooperatives sector and regulators about the need for reform of the current cooperatives legislation, including the need for improved consistency and simpler requirements for cross-border operations by cooperatives, led to the development of the Australian Uniform Cooperative Laws Agreement. We have also set up a consumer affairs forum and through that forum the states and territories have agreed also to work towards the introduction of Cooperatives National Law or alternative consistent legislation. While the Commonwealth is not a party to that particular body—we will have no regulatory role under the Cooperatives National Law—there are numerous points of interaction with Commonwealth corporations legislation for which we are responsible.

Once passed, this national legislation will greatly assist cooperatives in the work they do and in making sure they comply. This is why government is encouraging the states and territories to work together to implement this national legislation as a matter of priority. I thank all the speakers who will speak on this motion and support the good work being done by the government.

Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (10:47): I rise today to support the motion of the member for Cowper, which notes: 2012 is the International Year of Cooperatives; there are two million more cooperative members in Australia than retail share investors; cooperatives create diversity in the Australian economy; cooperatives play an important role in delivering services to regional and rural communities; some Australian government industry assistance is not available to enterprises with cooperative structure; it calls on the government to support the role of cooperatives in Australian communities and to continue working with the states and territories to implement nationally consistent laws governing the operation of cooperatives.

My electorate of Wannon has some wonderful cooperatives in it. For instance, we have the Murray Goulburn Co-operative, which has its largest processing plant in Koroit, in my electorate of Wannon. Murray Goulburn was established in 1950. It is 100 per cent controlled by Australian dairy farmers and is our No. 1 exporter of dairy products. Its plant in Koroit, which I have visited, is state-of-the-art and enables liquid milk to come into the plant straight from a dairy farm and, within 24 hours, that milk is on a truck and on its way to the Port of Melbourne to be exported. It is a very good cooperative.

Wannon also has the Terang Co-op, which was made famous a few years ago by the two students who stood up to Julia Gillard and the Labor government and said 'you should not take our jobs away from us' after they were stopped from working after school for an hour and a half. As history has shown they fought that in court and won, and we got the employment rules changed for students working after school. It employs 110 full-time people. It creates wealth for the local region and distributes the profits it gets to local organisations and clubs. The Terang Co-op does a wonderful job.

Wannon electorate has the Casterton Community Co-operative, which is being set up, hopefully, to get the hardware store back and operating in Casterton. The Casterton hardware store closed down, sadly, a year and a half or two or three years ago now and so a group of volunteers has set up a cooperative, which they hope will get the Casterton hardware store up and operating again. It would be very beneficial to the town of Casterton.

We also have the Bendigo Community Bank operating in the electorate of Wannon. It has some cooperative branches at Avoca, Beaufort, Cobden and district, Coleraine and district, Dunkeld and district, Heywood, Maryborough, Willaura and Lake Bolac. The Avoca branch of the Bendigo Community Bank was so successful that it enabled it to expand into Maryborough. Once again these Bendigo Bank community banks do wonderful work because the profits that are made from these banks are fed back into the local communities and help strengthen these local communities. On the whole these cooperatives are operating in smaller rural and regional towns and pay money back into those communities, which is absolutely important.

I would like to commend the member for Cowper because the one thing we do need when it comes to cooperatives is for the states and territories to implement nationally consistent laws governing their operation. We also have to make sure that we do not see the current government put more red tape on this sector because, as we have seen with their work of trying to reform not-for-profit organisations and charities, it is becoming a regulatory nightmare what those organisations are being confronted with. We do not want to see this government's penchant to overregulate every part of our society also creep into this area. That would be disastrous.

I would like to commend all the cooperatives in Wannon and also commend the member for Cowper for this excellent motion.

Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (10:52): I am really pleased to rise to speak to this motion, and I thank the member for Cowper for moving it. I have no doubt that in moving it he is aware of the work that the federal government has been doing in this area, and again I acknowledge his commitment to the sector in moving this motion.

I doubt that there are many of us in Australia that are not involved with one cooperative or another, although we may not understand exactly what that means. This International Year of the Cooperative is a really good opportunity for us as a community to improve our understanding of how extraordinary the contribution of this sector is. If you are or ever have been a member of a credit union, you have been associated with a cooperative. If you have been a member of the RACQ or the NRMA or called roadside assistance, you have also benefitted from some of our strongest cooperatives.

There are about 1,700 cooperatives in Australia, and it is amazing how large some of them are. In the top 100, we have co-ops like Co-operative Bulking Handling Ltd (WA), which turns over more than $2.63 billion; the Murray Goulburn Co-operative, which turns over $2.24 billion; HBF, which turns over $1.1 billion; and the Royal Automobile Club of WA, which turns over $656 million. So these are very, very large cooperatives. As you go down the list you see the RACV, the automobile club for Victoria; and the New England Credit Union, which comes in at number 52.

It is really quite an impressive list in which you will see most of the credit unions, the names of which you would recognise: the Teachers Credit Union, at over $100 million, and the Police and Nurses Credit Society. It is an incredibly impressive list. It includes housing co-ops and some food co-ops. I had the pleasure of being a member of a food co-op once, many years ago, up in the Blue Mountains and I used to go up there from time to time to buy from it because it focused on local supply of very fresh organic food. Again, across almost every area where people have an interest you will find co-ops forming.

I would like to talk a little bit about the issue of regulation, because the member for Cowper has included that in his motion. I would just like to reassure the member for Cowper that the government will continue working with the states and territories to implement nationally consistent laws governing the operation of cooperatives. In the past, discussion between the cooperative sector and the regulators about the need for reform of current co-op legislation, including the need for improved consistency and simpler requirements for cross-border operations by cooperatives, led to the development of the Australian Uniform Cooperative Laws Agreement. I have said before in this place how amazed I am sometimes at the inability of a person to cross a state border without running into a whole stack of new regulation. This was and still is another area where we have that concern.

The agreement requires that all states and territories apply proposed national template legislation or pass legislation which is consistent with the national legislation for the regulation of cooperatives. New South Wales is the host jurisdiction under the agreement, and I have seen some commentary on some of the co-op sites recently about the work that the New South Wales government has done in this area. The uniform template legislation, the Cooperatives National Law and its supporting regulations, was developed by the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs. The initial legislation, the Co-operatives (Adoption of National Law) Act 2012, containing the Cooperatives National Law, was passed by New South Wales and received assent very recently, on 18 May.

I note this development was welcomed by peak body Co-operatives Australia and their state based members. Again, I have seen how much traffic there has been on the websites that are dedicated to reporting on cooperatives in the last few weeks. While the regulation of cooperatives is the responsibility of the state and territory governments, the Australian government has supported the progression of the Cooperatives National Law through the Council of Australian Governments, which we know as COAG, Legislative and Governance Forum on Consumer Affairs, and the states and territories have agreed that they will continue to work towards the introduction of the Cooperatives National Law or alternative consistent legislation. It is quite appropriate that this work is being done this year, which is the International Year of the Cooperative. It is valuable work. It is work that supports an incredibly important part of our economy, one which I hope we will see greater recognition of this year.

Mr COULTON (Parkes—The Nationals Chief Whip) (10:57): I too rise this morning to speak in support of this motion moved by the member for Cowper. I also acknowledge the contributions made by other members. It is important to note that 2012 is the International Year of the Cooperative and that there are over two million more cooperative members in Australia than retail share investors. Cooperatives create diversity in Australia. They play an important role in delivering services to regional and rural communities. Some Australian government industry assistance is not available to enterprises with cooperatives, and we need to call on the government to support the role of cooperatives in Australian communities and to continue working with the states and territories to implement nationally consistent laws governing the operation of cooperatives.

This is the International Year of the Cooperative, and it is:

… an acknowledgement by the international community that co-operatives drive the economy, respond to social change, are resilient to the global economic crisis and are serious, successful businesses creating jobs in all sectors.

That was a quote from the website of the International Year of the Cooperative. To quote Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon of the UN:

Cooperatives are a reminder to the international community that it is possible to pursue both economic viability and social responsibility.

One of the three goals identified by the UN in the International Year of the Cooperative was to encourage governments to establish policies, laws and regulations conducive to the formation, growth and stability of cooperatives. This is exactly what the member for Cowper's private member's motion calls on the government to do. There are three main areas where cooperatives have been found to have the most value: (1) poverty reduction, (2) employment generation, and (3) social integration. In my electorate, one of the largest cooperatives was established way back in 1962 at the start of the fledgling Australian cotton industry by a group of growers at Wee Waa. The Namoi Cotton Co-operative is now Australia's leading cotton processing and marketing organisation. Namoi Cotton has a mission statement to 'deliver quality products and services to our customers and members'. Namoi Cotton employs 120 full-time staff and over 300 seasonal and casual employees. In 1998 Namoi Cotton was the first entity to be listed on the Australian Stock Exchange while retaining its cooperative status. In 2010 Namoi Cotton ginned 516,000 bales and in 2011 1,058,000 bales—that is including the ones they did with joint ventures. The social engagement of Namoi Cotton extends to industry groups such as Cotton Australia, the Australian Cotton Shippers Association, the Australian Cotton Ginners Association, the Regional Cotton Growers Association, Moree Trade Show, Agquip, and water users groups. Namoi Cotton also encourages staff to participate in charity causes. I have to say that in the Namoi valley area, Namoi Cotton are very much part of the local community.

In 2011 Namoi Cotton's achievements were: effective maintenance of margins through efficient and sustainable ginning operations; extensive recruitment and retention of industry-leading cotton-ginning employees; increased throughputs and efficient turnaround times for growers despite the large volumes; successful implementation of its patented round module handling technology at a further five ginning sites, providing uninterrupted handling and seamless processing of 36 per cent of ginning bales in round cotton module form—and that will soon be up to 80 per cent and then, with the changes in technology, it will probably be up to 100 per cent before much longer. Namoi Cotton is predicting a record year in 2013 with an Australian cotton crop of 4.6 million bales—so cotton is doing very well at the moment in my electorate.

Another important role of cooperatives in my electorate is in the finance sector. The member for Parramatta mentioned some of the credit unions, and some of those that she mentioned operate in my electorate as well. One of the success stories is the Bendigo Bank. It has come into communities—the one that comes to mind is Gilgandra, where some of the mainstream financiers had left the town—and, with its community engagement, it has become very much part of the community—in that case, the Gilgandra community. The credit unions that come into communities right across my electorate are also very important.

Ms SAFFIN (Page) (11:03): I thank the honourable member for Cowper for his motion and for giving us the opportunity to speak on the International Year of Cooperatives. I am pleased to be able to talk about some of the excellent work that cooperatives do in our community, and also to speak about some of the good work that the government is doing to support cooperatives. The motion correctly draws our attention to the fact that the United Nations declared 2012 the International Year of Cooperatives. This recognises the valuable social and economic contributions made by cooperatives at local, national and global levels, particularly in the area of development.

Some of the comments that I make will closely echo what others have said in this place, because we share the same sentiments and the same views about cooperatives. There is sometimes a view that cooperatives are a bit old-fashioned and that they are no longer relevant in our day and age, yet when we have a look at what they do, how many of them there are, and how many people own them and are represented by them, we see that that is just not correct. According to the United Nations International Year of Cooperatives National Steering Committee—Australia, 'Australia has over 2,000 cooperatives and 130 mutual banking institutions that are owned by more than eight million people.' That is a lot of people.

We have just heard the honourable member for Parkes speak about some of the financial institutions with reference to the contribution by the honourable member for Parramatta referring to the Bendigo Bank. That is an institution that I know well, as the Bendigo Bank also operates in my seat of Page. Not only is it providing a good financial and banking service but also it is very involved in the community and in various community initiatives.

I am sure that when the honourable member for Cowper was drafting the motion, he had in mind that it was the International Year of Cooperatives. Australia's cooperatives operate across a diverse range of industries including agriculture, services, rural grocery and petrol supplies, sugar milling—a very important industry in my area—taxis, tourism and wine sales. I also note that the Australian government through the Royal Australian Mint released a commemorative one dollar coin in January 2012.

I would like to talk about industry assistance. The honourable member for Cowper notes in his motion:

… some Australian Government industry assistance is not available to enterprises with a cooperative structure …

Industry assistance programs within the Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education portfolio do not explicitly exclude cooperatives from eligibility; however, program guidelines sometimes restrict eligibility to incorporated bodies or bodies that are required to pay income tax. If it is a question of guidelines, they can be changed. But, for example, the R&D tax incentive can only assist individuals or bodies subject to tax, as they obviously need to have a tax liability in the first place to benefit from the program. Where a particular co-operative is not incorporated or is exempt from paying income taxes, it will not be able to access most industry programs. That said, the government recognises the valuable role that cooperatives play in the Australian economy and is working to ensure that future industry assistance programs do not unreasonably exclude any particular business structure from eligibility.

I note in relation to the clean energy programs that the cooperatives in my area, Norco and Northern Co-operative Meat, are both eligible to apply for assistance under these particular programs and packages. I was involved in checking that they were eligible. So it is not restrictive across the board. In the meantime the government has introduced a number of key reforms across a range of areas.

Debate adjourned.

Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (11:08): I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) after almost 12 long years of inaction by the former Australian Coalition Government, the current Australian Labor Government has delivered historic pension reforms that have provided increases of $154 per fortnight for max-rate single pensioners and $156 per fortnight for max-rate pensioner couples;

(b) the NSW Government increased public housing rents for pensioners in 2011, taking away some of the Australian Government’s 2009 pension increase;

(c) the Australian Government is delivering extra assistance to millions of Australian pensioners through the Household Assistance Package;

(d) this new assistance is being delivered as a stand-alone pension supplement, separate from the base pension rate, so that pensioners living in public housing could receive the full benefit of this assistance without it affecting their social housing rents; and

(e) the NSW Government has announced that it will include this assistance when calculating social housing rents from March 2013, meaning pensioners living in public housing will not receive the full benefit of the Australian Government’s assistance.

(2) condemns the NSW Government for increasing rents for about 84,000 NSW pensioners and taking away part of their pension increase; and

(3) calls on the Opposition to guarantee it would not take away the pension increases as part of the Household Assistance Package if in government.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Grierson ): Is the motion seconded? I recognise the member for Hayes.

Mr Hayes: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Ms OWENS: I rise unexpectedly, I guess, given the calibre of our new state government in New South Wales, to condemn that government for increasing rents for about 84,000 New South Wales pensioners in public housing and taking away part of their pension increase. Unfortunately, this is standard behaviour for this particular government.

After almost 12 long years of inaction by the former Australian coalition government, the current Labor government delivered historic pension reforms that have provided significant increases to pensioners: $154 per fortnight for the maximum rate single pensioners and $156 per fortnight for maximum rate pensioner couples. That was delivered in 2009. Then, in 2011, after Premier Barry O'Farrell became Premier of New South Wales, he put his hand in the pockets of those pensioners and took some of it for himself by increasing public housing rents.

Now we have a supplement coming through to pensioners of $250 for singles and $380 for couples, paid as a separate pension supplement because it is designed to compensate pensioners of all kinds—including disability pensioners and seniors pensioners—for what will be a modest increase in costs due to the price on carbon. In fact, it is due to overcompensate them for that modest price. But, once again, we have the Premier of New South Wales putting his hand into the pockets of pensioners and declaring that once that supplement becomes part of the base rate, in March next year, he will claw some of it back for himself. It is without any doubt a grubby cash grab on the part of this Liberal New South Wales government.

Many pensioners are doing it tough—we know that. They live on fixed incomes. They are aware every day of which prices are going up and which prices are not. For many, many years they were neglected by the Liberal government at the federal level. It is only since the Labor government came to power that their interests have been considered and large increases have been given. And, once again, we see the true character of the Liberal government in New South Wales in their willingness to put their hands into the pockets of pensioners and rip out whatever small benefit we might give them.

The irony in this is that if we gave this as a cash upfront supplement, in the way that the Howard government did from time to time, it probably would not be anywhere near as easy for a state Liberal government to rip some of it away. It is also in many ways politically more beneficial to pay it as a lump sum, because when the cheque arrives in the mail or the money arrives in the bank account you get the absolute recognition that this government did it or that government did it. So, politically, it is probably smarter to do it as a one-off payment rather than build it into the base, and that would also prevent the New South Wales government from making this grubby cash grab. But it is better for the pensioners if you build it into the base. That recognises that pensioners need to manage their budgets, and if it is built into the base they know exactly what they are getting on a weekly basis and can make their own choices about how they do that.

So if you do it the best way for the pensioner you get a grubby New South Wales government doing their best to take some of it back. This is appalling behaviour and I can tell you that the pensioners in my electorate—and there are over 3½ thousand of them—are very angry about this. I have also talked to my colleague Michelle Rowland, the member for Greenway, who is at home at the moment with her quite gorgeous new baby. She has been working very hard in her electorate on this, visiting public housing estates, writing to the Premier and talking to her pensioners, as I have been talking to mine, and I can tell you that the anger out there among pensioners in public housing is quite extraordinary. What an act from a state government that pretended in the election campaign they would be a warm and fuzzy government—the minute they were elected they put their hands into the pockets of pensioners to take money out. This is a money-grubbing act from a money-grubbing government. I condemn the New South Wales government for it. And I call on the opposition to guarantee that they will not take away this pension increase as part of the household assistance package if they are elected. (Time expired)

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before calling the next speaker I apologise to the member for Fowler for incorrectly calling his title.

Mr Hayes: I was flattered.

Mr SECKER (Barker—Opposition Whip) (11:13): I think 'the member for Hayes' has a very good ring to it, and perhaps we may see that one day; it would be great recognition of the present member for Fowler's contribution to this parliament. Turning to the motion, I think it is extraordinary that the member for Parramatta talks about this increase as being somehow unique to a coalition New South Wales state government when in fact the previous state government in New South Wales, a Labor government, did the same thing for 16 years and the present South Australian Labor government has been doing the same sort of thing for 10 years. That is why the Howard government on many occasions used lump sums and special allocations—to avoid state governments taking their share of any increases in pensions. So this is nothing new. This has been around for a long time, and if you look at the New South Wales government, they are saying that they are actually $5 billion worse off in GST payments in the latest budget figures, and of course they are not getting compensation for the carbon tax. If we did not have a carbon tax, none of this would arise anyway.

Let's look at 1(a) of the member for Parramatta's motion, talking about how, supposedly, the Howard government ignored pensioners for nearly 12 years. It was, in fact, the Howard government that changed the pension system to 25 per cent of the MTAWE, the male total average weekly earnings, instead of the old CPI increases. The MTAWE rate was a much higher rate. That built up, and, by the time the Howard coalition government lost power, that would have meant in real terms over the period of those increases $80 a week more than if we had stuck to the old Labor Party system. We had increases twice a year at higher than the CPI and so in real terms we increased pensions continually. Politically, it might have been smarter to do that every six months and say, 'Here we are, we are giving you a bit extra,' but we put it into the system so that pensioners always got that increase.

If you want to look at how Labor has acted, in 2008 the coalition proposed a private members' bill to provide a $30 a week increase in the single age pension, and guess what—the Labor government with all its numbers opposed this bill and used its numbers in parliament to defeat it. The coalition's ongoing pressure eventually forced this government to award pensioners an increase in the 2009 budget, leading to the permanent increase in the pension to 27.7 per cent of MTAWE. It was only under our pressure that they actually folded, because we remember the present Prime Minister saying in cabinet that we should not give increases to the pensioners because they were going to vote for the coalition anyway. That is the sheer hypocrisy of this government. It talks about giving pensioners increases when the present Prime Minister said, in a dirty political attitude, 'We shouldn't give them increases,' because they were only going to vote for the coalition. So let us not get too high-handed or uppity about who is doing the best job for pensioners. I believe that every member of parliament wants to look after pensioners. Sometimes you can afford it and sometimes you cannot, but that does not seem to worry this present government.

The coalition certainly has huge concerns with the proposed carbon tax for pensioners and self-funded retirees, because they will be the hardest hit as they are on fixed incomes. There will be a huge hike in electricity bills; we know that. In New South Wales there will be an increase of 18 per cent, and 18 per cent is forecast for South Australia. The problem with this situation is that self-funded retirees on over $50,000, which is not a huge amount of money, will not get any increase whatsoever. (Time expired)

Ms HALL (Shortland—Government Whip) (11:19): Firstly, I would like to congratulate the member for Parramatta for bringing this exceptionally important motion to the House. Secondly, I would like to encourage the New South Wales government to rethink the position that they have taken on this issue. In doing this, I would have to acknowledge that the New South Wales government has blatantly disregarded pensioners living in public housing. I suppose I should also add that the coalition side of politics really has blatant disregard for anyone on a low income and has not delivered to pensioners in the past.

The previous speaker was talking about pension increases. I would have to say that it is the Rudd-Gillard government that has delivered the biggest increase to pensioners since the pension was introduced in this country, and on this side of the House we are extremely proud of that. We are very proud because we know that pensioners have served our country well over the years and, as such, they deserve to have a decent standard of living.

This brings me to those pensioners that are living in public housing in New South Wales. As I have already said, what is happening is a disgrace, a cruel cash grab by the New South Wales government. It demonstrates the difference in the way the Labor Party and the coalition parties think about pensioners and their commitment to pensioners. When the historic increase in the pension came into being, the New South Wales government, then a Labor government, did not include the increase and hike up the rental for people in public housing. They realised that pensioners have been doing it hard and, as such, they recognised the fact that pensioners deserved this one-off increase in their pension to be left out of public housing rent increases. Now how different it is with Barry O'Farrell in government in New South Wales. Instead of accepting a payment that is put in there to actually compensate for the cost increase that pensioners will incur due to the introduction of a price on carbon, what is Barry O'Farrell doing? He is including it as income when calculating rental. I have before me a letter that the state member for Swansea sent out to one of my constituents, who was extremely upset about the tone of this letter. In this letter the state member for Swansea highlights the fact that that money is needed for vital maintenance of public housing. I share with this parliament the fact that the Rudd and Gillard governments' record of investing in public housing is second to none.

Under the previous Howard government public housing was ignored and there was no investment in public housing whatsoever. What the Howard government did was put in place programs and strategies that made it harder for pensioners and did nothing to help the people that were living in public housing. They did nothing to cut the waiting list. They did nothing but cut the amount of money that was being given to the states for public housing. Public housing tenants were ignored. I think the bottom line is that those on the other side of this parliamentary chamber think that public housing tenants are second-rate citizens and they feel that they are not going to vote for them so they can totally disregard them and rip out of them every bit of money they can. I can tell them that the more than 1,800 pensioners that live in public housing in the Shortland electorate deserve better. They deserve better than what Barry O'Farrell is doing, and I will certainly be in there fighting for them to see that they do not have to suffer this sort of—(Time expired)

Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (11:24): This motion that has been moved by the member for Parramatta is just another example of a Labor government that simply does not get it. They simply do not have a clue. The first part of this motion refers to the so-called 'almost 12 years of inaction by the former Australian coalition government'. Well, something that this current government conveniently and continually overlooks is that when the former coalition government came to office they inherited $96 billion worth of Labor debt. And the former coalition government paid back every single cent of that $96 billion. What often gets forgotten is that they had to pay back the interest as well—close to $40 billion in interest.

So for members of this current Labor government to have the call to come into this chamber and talk about the inaction of the previous coalition government is an absolute disgrace. If it were not for the reckless and wasteful spending of previous Labor governments, the last coalition government would have had an additional $140 billion-plus to spend on the social programs and vital infrastructure we need around the nation. Further, for members of this government to try and make a song and dance about increasing pensions—when what they have had is the four largest deficits in our nation's history and a cumulative $175 billion debt that future generations will have to pay back, and pay back with interest—only further demonstrates how completely clueless this current government is.

This motion also refers to 'historic' increases. Pensioners have certainly experienced historic price increases since this Labor government has come to office. Let us have a look at a few. Since Labor came to power, pensioners have seen health costs increase by 25 per cent. Since Labor came to power, pensioners have seen gas prices increase by 39 per cent. Since Labor came to power, pensioners have seen water and sewerage prices increase by a whopping 59 per cent. Most shamefully of all, since Labor came to power, pensioners have seen electricity prices skyrocket by an incredible 66 per cent, driving many pensioners into fuel poverty, being unable to afford to turn on their heater on a cold winter night—and certainly recently we have had some cold winter nights. In fact, here in Canberra, the last May was the coldest May in over half a century. As for this massive, 66 per cent, increase in electricity prices, this is all before the carbon tax even hits—the carbon tax that the Prime Minister promised before the last election she would not introduce.

The second part of this motion cries crocodile tears about the New South Wales government increasing rents for about 84,000 New South Wales pensioners. But why have the New South Wales government been forced to make this difficult decision to increase housing rents while they try and fix up the mess that they have inherited from the previous state Labor government? It is simple: it is because of the carbon tax. The entire premise of this motion is another example of a government in denial about the effects of the financial burden of the carbon tax.

The New South Wales state government currently provide social housing for around 290,000 people, including 84,000 pensioners, and after 16 years of Labor's mismanagement there are still an additional 56,000 households on the waiting list. These homes provided by the New South Wales government have to be maintained and modernised on an ongoing basis. That is what this Labor government simply does not understand. This ongoing maintenance will be made more and more expensive by the carbon tax. Take every nail, every screw, every can of paint, every bag of cement, every tap handle, every piece of timber, every sheet of plasterboard, every tile and every kitchen upgrade: the carbon tax will make it more and more expensive. That is why, unfortunately, housing rents have got to go up.

But, of course, it is only going to get worse. Under a Labor government we will see the carbon tax go up and up every year, forever. It starts at $23 a tonne but by 2050 it will be $350 a tonne. So if members of this government are truly concerned about the pension the answer is simple: get rid of the carbon tax. (Time expired)

Ms GRIERSON (Newcastle) (11:29): I rise to speak on the appalling actions of the New South Wales coalition government, led by Premier Barry O'Farrell, actions that rip much needed cash out of the hands of struggling pensioners. It was, after all, the Australian Labor Party that first introduced the age pension, and our federal Labor government is proud of the reforms we have delivered since forming government in 2007. In 2009 we delivered the greatest increase to the pension in 100 years. Since this time we have increased the maximum rate by $154 per fortnight for singles and $156 for couples combined. This is definitely helping pensioners with essential items and essential bills such as food, electricity, water and rent.

Pensioners have recently received a lump sum supplement payment from the federal Labor government over the past few weeks of $250 for singles and $380 for couples as part of the household assistance package. Pensioners will also receive a permanent increase to their regular payments in March next year. Altogether, single pensions are increasing by an extra $338 a year and couples are receiving an extra $510 a year combined. The increases Labor has delivered are historic and will continue to assist immensely after years of social welfare neglect by the Howard government.

For pensioners living in public housing in New South Wales, 25 per cent of their pensions go towards rent. Our supplement payment was delivered as such to ensure that it would not be included as income for rent payments. Premier O'Farrell and his coalition government have announced that from March 2013 they will erode federal Labor's pension boost and household assistance by increasing public housing rents, taking money straight out of the pockets of public housing tenants. These are people who we know are already doing it incredibly tough, and Premier O'Farrell should know that. After all, he and his family lived in a New South Wales housing commission flat in the mid-1960s. He knows there is nothing glorious about such living and that those living in public housing need all the help they can get. These are not people who live in excess. If anything, they barely scrape through to make ends meet.

This grubby cash grab by the O'Farrell government means that a single person on the maximum rate of pension will now pay an extra $84.50 a year in public housing rent. Around 84,000 pensioners across the state will be affected by this indefensible increase. The member for Shortland made the point that we have invested so much in public housing. It was neglected in the Howard government years. In my electorate alone it is $30.8 million. A lot of that was for affordable rental housing and a lot of it was to maintain and restore state government properties. I wonder about the New South Wales government already being serial offenders. Wherever we put in funding, they withdraw, and I suppose that is one of the things that has led the member for Parramatta to put this motion forward. We are becoming increasingly frustrated by the continuing neglect of the state government in very important areas. In my region there are 8,500 pensioners living in public housing—people who will have part of their assistance payments taken away.

But pensioners are not the only people under fire. The recent state budget included nothing for improved oncology services for Newcastle's Calvary Mater Hospital, even though a report commissioned by the New South Wales government found that it was in absolutely serious need of additional funding. Cancer patients in the Hunter region are typically waiting around four or five weeks to access treatment that is available the next day in Sydney. That is a shameful snub for our people but it is also tragic.

That is the sort of example that increases our frustration with the O'Farrell government. Again, $93 million has gone into my electorate for Building the Education Revolution improvements to schools, so what does the O'Farrell government do? It reneges on its promise to replace demountable buildings. The Junction Public School, where I was proudly once a teacher and a parent, had so many demountables after the earthquake and they are still there. They have been waiting much too long, and they will continue to wait under this New South Wales O'Farrell government.

The New South Wales government is driving us nowhere, apparently. Not only is it ripping cash out of the pockets of pensioners but also it is ripping cash out of the roads budget by not matching the Pacific Highway funding of the federal government. We all know the O'Farrell government's below-the-belt attacks on workers' compensation will never be forgotten either. With just over a year of government I can only say that the people of my electorate have been very sorely served by the O'Farrell government.

Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (11:34): For this government to be standing here and giving itself a big pat on the back for giving pensioners some assistance is the latest in a long line of the world's best examples of hubris. Overbearing pride and arrogance are at the heart of this poor government. The fact is that the government has introduced pension increases, as the member for Parramatta has outlined in her motion. However, it is also a fact that this government has belted pensioners around the head with rules, regulations and extra taxes that have made them worse off than before. It is interesting to note that the compensation for the carbon tax will be taken as income assessment for public housing, so the rents will go up in accordance with income assessment from the carbon tax.

To give the ministers of this government another movie quote that they can use, 'What we have here is failure to communicate.' Let us see them come in here and tell the truth. We have seen the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations laud himself that that side of the House deals in the truth. Look at the millions of dollars used by this government to tell people about the free money they are going to receive. Look at the ads which do not mention the words 'carbon' or 'tax'. Why not come clean and just tell them that you think they will fall for this handout? Why not just tell them in an ad that says: 'Look, the Greens said they would support us if we introduced a carbon tax. It is that simple. It was either that, or they would take their support and go to the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, and tell him that they would help him form government.' And we laughed and we laughed and we laughed. Yes, that was going to happen! Of course they would not.

This was okay by the Prime Minister all along. It was no deal they had to make to remain in government. They knew that to go to the electorate to tell them they would introduce an economy-wide tax on carbon, which would eventually drive electricity prices up so high that solar and wind power would become competitive, would lose them the election. So they stood there and covered the media with great big porky pies straight down the barrel of the camera. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer kept a straight face when asked whether they would introduce a carbon tax. 'No, no, no,' came the response repeatedly in the last week of the campaign.

I was contacted by a self-funded retiree recently. She was listening to a radio interview between Mr Shorten, the Minister for Employment Workplace Relations, and Alan Jones. Mr Jones was asking about the plight of self-funded retirees. The member for Maribyrnong duly assured Mr Jones that he would raise these concerns with the Treasurer. This was some weeks ago. We are now six days away from the introduction of the carbon tax and we have heard nothing from either of these men on the plight of self-funded retirees.

What is the truth? The truth is that compensation for tax is not compensation at all. Extra money paid out by borrowing is not compensation; it is a yoke around the neck of the next generation. This government, and the Labor state governments of New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria, have racked up huge amounts of debt and they have to be repaid. This government and the member for Parramatta simply cannot have it both ways. You cannot continue to borrow against future generations and then decry attempts to rein in spending—much like this government's last budget, where it claims to have cut things to the bone while lifting spending to a new high.

The truth is that this government is attacking pensioners with the world's biggest carbon tax and with red tape and regulation which are making it harder to make ends meet. Let's be very clear about this: the compensation being offered to some stops at the front door, even for those people who are getting it. Who pays compensation to the Townsville City Council for the carbon tax? No-one pays compensation to the Townsville City Council for the carbon tax. No-one pays compensation at all to the shops, building firms or house builders. You have to be in a marginal Labor electorate for industry to be given any sort of assistance by the government. The Leader of the Opposition railed about the dangers being faced by the steel industry. The government has come forward with another $300 million for the steel industry, but only for those places controlled by the AWU. Places in my electorate like Pacific Coast Engineering and Wulguru Steel get nothing, but they have to pass their costs on.

My butcher does not get any compensation for the carbon tax, so the pensioners who go to my butcher because they get good service get nothing back. Those costs have to be passed on. Tropical Ice in my electorate are facing huge increases to their electricity costs. Those costs are passed on to the occupants of public housing. All those small business expenses will be added to the costs of being a pensioner in today's society. Australia has an ageing population and the challenges we face are huge. We need leaders who will provide hope, reward and opportunity to all in this society. (Time expired)

Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond—Parliamentary Secretary for Trade) (11:39): I am very pleased to rise today to support the motion by the member for Parramatta. I start by saying how proud I am to be a member of this federal Labor government, which has delivered the most comprehensive and unprecedented increase in the age pension in its 100-year history. We are very proud of this achievement by the federal Labor government.

Since 2009, this government has delivered increases to the maximum pension rate of about $154 per fortnight for singles and about $156 per fortnight for couples combined. Why did we deliver these historic increases? We realised that after nearly 12 long years of neglect by the Howard coalition government action had to be taken. The federal Labor government understood that our pensioners, the people who built this country, needed greater support to make ends meet. We listened to their concerns and addressed them by increasing the pension. It cannot be overstated that these increases are an unprecedented and unrivalled reform that could only have been delivered, like all the great social reforms in this country, by a strong federal Labor government.

The reforms have continued. As part of our household assistance package, pensioners have received a lump sum payment over the past few weeks of $250 for those who are single and $380 for couples. Pensioners will also get a well-deserved permanent boost to their regular payments in March next year. In total, single pensioners are receiving an extra $338 a year and couples are receiving an extra $510 a year combined.

What is the coalition's response to all of that? Of course they are opposed to it. Like everything else, they are opposed to all of these increases and opposed to helping pensioners. What is worse, if we look at the very scary prospect of the coalition getting into government federally, we see that they will take away these increases. In my electorate, that will affect nearly 30,000 pensioners, who will have their pensions ripped away from them by the federal Liberal and National parties if they get into government. Certainly many locals in my area know that is the reality if they get into government.

We see the same degree of callousness from the New South Wales state Liberal-National government. Recently, we had the Premier, Barry O'Farrell, telling pensioners in public housing that he is going to take away their payment by incorporating this well-deserved increase into the calculation of their public housing rents. It is absolutely appalling. It is not enough that in the federal parliament we have the Leader of the Opposition voting against historic increases; now we have his state Liberal-National colleagues ripping this money straight out of pensioners' hands already. In fact, the New South Wales state Minister for Family and Community Services, Pru Goward, in a media release dated 14 June 2012 stated:

… from March 2013 regular fortnightly carbon tax payments will be taken into account for the purposes of calculating heavily subsidised social housing rents.

The New South Wales state government knows full well that the federal government has delivered this increase as a separate pension supplement so that it would not be included when the state government calculated public housing rents. What does this action really mean for pensioners? It means that a maximum rate single pensioner will now pay an extra $84.50 a year in rent. That really is an appalling imposition on people in public housing.

In my area, the local National Party MP, the member for Tweed, Geoff Provest, blatantly denies what he and his government are doing. First of all, he does not listen to the plight of pensioners, who are doing it tough, but then he contradicts his own government. In a statement to the local press on 20 June, Mr Provest completely contradicted Minister Goward and denied that supplementary pension payments would be included in the calculation of public housing rents by stating:

… the lump sum carbon tax compensation payments have not been counted as income for rent purposes.

This is completely untrue and a total lie, but that is what he does—contradicts his government.

It gets worse when we look at the history of a local state member like Geoff Provest and at some of the comments that he made in the New South Wales state parliament prior to his government being elected. On 22 June 2010 in the New South Wales state parliament, the member for Tweed, Geoff Provest, condemned the then state government for doing exactly the same thing and increasing public housing rents. He stated:

There is simply no way the Commonwealth will tolerate a clawback of that one-off pension increase by the states for pensioners in public housing—

which is exactly what they have done. To quote further, and this really is appalling:

Aged pensioners need our support. They do not need people from both sides of this House trying to take their last cent and trying to erode their quality of life.

That is it exactly what he and his government are doing. It shows what a total hypocrite he is that they are now trying to take that money away from people in public housing.

The New South Wales Liberal-National government should hang their heads in shame for what they are doing. It is a dirty, grubby backflip that is impacting on many pensioners in my electorate. We are seeing very harsh actions at the state level, and we would see these actions also at a federal level if the Liberal-National coalition were ever to form federal government. In contrast to all that, the federal Labor government delivered historic increases to pensions. (Time expired)

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (11:44): For a motion such as this to be put up by a government such as this smacks of hypocrisy, it reeks of negativity and it is unnecessarily unhelpful at a time when this parliament could and should be using its valuable time discussing matters of importance to Australia. Today we should be finding a solution to the illegal boat problem, given that we have already had 4,568 people land on our shores this year and authorities are presently undertaking the grim task of finding up to 90 bodies in the latest tragedy. We should be talking about constructive ways to help the taxpayers of this nation—working families; regional families.

Instead, Labor is trying to muckrake, and the trashing of the New South Wales government continues. In recent weeks, without justification and without warning, federal Labor has gone on an all out attack against the state coalition. Not content with trying to smear the federal opposition at every opportunity, Labor has turned its sights on the Barry O'Farrell-Andrew Stoner Liberal-National government, which has been in office only since March last year after 16 years of the worst, the most inefficient and the most corrupt government this nation has ever known.

Pensioners always need more to keep pace with the increasing costs of living. We did our best as a coalition from 1996 to 2007, yet Labor, by racking up huge debt and deficits, has not helped pensioners since taking over the treasury bench under Kevin Rudd, who was unfairly ousted two years ago yesterday. To suggest that Labor—under either the member for Griffith or, since the 2010 coup, under the member for Lalor—has done better than the Howard years is simply false. The current Prime Minister said Labor was the party of truth sellers. Not so. But do not take my word for it. The member for Parramatta, instead of peddling misleading motions with mischievous intent, ought to be out asking pensioners what they think. Certainly the pensioners I listen to tell me they are doing it tough lately.

This government is in no position to lecture anyone about what the Howard government did or did not do when it has overseen four record budget deficits, when it is looking at net public debt for 2012-13 of $143.2 billion, when the interest on its debt for the next financial year will be $12 billion and when taxes for the coming 12 months will be up by $39 billion.

Australian pensioners—the aged, the disabled, the unemployed and the underemployed—are very nervous right now. They are deeply worried about where this country is heading. They are anxious about how they will afford groceries, petrol or the power bill. They are concerned about how they will pay their rent. And they have reason to be upset.

Federal Labor inherited a massive surplus in 2007 but has sent Australia a long, long way into the red—so much so, it will take years to undo the damage. Conversely, the New South Wales coalition was left with a mess after 16 years of Labor government under Bob Carr, Maurice Iemma, Nathan Rees and Kristina Keneally—16 years of Sussex Street factionalism that saddled New South Wales with an economic malaise the pieces of which no incoming government should have to pick up and repair. But the O'Farrell-Stoner government and its dedicated and enterprising team are getting on with the job of making New South Wales No. 1 again. The state coalition has made some tough calls because it has had to do so. Balancing the books is the coalition way—at both state and Commonwealth levels. Labor governments are renowned for out-of-control spending like there is no tomorrow because they know they will not pay it back—prudent, resourceful coalition governments would do that and the hardworking taxpayers will pick up the tab as they always do.

This discrediting of what the New South Wales coalition is trying to achieve after it was burdened with such a debt, such a big clean-up to do, such an atrocious state of affairs, is typical of this federal Labor government. If it can see a chance to politically point-score, it will take it. Is it doing so because it hopes it will save seats in New South Wales at the next election? Is it doing so because the Sussex Street powerbrokers have demanded it be so? Is it doing so because it likes to meddle with the truth? Probably all of the above. Next Sunday the biggest slug Australian pensioners will face comes into effect. Not surprisingly, Labor cannot say the words 'carbon tax'. Its members call it 'carbon pricing'—because they have to. They have been given their riding orders from Sussex Street and the Greens, to whom they are beholden. The carbon tax will not save the planet but it will make everyday living so much more expensive for the pensioners of the Riverina and pensioners right across Australia. It is a disgrace, and the carbon tax will be repealed when the federal coalition wins office at the next election.

Mr MELHAM (Banks) (11:49): I rise on behalf of the 2,742 pensioners living in public housing in my seat of Banks to support the private member's motion proposed by the member for Parramatta. In September 2009 the Labor government delivered the biggest increase to the pension in its history and delivered a fairer system that made sure the pension kept up with living costs. Since 2009 Labor has increased the maximum rate pension by $154 a fortnight for singles and $156 a fortnight for couples combined. The 22,800 pensioners living in Banks have received a lump sum payment from the federal government over the past few weeks of $250 for singles and $380 for couples. Pensioners will also get a permanent boost to their regular payments in March next year. In total, single pensioners are receiving an extra $338 a year and couples are receiving an extra $510 a year combined. This includes people in the local community receiving age, disability and carer pensions, as well as veterans' income support recipients.

Pensioners in public housing in New South Wales pay 25 per cent of their pension as rent. We have recently heard the announcement by the New South Wales government that it is its intention to increase public housing rents. This federal government, a Labor government, delivered the increase as a separate pension supplement so it would not be included when the state government calculated public housing rents, which has been the accepted practice for many years. The New South Wales Liberal government's decision means a maximum rate single pensioner will now pay an extra $84.50 a year in rent. I have to ask myself where the local state members for Oatley and East Hills were when this decision was proposed. This increase was imposed and, at the same time, they crow about what they have done for their electorates since the election—much of which was misleading because it was Commonwealth money. That is now evident—it has been completed—but they claim credit for it. In reality, when it counted, they could not genuinely assist the vulnerable in their electorates because they were missing in action. We must not forget that it has been the Labor government that have taken the lead in introducing profound social security reform. The conservative side of politics has no such proud history—rather, the contrary.

The reason this is a pernicious grab—theft—by the state Liberal government is that the supplement that has been given to pensioners in public housing is to offset and to compensate for increases that they may pay as a result of the introduction of the carbon tax. It is not a situation where we are looking at increases as a result of CPI. In the past, the net result has been that 25 per cent of those increases are grabbed by the state government in relation to public housing rent. What you are going to have here is a situation where pensioners in public housing are actually going to be worse off because they are going to have the impost of costs that flow from the introduction of the carbon tax—we have said that from day one; we have been honest—but they are also going to cop that 25 per cent increase on that extra money that they have got with the state government increasing their housing rent.

That is theft, in my mind. That is why it was made a supplement. It is not a net increase per se; it is an increase given to them to offset perceived and actual costs in the future. Who pays? The most vulnerable in our community, those on disability support and carers pension, pensioners themselves—not the rich, not the people not in public housing. There are many who are not living in public housing that the state government cannot reach out to. But, you see, this is the Liberal formula: go after the vulnerable and have your middle-class, upper-middle-class and business welfare. That is what makes this increase by the state government so pernicious. We are not talking about a CPI increase that is flowing on to pensioners; we are talking about a supplement given to them to compensate, and they are copping it in the neck on top. The state Liberal government should desist.

What else did they do it in relation to the budget? Ten thousand Public Service jobs are to go. That is also the future under the current opposition at a federal level if they actually get government. This is a portent of what will come in the future. (Time expired)

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (11:54): I rise to oppose this motion and the absolute nonsense we have just heard from the member for Banks in relation to the so-called 'theft' of money from vulnerable people in New South Wales. First of all I want to outline in response that the cost of this to the average person affected would be between $1.50 and $2 per week in public housing rents, already heavily subsidised by the taxpayer. By the government's own admission, the government has increased pension payments to $154 per fortnight and $156 per fortnight. What costs is the member for Banks referring to when he says that was to subsidise an increase in costs? It is completely disingenuous of this government. They are putting in a carbon tax which will increase prices—in New South Wales the forecast for increase in rents is 1.7 per cent, which would be a cost of $50 million over four years to the New South Wales government. If the federal government did not understand that that cost would be passed on, not just by government but by every industry sector, every small business, every operation in this country, why are they increasing compensation payments?

These pension increases are not some historic reform—this motion says 'historic pension reforms'. This did not come out of the blue. These increases in the pension are to subsidise people for the cost of the carbon tax. That is what these are for. They are not for any other reason. The 1.7 per cent increase in rents has to be paid for by somebody. It is not going to be subsidised by the taxpayer because, as the New South Wales government has outlined, they have a program to improve public housing in New South Wales—to increase the number and quality of available places and ensure that more people can access it. Under this budget there will be more private rent subsidies, with around $50 million of support; $19 million for 21,000 householders to access affordable tenancies in the private rental market; and $134 million to provide specialist homelessness services. The government wants to come in here and pretend that the state government should not pass on the costs that the federal government have imposed on them. That is completely unrealistic. It is not happening in any sector.

In the electricity sector, for example, we know New South Wales prices have increased by 18 per cent—electricity bills this year are up 18 per cent. The estimate, conservatively, is 8.9 per cent because of a carbon tax. Almost half of the increase in prices from 1 July is because of the carbon tax. If it is good enough for the electricity sector and every other sector to pass on and the government to say, 'We are increasing your pension by this much to pay for it,' then they have got to say that 1.7 per cent in the matter of rents is going to be passed on by the state government as well. It is going to happen all around the country. It is completely disingenuous for this government to suggest otherwise.

It is disingenuous for the member for Banks to come in here and say, 'We've been honest from day one.' 'Honest from day one' prior to the last federal election would have been for the Treasurer or the Prime Minister to look into the camera and say, 'We are introducing a carbon tax that will push up the price of public housing rents by 1.7 per cent.' That would have been honest. Instead we heard from this government: 'We will not be introducing a carbon tax,' and, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' That was the message before the election.

Wayne Swan said it was absolute nonsense that we would be introducing a carbon tax prior to the election. Yet they bring it in, and costs will be ratcheted up across the economy as a deliberate result of their carbon tax and their policy. Then they have the hide to come to this chamber and put a motion up like this saying: 'People are going to pay more. This is outrageous! Oh, isn't this terrible?' It is a direct result of the government's own policy that these vulnerable people will be paying more.

For the first time in New South Wales we have terms like 'energy poverty' coming into use across Sydney. I know that some of the members sitting opposite on the backbench understand what I am talking about. We have energy poverty coming into Australia because of the mismanagement of our public utilities, the mismanagement of government enterprises and, now, the world's biggest and most punishing carbon tax.

If the member for Parramatta wanted to really do something to assist Australian pensioners then she would propose, of course, standing by the member for Griffith, abolishing the carbon tax and moving to an emissions trading scheme or another model. That is what the member for Parramatta would do—not stand by this failed government with its failed carbon tax. The New South Wales government is to be commended for being realistic and for keeping their finances on a sustainable footing. In particular, the Minister for Families and Community Services is to be commended for doing her job to ensure that all vulnerable people in New South Wales get a fair deal. Everything has to be paid for. Governments can only continue to provide services on a sustainable footing. The carbon tax is an unsustainable tax for Australia. It ought to be removed, and vulnerable people will suffer if it is not.

Debate adjourned.

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (12:52): by leave—I rise today to recognise the recent retirement of Mr Michael John Palmer AO, APM from his role as the Inspector of Transport Security, a role he has discharged admirably since his appointment in 2004. I also table the most recent report from Mr Palmer, the Offshore oil and gas resources sector security inquiry, which I received on 7 June 2012.

OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS RESOURCES SECTOR SECURITY INQUIRY

Firstly, I would like to take some time to discuss this important report which I announced in February last year. I have previously updated the House on the importance of this inquiry—the first-ever comprehensive review of the security of the oil and gas sector that employs more than 10,000 Australians, contributes 2.5 per cent of Australia's GDP and generates an impressive $28 billion in revenue.

The reserves in the north-west of Australia, the Bass Strait and the Timor Sea provide employment for our nation, income for our economy and energy to the world. In fact, Australia is the world's ninth largest energy producer.

We need to ensure that we have effective security arrangements in place and the right response capabilities in the event of an incident or attack on offshore oil and gas exploration and production infrastructure. This is all the more important as current and future exploration continues to push out into deeper and more distant waters to satisfy the increasing worldwide demand for oil and gas resources.

The report is thorough—drawing on detailed input and consultation with state and territory governments, industry and peak bodies such as the board of the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA). Indeed, industry's input was critical to the development of this report and I would like to thank them for their generous and honest interactions and contributions. Simply put, the report would not be of the quality it is today without the access, aid and assistance they provided.

With the sector's assistance, Mr Palmer and his team undertook extensive Australian and international consultation to better understand, review and assess security planning and preparedness, recruitment, training, government and industry interaction, command and control arrangements, response capacity and clarity, and communication and information-sharing arrangements in the oil and gas resources sector environment.

In preparing the report, the team conducted 31 offshore and onshore visits and over 50 consultations in Australia as well as eight offshore and onshore site visits and 45 consultations internationally. These spanned Western Australia, the Northern Territory, Queensland, the Bass Strait, and the Joint Petroleum Development Area in the Timor Sea through to site visits organised by the United States Coast Guard to facilities in the Gulf of Mexico.

The inquiry also benefited from a legal framework, research and discussion paper prepared by the University of Queensland, which was considered as part of the preparation of this inquiry report, informing the inquiry on the current and relevant international and Australian maritime law. The final result is an impressive depth of inquiry for an important issue—with 10 detailed recommendations spanning issues ranging from onsite security audits and inspections, security access, exercise and exclusion zones through to government and industry interaction and relationships, incident response and, importantly in the current computer age, cybersecurity. In addition to the recommendations, the report details possible options in response to the recommendations raised.

Furthermore, drawing upon the learnings from the offshore and international consultations, the report details a further 10 possible approaches for consideration, based on United States, North Sea and our own experiences as to what has worked successfully and what could be improved. In summary, the report highlights an important point. We can be confident that our security measures are international best practice.

However, it also highlights areas where current security related practices and arrangements could be improved, and it suggests options which will warrant further consideration by government. I thank Mr Palmer for his work on this important issue and for his detailed report, which I table for members and commend members to read in detail.

RETIREMENT OF THE INSPECTOR OF TRANSPORT SECURITY

While thanking Mr Palmer I would also like to acknowledge his wider contribution. For those who may not be aware, Mr Palmer is a 35-year career police professional. He brought to this report and to his role as the Inspector of Transport Security extensive experience in policy leadership and reform in the community, national and international policing sector. It is a difficult role, requiring the investigation of transport security matters, including major transport incidents, or, where necessary, patterns of incidents which may indicate possible weaknesses in our transport security systems. It is also a position that requires significant vision to proactively identify where transport security arrangements could be further improved. And Mr Palmer has done so with distinction.

It has certainly been a busy time during his tenure, during which a number of very important inquiries were undertaken, in addition to the offshore inquiry. His work included the surface transport security assessment, theSydney Airport security screening review, and the ferry security inquiry. Of particular importance was Mr Palmer's international piracy and armed robbery at sea security inquiry, which looked into the worldwide issue of maritime piracy and armed robbery at sea, and considered the effectiveness of security arrangements of Australian ships in light of this threat. This work has directly resulted in Australia making a significant contribution to the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime Counter-Piracy Program. Indeed, the report has been used by a number of nations when developing their response to piracy and has ensured that Australia has in place an appropriate security framework to deal with maritime threats. Of course, these inquires—past and current—were in addition to his inquires conducted for other portfolios such as the inquiry into the circumstances of the immigration detention of Cornelia Rau and more recently the Risdon Prison Complex inquiry, undertaken for the Tasmanian government.

Mr Palmer's contribution to Australia goes beyond his most recent work inquiring into matters of national importance. I mentioned he has had 35 years as a police professional; a career which started as a member of the Northern Territory Police in 1963 where he served Territorians for 16 years. In 1983, after having acted as barrister at law in Queensland, he returned to the Territory as a commissioned officer, before being promoted to Commissioner of the Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services in 1988. It was also at this time that he received the Australian Police Medal.

In 1997, he was selected as the member for Asia to the Interpol Executive Committee where he served for three years. Here he worked as part of the executive committee to supervise the delivery of the decisions of the Interpol General Assembly and prepare the agenda and program of work for the general assembly's consideration. It was also during this period that he was rightly recognised for his work in introducing far-reaching anticorruption processes in the Australian Federal Police, receiving the Officer of the Order of Australia in 1998. It was of no surprise that upon his return he was promoted, this time to commissioner in the Australian Federal Police, where he served for a further seven years.

Finally, before taking up the role as Inspector of Transport Security, he worked for a number of years as a private consultant and as an associate professor at Charles Sturt University's Australian Graduate School of Policing, providing a valuable opportunity to pass on his wealth of knowledge and insight into both the law and law enforcement to the next generation of leaders. Indeed, his academic pursuits have been notable, from being conferred a Doctor of Letters for his advancement of policing to his extensive writing on modern police practices, including as the co-editor of the authoritative law enforcement text, Police Leadership in Australasia.

In closing, it is always very sad to lose from this position such a wealth of experience and judgment. However, I am pleased to note that he will continue to contribute to public life through his ongoing work in the human rights and not-for-profit sector, and through future engagements in the public and private sectors.

I sincerely thank Mick Palmer for his many decades of service to the safety of the nation and wish him all the very best in his future endeavours.

I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Wide Bay to speak for 9½ minutes.

Leave granted.

Mr ALBANESE: I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Truss (Leader of The Nationals) speaking for a period not exceeding nine and a half minutes.

Question agreed to.

Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Leader of The Nationals) (13:03): Protecting Australia's $28-billion-a-year oil and gas industry is vital for Australia's future energy security. As the minister notes, the industry employs some 10,000 Australians across the country and accounts for 2.5 per cent of Australia's GDP. Offshore oil and gas production provides a major input into our economy and its infrastructure is of critical national importance. There are around 170 oil and gas production platforms in operation around the Australian coast from the Timor Sea, the North West Shelf to the Bass Strait.

Australia's gas production for domestic and export markets continues to increase every year. However, petroleum liquids production is still falling. In 2000-01 Australia produced 272.4 million barrels of petroleum liquids. By 2009-10, this had fallen to 186.9 million barrels. There is further scope for exploration and appraisal drilling to address the growing demand for petroleum liquids. While Australia accounts for approximately 0.6 per cent of world oil supply and 1.5 per cent of worldwide demand, oil and natural gas accounts for nearly 56 per cent of primary energy consumed in Australia. In fact, Australia is the ninth largest energy producer in the world.

With the rise in international piracy and the threat of terrorism, it is certainly timely to revisit the security requirements in place to protect our offshore oil and gas assets. I note from the minister's summary of the report being tabled today that he said we can be confident that our security measures are international best practice. However, I am alarmed to read in the report:

… it is understood no on-site offshore facility security assessments have been conducted since 2007.

That is indeed an alarming gap. It suggests the gaping security assessment gap is indeed real. Indeed, the report highlights and recommends:

In the opinion of the Inquiry, the current Australian situation is unsatisfactory and arrangements should be implemented which provide the capacity for an effective offshore security audit program to be introduced and maintained.

What in fact is happening—to use the minister's words—is best practice in the world is indeed at risk. That is hardly world's best practice. If asylum seeker boats can turn up every day, often unobserved, it is clear that our security is as open as a sieve.

In recent years, pirates have been involved in unsuccessful attempts to attack and take over an oil rig off the coast of Nigeria with a firefight erupting between the Nigerian Navy and the pirates. As the minister has noted before, while there is no suggestion of a particular threat against any specific oil and gas platform, vigilance is essential.

It is clear that any potential security threat would be extremely damaging to our national economy and affect our energy security. I refer the minister to today's report finding:

While within Victoria and Western Australia relevant state police engage on a regular basis in joint exercises with industry on near-shore offshore facilities, it is understood that no Commonwealth agency has participated in such exercises since about 2004.

There are other unsatisfactory findings. The report stipulates:

Industry has emphasised the constructive relationship it generally enjoys with government agencies. There is, however, common agreement that increased engagement between industry and government security agencies, aimed at enhancing mutual levels of understanding—industries' knowledge of the intelligence gathering, analysis and dissemination processes of government and government's knowledge and expertise of industry—in the security space, is necessary.

Moreover:

While this initiative will make a positive contribution to the improvement of the nature and quality of intelligence sharing and the interaction between government and industry, the broader current levels of engagement and communication would benefit from further and ongoing improvement …

The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), which were already playing a constructive role in government and industry relationships through the publications of the Business Liaison Unit (BLU), have been quick to recognise and react to these industry concerns and an industry roundtable was convened by them in Canberra during March 2012 to specifically address the primary matters of concern.

In terms of security shortfalls relating to recruitment, the report finds:

The vetting of Australian employees as part of the application process for a MSIC generally comprises a criminal-record check, as well as internal company checks deemed appropriate. Industry sees the MSIC process as providing an additional layer of security vetting above the level they can provide themselves.

However, although the MISC vetting process provides a security assessment and a photographic record of an individual employee, the process is limited. Currently, the requirement for a MSIC does not apply to foreign nationals or to Australian and other workers engaged on non-regulated vessels operating under subcontract arrangements.

Clearly, as the report finds, much more needs to be done.

The coalition will always support sensible moves to enhance our maritime security regime. The coalition has a history of proposing and supporting sensible measures to enhance our maritime security regime and, in this case, the security of our offshore oil and gas assets. For example, in 2005 it was a coalition amendment to the Maritime Transport Security Act 2003 that required operators to write and follow security plans, including security risk assessments and preventative strategies to manage risk.

The coalition notes the report and is extremely concerned about the gaping holes in Australia's offshore oil and gas resources security. The coalition has a record of securing Australia's borders and strengthening security requirements across the maritime industry including our offshore oil and gas assets. There appears, from this report, to have been serious lapses since 2007. It is not satisfactory at all—let alone, the world's best practice.

Finally, like the minister, I would like to pay tribute to the outgoing Inspector of Transport Security, Mr Michael Palmer as he completed his term on 7 June this year. He has served with distinction not only in his most recent role but in an outstanding, career of service and dedication. He served in his current position as Inspector of Transport Security during the whole time I was transport minister, and I admired his dedication and commitment.

As the minister noted, Mr Palmer is a decorated policeman of 35 years service, winning the Australian Police Medal in 1988. He started out with the Northern Territory police in 1963 where he served for 16 years. Then, after a stint as barrister-at-law in Queensland, he went back to the Territory in 1983, this time as a commissioned officer. He was duly promoted to the rank of Commissioner of the Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services in 1988. He became the Member for Asia, as the minister said, in the Interpol Executive Committee in 1997.

It was during this time that Mr Palmer was one of the architects of the Australian Federal Police's anti-corruption provisions. This earned him an Officer of the Order of Australia award in 1998. I could go on, but let me thank him for his exemplary service and, in particular, the last seven in his role as Inspector of Transport Security. He leaves with the best wishes and respect of all who have served and worked with him, and the coalition wishes him well for the future. His extensive career background gave great authority to his reports.

Finally, I also take the opportunity to welcome Mr Andy Hughes, who took up the post of Inspector of Transport Security from 8 June. Mr Hughes is also an experienced police officer. He has served in the AFP, including in the senior executive service, and was the Chief Police Officer for the ACT, as well as being in charge of national operations and international operations for the AFP. He was the commissioner of the Fiji Police Force and spent two years with the United Nations as the police adviser on peacekeeping internationally. As Mr Palmer has observed, Mr Hughes comes ideally equipped for the position, and I wish him well in the new role.

Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (13:44): Today I am delighted to pay tribute to three inspiring young athletes from my electorate of Higgins. Three young women—Shelley Chaplin and Cobi Crispin, both of Ashburton, and South Yarra's Katy Parrish—have been chosen to compete in the London 2012 Paralympics.

Now 21 years old, Katy Parrish competed in the Beijing Games when she was just 17, an experience she has described as her greatest moment. Katy was born with cerebral palsy but she has never let it hold her back. I wish her all the best in her 100-metre, 200-metre, 4x100 metre relay and long jump events. Close friends Shelley and Cobi have been nominated to represent Australia in wheelchair basketball, with the team to be officially confirmed in early July. Twenty-eight-year-old Shelley is a seasoned Paralympian who has competed in both Athens and Beijing, while 24-year-old Cobi also competed in Beijing. Both girls nominate winning the bronze medal at those games as their career highlights.

We all know that to compete at an Olympic level takes a huge amount of determination that most of us simply cannot fathom, but Paralympians take it to a whole new level. Determination, commitment, strength and courage are words that come to mind when you think of the challenges these athletes have overcome to excel in their chosen fields. On my website contact page I invite Higgins residents to send messages of support that I will pass on to Shelley, Cobi and Katy for the Paralympics between 29 August and 9 September this year. I want them to know that we are behind them, wish them all the best and know that they will do Australia proud.

Mr LYONS (Bass) (13:46): I rise today to congratulate everyone involved in the Sydney Dance Company's excellent production of The Land of Yes and the Land of No. On 15 June I had the pleasure of attending a performance of this production at the Princess Theatre in Launceston in my electorate of Bass. To be able to experience a world-class performance from all involved, from the choreography to the sound, the lighting, the direction and the brilliant dancers, was a real treat. I particularly acknowledge Tasmanian dancer Jesse Scales. I am sure that it was an enjoyable experience for Jesse to return to her home state and showcase the skills she has acquired from years of training and performing on the mainland and in New Zealand. It was certainly a pleasure to watch her in action. Credit must go to world renowned designers Rafael Bonachela, Alan MacDonald, Ezio Bosso, Guy Hoare and Theo Clinkard. I also acknowledge Tasmanian Graeme Murphy, who led the company as Artistic Director from 1976 to 2007.

Once again, I congratulate everyone involved in the Sydney Dance Company. I am thrilled that funding from the Australian government through the Australia Council is allowing them to share their talents across the nation.

Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (13:47): Today I highlight the fantastic work being done by Co.As.It in Queensland. For 25 years Co.As.It has been providing community care services for the Italian aged care community in Queensland. Director Dina Ranieri and her wonderful staff provide in-home care and also a very dedicated service in their respite centres.

Since 2005, the Queensland Co.As.lt team has been successfully providing training for staff in Italian nursing homes, community health centres and all of the local hospitals in Brisbane and two on the Gold Coast. It has implemented over 600 activity groups for the elderly in local nursing homes. All this was supported by the government under the Community Partners Program within the Department of Health and Ageing—until now.

It is disappointing to the dedicated people of Co.As.lt in Queensland that their application under the new grant was not approved, and they cannot even find out why. They were told that funding under the Community Partners Program would not be available, yet I am advised that other organisations in other states have been funded under the same Community Partners Program. The community has every right to know what is going on. How hypocritical of this government that on one hand they are not funding community organisations that do a great job while on the other hand they have a multicultural inquiry looking at submissions and saying that there should be more aged care places made available to aged migrants with non-English-speaking backgrounds.

Mr HAYES (Fowler) (13:52): Earlier this month, together with the Fairfield City Mayor, Frank Carbone, I attended the opening of stage 1 of Bibby's Place Sustainable Streets project. The first stage of the project involved developing the Bibby's Place cul-de-sac into a highly environmentally sustainable street with solar lighting, recycled seats, porous paving and new landscaping. The local residents and community will be able to use the street as a meeting place and also as location for a number of entertainment and recreational activities. The project is a successful example of all levels of government—state, federal and local—working together to identify and fund projects that will lead to benefits for the entire community.

Bonnyrigg is one of the fastest-growing centres in south-west Sydney. There are 11 places of worship, including temples, mosques and churches, and seven cultural clubs lie within a kilometre's radius. The Bibby's Place cul-de-sac is unique but so typical of our diversity. It is a home to a number of religious sites, including a Chinese Presbyterian Church, a Vietnamese Phap Bao Temple, a Turkish mosque and a Vietnamese cultural centre. Many of their representatives attended the opening, including Joseph Park, from the Bonnyrigg Christian Church; Toan Nguyen from the VCA; the leader of the Bonnyrigg Mosque, Imam Nurullah Karakas; and the most venerable Thich Bao Lac from the Phap Bao Temple.

Bibby's Place is a showcase of cultural harmony and environmental sustainability and will be most beneficial— (Time expired)

Mr TUDGE (Aston) (13:50): I inform the House that a headspace centre will soon be established in the Knox area in my electorate, which is a terrific outcome. It is a combination of a more than 12-month-long campaign which I have spearheaded along with many other people in the local community. We have organised a 10,000-strong petition, we raised over $10,000 from local organisations to contribute to the establishment of the centre and we have done numerous speeches and media releases in this parliament along the way.

I am absolutely delighted that this centre is coming to our area. It will be located in the old Centrelink building in the Knox Ozone precinct which, as members may not appreciate, is the hub of the Knox community and is where young people generally will go and hang out. The centre will involve counselling services, GP services, psychiatric care and some drug and alcohol care, as well as employment services—a full suite of services targeted at 12- to 25-year-olds. Our hope is that young people who are battling depression and severe anxiety may see this as an opportunity and as a place where they can walk into and get the care and assistance they need so that they can live full and fulfilling lives like everybody else.

Mr MATHESON (Macarthur) (13:52): Today, I would like to share with everyone an email I received from an Australian soldier serving our country in Afghanistan:

G'Day Russell, I am a deployed member serving in Afghanistan that just received one of the best parcels a soldier could from Australia.

A gift packed by children I do not know, arranged by a teacher I have not met and sent with the best wishes and thoughts of a nation worth fighting for.

Could you please let Ms Jenny Budd and the children of Kindy and Year 1 at Thirlmere Public School know that their care package has arrived and I have just responded, so a letter should be there in a couple of weeks.

The reason I am letting you know is because Jenny sent a cut out from the local paper where you sponsored a website promoting such actions.

Party politics aside... a great act by an elected representative.

Thankyou to you and particularly the teachers and students at Thirlmere Public School who have demonstrated in one small box what being Australian is all about... supporting your mates.

This is a lovely email from one of our soldiers who was touched by the kindness of some local children and their teacher. They did this as part of the Support the Troops Campaign, which was supported by many members of this House in the lead-up to Anzac Day.

After receiving this email I visited the children at Thirlmere Public School with the state member for Wollondilly, Jai Rowell. The children were so excited to hear from the soldier and were keen to tell me about all the things they put in the care package for him.

The response I received from this soldier shows how much it means to our troops to have the support of the Australian public behind them. Being away from family and friends to serve your country overseas is not an easy thing to do. I am glad that the children from Thirlmere were able to lift the spirits of this soldier and show him that he has the support of our nation behind him. I congratulate them on their efforts.

Ms HALL (Shortland—Government Whip) (13:53): I rise today to share with the House the fact that I am holding a diabetes forum in Swansea on 12 July. I will be inviting all residents from the Swansea-Caves Beach-Marks Point area to come along and learn the facts about diabetes. The 12th of July falls within Diabetes Week, a week when it is very important to raise community awareness about diabetes, to allow people to put in place strategies and to improve their lifestyle, which will in turn improve their chances of remaining healthy and not developing diabetes.

To a large extent diabetes, particularly type 2 diabetes, is a lifestyle disease. At this forum people will learn strategies about healthy eating and exercise that they can put in place to minimise their chance of developing type 2 diabetes. On the day, we will have nurses from Diabetes Australia in attendance and we will also have somebody coming along to demonstrate the type of exercise that the residents of that area can undertake to not only improve their physical fitness but minimise their chance of contracting diabetes. (Time expired)

Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (13:55): Last week I attended Epping Rotary's 50th anniversary dinner at the Epping Club with over 300 people supporting this black-tie event to congratulate Epping Rotary on 50 years of charitable work in the Bennelong and wider communities. The beneficiary of this fundraiser was The Shack, a great local group who help young people in the region to regain control over their lives through mentoring, crisis intervention, counselling services and guidance to apply for jobs.

Thank you to all of the members of the Epping Rotary Anniversary Organising Committee for hosting a wonderful occasion, deserving of the esteemed Rotary brand. Rotary is famous for implementing programs through the four-way test: is it the truth; is it fair to all concerned; will it build goodwill and better friendships; will it be beneficial to all concerned? I am sure many of us would appreciate it if our government aspired to these same standards.

Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (13:56): I had the privilege yesterday with my wife, Carolyn, to attend the Lions Club of Fernvale changeovers. The Lions Club of Fernvale did a fantastic job in the Brisbane Valley when it was ravaged by flood, handing out about 2,000 meals across the Lowood and Fernvale area. This Friday night I will be attending the Lowood Lions changeover as well. I want to congratulate Lion Peter Bennett, who is the president; the secretary, Peter Barnes; the treasurer, Joy Barnes, the vice-president, Geoff Beattie; the membership chair, June Freese; the first-year director, Jack Thorne; the second-year director, Trish Annand; the lion tamer and tail twister, Adam Pinner: and the immediate past president, Glendell Appleford.

They gave out cheques to a lot of different community groups in the Brisbane Valley yesterday. These groups are worthwhile. They also assisted in the Men's Shed at Lowood. They have assisted in many things, including the Rail Trail Fun Run, the seniors social morning barbecue at Fernvale and the Father's Day cricket match. There was a $2,000 donation from Toby and the Lowood IGA for equipment purchases. They have also assisted in the Fernvale Environment and Heritage Festival. They have done a lot of great good in the whole region. They are to be honoured and thanked. They deserve our praise, they have earned our trust and they are worthy of our respect for the work they do, helping people in the Brisbane Valley.

Mrs MARKUS (Macquarie) (13:57): I rise today to draw attention to National Pain Week, which will occur during the parliamentary winter break from 22 to 28 July, and National Carers Week, which occurred last week. These two important weeks are obviously connected, given that Australian carers often makes sacrifices to care and support those who are experiencing pain.

Earlier this month, I met with a resident from the electorate of Macquarie, Andrea Downing, who suffers from chronic pain on a daily basis. As a result of this chronic pain, Ms Downing faces daily challenges. Many like Ms Downing have reduced opportunities for work, having to opt for cheaper accommodation in locations such as the Blue Mountains, where access to health services and suitable transport is limited.

Following my meeting with Ms Downing I have reviewed what I consider to be startling statistics with regard to pain that will be broadly advertised during National Pain Week. One in five Australians suffer from chronic pain. Eighty per cent of those—that is, 16 per cent of the national population—do not have adequate access to treatment for their pain. Chronic pain is a very real and debilitating illness resulting in loss and a lot of misunderstanding. It is a real condition that can manifest itself under a variety of banners and requires thorough recognition as a disability.

It is absolutely critical that people with a disability and their families and carers are provided with the regular care, support and therapy equipment that they need. Effectively, this government will spend more each financial year on its interest repayments than it will spend in total over the next four years on the implementation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. You can forgive Australian people such as Ms Downing for feeling short-changed because of the government's approach to chronic pain.

Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:59): Recently, I put out a call for local sporting legends in the Canberra electorate, extending my Canberra Legends Program, with the hope of discovering some hidden sporting talent. With the London Olympics upon us, I thought it would be nice to mention my first Canberra sports legend here today: 10-year-old Alex Halank is a young windsurfer born and raised in Canberra. Alex is currently in year 5 and, although Canberra is not the best or most likely location for developing windsurfing skills, he has persevered and practised.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): Order! It being 2 pm, the time for members’ statements has concluded.

Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:01): On behalf of the House I want to acknowledge the dreadful tragedy that happened on Thursday last week, when an asylum seeker boat capsized with considerable loss of life. The precise details of this matter still remain unknown but what we do know is that there were likely to be over 200 people on board this boat, including one 13-year-old boy. The boat capsized with considerable loss of life. While survivors were rescued, at this stage we are unable to determine, tragically, how many people have lost their lives in the sea. One hundred and ten survivors have been transferred to authorities on Christmas Island and a number have been transferred to the mainland for treatment. This is a dreadful human tragedy. I know that members across the parliament would be feeling the weight of that, and we can see many in our community who are grieving from this dreadful news.

We should acknowledge the efforts of those who went to the rescue in not easy circumstances. They include our Australian Navy; our Air Force, which had planes assisting; Customs and Border Protection personnel; personnel from other agencies; and merchant vessels, who responded to the need for assistance and diverted from their commercial activities in order to be available to help. We should thank them for their efforts. Without them many more people would have died. Today we respectfully and very sincerely acknowledge the lives lost last week.

Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:03): I rise to support the remarks of the Prime Minister, prompted by this latest disaster in the seas to our north. We mourn for the dead; we grieve for the living, who have suffered much; and we offer our support to all the naval and other personnel who have done what they could in the search and rescue effort. If there is anyone to blame in a tragic situation like this, surely it is the people smugglers who prey on desperate people's desire for a better life in Australia. Obviously at a time like this all of us consult our consciences on what is the best course of action to take. I am sure all of us in this House have resolved to put policies in place that will end forever this evil trade.

Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (15:02): by leave—I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Warringah moving immediately:

That this House calls on the Prime Minister to:

(1) immediately explain why she removed Kevin Rudd saying that his government had lost its way on border protection, climate change and the mining tax when now, two years on, the boats keep coming, there’s a carbon tax starting on Sunday and we have a $3.3 billion hole in the Budget because of a botched mining tax; and

(2) tell the Australian people when she now expects her Government finally to find its way.

Opposition members interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): Order! The member for Herbert! The member for Berowra! You are all eating into the Leader of the Opposition's time. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.

Mr ABBOTT: Yesterday was this Prime Minister's second anniversary in office. It was the anniversary no-one wanted to mention yesterday, let alone celebrate, because we all know that the faceless men of the Labor Party moved against the member for Griffith, the former Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, when Labor's primary vote was 35 per cent and it was actually ahead in the two-party preferred vote. So it is no wonder that the Prime Minister has now gone to take refuge, seeking asylum in the chief whip's office, pleading with him not to do to her what he and others earlier did to the member for Griffith, the former Prime Minister.

Mr Perrett: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: we have just had a motion at the start of question time about asylum seekers, and to use that term in this debate is totally inappropriate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Moreton will resume his seat.

Mr Swan: Madam Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition needs to be relevant to the question, and what he has proven today is that he will say anything and do anything for political power.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition has the call and will refer to the motion before the chair.

Mr ABBOTT: Madam Deputy Speaker, standing orders should be suspended because this is the second anniversary of the Gillard government and this Prime Minister should face the parliament and explain her manifest failures—her failures to be competent, her failures to be trustworthy, her failure to be honest and open with the Australian people.

Mr Champion interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, the member for Wakefield!

Mr ABBOTT: Standing orders must be suspended because you would think any Prime Minister who was at all proud of her record would at least put out a glossy brochure to celebrate the second anniversary. It is not as if this is a government which is not spending a lot of money on self-promotion.

Mr Swan: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: yes, he should come back to why standing orders should be suspended. That is what he should do.

Honourable members interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition has the call and will refer to the motion before the chair.

Mr ABBOTT: Madam Deputy Speaker, standing orders should be suspended because, I tell you what, the Sussex Street squad are not just coming for the Prime Minister, they are coming for the Deputy Prime Minister too. We all know the minister for workplace relations wants to be the Treasurer in the government of the member for Griffith. That is why standing orders should be suspended.

This is a Prime Minister who consistently runs away from facing up to this parliament, who consistently runs away from giving an account of her stewardship to the Australian people, and you would think that after two long years of failure the least she would try to do is come into this parliament and give an explanation of what has happened in this time. Two years ago she said that a good government had lost its way. That is what the Prime Minister said, and standing orders should be suspended so she can explain exactly what she meant by that. We know that when the Prime Minister said a good government had lost its way she did not actually believe that; because, just a few months ago, when she was again challenged by the member for Griffith, she said that it was not a good government, it was an absolutely shambolic government and it was completely paralysed by the ineptitude and the incompetence of the member for Griffith. But she did pledge that she would provide a better government and that she would give us a better way on border protection, a better way on climate change policy, a better way on the mining tax.

But, as the people of Australia well know—and this is why standing orders should be suspended—the government has just got worse and worse. This is a bad government getting worse, and every day its failures become more apparent. It is a government which is incompetent and untrustworthy. It has got the Midas touch in reverse. The only thing that this government is good at is savagery against anyone who dares to stand up against it, and that is why standing orders should be suspended. We only have to look at what the current Deputy Prime Minister said about the member for Griffith, and this is why standing orders should be suspended: so that the Prime Minister can explain herself. Why did she put the Deputy Prime Minister up to say that the member for Griffith has no Labor values and never had any? Why did she put up the member for Bendigo to go out there and carpet-bomb the reputation of the former Labor Prime Minister of this country, calling him a psychopath with an ego problem? And what does it say—and this is why standing orders should be suspended—about this Prime Minister and about these ministers at the table that 31 members of caucus were prepared to back a 'psychopath' against the current incumbent Prime Minister?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will—

Mr ABBOTT: Madam Deputy Speaker, standing orders should be suspended because six days before the last election, this Prime Minister stood up and said, hand on heart, to the Australian people: 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,' and she needs to give an explanation. Why did she mislead the Australian public six days before the last election? Why did she mislead the Australian public to win votes? Why, having scrambled back into the Lodge, did she do the exact opposite of what she had promised before the last election the Australian public that she would do? This is a Prime Minister who simply cannot be trusted, and standing orders should be suspended so that this Prime Minister can give an explanation of why now she will not even mention the carbon tax. It is like the anniversary that she does not want to mention. This is the tax—and this is the anniversary—that dare not speak its name. That is why standing orders must be suspended, because this is a Prime Minister and a government that are in denial. The Prime Minister is clearly in denial about the impact of the carbon tax on the aluminium industry. Her own modelling shows that there will be a 61 per cent decline in aluminium production under the carbon tax, and she tries to pretend that the workers at Point Henry could not be happier about the carbon tax, that they love the carbon tax, that the last thing they are concerned about is the carbon tax. Well, she needs to explain why she wants to put in place a government policy that will all but destroy the aluminium industry in this country. We have the minister for climate change constantly telling us that the coal industry could not be happier about the carbon tax and they love the carbon tax—even though the whole point of a carbon tax is to stop the use of coal. If it does not stop the use of coal what is the point? Coal is what is producing the emissions which the carbon tax is designed to limit, and the government's own modelling shows that, absent carbon capture and storage, the coal industry will go from 70 per cent of electricity production down to 10 per cent. It spells the death of the coal industry as we know it.

This is a rotten Prime Minister leading a rotten government. This is why standing orders ought to be suspended. We know that the faceless men are about to change the leader of the Labor Party but they cannot change the government; only the Australian people can do that, and, boy, are they waiting for that day! (Time expired)

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?

Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:12): I second the motion. It is important that standing orders are suspended to provide the Prime Minister with an opportunity to explain why the government has failed to find its way under her stewardship. The Leader of the Opposition is right: there was a time when Labor celebrated the anniversaries of their dear leaders. They would set out their glorious achievements in 75-page documents no less. I have one here. Remember the days of the Rudd government? On their anniversaries they would put out a one-year progress report and they would send out full-colour glossies on their achievements. But now here we are, two years on from Kevin's fundamental injustice day, 24 June 2010, and there has not been a peep on the glorious achievements of the Gillard government. Now why would this be? That is why standing orders must be suspended, because the Gillard government would be lucky to put out a half-pager—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has used her prop.

Ms JULIE BISHOP: We remember the Prime Minister's infamous speech on the day after the betrayal of the member for Griffith on that dark and stormy night two years ago. The Prime Minister declared that under the member for Griffith the government had lost its way. Standing orders must be suspended to provide the Prime Minister with the opportunity to explain why she has failed to find her way—or indeed any way—on the three issues she nominated as her highest priorities: border protection, climate change and the mining tax. This Prime Minister's version of finding her way is like a dodgy taxi driver taking unwitting passengers on a mystery tour as the cost of the trip goes up and up and up, and it is the Australian taxpayers who are going to be paying the exorbitant fare. As the fare goes through the roof, it is the Australian taxpayers who will pay. Standing orders must be suspended so that we can look at the issue of border protection. This is one of the great policy failures of this generation. The Prime Minister first announced her East Timor solution, denied she had announced East Timor, and recommitted to East Timor, all within the space of just three days. As respected political commentator Laurie Oakes said at the time, her performance was:

… silly and slippery and slimy and shifty in all that and it's a very, very bad start to her prime ministerial career.

Standing orders must be suspended to provide the Prime Minister with an opportunity to explain why she has failed to find her way on border protection, because after that 'silly and slippery and slimy and shifty' start the Prime Minister has gone from bad to worse. The High Court has ruled her Malaysia solution illegal, yet she continues to hold it up as one of her finest policy initiatives. She still has not convinced her coalition partner, the Greens, to back her policy.

Standing orders must be suspended so that we can debate the Prime Minister's more novel approach to finding her way on climate change, with her announcement, first, of a citizen's assembly. I remind members that in her speech announcing that policy the Prime Minister said:

… I will not rush headlong into economy-wide changes that people are not familiar with …

She went on:

I will honour my commitment to building a consensus that is informed by the facts, tested by robust debate and concluded through common sense and open-mindedness.

Therefore, we will have a citizen's assembly! Then, just days before the election came the next step on her pathway, with the infamous statement:

There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.

Does anyone believe that she would be prime minister today if six days before the last election she had stood up and said, 'There will be a carbon tax under a government I lead'?

The Deputy Prime Minister is sitting at the table. He said that the suggestion of Labor introducing a carbon tax was an 'hysterical allegation'. Who is looking hysterical now? It is important to remember that these comments were in direct response to the Leader of the Opposition, who said repeatedly that, 'as night follows day', there would be a carbon tax under this government.

Standing orders must be suspended because there is a mining tax which is already under challenge in the High Court and which has increasingly rubbery foundations. It is a tax with highly doubtful revenue streams, while the government's anticipated revenues have already been spent by the Prime Minister. As the UBS report finds, this mining tax is already dodgy. The figures are already dodgy, and as a result of the mismatch between the tax revenue that the tax is going to come up with and the spending, the government is going to raise the tax or bring it in under other— (Time expired)

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:17): Who said this?

The world view of this ugly conservatism is distinguished by complete absence of optimism, total lack of generosity of spirit and denial that politics all involves ... give as well as take.

…   …   …

The triumph of fear over hope is palpable.

That was the Leader of the Opposition in an article in 1998 about the One Nation Party. In that article he opposed the politics of fear over the politics of hope, and he opposed the politics of fear over the politics of fact.

Since then we have seen an opposition leader desperate because of his loss. We know that from his own words. The same person who wants to claw back the payments to families, who wants to claw back the education funding, who wants to claw back the assistance to pensioners, veterans, students and the elderly had this to say about losing power:

We all need grief counselling … It's like a bereavement. Not as bad as losing a child or a spouse but up there with losing a parent. It's very hard.

That is what the Leader of the Opposition had to say about going into opposition. No wonder we say that the quote from Johnson about Goldwater fits: 'In your guts you know he's nuts.' No wonder we say this.

Ms Julie Bishop: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order on relevance. Mr Albanese, you can sit down.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has the call and will be held in silence.

Ms Julie Bishop: I was making the point that in his words to date the member has not yet addressed the motion. Given that this is a matter where standing orders should be suspended to debate the motion, I ask him to come back to the motion.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the Leader of the House to address the motion before the chair.

Mr ALBANESE: Here we see personified why we should not be suspending standing orders: this is all about their dummy spit. This is all about those opposite and their failure to acknowledge the fact that they lost the election in 2010. That is why they have come in here and moved suspensions of standing orders on 61 separate occasions. They say it is very effective but they run away from it just like they ran away from the parliament. This Leader of the Opposition is the only member of parliament to ever try to run out of parliament when a division was called. Everyone else tries to get in; he tried to get out, but he was beaten by the gazelle over here.

Mr Pyne interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Sturt is not being relevant.

Mr ALBANESE: We should not suspend standing orders because we should not give in to the indulgence of those opposite. It is not our fault that they do not sit on this side of the chamber. It is not our fault that every day they move a suspension of standing orders for the sole purpose that, during the division, they can sit on the government benches for just a few minutes. That is the only possible explanation. What we see from those opposite is that they are not conservatives; they are wreckers; they are extremists; they are reactionaries; and they are desperate as it comes to July 1.

As it comes to July 1 those opposite know that all of their fear campaigns that Whyalla will disappear off the map, and all the other fears—and we heard it again in the suspension motion. The Leader of the Opposition said today: 'We will see the death of the coal industry'—at a time when we know there is half a trillion dollars of investment in the resources sector pipeline.

We should not suspend standing orders because I predict I might have got the next question. If I did, I might have been asked about the Regional Infrastructure Fund and what people have to say about that. Those on this side of the House have supported the minerals resource rent tax because we support the support for superannuation and the support for regional infrastructure. This is what the Leader of the National Party had to say a year ago:

I share the disappointment about how few mining companies contribute to the areas they invade and how little state governments return of the massive royalty incomes they receive to the communities.

That is what he had to say. I thought that might have been an aberration—it might have just been a mistake—because the Nats do make mistakes, but just this month in the Mudgee Guardian he said that mining companies:

… could not expect to take away a region’s resources without leaving something for the community.

That is what he had to say, and then he went on to say:

… mines had a responsibility to contribute to the specific infrastructure provided to meet their needs.

When they are out there in their communities, they say, 'We want regional infrastructure; we need regional infrastructure; we should do something about it.' It is just like when they go around and say they have the exactly same target that we do on climate change; the difference is this: we are using a market to get there by introducing an emissions trading system with a fixed price. Those opposite want to get there the same way, but not only are they climate sceptics; they are market sceptics as well. They want to do it through the old Soviet command style economy of this Leader of the Opposition.

The fact is that they say no to everything in this parliament, except yes to Work Choices, yes to clawing back tax cuts and pension rises, yes to ripping the NBN out of the ground, yes to taking billions away from public hospitals and yes to slashing the education budget. But we know they want to avoid discussion. We know that the Leader of the Opposition has been missing a bit on the last couple of weekends—he has been doing no doorstops.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the House will return to the issue before the chair.

Mr ALBANESE: If we did not have a motion to suspend standing orders before us, we might ask why it is that they run away from the parliament and from debate. We know that there is a real concern from those opposite when it comes to accountability. It is probably why they have just suspended standing orders to avoid question time. They do not like questions. They will not answer any questions about what their involvement was in the James Ashby affair—not the member for Sturt; he runs from that.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will return to the motion before the chair.

Mr ALBANESE: The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer all run away from accountability. So we would certainly welcome a debate on a whole range of issues, but not a debate on their self-indulgence—a debate that says, 'I'm so great. I'm so fantastic. How dare the Australian people not vote for me as Prime Minister!' That is essentially what we are putting up with here: the longest dummy-spit in Australian political history from this bloke opposite, who just puts his ego before everything.

He goes to conferences and says things like this: 'I'll be the next Prime Minister of Australia.' He says that when he goes to state conferences. He runs down the Australian economy and runs down the performance of this government, except when he is held to account when he is overseas. There, he says:

… Australia has serious bragging rights. Compared to most developed countries, our economic circumstances are enviable.

That is exactly what the shadow Treasurer said as well.

Mr Pyne: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am wondering if the Leader of the House would entertain a suspension of standing orders to extend the time to allow the member for Griffith to comment on the second anniversary of—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the House has the call.

Mr ALBANESE: Once again, they abuse. They get two goes and we get one, but they insist on interrupting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will refer to the motion before the chair.

Mr ALBANESE: We think it is a fair deal: one of us versus two of them. I conclude my comments on this, the great words of Robert Menzies:

… on far too many questions we have found our role to be simply that of the man who says "No."

…   …   …

There is no room in Australia for a party of reaction. There is no useful place for a policy of negation.

That is why increasingly, from Sunday, 1 July—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The time for the debate has expired. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

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

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ) (15:46): I present the Auditor-General's Audit reports Nos. 47 to 50 for 2011-12. Details of the reports will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.