The SPEAKER ( Hon. Bronwyn Bishop ) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
Hansard
The SPEAKER (09:01): Yesterday, the Treasurer asked me whether I would consider making printing copies of Hansard available in the chamber to assist members during the course of question time. He specifically asked that six copies would be made available.
I have asked the Department of Parliamentary Services to provide six printed copies of the previous day's Hansard daily proof each sitting day. Copies will be available on the table of the House from the commencement of each sitting. This arrangement will apply from today, and I understand they are on the table.
GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH
Address-in-Reply
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the Address be agreed to.
The SPEAKER (09:02): Before I call the honourable member for Barker, Mr Pasin, I remind honourable members that this is his maiden speech. I therefore ask that the usual courtesies be extended to him.
Mr PASIN (Barker) (09:02): Madam Speaker, in addressing this place for the first time, I add my voice to the chorus of congratulations on your election to the speakership. I am proud to have voted to elect you as the first conservative female Speaker—based on your merits and achievements, as all appointments should be. I am certain that in the discharge of your duties you will act with fairness and decorum, and ensure that my colleagues and I maintain our respect for this place and each other.
In this you can have no better role model than the 26th Speaker of the House of Representatives, Neil Andrew, a man who I have long admired, a man who, through this incredible journey of mine, I have had the privilege to come to know, and a man who I regard as a friend and mentor.
I also acknowledge and thank the member for Berowra for his wise counsel and pastoral care over recent weeks. I am also honoured that I will forever be able to boast that I was a member of this place during the tenure of the current Clerk of the House, albeit briefly. His legacy will be recorded not just in the pages of House of RepresentativesPractice but also in the actions of his staff. Never have I had the pleasure of dealing with such pleasant, professional, helpful and committed men and women. They are a testament to his leadership.
'Tra il dire e il fare ce di mezzo il mare' is an Italian phrase which translates loosely as 'between words and deeds exists the ocean'. In essence, talk is cheap. I am honoured to be a member of a team led by a man of principle, who says what he means and does what he says. He is a Prime Minister who will lead a government of honesty and integrity, a government focused on matching words with deeds.
There is no more important deed for this government than creating a strong and prosperous economy, where lower taxes and less regulation will deliver greater business productivity and ensure that more Australians experience the dignity of employment.
My family's home in Barker is located near a property called Dingley Dell. Dingley Dell was purchased in 1864 by one of Australia's first poets, Adam Lindsay Gordon. Whilst living there Gordon became a member of the South Australian state parliament, where he was renowned for two things: the first, I hope not to replicate—that is that his speeches, whilst entertaining, were largely irrelevant. The second, I cannot hope to replicate, for Adam Lindsay Gordon was considered dashing and handsome whereas, unlike others in this chamber and in the other place, I lend weight to the claim that politics is show business for ugly people!
I am proud that like the first four members for Barker, John Bonython, John Livingston and the Camerons—Malcolm and Archie—I am a son of immigrants. I am a parochial Australian, immensely proud of my Italian heritage. I honour the rich contribution that immigrants have made to my home state of South Australia and the nation.
My father, Luigi, the only child of Giuseppe and Angela Pasin, arrived in Australia as an 18-year-old seeking opportunity and adventure. My mother, Giuseppina, is the eldest daughter of Antonio and Immaculata Peppi. For both of them, World War II had been indirectly formative. My paternal grandfather died in 1948 as a consequence of tuberculosis, acquired whilst making the dangerous trek at night from Germany to northern Italy—an ordeal lasting 12 months. After spending two days at home he was hospitalised for two years before succumbing to the disease. Nothing I do in this place will ever be as hard as his journey home.
As a consequence of his father's sacrifice, my father was given a privileged education that ignited his passion for adventure. My maternal grandfather, after whom I take my name, served in Africa before being taken prisoner. As a prisoner he was treated with kindness and respect, and came to learn English. At the conclusion of the war he too returned to Italy, but armed with his newly acquired language skills he sought out for his family the opportunity a better life in Australia could provide.
Opportunity is so often the driving force of the migrant story. As Nick Cater, himself an immigrant, states in The Lucky Culture:
No-one comes to Australia for an easy time, they come here for a future. They do not seek deliverance, they seek the opportunity to deliver.
I am proud to be part of a government that is working to ensure that once again those who come to our great nation to share in its opportunities and to add to its prosperity do so in a safe and orderly manner, respectful of proper processes.
My parents met and married in Mount Gambier. Their entrepreneurialism saw them establish and operate many successful businesses. My father returned ultimately to his rural roots, farming land at Yahl, OB Flat and Kalangadoo. My mother operated a retail fashion and lingerie store in Mount Gambier for 46 years. It became a meeting place for the ladies of Mount Gambier. Shortly following its opening, my mother took the decision to display intimate apparel on mannequins in the shop window—an action which at the time was regarded by many, including community leaders, as provocative. When I inevitably say things that challenge both sides of this place, you will know where my inspiration came from!
The shop and the farm taught me much about life—hardly surprising, given that if I was not at school the choice was either the shop or the farm. To give you a sense of it, Madam Speaker, in my early years my morning and afternoon naps took place in a suitcase under the shop's counter and my weekends and school holidays were spent at the farm or in the packing shed. You might say I was exposed firsthand at an early age to the hard reality of running small businesses. Indeed, as a young child I once guided a friend and good customer of my mother's to the most expensive item in the store—it was a full-length mink coat—and insisted that she purchase it. When the customer inquired why, much to the embarrassment of my mother I said, 'Because things are tight.' The kindness of the customer saw her offer my mother a loan, which made it all the more embarrassing. I also watched as unnecessary government intervention ended my father's desire to continue growing, packing and exporting onions to the world.
Without my knowing it, these real-life experiences and others formed the genesis of my ideological beliefs. As a Liberal I know that our national interest is best served by a free citizenry empowered by personal responsibility and supported by a government that knows its place. It was Philip McBride, a senior Menzies government minister and a federal Liberal president, whose descendants I count amongst my constituents and friends, who defined the Liberal Party's historic mission as the preservation of individual freedom and a determination to restrain the powers of government. To this end, we have not always succeeded. We must have the courage to do better and ensure that we strive for the discipline that small government demands. We must at the same time respect and protect our traditional values and institutions. They are the bedrock on which our nation was built. Their conservation is essential to ensure the continued peace, order and good governance of this country.
Like this place that draws its foundation from several sources, I acknowledge that so too does the Liberal Party. Where our Constitution adopted elements from two great democracies, Britain and the United States of America, the Liberal Party was informed by two great traditions, both liberal and conservative. Where our Constitution founders created a uniquely Australian Federation to unite a diverse and geographically dispersed young nation, Robert Menzies created a uniquely Australian party to represent the interests of all Australians, not just the sectional interests of a few. I, like our former Prime Minister John Howard, consider my guiding philosophy to be a fusion of economic liberalism and social conservatism. I believe that our party is at its best when we remain true to our core ideologies and use them to inform and implement pragmatic policies.
Throughout my professional career I have honed my skills as an advocate. I am proud that for much of it, whilst operating my own legal practice, I have spoken for those whose voice, by reason of means or capacity, would have otherwise fallen silent. I intend to use my skills not only for the betterment of my electorate but for the cause of rural and regional Australia at large. It is easy to complain that things are tough for rural and regional Australia and to outline the challenges we face. It is harder to suggest and implement solutions to meet these challenges because so often they involve standing strong in the face of populist opinion. Here I draw inspiration from the 'Modest Member', South Australia's Bert Kelly, who, despite almost universal opposition, never wavered in his fight to rid Australia of the scourge of protectionism. It was said by the seventh member for Barker, Ian McLachlan, that Kelly, for his efforts, should have earned five knighthoods.
I also draw guidance from McLachlan himself, who spearheaded some of the most important workplace relations reforms in the history of the agricultural sector. These reforms occurred when, as he later recounted to the HR Nicholls Society, conciliation and compromise were the norm, when unions were dominant, and government and big business were compliant. It was individual farmers, not big business or government, who had the courage to force this change, to stand up for what was right, which of course happened to also be what was right for the nation.
Madam Speaker, as you know, the Liberal Party boasts a strong heritage of rural representation, especially in seats like Barker. I hope to add to this rich pedigree in a way that will earn the respect of my political mentors and honour the memory of my political heroes. Since its establishment following the redistribution of the former division of South Australia on 2 October 1903, eight members have served as the member for Barker. I pay my respects to each of them: John Bonython, John Livingston, Malcolm Cameron, Archie Cameron, Jim Forbes, James Porter, Ian McLachlan and Patrick Secker. Each of them were strong advocates for rural Australia, connected deeply, as I am, to the land. I wish to particularly acknowledge the service of my immediate predecessor, Patrick Secker. I am grateful for the manner with which he conducted himself during the period of transition in Barker. I wish Patrick and his wife, Sharon, every happiness for the future.
I come to this place without political antecedents. I am what in my former professional life I would have referred to as 'a cleanskin'. The use of that phrase, coincidentally, was responsible for the fourth member for Barker, Archie Cameron, earning the unenviable distinction as the first minister ever named and expelled from this chamber. He, also during a party room debate, famously lost his temper and 'further harangued the meeting before hurling his boots at the wall'. Whilst I have no personal connection to Archie Cameron and, indeed, no inclination to imitate his antics, I am proud to have had a strong personal connection to many of the men who have served in this role before me, including Malcolm Cameron, who occupied the post from 1922 to 1934. On my political journey I have always had the support of Malcolm's grandson, Nevin Lamont, who is present with us today. Indeed, I have brought to the chamber this morning Malcolm Cameron's first-class rail passage, issued on the occasion of the establishment of the seat of government in Canberra in May 1927.
Barker is my home. It is where I was born, raised and spent my formative years. It was where I took my first steps and watched my daughter do the same. In this way, I count myself truly fortunate. Barker is an electorate that has delivered so much to the nation and sought so little in return. It is an electorate whose economic strength is matched only by its diversity. It is the engine room of regional South Australia, endowed with natural resources perfectly suited to the pursuit of agricultural production. It is a place of natural beauty, from the volcanic region of the south to the river oasis of the north, from the rolling hills of the Barossa to the picturesque plains of the Murray lands and Mallee. It is a place that boasts leading, world-class production of grain, vegetables, fruit, timber and livestock for meat and dairy. These commodities link wine grape growers at Angaston, Waikerie and Penola, croppers at Karoonda and Loxton, plus livestock farmers at Lucindale, Meningie and Lameroo. These common industries unite Barker and make it a truly strong and interwoven community.
Barker's strong communities are a product of its warm-spirited, resilient and innovative people. That warmth of spirit, resilience and innovation are best personified by the story of Saint Mary of the Cross McKillop. As a Catholic, I regard myself as blessed to serve an electorate so intrinsically linked to the life of our nation's only saint. After all, it was in Barker that a young Mary McKillop met Father Julian Tenison Woods, who inspired her journey in faith. Father Woods's parish at the time covered 56,000 square kilometres of bushland; Barker covers an area of 64,000 square kilometres. Woods serviced his parish by horse and cart; I by modern motor vehicle. As I travel past the very red gums under which he prepared his sermons and celebrated mass, may I be inspired by the commitment he showed to his people and his faith.
An entrepreneurial spirit runs strong in Barker through the efforts not only of the primary production sector but also of the manufacturers who add value to the region's primary products and who, it should be said, form the second largest group of employers after primary producers in the electorate. I speak here of businesses such as Naracoorte's MiniJumbuk, Mount Gambier's NF McDonnell & Sons, the Riverland's Nippy's Fruit Juices, Bordertown's Blue Lake Milling and Murray Bridge's Thomas Foods International.
Manufacturing does, however, face many challenges as the recent closure of the potato processing plant in Penola demonstrates. If we wish to capitalise on our competitive agricultural advantages and reap the benefits of the Asian century, we must combat the strong headwinds facing the sector. As a Liberal I know that government must incentivise business by creating a climate in which business can seek out and seize opportunities. Amongst other things in Barker, this means creating certainty for irrigators, whether that irrigation water is drawn from the River Murray or the aquifers of the south-east. It means taking action to lower import costs, undertaking labour market and taxation reform, increasing access to international markets and more appropriately balancing the needs of the environment with the right to farm.
We must encourage investment in the best of science and technology to improve our productivity, grow our economy and feed the world. The future of agricultural enterprise is not, as the South Australian state Labor government seems to insist, to be found exclusively in the domain of premium produce but rather in a balance between bespoke production of low-volume, high-value offerings and the large-scale production of commodities.
We must continue to embrace the novel and the new and seek ideas from abroad. The second member for Barker, John Livingston, inspired by his overseas travels, encouraged the planting of pine forests in the south-east. Thanks to his vision, the softwood forests in Barker now cover over 100,000 hectares. Livingston also pioneered the freezing and shipment of prime lambs to Britain, an early example followed today by not only the three world-class export abattoirs in Barker but also live exporters. Livingston's legacy, as impressive as it is, serves more importantly as a guide for the future. If we are to follow Livingston's lead, rural and regional Australia needs access to improved infrastructure, and I welcome our government's commitment, as do the residents of Barker, to deliver the roads of the 21st century.
Rural and regional Australia also needs access to the best digital technologies, technologies that have within their ambit the potential to deliver enhanced health, education and business connectivity to bridge the urban-rural divide. This divide exists as much now as it did when, upon the foundation of the Liberal Party, Menzies sought to create a country where both farmers and city residents enjoyed stability and the amenities of life.
I come to this place determined to strive to ensure that my actions will contribute to the restoration of the Australian people's regard for this place and those that sit within it. I thank the people of Barker for the honour they have bestowed upon me and acknowledge that a heavy responsibility accompanies that privilege. I must say that I am acutely aware of the weight of their expectation. To them I give this solemn pledge: I will be at all times your best advocate. I will steadfastly protect your interests and ardently champion your causes. In return I ask the people of Barker to heed the guidance of Edmund Burke and trust me to apply my own intelligence, industry and judgement to their concerns.
We all stand on the shoulders of giants. To those giants that have made it possible for me to hold this office, I say thank you. To the Liberal Party's federal and South Australian secretariats, thank you. To my campaign manager, Dale Howard, and the hardworking and dedicated members of my campaign team, thank you. To the wider membership of the Liberal Party in Barker, thank you. For the wise counsel of Nick Minchin, Alan Ferguson, Joan Hall and the late Dale Baker, thank you. To my state parliamentary colleagues for your cooperation and support particularly Adrian Pederick, Ivan Venning, Tim Whetstone, Mitch Williams, and Legislative Councillors John Dawkins, Terry Stephens and David Ridgway, thank you.
To my staff for all you have done and in anticipation of all that you will do, thank you. To Senator Bernardi for your encouragement, friendship and guidance over many years, thank you. To my sister, Angela, who taught me the art of argument and the importance of persistence, thank you. To my parents, Luigi and Giuseppina, for your unconditional love and support and for equipping me to face the challenges of life, thank you. To my gorgeous wife, Fiona, and beautiful daughter, Bella, for allowing me to follow my passion, for sharing me with the people of Barker and for your constant reminder of what is truly important in life, thank you. To my brother, Giuseppe, I miss you.
In closing, I reflect on the words of the handsome and dashing Adam Lindsay Gordon that I hope might guide me and perhaps others in this place:
Life is mainly froth and bubble,
Two things stand like stone,
Kindness in another's troubles,
Courage in your own.
In her address on the occasion of the opening of the first session of the 44th Parliament, Her Excellency the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia said:
With a new parliament a page is turned. A new page in our country's history is about to be written.
I hope that in adding my ink to that page I will be remembered as a man of kindness whose courageous actions honour his family, his party, his country and his god.
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Electoral Matters Committee
Appointment
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Education) (09:23): I move:
That:
(1) a Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters be appointed to inquire into and report on such matters relating to electoral laws and practices and their administration as may be referred to it by either House of the Parliament or a Minister;
(2) annual reports of government departments and authorities presented to the House shall stand referred to the committee for any inquiry the committee may wish to make and reports shall stand referred to the committee in accordance with a schedule tabled by the Speaker to record the areas of responsibility of each committee, provided that:
(a) any question concerning responsibility for a report or a part of a report shall be determined by the Speaker; and
(b) the period during which an inquiry concerning an annual report may be commenced by a committee shall end on the day on which the next annual report of that department or authority is presented to the House;
(3) the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any minority group or independent Member, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(4) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(5) the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time;
(6) the committee elect a:
(a) Government member as its chair; and
(b) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(7) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(8) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;
(9) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(10) the committee:
(a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;
(11) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee, the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(12) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non‑Government member of either House;
(13) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(14) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(c) sit in public or in private;
(d) report from time to time; and
(e) adjourn from time to time and sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(15) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of:
(a) submissions lodged with the Clerk of the Senate in response to public advertisements placed in accordance with the resolution of the Senate of 26 November 1981 relating to a proposed Joint Select Committee on the Electoral System; and
(b) the evidence and records of the Joint Committees on Electoral Reform and Electoral Matters appointed during previous Parliaments;
(16) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(17) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Question agreed to.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee
Appointment
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Education) (09:23): I move:
That:
(1) a Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade be appointed to inquire into and report on such matters relating to foreign affairs, defence and trade as may be referred to it by:
(a) either House of the Parliament;
(b) the Minister for Foreign Affairs;
(c) the Minister for Defence; or
(d) the Minister for Trade and Investment;
(2) annual reports of government departments and authorities and reports of the Auditor-General presented to the House shall stand referred to the committee for any inquiry the committee may wish to make and reports shall stand referred to the committee in accordance with a schedule tabled by the Speaker to record the areas of responsibility of each committee, provided that:
(a) any question concerning responsibility for a report or a part of a report shall be determined by the Speaker; and
(b) the period during which an inquiry concerning an annual report may be commenced by a committee shall end on the day on which the next annual report of that department or authority is presented to the House;
(3) the committee consist of 32 members, 12 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 8 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any minority group or independent Member, 5 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 5 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 2 Senators to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(4) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(5) the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time;
(6) the committee elect a:
(a) Government member as its chair; and
(b) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(7) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(8) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;
(9) six members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(10) the committee:
(a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;
(11) in addition to the members appointed pursuant to paragraph (10), the chair and deputy chair of the committee be ex officio members of each subcommittee appointed;
(12) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(13) two members of a subcommittee constitute the quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non‑Government member of either House;
(14) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(15) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(c) sit in public or in private;
(d) report from time to time;
(e) adjourn from time to time and sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives; and
(f) conduct meetings for the purpose of private briefings at any time while the Senate is sitting;
(16) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committees on Foreign Affairs and Defence, and Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, appointed during previous Parliaments;
(17) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(18) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Question agreed to.
Migration Committee
Appointment
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Education) (09:23): I move:
That:
(1) a Joint Standing Committee on Migration be appointed to inquire into and report on:
(a) regulations made or proposed to be made under the Migration Act 1958;
(b) proposed changes to the Migration Act 1958 and any related acts; and
(c) such other matters relating to migration as may be referred to it by the Minister responsible for the administration of the Migration Act 1958;
(2) annual reports of government departments and authorities and reports of the Auditor‑General presented to the House shall stand referred to the committee for any inquiry the committee may wish to make and reports shall stand referred to the committee in accordance with a schedule tabled by the Speaker to record the areas of responsibility of each committee, provided that:
(a) any question concerning responsibility for a report or a part of a report shall be determined by the Speaker; and
(b) the period during which an inquiry concerning an annual report may be commenced by a committee shall end on the day on which the next annual report of that department or authority is presented to the House;
(3) the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any minority group or independent Member, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 1 Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(4) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(5) the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time;
(6) the committee elect a:
(a) Government member as its chair; and
(b) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(7) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(8) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;
(9) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(10) the committee:
(a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;
(11) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(12) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non‑Government member of either House;
(13) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(14) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(c) sit in public or in private;
(d) report from time to time; and
(e) adjourn from time to time and sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(15) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committees on Migration Regulations and the Joint Standing Committees on Migration appointed during previous Parliaments;
(16) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(17) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Question agreed to.
National Capital and External Territories Committee
Appointment
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Education) (09:24): I move:
That:
(1) a Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories be appointed to inquire into and report on:
(a) matters coming within the terms of section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974 as may be referred to it by:
(i) either House of the Parliament; or
(ii) the Minister responsible for administering the Parliament Act 1974; or
(iii) the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(b) such other matters relating to the Parliamentary Zone as may be referred to it by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(c) such amendments to the National Capital Plan as are referred to it by a Minister responsible for administering the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988;
(d) such other matters relating to the National Capital as may be referred to it by:
(i) either House of the Parliament; or
(ii) the Minister responsible for administering the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988; and
(e) such matters relating to Australia’s territories as may be referred to it by:
(i) either House of the Parliament; or
(ii) the Minister responsible for the administration of the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands; the Territory of Christmas Island; the Coral Sea Islands Territory; the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands; the Australian Antarctic Territory, and the Territory of Heard Island and McDonald Islands, and of Commonwealth responsibilities on Norfolk Island;
(2) annual reports of government departments and authorities presented to the House shall stand referred to the committee for any inquiry the committee may wish to make and reports shall stand referred to the committee in accordance with a schedule tabled by the Speaker to record the areas of responsibility of each committee, provided that:
(a) any question concerning responsibility for a report or a part of a report shall be determined by the Speaker; and
(b) the period during which an inquiry concerning an annual report may be commenced by a committee shall end on the day on which the next annual report of that department or authority is presented to the House;
(3) the committee consist of 12 members, the Deputy Speaker, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any minority group or independent Member, the Deputy President and Chairman of Committees, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(4) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(5) the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time;
(6) the committee elect a:
(a) Government member as its chair; and
(b) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(7) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(8) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;
(9) three members of the committee (of whom one is the Deputy President or the Deputy Speaker when matters affecting the Parliamentary Zone are under consideration) constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(10) the committee:
(a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;
(11) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(12) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non‑Government member of either House;
(13) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(14) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(c) sit in public or in private;
(d) report from time to time; and
(e) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(15) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Standing Committees on the National Capital and External Territories, the Joint Committees on the Australian Capital Territory, the Joint Standing Committees on the New Parliament House, the Joint Standing Committee on the Parliamentary Zone and the Joint Committee on the National Capital appointed during previous Parliaments and of the House of Representatives and Senate Standing Committees on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure when sitting as a joint committee on matters relating to the Australian Capital Territory;
(16) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(17) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Question agreed to.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Committee
Appointment
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Education) (09:24): I move:
That:
(1) a Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme be appointed according to the practice of the Parliament;
(2) the committee:
(a) review the implementation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme;
(b) review the administration and expenditure of the National Disability Insurance Scheme;
(c) review any matter in relation to the National Disability Insurance Scheme referred to the committee by a resolution of either House of the Parliament;
(d) report to each House of the Parliament; and
(e) have such other functions as agreed to by resolution of the House of Representatives and the Senate;
(3) as soon as practicable after 30 June each year, the committee present an annual report to the Parliament on the activities of the committee during the year, which report should include particular reference to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Board quarterly and annual reports provided by the Standing Council on Disability Reform, as well as the independent launch evaluation reports;
(4) the committee consist of 12 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any minority group or independent Member, 3 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(5) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(6) the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time;
(7) the committee elect a:
(a) Government member as its chair; and
(b) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(8) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(9) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;
(10) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(11) the committee:
(a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;
(12) each subcommittee shall have at least one Government member of either House and one non‑Government member of either House;
(13) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee, the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(14) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall comprise one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(15) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(16) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(c) sit in public or in private;
(d) report from time to time; and
(e) adjourn from time to time and sit during any adjournment of the House of Representatives and the Senate;
(17) the committee be:
(a) provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes.
(b) empowered to publish from day to day such documents and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public;
(18) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the former Joint Select Committee on DisabilityCare Australia appointed during the previous Parliament;
(19) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(20) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Question agreed to.
Parliamentary Library Committee
Appointment
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Education) (09:24): I move:
That:
(1) a Joint Standing Committee on the Parliamentary Library be appointed to:
(a) consider and report to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives on any matters relating to the Parliamentary Library referred to it by the President or the Speaker;
(b) provide advice to the President and the Speaker on matters relating to the Parliamentary Library;
(c) provide advice to the President and the Speaker on an annual resource agreement between the Parliamentary Librarian and the Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services; and
(d) receive advice and reports, including an annual report, directly from the Parliamentary Librarian on matters relating to the Parliamentary Library;
(2) the Committee consist of 13 members, 4 Members of the House of Representatives nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 3 Members of the House of Representatives nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any minority group or independent Member, 3 Senators nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(3) every nomination:
(a) of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives; and
(b) from a minority group in the Senate or an independent Senator shall be determined by agreement between them, and, in the absence of agreement duly notified to the President, any question of the representation on the committee shall be determined by the Senate;
(4) the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time;
(5) the committee elect two of its members to be joint chairs, one being a Senator or Member, on an alternating basis each Parliament, who is a member of the government parties and one being a Senator or Member, on an alternating basis each Parliament, who is a member of the non-government parties, provided that the joint chairs may not be members of the same House;
(6) the joint chair nominated by the Government parties shall chair meetings of the committee, and the joint chair nominated by the non-Government parties shall take the chair whenever the other joint chair is not present;
(7) each of the joint chairs shall have a deliberative vote only, regardless of who is chairing the meeting;
(8) when votes on a question before the committee are equally divided, the question shall be resolved in the negative;
(9) three members of the committee shall constitute a quorum of the committee, but in a deliberative meeting a quorum shall include one member of each House of the Government parties and one member of either House of the non-Government parties;
(10) the committee:
(a) have power to appoint subcommittees, consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to consider; and
(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee, who shall have a deliberative vote only;
(11) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee, the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(12) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee;
(13) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee, but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(14) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(a) sit in public or private;
(b) report from time to time; and
(c) adjourn from time to time and sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(15) the President and the Speaker may attend any meeting of the committee or a subcommittee as they see fit, but shall not be members of the committee or subcommittee and may not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(16) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the former Joint Committees on the Parliamentary Library appointed during previous Parliaments;
(17) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(18) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Question agreed to.
Treaties Committee
Appointment
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Education) (09:25): I move:
That:
(1) a Joint Standing Committee on Treaties be appointed to inquire into and report on:
(a) matters arising from treaties and related National Interest Analyses and proposed treaty actions and related Explanatory Statements presented or deemed to be presented to the Parliament;
(b) any question relating to a treaty or other international instrument, whether or not negotiated to completion, referred to the committee by:
(i) either House of the Parliament, or
(ii) a Minister; and
(iii) such other matters as may be referred to the committee by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and on such conditions as the Minister may prescribe;
(2) the committee consist of 16 members, 6 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any minority group or independent Member, 3 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 3 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(3) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(4) the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time;
(5) the committee elect a:
(a) Government member as its chair; and
(b) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(6) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(7) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;
(8) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(9) the committee:
(a) have power to appoint not more than three subcommittees each consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;
(10) in addition to the members appointed pursuant to paragraph (9), the chair and deputy chair of the committee be ex officio members of each subcommittee appointed;
(11) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(12) two members of a subcommittee constitute the quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non‑Government member of either House;
(13) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(14) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(c) sit in public or in private;
(d) report from time to time; and
(e) adjourn from time to time and sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(15) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Standing Committees on Treaties appointed during previous Parliaments;
(16) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(17) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Question agreed to.
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity Committee
Appointment
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Education) (09:25): I move:
That:
(1) in accordance with sections 213 and 214 of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006, matters relating to the powers and proceedings of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity shall be as follows:
(a) the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any minority group or independent Member, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(b) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(c) the committee elect a:
(i) Government member as its chair; and
(ii) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(d) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(e) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;
(f) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(g) the committee:
(i) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(ii) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;
(h) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(i) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(j) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(k) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(i) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(ii) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(iii) sit it public or in private;
(iv) report from time to time; and
(v) adjourn from time to time and sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(l) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committees on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity appointed during previous Parliaments;
(m) in carrying out its duties, the committee or any subcommittee ensure that the operational methods and results of investigations of law enforcement agencies, as far as possible, be protected from disclosure where that would be against the public interest; and
(n) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(2) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Question agreed to.
Corporations and Financial Services Committee
Appointment
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Education) (09:25): I move:
That:
(1) in accordance with section 242 of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001, matters relating to the powers and proceedings of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services shall be as follows:
(a) the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any minority group or independent Member, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(b) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(c) the committee elect a:
(i) Government member as its chair; and
(ii) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(d) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(e) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;
(f) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(g) the committee:
(i) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(ii) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;
(h) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(i) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(j) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(k) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(i) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(ii) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(iii) sit in public or in private;
(iv) report from time to time; and
(v) adjourn from time to time and sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(l) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committees on Corporations and Financial Services and Corporations and Securities appointed during previous Parliaments; and
(m) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(2) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Question agreed to.
Human Rights Committee
Appointment
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Education) (09:26): I move:
That:
(1) in accordance with section 6 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011, matters relating to the powers and proceedings of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights shall be as follows:
(a) the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or by any minority group or independent Member, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(b) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(c) the committee elect a:
(i) Government member as its chair; and
(ii) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(d) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(e) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;
(f) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(g) the committee:
(i) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(ii) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;
(h) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(i) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(j) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(k) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(i) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(ii) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(iii) sit in public or in private;
(iv) report from time to time; and
(v) adjourn from time to time and sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(l) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committee on Human Rights appointed during the previous Parliament;
(m) the committee may appoint counsel to advise the committee with the approval of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives; and
(n) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(2) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Question agreed to.
Law Enforcement Committee
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Education) (09:26): I move:
That:
(1) in accordance with section 5 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Act 2010, matters relating to the powers and proceedings of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement shall be as follows:
(a) the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any minority group or independent Member, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(b) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(c) the committee elect:
(i) a Government member as its chair; and
(ii) a non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(d) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(e) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;
(f) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(g) the committee:
(i) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(ii) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;
(h) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(i) two members of a subcommittee include a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(j) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(k) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(i) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(ii) conduct proceedings in any place it sees fit;
(iii) sit in public or in private;
(iv) report from time to time; and
(v) adjourn from time to time and sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(l) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committees on the National Crime Authority, the Australian Crime Commission and Law Enforcement appointed during previous Parliaments;
(m) in carrying out its duties, the committee or any subcommittee ensure that the operational methods and results of investigations of law enforcement agencies, as far as possible, be protected from disclosure where that would be against the public interest; and
(n) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(2) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Question agreed to.
Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Committee
Appointment
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Education) (09:27): I move:
That:
(1) a Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples be appointed to inquire into and report on steps that can be taken to progress towards a successful referendum on Indigenous constitutional recognition, and in conducting the inquiry, the committee:
(a) work to build a secure strong multi-partisan parliamentary consensus around the timing, specific content and wording of referendum proposals for Indigenous constitutional recognition; and
(b) consider:
(i) the creation of an advisory group whose membership includes representatives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to assist the work of the committee;
(ii) the recommendations of the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians; and
(iii) mechanisms to build further engagement and support for the constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples across all sectors of the community, and taking into account and complementing the existing work being undertaken by Recognise;
(2) the committee present to Parliament an interim report on or before 30 September 2014 and its final report on or before 30 June 2015;
(3) the committee consist of eight members, two Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, two Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any minority group or independent Member, two Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, one Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and one Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(4) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(5) the members of the committee hold office as a joint select committee until presentation of the committee’s final report or until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time, whichever is the earlier;
(6) the committee elect a:
(a) Government member as its chair; and
(b) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(7) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(8) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;
(9) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(10) the committee:
(a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;
(11) each subcommittee shall have at least one Government member of either House and one non‑Government member of either House;
(12) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee, the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(13) two members of a subcommittee constitute the quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non‑Government member of either House;
(14) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(15) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(c) sit in public or in private;
(d) report from time to time, in order to progress constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; and
(e) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the House of Representatives and the Senate;
(16) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the former Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples appointed during the previous Parliament;
(17) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(18) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Question agreed to.
Northern Australia Committee
Appointment
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Education) (09:27): I move:
That:
(1) a Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia be appointed according to the practice of the Parliament;
(2) the committee consider policies for developing the parts of Australia which lie north of the Tropic of Capricorn, spanning Western Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland, and in doing so:
(a) examine the potential for development of the region’s mineral, energy, agricultural, tourism, defence and other industries;
(b) provide recommendations to:
(i) enhance trade and other investment links with the Asia-Pacific;
(ii) establish a conducive regulatory and economic environment;
(iii) address impediments to growth; and
(iv) set conditions for private investment and innovation;
(c) identify the critical economic and social infrastructure needed to support the long term growth of the region, and ways to support planning and investment in that infrastructure;
(d) report to each House of the Parliament; and
(e) have such other functions as agreed to by resolutions of the House of Representatives and the Senate;
(3) as soon as practicable after 30 June 2014, the committee present an interim report to Parliament on the activities of the committee, which should include particular reference to the outcomes of public hearings held across Northern Australia, and any specialist knowledge emanating from the public submissions process;
(4) the committee deliver its final report and recommendations to the Parliament on or before 6 September 2014;
(5) the committee consist of 12 members, 4 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any minority group or independent Member, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(6) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination in the House of Representatives, of the Government or Opposition Whip or Whips, or any minority group or independent Member, and in the Senate, of the Leader of the Government or Opposition, or any minority group or independent Senator, and such participating member:
(a) shall be taken to be a member of the committee for the purposes.
(b) may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee and have all rights of a committee member except that a participating member may not vote on any questions before the committee;
(7) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(8) the members of the committee hold office as a joint select committee until presentation of the committee’s final report or until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time, whichever is the earlier;
(9) the committee elect a:
(a) Government member as its chair; and
(b) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(10) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(11) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;
(12) five members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(13) the committee:
(a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;
(14) each subcommittee shall have at least one Government member of either House and one non‑Government member of either House;
(15) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee, the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(16) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member or either House and one non‑Government member of either House;
(17) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(18) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(c) sit in public or in private;
(d) report from time to time; and
(e) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(19) the committee be:
(a) provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes.
(b) empowered to publish from day to day such documents and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public;
(20) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(21) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Higher Education Support Amendment (Savings and Other Measures) Bill 2013
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Pyne.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Education) (09:28): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The coalition government is committed to ensuring that Australia has a strong, high-quality university system now and in the years and decades to come.
This bill will give effect to higher education savings measures of the previous government, announced by the then minister for tertiary education on 13 April and confirmed in the 2013-14 budget.
These are Labor's cuts. These cuts of April came on top of repeated attacks by Labor on support for universities, for students, and for research. These cuts show just how damaging to the university sector the previous government was. They show clearly that Labor is no friend to universities. They show that Labor is no friend of students or higher education.
We are very pleased that we have been able to reverse one of Labor's most foolish and damaging measures—the cap on tax deductibility of self-education expenses. The vast majority of those who claim for self-education expenses earn less than $80,000 a year. This cap was going to hurt our nurses, teachers, doctors and other front-line services. Not only that, it would add to the burden on universities and professional and other bodies.
By 'scrapping the cap' this government is sending a clear message that the resources available to universities and students will be greater under the coalition than they would have been under Labor.
However, given the fiscal mess we have inherited from Labor as a result of their incompetence and wasteful spending, we have no responsible choice but to proceed with the other measures announced by Labor in April. We need to fix the budget for the long term and only by doing so will we ensure the sustainability of funding for the higher education sector. In addition to the measures in this bill, the Minister for Social Services will bring forth measures to implement the other part of Labor's April decisions–Labor's decision to convert start-up scholarships for students into loans.
Turning to the specific provisions of this bill: schedule 1 of the bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (HESA) to abolish the HECS-HELP discount. Schedule 2 amends HESA to abolish the HELP voluntary repayment bonus. Currently, students receive a discount of 10 per cent on their student contribution by paying the amount up-front and an additional five per cent reduction in their HELP debt by making a voluntary repayment of $500 or more.
Schedule 3 of the bill amends HESA to apply an efficiency dividend of two per cent in 2014 and 1.25 per cent in 2015 to Commonwealth contribution amounts under the Commonwealth Grant Scheme. The efficiency dividend will not be applied to student contribution amounts but does impact on university revenues over 2014, 2015 and the years following. Future years will be indexed from a lower base because of this cut from the previous government.
Schedule 4 makes a minor amendment to HESA to reflect the change of the name of the University of Ballarat to the Federation University. The Victorian parliament passed the University of Ballarat Amendment (Federation University Australia) Act 2013 earlier this year to change the name of the university with effect from 1 January 2014. The new name, a decision of the Victorian parliament, reflects the planned broader role envisaged for the university and evident in the transfer of Monash University's Gippsland campus to it.
The coalition government is committed to a strong, vibrant university sector. The fiscal mess that has been left to us by the previous government leaves us with no practical alternative but to proceed with Labor's cuts. Their mismanagement has meant that the budget which they inherited in significant surplus has now become a budget in massive deficit, with the nation saddled with huge public debt.
As a result, our high performing higher education sector is required to live with measures that contribute to restoring the budget to health. That we have no option but to enact Labor's cuts does not in any way diminish our commitment to supporting a high-quality and accessible higher education sector in Australia. Labor's cuts show how empty their claim is, to be a friend of universities and students. This coalition government is the true friend of universities, of high-quality teaching and learning as well as of research, and of students. Coalition governments have a proven track record of support for universities—and also, sadly, of having to clean up Labor's messes.
As the Prime Minister pointed out in his address to Universities Australia in February, the principal founder of the Liberal Party, Sir Robert Menzies, had what he himself described as a 'passionate belief in pure learning'. The creation of new universities, the increase in the numbers attending them and much greater support for students was one of the main legacies of his long tenure.
The Prime Minister also pointed out that, over the term of the Howard government, the number of students in higher education increased by 63 per cent, the number of postgraduate students by 118 per cent, the number of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds by 23 per cent and the number of students with disabilities by 140 per cent.
Under the Howard government, as the Prime Minister said, total government funding increased by 13 per cent in real terms and total funding by 65 per cent. And of course, we established the $6 billion Higher Education Endowment Fund (since raided by Labor) to provide a guaranteed stream of income to the higher education sector for improved capital works and research facilities.
In that same speech, the Prime Minister laid down seven principles and policy directions for higher education that the coalition would follow if elected to government. The first and most important is to be a stable and consultative government. The second is to encourage Australian universities to protect their academic standing so that students can be confident that their degrees are taken seriously. The third is to work with universities to expand their share of the international higher education market. Fourth, we committed to a New Colombo Plan, building on the original one that brought tens of thousands of students from around our region to study in Australia by sending Australian undergraduates to study in the Asia-Pacific region. Fifth, we committed to encourage universities and institutes to ensure that their research work is world class, effectively delivered and well targeted, and to reduce the burden of grant applications. Sixth, we said that we would help to foster the creative and economic potential in our education and research sector by reducing their regulatory and compliance burden. Seventh, and finally, the coalition committed to helping Australian universities to be able to take advantage of the growth in online learning, such as the development of massive open online courses—otherwise known as MOOCs.
In the few weeks that this government has been in office, we have already taken many steps that implement these pledges and that demonstrate our commitment to higher education. We have been engaging in real consultation with our universities. As well as scrapping Labor's cap on tax deductibility for self-education expenses, we have acted to support the capacity of our universities and other higher education providers to attract international students to Australia. We have simplified the assessment level framework and extended the scope of streamlined visa processing for international students, and we are working towards a national strategy for international education and other measures recommended in the Chaney report and mentioned in my recent speech to the Australian International Education Conference. We are working towards the pilot programs for the New Colombo Plan, with Indonesia, Singapore, Hong Kong and Japan all having agreed to be Australia's partners in these.
We are recognising the most outstanding university teachers and programs that enhance learning in Awards for University Teaching created under the Howard government. We have announced $522 million in grants and fellowships to support 1,177 research projects recommended by the Australian Research Council following competitive peer review processes. We are lifting the heavy burden of compliance and regulation on our universities through giving a ministerial direction to the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency to engage in genuine consultation, including through an advisory council we are creating; to deregulate; and to report progress, including on cost savings to universities from this deregulation. We are ensuring that the burden of reporting requirements on universities is reduced. We are taking stock of the progress of the demand-driven system for higher education funding with expert reviewers assessing how the system is performing, and how it can be improved, including to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to ensure the high quality of graduates from our universities.
Labor's cuts—outlined in this bill—would be unnecessary but for Labor's profligacy, their sustained and irresponsible spendathon, and their disregard for the sound financial management that is essential for the health and vitality of our universities. This government is committed to ensuring sound financial management, and to ensuring that Australia has a world-class university system now and for the future. Cleaning up Labor's mess is an essential starting point for this.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
National Health Amendment (Simplified Price Disclosure) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (09:39): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The National Health Amendment (Simplified Price Disclosure) Bill 2013 will amend the National Health Act 1953 to improve the operation of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and deliver better value for money for all Australians.
The PBS is a major government investment in the health of Australians. It is currently costing about $9 billion per annum. With annualised growth expected to be between four and five per cent over the longer term, it is a sustainable and world-envied model.
The simplified price disclosure measure was announced by the former government as part of its economic statement in August 2013. It will deliver savings to the budget of $835 million commencing 1 October 2014 and these savings are already factored into the forward estimates for the PBS and Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (RPBS).
Price disclosure was originally introduced as part of the Howard government reforms to PBS pricing policy in 2007 and is a routine part of maintaining PBS listings for medicines subject to competition. It was a farsighted reform that placed the PBS on a sustainable footing.
The objective of the policy is to ensure that the price at which the government subsidises multiple-brand medicines reflects more closely the prices in the market.
However, the current arrangements are complex and the time taken to achieve price reductions is too long.
At present, cycles take at least 18 months to complete. This means the government can be paying higher than market prices for at least 18 months.
The complexity in the current arrangements comes from there being three cycles—one 'main' cycle and two supplementary cycles. This results in additional and irregular periods for data collection, and inconsistent periods between price reductions.
This government wants to partner with business to pursue the efficient delivery of health outcomes. We are committed to reducing the effect that regulatory burden has on the time and cost of doing business.
The changes in this bill provide a simpler and more uniform approach to PBS price disclosure. New arrangements will mean less frequent reporting of data batches for irregular periods for drugs new to price disclosure than under the old three-cycle arrangement.
These efficiency gains are a step in the right direction in reducing administrative and compliance costs.
Price disclosure amendments
The amendments in the bill will streamline the operation of the current price disclosure arrangements. All medicines would be merged into one ongoing cycle rather than having several different cycles over the year.
The changes would also allow price reductions to occur sooner, and more frequently, after medicines become subject to market competition. This would be achieved by reducing the length of each price disclosure cycle.
Operation of price disclosure
Under price disclosure, drug companies are required to report their data on sales to wholesalers, pharmacists and other suppliers as part of their listing. The sales data are used to calculate the weighted average price at which PBS brands are actually being sold in the market place. The weighted average sale price is then compared to the PBS price to determine whether a price reduction will apply.
The PBS price is reduced only if the weighted average sale price is at least 10 per cent lower than the price the government uses to reimburse pharmacists and other suppliers.
Price disclosure is a free market solution which brings market forces and discounting practices to bear in a way that would not otherwise occur for subsidised prices. Over time, PBS prices are reduced in line with average market prices, not down to the lowest price, leaving room for further discounting. At the same time it protects low-volume high-need medicines when there is little competition in the market. This reduces the risk of essential drugs being withdrawn from the Australian market.
This approach ensures that PBS prices allow companies, including generic suppliers, to compete in the market at fair and competitive prices and avoids threatening continuity of supply.
Simplified price d isclosure
Simplified price disclosure is intended to streamline the operation of the pricing policy and adjust prices more quickly.
Firstly, the length of each cycle would be reduced from 18 months to 12 months. Cycles would have a data collection period of only six months, followed by the usual six months for calculating and publishing the new prices, and any dispute resolution. This would ensure the savings are realised as early as possible.
Secondly, three cycles would be merged into one cycle and the number of price disclosure related price reduction days each year would be reduced from three to two. The first price reduction day would be 1 October 2014.
Simplified price disclosure will make medicines cheaper not only for government, but also for consumers. Price cuts, such as the almost $16 per prescription already achieved for simvastatin, a drug used for high cholesterol, will benefit consumers six months earlier, year on year.
Transitional
Under the new arrangements, the majority of medicines would move into the new October 2014 price reduction cycle. For a small number of medicines, there are provisions that would allow their current cycle to continue to completion under the current rules.
Amendments to regulations would also be made to support the transition to the new arrangements, ensuring companies are clear how their brands fit into the new cycles.
Savings
The $835 million associated with the changes, as I mentioned before, is already factored into the budget. Unfortunately, the current fiscal situation means that we need to proceed with this change, which was made by the former government with limited consultation with those affected.
I should note that simplified price disclosure is not designed to increase the magnitude of reductions to PBS prices. Rather, it is about applying price reductions sooner after a drug becomes subject to market competition, and more frequently, so the PBS price follows market prices more closely.
Stakeholder groups and agreements
As I mentioned at the outset, the government is supportive of price disclosure arrangements and was responsible for their original architecture in 2007. We recognise that it evolves over time.
The difficulty though with these amendments is not the content but the manner in which they were conceived and announced by the former government.
The former government announced these changes on 2 August, only hours before the start of the caretaker period and without consultation.
The Pharmacy Guild had a formal agreement with the previous government through the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement. Medicines Australia had an agreement through their memorandum of understanding. Neither of these parties was consulted in any way despite these changes having a huge impact on their agreements.
Because there was no opportunity for negotiation or discussion, pharmacies in particular were not able to factor these changes into their business plans for the future.
These measures were not introduced by the previous government as part of the orderly incremental improvement of the PBS but as a desperate last minute attempt to raise revenue after six years of waste and mismanagement.
I understand, very much so, that pharmacists are concerned about the effect on their income and, in some cases, the long-term viability of their pharmacies. They contend that they rely on the income achieved from discounts from drug companies to fund other professional services and meet overheads.
Likewise, the National Pharmaceutical Services Association has claimed that pharmaceutical wholesalers and Community Services Obligation distributors will be affected by the change. Manufacturers of generic medicines have also expressed their concerns.
Unfortunately, where in 2007 Labor inherited a $20 billion-plus surplus, we have inherited a projected $30 billion deficit and climbing every day. While this government would have handled the approach and delivery of this policy in a very different manner, in this fiscal environment we have no choice but proceed with the changes.
The government is determined to champion the viability of companies along the entire PBS supply chain. We want to ensure that pharmacies prosper and pharmacists can provide professional services in a predictable business environment. If we do this, it will be to the betterment of the health of all Australians.
Industry cooperation and acknowledgement
Implementation of these legislative changes will again draw on the commitment shown by the pharmaceutical industry to work with government to improve the operation of PBS.
Consultation on the details of the changes will occur with pharmacy and industry bodies in the implementation of the new simplified price disclosure arrangements.
Conclusion
In summary, this bill proposes amendments to the National Health Act to improve the operation of the PBS.
Simplified price disclosure builds on the pricing policy introduced originally by the Howard government over six years ago. The new arrangement will result in a reduction in administrative burden for industry. It will benefit consumers via earlier access to cheaper medicines, and taxpayers via reduced PBS expenditure.
This is not the way this government wants to approach the delivery of those policy changes. As I say, we will have no choice after the mismanagement of the previous Labor administration. However, we should be mindful that the new arrangements are intended to allow PBS prices to be adjusted to market prices more quickly rather than to increase the size of the price reductions.
This government is committed to sound financial management of the PBS, and indeed the whole health system. These savings will assist the listing of new and innovative high-cost medicines on the PBS. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Import Processing Charges Amendment Bill 2013
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Morrison.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (09:49): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Import Processing Charges Amendment Bill 2013deals with legislative change to implement a revenue measure that was announced as part of the 2013-14 Budget. The increase to import processing charges was intended to be implemented from 1 January next year, however, legislation to effect the measure was never introduced. This bill amends the Import Processing Charges Act 2001 to increase import processing charges that will be levied on air, sea and post consignments with a value of $10,000 or more from 1 January 2014.
Under current legislation, an import processing charge is levied on consignments that have a customs value greater than or $1,000. Consignments that are valued at $1,000 or less are currently exempt from the import processing charge. The current rates of import processing charges will continue to apply for consignments above $1,000 but less than $10,000. There is no change to the exemption for consignments valued at $1,000 or less.
In 2013-14, it is estimated that 3.3 million import declarations will be lodged of which 99 per cent of these import declarations will be lodged electronically. Of the 3.3 million declarations that will be lodged in 2013-14, 55 per cent of these relate to consignments valued at greater than $10,000. This bill provides the legislative authority for changing the structure of the charges that will be levied on air, sea and post consignments, which will be reflected in the amended Import Processing Charges Act.
The current import processing charges recover only the commercial aspects of cargo and trade related activity. The Bill will amend the Import Processing Charges Act to broaden the cost base of the import processing charges so that all of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service's (ACBPS) costs associated with cargo and trade related activity, including community protection costs, are cost recovered. Under the new arrangements, the increased import processing charge will recover all costs associated with this activity including cargo screening costs; targeting and risk assessment costs; compliance, investigations and prosecution costs; as well as all other cargo and trade related activities.
The bill will also introduce a two-tiered charging arrangement with increased charges to apply for air, sea and post import consignments with a value of $10,000 or more. The import processing charge will increase for sea consignments lodged electronically from $50.00 to $152.60 and sea consignments lodged manually from $65.75 to $152.60. The charges for air and post consignments lodged electronically will increase from $40.20 to $122.10 and for air and post consignments lodged manually; the charges will increase from $48.85 to $122.10.
Import processing charges have not been increased since 2005-06 and the new increased charges will now recover all import processing costs associated with the ACBPS's cargo and trade related activities. The previous government agreed to a tiered charging structure to address the issue that low-value imports would experience higher increases in charges as a proportion of their value, due to the import processing charge being a fixed dollar amount.
The charges being made to both broaden the cost base of the import processing charges as well as increasing the charges to be levied on air, sea and post consignments valued at greater than $10,000 will see industry make a greater contribution to the full costs of delivering effective border management and the end-to-end costs of trade and goods delivered into Australia.
It is anticipated that implementing the previous government's revenue measure will generate an estimated additional $674.3 million across the forward estimates. Failing to introduce this measure or any delay in its passage and commencement would have a negative impact on the government's budget balance as this amount has already been factored into the forward estimates.
The changes to the structure of the import processing charges that are contained in this bill comply with the requirements of the Commonwealth's Cost Recovery Guidelines and are consistent with the requirements of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade as the revised charges will not 'exceed the approximate cost' of cargo and trade related activities undertaken by the ACBPS.
The import processing charges are collected under taxing legislation, and therefore any revenue collected by the ACBPS is returned to consolidated revenue. The ACBPS receives revenue as part of its annual appropriation to administer cargo and trade related activities.
Debate adjourned.
Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
True-up Shortfall Levy (General) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
True-up Shortfall Levy (Excise) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill 2013
Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates and Other Amendments) Bill 2013
Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That these bills be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment to the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 was moved:
That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"the House declines to give the Bill a second reading:
(1) because it would be ill advised to continue without consideration of the broader policy issues set out in paragraph 2, related to the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and related bills; and
(2) because of:
(a) the impact of the abolition of the Climate Change Authority and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation on ongoing transparency and investment in climate change;
(b) Government plans for emissions reduction and further development of renewable energy; and
(c) the international position of Australia in relation to climate change."
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (09:54): Sadly, it will be a very dark day in Australian history when we vote later today on this Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013. It is quite Orwellian to have legislation before the chamber that will give polluters a licence to pollute, yet those opposite have the temerity to call it 'clean energy legislation'. Once this vote occurs today, the reality is that this side of the chamber—the side on the right side of history—will lose. We will have to take a step backwards, a regression. We all know the facts. No-one doubts them. The reality is that humankind is creating a change in the climate. Look at the CO2 emissions and the parts per million—the Keeling Curve information. Those facts were not in dispute when I was first elected to this parliament back in 2007. Everyone elected at that time made a commitment to act on climate change. Today we are going to see a backward step. I hope that in years to come, in 20 or 30 years time, the grandchildren of those opposite will track them down to their retirement home and give them a good head butt and say: 'What were you thinking? You ignored the science, ignored the facts and ignored our future.'
I have a four-year-old son and an eight-year-old son. I have to look them in the eyes today and say, 'I am worth more than you.' I have to say to them that their children will not be worth as much as me. That is effectively what we will be doing today if we vote to support this repeal. The reality is that all Australians, and me as a Queenslander, are the highest emitters per person of any developed country in the world. My understanding is that Queensland is the worst state in Australia per person. That is why we need to make a serious change with clean energy legislation.
Let us look at the facts, not the hysteria we saw from Henny-Penny running around before the election. We have seen a 6.1 per cent decrease in emissions in the electricity sector which is the equivalent of 12 million tonnes. For the sake of the Prime Minister, I will clarify that: 12 million tonnes of CO2 weighs 12 million tonnes. It is gas that is invisible to the naked eye. But I am assured by the scientists that 12 million tonnes of CO2 weighs 12 million tonnes, which is the equivalent in layman's terms of taking about 3.5 million cars off the road.
The price that we put on pollution is working. But it does impact on people's wallets. That is the reality and we have never shied away from that. That is why we have called on people's better nature to understand that if we do not act to kerb emissions, the planet will pay a price, your children will pay a price, your grandchildren will pay a price and your great grandchildren will track down your names and say, 'Shame, shame, shame.'
The reality is that we are going to get another mechanism, this indirect inaction plan. It is untested. There is not one economist who says it will work. Scientists and farmers understand that there are serious concerns about it. When we questioned the bloke who did his thesis in this area about this, he said: 'We'll find soil carbon will work. That will deliver 85 million tonnes.' The science is out there on soil carbon. I think they are drifting into magic dirt territory if they think that soil carbon is going to be the only answer. Some experts are saying it could be as low as five to 10 million tonnes. In terms of planting trees, let us get real. You would have to plant the entire area of Victoria and Tasmania with trees to have that sort of offset. I am all for planting trees—I am a big fan of it—but let us get real. To get that sort of offset you would have to get rid of all the grazing land in Australia and put it under trees. To think that the Liberal Party, the party created by Menzies, the man who believed in markets, would run away from a market mechanism and say, 'No, the public servants in Canberra will be able to get the best deal in terms of offsets'! With all due respect to those wonderful people in Canberra, a market is the most effective mechanism.
The other problem for those public servants is: all the low-hanging fruit has gone. Because we have had effectively a price on carbon for a year, all the great mechanisms have already been taken up. So these public servants are going to be scrabbling around. I can understand why it is a vagrant scheme, because there is no obvious means of support. No-one is able to say how it will work. I do not know how the free marketeers opposite are able to still cling to it when all the facts they have talked about have turned out to be a complete fabrication. That odour of mendacity about their election campaign has been exposed. The price of a lamb roast has actually gone down. They said the economy was going to come to a screaming halt. The last time I checked the stock exchange had gone up by about 33 per cent—a third—with a price on carbon. We always were committed to having a market price rather than a fixed price. That is the reality. In fact, I seem to recall we had a deal with the Leader of the Opposition at the time, Malcolm Turnbull, negotiated by the member for Groom. We had a deal until the leadership change.
We believe strongly that climate change is real. We do not just say it because it is politically expedient—which is what John Howard has revealed. He said it in 2007 because it seemed like it might get him some votes. Believe me, this is not something that is necessarily a vote winner but it is the right thing for the nation. Those opposite who have a heart and believe in science and believe in their children's futures know that that is the case. The market mechanism that we believe in would operate much more efficiently.
I am particularly worried about this commitment to our 2000 targets being achieved under the indirect inaction plan, because both the Prime Minister and the minister responsible said, 'We will not put extra money in if indirect inaction does not achieve those targets.' It is almost like window-dressing of the worst kind if they are not prepared to put extra money in to reach those targets. The reality is: since the legislation came into effect on 1 July last year, carbon emissions have dropped 7.4 per cent. Renewable energy generation has surged 30 per cent, and more than 150,000 jobs have been created. I heard for three years that it was going to be the end of our economy. Hydro-electricity, gas and other renewable energies have also had a surge. The reality of this indirect inaction plan is that it will be a major stuff-up. It will not produce an emissions reduction. If we cannot go to climate change negotiations and say, 'We have done our bit', we cannot be the middle-power leader in this area—with our proud history of being a nation that leads the rest of the world, going back to Doc Evatt and the setting up of the United Nations. I will even mention Billy Hughes after World War I. We have always been a middle power that has helped lead the world in terms of doing the right thing. The onus on us to do the right thing is even more severe because we are such a heavy per-person emitter.
This is populist politics of the very worst order. The appeal to people that 'You don't have to think of your neighbours' is very short sighted. The reality is that we are surrounded by islands. We are an island continent and we are surrounded by low-lying islands with lots of people. When sea levels start rising in the next five, 10, 15 or 20 years, where will they be heading? Will they just drown quietly, waving politely, saying, 'Tough luck for us?' No, of course they will head for higher land. And Australia, as a wealthy country, will be the first port of call. So it makes economic sense for us to do the right thing by our neighbours as quickly as possible. The reality is that we have higher wages in Australia. The best way to be competitive is not to lower wages but to have technological advances by investing in things like the NBN. Technological advances in a carbon-constrained economy means that we will be able to compete and lead our neighbours and the rest of the world. Instead of those scientists moving to China, India or one of the other countries that are investing so heavily in carbon pollution reduction, those businesses could operate here and we could be a world leader.
Obviously there are a million defence reasons that I would have been prepared to talk about a few weeks ago but, in the current climate, I will not talk about them. The reality is that it makes sense to do what we can to be able to look our neighbours in the eye and say, 'We know you are island nations and we are doing what we can to protect your environment.' You could argue that we need to do it because there is a moral responsibility; however, for economic and defence reasons, we need to get this right. The policy that those opposite, who are on the wrong side of history, are going to vote on today will be a great individual item of shame for them when they look back on their political careers and note that on this day they voted against history, they voted against their children, they voted against their grandchildren. As I said at the start of my speech yesterday, it is like having an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other, and they are only listening to the devil.
Mr BALDWIN (Paterson—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry) (10:07): I rise today in this chamber to deliver on an election promise to get rid of the job destroying Labor-Green carbon tax that drove up the cost of living and operational costs for businesses for all Australians. I am speaking in support of and later will be voting for the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and the coalition government's commitment to abolishing Labor's carbon tax, the Clean Energy Authority and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.
From the outset, let me say that this bill is what the Australian public expected from this government: the scrapping of the carbon tax. The carbon tax was a bad idea and that is why I voted against it. The carbon tax was based on a lie and that is why I voted against it. The carbon tax has not been good for Australia or my electorate of Paterson and that is why I voted against it. The carbon tax has massively increased the cost of living, it has forced the closure of businesses, it has killed off jobs, and it continues to create risk and uncertainty for industry and big and small business alike. That is why I voted against it. The world's biggest carbon tax has hit all of our industries particularly hard and given our overseas competitors a distinct price advantage in a price point competitive market. The former Labor government never understood that most of our industries, due to international competition, are price takers and not price setters. That is why I voted against it. The coalition government is committed to abolishing the carbon tax and will not stop until the job is done. That is why at the conclusion of this speech I will vote to repeal this insidious tax.
In repealing this legislation, the Clean Energy Act 2011 and five associated charges acts will be repealed and arrangements will be made to collect all of the 2012-13 and 2013-14 carbon tax liabilities. The Competition and Consumer Act 2010 will be amended, giving the ACCC new powers to monitor carbon-specific prices and place prohibitions on carbon-specific price exploitation and false or misleading representations, in relation to the carbon tax repeal. From July 2014, industry assistance schemes like the Jobs and Competitiveness Program, the Energy Security Fund and the Steel Transformation Plan will be wound up. Once the Climate Change Authority Act 2011 and Clean Energy Finance Corporation Act 2012 are repealed, we can then proceed with abolishing the Clean Energy Authority and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. Once these are repealed, the second round of personal income tax cuts, which were legislated to commence on 1 July 2015, can also be repealed and the tillage tax offset can be abolished. The bills also make minor amendments to related legislation by removing references to carbon units, prescribed international units and carbon tax reporting requirements.
The message is clear from the Australian people and businesses—get rid of the carbon tax. That is what we are here today to do; we are determined to get the job done. Unlike Labor, we will not say one thing before an election only to do the complete opposite once elected. Of course, I am referring to Labor's 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead'. By getting rid of the carbon tax, we will reduce the burden on families and businesses. If anyone here questions the pain families and business owners are feeling from this tax, they only need to look in their own electorates.
There are many real-life examples of businesses in and around my region and within my portfolio that have felt the effects of the carbon tax. I would like to share the pain that Labor have inflicted on them. I would like to tell you again about the Weathertex plant at Tomago, one of the oldest continuous employers in the region. It used to be called the Masonite factory but now produces Weathertex boards for both the domestic and international markets. It employs around 100 locals and generates $23 million in domestic sales and, importantly, $2 million in exports. The CEO told me that, even though the business has a negative carbon footprint, they were being slugged with a half a million dollars a year carbon tax bill across their coal, gas and electricity. As I have said before, what Labor did not understand, and still does not understand, is that many businesses like Weathertex are competing in price sensitive markets. Any increases in production costs make them less competitive, which means fewer sales and less Australian jobs.
Another example from my electorate I have talked about previously is the largest dairy owned by Dallas Clarke and based at Wallalong. It closed because the carbon tax made it unaffordable to continue trading. There were two significant factors for the closure. While the low cost of milk contributed, the main reason was the increase in electricity costs. Just the carbon tax increases alone in his electricity bill were $609 in July and $600 in August 2012, and that is not to mention the increases in the off-peak rates. They have risen out of all proportion. Those that know something about the dairy industry know that they produce milk during the off-peak rate period. His power bills went up from $4,850 a month to $6,000 a month, making his business unsustainable. His milk prices dropped to around 45c per litre yet his electricity prices have increased out of sight.
It does not end there. Tailor Made Fish Farms at Bobs Farm have raised their concerns with me in the past that the carbon tax has been undermining their business. Tailor Made Fish Farms is a successful local business involved in innovative aquaculture and hydroponic technology, producing fish and vegetables for the domestic market and proven technologies for the international market. Tailor Made Fish Farms is the largest producer of barramundi in New South Wales and is internationally considered an industry leader in its field, consulting with companies in Australia and abroad. Affordable electricity is crucial for the ongoing viability of businesses like Tailor Made Fish Farms due to the very competitive and price-sensitive market. The fishing industry is an extremely price point sensitive market, largely being a price taker rather than a price setter. Without our intervention by abolishing this tax, this business would be forced to either absorb the additional carbon tax cost, thereby reducing profit margins, or pass on the cost to consumers, thereby reducing competitiveness and jeopardising jobs. These are real people I have been talking about—real people working hard to maintain a business, supporting families through employment, not the faceless men hiding behind the fictitious gold at the end of the rainbow that they believed the carbon tax would lead them to.
We are repealing the carbon tax because the carbon tax was based on a lie. It was a clear case of a dirty deal done dirt cheap just so that the Labor Party could stay in power—a dirty deal that sacrificed the economy of the nation so that they could stay in power. Labor were prepared to sell out a nation with a dirty deal done dirt cheap, just for their own political benefit. But this deal has not been cheap. In fact, it has been very expensive. And yet, from the rhetoric in their speeches and statements, the Labor Party are still not listening to the Australian people.
Families have paid the price, through increased electricity bills, and what have they had to sacrifice? The quarterly CPI figures released on 24 October 2012—the first since the carbon tax was introduced—saw a 15.3 per cent rise in electricity prices, with household gas and miscellaneous fuel prices seeing a 14.2 per cent rise. This was the largest quarterly increase ever, two-thirds of which, on average, came from the carbon tax. Business has paid the price. Labor squandered the hard-earned cash given to them by businesses and continued to raise the carbon tax. The carbon tax is estimated to have accrued $16 billion over two years, for no change in domestic emissions, and the former government's own figures showed that domestic emissions would rise to 637 million tonnes by 2020.
Australia's carbon tax of $24.15 per tonne currently covers around 370 liable entities across 60 per cent of total emissions in industry sectors such as electricity generation, industrial processes and off-road fuel users. We cannot let this squandering continue. Australian families and businesses need the carbon tax removed. Removal of the carbon tax will reduce cost-of-living pressures on households and businesses alike. Some examples of the benefits families will see include: on average, families will be $550 better off per year; average household electricity bills will be around $200 lower than they otherwise would be in 2014-15 with a $25.40 carbon tax; average household gas bills will be around $70 lower than they would otherwise be in 2014-15 with a $25.40 carbon tax; business compliance costs are expected to fall by around $87.6 million per annum as a consequence of repealing the carbon tax; and the costs of transporting in Australia will not increase because of fuel cost increases to do with the carbon tax in 2014.
Last year, I watched powerless as the Kurri Kurri aluminum smelter was forced to close its doors and leave hundreds of Hunter residents jobless. The carbon tax had forced up the company's energy bills and played a significant part in the decision to close its doors. Local businesses are struggling.They are doing it tough. We just cannot afford another local business like this to close its doors. I am now in a position to remove this tax, and I intend to vote yes—yes because I no longer want to see Australian businesses close down; yes because I want no more job losses because of the carbon tax; and yes because I want to reduce electricity prices, which are placing more and more pressure on the average Australian battler.
We promised to eliminate the carbon tax. We have a mandate to scrap this tax. We are doing this because the Australian people have told us this is what they want. We are doing this because this is what Australian business and industry have told us they want. This is what the vast majority of the Australian public voted for. We have listened to the Australian public and we will undo the damage of Labor's dirty deal done dirt cheap.
The repeal of the carbon tax also represents a major contribution to the government's deregulation agenda, by removing about 440 pages of legislation and reducing business compliance costs by about $100 million a year. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will have new powers to monitor prices and take action against businesses that charge unreasonably high prices or make false or misleading claims about the effect of the carbon tax repeal on prices. Maximum penalties for price exploitation will be set at $1.1 million for corporations and $220,000 for individuals. Under the repeal legislation, business compensation schemes associated with the carbon tax will be scrapped from 1 July next year and the Climate Change Authority will be abolished. The first round of personal income tax cuts, which started from 1 July last year, will be maintained; however, a second round, which had been included in Labor's original carbon tax compensation package, will be scrapped.
Without the carbon tax, there is no further need for compensation measures. We will axe the carbon tax on fuels used in shipping, rail and air transport and on synthetic greenhouse gases. Also, shortly we will repeal the mining tax and measures attached to that. These and many other sensible solutions are being carefully and properly put in place. These are outcome focused and will keep us on track for the government to reach the same reduction in emissions, of five per cent by 2020, that Labor promised to deliver but struggled to show any evidence that they were achieving. In fact, the data available has shown little to no decrease in emissions and has shown that Labor were never going to come close to reaching their targets.
It is obvious Labor have not been listening. Australian families have told us they do not want this tax and business have told us they do not want this tax. The government has a mandate to rid this country of this tax once and for all. This is what the Australian people voted for. This is what they expect from this government. The carbon tax was always a bad idea. By getting rid of the carbon tax, we will reduce the burden on families by reducing their electricity bills. This government is pro jobs. By getting rid of the carbon tax, we will get the monkey off the back of small business. The Australian people want the carbon tax scrapped, and this bill will deliver what the Australian people want.
Again I remind you that our target is the same as the previous government's commitment: a five per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020. But we have a better way to meet that commitment. Labor clearly knows this tax is hurting our country. It was one of the main reasons businesses and families ousted them. They never wanted the tax. This is why Julia Gillard declared there would be no carbon tax under a government she led. This is why Kevin Rudd declared on 16 July 2013 that he had 'terminated' the carbon tax—except the truth is he had not. This is why, after the 2013 election, the member for Grayndler wanted to set the carbon tax rate to zero. Now the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, with his carbon steel sword and band of faceless men , will have us believe the carbon tax is in Australia's best interest and what the Labor Party really wants. The real truth is that this is vital legislation for the Australian economy. This is vital legislation for Australian families. This is vital legislation for the survival of business. We need to abolish this tax and today I am here today to vote down this tax.
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (10:22): Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, can I start by congratulating you on your elevation to your current position. I think you bring great dignity—
Mr Bowen: Gravitas.
Ms BIRD: gravitas, indeed, as the shadow minister indicated, to the position of chair.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Mitchell ): Flattery will get you everywhere!
Ms BIRD: My sincere congratulations—a well-deserved position.
I just want to take this opportunity in the debate today to indicate that I am supporting the position put by both the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister supporting the amendments that the shadow minister has proposed to the House. This side of the House, the opposition, went to the election with a very clear position. Our position was to abolish the carbon tax and to introduce an emissions trading scheme. I have been very strongly supportive of that position, and our proposition before the House absolutely carries through on the commitments that we took to the election in that way.
The government claims that these bills are about, and much of their contribution to the debate has been about, the component that abolishes the carbon tax. However, the bills before us do much more than that—hence our problem with them. Firstly, the bills remove the legislated cap on carbon pollution. So, in effect, they take away any of the discipline that it is required to deliver what is supposedly a bipartisan target—and one which the previous speaker for the government again confirmed to this House that they support. Secondly, the bills abolish the entire framework for an emissions trading scheme and so are completely contradictory to the position we took to the election. Thirdly, they abolish the Climate Change Authority. Heaven forbid you should have an independent expert in existence providing advice to this government, because if there is one thing they are consistent on it is that they do not like anybody who is an expert in their field. Finally, as many government speakers, including the previous speaker, have confirmed, they break promises that those opposite made to their communities in the election campaign by abolishing tax cuts for households in future years.
Our responsibility is to come to this place and stay true to the commitments we made to our communities in the election campaign; that is how a democracy works. A mandate means you have mustered the numbers on the floor of this chamber, and the government may well muster the numbers on the floor of this chamber for the bills that they have put before us. Our mandate is to stay true to the position we took to our electors and which they returned us on. And I am absolutely of the opinion that the amendment put forward by the shadow minister meets our mandate from, and our commitment to, the people who elected us and so returned us to this place.
Indeed, I contested the 2007 election with the ALP's policy of ratifying Kyoto and introducing a carbon pollution reduction scheme. I will not again go through the fact, which is well documented, that those on the other side, under the leadership of the then Prime Minister, John Howard, were very keen to see us have a carbon pollution reduction scheme, to be a world leader, as the then Prime Minister said, and were eloquent in outlining the great advantages to our economy and our environment for the future by acting on climate change. Of course, that was flipped on its head when there was a change of leader on the other side.
But we have been consistent. I contested the 2010 election where we had a commitment to introducing an emissions trading scheme and which, post election, with the hung parliament, resulted in the introduction of the initial fixed price period. I contested the most recent, 2013, election with a commitment to scrap the fixed price period—that is, as we have described, to scrap the carbon tax—and move to an emissions trading scheme.
I am happy to be a member of a party that has stayed consistent on our responsibility to the future and to the people who will follow us. As decision makers in this place, we stood up and took responsibility when it was required. We did not put it off for future generations to solve. This is our children's future. It is not only their future in terms of the environment in which they will live and the challenges they will face with that environment as we see increasingly problematic weather conditions. It is also about the future of their economy and their jobs, because early movers, whenever there is a major shift in the economic foundations of the world, are the ones who do best in that time period. The early movers in the industrial revolution were the most advanced nations of recent times. The early movers in a carbon-restrained future will be the most successful nations in the longer term. This is what we should be doing. This is our responsibility in this place.
As was said at the beginning of this debate—and I remember many across both sides of the House making this point before the 2007 election—the cost of action is less than the cost of inaction. Business as usual is not an option. Despite the emus on the other side wanting to put their heads in the sand, business as usual is not an option.
Those opposite have shifted with the winds of the leadership struggles within their own party on this most important challenge. Even former Prime Minister Howard now claims that his own avowed, well-argued, often-outlined position on the need to act and for Australia to be a world leader was, he tells us now, only a rather cynical political position. And it was much more easily abandoned because a more popular position emerged. That is not leadership. That is not responsibility. That is not taking up our task in this place on behalf of the generations that will follow us.
The current Prime Minister went to the last election promising to scrap the tax, and we are available to support that. But he also retained a commitment to targeted carbon pollution reduction, and he has claimed that, when all of those actions are reconciled under the direct action policy, they will have an impact on the reduction of carbon. That in itself is an inaccurate claim, and is the basis of much of our problem with the position put by the government.
The impacts are real. The science is settled. The choice we face here is how and when to act. The new Prime Minister has a fundamental problem taking the advice of anyone with expertise in the field, not only the scientists but also the economists.
The shadow minister outlined the long record of the Prime Minister's attack on the science. In July 2009 he said:
I am, as you know, hugely unconvinced by the so-called settled science on climate change.
In October of that year he described climate science as 'absolute crap'. Nothing ambiguous there. In March 2011 he said:
… whether carbon dioxide is quite the environmental villain that some people make it out to be is not yet proven.
In March 2012 he said:
… I don't believe that the science is settled.
These assertions are simply wrong.
This year NASA reported—and I quote directly from their report:
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
In September this year the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was the result of the work of 209 lead authors and more than 600 contributing authors, indicated that the world's climate scientists are 95 per cent certain that a process of global warming has been underway for some decades and its major cause is human activity. This is not 'so-called' or 'not-yet-settled' science.
So what are the effects? The warning has, and remains, the danger of significant and devastating changes to the world's climate. On almost any night now climate events are in our news. They are not at the end of the news any more. Damaging climate events are more frequent, they are more intense and they are more damaging, and this has very serious implications for a nation as exposed to climate change and its impacts as we are.
The shadow minister reported to this House that the last year up to October has been the hottest 12 months on record. The CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology, in their latest State of the climate report, restated the warning that the number of hot days in Australia will increase, as well as advising that droughts and intense cyclones will become more common.
The Leader of the Opposition in his contribution to this debate made the point that our world is approaching a population of 7 billion people, and the threats from climate change will intensify and not diminish our need to act. As we see the increase in prevalence and the increased intensity of extreme weather events such as droughts and floods, heatwaves and bushfires and their devastating effects on our environment and significant cost to our local and national economies, it is only becoming increasingly clear that we have a responsibility to future generations to act.
The action proposed by the government, their vaguely named and described 'Direct Action' policy, was most accurately described by the member for Wentworth. I will use his words—he said they are nothing more than:
… a con, an environmental fig leaf to cover a determination to do nothing.
Prior to the 2010 election, the Treasury stated in the blue book prepared prior to that election, 'A market-based mechanism can achieve the necessary abatement at a cost per tonne of emissions far lower than any alternative direct action policies'.
Mr Bowen: I wonder what the 2013 blue book said?
Ms BIRD: It would be interesting to see the 2013 book. Do you think we will see it at all, shadow minister? Probably not.
Mr Bowen: Not if the government gets its way.
Ms BIRD: More recently, in October this year TheSydney Morning Herald undertook a survey of 35 prominent university and business economists on their views on the government's direct action policy. Only two of them believed it was a better policy than a market-based mechanism. Three of them, to be fair, rejected both schemes, but that meant 86 per cent of those surveyed were of the view that the emissions trading scheme was a better economic method of addressing the challenge.
One of them, the internationally renowned Australian economist, Justin Wolfers actually said:
… direct action would involve more economic disruption but have a lesser environmental pay-off than an emissions trading scheme.
BT Financial's Dr Chris Caton said any economist who did not opt for emissions trading "should hand his degree back"
The Prime Minister's view of these 'rascally' economists would probably not surprise the House. The article reports:
In 2011, Mr Abbott took a swipe at some who had criticised the Coalition's scheme, saying "maybe that's a comment on the quality of our economists rather than on the merits of the argument''.
Mr Bowen: It's those rascally economists again!
Ms BIRD: It's those rascally economists again.
The bills before this House remove a cap on pollution, so there is nothing in the response to the challenge we face that will provide the discipline needed to meet supposed agreed targets. This is not action. It will fail the environment and it will fail the economy. It does not even pass the basic test of risk management that a government owes future generations.
Only last week that other rascally progressive, the British Prime Minister, outlined this very issue. He said:
… I'm not a scientist but it's always seemed to me one of the strongest arguments about climate change is, even if you're only 90 per cent certain or 80 per cent certain or 70 per cent certain, if I said to you there's a 60 per cent chance your house might burn down do you want to take out some insurance? You take out some insurance.
There is a cost to this lost opportunity in particular, and in the short amount of time remaining to me I just want to make two points. One is that Australia can, has been and could be a world leader in innovations in renewables, in energy efficiency, in new production processes and methods if it were backed by a scheme in this nation that drove viability for those sorts of innovations. And, as a small aside, I would add that the provision of fibre to the premises under Labor's NBN would have assisted in unleashing, through the upload capacity it would provide, a whole new arena of energy monitoring and management on a scale that would be a significant opportunity for new business and export markets. Sadly, that is not the case.
I would like to finish with a local story of global achievement in this space from my own backyard, Wollongong. In August this year a team of students from the University of Wollongong and TAFE Illawarra, Team UOW, won first place in the solar decathlon in China. China is part of the most recent addition to the US Department of Energy solar decathlon team. The decathlon was hosted in Datong and the Wollongong team beat 19 teams from around the world. They were the first team from Australia to successfully gain entry to the solar decathlon and were offered positions both in China and the US. They were the first team ever, in any of the competitions, to demonstrate how to retrofit an existing home and they achieved the highest overall score in any solar decathlon competition in history. My great congratulations to Professor Paul Cooper, Marty Burgess from TAFE and the wonderful students on an outstanding result.
Mr BROUGH (Fisher) (10:37): The public listening to this debate today must wonder whether they are living in a parallel universe. On 7 September we had an election. In December 2009 Tony Abbott was elected Leader of the Liberal Party fundamentally for one reason: he stood on a principled position that he believed that the carbon tax as enunciated by the Labor Party was not the right direction for Australia, he did not agree with the position that his own party was adopting and he put a contrary position. It was adopted by the majority of the Liberal Party. He was elected leader. For the next four years he campaigned, as the Labor Party said in this place and in the public arena, up hill, down dale, in every business, in every household, making sure every Australian knew the position that the coalition held dearly—that is: (1) that climate change is real, (2) that humans have an impact, (3) that carbon dioxide is a contributor and (4) that the Labor Party's policy to answer this problem was wrong. It is that simple. So the public must be wondering why we stand in this place, hour after hour, debating something that they have already spoken on.
I hear quite a few of those opposite, both in this place and in the other place and also in the public arena, saying, 'We have a mandate.' Well, in 2010 you went to an election saying, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,' under your then leader, but you changed your position.
Ms MacTiernan interjecting—
Mr BROUGH: Can I ask a question of the member interjecting for her to answer when she gets up to speak. Answer this to the public: if you are going to maintain this policy position, is it going to be in isolation or are you also going to retain every other policy position you took to the 2013 election, such as taking a tax cut to the Northern Territory—there's a thought bubble for you—or perhaps relocating the Navy from Sydney to Brisbane? Is it one in, all in, or is it cherry-picking for political purposes against the will of the public?
Can I also take those opposite to the notion that 'the Labor Party got elected and we have to represent the views of the public on this issue and in the other place, the Senate, we still hold the numbers'. For those opposite, only half the Senate goes to an election at any one time and you lost a whole third of your senators—gone, wiped out—because the public did not want what you had to offer. I say to the shadow Treasurer there at the table today, here is the challenge for you: go to the seat of Griffith over the next two months, get out there on the doorsteps of the people of Griffith, knock on their doors and say, 'I'm here to reintroduce the carbon tax—tell me what you think.' Turn up to the small businesses, the cafe owners, and say, 'I'm your carbon tax man and I'm here to help.' I can just see that happening, because yesterday he got up in here and gave the most confected piece of oratory you have heard for some time; it was a piece of theatre.
What I hope to bring to this House in the next few minutes are the real-life experiences of the people of Fisher, the businesses who have been hurt by this tax, who have not been able to employ some of their neighbours as a result of this tax which has caused them heartache and who expect me as the representative not only to vote against what the Labor Party put up and for the repeal bills but also to bring to this place their stories so that perhaps that can have some impact upon those opposite.
Before I do, though, many of those opposite have talked about the Direct Action Plan, that this is a fig leaf and the fact that we have not put out into the public arena what we are going to do on day one. We have enunciated in detail the principles behind it, the money that will support it and what we aim to achieve. But unlike the Labor Party, who gave us things like pink batts which killed our fellow Australians and cost a billion dollars to have rectified because they acted before they thought, we will not follow those practices. This is what this government will do. First of all, terms of reference were released on 16 October. Submissions closed only a couple of days ago, and my understanding is that several hundred organisations and individuals made submissions, putting their ideas forward on how this should work. These submissions will be evaluated. There will then be a green paper released, in mid-December, which the public can have involvement with, about how this should work, so we do not make the mistakes and follies of those opposite in wasting billions of dollars and costing lots of other hardship that I have already referred to. Then, in approximately March or April next year, the final white paper will come out so that we can actually have a policy that people can have confidence in because they have been brought into the confidence of the government and have been part of the process. So, far from it being a fig leaf, this is a proper, dedicated process to ensure that taxpayers' money is well spent to get the outcomes that the country deserves.
Let me now turn to real-life experiences. The first time in my campaign office I had a call from Bill Henneberry, who is a trawler operator, he said: 'I just don't know where to turn. No-one is listening. I'm listening to these debates but no-one is hearing me—no-one is hearing what I have to put up with.' Typical of the last shadow minister who spoke, there was not one story about anybody in the Wollongong district that she represents that had come to her about the real-life experience. There seems to be a disconnect between the Labor Party, its rhetoric and the public. What I hope to put before us today are some of those real-life stories. Bill said: 'When you get on your trawler and you go out to sea, the motion of the ocean and the diesel motors obviously create a lot of vibration. I have to have world's best refrigeration on my vessel. To do that there are copper pipes, and these copper pipes lead to gauges and to the refrigerants. One tiny leak would sometimes cost me a few hundred dollars. Today when that tiny leak comes it is costing me virtually my livelihood, thousands of dollars, and it is happening.' But he said, 'The sad part is I cannot get any guarantees from the refrigerant mechanics because it's not possible under the conditions I work. They fix it today and it's broken again tomorrow at a cost of thousands of dollars, not a few hundred—and thousands of dollars of profit means tens of thousands of dollars of product having to be caught.' So how do you deal with that? How do you turn up to a bank and say that you need an overdraft for these sorts of things. When he turns up and docks—as all the trawler operators do at the Maloolaba Bar Spit—you then have the wholesale operators, who have actually gone to the University of the Sunshine Coast and spoken to the power retailers, saying, 'Science has told us that we are now on the borderline of being better off financially if we put in a diesel generator on the pristine Maloolaba Spit.' Wow! Now there is an environmental impact from the Labor Party! Let us start putting fumes from a diesel generator onto the Maloolaba Spit because it is less expensive than plugging into the grid. This is how idiotic some of these policies are that we have heard from the other side. I would just like to hear any one of the opposition get up and tell me where these people are wrong. I would like them to go to the Maloolaba Spit and explain to the people there why they have got it so wrong as operators and trawler operators.
Or Maleny Dairies—and I spoke about them the other day. Here is an innovative family supporting eight other dairies, keeping the dairy industry alive in the hinterland the Sunshine Coast. They have had to go back to an old technology that was actually removed in refrigerants because it was unsafe rather than risk the cost that they would have to bear through leaks. IGA supermarkets tell the same story. Ros White from IGA had to pay $25,000 for the loss because of one leak, and they are trying to compete against Coles and Woolies. But do this mob opposite care? No, they talk in highfalutin terms which show no regard whatsoever for the people of Australia that employ and invest and are the backbone of our country—and whose stories deserve to be heard in this place.
There is also Michael who is the wholesale butcher from Upper Cuts Wholesale Meats. He is also a strawberry grower. How much more Australian can you get? I just challenge the shadow Treasurer when he comes up to campaign and doorknock about his will to keep the carbon tax in the seat of Griffith. Come up my way—you have my invitation. The previous member did invite the former Prime Minister up so I am sure that it is within my right to invite the shadow Treasurer up. Come and meet these people. Sit down and talk to them and hear firsthand. So there is the challenge and I invite you to do so and hear firsthand from the people who have had to wear the brunt of what you have put forward.
On 4 November, the Sunshine Coast Daily had a headline: 'Confidence sky high'. It said:
SUNSHINE Coast business and tourism leaders have credited the new Federal Government with a boost in business confidence across the region.
It later went on:
CCIQ Sunshine Coast and Wide Bay regional manager, Kimberly Lynch, said the Tony Abbott government had received strong backing from the business community because of key promises.
She called on the government to deliver on its pledges to cut company tax, repeal the carbon and mineral resources rent taxes and deliver key infrastructure such as the Bruce Highway upgrade.
We have already delivered on the start of the Bruce Highway with $80.7 million.
We have got two bills before this House right now and today the Labor Party is going to have to stand in this place and answer for the fact that it will not listen to the Australian people. One member after another has spoken about this—and the member for Paterson before me articulated exactly the same sorts of stories from his region around Port Stephens. So many other members of the coalition have done the same, but no-one on the opposite side in the Labor Party seems keen to listen. The confidence that is so necessary on the Sunshine Coast to rebuild our economy, to get young people into jobs, can falter today, and if it does not falter today because we have the numbers, when it goes to the other place in the Senate, unless the Greens and the Labor Party lay down their ideology and stand up for Australians and acknowledge that there is a democratic process which leads to elections that people fight elections on, and that the majority should be what this government and this parliament stand for, then we are going to be back at square one.
In closing, other matters that have been raised with me on this issue are around how we can be sure that if we are able to get this through the parliament that prices will come down. Other members of the coalition have spoken about this. This was something that confronted us when we introduced the GST in 2000 as the Howard government. We learnt from that and gave strong powers to the ACCC. Over $1 million in the form of penalties can be imposed on businesses and $220,000 on individuals. These are very substantial penalties should people try to transgress and profit by lying to the Australian public.
We have also started to deliver on the reduction in red tape. There are 1,000 pages of legislation here—1,000 pages of legislation are being repealed. The regulations that burden business will be removed—not all of them, but it is a damned good down payment. This range of bills before us today show the stark difference between Labor and the coalition. Labor will not listen to the Australian population. They sit in their ivory towers and look down upon the people of Australia who have said that enough is enough. The people have voted and supported Tony Abbott and the coalition's plan, and I call on the opposition today, as individuals, to stand up for the election, to repudiate their leadership and to support the public of Australia and the economy of Australia.
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (10:51): As with all my fellow members of the House of Representatives, it is my privilege to again have the opportunity to be part of the consideration of laws and policies in this place. But I am sorry that the first time I speak on legislation in the 44th Parliament is in relation to a set of bills as short-sighted as the ones we debate here. These bills can only be described as backward. They take the Australian economy backward; they stand to undo the very significant progress that has been made since 2007; they put us in retreat from the global challenge of addressing climate change, of reducing our reliance on finite hydrocarbons and building a world-class renewable energy and energy efficiency sector. And they do so without any reasonable claim to logic or reason or science or without any claim to consistency of position, and when the one claim the government will make—that the election provides a mandate for undoing some apparently intolerable electricity price increase—is without basis.
Those opposite know that the carbon price impact was both minimal and fully compensated for low- and middle-income households. Inflation in Australia under the Labor government, like interest rates and unemployment, settled and remained at historic lows. It is absolutely right to say that in Western Australia between 2008 and 2012 electricity prices increased by something like 60 per cent, but they did so courtesy of the state Liberal government without the faintest upward influence of a price on carbon and without a cent of compensation.
When Mr Abbott was the Leader of the Opposition he claimed that putting a price on carbon would mean the death of the steel and aluminium industries and said that it would swing like a wrecking ball through the Australian economy and spell the annihilation of the domestic coal industry. Andrew Crook from Crikey wrote in January this year:
Australia’s leading resources stocks have spiked since the Gillard government’s introduction of the carbon tax, despite doomsayers from the conservative side of politics predicting share market carnage in the wake of the impost.
… … …
The best performing individual members of the index over that time were Bluescope Steel (+91%), Mirabella Nickel (+84%), Papillon Resources (+77%), Linc Energy (+70%), Northern Star Resources (+60%) and Beach Energy (+57%).
Global miner BHP Billiton soared 21% while rival Rio Tinto saw a 19% rise. Alcoa partner Alumina had its shares increase by 49%.
So there is the overheated rhetoric and then there is the reality. It is understandable that a government built on slogans will feel compelled to deliver on them, hence the matching of simplistic slogans with simplistic policy.
I also note that the new government has it in mind to make repealing the price on carbon its first grand symbolic gesture, but it would be a terrible shame if such a gesture had the wholly negative effect of wrecking the transition Australia is in the course of making to a low-carbon economy and tearing down the contribution Australia has made and is making to a global change that can occur only if nations turn aside from narrow self-interest and if political parties turn aside from hollow, hip-pocket populism.
I do not believe that symbolism is without value or that symbolism and substance exist separately from one another. I am very proud that in 2007 the Labor government commenced with the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and with an apology to Indigenous Australians, including the stolen generations. One act looked responsibly and with regret at our past and resolved upon a long-awaited and profound gesture of healing that has already proved the basis for greater reconciliation. From that symbolic and substantial act has flowed renewed commitment and action when it comes to closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians and that commitment is shared. The other act, ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, looked responsibly and with apprehension at our future and resolved upon a course of action that puts the Australian economy and Australian households on the least-cost path to addressing climate change.
By contrast, the coalition government has chosen the unravelling of action on climate change as its first symbolic and substantial gesture. This is profoundly nihilistic. I want to mention the damage that will be done by these bills if they were to become law by referring to three categories. The first is the effect that these bills will have on the burgeoning renewable energy and energy efficiency industry and on the amazing growth and innovation we have seen in the last six years when it comes to household sustainability.
When Labor came to government there were fewer than 8,000 household solar PV cells installed across Australia as a result of incentives provided under the Howard government. Today there are more than 10,000 household solar PV systems in my electorate of Fremantle alone and more than one million across Australia. This is one example of how leadership by government and the strong enthusiasm of the wider community can bring sweeping change. Over time the scale of the subsidy has decreased because the scale and viability of the Australian solar industry have increased. Households, streets, neighbourhoods and suburbs are being transformed and this transformation is lessening the demand for coal- or gas-fired power, it is decreasing household carbon emissions and it is reducing electricity costs.
The same work on a larger scale has been occurring through the Clean Energy Future reforms, through the funding that a price on carbon enables. In my electorate of Fremantle alone we have seen support provided to promising endeavours like the Carnegie wave energy project, a technology that uses underwater buoys fixed to the ocean floor to generate electricity and emission-free desalinated water at the same time. We have seen the family garden supplies company Richgro in Jandakot supported in their move towards 100 per cent on-site electricity generation through a two-megawatt anaerobic digestion waste-to-energy plant. We have seen Magellan Powertronics in Bibra Lake develop an innovative grid power support system that will boost the capacity, reliability and efficiency of electricity networks in regional Australia. We have seen the city of Fremantle become the first carbon neutral local government in Western Australia and South Fremantle Senior High School become the first nationally accredited carbon neutral school in Australia.
All of these investments, all of these business and community actions are only the beginning. Imagine what we would see if the clean energy reforms continued, if the funds derived from the price on carbon pollution could continue to move us towards a properly level playing field between high-carbon and low-carbon technology—between coal, gas and oil on the one hand and solar, wind and wave on the other.
This is one of the easiest points of comparison between the Labor government's reforms and the current government's retreat. Under our scheme polluters paid a price for carbon emissions; under their scheme the government will pay polluters to reduce emissions. Under our scheme the funds raised from the carbon price supported renewable energy production and energy efficiency innovation; under their scheme taxpayer funds will be used to pay the polluters themselves for pollution reduction. So it is polluter pays versus paying polluters.
I was very interested to read in Monday's Australian the National Generators Forum Executive Director, Tim Reardon, note that electricity demand had declined by about 10 per cent since 2008 and was near 2005 levels. What is more, the news on emission reduction is even better. As Mr Reardon explained:
The decline in demand for electricity combined with the growth in renewable energy has resulted in carbon emissions from electricity falling to levels last experienced in 2002.
This is a fantastic outcome and proof of the value of the reforms of the Labor government and proof of the terrible risks involved in the bills before us.
The second point I want to make in terms of what is being put at risk relates to the issue of climate change and health. In 2009 the world's leading medical journal, The Lancet, stated that climate change is the biggest health threat of the 21st century. The World Health Organization warned of the fundamental threat to human health from climate change, including extreme heat leading to deaths from respiratory and cardiovascular disease, especially for vulnerable people, including the elderly; increases in air pollution; extreme drought and its impact on farmers and food security; as well as other extreme weather events, such as floods and cyclones, that can result in increased hospital admissions. There is no doubt that a warming climate, and a climate with more frequent and more severe extreme weather events, will present serious health consequences. It is no accident that representatives of Australia's firefighter unions were at the GetUp! rallies around the country in support of action on climate change last Sunday. They spoke of the impact on their work and on their local communities of more frequent storms and bushfires.
Experts in the field note the risk of an increase in the rate and range of mosquito-borne diseases like malaria, dengue fever, Ross River virus and Murray River encephalitis. Under certain modelled scenarios it has been suggested that by 2050 we may experience a considerable southward extension of the dengue infection zone. I fear that the government's intransigence on this issue means there are no plans to assess our health vulnerabilities and to build health capacity and infrastructure to reduce health vulnerability to climate change. While Australia is in a position to ameliorate some of the health impacts of climate change as they occur, it will do so at considerable expense and with the usual opportunity costs that apply when an increased disease and injury burden makes a call on limited health resources and funding. We are conscious, too, that the most acute health impacts of climate change will be upon the world's poorest people, including our regional neighbours, and these will be impacts whose toll is also felt in Australia.
Which brings me to my final point, a point I have made on a number of occasions in this and other areas of policy consideration: the need for all countries, including Australia, to find more and better ways to look beyond our own self-interest in forming genuinely global responses to problems that can only be solved through coordinated global action. There is no better example of such a problem than climate change but there are others, including the management and protection of shared environmental assets, especially the ocean, the Arctic and Antarctic, and the use and stewardship of key resources like water. If we cannot be part of concerted effort and cooperation in tackling these challenges we can be sure they will go unsolved.
Australia has always been an agent of cooperation, a leader of concerted action; that too is at risk with these bills and with our recent actions in the international arena. The Australian government has not only failed to send ministerial representation to the UN's annual climate summit in Warsaw, it has also refused to support the UN's Green Climate Fund. As Giles Parkinson has noted in a Crikey article this week entitled 'Australia a "wrecking ball" at UN climate summit', the Green Climate Fund is 'a crucial piece of common ground between developed and developing countries'. It is the mechanism intended to help poor countries adapt to the major development challenges posed by climate change. Australia and Canada have also now refused to commit to a similar fund agreed to at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting to help poor countries of the Commonwealth, including those in our region, adapt to climate change. Australia's good reputation as a constructive participant in helping to solve global and regional challenges is being diminished by the day, and I would hope this matters to at least some in the government.
The Prime Minister once described himself as a 'weathervane' on the issue of climate change. He did not mean, unfortunately, that his view was based on some responsiveness to climate data. He meant that his position blew this way and that according to his sense of the politics and his sense of the political advantage that might be had, both in relation to the internal politics of the then opposition and in relation to the broader public view. And so here we are, debating a set of bills designed to swerve the Australian economy and the Australian way of life dangerously away from pursuing action on climate change, away from an emissions trading scheme that all the experts agree is the best means of allowing the market to find the least-cost way of reducing emissions and leaving us instead with a system that shifts the cost of carbon pollution from those who produce it and profit from it to the Australian government, the Australian taxpayer, the Australian people. Here we are debating a set of bills designed, quite carefully, to make achieving carbon emission reductions less likely and more expensive; bills designed to make the burden on polluters smaller and the barriers to low-carbon technologies larger; bills designed to take out of our market economy a price marker that (1) reflects a real and serious cost and (2) that acts to encourage and reward the millions of Australians who want to reduce their carbon footprint.
This is one of those truly fundamental issues: we are dealing here with an existential issue for the planet, not just a series of political debating points. We are aware from the reports of many scientific bodies of the severe damage that a two-degree temperature rise will cause, and this is the reason for the international consensus over a number of years now to try to contain the global temperature rise to two degrees. However, the more recent science points to temperature rises of between four to six degrees if urgent concerted action is not taken to reduce carbon emissions. That will be, without any hint of hyperbole or exaggeration, catastrophic for life as we know it. I therefore cannot support the kind of retrograde, short-sighted approach that these bills represent to Australia's climate and energy future, to our social and economic future, to the future of the planet we share with other people and other species.
Mrs MARKUS (Macquarie) (11:05): I rise today to speak to the package of carbon tax repeal bills 2013. I will respond to some of the comments made by the member for Fremantle a little bit later as I speak. This debate marks an important milestone for our government, and particularly for the families and communities of our nation. I am privileged to be a part of a government that deliver on their commitments and are true to their word. The difference between the Abbott government and our predecessors could not be more clearly defined. The carbon tax legislation was passed through the Senate in November 2011, after the then Prime Minister Julia Gillard had stated her now infamous words 'There will never be a carbon tax under the government I lead'. Now, several years later, the coalition have listened to the Australian people and we are responding.
We were elected with a mandate to scrap the carbon tax and reduce costs for business and households, to boost jobs and manufacturing, and to restore Australia's international competitiveness. And that is exactly what we are doing. The coalition has acknowledged that we must take affirmative action to reduce the effects of climate change and we will do so.
The member for Fremantle earlier was referring to the challenges faced by our planet, and particularly focusing and talking about some of the challenges faced in the developing world in our region and by our nearest neighbours. We are committed to working with our region and our nearest neighbours to make a difference in their lives. But if the carbon tax has done little to reduce emissions in our own nation how is it likely to have an impact on our region and our nearest neighbours?
We will take direct action to reduce carbon emissions in a practical, affordable way inside Australia. We remain committed to a five per cent reduction in emissions by 2020. The real issue here is that Labor has never given the Australian people hard evidence of the difference the carbon tax would make to emissions. The carbon tax bills were indicative of a Labor government who became dependent on taxing and placing additional burdens on the Australian people, without any real impact on emissions.
In fact, it seems that the only response the Labor government could come up with during challenging times was to create additional taxes and levies, burdening families and businesses in our local communities. In the electorate of Macquarie since the carbon tax was introduced I have met with countless families and individuals who have been struggling with the impacts. Macquarie is a vast and varied electorate, yet there are some key drivers of the local economy—small business, agriculture and tourism. All of these sectors have felt the repercussions of the rising cost of electricity and gas because of this tax.
Shops in George Street, Windsor, which should be vibrant and full of customers, have been struggling. Michael and Gae, the owners of the well-known Trentinos restaurant in this shopping precinct have told me that over recent years they have noticed customers changing their spending habits—buying one pot of tea between two instead of two pots of tea; and sharing entrees and main meals instead of buying individual meals for each other.
In July this year I met with business owner Greg Zeuschner, Managing Director of Ultra Colour Products. This is a business that is not only strategic in our local community but also in our nation. He provides a particular aerosol paint product that is used in mines. Being an aerosol it needs to be able to be sprayed without producing the potential of fire. To do that it requires him to use a particular gas which has been directly impacted by the carbon tax. This HFC gas has increased by some 400 per cent. This has resulted in an inability for him to compete with foreign imports. The whole question of the future of his business is at stake. Repealing the carbon tax will be critical to him being able to flourish and grow his business again.
This flow-on effect of Labor's carbon tax can be seen in other businesses. Colless Foods, based in Katoomba, is another locally owned business that is directly impacted as a result of this tax. Colless Foods is a third-generation catering company which has been hit with the rise in the cost of refrigeration gas, which is crucial to the running of its business. South Windsor IGA is another example of a food and storage based business which has struggled with the cost of refrigeration as a result of the carbon tax. The cost on local businesses of replacing gas in their fridges when they do not have a cash flow has placed significant burdens on them.
These examples do not even scratch the surface of the community's concerns. Of course, the primary impact on business of repealing the carbon tax is to reduce the cost of inputs. Labor's carbon tax has increased energy prices, it has increased electricity and gas prices and it has increased input costs for businesses.
The staggering news is that research shows the carbon tax has actually not worked. A carbon tax survey conducted by the Australian Industry Group in June this year showed that 70 per cent of businesses have not reduced their carbon intensity as a result of the carbon tax. Not only has the carbon tax hurt businesses but it has been completely ineffective. Yet Labor refuses to acknowledge this fact.
Meanwhile, families and pensioners in the electorate of Macquarie are also doing it tough. The Salvation Army Community Welfare Centre in Katoomba have seen firsthand an increase in the number of families coming through their doors over the past two years requesting help with the payment of bills. I have had personal direct contact with many pensioners who are unsure how they will pay their next utility bill. In the electorate of Macquarie we have very cold and very hot temperatures, but particularly in winter it can be in the minuses. In Blackheath there are pensioners that have told me that they have been turning off the heat or not turning it on in winter. They are covering themselves with multiple blankets. In some cases it has snowed. Our pensioners, who have worked hard all their lives, deserve better.
The carbon tax is not cleaning up the environment but it is cleaning out the wallets of Australian families. It is impacting directly on their quality of life. The government has committed to removing this ineffective policy and members opposite have an obligation to finally listen to the Australian people and support the repeal of these measures. Repeal of the carbon tax will put downward pressure on electricity and gas bills. Families as a consequence will be better off. According to Treasury modelling, removal of the carbon tax in 2014-15 will leave average costs across all households $550 lower than they would be otherwise. Business compliance costs are expected to fall by around $87.6 million per annum as a consequence of repealing the carbon tax. This is a priority for families, this is a priority for businesses and this is a priority for the Australian people. We believe that strong families underpin a strong and flourishing society. We must support families. We must create an economy that gives them opportunities, that rewards people and businesses and family workers for their hard work.
The debate could not be clearer. On 7 September the Australian people stood up and said no to a carbon tax. They said no to the increased living costs through higher electricity bills and gas prices. The Australian people believe there is a better way to combat climate change and they have put their trust in us to deliver a better way. It is time for members opposite to listen and to take note of the Australian public.
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (11:15): I rise to speak on the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and related bills. On Sunday, tens of thousands of Australians gave up their morning to show their support for strong action on climate change. Right around the country there was a really colourful and committed demonstration of people's concern about climate change and their support for an effective suite of policies to combat that threat.
It is certainly true that carbon pollution is a problem in our economy and in our country, and that it is impacting on sectors of our economy and country in a way that we have to respond to. A lot of the people who were at those rallies around the country on Sunday—sixty-odd thousand of them—were showing their concern for rising temperatures and more extreme weather, and they were also showing their support for low emissions technology and renewable energy. My colleague the member for Fremantle mentioned the firefighters who were at these rallies. At my one in Brisbane there was a guy named Dean who spoke very powerfully and eloquently about the threat of climate change to his work and life.
Those demonstrations were more than a demonstration of any one issue: more than rising temperatures and extreme weather, more than low emissions technology or renewable energy—much more than that. There was also a powerful demonstration of the type of country that we want to be in Australia. It is my belief that Australia has a pretty stark choice. It can go one of two ways, in this debate and more broadly. The first course is the one that the government has set, which is to belittle scientists, to sack them, to cut their funding, to ignore them and pretend they can be replaced by Wikipedia, to abolish them, and to cut the Clean Energy Finance Corporation that was driving investment in renewable technology. That is the course that the government has set.
Mr Fletcher interjecting—
Dr CHALMERS: That is the course that the member for Bradfield supports—the antiscience course. The course that we in the Labor Party support is to be a country that is capable of listening to and acting on expert opinion, finding a way to do difficult things in the economy and in the environment in an intelligent and beneficial way, a way that safeguards the future of Australia. Those are the two courses that we are choosing between in this debate over the climate change legislation, and more broadly, in the approach that that side of the House versus this side of the House takes.
It is true that only in the political sphere is opinion on these issues so sharply divided. In the scientific community it is a near-unanimous view that climate change is real and caused by humans. Ninety-seven per cent of peer-reviewed scientific climate change papers over 20 years have said that climate change is real and caused by humans, so the scientific community is united as one. This issue also has done the near impossible by uniting the economic community. Eighty-six per cent of economists who were surveyed recently backed in an emissions trading scheme to deal with the threat of climate change in a cheap and efficient way. As my colleague the member for Cunningham mentioned earlier, one of those economists, Chris Caton, said that any economist who does not believe in emissions trading should hand back their economics degree.
What we have here is a government that has been blinded by ideology on this issue. They have been seduced by the political opportunity. They have been cheered on by sections of the right-wing media and they think they know better than the overwhelming near-unanimous view of all the scientists and economists around the world. This is unprecedented in modern times—a government that thinks it knows better than 97 per cent of scientists and 86 per cent of economists.
The member for Fisher earlier on was talking about a parallel universe. Well, there is a parallel universe acting in this parliament where those opposite think that the overwhelming scientific and economic opinion is wrong. That is how we get this bizarre situation of having a Prime Minister who accused a United Nations official of talking through her hat, a truly bizarre and damaging position for a Prime Minister of Australia to take about a United Nations official. Then we have a former Prime Minister who put forward an emissions trading scheme as a policy and now dismisses people who believe in climate change action as 'religious zealots', saying that he would prefer to rely on gut instinct than a near-unanimous view of the scientific and economic community.
The political hero of those opposite, Margaret Thatcher—and we get Margaret Thatcher quotes thrown at us all the time from that side of the House—once famously said that she does not have a reverse gear. Unfortunately for Australia, our new Prime Minister only has a reverse gear when it comes to climate change. He does not have any of the gears that go forward. The whole country and the whole economy has been thrown into reverse by this ridiculous position taken by those opposite. There is some sort of a reverse renaissance going on in Australia when scientists are belittled, have their funding cut and are ignored and rubbished by the government of the day. We do not just have what the Prime Minister described as women knocking on the door of the Cabinet, we also have the experts in our country standing on the outside looking in. This is an embarrassing state of affairs for a country which was so recently praised for the quality of its economic policies during the global financial crisis.
Anyone who knows anything about this issue knows that, if you believe in climate change action, if you believe climate change is real and that it requires an intelligent response, then polluters should pay rather than be paid. They know they should not have a big slush fund that doles out to the biggest polluters in the country without a cap. We know that there needs to be a cap if we are serious about meeting targets and cutting pollution. You have to have a cap on pollution. We know that the cheapest and most effective way to go about it is to unleash the efficiencies of the market. You do not get to pick and choose. Those opposite say they believe in the market. This is a market based mechanism to deal with the threat. If you believe that there is a threat then the cheapest and most efficient way to deal with that is using the market. We also believe that those on the lowest incomes should be cushioned from the price impacts. Instead of that position, the government have a massive slush fund, which is less effective but costs more and which has no hope of seeing us reach the targets that they pretend to have signed up to. There is no cap on pollution. There is no market mechanism. Instead, we have this bizarre Soviet-style command and control.
I have been listening to the debate over the last few days and there is absolutely no interest from those opposite in the facts of the issue. In the last two years, renewable energy is up almost 30 per cent, electricity emissions have been reduced by around 12 million tonnes and over a million households now generate their electricity with rooftop solar. These are all very good things. When you look more broadly in the economy, you have investment going gang busters, you have unemployment levels low compared to the rest of the world, inflation is low and interest rates are low. There is no such thing as the hundred-dollar roast that those opposite were trying to scare people with. The hundred-dollar lamb roast has not eventuated. Towns like Whyalla were not wiped off the map, as they said they would. And we now have crocodile tears from those opposite about the cost of living, while they rip out the schoolkids bonus and the low-income super contribution. We also have crocodile tears today even about the impact of the carbon price on small business, at the same time as they gut the investment allowance. We dismiss those as crocodile tears and just playing politics.
I am told that Australia won the fossil of the day award four days out of five at the Warsaw climate conference. We also know that even though 134 other countries sent ministers to that important conference, the Australian LNP government did not send a minister to that conference. While Australia is in reverse gear on these issues, other countries are getting their act together. It is no longer a matter of acting ahead of the world; it is now about not falling further behind.
We are approaching the end of the debate. A gag has been put on this debate by those opposite, who cannot defend their scientific and economic positions. I have listened to some good contributions to the debate and also a few shockers. The one I want to focus on today is what the member for Ryan said on Monday night. She said that our approach to this issue encapsulated everything about Labor. I think she had a good point. Our approach does say a lot about the Labor Party. It says a lot about our belief in the overwhelming scientific consensus and in listening to the experts, not belittling them and ignoring them. It says a lot about our belief in market economics—in this case, the most effective and cheapest way to take action on the dangers of climate change, far superior to a big slush fund overseen by weathervanes and sceptics. It says a lot about our belief in cushioning the impact on middle Australia, especially those on low and fixed incomes, and not scaring pensioners with rubbish claims about hundred-dollar roasts and towns being wiped off the map. Most of all, it says everything about our belief in putting the future of the country and the right kind of dynamic economy ahead of any short-term political considerations that always seem to win out on that side of the House.
On this side of the House, we are proud of our position. We do want to power the future economy with cleaner energy. We do want to cut pollution. It is as simple as that. We do not do these things because there is some kind of political dividend in it—far from it—but because there is an environmental, economic and national dividend for the entire country when it comes to getting this right. If we have to dig in for a long fight, so be it. We will always stand with the scientists, economists and most of all the people of Australia who want to provide a clean energy future for their kids, who deserve better; not for the political opportunism that we see from those opposite, aided and abetted by the special interests in our community.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): I thank the member for Rankin and acknowledge him as a new member. I welcome him to parliament.
Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (11:26): Thank you, Deputy Speaker Vasta, and congratulations on your elevation to high office. I appreciate the member for Rankin is a new member. He has his talking points and he has rattled them off. He has done exactly the right thing by his party. Can I start with a couple of things. It was not Tony Abbott who first said that Whyalla would be wiped off the map; it was Wayne Hanson from the AWU. He said that if the carbon tax comes in, towns like Whyalla will disappear. It was Paul Howes the general secretary of the AWU who said that if one job was lost in the steel industry, they would bring it down. What did Labor do? Talk about slush funds—$600 million especially for the steel industry. A little industry like that and it was $600 million to their mates.
I see Deputy Speaker Broadbent has taken the chair. My congratulations to you as well. You have a great role and I hope you are very good to me!
If I could go to some history and talk about how we arrived at this point. In 2007, Kevin Rudd won the election by promising to abolish Work Choices and he also said climate change was the great moral challenge of our generation. John Howard went to that election promising an ETS too, but he promised it in conjunction with the rest of the world. If the rest of the world was going to take action, Australia would participate. We did not say we would do it unilaterally; he said we would do it in conjunction with the rest of the world. Rudd won the election and proposed a CPRS and negotiations began. There was a long period of negotiations.
The difference between us and the Labor Party is that we can set policy inside our party. We are the political wing of our policy. We set the policy. We had a change of policy. We had a change of leader and, yes, he won by one vote. I have been in games of rugby where we have won by one point and we flogged them. You win as you win. Tony Abbott became the leader and our position changed. We said that we wanted to change our policy back to where we were with John Howard, that we wanted to protect our industries from an unnecessary and crippling tax which was never promised and which would cost jobs. So in 2009 the big Copenhagen conference occurred and we saw the rest of the world do nothing. There has been a lot written about what then Prime Minister Rudd said at that conference. We had a team of about 150 over there. We saw the rest of the world do nothing. Then Prime Minister Rudd came back to Australia and he shelved the 'greatest moral challenge of our time'. Such was his commitment to the greatest moral challenge of our time that he just shelved it. He stopped it dead in its tracks. He had the trigger to call a double dissolution election but he chose not to. In 2010 Rudd got rolled by Julia Gillard, who said that the CPRS, the whole thing about emissions trading, needed to be fixed. It was one of the three biggest challenges she faced. Prime Minister Gillard went to the 2010 election saying that she believed action should be taken on climate change and that she wanted an emissions trading scheme. But—and this is a massive 'but'—she said that the community of Australia had walked away and that consensus had to be rebuilt. She proposed a citizens assembly of 150 people to come to Canberra—which would probably look a lot like the parliament—to rebuild the consensus for an emissions trading scheme and action on climate change. That had to happen before Labor could move. She also said, in the last week before the election, that there would be no carbon tax under a government she led. The Leader of the Opposition at the time, Tony Abbott, was out there saying that, come hell or high water, Labor was going to bring in a carbon tax. And the then Treasurer, the member for Lilley, said it was some kind of coalition hysteria and that it was ridiculous to say that they would do that.
The Greens, funnily enough, went to the election promising a flat rate carbon tax of $23 per tonne which would grow until renewable energy became competitive—not cheap but artificially competitive through the mechanism of the tax. So on 21 August 2010 we had a hung parliament. The cross benches wielded new power. Prime Minister Gillard negotiated with the cross benches and the Greens by giving them absolutely everything they wanted. In 2011 Prime Minister Gillard fronted the press, flanked by the Greens and the members for Windsor and Lyne, and announced a carbon tax—a flat rate carbon tax, which she said she would never do, because she had not rebuilt the consensus of the Australian population that had to be rebuilt. All those things had gone out the window, but she announced a flat-rate carbon tax of, hey presto, $23 per tonne. She signed a power-sharing agreement with the Greens to make sure this got done. Why she did that is completely and utterly beyond me.
Labor spent the next two years trying to make sense of a promise they did not make, fighting for a position that they did not take to the people, trying to defend a position that they did not believe in themselves. The then member for Rankin came in here and made all these funny jokes and he had his tape measures and he did a little singsong and all this sort of stuff. He was fantastic, but he just kept on getting belted for it.
In 2013 Labor finally dumped Prime Minister Gillard and brought back Prime Minister Rudd. He went to the election telling Australians that he would terminate the carbon tax because it was hurting Australian families. He would terminate it. It would be gone. Under Labor, it would be gone. Of course, he wanted to bring it forward a year and the figures would still stand, but he acknowledged that it was hurting Australia's population; it was hurting the men, women and families of Australia and it needed to go. Labor lost the 2013 election on 7 September. The coalition won with 90 seats. The election was very, very clear. The election was fought on the premise of the carbon tax: if you wanted the carbon tax gone, you voted for a coalition candidate. If you wanted another result, you voted for somebody else. Only 60 seats in this parliament, out of 150, went to someone who does not believe that the carbon tax should go. It was a massive statement by the Australian people that this tax should go.
Post-election, Labor again walked away from the promise they made to terminate the tax. They went to one election saying there would not be a tax, and then they instigated a tax, and then they came to another election saying they were going to get rid of the tax, and then after the election they defended the position of the tax they never promised, and yet they were now prepared to own it. Go figure. I cannot figure that out.
The Abbott government took a series of commitments to the 7 September election, and we will honour our commitments. Central to all of this was the repeal of the carbon tax. No issue could be clearer to the Australian people. I say again: if you want the Carbon Tax gone, you vote for a coalition candidate. If you do not want the carbon tax gone or you want another result, you vote for somebody else. Nothing could be clearer. That we won 90 seats and a very clear majority tells all in this House what the people want. They want this toxic tax gone. I urge the Labor Party to respect this mandate as we respected their mandate to remove Work Choices. I was not here when that happened, Mr Deputy Speaker, but you were. We stepped aside. They won the election fair and square on that issue, and we stepped aside. The then Deputy Prime Minister stood up there with Work Choices, mouse pads and all that sort of thing, and they had a grand old time shoving it down our throats. We passed it. We just waved it through, because that is what the people of Australia wanted.
I come from a part of Australia which experiences cyclones. I represent a city which is the home to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. My city fronts the Great Barrier Reef. I take climate change seriously. When I was elected, I did not know much about climate change. My basic thesis was that everything we do has an impact. I always remember what Peter FitzSimons, the rugby player and author, said when he was talking about gun control. I think it is an apt analogy. If you are in a room with 100 people and you are having an argument and no-one has a gun, there is no chance of being shot. If you are in a room with 100 people and you are having an argument and one person has a gun, you have a very small chance of getting shot. If you are in a room with 100 people and you are having an argument and everyone has a gun, then you have a far greater chance of getting shot. That is like my position when it comes to climate change. If we do not do anything then we take the consequences of that. But what sets human beings apart is that we can understand the concept. We can understand the impact of it and we can manage the impact. It is about impact versus risk. Risk versus assessment. The carbon tax does nothing for the environment—nothing. Even at the end of this thing, if it was still allowed to go, by 2020 we would still have to be purchasing $3 billion to $5 billion worth of overseas carbon credits just to make our plan work, because our emissions are increasing.
The carbon tax paid billions of dollars to brown coal fired power producers with absolutely no recourse. They gave them the billions of dollars and then they walked away. That is just money down the drain. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation is a complete and utter sham. If you cannot get finance for your harebrained scheme somewhere around the world for something that you want to try, you can go to the government and get up to $10 billion where there is no real prospect of any commercial return on it. But it is also borrowed money. It does not raise money it needs so we have to borrow the $10 billion to figure this thing out.
The carbon tax was poorly designed and it was put in place at the behest of the Greens to suit a political purpose—no other reason. It was not the Labor Party's reason for tackling climate change. They had walked away from it. This was about securing government and that is all this is about. The carbon tax was a political mechanism done by the Greens and the Independents to keep Gillard in power. Labor lost the election in 2013 because of the Greens' idea, the shared power arrangement they never had to sign. Yet here they are hanging on to this very bad tax like Charlton Heston from the NRA saying, 'From my cold, dead hand.'
We will keep jobs in Australia; we will keep manufacturing in Australia. We will not see our industries close while our competitors do not have the same imposts as we do. I have good friends in Townsville in the steel fabrication businesses who sent me a photo the other day of some posts imported from China. That we can send our iron ore to China, that they can make the steel over there, fabricate it as what we want there and bring it down to right next door to their competitor still cheaper than we can do it here says that we are not playing on a level playing field and that our imposts and tax are ridiculously high. It is very hard for our guys to remain competitive. We will lower emissions by targeting pollution and giving incentives for those to improve their practices. Business understands the need to improve the bottom line. If we can assist with technology or practical methods being initiated and adopted then we are all the better for it. It is that simple. Respect our mandate is my message to the crossbenchers and to the Labor Party. Get out of our way. Get out of the way of good Australians who want a job and want to live in a cleaner world. You all owe them that much. I thank the House.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (11:39): I rise to oppose this bill and to move an amendment to the amendment. I move:
That all words after "House" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
(1) "rejects this bill and the related bills and recognises that global warming is an enormous threat to the Australian way of life and is getting worse; and
(2) calls on the government to take stronger action to protect the Australian people from climate change."
It is important to step back and remember why we are doing this, why we are having this debate. We are having this debate because global warming poses the greatest threat to the Australian way of life that we are currently experiencing. In the face of that threat, when the first obligation of the government should be, in Ronald Reagan's words, to protect its people, the Prime Minister and his government are choosing a policy of appeasement. At the very time that we need a climate change Churchill we have got a Chamberlain. We have got a Prime Minister who, instead of choosing courage in the face of the threat of global warming, is choosing cowardice.
What the scientists are telling us and have been telling us for a long time is that we are on track to make the kind of bushfires and super typhoons that we have seen recently not just become events that happen every now and then but become a regular part of our way of life. The scientists have told us very clearly that the planet is not like a room where you can turn the thermostat up and down but is like the human body, and if we increase its temperature beyond the narrow band within which human life can sustain itself then we run the risk of runaway global warming and effects that we just cannot control. The body has a core temperature and you do not want it to go more than a couple of degrees above that—you may not know exactly what is going to happen but you know that an organ might shut down and then if it goes too far it might be irreversible and the patient might die. The scientists have told us that the planet is the same and that if we increase it more than two degrees on average we might start seeing things happen that we can no longer control. We could have great melts of the Greenland or the Arctic ice sheets and feedback loops could start kicking in that neither we nor our children or grandchildren are going to be able to reverse.
Alarmingly, what they also tell us is that at the moment we are on track to heat the planet by four degrees by the end of this century—that is the world that it looks like we are going to leave for our grandchildren. What does that mean? It does not just mean that things are a little bit warmer and you can wear a layer less of clothes. What it means, according to the Four Degrees of Global Warming: Australia in a Hot World conference proceedings, is that Melbourne turns into Cowra in terms of average temperatures by the end of the century. It means Adelaide's climate becomes analogous to Kalgoorlie. It tells us that when it comes to Alice Springs the scientists say they cannot find a comparator in Australia; there will be none in Australia this hot and dry, it would be like the Sudan. Most scarily, when they ask what Darwin looks like by the end of this century if we continue going as we are at the moment, they say we cannot even put Darwin in the table because 'for Darwin it is unlikely to exist anywhere on the planet'. That is what is in store for us at the moment.
Yes, we have always been a country that is prone to bushfires, but why on earth would you wish more of them on us? But that is what this Prime Minister and this government have in store for us if their policies are implemented. We have seen what their policies mean not just for Australia but around the world as increasingly we are saying to the rest of the world, even though we are the world's highest per capita polluter, 'We just don't care.'
So passing this legislation is tantamount to saying: 'We don't mind if there are more bushfires in Australia and we do not mind if there are more supercharged typhoons like we have just seen, because we are not even committed to the minimum possible pollution reduction targets. We do not care what happens in the rest of the world, because we will not even send anyone of any seniority to the meeting.'
It is not just going to be that bushfires will happen more often and that the Murray-Darling is going to start to dry up permanently. We also know that the burden and impacts of climate change are going to fall hardest on those who can least defend themselves. Mr Deputy Speaker Broadbent, you would probably know this, but more people died in the heatwaves associated with the Black Saturday period than died in the fires themselves. The people who will suffer will be the people who are the most vulnerable and least able to insulate themselves from the effects of global warming. We do not just have an environmental obligation, to make sure that we do not completely wreck this planet that we are on, but we also have a social obligation, to make sure that our neighbours, both at home and in other countries nearby, will be able to enjoy the quality of life that we take for granted. Yet, at the moment, that does not look like it is on the cards with this legislation.
This legislation is taking away a package that has been looked at by the rest of the world, who have said, 'Yes, this is the direction that we need to go in.' What it did, very simply, was say to those big polluters who, up until now, had been putting pollution into the atmosphere for free: 'We know you can't keep doing that for free, because it is going to come at a cost to us, and so you are now going to have to pay for something approximating the price of your pollution, and the money that we raise we will put towards low-income households so that, when their electricity bills rise, they are compensated. And we will put some other money towards other projects, including getting renewable energy on track.' That was a very, very sensible proposition.
What we have here from the government is a wrecking of that, and a wrecking of a very far-sighted—but by no means novel—approach to support renewable energy in this country, in the form of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. This kind of support for particular industries exists not just in other places around the world but here in Australia. We hear the government saying, 'Why should you subsidise projects that cannot get support from elsewhere?' If you are going to take that approach, be consistent about it. Why do you give a diesel fuel rebate to miners so that they can buy cheap diesel fuel, yet you are not prepared to give a leg-up to renewable energy, when the scientists are telling us that by the middle of this century Australia needs to become a zero pollution economy?
It is not just the Clean Energy Finance Corporation that the government are going to rip up; they are going to rip up the only source of independent advice in this country about what Australia needs to do to do its fair share to combat global warming, the Climate Change Authority. The Climate Change Authority is the Reserve Bank of the climate world. It is providing independent advice to this parliament about how we will meet the legislated caps to 2050 and what we need to do to do our fair share. It is no wonder the government want to rip it up, because it is advice that the government do not want to hear. If there is one thing we are learning very quickly about the government, it is that they will shut down any dissenting voices, especially voices that provide advice that they do not want to hear, and they will withhold information from this parliament and from the people.
That is what is going on, because the Climate Change Authority said that the government's five per cent pollution reduction target is inadequate, is not going to help us avoid the kinds of catastrophes that I have just been explaining and is going to mean we will see bushfires in this country more often. Of course, the government do not want to hear that, so, rather than respond to it, they are just going to shut the Climate Change Authority down, and that is what this legislation does. Worse, they have got nothing to put in its place. There is not an alternative ready to spring up when this legislation is passed. There is nothing. That speaks volumes about just how much the science deniers within this government are running the show.
It is absolutely clear that, as we head into a summer where people will be wondering, 'Are there going to be more bushfires; are there going to be more heat waves; is this now the Australian way of life?' the government are saying, 'We don't care.' They are quite happy to bring a government down and have a debate about a few dollars extra on your electricity bill but, when it comes to the most fundamental duty of any government, which is protecting the country's people and protecting its way of life, they thumb their nose and they say, 'We don't care.' In the future, children and grandchildren are going to look back on this government and it will stand condemned. This government will be remembered as the government that said: 'We will rip up action on global warming, we will turn Australia into an international pariah and we will leave you to clean up the mess that we leave behind. We are going to put nothing in its place.' So I urge the House to reject the bills and to support my amendment.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): Is the amendment seconded?
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (11:51): Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne, and I thank him for kindly allowing me a few minutes to say a few words before the question must be put.
I will just briefly list 10 reasons why we must take strong action on climate change, prevent the government from overturning the price on carbon and support the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne. Reason 1: we have a fundamental responsibility to clean up the environment because we are a major contributor to the cause of climate change, and also because we, as a nation, have the money, the knowledge and the wherewithal to do something about the mess we are making and have made.
Reason 2: we should do everything in our power to minimise the intergenerational injustice of climate change. Our actions ripple far into the future, and we owe it to our children to clean up the environment now and to put in place the mechanisms to help keep the environment clean into the future.
Reason 3: extreme weather events are already hurting people. It is not just about the future, because climate change is a present threat and not just one that will impact on our children. From bushfires to wild weather, there can quite simply be no doubt that we are all either directly affected by climate change or greatly concerned for those who are.
Reason 4: we were a global leader on climate change, until the Abbott government proposed undoing all the good work of the 43rd Parliament. As a nation and per capita, Australia is a big part of the carbon problem, and we can and should be a big part of the solution.
Reason 5: climate change is a genuine security and humanitarian problem. Extreme weather leads to global and regional instability, not least because of the damaging effects of wild weather, rising sea levels and the mass movement of environmental refugees. Action is required now to prevent even greater problems—problems that will not be contained by national borders.
Reason 6: a price on carbon also helps prepare Australia for the future global economy. As nations wake up to the importance of climate action they will adapt, and in fact already are adapting, their economies to suit, and if Australia falls behind we will be left behind.
Reason 7: dealing with climate change will boost the Tasmanian economy, because a prospering renewable-energy industry creates jobs and fosters economic development. Already Hydro Tasmania is enjoying an increase of some $70 million in revenue annually on account of the current carbon pricing regime.
Reason 8: there will also be greater business certainty by leaving current climate change policies as they are. No wonder so many business leaders urged the coalition opposition to not make any significant changes to carbon pricing in the event that the coalition won the 2013 election.
Reason 9: climate change is a matter of principle, and we must take a principled stand. Yes, economic arguments have merit, but above all this debate is about accepting the climate science, admitting fault and taking responsibility for our actions.
Finally, reason 10: this is about people being people of their word. John Howard once argued for a price on carbon, as did Malcolm Turnbull and Greg Hunt. So if the Liberal Party is to stand for something then it really should put its political self-interest aside and back the price on carbon.
For my part, I went to the 2010 election arguing for a price on carbon and backed the relevant bills when they came before the parliament. I then went to the 2013 election promising to try and keep the price on carbon, and that is what I am trying to do right now and what I urge the rest of the members in this place to try to do. I second the amendment by the member for Melbourne.
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (11:56): I rise to oppose the amendments and to speak in favour of these bills put forward to us by the newly incoming Abbott government—bills which received a clear mandate from the Australian people at the last election. That election result and the policies and approaches that were taken to the Australian people seem to be being denied in this place today.
It is not a matter of morality—of who has got the greatest morality or who believes they have the greatest morality. It is about the facts. To say that members in this House do not care about typhoons, bushfires, the worst that drought can provide to our communities or the impact that policies have on the least advantaged in our society is just wrong.
Such moral superiority should be condemned in this place, because we do care. That is why we want to make sure that those who face the greatest disadvantage will not be hit by a $550 extra cost to their living standards. It is why we want to get rid of a tax which impacts on businesses large and small, families, students and the elderly, and hurts them all equally.
What we on this side of the House do not want to see is a tax which reduces our international competitiveness, drives jobs offshore and hurts our society and communities. That is why we are opposed to this insidious tax—and insidious it is, because, if you look at my electorate, this tax impacts and hurts every town and every community across the 32,000 square kilometres of it. It hurts the largest employer in the town of Portland, Alcoa, which provides over 600 jobs. It hurts the dairy industry. It hurts a company like Murray-Goulburn, which has the largest processing plant in Australia, in my electorate. It hurts it significantly, because its carbon taxation bill is $14 million annually. And they have to compete on the global playing field. They have to compete against European dairy processors, who get free permits allocated at a rate of 92 per cent, yet they get nothing.
If you go to our abattoirs, they are at a disadvantage. If you go to the farmers, whether they be lamb producers, wheat producers or dairy farmers, they all suffer as a result of this tax, some to the extent that their incomes are hurt by between $7,000 and $10,000 per year.
The SPEAKER: Order! It being 12 o'clock the debate is interrupted, and in accordance with the resolution passed earlier I call the honourable Minister for the Environment to sum up.
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for the Environment) (12:00): I present the replacement explanatory memorandum for the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013. This explanatory memorandum includes the regulation impact statement approved by the Office of Best Practice Regulation.
The member for Denison was right: this is a debate, this is a vote and this is a bill about honouring one's word. This is about the word of the Australian people. This is about the commitment of the incoming government. This is about rectifying a fundamental breach of faith with the Australian people following the 2010 election. So the member for Denison was correct: this is about honour, it is about our commitment and it is about the contract with the Australian people.
The notion of Westminster democracy is this: that we each take to the people our fundamental precepts, our will and our proposal, and they judge, they decide, they determine and they elect, and then we implement. The democratic contract is fundamental, and there could have been no clearer statement prior to the 2010 election than, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead,' by the then Prime Minister, and prospective and aspiring Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. It was said on 16 August 2010, only five days before that election. It was a contractual statement, it was a fundamental agreement and it was honoured only in the breach.
But there could have been no clearer statement prior to the 2013 election than the then opposition leader's statement that this election will be a referendum on the carbon tax. We took that position to the Australian people. We set it out on day one of the election campaign, we set it out throughout the election campaign and we set it out expressly, clearly and explicitly in the final week of the campaign. There could have been no doubt, no debate and no question as to what the aspiring and incoming government was proposing. It was front and centre, it was fundamental and it was indivisible from our proposal to the Australian people, and the Australian people voted.
Let me remind the House that the Australian people voted to a level which was the second-most significant majority in terms of the two-party preferred since 1977. The Australian people also voted in a way which was the second-most significant parliamentary majority in terms of the floor of this House since 1983. So the Australian people did not just determine: they determined the result of this election clearly, comprehensively and unequivocally. They voted for a government which proposed to repeal the carbon tax, not because this was a debate about science but because this was a debate about honour, truth and committing to our pledges, and it was a debate around mechanisms.
Let me then move to the impact of these changes and to consider the points made during the course of the debate. This is, fundamentally, an electricity tax and a gas tax which we are removing. The impact, as we know, is that household bills, according to Treasury modelling, will be $550 lower than they would otherwise have been in 2014 with a carbon tax. Electricity bills on average around the country will be approximately $200 lower per household. Gas bills will on average be approximately $70 lower per household—real changes that make a real difference to the living standards of Australian families. That is a fundamental commitment, and it is a point which has been repeatedly ignored by those on the opposition benches, whether they are Her Majesty's loyal opposition or those on the crossbench.
I am advised that repealing the carbon tax on refrigerants will reduce the cost of regassing a car air conditioner by $20, a domestic split-system air conditioner by $80, a refrigeration truck by $550, a cool room at the butcher by $1,000 and the cooling system at the local club by about $3,100. So these are real, significant and germane statements—real, significant and germane savings.
These are not things which are illusory: these are the real-world impacts of the carbon tax, because it was always designed to increase the price of goods. The theory, the purpose and the nature of a carbon tax is to drive up the cost of goods to cause sufficient pain so that people cannot afford to purchase those goods. That is how a carbon tax is meant to work. That is what it is meant to do—it is meant to cause pain for ordinary families in their day-to-day existence so they cannot continue their activities. That is what it is meant to do. It is meant to drive up the price of electricity. It is meant to drive up the price of gas. It is meant to drive up the price of refrigerants, diesel and other off-road items. And if the opposition were to get their way, as of 1 July 2014 they want an additional tax, which is a new tax on trucks. I call on the opposition today to make it clear: do they want a new tax on trucks? Is that still part of their policy or is it not? I think that would be very informative for the House and the public. Is there still a proposal for a new tax on trucks? That is their policy. That is what we know it to be. That is what we have to presume it will be—unless, of course, they recognise that their own edifice is crumbling.
Against that background, let me ask a question. Through all of these debates we have heard some very interesting things from our amiable friends in the opposition. We have heard them say things such as this quote from the shadow minister and member for Port Adelaide at the table, that 'we are as one' in wanting to abolish the carbon tax—except they are about to vote to keep it. Weasel words, things which are untrue and inaccurate, and a fundamental deception of the Australian people. They are proposing two things. Right now they are about to vote to keep the carbon tax. There is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide: the ALP is about vote to keep the carbon tax. And then their alternative proposal is exactly the same as what is already there but for a 12-month discount. This tax, which they want to change the name of but keep, will run to $6, to $12, to $18, to $25, to $31 and to $38 on their own modelling, so within a few short years there is a 50 per cent plus increase in the current tax rate of $24.15.
Let me just remind the House: the opposition's proposal is to have a tax which, in a few short years, will climb by well over 50 per cent, from $24.15 now to $38 on their modelling, as set out in the most recent Australian budget, as set out on 16 July, as set out in the pre-election economic forecasts. Their modelling, their prediction, a $38 tax, is what they are about to vote for. But it does not stop there. As the Prime Minister informed this House only yesterday, this tax will head towards $350—again, on their modelling, their analysis, their projections when in government—by 2050. So this is no discount that they are proposing. This is a lifetime electricity and gas tax sentence for Australian families and Australian businesses. Nothing changes. This is Julia Gillard's carbon tax, lock, stock and barrel, but with a name change and a 12-month discount. It is not an honourable position to put forward.
Let me remind some of the members of the House of what they have said as we have gone along. The member for Port Adelaide has said:
… Labor supports terminating the carbon tax.
But they are about to vote to keep it and their proposal is just to change its name. We have the member for Wakefield, who said at an earlier time, only a few weeks ago:
I think we should abstain in the Senate, allow the Abbott government to implement its policies in their entirety in terms of carbon …
Senator Mark Bishop said:
The strong public position of the ALP prior to the election and in the election was completely rebuffed by the electorate.
Let me just repeat: 'completely rebuffed by the electorate'. That could not have been clearer. The member for Corio said:
We do need to acknowledge the fact that Tony Abbott won the election and we lost, and we need to face that reality and questions of mandate are issues that we need to consider.
Where I completely agree with Nick Champion is that we do need to be choosing our battles very carefully. These are some of the things we have heard. And, of course, my friend the member for Lilley, in an earlier incarnation prior to the 2010 election, said:
… what we rejected is this hysterical allegation that somehow we are moving towards a carbon tax …
Hysterical—except for the fact that they did implement a carbon tax. And now, 16 and a bit months after they introduced the carbon tax, they are trying to tell us they do not believe in it anymore. They are trying to say, 'We don't believe.'
There are more than 40 members on the opposition benches who voted for the carbon tax. Is there one who now says they support the carbon tax? Is there one who, 16 months on, believes that they got it right? Apparently not. They all opposed the carbon tax, except for the fact they are voting to keep it, they are voting to extend it, they are voting to change its name, but it is going to be here, it is going to $38 and from there it heads north to $350. That is not on our modelling but on their modelling when in government. They were the ones that said $38, not once or twice but three times this year alone, with their official government modelling.
At the end of the day, I return to where I began, with the words of the member for Denison. He was correct: this is about keeping our word. Our word to the Australian people was that we would take real action on climate change, but we would not do it through a mechanism which is fundamentally broken, which fundamentally fails to achieve its task, which relies overwhelmingly on having a tax and then an additional $3.8 billion, according to their modelling, in purchasing from overseas by the end of the decade on a per annum basis. That is why we oppose this tax. That is why we support this legislation. That is why we will be repealing the carbon tax. We will do so, firstly, because it does not work; secondly, because it destroys our competitiveness; and, thirdly, because we gave our word and the Australian people gave their decision. So at the end of the day this is about honour and dignity and the sovereign will of the Australian people. I commend these bills to the House because they right a wrong. An environmental issue is not solved in the way this current tax exists. There is a better way. We will deliver to Australian families and Australian businesses the relief which they so richly deserve and for which they voted.
The SPEAKER: The original question was that these bills be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Port Adelaide has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The honourable member for Melbourne has moved as an amendment to the proposed amendment that all words after 'House' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. In accordance with the resolution, the immediate question is that the amendment to the proposed amendment be agreed to.
A division having been called and the bells having been rung—
The SPEAKER: As there are fewer than five members on the side for the ayes, I declare the question resolved in the negative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Question negatived, Mr Bandt and Mr Wilkie voting aye.
The SPEAKER: The question now is that the amendment moved by honourable member for Port Adelaide be agreed to.
Question negatived.
The SPEAKER: Pursuant to the resolution agreed earlier, I now put the question that the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and 10 related bills be now read a second time.
The House divided. [12:22]
(The Speaker—Hon. Bronwyn Bishop)
The SPEAKER (12:31): Prior to moving that the House consider the bill in detail, I have a statement I wish to read to the House concerning the amendments circulated by the opposition earlier this morning.
My attention has been drawn to the detailed stage amendments circulated by the honourable member for Port Adelaide. I am concerned about the amendments on two grounds: first, it is arguable that they could in fact constitute the initiation of a proposal to impose or increase or change the scope of a charge contrary to standing order 179(a); second, that 179(b) of the standing orders provides:
Only a Minister may move an amendment to the proposal which increases or extends the scope of the charge proposed beyond the total already existing under any Act of Parliament.
If I understand it correctly, there may be some doubt as to the impact of bringing forward the date of the commencement of the emissions trading scheme, which is the substance of the honourable member's amendments. On one hand, the amendments should be allowed to stand as it could be argued the expected and likely effect of the calculation of the proposed liability may not exceed that set by the current law. On the other hand, because there could in fact be no certainty, it would be legally possible that the amendments would have the effect that the liability would exceed that provided under the current law. In my view the uncertainty is too great to allow the amendments to proceed. Accordingly, I am not prepared to allow them to be moved in their present form.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (12:33): on indulgence—These amendments were circulated this morning. It is an extraordinary circumstance if you wait until the very moment that amendments are about to be moved before you raise with honourable members issues that could have been resolved by redrafting. We have a circumstance where there is a clear political debate, which is significant, which has been happening across the country, and it should be brought to a head within this chamber. And to have a circumstance where it is brought to our attention for the first time at the moment it is about to be moved here on the floor of the chamber does a great disservice to the conduct of proper debate within this chamber.
Madam Speaker, given the numbers within the debate, to have a circumstance where it is not even allowed to be put, and we are not even allowed to have the argument, brings the concept of secrecy to an extraordinary level. I do ask you to reconsider, particularly considering the timing of when this has been brought to the attention of the opposition.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Education) (12:35): on indulgence—I understand there is no motion before the chair in respect of your ruling. Can I just say very briefly: the Senate and the House of Representatives have long had different views about these matters—and you would be familiar with both, Madam Speaker, having served in both. In the House of Representatives it is very clear that the House cannot capably consider the amendment as suggested by the member for Port Adelaide with regard to revenue or appropriation matters. Such amendments can only be moved by a minister from the executive government. We had this debate several times in the last parliament, with the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business on different sides of the argument.
Speaker Jenkins, Speaker Burke and other speakers have all ruled in exactly the same way as you have ruled today. That is the precedent. Unfortunately, the House is not capable of considering this amendment. But as you pointed out in your ruling, you said that you would not allow this amendment to go forward in its current form. If the member for Port Adelaide is capable of amending his amendment, changing his amendment, and resubmitting it, you might well make a different ruling.
The SPEAKER (12:40): Before I call the member for Grayndler, I would say there is precedent for such a ruling—indeed, one was made on Thursday, 2 June 2011. It did involve myself and a bill that I had brought into this House; it had in fact had a second reading and was basically in line with the sort of situation we are in now. On that occasion the then Attorney-General Mr McClelland made it quite clear, in his submission outlining his reasons, why standing order 179 should apply. His final words were these:
… that message comes from the Governor-General. Similarly, in that case Justice Kirby referred to the discussion in the issue in Lane's Commentary on the Australian Constitution of 1997 and concluded that:
… the initiative for proposed appropriations belongs to the Executive Government, in accordance with s 56 of the Constitution.
Again, the will of the executive being referred to in the message of the Governor-General, with the Governor-General acting on the advice of the executive of the day. So, with respect, Mr Speaker, your ruling is entirely consistent with the standing orders but, more than that, it is entirely consistent with our Constitutional heritage.
And I am upholding that ruling.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (12:44): On indulgence, and to the point of order, Madam Speaker: this goes to your ruling, which, with respect, I do not think is correct in this instance. Anyone who was here at that time would be very familiar with the proposition to which the then Attorney-General responded, because it was indeed the member for McKellar who was trying to do—
The SPEAKER: What you're trying to do.
Mr ALBANESE: exactly what you are now saying was wrong. You will recall at that time that the member for Mackellar and other members of the now government benches voted that it was competent for that amendment to proceed.
You would also be aware of the way amendments are drafted and put before this chamber. The amendments are done by the opposition in consultation with the clerks. It is at that point in time that it is determined upon the best proper apolitical advice on whether those amendments are in order. In this case, in spite of the fact that this legislation is being rammed through with the gag motion, with very little debate—which is why the amendments were put before the chamber today and are being voted upon just hours after without proper consideration—the shadow minister has put forward these amendments in the usual way, having got approval from the clerks, which is when that occurs.
That occurs for very practical reasons, Madam Speaker—
The SPEAKER: I have heard your point.
Mr ALBANESE: I have further points, Madam Speaker. If I can pursue them, please.
The SPEAKER: The dissertation is a bit lengthy.
Mr ALBANESE: I would like to pursue them, please.
The SPEAKER: I have a response to what you have put forward.
Mr ALBANESE: If I could pursue all of them.
The SPEAKER: If you can do it in a very short space of time, you may proceed.
Mr ALBANESE: I will do my best, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER: And, if your best is not good enough, you may resume your seat.
Mr ALBANESE: Well, and then we will have another process, Madam Speaker, that will take 25 minutes.
The SPEAKER: Indeed.
Mr ALBANESE: In terms of the processes, your ruling would suggest that you are making a determination that the ETS, effectively, coming in—the floating price—earlier than what is envisaged—
The SPEAKER: This is now a debate and that is not a point of order.
Mr ALBANESE: No, it goes to your ruling.
The SPEAKER: No, I am sorry, I am ruling you out of order. Resume your seat! I will address the matters you have already raised.
Mr Albanese: I have a point of order.
The SPEAKER: What is your further point of order? Would you refer to the standing order you are relying upon. Standing order number what?
Mr Albanese: I am referring very specifically to your ruling. Your ruling makes a determination on what the price will be.
The SPEAKER: You are now debating my ruling. There are other forms of the House for that.
Mr Albanese: That is a decision you have made on the basis that the revenues would make a difference.
The SPEAKER: I am not accepting debate on my ruling! The member will resume his seat!
Mr Albanese: Well, we will do it in another way. I would rather not do it that way.
The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat! Would you prefer to leave the chamber?
Mr Albanese: No, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER: Then resume your seat! Very simply, the member has raised the question that the clerks had prepared these amendments for them.
An opposition member: That is not what he said.
The SPEAKER: Indeed, it is what he said.
Opposition members: It is not.
The SPEAKER: There will be silence! Indeed, a similar situation arose with a question of my bill, to which the member has referred. It too was prepared by the clerks and it had had a second reading, and this point was raised at the point where we were to proceed further.
When this issue was to be dealt with I did speak to the member for Port Adelaide as soon as I could possibly do so because I did not take this question lightly. I did do quite a deal of research into the question because of my concern about it. The point is that these are in line with the previous ruling of the Speaker. The member for Grayndler said that we voted against it, which we did, but I accept the ruling of the Speaker as being appropriate.
Mr Burke: As you would appreciate, we do not have a written copy of the ruling. My point of order is under standing order 179c. I am trying to work out how the amendment that reduces the current pricing arrangements can be seen as an amendment which would increase the scope of the charge proposed not beyond the bill before us but beyond any act of parliament. It is the act of parliament that is the reference point. I am trying to work out how other than by making what might be a political point across the chamber you have reached a conclusion about price?
The SPEAKER: I am relying on section 179a and 179b:
(a) Only a Minister may initiate a proposal—
A proposal is a proposal and your amendment is a proposal. It is covered by the words:
to impose, increase, or decrease a tax or duty, or change the scope of any charge.
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for the Environment) (12:43): If it assists the House, on indulgence, I would refer to page 420 of House of Representatives Practice. I think that that provides an important guide as to the interpretation here, not just of the standing orders but also of the Constitution. Page 420 says:
It is a long established and strictly observed rule which expresses a principle of the highest constitutional importance that no public charge can be incurred except on the initiative of the Executive Government.
On every reading what this set of amendments attempts to do is to bring forward a variation on a public charge and to change its scope—no doubt or debate.
The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat for a moment. I call the Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, would you kindly table your ruling so that we can have a look at exactly what we have got left?
The SPEAKER: I have made the ruling and I have stated it.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I have made the ruling. I see no reason why—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Yes, you can have it. I can have a copy made subsequently and made available to you.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, the problem, as you would appreciate, is the debate on what we now have to consider needs to happen within the moment. It is some time since you first said it. We still do not have a copy of it, notwithstanding that the amendments were circulated this morning. I do not want to be in a situation where we have no choice but to move a further resolution.
The SPEAKER: Well, I would put it to the member that that is a proper proceeding of the House system, if the member wishes to do so. But I think this is a very important constitutional point which was made very ably by Attorney-General McClelland in the previous government. I believe the ruling that I have made, as a considered ruling, and one of importance, and upholding a previous ruling, should stand. It is quite open to the Manager of Opposition Business to take another action if he wishes to do so. I invite him to do so forthwith if he wishes to.
MOTIONS
Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
Dissent from Ruling
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (12:46): I move:
That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from.
Madam Speaker, it is extraordinary for us now to be having a conversation about whether or not the parliament is allowed to debate what has been debated throughout Australia for so long. It is extraordinary, after all the conversation that has happened up until now about the shift to emissions trading and making sure that there is actually a limit on pollution rather than pollution being unlimited that we are now being told in this new parliament that that is a conversation you are not allowed to have. We thought it was bad enough for the debate to be gagged. Now this parliament is not to be allowed to consider these amendments at all. Your ruling, Madam Speaker, is not that the debate gets gagged; it is that the debate is not allowed to occur at all.
If there is a duty of the Speaker in this House, it has to begin with the concept of facilitating debate. If there is a view that you think amendments that have been circulated are in fact contrary to standing orders and you know full well that the debate has already had a gag put on it by the government, you know full well that there might not be time for redrafting to occur unless you provide the opposition with notice.
What would possess you, Madam Speaker, in those circumstances to wait until the commencement of the debate before we were told? In doing so, you guarantee that the debate cannot occur on the floor of this chamber. You guarantee the opposite of what is generally understood to be the role of the Speaker. You guarantee not that a vigorous debate will occur but you guarantee that a vigorous debate will be ruled out.
I have been critical of the Leader of the House for the gag resolutions that he has brought down in this chamber. I have been critical of the Leader of the House for the idea that debate on amendments would be limited to an hour. It never occurred to anyone on this side of the chamber that the Speaker would view one hour of debate as too long and say that the figure of one hour needed to be reduced to zero for the purpose of discussing these amendments.
Madam Speaker, it should be within the remit of this parliament to be able to debate the issues which have been discussed and flagged well in advance with the knowledge of the one-hour deadline already applying to the conduct of this debate. The precedent which you quoted, I have to say, is a real stretch because in that debate, even though as you say it was not brought to your attention until the beginning of the proceedings, I hazard a guess that there was not a one-hour limit on consideration in detail that day. I hazard a guess that we do not have those circumstances.
Most importantly, you refer to standing order 179(a) and (b) as though part (c) is not on the page—just not there. The reason that you will not refer to standing order 179(c) is that it would allow the amendment. That is exactly why we have a circumstance, Madam Speaker, where you are consciously and knowingly ignoring one of the standing orders. If (a) and (b) were the only standing orders which were there, the ruling that you have made would at least be arguable, notwithstanding the fact that the process you have followed restricts debate in an unacceptable way in this chamber. But you ignore the words of 179(c):
A Member who is not a Minister may move an amendment to the proposal which does not increase or extend the scope of the charge proposed beyond the total already existing under any Act of Parliament.
The amendments which are to be before the House, and which have been circulated by the member for Port Adelaide, fall entirely within that standing order. Madam Speaker, you have put the House in a situation where we do not get a written copy of your ruling. I think it would be more helpful if you were provided with a written copy of the standing orders because a written copy of the standing orders, I believe, would have led you to a circumstance where no reasonable person could have made the ruling that you have just made. It cannot be justified under the standing orders and it certainly cannot be justified if you have the slightest part of belief in having debate in this chamber.
I must say it is the first time I can recall that I have had a Speaker refer to the government's position using the pronoun 'we'. That was an extraordinary part of the way you sought to explain yourself to the chamber. If it was not enough for us to have a Speaker physically brought to the chair by a Prime Minister and a Leader of the House, to then have rulings that are governed by the term 'we' referring to yourself and the government as one, changes the role of your chair entirely and changes the role of the high office you occupy entirely.
Madam Speaker, we were told that you would be an independent Speaker. This ruling is entirely inconsistent with that. The timing you have given on this ruling is entirely inconsistent with that. The lack of notice you have given to the opposition is entirely inconsistent with that. We were told that things would be transparent. I have to say, you have delivered on that one because this is entirely transparent! These amendments would force those opposite to actually vote squarely on the question of the tax alone and change it to a circumstance where you could get rid of the tax but pollution could not be unlimited. That is exactly what these amendments would do. Now government members, because of you shielding them from that question, get to avoid that.
The SPEAKER: That is a reflection on the chair and I ask you to withdraw.
Mr BURKE: It is a dissent motion. I have moved the motion because I think your ruling is wrong. I do not resile from that for one moment.
The SPEAKER: I am not referring to that.
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I think that the point that the Speaker is making is not that you should not be able to dissent from her ruling—
Mr Mitchell interjecting—
Mr Pyne: Be quiet, you buffoon.
An opposition member: What is the standing order?
Mr Pyne: Disorderly conduct. Check it out. Look it up. The point is in the member's dissent he is perfectly entitled to disagree with the Speaker's ruling, but he is not allowed to reflect personally on the Speaker and her impartiality. That is what the Speaker is asking you to withdraw, and I would ask you to do so on behalf of the Speaker.
The SPEAKER: I ask you to withdraw the reflection on the chair that was made.
Mr BURKE: I withdraw. On saying that they would be transparent, they have delivered in spades. We have a situation now where all of this means one very simple thing: the government get to avoid a vote and this parliament avoids a debate. What does it say about how they feel about the strength of their arguments when this is where we end up? Had there been early notice, I have no doubt this would have been able to be rectified to your satisfaction, Madam Speaker. I have no doubt there would have been a way. Notwithstanding the interjections opposite and notwithstanding the shaking of your head, Madam Speaker, when I said that this could be rectified, you did refer to the opportunity for things to be redrafted and I take those words of yours in good faith.
In turn, I acknowledge that the timing of this makes it impossible. The timing of it, the manner of delivery, the ruling itself, the ignoring of standing order (c), within the very section you chose to refer to, have put this parliament in a situation where debate is being silenced. And it is not like through the amendments we were about to form a majority of the chamber. It is not like that was about to happen. It is not like they needed to be running scared from the outcome. It should be reasonable that there is never a culture of secrecy here on the floor of the chamber. Madam Speaker, when you ask for things to be withdrawn, when you make different rulings and when you have asked us to quieten down at different points when you get on your feet, we will respect your role. Madam Speaker, but you need to abide by the standing orders—
The SPEAKER: And I am—
Mr BURKE: and on this occasion you have not.
The SPEAKER: Again, that is a reflection on the chair and I ask you to withdraw.
Mr BURKE: May I speak to the point of order?
The SPEAKER: You can disagree with my ruling, but you cannot say that I am not abiding by the standing orders?
Mr BURKE: Then how can I move dissent? I am not presuming any ill will on your part, but I do not know how I can move dissent without saying that you were wrong on the standing orders. I do not know how else a dissent motion can take effect.
The SPEAKER: You are correct to disagree with my ruling on the standing orders. That is not to say, at large, that I do not comply with the standing orders. That is a reflection on the chair.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, your ruling must be dissented from. I presume on this occasion—
The SPEAKER: Your time has elapsed.
Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide) (12:57): Since your ruling, Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity—
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is the member for Port Adelaide seconding the motion?
Mr Butler interjecting—
Mr Pyne: He needs to say so.
The SPEAKER: Is the member seconding the motion?
Mr BUTLER: I second the motion. Since your ruling, Madam Speaker, I have been able to read your written statement. As the Manager of Opposition Business pointed out, the statement appears to rely particularly on standing order 179(a) and 179(b)—
The SPEAKER: As I said.
Mr BUTLER: but does not refer expressly to the provisions in 179(c), which provides:
A Member who is not a Minister may move an amendment to the proposal which does not increase or extend the scope of the charge proposed beyond the total already existing under any Act of Parliament.
What is the question here at issue? The question here at issue is what is the effect of the amendment moved by me on the existing act that is proposed to be amended or repealed by the government? The effect of the amendment proposed by me is to change the way in which carbon pricing works in the financial year 2014-15. What is the way in which it will change? The way in which it will change is that it will move from the fixed price that is currently set out in the legislation, described by the opposition over a long period of time as the carbon tax, to a floating price. So it moves to an emissions trading scheme. It does not bring in any additional liable entities. There is no change to scope. The only way 179(c) can be activated is an argument that it increases the charge—the charge currently set, I think, at $24.15 per tonne. That is a judgement to be made and it is a judgement that you have made, Madam Speaker, from which we greatly dissent.
This is not a new set of amendments. These are the set of amendments that we released when in government as an exposure draft before the 7 September election. The draft was subject to public consultation, and it was released with very clear statements—from then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, from then Treasurer Bowen and from myself—about Treasury's advice on the impact in 2014-15 of moving from a fixed price—the carbon tax, as the now government like to call it—to a floating price under an emissions trading scheme. Treasury's advice was very clear. Treasury's advice was that the price would move from around $24 to around $6, that it would be reduced by 75 per cent. It seems to me, although the now government refuses to release any information about the basis of their current policy; they will not release the incoming brief, which Alan Kohler has told us this morning apparently indicates that Direct Action, their policy, will cost $10 billion per year—
A government member interjecting—
Mr BUTLER: Release your incoming brief and we will know whether or not it is false. The only thing we have to go on is articles from Alan Kohler.
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Port Adelaide needs to be arguing why your ruling should be dissented from. He should not be arguing about the substance of the amendment or the bill. He has had that opportunity, and in consideration in detail he could have the opportunity again.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House makes a very valid point and I would ask the member to return to the substance of the motion.
Mr BUTLER: The point I was trying to make, with the greatest of respect, was that your ruling has sought to make an assessment about the financial impact of the change in 2014-15—
A government member interjecting—
Mr BUTLER: No, not the scope, the financial impact. There is no change to the scope, there is no change to the liable entities. What is changed is the way in which the price per tonne is fixed. Treasury's advice was that that price would reduce by three-quarters—
The SPEAKER: You are now not debating the question as to why my ruling should be dissented from—
Mr BUTLER: I am directly debating it, because—
The SPEAKER: No, you are not—
Mr BUTLER: Madam Speaker, with the greatest respect, your ruling makes an assessment that a change from a fixed price to a floating price in 2014-15 will increase that price. That is the only way in which standing order 179(c) cannot apply and cannot cover my amendments.
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, with the greatest of respect, the dissent motion is about your ruling that the House is not capable of considering this amendment. You have made no assessment at all about the financial implications of any of these matters. To accuse you of doing so is quite out of order
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr Pyne: You need to study exactly what you are dissenting from and then you will be in a position to argue it more successfully.
The SPEAKER: I simply ask the member to continue to address the motion.
Mr BUTLER: It is based on an assessment that the impact of our amendments would increase the charge. The only advice in the public realm is that it would reduce it by 75 per cent. (Time expired)
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Education) (13:02): I do not wish to detain the House at great length, because the debate management motion that I had passed earlier in the debate provides for the consideration in detail to begin once the second reading has been carried and you have stated that the House will now consider the bill in detail. The opposition are in fact denying themselves the opportunity to consider the bills in detail by moving this dissent motion. Very simply, the ruling that you have made, Madam Speaker, is entirely consistent with every other ruling of a similar nature to do with the capabilities of the House to amend or change legislation introduced by the executive. It is very clear in standing order 179(a):
Only a Minister may initiate a proposal to impose, increase, or decrease a tax or duty, or change the scope of any charge.
It is very straightforward. It is there because the government needs to initiate money bills in the House of Representatives. And any amendment to try to change money bills is outside the capability of anybody other than someone from the executive. The opposition know this, because we had these debates quite routinely when we were in opposition before 7 September. The opposition know this, and this dissent motion, along with their amendment, is a try-on. It would be quite unprecedented for you to have ruled in any other way than that the House is incapable of dealing with this particular amendment, and you did—very generously, I thought—give the opposition the opportunity to try to move another amendment in consideration in detail which did not offend the standing orders or the Constitution of Australia, which makes it clear that only the executive can initiate money bills.
For the benefit of the House, and for many of the new members, why is that so? It is so because the history of the Westminster tradition is one of civil war in the 17th century which caused such great ructions in Britain that the parliament that replaced the civil war only allowed the executive to initiate money bills to make it clear between the Crown and the parliament who was responsible for what. We have inherited that Westminster system; therefore, it would be quite improper for you to have ruled in any other way than that the opposition cannot initiate changes to a money bill. The member for Port Adelaide made it very clear that that is exactly what his amendment seeks to do. I quote him. He said that his amendment 'changes the way the charge is collected and changes the timing of the act'—in other words, it extends the scope of the bill. That is your quotation from your speech. The Manager of Opposition Business in the House did it as well, throughout his contribution. He kept repeating that his amendment extended the scope and that he believes that we are capable of doing that in the House of Representatives today on a motion initiated by the opposition.
When we were in opposition it was very clear that only the executive could initiate such changes and it is very important that the House upholds the standards that have been set over the course of our parliament. I could go on at great length but I want to get on with the consideration in detail and, as a consequence, I move:
That the question be now put.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the question be now put.
The House divided. [13.11]
(The Speaker—Hon. Bronwyn Bishop)
The SPEAKER (13:14): The question now before the chair is the motion, moved by the member for Watson, of dissent from the Speaker's ruling.
The House divided. [13:18]
(The Speaker—Hon. Bronwyn Bishop)
The SPEAKER (13:23): The House will now consider the bills in detail. In accordance with the resolution agreed on 18 November, the bills will be taken together.
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, on a point of order under standing orders 91 and 92: on social media, the members for Moreton and McEwen have been reflecting on the chair, on the impartiality of the chair. I point out to you that the member for McEwen is the Second Deputy Speaker and that it is what I would regard as disorderly conduct.
Ms Macklin interjecting—
Mr Pyne: So the member for Jagajaga thinks that reflecting on the member for McEwen is the same as reflecting on the Speaker, does she?
The member for McEwen has a higher level of responsibility. On social media, on Twitter, during the division and during the debate, the members for McEwen and Moreton were reflecting quite improperly on the chair and your impartiality. I ask you, as the Speaker, to consider whether this is disorderly conduct and what action you might like to take. I do not wish to take it to another level—privilege, for example. It might well be because of the inexperience of the members and their lack of knowledge of opposition. I would certainly ask the Manager of Opposition Business in the House to counsel members about reflecting on the impartiality of the chair. But I ask you to consider it rather than acting immediately—unless you choose to act immediately—to consider whether it has been a reflection on the chair and therefore is disorderly conduct and how you might like to deal with it.
The SPEAKER: I thank the Leader of the House for his point of order. I would say that we have decided in this chamber that we do allow electronic media to be used and that it is the responsibility of individual members to abide by the standing orders in the way in which they use those electronic and social media. I would be disappointed if the Second Deputy Speaker had so reflected. I would find that if others have so reflected then they might like to consider their actions themselves. But I would simply remind you that, on the use of electronic media, the same rules pertain as to speaking in the House.
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I would point you to precedents in these matters. The member for Canning was involved in a precedent in a previous parliament involving Speaker Andrew and was asked to apologise to the Speaker in the House, under threat of more serious action being taken—
Mr Husic: For what?
Mr Pyne: Reflecting on the Speaker, which is not allowed to be done.
Mr Husic: Where?
Mr Pyne: In the chamber—
A government member: And on Twitter.
Mr Pyne: And on Twitter. You are not allowed to do it. I simply point out that precedent to you, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER: I thank the Leader of the House, and call the Manager of Opposition Business—on the same point of order, I take it?
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, if I may speak to the point of order, or on indulgence—
The SPEAKER: No, we do not do points of order on indulgence. You are either speaking to the point of order or not.
Mr Burke: A point of order will do.
The SPEAKER: On that point of order as raised?
Mr Burke: Yes, on the point of order that was raised: the issue of digital media within the chamber is one that I know has been raised with you in the interviews that you did shortly after becoming Speaker, and if you do wish to provide clarity at some point on how it is to be used within the chamber then the opposition would welcome that clarity.
The SPEAKER: Well, I have actually just done that. I have said—
Mr Burke: It appeared to be different from what I recalled from the Sky News interviews.
The SPEAKER: It is still used in the chamber.
Mr Burke: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER: There is no intention of not having it used in the chamber. But you do have to abide by the standing orders in its use.
Mr Perrett: Madam Speaker, on indulgence, a point of order—
The SPEAKER: No, there is no indulgence, sorry—certainly not indulgence!
Mr Perrett: Madam Speaker, on a point of order—
The SPEAKER: What point of order?
Mr Perrett: On the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition—
The SPEAKER: No, this is not a debate on the issue. We have just ruled on the point of order. The Manager of Opposition Business asked me how it was to be used and I have answered the question.
Mr Perrett: I was seeking to assist—
The SPEAKER: Well, that will be new! The member for Moreton is speaking to what?
Mr Perrett: To the reflection on the chair, and I do wish to apologise for the retweet that I put, and I did make a line-ball call. I will certainly refrain from so doing in the future, and I will make every endeavour to assist the House wherever possible, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER: Is that an apology, as well?
Mr Perrett: If you so require, Madam Speaker. You take it as you may.
The SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member for Moreton for his apology. We are now going to the consideration in detail.
BILLS
Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
True-up Shortfall Levy (General) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
True-up Shortfall Levy (Excise) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill 2013
Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates and Other Amendments) Bill 2013
Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill 2013
Consideration in Detail
Bills taken as a whole.
The SPEAKER (13:29): The question is that the bills be agreed to.
Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide) (13:27): I think it is important, at the beginning of the very short, curtailed consideration in detail that we have, to frame exactly what is at issue in this House, or what was at issue in a very formal sense had my amendments been ruled in order, and that is: there are points of agreement between the government and the opposition and there are points of difference.
The point of agreement, as much as the minister might seek to resist this point, is around the termination of the carbon tax. This was a position that the then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, enunciated, as clearly as possibly could be the case, before the last election—that the termination of the carbon tax would happen next year. As it happens, now we have a measure of clarity about the government's position—I say only 'a measure of clarity'.
We would actually have terminated the carbon tax on the same day, 30 June next year. The difference between the government and the opposition in this debate is not the termination of the carbon tax but what replaces it, and that is the debate that would have been had had my amendments been ruled in order, because very clearly before the election we indicated that Australia should move as quickly as possible, on 1 July next year, to an emissions trading scheme—not to the raft of policies that the minister would seek to introduce to an emissions trading scheme.
The minister and others of the government have sought to equate a carbon tax with an emissions trading scheme and, in doing so, you are either trying deliberately to mislead the community or you simply do not understand the fundamental economics of the two models. They are profoundly different. The carbon tax operates without a legal limit on carbon pollution and instead uses a price mechanism to seek to control the behaviour that is being targeted—in this case, the emission of carbon pollution. An emissions trading scheme is quite different. The discipline is not provided by price; the discipline is provided by a legislative cap on carbon pollution which then lets business work out the cheapest and most effective way to operate within that cap. Importantly, it lets business work that out rather than the minister or his office or his bureaucrats here in Canberra picking winners, like the one he was trumpeting in the newspaper this week in the Latrobe Valley as the project that deserves billions and billions of taxpayers' dollars.
We know so little about this replacement policy, which is why I—and, in different words, the member for Melbourne—moved amendments to get much greater clarity from the government about quite what it is their policy entails, because no-one has a clue. If you talk to environmental stakeholders or business, no-one understands what is involved in the Liberal Party policy, because the truth is that it was a policy which, as the member for Wentworth described, was devised as an environmental fig leaf—
Mr Frydenberg interjecting—
Mr BUTLER: before the member for Kooyong was here. It was devised as an environmental fig leaf to cover the fact that the member for Wentworth had just been defenestrated by the member for Warringah on the condition that the Nick Minchin forces insisted upon—that he move over from being a supporter of an ETS, which he was through to 2009 after campaigning on it in 2007, to being a climate sceptic, someone who would junk the previous consensus started by his mentor, John Howard, and continued by Brendan Nelson and Malcolm Turnbull. I feel great sympathy—
Mr Frydenberg: Mr Deputy Speaker, under the new standing orders, I have a question for the shadow minister.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the shadow minister take an intervention?
Mr BUTLER: No. I feel some sympathy for the minister because I think that—and I think generally stakeholders think so too—he is a person who takes climate change very seriously. He has dedicated a good part of his career to environmental issues but now has this stinking, dead albatross hanging around his neck called Direct Action. It is like getting Senator Cameron out to sell Work Choices. We know the minister does not believe this is going to have any effect on carbon pollution. We know that he is desperately trying to deal with the fact that survey after survey and economist after economist says it will not reduce carbon pollution. Alan Kohler said this morning that Treasury has estimated that the government's policy will cost $10 billion per year.
Mr Frydenberg: False!
Mr BUTLER: Show us the incoming government brief and we will know whether it is false. All we have to go on is suggestion because that is the only thing that comes out of this government.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (13:33): I am glad the shadow minister opposite, the member for Port Adelaide, has raised the subject of sunshine because when the last parliament started we all heard that we were going to let the sunshine into this place. There was going to be a clean breath of fresh air in this place. With the minority government, the Independents suggested we were going to sing Kumbaya and let the sunshine in.
Indeed, we did, but it was not for very long because the member for Melbourne, along with his Greens mates, wanted to have a carbon tax, the carbon tax that the then Prime Minister—that is three prime ministers ago—said prior to the 2010 election would never be enacted under a government she led. 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,' were her infamous words. Yet, despite the fact that we were going to let the sunshine in, despite the fact that we were supposedly going to be gentler, sing Kumbaya, get on with things and respect the people's wishes, not many months later, at the behest of the Greens, we had the carbon tax imposed upon us that the former Prime Minister, the then member for Lalor, said would never happen.
The Abbott-Truss government was elected on 7 September with a mandate to scrap the carbon tax and reduce costs for businesses and households, something that those people on that side would not understand—that businesses are under great pressure. I could name any number of businesses—in fact, I could name all of them—in the Riverina who do not want this toxic tax, who do not want the increasing power prices brought about by this toxic tax, who just want to get on with the job of doing what they do very well. That is producing and providing services for good, hardworking, taxpaying Australians. Families did not need the carbon tax imposed upon their family budgets. That is again something that people on that side would not understand—living within your means, keeping to a budget.
We promised that the carbon tax would go, that it would be the first item of legislative business for this the 44th Parliament. Indeed, it is. But all we hear from the other side is their endless negativity. They just want to stop it. They just want to stop the will of the people.
Mr Conroy interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: Here they go! We are hearing from a new member of parliament that they are just government change deniers, as the Minister for Agriculture quite correctly pointed out the other day in question time.
Labor knows that the carbon tax hurts families and businesses. The quarterly CPI figures released on 24 October 2012, the first since the carbon tax was introduced, saw a 15.3 per cent increase in electricity prices, with household gas and miscellaneous fuel prices seeing a 14.2 per cent rise. This was the largest quarterly increase ever—two thirds of which, on average, came from the carbon tax. Labor knows that families and businesses will be better off once the carbon tax is repealed. They know that. They know in their heart of hearts that that is correct. The removal of the carbon tax in 2014-15 will leave average costs of living across all households around $550 lower than they would have been otherwise, according to Treasury modelling. That is a substantial amount of money for people doing it tough. That is a substantial amount of money for people battling with the rising costs of grocery items and fuel. It is because we have had six long years of hard Labor, who have done nothing to help the economy, nothing to help families and nothing to help businesses.
It is time that Labor got with the program, accepted the result of the 7 September election and actually did something right for a change. It is time that they agreed with the government and said, 'Okay, we accept 7 September. You guys won; we lost. You need to get on with the will of the people. You need to get on with what the people wanted'—that is, to get rid of the carbon tax.
It is estimated that retail electricity prices will be around nine per cent lower and retail gas prices around seven per cent lower than they would otherwise be. Business compliance costs are expected to fall by around $87.6 million per annum as a consequence of repealing the carbon tax. We have to get on with the job of repaying the debt and the deficit that we have been saddled with unfairly, that the people of Australia have been saddled with, by that mob. (Time expired)
Mr GILES (Scullin) (13:38): Today is the day of audacity in this place, typified by the last contribution, that of the member for Riverina. He talked earlier about negativity yet had precisely nothing to say about climate change, nothing to say about the legislation that is before us.
Unlike the member for Riverina and the other members opposite, I believe that taking action on climate change is the most urgent priority for Australia. Unlike members opposite, I believe that putting a price on carbon must be at the core of taking effective action. I believe the scientists on climate change and I believe the economists on how we should respond to meeting this great challenge. There is a consensus in both of those communities that flies in the face of the actions of this government. I refer in particular to September's Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We have heard the numbers plenty of times, but I think it is worth repeating them: 97 per cent of climate scientists concur that climate change is driven by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and 86 per cent of economists, normally the friends of members opposite, support an ETS as the cheapest and most efficient way to reduce carbon pollution.
Owing to the procedural games that are being played, we do not have the opportunity to go to the heart of the amendments of the member for Port Adelaide.
Mr Christensen interjecting—
Mr Giles: You will have your turn. We do not have the opportunity to talk about effective action in the form of the ETS. We have before us legislation that I will be opposing because it does not meet the challenge. Labor went to the last three elections promising to put a price on carbon. I was elected to this place on that basis and I will act accordingly.
Putting a price on carbon is of course the most efficient way to allocate capital to cleaner ways of producing and using energy. We need to put a cap on carbon pollution; we need to continue to support renewables; and we need to retain the Climate Change Authority so that the Australian people can continue to have the benefit of that which this government fears the most: independent advice.
We need to replace a backwards policy—this Liberal Party policy—that will not work with one that will, an emissions trading scheme, replacing the carbon tax with a market based mechanism that caps pollution and lets businesses determine the most effective and cost-effective way to operate under that cap. As we know from the procedural debate earlier, Treasury modelling tells us that an early ETS would also reduce significantly the cost of living as well as reducing the cost of carbon.
Our choice is stark. We have a choice to stand up for our children and their children or to blink in the face of this great moral challenge and reduce our future to a meaningless, misleading three-word slogan. As the member for Fremantle put it so well this morning when she had the opportunity to participate fully in this debate: polluter pays or paying polluters. That is the choice before us.
Considerations of equity today and, most importantly, considerations of equity tomorrow, of looking to our children and their children, require us to act, to do our fair share as others throughout the world are doing. To turn our backs on science, economics and indeed on the rest of the world is not an option. To mortgage our future on the farce that is Direct Action is simply not an option. I am confident that Labor stands on the right side of history in this debate.
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (13:42): On these bills before the House there must be no ifs, no buts. The world's largest carbon tax must go. This is the solemn commitment of the Abbott government. It is an insidious, jobs-destroying tax. Even the member for Griffith, when he was Prime Minister, conceded that the carbon tax was driving up the cost of living and hurting families. Members opposite are persisting with a tax that they know is hurting families, they know is hurting business, they know is driving up the cost of living and they know the people of Australia do not want.
Labor's attempts to introduce amendments to introduce an emissions trading scheme are simply an exercise in rebadging. It is a tax—lock, stock and barrel. The people of Corangamite, the people of Geelong, will not be fooled by Labor's rhetoric. They understand that, whether you are a worker from Alcoa or Ford, a small business operator from Belmont or a dairy farmer in Birregurra or Colac, this is a tax which makes no sense. This is a tax on jobs and on electricity. This is a tax on Geelong and a tax on the people of Corangamite.
The people of my electorate will not forget that great big deception in 2010 from former Prime Minister Gillard: 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' Today in this place, including what we have just heard from the member for Scullin, we hear a continuing deception about our government's commitment to climate change. We are committed to tackling climate change. We are committed to reducing CO2 emissions but we are not going to damage this nation irreparably in the process.
The futility of a carbon tax, by whatever name Labor wishes to call it, was summed up perfectly by Labor's former climate change minister, Senator Wong. On 6 February 2008, she said:
… the introduction of a carbon price ahead of effective international action can lead to perverse incentives for such industries to relocate or source production offshore.
There is no point imposing domestically a carbon price which results in emissions and production transferring internationally for no environmental gain.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member for Corangamite will have leave to continue her remarks should she wish to do so.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Canberra Electorate: Sport
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:45): In February this year, I stood in this place to sing the praises of the Canberra Cavalry, who had won the Australian Baseball Championship and brought the Claxton Shield to Canberra for the very first time. At that point in time, I thought this was the pinnacle of baseball glory for Canberra—but I was wrong, because last night in Taiwan the Cavs stunned the baseball world to beat the Uni-President Lions 14-4 in the Asia Series final.
The Cavs have proven that they are not just the champions of Australia; they are the champions of Asia. It would be an impressive feat for any Australian baseball team to beat the multimillion dollar teams of Asia. But for the Cavs—who not so long ago were the wooden-spooners of the Australian Baseball League; who have been described as a motley crew of public servants, part-timers and minor league baseballers; who have a total payroll of just $47,000—this feat is nothing short of incredible.
As a lover of baseball and a lover of Canberra I could not be any prouder today—and I have dressed in Canberra Cavalry orange to prove it.
Congratulations to Coach Michael Collins and General Manager Thom Carter and, most importantly, the players. Canberra is a very proud city today, and I am sure the Narrabundah Fort will be packed out on Friday night to welcome the Cavs home.
Hinkler Electorate: Australian Export Awards
Mr PITT (Hinkler) (13:46): Earlier this year, Bundaberg Brewed Drinks—the maker of Hinkler's iconic ginger beer—was named 2013 Queensland Exporter of the Year. As well as winning the award for manufacturing, Bundaberg Brewed Drinks was a finalist in the agribusiness and regional exporter categories.
The family-owned company started out in 1960. Today it employs more than 150 people and is taking its beverage products to 33 countries. The company's success should be a source of inspiration to other family-owned regional businesses. It is a clear example of how exporting can bring significant benefits to the local economy.
Winners of state and territory export awards automatically qualify as finalists in the Prime Minister's Exporter of the Year Award. The national winners will be announced this coming Tuesday at the National Gallery of Victoria, in Melbourne. While this year's finalists represent some of the best performers in Australia's $300 billion-a-year export sector, I am confident Queensland businesses will do us proud again this year.
Exports comprise about 20 per cent of Australia's gross domestic product and help support about 1.5 million jobs. This year's finalists earned over $9 billion in export revenue in 2012 and employed more than 22,000 people. The Australian Export Awards recognise their efforts and celebrate their achievements.
I congratulate Bundaberg Brewed Drinks on their success to date and wish them the very best of luck at the Prime Minister's Exporter of the Year Award.
Kingsford Smith Electorate: La Perouse Museum
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (13:48): On 17 November, I had the great honour of attending the Friends of La Perouse Museum annual general meeting with my fellow patrons the Consul-General of France, Eric Berti, and Don Harwin MLC of the New South Wales Parliament.
The La Perouse Museum is in my electorate and provides patrons with an absorbing history lesson in the relationship between Australian and French people. This began in 1788 with the first visit of La Perouse to that area, which has been named in his honour. There is also a monument to Father Receveur, who was the first European and Catholic to be buried in Australian soil.
A number of events hosted by the La Perouse Museum over 12 months were highlighted at the annual general meeting. They included the visit of Stephane Romatet on 29 February earlier this year; the Father Receveur mass on 17 February; La Perouse Day; the Heritage Festival Walk; a visit by the Secretary of the La Perouse Associate, Bernard Jimenez; Bastille Day; the History Week lecture, which was delivered this year by Professor Richard White; and a visit by the Vendemiaire, a French naval ship that was here during the military review.
I encourage everyone to visit the La Perouse Museum. I thank the Friends of the La Perouse Museum, who are volunteers, for their great work and I thank in particular William Land and Tony Gentile.
Apology to the Forgotten Australians and Former Child Migrants
Mr IRONS (Swan) (13:49): I remind the House that 16 November, last Saturday, was the fourth anniversary of the apology to the forgotten Australians. Everyone remembers that day. It was an emotional time. I acknowledge members of the government and members on this side who assisted on that day, particularly the member for Griffith and the member for Wentworth, whose speeches gave hope to many of the people who had been through that experience.
Many benefits have come from that apology. The forgotten Australians are reaping the rewards of the commitment by the government, whereby forgotten Australians are assisted with the problems they face on a daily basis. We now see a royal commission is investigating the horror put upon these young children when they should have expected to live safely and to be nurtured and cared for.
We are in a period of maiden speeches, and I would like to remind the House of comments that I made in my maiden speech:
Perhaps one day we should apologise to all the young children of Australia who were not saved by being removed from abusive or non-caring parents. I mention the case of the seven-year-old girl Shellay Ward, who died last year after being seriously neglected by her parents, and I call on all communities to make a concerted effort to bring cases like this to the attention of the proper authorities.
I will continue to commit myself to this cause, to raise awareness and to make sure that there are stronger penalties for abusers of children.
Blair Electorate: Australia Post
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (13:51): Earlier this week, the member for Ryan put a motion in relation to postcodes. I want to associate myself with her motion and commend her for doing so. Certainly, in my electorate of Blair, there is an issue that Australia Post needs to address, and that is the 4306 issue. The 4306 postcode goes from the western suburbs of Brisbane and right up through the Brisbane Valley, but it bypasses areas like Toogoolawah and Erskine. It then goes into Moore and Linville. Curiously enough, this has caused a lot of problems for people who live in the upper part of the Brisbane Valley. Strangely and tragically, insurance companies have made decisions in relation to insurance which mean that the people who live in these areas who are not necessarily flooded end up with higher premiums. It has also been an issue because mail goes astray.
I have written to Australia Post about this issue. I have met with Australia Post about this issue. I have agitated on people's behalf. Petitions have been run by the Moore and District Action Group in relation to this. I have signed those petitions. I commend the work done by locals in this regard, but Australia Post needs to have a look at this again. The member for Ryan is absolutely correct on this issue. Australia Post should have a look at themselves and reassess this issue. The evidence is overwhelming. They need to change their view in relation to postcodes in South-East Queensland.
Armenian Genocide
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (13:52): I rise to express grave concerns that a House of Representatives committee room has today been used to advocate a revision of accepted history on the Armenian genocide. At the invitation of Labor members for Werriwa and Calwell, revisionist Justin McCarthy has used parliamentary facilities to promote his well-documented views questioning the systematic slaughter of Armenians, Assyrians and Pontian Greeks from 1915 to 1923.
The International Association of Genocide Scholars has discredited McCarthy's work as selective and grossly distorting history. ANZAC soldiers verified the genocide as an irrefutable historical fact through their eyewitness accounts. Denial of this genocide is an attack on those who perished, on those who survived and on their descendants.
For Parliament House facilities to be used to give his views a veneer of credibility brings shame on us all. This institution should never again be used to express doubt over the scope of suffering experienced by the victims of a historical atrocity nor to justify these actions as merely part of a civil war. The Ottoman Empire no longer exists and is a world apart from modern-day Turkey. Just as our nation cannot hide from the actions of white settlers, historical sins must be acknowledged to free the victims from a denial of their suffering so we can join together to ensure history never repeats.
Proceeds of Crime
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (13:54): The previous Labor government, in its wisdom, established a proceeds of crime fund. The essence of the fund was to ensure that ill-gotten gains from crime were recycled into community projects which could ensure we could divert people, particularly young people, from criminal activity and help to get their lives back on track. Against this background, it is of deep concern to members on this side of the House and constituents within my electorate that, at Senate estimates this week, a senator for Queensland and the minister responsible, the Attorney-General, advised that the government effectively intended to pocket the proceeds of crime. They are not proceeding with a range of announcements that were made by the previous government earlier this year, including distribution of the $40 million National Crime Prevention Fund to projects in my electorate run by the PCYC.
Deputy Speaker Scott, you could not find a more apolitical organisation than the PCYC and you would not find an organisation within the community that had more respect than the PCYC. Therefore, it is baffling beyond belief that the government has decided not to proceed with a distribution from the proceeds of crime fund to fund a project in my electorate to get kids out of crime and have their lives put back on track.
Australian Student Prize
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (13:55): I am delighted to congratulate the recipients of the 2012 Australian Student Prize in my electorate of Higgins. This is a significant honour which is awarded to the top 500 students across the country. It is an award that recognises excellence in academic achievement. Students in my electorate who have received this award include Ronald Zhang of Scotch College, who achieved the maximum score of 50 in VCE English and physics and achieved the maximum ATAR of 99.95; Albert Wang of Melbourne Grammar School, who achieved the maximum ATAR of 99.95; Georgina Davie of Lauriston Girls School, who achieved the maximum score of 45 for the International Baccalaureate and was also the 2012 school captain and recipient of the City of Stonnington 2012 Young Citizen of the Year award; India Mckenzie of Lauriston Girls School, who achieved the maximum score of 50 in VCE English and visual communications; Rebecca Rice-Lacy of Camberwell Girls' Grammar School, who achieved the maximum score of 50 in VCE psychology; Kate Dempsey of Wesley, who achieved an ATAR of 99.55; Winston Dzau of Melbourne Grammar School, who achieved the maximum score of 50 in VCE biology, chemistry and physics and the maximum ATAR of 99.95; and Tabatha Turner of Lauriston Girls School, who also achieved the maximum ATAR of 99.95.
I would like to acknowledge the families of these students—the parents and siblings—whose understanding helped these students to achieve their best. I congratulate the schools on these students' achievements.
Philippines: Typhoon Haiyan
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (13:57): I rise today to acknowledge the fantastic work that is currently being done by the wonderful team of medical professionals currently on location in the Philippines. As you would all know, last week 35 members from the Australian Medical Assistance Team, AusMAT, left Darwin to provide their support to the thousands of Filipinos injured by Typhoon Haiyan. This was a terrible tragedy that devastated cities, towns, communities and families and left an appalling list of casualties, killing thousands and injuring thousands more.
The AusMAT team was co-ordinated by the Darwin-based National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre, which was established by former Prime Minister John Howard to deal with crises such as this. Figures supplied by my friend and colleague Minister Dutton show that since Saturday the AusMAT team has performed 72 surgeries, treated 587 outpatient cases and treated 108 inpatients in the field hospital.
This morning Minister Dutton announced a second deployment will leave Darwin next Wednesday. I wish them all the best and thank them for their great work.
Buy Local Campaign
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (13:58): I wish to raise today a campaign which has been kicked off in my electorate by a number of local newspapers as well as local councils. The Buy Local initiative is incredibly important. It encourages people to buy locally in their community. Buying produce at your local supermarket, whether it be an IGA or the grocer, and buying hardware at your local hardware store ensures that the money stays in the community. I would like to especially mention the Macedon Ranges Guardian, the Midland Express and the Bendigo Advertiser for promoting these projects in their communities. Buying local means we will keep jobs in our region—retail jobs, jobs that are necessary for low-paid workers who get up every day to do a job. This is what really matters—making sure that we all as parliamentarians take the lead and buy locally.
Coming up to Christmas, it is a really good time. If you are up Bendigo way, we have a number of great shopping strips where you can buy lots of local produce. We have fantastic wines, fantastic olives and fantastic olive oil. There are some great producers in our regional areas and it is really important that we get behind them, whether it be in the shops or in the community. It is important that we get out there and buy local.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
Chamber: Social Media
The SPEAKER (14:00): Before I ask for any questions without notice and then call the honourable the Prime Minister, I would just like to say that prior to members' statements there was a question raised about the appropriate use of Twitter in the chamber, which was raised by the Leader of the House. I wish to report to the House that the matter has been resolved to my satisfaction.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
National Security
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:00): I seek leave to make a short statement.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister is entitled to make a statement.
Mr ABBOTT: I think it would assist the House—
Mr Burke: Leave is granted. We were not given notice, but leave is granted.
Mr ABBOTT: I apologise. Madam Speaker, I thought it would assist if I were to inform the House and members opposite that this morning I received the letter from President Yudhoyono that he promised last night. I want to assure the House that the government will respond swiftly, fully and courteously to the president's letter. As always, my intention is to do everything I reasonably can to strengthen this relationship which is so important to both our countries. I want Australia to remain Indonesia's trusted partner now and in the future.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:01): I thank the Prime Minister for his information to the House. The position of the opposition on this matter is clear. Let me again in this place reiterate our commitment to bipartisan support in the swift and timely restoration of Australia's relationship with Indonesia. We know that our relationship with Indonesia can recover; it can thrive; it can prosper—it must. Our commitment is to see the improvement and repair of this relationship conducted in a timely way. Our position continues to be one of support for the government. Now is the time for temperate language and carefully calibrated discussion with our Indonesian colleagues. As I have said in this place on a number of times in recent days, a strong and constructive relationship is fundamental to our national interest. The seriousness of this matter or the sense of offence that our Indonesian friends are feeling means that we must redouble our efforts to return to a positive and constructive dialogue between our governments. Other nations have resolved similar matters. We can too, and we must do this in a timely manner.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:03): My question is to the Minister for Industry. I refer the minister to the CSIRO, an organisation which is central to Australia's future prosperity for scientific achievement and innovation. Minister, why are 600 staff to face the Abbott axe?
Mr Hockey: They were your cuts.
Mr IAN MACFARLANE (Groom—Minister for Industry) (14:03): As the Leader of the Opposition knows, management decisions on the CSIRO are decisions by the CSIRO.
Carbon Pricing
Mr LAUNDY (Reid) (14:03): My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the House how lower electricity bills, because of the repeal of the carbon tax, will help Australian families get ahead. What stands in the way of lower cost of living pressures for families in my electorate?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:04): I do thank the member for Reid for his question. I welcome him to the House and I congratulate him on the really warm, genial and generous maiden speech that he made earlier in the week. The member for Reid has just voted to repeal the carbon tax. In fact, every member of the coalition has just voted to repeal the carbon tax. The coalition went to the election promising to repeal the carbon tax, and I am proud to be able to say in this House that we are keeping faith with the mandate that we sought from the people. By contrast, Madam Speaker, every single member of the Labor Party has just voted to keep the carbon tax. They said before the 2010 election that there would never be a carbon tax and they said before the election a couple of months ago that the carbon tax had been terminated, and yet this tax which they say has been terminated they have just voted to keep. That is what members opposite have done.
Mr Katter: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I would like to endorse what the Prime Minister is saying, but I would like him to include me as a person who voted against it.
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order, and the member for Kennedy would not want to try that one again.
Mr ABBOTT: Madam Speaker, you can understand the member for Kennedy's enthusiasm to repeal the carbon tax, an enthusiasm which ought to shared by members opposite, because in voting to keep the carbon tax, this is what they have voted to do: they have voted to keep every household's costs $550 a year higher than they should be. They have voted to keep domestically-produced cars $400 more expensive than they should be. They have voted to keep gas bills $70 a year higher than they should be. They have voted to cut our aluminium production by 60 per cent by 2050; to cut our iron and steel production by 20 per cent by 2050. They have voted to cut our gross domestic product by $1 trillion by 2050. They have voted to reduce our gross national income by $5,000 a person by 2050. They have voted to cut wages by six per cent by 2050. That is what they have voted for. Let us be absolutely crystal clear. The electricity bill is $200 a year higher, thanks to that Bill over there. That is what they voted for.
Natural Disasters
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs) (14:07): My question is to the Minister for Justice. I refer to the disaster recovery payment provided by the former government to victims of natural disasters, including victims of the Black Saturday fires and the Queensland floods. Why has the government cut emergency payments for bushfire victims? Isn't forcing them to face the Abbott axe the cruellest cut of all?
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. That question at the end contained argument and epithets—obviously an epithet. I ask you to rule that bit of it out of order.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, on the point of order: we simply ask that the ruling be consistent with a similar issue that was raised yesterday.
The SPEAKER: I must be honest and say that I did not hear the tail end of the question, but I will let it stand.
Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice) (14:08): I appreciate this question because it allows me to update the parliament and place on the record what has actually happened in relation to the New South Wales bushfires and certainly to correct some of the misleading statements that have been made by the opposition on this.
Can I firstly say, in relation to the New South Wales bushfires, that, in line with very longstanding arrangements with New South Wales, the Commonwealth has jointly funded relief for people who are in need of it as a result of this serious natural disaster. That means that, through these longstanding arrangements, we make sure that people in need of short-term accommodation, people in need of emergency food, people in need of clothing and people even in need of things such as cash grants can have them available through the services that the New South Wales government runs in the wake of bushfires and which we fund.
On top of this, we have also announced that we will fund the disaster recovery payment, which is for families who have been severely impacted by these bushfires, which means that they have had lost or damaged homes, or they have had somebody who has been severely injured or have lost a loved one. That is in line with very longstanding practice of the previous Howard government, and, most importantly, it is in line with longstanding practice of the previous Labor government. The Labor Party are running around saying that we have changed the guidelines, even though on many occasions when they were in government they activated the disaster recovery payment in exactly the same way that I have done in relation to the bushfires.
Let me just run through the circumstances in which this happened. In January 2008, with storms and flooding in Mackay and on the Whitsunday Islands, the Labor Party activated the disaster recovery payment in exactly the same way as I have just done in relation to the New South Wales bushfires. In February 2008, with flooding in Mackay—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr Husic interjecting—
The SPEAKER: There is too much noise. Member for Chifley!
Mr KEENAN: the Labor government activated the disaster recovery payment in exactly the same way as I have just done. Look at them conferring. Check the facts, and I will keep running through it. You might want to ask the shadow minister there, Jenny Macklin, because she was the minister that activated it in exactly the same way as I just have. In November 2008 it was activated in exactly the same way for storms in Queensland.
Mr Dreyfus: Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order on direct relevance. The question was why this government has cut criteria from the disaster recovery payment—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
Mr Dreyfus: I have not finished. And the minister has—
The SPEAKER: Your point of order has concluded. The question was about emergency funding to victims. The answer is in order. There is no point of order.
Mr KEENAN: Okay, the deputy leader of—
The SPEAKER: I call the member for Isaacs but would remind him that he has had his point of order on direct relevance.
Mr Dreyfus: On the point of order, Madam Speaker: I was interrupted by the Leader of the House—
The SPEAKER: No, I am sorry—
Mr Dreyfus: before I had finished the point of order—
The SPEAKER: you had finished.
Mr Dreyfus: and you permitted it.
The SPEAKER: The member had made his point of order, and I said there was no point of order. I said that this question is relating to the payment of emergency payments.
Mr KEENAN: Just to reaffirm to the parliament: there has been no change in the guidelines for the funding of the Australian disaster recovery payment.
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr KEENAN: We have declared for the New South Wales bushfire in exactly the same way as the shadow minister who just interjected did on five separate occasions—in March 2010 in relation to storms in Victoria; in May 2009 in relation to flooding in Queensland. We will continue— (Time expired)
Economy
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright—Government Whip) (14:12): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline the impact of Labor's constant opposition to repealing the carbon tax, repealing the mining tax and cleaning up Labor's debt on the Australian economy, particularly for the good people of my electorate of Wright?
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:12): They are good people in Wright, and they have a good representative as well. On 7 September the Australian people voted emphatically in favour of our policies to repeal the carbon tax, to repeal the mining tax and to fix up what they knew to be Labor's budget black hole. That is what they voted for. I am afraid the opposition have not come to terms with that. I understand that, but the fact is that they are voting against everything we are trying to do to fix up the mess that they have left for the Australian people.
They have terminated the carbon tax termination. It was their term to say the carbon tax was terminated. Now they have terminated the termination. And now they are in favour of the carbon tax, which is a hit on Australian business, which is a hit on Australian families and which is a detractor from economic growth, and the Labor Party want people to lose jobs, which is part and parcel of the carbon tax. So the Labor Party now are going down the path of punishing the Australian people for opposing the carbon tax.
And the mining tax—a net cost to the budget of $13½ billion—is a flawed tax that has cost jobs, that has created sovereign risk and that has had a negative impact on Australian government debt. The Labor Party now say they want to keep the mining tax and all of its associated expenditure. Again, the Labor Party are failing to recognise the decision of the Australian people.
When it comes to dealing with the budget deficit: I wish the first question in question time had been addressed to me from the Leader of the Opposition. Don't leave me out of it, Bill! Ask me a few questions about the cuts, because they are the Labor Party's cuts! What chutzpah, to come in here and complain about cuts that the Labor Party started just a few weeks ago when they were in government! What chutzpah that they should do that—complete hypocrisy from the Labor Party, but no surprise. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds. And why? Because 7 September never happened, in their own minds. There was never a change of government. They rotate through the leaders but it is still the good old Labor Party on the Treasury benches. It is just temporary that they are sitting over there.
Well, here is a newsflash, and the flash is this: the Australian people made an emphatic decision on 7 September to get rid of a bad government. They voted to get rid of the carbon tax, they voted to get rid of the mining tax and they voted for responsible budgeting. I say to the Labor Party: enough is enough. You did so much damage in government; do not continue the trend in opposition.
Road Infrastructure
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (14:15): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. I refer to the statement by his assistant minister that the government is committed to the funding we announced for the Great Northern and North West Coastal highways. I also refer the Deputy Prime Minister to his spokesman's comments that these projects will not be funded. Deputy Prime Minister: will these projects face the Abbott axe?
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (14:16): The Labor Party announced a large number of road-funding projects to be funded by the proceeds of the mining tax. These two roads were amongst those projects that Labor said it was going to fund from the proceeds of the mining tax. There are few, if any, proceeds from the mining tax, so Labor was making empty promises. They were promising to fund roads for which they never had the financial resources. That was a dishonest election promise.
The coalition is reviewing the election promises of the Labor Party—the ones that they had not funded. We know that there are some very worthwhile projects that were on that list and we would like to find a way for them to proceed. So as we look at the resources that are available for road funding, those projects will be under consideration. We will not reject them just because Labor dishonestly promised them when they did not have the financial resources. We will deal with and fund worthwhile road projects across the nation in a bigger road program that Labor has ever dreamed of.
Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table the transcript of interview of 6PR Perth with Paul Murray, in which Jamie Briggs says that the funding is in the budget—
Leave not granted.
Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker, I also seek leave to table this transcript from west.com.au from the Deputy Prime Minister, where he says it will not be funded—
Leave not granted.
Fishing Industry
Mr HOGAN (Page) (14:18): My question is to the Minister for Agriculture. I remind the minister that today is World Fisheries Day, to recognise and celebrate the sustainability of Australian fisheries. What impact has the carbon tax had on this iconic Australian industry? And how will the government's plans restore the future prospects of Australian fisheries?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (14:19): I thank the honourable member for his question. With a seat that includes Ballina and Yamba, he has a very keen understanding of the importance of the fishing industry.
It is also important because one of the inflictions on that industry has come about by the Labor Party, in their desire to single-handedly cool the planet with a tax. We all know that if Labor taxes cooled the planet the place would be an icebox, but it is quite clear that the Labor Party had decided that they would inflict this on fishermen.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! Too much noise on my left!
Mr JOYCE: Madam Speaker, do you know that when fishermen come to port to buy refrigerant gases—refrigerant gases such as 507A refrigerant gas—that the cost of this gas has gone up by up to $100 a kilogram?
Mr Stephen Jones: Coming the raw prawn!
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Throsby will desist!
Mr JOYCE: What this means is that this is a $10,000 hit to the budget for coming home to port. Kevin Hogan, the member for Page, understands this all too well. Not only that, he understands that once they get home and once they get the produce—Australian fish to be fed to Australian people—that they are using Australian power to try and make sure that they keep the fish cold, and that is also taxed by the Australian Labor Party. They believe that there is something evil about the coal that keeps Australian families warm and Australian fish cold.
But they have a way to make the power that keeps fish cold righteous. What you do is get the coal, and if it passes over water and goes to another country to look after—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! There is too much noise on my left. The member for Throsby will desist!
Mr JOYCE: the power that comes from that other country then becomes righteous. But if you look after the power requirements in our nation, well, it is very evil.
And they had the opportunity today—the government-change deniers on the other side—to work for the working man and woman to reduce the cost of living, but they chose not to. They chose not to, because they are still being run by the Australian Greens. They are still being run by the Australian Greens, and we know that it is a coalition—it is a Labor-Green coalition, and it is—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! There is too much noise on—
Mr JOYCE: We've got their attention! We've got their attention!
The SPEAKER: Order! The minister will resume his seat. The members on my left will lower the tone of interjections and hear what the minister has to say.
Mr JOYCE: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I like the fact that in this chamber I seem to excite Labor and the Greens like I did in the other chamber. It is great to see that we have got one side standing up for the working families and the other standing up for the Australian Greens, standing up for their mates in the corner there, making sure we keep people poorer. That is your goal: keep people poorer. I look forward to them explaining to their electorates why it is evil to turn on a light in Bankstown, why it is evil to keep the fish cold, why it is evil to look after the Australian working families' requirements.
Geilston Bay Sportsground
Ms COLLINS (Franklin) (14:22): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. I refer to the more than $109,000 in funding granted by the former government to the Clarence City Council for the redevelopment of the Geilston Bay school oval as a multipurpose sportsground. Why is the government ignoring the needs of the people of Clarence in my electorate and forcing them to face the Abbott axe?
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (14:23): I answered this question last week and I am happy to answer it again. During the election campaign the coalition made a number of very important promises to help regional communities and urban communities deliver services and facilities to benefit their people. The Labor Party also made a list of promises, which they said that they would implement if they were elected to government. But what they do not seem to realise as government change deniers is that the election was won by the coalition. We will honour our election promises, which will deliver substantial benefits to local communities.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: the question specifically referred to a grant that had been made, not to an election promise.
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Prime Minister has completed his answer.
Foreign Investment
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (14:24): My question is to the Prime Minister. I draw his attention to media reports that GrainCorp buyer ADM has been prosecuted in America, Canada and Mexico for bribery and price fixing—a thousand million dollar fine and three executives jailed. In light of this, and recalling that dairy deregulation cut prices by 19c to farmers but increased them by 41c to consumers, would the Prime Minister not agree that GrainCorp's sale creates a corporate monopoly in which grain families, like dairymen, will be skinned alive to enable a foreign company to grab an extra one billion a year?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:25): I do thank the member for Kennedy for his question and I appreciate his concerns, concerns which are quite general in this House, to ensure that the foreign investment Australia gets is the right foreign investment that supports our national interest, not the wrong foreign investment that does not. This government, this parliament, this nation has long supported foreign investment. Foreign investment has been a very important part of building the strong economy that we enjoy in this country.
Our agricultural industry, our mining industry, our manufacturing industry would not be what it is but for foreign investment. So we do very much support foreign investment, but it does have to be the right foreign investment, foreign investment that clearly is in our national interest, not the wrong foreign investment. We have a strong and a good process to determine which is which. We have the Foreign Investment Review Board, which makes recommendations, and we have the Treasurer, who makes decisions on this matter. I am confident that this process is being amply pursued in the case in question and I am confident that it will give our country the best possible result.
Carbon Pricing
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (14:26): My question is to the Minister for the Environment. I remind the minister that Colac Area Health's power bill has gone up by around $60,000, or 13 per cent, because of the carbon tax. How will the government's plan to abolish the carbon tax reduce electricity bills for organisations like Colac Area Health?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for the Environment) (14:27): Thank you to the member for Corangamite. We are concerned about electricity bills of all types. We are concerned about big electricity bills, we are concerned about nasty electricity bills and, above all else, we are concerned about puffed up, overinflated electricity bills that have risen beyond their natural level.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left will desist!
Mr HUNT: Electricity bills can strike anyone at any time. They can strike any Tom, Dick, Harry, Kevin or Julia. You can be alone in your office and a nasty electricity bill walks through the door and ruins your whole day!
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left!
Mr HUNT: So we are taking steps to deflate electricity bills. The member for Corangamite raises, as a dutiful member, the position of Colac Area Health. The Victorian government has belled the cat on the impact of the carbon tax on electricity bills. It is $60,000 on Colac Area Health. For the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, there is a $360,000 carbon tax impact on electricity bills. The Royal Children's Hospital, according to the Victorian government, has a $729,000 carbon tax impact on their electricity bill. The entire Victorian health system has a $13½ million impact on its electricity bill as a result of the carbon tax and a $132 million impact between now and 2020.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
Ms Owens interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs will desist, as will the member for Parramatta.
Mr HUNT: Let me just repeat that: a $132 million impact on Victorian health costs as a result of the carbon tax between now and 2020. So we are taking steps, Prime Minister. Only two hours ago, this side of the House voted to repeal the carbon tax and to take away the $60,000 impact, which the member for Corangamite raises with regards to Colac Area Health. Only two hours ago that side of the House, the ALP which promised to terminate the carbon tax, voted to keep it. They voted for a $60,000 tax on Colac Area Health. They voted for the $360,000 tax on the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and the $729,000 tax on the Royal Children's Hospital. We will pass this legislation and we will not stop until it is repealed. They are the only people standing between Australians and lower electricity prices. (Time expired)
Hospitals
Ms KING (Ballarat) (14:30): My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister confirm that his government will fund the $100 million upgrade to the Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, a hospital which treats more than 250,000 patients every year, or will this too face the Abbott axe?
The SPEAKER: I call the honourable Minister for Health, and I would add that the House was quiet to listen to the question and I ask the House to be quiet and listen to the answer.
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (14:30): It is a reasonable question to ask. The proposal was a $156 million proposal from the Victorian state government and originally the state government said that they would pay for this project in its entirety. I am advised that the Gillard government then came in, even though the Victorian government had said that they would pay for this project, and in another spree of throwing money around the then Gillard government said that they would fund the $100 million even though the Victorian government had already said that they would spend $156 million. So yes, I want to see this facility built but I want to get value for taxpayers' money so we are continuing discussions with the Victorian government about how best we might add value to the Victorian health services.
It struck me a little strange that when you looked at the work of the previous government, they were promising money to build facilities already committed to by the Victorian government, yet at the same time they were taking money away from cancer patients. They were promising money to superclinics that never opened and never saw patients. They were spending money on great big new bureaucracies that did not see a single patient, and while all of this waste was going on, more and more pensioners were waiting longer and longer for elective surgery. The former government absolutely stands condemned in terms of their management of health and they have continued, I might say, into opposition.
Ms King: I seek leave to table the article from the Herald Sun where the minister has said that he will not be funding the Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital.
Leave not granted.
Child Care
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (14:32): My question is to the Assistant Minister for Education. Will the minister explain how the government's recently announced Productivity Commission inquiry into child care will improve availability and affordability of services in my electorate of Lyne and others across regional Australia?
Ms LEY (Farrer—Assistant Minister for Education) (14:33): Thank you, and welcome to the member for Lyne, a great loss to specialist services in regional Australia but a fabulous addition to this place. Prime Minister, I think I recollect a certain Pollie Pedal where you, I, and the member for Lyne struggled in the freezing rain across the Barrington Tops. The dedication shown on that occasion is the dedication that the member for Lyne brings on behalf of his constituents to this place. Wasting no time, he was in my office this morning banging the table about an early intervention centre for the people of Taree, something that he cares passionately about—Taree being an area of disadvantage in his electorate. One of the great things about new parliaments is that we get to welcome on this side of the House members from rural and regional Australia.
Once again I get to look at members of the Labor Party who have never risked a dollar of their own money in rural and regional Australia. The problem that we saw written large over childcare policy in the Labor Party was that one size always had to fit everything. There were no regional members to say, 'Things are a little bit different in my small country town, in my mobile childcare centre, in my small occasional childcare centre. In my community preschool with a hardworking volunteer board, things are a bit different.' Oh, no, the dead hand of regulation landed on everyone indiscriminately, and nowhere do we see that more than in rural and regional Australia. We know people in rural and regional Australia generally have less money than people in the city and they have to be careful about their expenses. But they desperately need flexible child care and they need it at a price they can afford.
But everybody is coming on board with our Productivity Commission inquiry. People are lining up to talk about it. The Kalgoorlie Miner—and another great new regional member, the member for O'Connor, is here—talked about the importance of child care for regional communities, and the mayor said that it cannot be understated that paying too much for child care—
Ms Plibersek: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hesitate to do this, Madam Speaker, but this is simply not relevant to the question that the minister was asked.
The SPEAKER: What is the point of order?
Ms PLIBERSEK: It is a point on relevance. She should be directly relevant to the question asked. I would have thought she would know how to be directly relevant to a question she wrote.
The SPEAKER: I call the honourable assistant minister. There is no point of order.
Ms LEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to refer to Kalgoorlie, a city that I went to during the election campaign.
Opposition members interjecting—
Ms LEY: Madam Speaker, the question was about rural and regional Australia and, by the way, Kalgoorlie is in rural and regional Australia. The mayor of Kalgoorlie says that if you inhibit the ability of parents to obtain child care you inhibit the ability of the city to grow. On this side of the House, we desperately want rural and regional Australia to grow. I look forward to you coming on board with our Productivity Commission inquiry.
Child Care
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (14:36): My question is also to the Assistant Minister for Education. Nine thousand six hundred families in my electorate of Rankin rely on the childcare rebate. Why is the government ignoring their needs by refusing to guarantee the rebate and exposing local families to the Abbott axe?
Ms LEY (Farrer—Assistant Minister for Education) (14:37): This is a fascinating question. It tells us so much about the modern Labor Party. Yes, it is true that this week the Minister for Social Services introduced legislation to maintain the childcare rebate limit at $7,500 for three financial years starting from 1 July 2014, but it is really important to put this into context. The context, as usual, is Labor's debt—the debt that we on this side of the House have inherited.
We have heard a lot of numbers. The Treasurer talks about numbers and eloquently expresses them, but I would like to put this information on the table. If we run budget surpluses bigger than the budget surpluses ever run by the Howard government, it would take 20 years to pay off Labor's debt. The interest bill alone is over $10 billion a year. I could build the member for Lyne's early intervention centre with just a portion of that money. Labor has never delivered a budget surplus.
Let us go back to this budget. I want to talk about the budget the member refers to. Remember the budget that Labor put down in May this year, the one they never expected to implement, the one where they scrambled desperately to plug the leaks coming from their own reckless spending, the one where they tried to create a fig leaf of economic credibility. What they did in that budget was take the $100 million already in savings that we have had to implement this week from that budget, despite not having passed the legislation. So the $100 million that the member asks me about is long gone. This government has to legislate to mop up Labor's mess, a mess created—
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I have a point of order.
The SPEAKER: I call the Manager of Opposition Business. You cannot go on relevance. What is the standing order?
Mr Burke: Um—
The SPEAKER: Good try. No standing order.
Mr Burke: I'll let it go.
The SPEAKER: I call the assistant minister.
Ms LEY: I do not know why the Labor Party do not understand that the $100 million is long gone from the bottom line.
Mr Snowdon interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lingiari will desist!
Ms LEY: It is pretty outrageous to expect us with the economic credibility and the responsibility we bring to managing the nation's finances not to implement this measure which Labor has already taken into account. The Labor Party are without courage, without imagination and without competence. We make no apologies for cleaning up their mess.
The SPEAKER: I remind those on my left that we will have no more points of order on standing orders for 'um'.
Budget
Mr PITT (Hinkler) (14:40): My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer advise the House of any correspondence he has received that will assist the parliament in its deliberations on the increase in the debt limit?
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:40): I thank the member for Hinkler. I was kind of hoping that I would be asked this question by the Labor Party and in particular by the member for McMahon because just before question time a letter from the member for McMahon was sent to my office. I read the letter—it is a very interesting letter—and it says:
The Opposition also remains ready to vote for an increase in the debt limit to $500 Billion, if such an increase is supported by revised net debt figures in the Mid-Year Economic Forecast …
Hang on, 'net debt figures'? He could not have got 'net debt' and 'gross debt' wrong, could he? Hang on, this is the shadow Treasurer. I know Labor do not understand the difference between deficit and surplus and I know they do not know the difference between Rudd and Gillard, but I thought they would understand the difference between 'net' and 'gross'. I read on and it said:
I note that in Senate Estimates, Senator Wong asked Dr Parkinson to provide an updated iteration of Table 8 of PEFO, showing projected net debt.
I thought I would go to table 8 of PEFO to see what that is and, hang on, it is gross debt. It is gross debt. How did that happen? Then I thought, hang on, gross debt peaking at $370 billion? But I still gave him the benefit of the doubt because surely the shadow Treasurer would know the difference between net debt and gross debt, given that this is such a significant issue for the Australian parliament. I read on, and it gets better. It states:
The latest figure in the forward estimates for net debt is $370 billion …
I hope it is not, because the latest estimate of net debt is $217 billion. No wonder they are concerned. I am going to help the member for McMahon because the last sentence of his letter says:
Given the importance of this as a national issue and debate and in the interests of openness and transparency, I will be publicly releasing this letter.
I am sure he will not, so I am going to help him now. If the former Treasurer of Australia does not understand the difference between net debt and gross debt, no wonder the Labor Party just do not get it. They were incompetent in government and they are incompetent in opposition.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:43): I would like to acknowledge in the gallery the students from the Centre for Defence and Strategic Studies and the Northern Territory Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries, Minister for Mines and Energy and Minister for Land Resource Management. Welcome.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
McEwen Electorate
Mr MITCHELL (McEwen—Second Deputy Speaker) (14:43): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. I refer to the more than $906,000 in funding granted by the former government to the City of Whittlesea for the Church Street redevelopment, Woodland Waters Recreation Reserve development and the Lalor Tennis Club redevelopment. Why is the government ignoring the needs of the people of McEwen with its cuts and forcing them to face the Abbott axe?
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (14:44): The Abbott government is not ignoring the people of McEwen; it is giving them a carbon tax free future. It is giving their industry a chance to be competitive with industry in the rest of the world. We are providing services and facilities, through our roads and infrastructure program, that Labor had never committed to. The people of Australia looked at the program that Labor offered to them during the election campaign, they looked at the program that the coalition offered to them during the election campaign, and they chose the program put forward by the coalition. The people have had their say and we are now getting on with the process of delivering the promises that we made to the Australian people, and that will be our task over the next three years.
Schools: Computers
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (14:45): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Education. I refer the minister to testimony of departmental officials in Senate estimates yesterday that the only review undertaken of the previous government's laptops in schools program made no attempt to determine if the extra spending had actually improved student results. Minister, what is your response to this revelation?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Education) (14:46): I thank the honourable member for Higgins for her question, and I can tell her that my response was one of disbelief. I could not believe that the government had conducted a review into the so-called digital revolution. You would remember, Madam Speaker, that the previous government had to have these grandiose names for all of their programs—a la North Korea of the last few decades—and this one was called the Digital Education Revolution.
Mr Champion: A bit more lustre, Chris; a bit more lustre. Put your heart into it!
The SPEAKER: The member for Wakefield will desist.
Mr PYNE: It was to be a $1 billion program to deliver one million laptops in schools. The laptops of the 21st century it was called as well.
Of course after five years the program had blown out to $2.4 billion and they delivered 600,000 laptops in schools.
Mr Champion interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Wakefield might like another visit out!
Mr PYNE: They conveniently claimed another 300,000 that had already been in schools before the program even began. They conducted one review—this ranks with the BER, the pink batts program, the cash for clunkers—more Labor messes—and yesterday in estimates the department answered a question about the evaluation with: 'The evaluation was taken under a set of KPIs, which were agreed with stakeholders. It was measured against things like the number of a resource made available, the amount of usage in the classroom and those sorts of things, but no direct line of sight measure against student outcomes'. So the Labor Party spent $2.4 billion of taxpayers' money delivering two-thirds of the laptops they claimed would be delivered, and at no point thought it might be a good idea to find out if it made one jot of difference to the outcomes for students, to the results for students.
Ms MacTiernan interjecting—
Mr PYNE: The member for Perth—no wonder she is shaking her head; she cannot believe it either!
Mr Champion: Oh come on, Christopher!
The SPEAKER: The member for Wakefield will desist!
Mr PYNE: She actually cares about students in schools, unlike the rest of the Labor Party.
Mr Champion interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Wakefield is warned!
Mr PYNE: What this proves is that the Labor Party, as we always suspected, are all foam and no beer—they are all politics and no policy; all spin and no substance—whereas the coalition want to put students first. We actually think the results for students are quite important. We do not think you should spend $2.4 billion to have a laptops in schools program, review it and not bother to find out if worked or not. We are putting students first, whereas all the Labor Party ever do is put politics first.
Ted Noffs Foundation
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (14:48): My question is to the Minister for Social Services. I refer to the grant of $85,000 made by the former government to the Ted Noffs Foundation for the upgrade of their community facilities. Why is the government ignoring the needs of disadvantaged young people in my electorate with its cuts, forcing them to face the Abbott axe?
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies—Minister for Social Services) (14:49): When this government came to office, it was faced with a stark reality of the situation left by the previous Labor government. Let me put this in stark contrast. In 2007, when the Labor Party came to government, the nation had a net balance of $45 billion—in other words, the nation was in the black. But what happened over six years of Labor government? That $2,100 in the bank that every man, woman and child in Australia had in 2007, what had happened to that by 2013? The reality is, as the Treasurer pointed out earlier, we have something like $217 million of net debt. So instead of every man, woman and child in Australia having the equivalent of $2,100 in the bank, what were they left with after Labor in government? They were left with $12,900 in the red for every man, woman and child in Australia.
Mr Thistlethwaite: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order: the minister might believe it is all right to avoid answering this question, but the Ted Noffs Foundation, on whose behalf I asked this question, do not!
The SPEAKER: I am sorry, if you are—
Mr Thistlethwaite: My point of order is under standing order 104: I ask that the minister be directly relevant. Yes or no: will the Ted Noffs Foundation receive the $85,000?
The SPEAKER: I ask the minister to address the question.
Mr ANDREWS: In answer to the question: against the background of a Labor Party that was so irresponsible with the finances of this country that it has left us so far in the red, then where expenditure has not been made, where contracts have not been fulfilled, where simply election promises have been made such as what the honourable member is talking about, we will—
Mr Thistlethwaite: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The SPEAKER: You may not have a second point of order on relevance.
Mr Thistlethwaite: I believe the minister is now defying your order to be directly relevant, and I ask you to again draw him to the question.
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. I again remind the minister to address the question.
Mr ANDREWS: Against the background of a Labor Party that trashed the finances of Australia, that ran up a huge debt for the people of Australia, where matters had not been contracted, where funds have just been promised in the context of the election campaign, we will do the prudent thing and the prudent thing is to review all of those matters.
The SPEAKER: Before I recognise the member for McMahon, has the minister finished his answer? He has. Therefore, there is no point for the point of order as the minister has completed his answer.
Mr Bowen: Madam Speaker, to assist the minister, I would like to table the International Monetary Fund report endorsing the previous government's levels of debt.
The SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. The member will resume his seat! The member for McMahon will not abuse the standing orders in that way again. The member for Grayndler on a point of order?
Mr Albanese: I seek leave to table my press release—
The SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. At this point of time, no.
Mr Albanese: You are allowed to seek leave to table documents, Madam Speaker, with respect. I am allowed to seek leave to table a document.
The SPEAKER: Is leave granted?
Mr Pyne: No.
Mr Albanese: You have not even heard what it is.
Mr Champion interjecting—
The SPEAKER: It doesn't matter. The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The member for Grayndler will state very briefly what it is he wishes to table.
Mr Albanese: My media release of Wednesday, 28 May 2008, that says we will honour the previous government's commitments—
The SPEAKER: No, you may not read it. The member will resume his seat! There is no point of order; leave is not granted. I would remind the member for Wakefield that he has been warned. Unless he wants to leave us again, he will remember that.
Broadband
Mr IRONS (Swan) (14:54): My question is to the Minister for Communications. I remind the minister that new construction first started in Victoria Park in my electorate in October 2011 when residents were informed they could expect services within 12 months. Will the minister provide an update on the progress of the NBN in Victoria Park and why it will be important to deliver the NBN sooner and more affordably for all Australians?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Minister for Communications) (14:54): I thank the honourable member for his question and I can well understand the frustration and disappointment of his constituents. There was a $31-billion black hole advised to the Labor government at the end of 2010 and, regrettably, quite a few truths have vanished into it.
One of them was the true state of the broadband rollout by the NBN. In fact, as the honourable member said, in October 2011 the then government announced that construction had commenced in East Victoria Park and Burswood. Two years later there is no ready-for-service premises in those areas. Indeed, despite barrels of propaganda, reams of leaflets and flyers, and lots of claims, on election day in total there were 34 brownfield premises in Perth connected to the fibre network, and across the whole state of Western Australia there were 75 brownfield premises connected. NBN connections in Western Australia have been as rare as sightings of Brian Burke.
In the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia, right now, as of today, there are 1,395 premises connected to the NBN brownfields fibre network—this is in the built-up, established areas—of which more than half were in the Willunga trial site that had been built in 2011. So over the last two years practically nothing has happened.
The honourable member asked me how can we make this more affordable and cost-effective, and the answer is to use a mix of technologies. How many times have honourable members heard me talk about the virtues of different technologies—fibre to the node, VDSL and so forth. The frustrating thing, as we all know, is that we make these powerful cases as advocates and we never change the minds of those opposite. But, Madam Speaker, sometimes you do. I was so gratified to receive a warm letter from the member for Adelaide on 27 September congratulating me on my appointment as minister and concluding:
Adelaide needs and deserves access to fibre-to-the-node (FTTN) broadband infrastructure, and I have pledged to do all that I can to ensure that they get it. I ask that you please use your appointment as the responsible minister to do the same.
On this point I will accede to the member for Adelaide's wishes: we will deliver a more cost-effective network. I table the honourable member's letter.
Sikh Mission Centre
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (14:58): My question is to the Minister for Social Services. I refer to the grant of $10,000 made by the former government to the Sikh Mission Centre to purchase new equipment for the community. Why is the government ignoring the needs of multicultural communities with its cuts and forcing them to face the Abbott axe?
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies—Minister for Social Services) (14:58): I indicate to the honourable member who asked the question—and indeed all honourable members of the chamber—that where contracts have not been executed, in the light of the Bowen black hole that we inherited, we will do what a prudent and sensible government would do and that is that we will review all of those matters. I repeat to her that, because matters have been promised in the context of an election campaign by the Labor Party, that does not mean that we have to honour those agreements. But in a situation where we have a $200 billion net debt, where we have a Labor Party that could not deliver a surplus for the whole of its six years in government—and, ask about as many of these grants as you like, the answer will be in exactly the same—we will act prudently and that means that we will review all of those matters.
Health
Mr PASIN (Barker) (14:59): My question is to the Minister for Health. Is the minister aware of a media report on 19 November on the News Corp Australia network highlighting the use of health budget resources for a Smokescreen Music Festival that never happened and a burnout competition? How is the government proposing to address waste in the health budget?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (14:59): Call me old fashioned but I thought the Minister for Health was responsible for helping sick people, for making sure that when patients turned up to emergency departments we could provide them with the services that they need, maybe even provide elective surgery for pensioners who are waiting for a hip replacement or a knee replacement, but no. That was not the approach of the previous minister.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney will desist.
Mr DUTTON: Again, the previous minister is a little touchy because she knows what is coming. Not only did the previous government take money away from chemotherapy services, not only did they promise superclinics that never saw patients, not only did they take money away from desperate patients but now we find out that they were providing money for burnout competitions here in Canberra. It is a great capital but should we be spending money on burnout competitions instead of providing services for patients across the whole country?
I will tell you what: under this government we will not tolerate this sort of waste and mismanagement. The former government left us with $370 billion of debt. I promise the Australian people that once we have cleaned up Labor's mess we will make sure that more patients get elective surgery. I will make sure that it is easier for patients to see their doctors. I want to make sure that, instead of spending money on this nonsense that Labor subscribed to to keep their union mates happy, we will spend it on patients instead. They grew the bureaucracy. They had 18 outside agencies in addition to the department and they were spending money on Facebook competitions and this sort of activity, which will not be tolerated under this government.
I will make sure that the health of this nation is put ahead of these sorts of ridiculous proposals and funding agreements that Labor entered into and I will deliver, as this government will, for the Australian patients.
Textor, Mr Mark
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (15:02): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to comments by Mr Mark Textor on the ABC before question time today. Why has not anyone from the government spoken to Mr Textor about his offensive remarks concerning Indonesia and will the Prime Minister now review all the contracts between the government and Mr Textor's company?
The SPEAKER: I call the honourable the Prime Minister. That question, I might say, goes very close to not being within the standing orders but I will let it stand and call the Prime Minister.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (15:02): They were tacky comments and they have been withdrawn and apologised for.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition is a bit slow off his feet, but what is the question?
Mr Shorten: Thanks for that compliment, Madam Speaker. I want to table the Mark Textor interview on the ABC at one o'clock today.
Leave not granted.
Superclinics
WYATT ROY (Longman) (15:03): My question is to the Minister for Health. I refer the minister to the Caboolture GP superclinic that was promised for my electorate more than three years ago. Can the minister update the House on the delays and the deceptions of the Caboolture GP superclinic and how that has affected the provision of health services in my electorate?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (15:03): I must say the GP superclinic was one of my favourite Labor programs—$650 million of taxpayers' money; first promised in 2007. Here we are in 2013 and there are still some that are in a planning stage, six years later. Can somebody explain to me how Labor presided over such incompetence in government? How did we spend money? How did our country get to a point where in the Health portfolio we are spending money on burnout competitions but not on patients? If anybody had any doubt about the incompetence of the Labor Party look no further than the former Minister for Health and Ageing.
Look at what Labor did in the portfolio. The member for Longman is a great local member. He has championed the cause of patients in his electorate over the course of the last five or six years. He wants to make sure that patients can get in to see a doctor. It is not a big ask. Do you know, Madam Speaker, that this clinic was first promised by the former government on 12 August 2010, indeed, during the 2010 election campaign. Here we are, three years later—people turning up to this vacant paddock expecting some sort of clinical services to be delivered, but it is not going to reach the standard. Doctors are not going to be able to practise in a vacant paddock because the planning stages are still underway. This is a government that will get on and provide services to patients. Contrast that to Labor's time in health when they promised so much and wasted so much, but they delivered so little.
I want to make sure that this does not continue, but I am worried about another site. At the last election the good people of Redcliffe, and right across that seat, delivered a great member to Petrie. They were sick of the promises that the former member made in relation to the superclinic—so called—on the Redcliffe Peninsular. It is also an interesting study. It started out as a $5 million promise. This was when the government of the day promised to give $5 million to a medical entrepreneur to set up one of these superclinics to compete with doctors who had already put their own capital at risk to deliver services. This program was completely devoid of any logic but, give it some time, and does it get better? No. Five million dollars were promised initially and then the cost blew out to $13.2 million.
Let us try to average this across the number of patients who have been seen in the service, which would be okay if, let us say, a million patients had been seen since that time. The problem with the GP superclinic in Redcliffe is that after $13.2 million and six years, it has not seen a patient. Not one! I said to my office: how can we calculate $13.2 million over zero patients? Of course we cannot because this is a testament to the incompetence of the previous Labor government. We will fix up Labor's mess and we will get the health system in this country back on track.
Budget
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (15:06): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's commitment before the election that under the coalition there would be no cuts to health, no cuts to education and no change to pensions. Will the Prime Minister confirm, irrespective of what his 'commission of cuts' recommends, that health, education and the pension are safe from the Abbott axe?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (15:07): I am very happy to get that question and I am very happy to say to the Leader of the Opposition and members opposite that we stand by all our election commitments. I know that surprises members opposite because they never stand by any of theirs. I know they have made repeated pre-election claims only to dishonour them post election. But I want to put their minds at ease: we stand by all our pre-election commitments and we will deliver on all our pre-election commitments.
Budget
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (15:08): My question is to the Assistant Minister for Defence. I remind the minister that the electorate of Brisbane holds significant defence industry facilities operated by Boeing, GE and Thales and employing hundreds of local people. Can the minister describe how the government is helping to support Australia's defence industry and reverse the effects of the previous government's budget cuts?
Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Assistant Minister for Defence) (15:08): Let me thank the honourable member for Brisbane, a former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence in a former outstanding coalition government and someone who actually stands up for her defence community.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: There is too much noise on my left. The member for Wakefield will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a).
The member for Wakefield then left the chamber.
Mr ROBERT: Labor has hit a trifecta. Last week, we heard the defence secretary publicly confirming the truth that we on this side have known for so long—that your $25 billion of cuts have actually impacted significantly. Yesterday, we learnt the former Minister for Defence, Stephen Smith, was reported as saying that defence reforms could not be fulfilled because of the axe Labor took to defence. Today, a leading defence industry body, the Defence Teaming Centre, said that the former Minister for Defence, Stephen Smith, following the pre-election of Kevin Rudd, transitioned from disinterested to disengaged. It sounds a bit like former Minister Conroy in the previous government. He was so disengaged he only connected 75 premises in all of Western Australia. The Defence Teaming Centre went on further to say that following the announcement of the election by former Prime Minister Gillard, a decision paralysis fell upon the government and the flow of work almost ceased. The white paper came out with a promise of a defence capability plan and a defence industry policy statement but neither of those were delivered. That is the way industry viewed the former Labor government—dismal and a mess. Six thousand jobs were lost because of their cuts to defence, a massive capability deficit and acquisitions pushed out to the never-never.
We know there is a better way. This government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, is taking a funding envelope to defence and that funding envelope says that there will be no cuts to the defence budget, as opposed to the $25 billion the former Labor government took out. There will be no cuts to the defence budget. We will take defence spending as a proportion of GDP back to two per cent. Where is it now? It is 1.56 per cent, the lowest level since 1938, and any savings will be reinvested. We will ensure that the ADF is equipped wherever possible by Australian made goods, consistent with getting good value for taxpayers' money. We will make it clear that Australian businesses will be given every opportunity to compete for work because under this government Australia is back in business. Under this government, defence is back to being funded. Under this government, we will get things done.
Mr Abbott: After 23 questions, as I am advised, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (15:12): I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr ALBANESE: I do.
The SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Mr ALBANESE: The Sydney Morning Herald's website today quotes Mr Max Moore-Wilton, the chairman of the Sydney Airports Corporation, accusing me of fabrication over my suggestion in this House last night that when he was Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in 2002 he would have known about conditions, including a curfew, a movement cap, guaranteed access for regional airlines and a first right of refusal that were applied to the sale of Sydney airport. Mr Moore-Wilton is quoted in this report as calling me a 'grub' and as saying:
Certainly it was not an issue I was involved in.
The facts are these. In a question on notice to a Senate budget estimates committee hearing dated 26-27 May 2003, Senator John Faulkner asked when cabinet had discussed the sale of the airport and whether Mr Moore-Wilton was present. The response from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet said that full cabinet discussed the sale of the airport on 12 December 2000, 26 March 2001, 24 September 2001 and 11 March 2002. The department reported, and I quote from Hansard:
Mr Moore-Wilton attended all four meetings of Cabinet.
I seek leave to table the question on notice and the answer.
The SPEAKER: Is leave granted?
Mr Truss: It is an answer to a question on notice.
Mr ALBANESE: It is 2003. It will make it easier for them find in the Senate.
The SPEAKER: Leave is granted.
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:14): I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Ms PLIBERSEK: I do.
The SPEAKER: Would the member show where she has been misrepresented.
Ms PLIBERSEK: The Minister for Health said that I took money away from cancer patients when I was the health minister. In fact, spending on new cancer medicines increased dramatically under my watch. In fact, more than 30 new medicines were listed on the PBS for 17 different types of cancers and no patient ever paid more than $36.10 for medicines subsidised under the PBS.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (15:15): Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Taxation
The SPEAKER (15:15): I have today received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition concerning a discussion of a matter of public importance, namely:
The Government prioritising tax breaks for some of the largest corporations in the world while cutting payments, assistance and tax breaks for small businesses, families, workers and the most vulnerable across Australia.
I call upon those members who support that proposition to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, under standing order 46(e) I move:
That the business of the day be called on.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
The House divided. [15:20]
(The Speaker—Hon. Bronwyn Bishop)
BILLS
Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
True-up Shortfall Levy (General) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
True-up Shortfall Levy (Excise) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill 2013
Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates and Other Amendments) Bill 2013
Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill 2013
Consideration in Detail
Debate resumed.
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (15:24): I will continue my contribution. Let us consider the cost of the carbon tax on the people of Corangamite. In Geelong, perhaps the most carbon intensive city in the country, the carbon tax is causing damage. We are home to many trade exposed companies—Ford, Boral, Shell and Alcoa—and a region extremely dependent on agriculture and manufacturing. In our region thousands of jobs have been lost or are under threat. The carbon tax is a cost of doing business and it is hampering our region's capacity to thrive and to prosper. Consider what it is doing to our farmers, food processors and timber mills. The carbon tax is costing every dairy farmer on average $7,500 a year.
On 10 September 2013 the member for Corio told Sky News: 'We do need to acknowledge the fact that Tony Abbott won the election and we lost.' Today members opposite must acknowledge that fact. Australian voters elected our government with a mandate to axe the carbon tax, to reduce costs for businesses and households, to boost jobs and to restore Australia's international competitiveness. I am proud to be a member of a government which is committed to abolishing the carbon tax.
Ms MacTIERNAN (Perth) (15:25): I believe that the Prime Minister will go down as the Neville Chamberlain of the climate change crisis. You may remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, that as World War II was brewing Neville Chamberlain went over and saw the Fuehrer and came back and said, 'I've got all this sorted—no problem.' He told the people to go home and to get a nice, quiet sleep. Well, I believe that is exactly what the Prime Minister is telling us to do, that we have got nothing to worry about, that we do not have to make any changes to the way we do things, we should just go home and have a nice quiet sleep.
We have had many of those on the other side tell us about problems from the financial impost that has occurred to people in their electorates. It is true that any change in the economy does cause some pain, some adjustment. That is the way of the world. But it can be managed, and it has been demonstrated that it can be managed. We have had members opposite saying it does not work. We have seen a 6.1 per cent reduction in our emissions from electricity generation but at the same time our economy continued to grow. We have had this really naive expression that we are running against the tide by putting in place a carbon price. This is the bit that I find really extraordinary. Just as we are seeking to remove any pricing on carbon, what do we see around the world? We see that next week Beijing and Shanghai will both sign up and commence the operation of a carbon emission scheme. They will be joining Shenzheng and Guangzhou, which have already got an emissions trading scheme. That actually encompasses more than 50 million people—more than twice the population of Australia. But we keep saying that no-one else is doing this. It is really interesting to see what has been actually happening in China. They chose seven cities to start off with to have an emissions trading scheme. There was concern among some of those seven cities that by the scheme being confined to them industry in those areas would be tempted to relocate to unaffected provinces. However, the very opposite appears to be occurring. According to reports, some Chinese regions that have not been included in the ETS trial are now putting their hands up and saying that they want to join in too.
I think there are profoundly strong economic arguments, putting aside all the environmental arguments that we have heard. This is a matter of fitting our economy up. The sorts of adjustments we had to make in the 1980s when we were floating the dollar, when we were removing the tariff barriers, do require adjustment and there is a measure of pain. But ultimately that is what we have to do to get our economy in shape. We see countries now around the world and areas around the world embracing ETSs. Very interestingly, the American states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont talk about introducing their emissions trading scheme early, with the emphasis on learning and moving towards a more mature scheme, just as they did in the EU. They call it the 'learning by doing' phase. All these countries around the world are moving to an ETS—moving slowly, with a modest price on carbon, which is what we want. We want to align ourselves with the EU and the schemes that are coming on in all those Canadian provinces and US states. We need to do that. We need to work out how you do it. We need to be part of this global development that is happening. It is happening. As I say, next week it is Beijing and Shanghai.
What we are seeing here is not only the most appalling act of appeasement, an appalling betrayal of the Australian people which will end in disaster, but also an act of economic vandalism. It is taking us backwards. We need to accept that there is going to be a more carbon-constrained reality and make the adjustments that are necessary to do it now. (Time expired)
WYATT ROY (Longman) (15:31): The repeal of Labor's carbon tax demonstrates a new government on the front foot, a government which was elected with a clear and absolute mandate to liquidate the carbon tax. The Australian people have spoken, and this government is determined to give swift or, should the need arise, resolute effect to their voice. For, while the Labor Party seems set on playing some obstructionist political game or is otherwise bizarrely committed to hurting Australian families and businesses through higher electricity and gas prices, the coalition government will see this through. We will not stop until this toxic tax is disposed of. The reasons are simple, painfully simple.
With the carbon tax, the Australian people have been in equal parts mugged and taken for mugs. Julia Gillard declared there would be no carbon tax under a government she led. Later, her predecessor-cum-successor, Kevin Rudd, would proclaim that he had 'terminated' the carbon tax—another false utterance from the former Labor Prime Minister. Now we have the Leader of the Opposition on the one hand saying that he indeed intends to 'terminate' the carbon tax, yet at the same time he proposes to oppose the government's repeal of legislation that would satisfy this very objective. Work that one out.
Australians are tired of trying to work out or work through this unfathomable labyrinth of lies from those opposite. They are weary of the hubris and spin, while the reality of the carbon tax comes home to them every day. These families, pensioners, retirees and small businesses have all seen their electricity and gas bills surge. That the carbon tax has been a chief contributing factor is beyond question. Right from October 2012, with the release of the first quarterly consumer price index figures following its inception, we have felt it. Those numbers revealed an immediate 15.3 per cent rise in electricity prices, while the cost of household gas and miscellaneous fuel jumped by 14.2 per cent. The hike in these quarterly bills was the largest we have ever seen.
My electorate of Longman lies about 45 minutes north of Brisbane, where the big employers are retail, small business, tourism and light industry. In the 12 months prior to this year's federal election, business after business showed me the face of genuine fear, and, in every instance, the carbon tax was central to their anguish. One shop owner in Burpengary told me of surrendering $1,300 a month in higher input costs associated with the carbon tax. Another key local manufacturer forecast a $30,000 rise in electricity charges directly attributable to the carbon tax. And a Caboolture based refrigerated fruit and vegetable carrier had been belted by a substantial increase in refrigerant gas costs due directly to the carbon tax. If the 44th Australian Parliament does not stop Labor's carbon tax from running to schedule and being applied to heavy vehicle diesel fuel from 1 July next year, this great local enterprise will be beaten up once again.
What ultimately emerges is a flow-on of the costs of the carbon tax for transport and storage to groceries, and every family will be paying more at the check-out. Unsurprisingly, these conditions have fanned a crisis of confidence, which, in turn, has knocked the health of the economy even more. During the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, Longman's unemployment rate more than doubled, from 3.06 per cent to 7.86 per cent. The youth unemployment rate skyrocketed from 4.3 per cent to 11.4 per cent. New taxes and increasing taxes do not create more jobs. This is a tax that hurts jobs and pushes up the cost of living. There is a better way, a smarter way, a more successful way, and the coalition government is prepared to lead the way.
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (15:36): We on this side of the House accept the fact that climate change is real and we accept the science on this, which is in stark contrast to those opposite. We accept the scientific facts that are clearly telling us that human activity is causing climate change and will continue to grossly affect our economy and our way of life. We accept that and we accept the need to be taking action. And, because we accepted that and knew that we needed to act, in government we did act. I will remind the previous speaker, the member for Longman, of the comprehensive assistance packages that we had in place. So we made sure that we acted, but we also had an assistance package there for many people. Indeed, many people in my electorate received comprehensive amounts of assistance in relation to the policies that we brought in.
The truth is that a price on carbon pollution can work and has been working. Yet now this government is removing effective action on reducing carbon emissions. That is exactly what they are doing. It is irresponsible and it really is representative of this government's environmental vandalism and lack of understanding of the need to act effectively to combat dangerous climate change.
This bill, the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, that is being put forward by the Prime Minister and the Liberal-National Party really dismantles our nation's scientific and very rational approach to tackling climate change. We on this side of the House know that it is vitally important to be taking that action for future generations, and not just for our environment but for our economy. The two are linked and indeed they support one another.
This is a view expressed by many people in my electorate of Richmond. I am very fortunate to have many very committed local individuals and groups who, for a long time, have strongly advocated for government to take action on climate change. That is why, when in government, we did act. And those same constituents in my electorate are bitterly disappointed about the actions now of the Abbott government and have expressed that to me on many occasions.
We see, nationwide and internationally, every day, more and more, the impacts of climate change. We see the massively varied weather patterns, oceans rising and increases in natural disasters. In many ways, this bill sums up this new government's attitude to the science of climate change. They are indeed a party of climate change deniers. Even in the face of the overwhelming scientific evidence emerging that mankind is directly contributing to the increasing pace of global warming, what do they do? They just do not believe it; they ignore it and refuse to take effective action. As we know from the Prime Minister's own words, he thinks it is 'absolute crap'. That is his summation of it. So this bill is not just about their actions in trying to stop carbon pricing; it is really representative of their obsession surrounding climate change denial.
What is also really distressing about this bill is that it is not just repealing the pricing of carbon. It is also going to be dismantling the Climate Change Authority, a really important body set up to give independent and scientific advice on renewable energy and on caps and targets on carbon pollution to the government.
The bill is also abolishing the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, a really important body that was set up to help get new commercial renewable projects started, to provide fantastic financing and incentives in all those important areas. Indeed, this bill will severely damage the clean energy industry—an industry that Australia takes great pride in and excels in. But all we hear from those opposite is about their so-called direct action; I think it is more 'direct inaction', with their bizarre policies of magic trees and magic soils which just will not work.
Let us compare ourselves to the rest of the world. Throughout the world we see that many countries are taking action on climate change through emissions trading schemes. More than 30 other countries have carbon pricing schemes. In fact, as we have heard from other speakers today, China has an emissions trading scheme set up in many of its provinces, Germany has an ETS, the United Kingdom has an ETS and France has an ETS. Even many states in the USA are now legislating to introduce an ETS. So many other countries in the world are acting, and it really is quite embarrassing to see Australian now going backwards on what really was effective action to tackle climate change. Now that we are moving backwards it is quite embarrassing for us on the world stage.
On this side of the House, our position is to support the policy we took to the federal election: we wanted to terminate the carbon tax and introduce an emissions trading scheme. Of course, those amendments were refused earlier in the day, but we are absolutely committed to making sure we have an emissions trading scheme. We know that moving towards that and having that market based system is the most effective way to be tackling climate change. That is the action that we should be taking.
In the closing moments, I will talk about some of the long-term economic benefits for places in my area, the North Coast of New South Wales, and for places just above that in South-East Queensland. We will rely in our future on tourism, and we need to take action to make sure we protect the very pristine environment that we have there. So I do find it absolutely remarkable that members of this House are not working with us to make sure we protect the environment for the future.
Dr HENDY (Eden-Monaro) (15:41): I rise in support of the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013. During the whole of the campaign in the year leading up to the election on 7 September, the abolition of the carbon tax was one of the key campaign issues in Eden-Monaro. I told the electorate that if I were elected the first principal speech I would make after the election, after my maiden speech, would be on the abolition of the carbon tax, and that is why I am rising to speak today. So this was an issue that was central to the policy debate in Eden-Monaro over the last three years but especially in the last five weeks of the election campaign. Everyone on this side who has spoken has informed or re-informed the House that, in the 2010 election—indeed, it was on 16 August 2010, just five days before the election—former Prime Minister Gillard said, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' And the member for Lilley, who at that stage was the Treasurer of Australia, said on 15 August: 'No, it is not possible that we are bringing in a carbon tax. That is a hysterically inaccurate claim being made by the coalition.' The fact is that the election was a referendum on the carbon tax. The coalition won with a mandate to abolish it, and that is what we are doing here today and I hope it will pass the Senate once it has passed the House of Representatives.
As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, I am an economist by profession. In fact, I am proud to say that I am a Commonwealth Treasury trained economist. I am also a former chief executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and, as such, I know about economics from a business point of view as well. And I know that the carbon tax does not work as an economic concept. I know that there are a lot of economists around Australia and in other parts of the world who say, 'The carbon tax is the best economic alternative to deal with emissions reduction, to deal with the climate change issue.' But, frankly, they are not right, because they do not take account properly of the international marketplace. And the fact is that a carbon tax, an emissions trading scheme, will not work unless there is a comprehensive treaty arrangement across the world of the major emitters such that they all implement a carbon tax at the same time, basically at the same carbon price. It will not work. And the reason is because the market—the business community across the world—will game the system.
We are basically the only country in the world with a comprehensive carbon tax; we all know that. We know that the scheme in Europe is only a partial emissions trading scheme across the carbon production sectors of the economy of Europe. We know that what is being done in the US is an infinitesimally small part of the emissions-producing part of the sector in the United States. We know that in China—people have been talking about China today—it is only an infinitesimally small part of the Chinese economy that is producing emissions. If you do not have a comprehensive international agreement, a carbon tax in Australia does not work.
That is why we have proposed that it be abolished, that is why we have a direct action plan that will, in a market based system—what we call a 'reverse auction' system—actually fund those programs that will work to reduce emissions. That is why we are setting up an emissions reduction fund. That is the way to go about dealing with the climate change issue, because that will be a system that will work—to fund directly emissions reduction initiatives—as opposed to a carbon tax, which will only damage the Australian economy and not help it. I support the bill.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (15:46): The previous speaker said that he was an economist. Let me quote from Professor Ross Garnaut, vice-chancellor, fellow and professorial research fellow in economics at the University of Melbourne, and author of Dog Days: Australia after the boom. He says, specifically on this question, in an article in today's paper:
It would lead to larger sacrifices of productivity than would be necessary with broadly based carbon pricing. It would lead either to much higher costs later in the decade or to Australia breaching its commitments to the international community and damaging its own interest in the global mitigation effort.
I think that Professor Garnaut is indeed an authority on this very subject, and he makes the point very well that if we do not proceed with action right now it will cost us much more dearly in the years to come.
This is a matter that is truly a debate about climate change being dressed up as a debate about tax for no other reason than political expediency and for the member for Warringah to become Prime Minister of Australia. By dressing it up as a debate about tax, what we are doing is diminishing the true issue and diminishing the reports of thousands of scientists around the world who have been telling us for decades that climate change is real, that climate change is resulting partially from the emissions of greenhouse gases around the world and that human activity is in fact contributing to those emissions.
The government has had to trivialise that debate in order to get back to turning it into a debate about carbon tax. The problem with that is that what we are doing as a nation is effectively walking away from our responsibility not only to the Australian people but to people right across the world. So much so, that this has been a matter that has been the subject of international discussions and debate for years and years. Right now, there is a conference taking part in Warsaw in Poland, and this government could not even see fit to send a minister of government to those discussions—such is the gravity of this issue.
Mr Deputy Speaker, if you accept the science—and this side of the House does—then this truly is the most serious issue facing Australia and the rest of the world. If you do not accept the science, then clearly it is not. It has been part of the government's strategy to undermine the science by running with many of the commentators who are prepared to diminish the work of scientists who have worked in this field for years. Even the most recent report of the IPCC confirms the findings of previous reports. The work of scientists that has been peer reviewed time and time again is supported every time there is another report.
Labor's position on this is very clear: we said from the outset that we are prepared to abolish the price on carbon that we had set. But we are prepared to do it only if the government is prepared to take appropriate and responsible steps in place of abolishing that, because if you do not, what you are doing is simply offloading the burden onto future generations. I want to talk about that burden just for a moment, because one of the primary arguments of members opposite is to talk about the cost to society as a result of the price on carbon that the former Gillard government put on.
What about the cost to society of doing nothing? The cost to society that arose after the 11 or 12 years of serious drought in the Murray-Darling Basin, that ran into billions of dollars? The cost to society every time there is a cyclone, a flood or a bushfire in this country? What is the cost to society of allowing this issue to go unchecked, when we know full well that it is going to have dramatic and drastic effects on our health costs in this country? What about all of those costs? If you factored those into account, then the reality is that with the cost to society it is much better to tackle the problem than to walk away from it.
We know that the government's response to this now is a policy of direct action—a policy that cannot be measured, a policy that nobody supports, a policy that will not achieve the targets and a policy that in reality comes at a greater cost than the price on carbon placed by the Gillard government was to families around Australia—a cost of $1,200 and more to each and every family in this country. (Time expired)
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson—The Nationals Deputy Whip) (15:51): After the hot air that we have heard on this it is time for some clarity, time for some common sense and time for some understanding of exactly what this debate is. There has been a lot of confusion that was born in the creation of the carbon tax, because the Labor Party played the hokey-pokey game on this. Before the 2010 election the carbon tax was out, then after the 2010 election the carbon tax was in, and then before the 7 September election the carbon tax was out again, but now they are here telling us it is in. So you can understand why there has been a lot of confusion about this debate.
In essence, what we are debating is a very simple premise, and that is that this carbon tax is going to help save the planet by raising costs. It will not surprise you to know that I dispute that premise on many levels, but I think it is vitally important that we realise from the start that it is confusing two very different debates. The first involves science and the second involves economics. First, there is the debate on science, which I believe has created an extraordinarily unscientific reaction around the globe. Science is always about ongoing inquiry and understanding, whereas the global warming debate has been characterised as one between good and evil—and we have heard that here today from the members opposite. That fits in perfectly with their hokey-pokey, kindergarten approach to politics, but for the grown-ups in the room it is certainly not objective. And from where I stand the greatest crime in this debate has been the demonisation of anyone who has the temerity to question any aspect of the theory of man-made climate change.
Just as those who subscribe to the anthropogenic climate change theories cannot be 100 per cent sure of their belief, I also cannot state categorically that I know there is no link between emissions and the climate. I do have doubts, and those doubts stem from the well-publicised antics of some of the climate scientists out there that were exposed in 'climategate', where they expressed private concerns over the negligible increase in global temperatures—in fact, there has been no increase statistically in global temperatures over the last 15 or 16 years—but then set about altering their statistics to try and prove the opposite.
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, which is not influenced by the need to secure government funds, has published a report called Climate change reconsidered. That report showed that the science is nowhere near to being settled. They were reputable scientists—
Mr Zappia: It wasn't peer reviewed.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: Just like the IPCC report is not peer reviewed—it is not, mate. The reports that come out are not peer reviewed. This is a document by real climate scientists who say that there is doubt about the science and the so-called science that we hear that is out there. But I want to get onto the economics because this is an area where the facts really are indisputable, and we do not need peer reviews to know that. The member who spoke before mentioned Professor Garnaut. Well, Professor Garnaut had an interesting quote from his report when he dreamed this whole mess up for the Labor Party. What he said was:
Regional communities and industries are likely to be more vulnerable to these impacts than urban centres, due to their reliance on agriculture and other natural resource-based industries.
He is right because in my electorate there is mining, agriculture and tourism, and this tax is suffocating all three industries. In mining the picture is very bleak. We have had 9,000 jobs cut across Queensland and New South Wales, many of them in the Bowen Basin, over the last 18 months. There is an undeniable link between the carbon tax and those job losses. Rio Tinto called it an unfair tax on Australian exporters. It is equally devastating for farmers in my electorate. Cane growers have come out against it, saying it adds significantly to the bottom line costs of cane farming businesses. The Queensland horticulture based body Grocom also predicted that a carbon emissions trading scheme—which these guys want this carbon tax to evolve into—could raise farm costs by about 1.15 per cent by 2020. Any addition to the bottom line of farms is not a good thing and it risks farmers going to the wall. Tourism is equally at risk. A new study by AEC Group research, commissioned by Tourism Accommodation Australia, estimates that the carbon tax will add $115 million in costs to hotels and motels. So three industries in my electorate are going to be hit, and hit hard.
Labor's carbon tax is just wrong. It is probably wrong on the science. It is definitely wrong on the economics. I urge every member of the House to distinguish between the two. Enough of the hot air. Let's get rid of this dreadful carbon tax.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (15:56): It is my pleasure to follow the member for Dawson in this debate—somebody who I think exposes the real truth at the heart of the coalition's opposition to an emissions trading scheme. That opposition is not because they accept the science and dispute the economics. It is fundamentally because those opposite do not accept the science of climate change. The member for Dawson has been very clear about that. He thinks that 97 per cent of the world's scientists are wrong and he, instead, has the truth. I argued with the member for Canning on Twitter but eventually, about 20 tweets in, I just had to let him go because—
Mr Christensen: Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Is the member for Fraser willing to give way?
Dr LEIGH: No. I stopped the Twitter battle with the member for Canning at a certain point when I finally got bored, but he was taking on the Bureau of Meteorology. They are now, of course, responsible for the Bureau of Meteorology, but the member for Canning disputes the bureau's finding that Australia has just experienced the hottest summer on record, the hottest winter on record and is on track to experience the hottest year on record.
The time for political games is gone. If this House does not take serious action on climate change we are kicking it off to future generations, and those generations will pay a higher cost than we will today. Future generations will look very dimly upon this government that took away an effective, efficient way of reducing Australia's emissions and replaced it with an expensive, ineffective hodgepodge of measures. Ross Garnaut was asked about this on Lateline the other night. He said of direct action that it would be considerably more expensive and that getting rid of the carbon price has a significant negative impact on the budget. The impact on the budget of getting rid of the mining tax and the carbon price is, between them, $17 billion, which must be paid by higher taxes on workers. That is what those opposite believe. They believe the tax burden on polluters and mining billionaires should be lower and the tax burden on workers should be higher.
I was listening before to the member for Eden-Monaro with his economic views and I have to say I was thinking at the time of that great Chris Caton quote when a range of eminent Australian economists were asked their view on carbon pricing and 86 per cent strongly supported carbon pricing over direct action. As Chris Caton said, anyone who believes direct action is economically more sensible 'should hand his degree back'.
When the Leader of the Opposition was confronted with similar evidence—a survey of the Australian Conference of Economists showing a vast majority of economists in favour of carbon pricing—he said that maybe that was a comment on the 'quality of our economists' rather than on the quality of our policy, to which Joshua Gans responded that maybe it just said something about the quality of the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Hunt interjecting—
Dr LEIGH: We have the honourable member interjecting here, who wrote his very thesis on 'A tax to make the polluter pay' but has been willing to throw good economics out the window to score a political point! This is no small issue for this parliament. The cost of dealing with climate change will only rise. As the developed country with the highest level of per capita emissions, that cost will fall on future generations. This government is doing deep, deep damage to the country by getting rid of an emissions trading scheme and replacing it with a scheme which we know to be far more expensive.
We have had those opposite making claims that they have Nobel laureates supporting them. The member for Flinders named a series of Nobel laureates who supported Direct Action, but of course when contacted, those Nobel laureates had no support for the member for Flinders. Why? Because Nobel laureates like other economists recognise that a pricing system is the best way of dealing with climate change. There are plenty of economists who support climate change, but no credible economists that support Direct Action. It is more expensive, less effective and a punishment to future generations who will pay the price of this government's short-sighted decisions.
Mr PITT (Hinkler) (16:01): As a former farmer and small business owner I understand the many difficulties facing the sugar industry and the Hinkler business community more broadly. In a recent submission to government on the repeal of the carbon tax, Queensland cane growers advised that Labor's tax had increased the cost of production by $20 million since it was introduced, hurting the industry's international competitiveness.
Sugar cane is Queensland's largest agricultural crop by volume and value. With 80 per cent of Australia's sugar exported overseas, it is also Australia's seventh largest agricultural export. Australia's sugar exports were worth $1.4 billion last financial year, making us the third largest supplier in the world. The industry also employs 50,000 people, directly and indirectly.
Irrigators have been hardest hit by the carbon tax. Cane growers indicate that repealing the carbon tax will save them up to 10 per cent on their energy bills and save thousands of jobs. It will also bring significant supply chain benefits. The tax inflated the price of goods like fertiliser and chemicals. Industry research shows growers are paying up to 33 cents extra per tonne this financial year to produce the same crop they did in 2010-11, before the introduction of the tax. As cane growers are not able to pass the cost on to their international consumers, the increased cost of production is being paid for directly from the bottom line, in some cases leading to a reduction of wages and the loss of jobs. Cane growers have always opposed the carbon tax, and for good reason. Repealing Labor's carbon tax will go some way to helping restore profitability to the industry and provide workers with greater job security.
Despite the significant impact of the carbon tax and the relatively high trade exposure of the industry, sugar cane growers did not receive any assistance under the Clean Energy Futures package. The Queensland Cane Growers Organisation argues that they are the only sugar cane growers in the world to operate without some form of subsidy, trade barrier or market control. The only way Australia's cane farmers remain competitive by global standards is through constantly improving productivity and by containing the cost of production relative to cane producers in Thailand, Brazil and India.
Agribusiness contributes greatly to the economic viability of regional communities like Hinkler and that is why this government is committed to repealing the carbon tax. Like cane growers, Hinkler's horticulturalists are price-takers and not price-setters, which means they are unable to pass the cost of the carbon tax on to their markets. Peter Hockings, Executive Officer at BFVG, recently told me his members were deeply concerned about their future under Labor's carbon tax. The tax has been the final nail in the coffin for many.
Many growers are eager to find ways to reduce their carbon footprint, but argue a tax is not the way to go about it. They, like this government, favour direct action, improving productivity and finding efficiencies. They are paying more for fertiliser, more to transport their products to market, and more to dispose of their organic waste material. As well as the increased cost of electricity for irrigators, our growers are paying more for their cold storage.
Our farmers are not the only ones paying more for refrigerant gases. Businesses like the Woodgate Beach General Store, which services a small community, have taken a big hit. Owners, Barry and Rose, are looking to retire and know their prospects for selling the business will be better without a carbon tax. Businesses and community groups already running on tight budgets are feeling the pinch. The carbon tax has impacted on the cost of gas in the bowls club. It affects the electricity costs for the ice-makers who supply our commercial and recreational fishermen. It has increased costs for the local library and community hall.
But the strong opposition to Labor's tax does not stop there. Allow me to read just one of the many letters my office received in relation to the carbon tax, which said:
l am contacting you to express my concern of the impending rise in the cost of living and loss of industry when the carbon tax is introduced.
As a senior Australian I am finding that my dollar does not perform in the supermarket, petrol bowser or when paying rates.
I am fearful that the increased costs levelled at councils, through the introduction of the carbon tax, will mean I will have trouble finding the funds to meet the financial demands of life.
Being a baby boomer, I bought an investment property in Maryborough, as our superannuation would only support us for about six months in retirement.
There is no work for people my age in Hervey Bay and unfortunately, because we now have an investment property asset, we are not entitled to any Centrelink benefit and miss out on government assistant packages.
To gain employment we left the Bay in 2011 to pursue seasonal work. We cannot afford this tax and I ask that you take steps to prevent its introduction.
I am pleased to say, Madam Speaker, that the removal of the carbon tax in 2014-15 will save households around $550 a year. At the election, the people voted overwhelmingly for change. It was a referendum on the carbon tax and a referendum on Labor's $9 billion a year hit to the Australian economy.
The SPEAKER: I call the honourable member for Port Adelaide, but just for 20 seconds.
Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide) (16:06): In 20 seconds, what can I say, Madam Speaker? This is a very sad day for the lower House of the parliament. There was a great opportunity here for us to find a middle ground.
The SPEAKER: Order! It being seven minutes past four, the time allotted for consideration in detail has passed.
Bills agreed to.
Third Reading
The SPEAKER (16:07): The question now is that these bills be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a third time.
GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH
Address-in-Reply
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the Address be agreed to.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (16:11): Three years ago I delivered my maiden speech in this place. Since that time I have spoken on many occasions because of my very firm view that this chamber is the very heart of representative politics. During the last term of parliament we heard constantly of the so-called 24-hour news cycle, but can I say that, as important as a free and vibrant media is to our democracy, it is this parliament that is and must be the real bastion of debate. Madam Speaker, I was pleased with your comments last week that this chamber is a place for robust and spirited debate where that debate is not hindered and blinkered by those who would hide behind standing orders rather than come to this place ready to openly debate the issues of the day.
What issue could be more important today in this first session of a new parliament than the central issue of the election campaign in which the Labor-Greens alliance was comprehensively defeated—the central issue of the carbon tax and its repeal? Australians understand the concept of a fair go. They also understand that when they have voted to reject a government as clearly as they did some weeks ago that the incoming government will implement its policies. It is as simple as that. How tawdry is this opposition in denial, refusing to accept that the people of Australia have spoken and contemptuous of the public will? This opposition needs to be reminded that on 7 September we had an election, the people spoke, the Labor government lost and their policies were rejected. My advice to the opposition is: if you do not want to be part of the debate on our nation's future, if all you want to do is prevent debate in this House, then get out of the way because this is a government with work to do, promises to keep and an economy to rebuild.
Three years ago I was humbled to receive the trust of almost 100,000 Ryan electors to be their representative in parliament. I am honoured to be here today, re-elected by the men and women of Ryan. The last three years have been both a great privilege and a challenge. From the outset my first term was met with Queensland's worst flooding in over 35 years. The January 2011 floods swept away many homes and lives. It was to the credit of the Ryan community, including the Defence Force, that residents achieved in just three days of clean-up what had taken three months after the 1974 floods.
The value of volunteers was truly displayed during the 2011 and 2013 summers of natural disasters. I have had the honour of acknowledging the work of many of the dedicated volunteers in my electorate through the Ryan Community Service Awards, which recognise the remarkable people in my electorate who devote their lives to their community across the full range of community needs, from mental health support for teenagers to teaching literacy skills to refugee families, local environment groups, and school and supporting organisations. Volunteers are the heart and soul of Australian communities. They are so often the difference between hope and despair. My years of involvement in my community in Red Cross, Zonta and so many other wonderful organisations, such as the Multicultural Development Association, prove this to me time and time again. I salute you all.
Within my electorate I support many hundreds of community organisations, and I want to take a moment to highlight three of them. These are the Glenleighden School, the McIntyre Centre, and the Hear and Say Centre. The Glenleighden School at Fig Tree Pocket encourages achievement over adversity, helping children overcome their impairments at a young age with the integration of multidisciplinary perspectives on intervention, including specialist teaching, speech language therapy, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, music therapy and psychology.
One mother who wrote to me described the Glenleighden School as a godsend. Without the school, its therapists and its supporting community she felt her son would have had no career, no future and no friends. Since sending her son to the Glenleighden School she has become a more positive mother, knowing that her son will one day thrive despite his disabilities. These sentiments are shared by many of the parents who have moved closer to and/or taken second jobs to put their children through Glenleighden, to ensure that their children receive the support and early intervention that they need.
The McIntyre Centre at Pinjarra Hills provide quality horse riding programs in a caring environment for young people and children with a disability for the purpose of enjoyment, recreation, sport, education and therapy. Each week 30 horses are provided for riding lessons for more than 170 people with varying disabilities. Operating six days a week, the McIntyre Centre have a dedicated team, including more than 100 hard-working volunteers, and with strong local business support they have had a real impact on helping young people with a disability develop an independent life and social skills.
The Hear and Say Centre is recognised as a global leader in teaching children who are deaf to listen and speak. It has one of the most prominent specialist paediatric hearing and implantable technology programs in the world. Hear and Say's goals are aligned with the coalition's national health goals—they deliver frontline early intervention and hearing services for more than 600 children and families. It is committed to quality health services for all Australians, irrespective of where they live. Indeed, almost 70 per cent of families now access Hear and Say services from outside Brisbane. I have been happy to provide my support to these and many other groups within Ryan, groups that really make a difference to those in need.
Let me talk about defence. I am an Australian who is proud of our defence forces. They stand ready to go to war as and when their nation directs. These young Australians put their lives on the line day after day for us, the people of Australia. During the previous term, I attempted to gain a better understanding of the challenges they face and the opportunities to improve their lot. Madam Speaker, as you and many of our colleagues on both sides of this chamber have done, I participated in exercises—in my case with our troops in Exercise Talisman Sabre off the Queensland coast, with the Black Hawk high altitude training in the north of Papua New Guinea, and in 2012 with our troops in Afghanistan. My respect for these great Australians grows with my every involvement. My father knows the challenges of war and of prisoner of war camps; my son is a serving officer. But it is these interactions and my involvement with Gallipoli Barracks in Ryan and my local RSLs that serve as constant reminders of the contribution our service men and women have made and continue to make on our behalf, of the sacrifices of their families and the never-ending obligation that we all have to be steadfast in our support.
In Ryan, I particularly note the remarkable service of the men and women based at Gallipoli Barracks at Enoggera. They are part of our Ryan community and we are proud to have them, just as I am proud to be part of a government that has such a strong commitment to protecting our national interests and supporting our servicemen and women and, significantly, supporting our veterans. And, as we talk about our veterans, I am reminded that in my maiden speech I spoke of the importance of indexing the DFRDB and DFRB so that Australia's defence personnel entitlements better reflect the contributions and sacrifices they have made. I was disappointed to see that the Labor-Greens coalition, when in government, refused the opportunity to adopt a bipartisan policy of fair indexation of DFRDB and DFRB in a similar manner to the age and service pension models. By 2010 there had already been six parliamentary inquiries, all finding in favour of fair indexation. Instead, Labor imposed a carbon tax, driving up the cost of living with no compensation for our veterans. Shamefully, in June 2013 veterans received an increase of a mere 0.1 per cent.
I have had countless conversations, emails and letters from my constituents about fixing the deeply flawed and unfair Veterans' Pharmaceutical Reimbursement Scheme. Labor's plan created two classes of disabled veterans: those with qualifying service and those without. I have spoken to some of the most disabled veterans in my electorate who do not receive any assistance under this scheme and, as you could imagine, they are frustrated and angry. Nationally as many as 1,500 of our most disabled veterans are ignored under Labor's scheme. This is because they receive the special rate of TPI but do not have appropriate qualifying service as defined by the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. I am proud to be part of a coalition team with a real plan to fix this situation. Under our plan more than 80,000 disabled veterans would be provided with financial relief under a comprehensive Veterans' Pharmaceutical Reimbursement Scheme, where there will no longer be two classes of veterans and all veterans with a disability will have no out-of-pocket pharmaceutical expenses. Our plan reduces the unnecessary red tape surrounding veterans' reimbursements.
Politics has to move on from the focus-group and opinion-poll led decision making that characterised the last government. Some issues cry out for action. One of those is aged-care reform. Aged-care providers in my electorate tell me of their disappointment at the last government's neglect of their sector. After five years of that neglect, our aged-care system needs urgent change to meet the needs and financial circumstances of older Australians. Simply put, we owe those who have gone before us. Their contributions have been immense. They have built today's Australia. It is our duty to give yesterday's heroes—today's pensioners and self-funded retirees—a safe and secure retirement.
The increase in the cost of private health insurance, tax on superannuation, and the increased cost of living under the Labor government just made life more difficult for older Australians. Labor ignored many of the recommendations from the Productivity Commission's Caring for older Australians report of 2011. Aged-care sector workers have conveyed to me that they were fed up with resources continuing to be wasted and taxpayers' funds not being efficiently allocated due to clients having no or very limited input into choosing a provider. The coalition is committed to the most efficient, transparent and competitive superannuation system, and has pledged to the Australian people that there will be no surprise detrimental changes to superannuation under this coalition government.
While frontline service for aged care is important, so is research into the treatment of diseases facing our older population. The University of Queensland in my electorate is home to many world-class research institutes. Most recently I visited the Queensland Brain Institute, the leading neuroscience institute in the southern hemisphere, and their state-of-the-art centre for ageing and dementia research. Dementia, the greatest cause of disability in Australians aged 65 and over, is a broad term used to describe various medical conditions which damage brain cells and lead to a gradual loss of brain function. The Queensland Brain Institute's Clem Jones Centre for Ageing and Dementia Research aims to develop strategies to prevent or delay the onset of ageing dementia, as well as working to develop more sensitive and accurate diagnostic tools.
The previous Labor government failed to provide any further funding for the centre, Australia's only dedicated age and dementia research institute, at a time when, according to Access Economics, increasing funding from $23 million to $49 million per year could save Australia more than $4 trillion in the long term. I am delighted that the coalition has pledged $200 million over five years to dementia research, including $9 million to the CJCADR, demonstrating our commitment to this important work. I thank the Minister for Health, who is in the chamber now, for coming to the University of Queensland and recommitting that pledge for funding.
Papua New Guinea is one of our closest neighbours and I have strongly supported steps to improve maternal health there. Within my own electorate of Ryan local groups like the Moggill QCWA and Zonta prepare the much needed birthing kits for mothers in PNG and East Timor. During the April 2013 parliamentary delegation I met with AusAID and Sir Theophilus Constantinou, founder of the Theophilus Foundation, who is working in partnership with AusAID to improve maternal health at the Port Moresby General Hospital. The mothers in the new hospital wing spoke of the improved conditions for giving birth and the higher level of patient care they had received for both themselves and their new-born children. I am pleased to see that the Queensland government is also committed to supporting health care in PNG and will help in its fight to combat tuberculosis and other diseases by contributing support to the new hospital at Daru in the Western Province of the country.
Our region is where we live, it is where we have the most influence, it is where we can be a positive force for good. I have many good friends in Papua New Guinea, as I know you, Madam Speaker, do as well, and I have visited on many occasions over the last three years. On my visits I find a proud developing nation with one of the highest rates of growth in the world. PNG is a young nation sensitive to its place in the world, strongly committed to the nation state that is Papua New Guinea and to the building of its capacity in education and health, and to the growth of its physical infrastructure.
The new government in PNG is focused on that infrastructure renewal and financial transparency to deliver better economic outcomes for their people. The challenge facing PNG is to translate its notable economic growth into real development. The challenge for Australia is to understand that it is only the Papua New Guineans themselves who can bring about lasting change and we must constantly re-evaluate our aid program to ensure that we are enabling that change and helping to build the institutional capacity needed to build this remarkable nation. PNG is a good friend to Australia. As good friends to Papua New Guinea we must open our ears to local input about their future directions. I know, from my many discussions with Prime Minister Peter O'Neill; Foreign Minister Rimbink Pato; Treasurer Don Polye, the current chairman of the World Bank; and many others in government and elsewhere, that together we have a window of opportunity to generate real and beneficial change. But we must actively encourage local input into our aid priorities. I particularly acknowledge the work of Foreign Minister Pato as he works assiduously to build broader multilateral engagement in our region. Importantly, I want to place on record my appreciation of the work of High Commissioner Charles Lepani as he strongly represents his country here in Canberra.
Our regional relationships are important because we are in many ways defined not only by our own character but also by our community. Australia's community—our neighbourhood—brings together a remarkable mixture of cultures, traditions and friendships. This mix brings challenges, but it also brings an environment that enriches all of our cultures. However, we must always remember that we can only benefit from that environment if we open our hearts and our ears to the sensitivities and aspirations of our neighbours.
I look forward to another three years serving the people of Ryan in government. I am absolutely committed to being their voice in this place. I am honoured to represent them.
Debate adjourned.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
Hospitals
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (16:28): On indulgence, I wanted to add to a question that I provided to the chamber in question time today. I was asked a question in relation to a Victorian project. I stated:
The proposal was a $156 million proposal from the Victorian state government …
The figure is actually $165 million: it is a $165 million proposal from the Victorian state government. This has been the first available opportunity to correct the record.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (16:29): I move:
That the House do now adjourn.
Education Funding
Ms KATE ELLIS (Adelaide) (16:30): I rise this afternoon to talk about the importance of education reform and to speak about how a stable needs based funding system is absolutely central to improving student outcomes.
The education reforms that Labor put in place were founded on evidence. They were founded not only on the evidence of why reform was needed but also on the evidence of why reform is so important to Australia's future. We know that students from disadvantaged backgrounds are up to three years behind their classmates. We know that one in 12 of them is not meeting minimum standards for reading, writing and maths. And we know that the impacts of educational disadvantage can be life-long, with the OECD finding that 60 per cent of all unemployed Australians are not literate enough to operate effectively in the modern global economy.
I am incredibly proud that our government acted and introduced important school reforms such as putting in place a system to deliver $14.65 billion of increased funding over the next six years, stopping state education cuts, of which we have all seen far too many, and making sure that needs based funding distribution provides the greatest assistance to those students who need it the very most.
The current Minister for Education spent the best part of three years railing against the extensive process that Labor undertook in government to reform our school system. Rather than confronting our declining educational attainment, the minister discredited the views of the experts who contributed to all of this hard work. And rather than backing reform to secure the high skill, high paying jobs of the future, he resisted improvement at every opportunity. He described the Gonski review as a con—as 'conski', which he no doubt thought was very clever. He stood by our broken school funding system on countless occasions.
Just this year the now education minister declared: 'The current funding model does work. It's not a broken model.' And as late as July, he said:
The coalition does not believe the current funding model is broken. I'm not prepared to simply accept that it is broken because it isn't.'
But, luckily for all of us and lucky for the children and students of Australia, on 29 August, just nine days before the election, the now education minister stood beside the now Prime Minister and said:
You can vote Liberal or you can vote Labor and you'll get exactly the same amount of funding for your school.
The Prime Minister also stated that he would work to 'honour the agreements that Labor has made'. In that moment, the coalition admitted that the system they had defended for so long was indeed broken. They admitted that we must have a needs based funding system if we are to improve student outcomes. The coalition wanted their policy conversion to appear complete and unrestrained so the now Prime Minister assured the Australian public that he was 'on a unity ticket' with Labor when it came to school funding. I absolutely intend to hold the government to this commitment that was made by the Prime Minister.
I agree with the Minister for Education that reform is not just about money, although all the effort and good will in the world will not improve outcomes unless adequate resources are attached and reaching the students who need them. But it is all about how that money is used and ensuring that the agreement that the now government assured us that they would hold people to, and all of the requirements in those agreements, are enforced—that is, that this extra funding is needs based, and that we have reformed the funding system and the education model.
Our education reforms are about stopping further state cuts to the budget. There is no point in putting money in the front door just to have it disappear out the back door. There is no point in the Commonwealth government putting in extra dollars if state governments are allowed to continue to cut education funding. It is also about five key areas where we must achieve higher. They are: quality teaching, quality learning, empowered school leadership, transparency and accountability, and meeting student needs.
With less than a dozen weeks to go before the start of the 2014 school year, students in every school around the country are expecting to start seeing increased funding and needs based funding. Much of that extra investment must be targeted to students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, to Indigenous students, to small and remote schools, and to students with limited English skills. For the government to honour their commitment, this funding must reach schools in 2014 but it must reach schools in the manner in which it was structured in the agreement. This government must enforce that this is needs based real education reform.
Ukrainian Famine
Mr RUDDOCK (Berowra—Chief Government Whip) (16:35): Madam Speaker, this is the first occasion in which I have had the opportunity to formally congratulate you on your appointment. I do take that opportunity and I am delighted to see you in the chair. Today I rise to acknowledge on behalf of the government the 80th anniversary of the Ukrainian Holodomor, which will be commemorated by the Ukrainian communities this Saturday. The Prime Minister has sent a message to mark this tragic anniversary and has asked that I convey his sentiments when I speak today on this matter.
Between 1932 and 1933 there was an appalling famine which gripped Ukraine. It resulted in the deaths of 3.5 million people and probably many more. The aggressive implementation of forced collectivisation and five-year plans across the USSR immediately prior to this period had a profoundly significant impact on the productivity of Ukrainian farms and the availability of food. The Prime Minister described this man-made famine as one of the 'cruellest acts in history'. By 1932 annual harvest yields had halved. The significant drop in the availability of the particular grains had a swift consequence in rural areas and by mid-1932 mass starvation was occurring.
USSR authorities initially promoted a propaganda campaign that targeted the way in which their policies were operating. These campaigns presented that rural workers, against their urban counterparts, were inefficient counterrevolutionaries responsible for disruptions to food supplies.
By late 1932, however, the famine had spread to urban areas of the Ukraine and by the 1932-33 winter and the spring of 1933 at least several million more people had starved. According to some estimates, by 1933 25,000 were dying every day from hunger. Many resorted to desperate acts in attempts to survive and to preserve the lives of their children. Contemporaneous photographs document the scale of these losses and the significance across the Ukraine. Fully clothed bodies can be clearly identified, lying across footpaths and roads where they fell. Whilst hunger killed most, disease as a result of decaying remains and the general disintegration of the public system of health took many more. It is important to note that the loss of life during the Holodomor was not simply confined to those who perished but also extended to those who were never born. Indeed, the relative population increase in the Ukraine in the decades after Holodomor was significantly below that in neighbouring states.
Throughout this terrible period international reporting of what occurred was extremely limited. Broader public awareness of the Holodomor outside Ukraine did not emerge until later in the 20th century. Unfortunately, in the former Soviet Union itself, active official denial of famine and disinformation campaigns supported these assertions, and it dominated the official memory of this dark period of Ukrainian history. Official acknowledgement of the Holodomor did not occur until the 1980s and then it did so in a very limited way. It is only in the recent, modern post-USSR era that we have seen, thanks to a significant degree of campaigning by the Ukrainian diaspora, that a more complete discussion has occurred and been acknowledged.
Today, on behalf of the Australian government, I want to honour the memories of those who perished during the Ukrainian Holodomor and in similar events across the former Soviet Union that were the result of what we know to be inhumane Stalinist policies. This tragedy is still deeply felt by the Ukrainian community, many of whom I know very closely. Commemoration of Holodomor and the reflection upon the significant loss of life that occurred is ongoing, and it will continue this Saturday. I join with the Prime Minister in extending to all of those participating our empathy with them for the suffering they experienced.
Electorate of Richmond
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (16:40): I too take this opportunity to congratulate you, Madam Speaker, on your election to the position of Speaker. Today, I want to talk about the impact of the new government's cuts in my electorate of Richmond. Abbott's axe has indeed fallen upon the North Coast of New South Wales. These cuts by the Liberal-National parties in regional communities are already hurting people right throughout the North Coast. In particular, I want to focus on the cuts in round 5 of the Regional Development Australia Fund. These cuts will have a major impact on some important projects in the Byron and Tweed shires. I will go first to the Byron shire, which I am sure the House is familiar with. It is a tourist icon for domestic and international visitors—about two million people per year.
The Regional Development Australia Fund round 5 had allocated more than $149,000 to the Byron Shire Council to complete a one-kilometre long, circular, off-road, dedicated cycling track. It would have allowed local cycling groups to stage competitions as well as being available to the general cycling public. It was a great initiative from the council. It would have complemented perfectly the Byron Regional Sport and Cultural Complex, an outstanding complex in the Byron shire that was funded mostly by the former Labor government. The shire have been told they will not receive that funding under the Abbott government. It is devastating for the area. It meant so much for the growth of sports complex and for the Byron shire.
Another major funding uncertainty for the Byron shire is the Safer Suburbs program and the project to improve their taxi rank. The House would be aware that the Byron shire has experienced issues with alcohol related street violence—a great concern and a problem compounded by the state Liberal-National parties not providing adequate policing resources in our area. Now they are seeing their federal colleagues making a decision that is going to further impact on this problem. The project had sought $60,000. It may not seem like a lot to the House, but it would have made a big difference in improving safety in an area that vitally needs it. The shire relies on tourism and now the project is in doubt. It would have helped in the overall approach to deal with street crime. The Byron Shire Council have been very outspoken in their disappointment with the new federal government. They will lobby very hard to get some of that funding.
In terms of the Tweed shire, the Liberal-National government have cut the funding for the renewal of Bay Street in Tweed Heads, another project under round 5. The Tweed Shire Council would have received more than $600,000 to fund the rejuvenation of the Tweed Heads central business district, a really important project. It would have boosted jobs, productivity and business in a part of Tweed Heads that really needs it. It is an area adjacent to Coolangatta. This project would have allowed streetscaping and would have improved the whole look of the main street.
It was very disappointing when it was announced that they would not be receiving that funding of more than $600,000. Both the Tweed Shire Council and the Tweed business chamber have publicly expressed their disappointment concerning this cut. The community has been very open in expressing how disappointed they are with this new government. Funding for these sorts of projects are vitally important. Both the Byron and the Tweed Heads projects would have provided jobs during their construction phase. That was the impetus behind our regional development program, providing infrastructure and creating jobs in the regions. The Labor Party understand regional Australia and how important it is to provide that funding. It shows from the very early days that the phrase 'Abbott's axe' is absolutely true. These are heartless and cruel acts by the government, ripping funding from regional areas like mine on the North Coast of New South Wales that really do need it. If you want to look a bit further when it comes to the RDAF funding on the North Coast of New South Wales, with the cancelling of round 5, across the entire region we have funding cuts of more than $2.5 million to seven councils for 12 local projects.
I would like to contrast this with what the previous Labor government delivered. Looking at a seat like mine, we delivered more than $1.5 billion of funding for that area—upgrading the highway, upgrading schools, upgrading community infrastructure and delivering health infrastructure. We delivered the biggest single infrastructure investment ever in the history of the North Coast, the Tintenbar to Ewingsdale upgrade. In contrast, Abbott's axe has now fallen on us.
Petition: SPC Ardmona
Dr STONE (Murray) (16:45): I rise to present a petition with 2,044 signatures collected just before parliament was prorogued this year.
This p e tition read as follows—
The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the fact that the SPC Ardmona Company can no longer compete with very low-cost imported preserved fruit and tomatoes. This is forcing growers in the industry to abandon orchards and to retrench workers. We therefore ask the House to ensure the relevant ministers impose a World Trade Organisation-consistent emergency safeguard measure, which will make imported preserved fruit and tomatoes compete on a more level playing field. We also urgently request support of an industry survival package to give the growers and related workers a future.
Petition received.
Dr STONE: On 18 September, the Productivity Commission tabled an accelerated report, the Safeguards Inquiry into the Import of Processed Tomato Products. In the report the commission confirms that the industry has suffered serious injury. In finding 2.11 the commission said:
Although the industry is suffering serious injury, there is no compelling evidence of critical circumstances that could warrant a provisional safeguard measure.
So on the one hand they have said that this industry suffered serious damage and then in the next breath they have said that they cannot see that they have satisfied the requirements. Those requirements include that the import increase was unforeseen, that the industry has suffered actual or threatened serious injury and, if so, whether the injury was caused by the imports. I think that the most simple person could understand that that was the case and, as it happens, the Anti-Dumping Commission, has reported very recently that the tomato industry had such serious injury brought upon it by imported tomato product from Italy that it has recommended that an antidumping action be applied. So on the one hand we have the Productivity Commission saying, 'Yes, SPC have been hurt badly and they have suffered serious injury; however, we are not going to do anything about it in invoking WTO measures'—which are a legitimate form of protecting an industry in such circumstances. Then we have the new Anti-Dumping Commission reporting:
The Commission is satisfied that, based on the information submitted in the application, SPCA has demonstrated that there appear to be reasonable grounds that prepared or preserved tomatoes have been exported to Australia from Italy at dumped prices.
… … …
SPCA appears to have experienced injury in terms of: loss of sales volumes; loss of market share; price depression; price suppression; reduced revenues; reduced profits; reduced profitability; declining return on investment; reduced capacity utilization; declining assets employed; and reduction in capital investment.
On these bases, the Anti-Dumping Commission said that there was the information needed, according to the WTO's criteria, to apply anti-dumping measures. I commend the new Anti-Dumping Commission for coming up with what could only have been seen as the rational response to this problem.
I have to say then that we have a serious problem, when you get back to the Productivity Commission's accelerated report. They said that the available evidence at this preliminary point—remember they refused to help the industry—suggests that the injury to the domestic industry, which they never denied, was caused by a combination of factors, including ongoing competition from imports, retailer private label strategies, extreme weather events and decreased exports. Well, hello—with the exception of the extreme weather events, decreased exports were a consequence of the market being flooded with imported product, the high dollar and ongoing competition from imports. They talk about the retailer private label strategies. The reason that the supermarkets could have such successful private label strategies was because of the very low cost of imported Italian tomatoes which they threw into their no-name generic labels. If that is not an extraordinarily compelling set of evidence that should have brought an emergency safeguard action into this industry to help them, I do not know what we can do. I am very pleased that we do have sense coming from the Anti-Dumping Commission, but I am disturbed that another Australian institution—the Productivity Commission—found the opposite. They had lower barriers to climb, in terms of putting in place an emergency safeguard action, compared to the proof needed to mount an antidumping case.
Sands, Mrs Eileen June
Lacey, Mr Chris
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (16:50): I want to take the opportunity in the House today to pay tribute to two local constituents. Firstly, and very sadly, we recently lost a very dear and valued member of the Bulli-Woonona-Helensburgh branch of the Australian Labor Party, Eileen June Sands. She was known to many as Eileen but to us in the Labor Party branches she was known as June. I want to extend my sympathy in this place to her older sister, Betty, and her younger siblings—Norman, Wally, Stephen and Julia. She sadly lost her husband, Owen, in 1986. She very much loved her sons, Steve and Nick, and that love extended to their partners, Kate and Laura. Her grandkids—Emily, Rose, Henri and Lily—were the light of her life. Indeed, Emily spoke beautifully at her nan's funeral, relaying stories of sleepovers at Nan's, spinach pies and Keno at the pub.
June was passionate about politics. She was passionate about the left of politics and she was a passionate unionist. Above all, she desired an Australia that was fair to all. She was a formidable opponent, as I know, in any political argument. She was very passionate and she could not see how anyone else could have a different and less compassionate opinion than her own. She will be very sadly missed by members of the Bulli-Woonona-Helensburgh branch, particularly by branch secretary, Alison Byrnes, who loved the collection of newspaper articles that she believed had unfairly criticised Labor and which she brought along to branch meetings each month, demanding that something be done.
She was very passionate about animals and she dearly loved her little dog, Mattie. Many residents of Helensburgh fondly recall Betty, her sister, and June walking their lovely little dogs through the streets of Helensburgh. One of my fondest memories of June was when she and Betty met with Peter Garrett at a Labor Party function in Wollongong. I will seek your indulgence with a prop here, Madam Speaker. It will make it clear to you why it brought so much laughter and joy to people at the funeral. June and Betty fit very snugly under Peter Garrett's arms and it was a lovely occasion to see them all together. Peter is obviously known for his height and June and Betty are not. The photo was a very valued one for her.
June was an active member of WAVES, the local Widows and Veterans Entitlement Service, and in retirement she also taught English and life skills to refugees. She marched against the Vietnam War, the privatisation of electricity and Work Choices legislation. It was mentioned in a eulogy that June may have been tiny but she was going to use every inch of her height to fight, as she said, to keep the bastards honest. Her son, Nick, says that she died during a ubiquitous news bulletin, so much a part of June's waking hours. It was showing a smiling Mr Abbott being sworn in. Nick has said that she was no doubt thinking, 'Well, if that guy's definitely in I'm definitely outta here!' We pay great respect to June, who will be sadly missed by all of us.
In the time I have left to speak, I also want to pay tribute to another Labor member, Chris Lacey. Chris joined the party in 2005 and is the president of the Thirroul branch and a delegate to our FECs and SECs. He has very strong support from his friends in the Labor Party. This was demonstrated at a dinner where he was joined by his partner, Kerryn Stephens, to receive the New South Wales Labor Rank and File Mackell Award. This was held last Friday night. We joined him with members of the Thirroul branch, Cunningham FEC and Keira SEC. Other guests included branch president Paul Tuckerman and his wife, Kay, and Ryan Park, the member for Keira. Also in attendance was Keith Woodward. Woody is a life member of the ALP. He joined 67 years ago, in the 1920s, and has worked at every election since. We counted them up and that is 67 election campaigns in 67 years: 26 federal, 21 state and 20 local government. I am sure we all value people whose dedication to our parties is reflected in that sort of activity. Chris had taken on the task of writing the branch history. Again on indulgence, I want to share with the House an illustration on the cover of a book he has produced, Illawarra Agitators. It is a great story of 100 years of the Thirroul branch of the ALP. It took an enormous amount of work on behalf of his local branch members and it was very much valued and the reason for the particular award on the night.
So it is sad news and happy news for some local constituents.
Hasluck Electorate: Smithweld Ovens
Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (16:55): Some months ago I was approached by one of my constituents, Mr Mike Smith, who has a small business that manufactures welding ovens. Mr Smith has been in business for himself for 20 years and during that time has established a highly respected, Australia-wide reputation for designing and manufacturing high-quality welding ovens. As Mike explained to me, over the years he has built up an extensive client base that recognised his distinctively shaped ovens and would choose to order Smithweld ovens because they were considered one of the best, if not the best, welding ovens available. This is a fantastic achievement for Mike and a local Western Australian business and they should be commended because they have used this success to give back to the community by teaching young people their trade.
Mike and his company are one of two welding oven manufacturers in Australia, and they are the only manufacturers to provide an entire range of different welding ovens with a distinctive round shape. This round shape was one that Mike designed himself and has spent many years perfecting. It is a shape that includes both functional and style elements that has become synonymous with the Smithweld Ovens brand. In fact, there are no other Australian made products even vaguely close to his product.
With nearly 20 years of history and evidence in the design of these ovens, it would appear logical that Mike would be able to achieve trademark registration to protect these designs and the intellectual property they represent. However, when Mike approached me as his federal member, he was at the end of his tether. On trying to achieve trademark registration for his two ovens, his claims had been rejected. This means that, although Mike was clearly the author and inventor of his particular shape and type of welding oven, there would be no protection within Australia for his design. Mike was without power to prevent others from creating knock-off products. All of Mike's intricate designs of his products, which are required for trademarking, were uploaded onto the IP Australia website, available worldwide, as is standard practice. Unfortunately, it would appear that an overseas manufacturer then decided to create a copycat product that is being imported into Australia. Mike is powerless to stop this from happening and has paid the price in his own business. In simply trying to protect his intellectual property, Mike had found himself in a situation where his life's work was being devalued by cheap, imported knock-off products. The reputation and respect for Mike's products have suffered under imported products that were being sold under the same name.
Mike's is a very sad story for Australian small business and manufacturing. The problem that Mike has encountered is, I believe, a serious one. Mike's products were denied trademarking registration based on an interpretation of section 41 of the Trade Marks Act 1995. It would seem that, although ample evidence had been provided to meet all conditions for registration, the decision was made without much consideration of much of the evidence provided. When speaking to me, Mike relayed this: 'It is concerning as their interpretation discriminates against Australian registered companies who have done the hard yards in designing a product over many years and can prove they were the original designers and builders of a product. … Overseas companies not registered in Australia seem to have been given equal if not greater rights in terms of intellectual property … we would at least expect a level playing field.'
I do not believe that Mike's request for an even playing field is unreasonable. I worry that Mr Smith's is not the only Australian business that has fallen victim to this loophole within Australian intellectual property law that allows section 41 of the act to be interpreted so loosely. I worry that other Australian businesses may also have had their intellectual property left unprotected due to the inability of this section of the act to fully grasp the minutiae of innovative Australian designs. I call on the minister and the House to re-examine the intellectual property law in Australia so that Australian manufacturers and other Australian innovators can have peace of mind that their inventions have the full protection of Australian law. Manufacturing has always played a pivotal role in our economy and Australian manufacturing has been a great innovator.
Australian small business and manufacturing have enough challenges facing them already. Since the start of 2008, and under the stewardship of the former Labor government, more than 140,000 Australian manufacturing jobs have been lost. Thankfully, with the withdrawal of the mining tax and the carbon tax, WA manufacturing is now on a better and more level playing field, but it still needs the protection that is required under the intellectual property act.
House adjourned at 17:00
NOTICES
The following notice(s) were given:
Mr Hayes to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) 10 December is International Human Rights Day and also marks the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the High Commissioner for Human Rights;
(b) on 12 November 2013, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam gained a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council and also signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture; and
(c) despite Vietnam being a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, there remains a concerning number of human rights violations in that country including the:
(i) treatment of 14 Vietnamese Catholics who were arrested and sentenced to four to eight years imprisonment in January 2013 for protesting in support of land rights, freedom of religion and the release of previously convicted activists;
(ii) arrest in October 2012 of Nguyen Phuong Uyen and Dinh Nguyen Kha, charged under Article 88 of the Vietnamese Penal Code for distributing leaflets protesting against China’s claims to the Paracel and Spratly islands in the South China Sea; and
(iii) seven year imprisonment of trade union organiser Do Thi Minh Hanh, for national security charges relating to her involvement in organising workers at a shoes factory in October 2010; and
(2) calls on the Australian Government to:
(a) take all appropriate steps to encourage the Vietnamese Government to honour its obligations as a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
(b) consider issues of human rights in Vietnam when assigning funding under Australia’s overseas development aid program; and
(c) continue Australia’s engagement in bilateral and multilateral contexts with Vietnam on human rights.
Ms Brodtmann to move:
That this House acknowledges the:
(1) significant milestone that is the Centenary of Canberra;
(2) work of the Centenary of Canberra Unit, especially of Creative Director Robyn Archer, in preparing a year of centenary celebrations;
(3) diversity and creativity of the people and industries in Canberra and the Capital Region;
(4) significant and ongoing contribution that Canberra makes to the nation as the National Capital;
(5) central role that Canberra plays in Australia’s international relations as the home of the diplomatic community and our nation’s foreign service; and
(6) importance of the historical and ongoing roles of the traditional owners of the Canberra area, the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people.
Ms King to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) Australia Post as per its Community Service Obligations, is required to achieve timely mail deliveries in all parts of Australia, not just the major capital cities;
(b) residents in regional towns and cities across Australia are not receiving mail for up to six days, with mail routes routinely left unprocessed due to insufficient staff at regional mail centres; and
(c) constituents have contacted the offices of regional Members, citing regular occurrences of late mail affecting people who depend on reliable mail services; and
(2) calls on the Minister for Communications to:
(a) ensure that the current cuts by attrition at regional mail centres are reversed, suspending moves by Australia Post and the Government to abandon regional Australia by transferring mail sorting services to capital cities;
(b) restore next day delivery services from regional centres; and
(c) ensure the security of jobs and safe working conditions for regional postal workers.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Griggs ) took the chair at 09:31.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Isaacs Electorate: Emergency Services
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs) (09:31): Thousands of Country Fire Authority and State Emergency Service volunteers provide tremendous and selfless service to communities across Victoria. On 9 November I attended the Diamond Jubilee of the Chelsea Unit of the Victorian State Emergency Service. Joining with Phil Wall, from the SES, Ron Fitch, the unit controller, and the many volunteers and their family members, we celebrated the success of the unit and the great work that they have been doing in our community for 60 years. As well as responding to local emergencies, our volunteers give their time to assist with emergencies in other locations around Victoria, including at the Ash Wednesday and Black Saturday bushfires, and sometimes interstate.
The evening also provided an occasion to present long-service awards to members with five, 10 and 20 years of service. No matter how long our volunteers have served, each and every one of them deserves our thanks for their hard work and dedication. The unit's commemorative booklet Storms, Floods, Chainsaws and Sandbags was launched at the diamond jubilee and records 60 years of community service. The SES units around Victoria provide an invaluable service to our community as first responders during floods, bushfires and storms. They also assist police at traffic accidents, with their expertise and specialised hydraulic gear such as the jaws of life.
On the same weekend, I attended the emergency medical response vehicle commissioning and recruit graduation at the CFA's Edithvale Fire Brigade. Joining with Graham Fountain, the brigade's captain, and Craig Lapsley, the Victorian Fire Services Commissioner, I congratulated the new round of graduates. They recently completed their basic training and are now ready to protect and serve our community. The new emergency response vehicle gives the CFA the ability to respond to medical emergencies during fires and to assist with other incidents that are medical emergencies at other times.
There is a piece of folk wisdom on the website of the Chelsea SES which speaks of the value of our volunteers. It is relevant to the brave Australians who risk their lives assisting others in emergencies as well as all the volunteers who support our community in so many ways—in health, sport, schools, community care and too many others to list. The statement reads:
As a wiser person than me once said regarding volunteers, It's not that we don't pay them because they're worthless; we don't pay them because they're priceless, and why do we do what we do, I guess the simple answer is—someone has to!
I acknowledge and thank all of Australia's emergency service volunteers for their dedication to supporting the Australian community in times of need.
Kalamunda Chamber of Commerce
Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (09:33): Last Saturday the Kalamunda Chamber of Commerce held their annual Business Excellence Awards night, recognising some of the leading businesses from my community. I want to congratulate Brian, Karen and the team at the Kalamunda Chamber of Commerce for hosting another successful business awards night. The awards remind us of the important role that small businesses play in our local community.
I would like to offer my congratulations to the award winners. The winner of this year's Micro Business of the Year Award is John Stanley Associates. JSA is a two-person team that has made its name known around the world for professional horticultural, farm retail and culinary ecotourism consultancy. This year's Kalamunda Farmers Market Best Stall Holder Award goes to Elizabeth and Peter's stall Colour Patch, which has been a great stalwart of the markets since the very beginning.
Kalamunda Plumbing was the well-deserved winner of this year's Small Business of the Year Award. The Jones family have been dedicated members of the Kalamunda business community since the 1950s and pride themselves on their service excellence mentality. Similarly, Kalamunda Toyota, which has grown from its humble beginnings in 1984, was the winner of the Medium to Large Business of the Year Award. Proprietor Joe Zito still takes an active role in instilling a strong work ethic in his enthusiastic and vibrant team. This year Kalamunda Toyota has achieved sustainable growth and record results in all divisions, which is a credit to his hardworking team.
Customer service is a strong theme in Kalamunda businesses and the Outstanding Customer Service Award was won by Ben and his business, Metropolis Plumbing and Gas, known across the Hills region for their excellent maintenance work, reliability and dedication to going above and beyond for their customers. The key to a successful business is good staff and Julie Pierrot's hair studio has demonstrated this by being named the winner of this year's Staff Training and Development Award. Julie seeks to provide national and international stage work for her hairstylists.
The Kalamunda Retail Business of the Year Award was awarded to the Zanthorrea Nursery, which is a third-generation family business run by passionate environmentalists, with a focus on growing and selling Australian plants that suit the local area.
One can always be assured of quality food and great conversation at the Best Drop Tavern in Kalamunda which is why, no doubt, it was awarded this year's Dining Establishment of the Year Award. This year's President's Award went to the Forrestfield and High Wycombe Community Bank, which has taken a special interest in helping out community groups wherever possible.
Last, but not least, is the winner of the Community Spirit Award this year, which went to Benchmark Consultants. Benchmark provides sponsorship of sporting clubs and events, as well as recognising teachers in local high schools who go above and beyond the call of duty to provide support to students dealing with personal issues and stressful situations.
All the winners of this year's Kalamunda Chamber of Commerce Business Excellence Awards should be commended for their excellent achievements.
Bushfires
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (09:36): Last Thursday in the House I raised details of the fire that ravaged the Shortland electorate on 17 October. The fire was very intense in the Central Coast part of my electorate and also in the southern part of Lake Macquarie. Some residents were evacuated from their houses and other residents were unable to return home. The ferocity and the speed with which the fire moved was quite frightening. People were moved to evacuation centres at the Doyalson RSL Club and the Swansea RSL Club. They were official evacuation centres and were manned by the emergency services, along with the Salvation Army. There was a really strong community spirit where everybody came together and provided support for each other. Walking into an RSL club was a very unique experience, finding half-a-dozen dogs walking around, because people brought their pets with them when they were evacuated from their homes.
I would like to thank all those emergency services, as well as the police and of course the Rural Fire Service, who were phenomenal. There have been a number of fundraisers within the electorate since the fires to raise money for the Rural Fire Service. People have given very generously.
Another area of the Shortland electorate that was very badly affected was Catherine Hill Bay. Catherine Hill Bay is a unique mining settlement. It was probably the worst affected of all areas. Three houses were destroyed. The community there has joined together. The Catherine Hill Bay Pub had a fundraiser a couple of weekends ago where they raised in excess of $65,000. The Catherine Hill Bay Bowling Club had a fundraiser on the Sunday. That fundraising is still continuing and the final raffles will be drawn this Sunday. Once again, there is this community spirit—the surf club, the Rural Fire Service, the bowling club, which is a bowling club that is operated by volunteers, and the hotel came together. In addition to that, the settlements of Murrays Beach and Rafferty's were also affected. I would also like to put on the record my thanks to Rafferty's Resorts, Swansea Hotel, Lake Munmorah Bowling Club and the Gwandalan RSL club for the support that they gave the residents when they were forced to leave their homes. I can only say that at times of great stress that is when communities show their resilience.
Ryan Electorate: Australia Day Awards
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (09:40): I rise to acknowledge a number of outstanding Queenslanders who were named as state finalists for the 2014 Australian of the Year Awards. Among them were three individuals who play an important role in the Ryan community—Dr Jim Aylward, Dr Robert McGregor and Mr Jay Larkins.
Dr Robert McGregor of Karana Downs was named as a Queensland state level recipient of a Senior Australian of the Year award. Dr McGregor has made an invaluable contribution to Queensland as a medical practitioner specialising in child health. For nearly four decades Dr McGregor has been devoted to his role as consultant paediatrician at Ipswich Hospital. In addition to his medical work, Dr McGregor has been an avid fundraiser and volunteer within the community. As the long-time chair for the Ipswich Hospital Fund, Dr McGregor raised over $110,000 for medical equipment, child-friendly nurses' uniforms and toys for the special care nursery. He was also the driving force behind the Heritage Bank/Ipswich100/Bike Ride fundraising event. In 2013, the 14th annual Bike Ride attracted nearly 1,000 riders and raised $100,000 for the hospital foundation, local charities and Lions projects. Dr McGregor has been actively involved in community outreach programs preventing child abuse and been dedicated in his voluntary roles for local schools and Lions clubs.
Senior Australian of the Year finalist Dr Jim Aylward from Indooroopilly is the founder of Picato—arguably Australia's first ever cancer therapeutic drug. Dr Aylward is a pioneer in his field, isolating the active principle of a sap from an insignificant weed introduced to Australia from Europe to treat skin cancer. In a decade-long collaboration with the Queensland Institute of Medical Research, Dr Aylward's discovery has the potential to help the 434,000 people treated for non-melanoma skin cancers each year. This type of cancer is Australia's most common, and this innovation could help save the hundreds of Australians who tragically die from it each year. Dr Aylward's discovery may also reduce the need to undergo surgical treatment that occurs in multiple skin cancer cases, thus potentially cutting hospital waiting lists as a result.
I would also like to recognise Paralympic football coach, Jay Larkins, a finalist for the Local Hero Award. In 2006, Mr Larkins established the Brisbane Paralympic Football program after learning his son was diagnosed with cerebral palsy. Today, Mr Larkins coaches more than 100 children with disabilities and teaches them motivation and self-belief to be the best they can be. As head coach, Mr Larkins oversees a team of assistant coaches, managers, volunteers, and a regular physiotherapist and dietician, who are all committed to providing an opportunity for the children to engage in team sport and exercise. The program has seen four young athletes representing Australia, and others working towards qualification for the 2016 Paralympic Games. Mr Larkins is now developing similar programs in other parts of Queensland outside of Ryan to provide an inclusive environment for a greater number of young athletes with disabilities to develop their skills and confidence.
Parramatta Electorate: Commemoration
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (09:43): On Sunday at 2pm I will join members of my community and officers and members of the Naval Association of Australia Parramatta Memorial Subsection at a service in honour of the men who served on the HMAS Parramatta II. The HMAS Parramatta IIwas sunk by a single torpedo off Tobruk on 27 November 1941. It sank with 138 of the 162 men on board. HMAS Parramatta II had a fine history. It served in the Mediterranean as one of several warships used to supply and support the allied forces besieged at Tobruk. It was one of the ships known as the 'Tobruk ferry service' and it did an extraordinary job while operating off Tobruk on 24 June 1941. Parramatta and the British sloop Auckland and the petrol carrier Pass of Balmaha were attacked by over 70 dive bombers. The Australian warship shot down three aircraft without receiving major damage, but Auckland was sunk, and HMAS Parramatta II helped to recover the 164 survivors. Not long after that, on 27 November, Parramatta was escorting transports resupplying the allied garrison at Tobruk, when she was hit by a single torpedo from U559 under the command of Hans Heidtmann. The damage was so significant that the captain only had time to order 'Abandon ship' before the ship in fact sank with 138 of 162 crew.
The name 'Parramatta' is the oldest name of an Australian ship in the Royal Australian Navy. The first Australian Navy ship, HMAS Parramatta I was commissioned into the Royal Australian Navy on 1 March 1911. There have been four HMAS Parramattas since then, including HMAS Parramatta II, Parramatta III, which was commissioned in 1961 and which served in the Indonesia-Malaysia confrontation, and of course now the Anzac class frigate HMAS Parramatta IV, which enjoys the freedom of the city when those incredibly young men and women in its crew visit us from time to time, and we consider ourselves incredibly lucky to have such a fine crew visit us. They do a remarkable job in the Gulf. They go backwards and forwards to the Gulf on a regular basis and they are a remarkable bunch of young men and women.
But this weekend belongs absolutely to the men of HMAS Parramatta II, which so tragically sunk during World War II with so many lives. May they rest in peace.
Reid Electorate: Lebanese Community
Mr LAUNDY (Reid) (09:46): Reid is one of the most multiculturally diverse seats in federal parliament. Fifty-five per cent of the people who live there are born overseas. One of the great communities that calls Reid home is our local Lebanese community. I would like to extend my warmest wishes to the Lebanese community within my electorate, because tomorrow, Friday, 22 November, is Lebanese Independence Day. In fact, it is the 70th anniversary of that.
Over 2½ thousand of my constituents were born in Lebanon and over 6½ thousand people in Reid have Lebanese ancestry. They have been a marvellous addition to the multicultural landscape that makes up Reid. Part of that wonderful community is my local Maronite community. I would also like to extend a word of congratulations to Bishop Tarabay. On 3 June this year he was made the fourth bishop of the Maronite Diocese of Australia. I also have a strong personal connection with the bishop, because he is my back-fence neighbour. It has been great to have a chat over a cup of coffee with him. The guidance he provides his community is fantastic.
I remember my first introduction to the Maronite community was in fourth class in the local Catholic school. I met Chris Ayoub and asked whether he was Catholic. He said, 'No; I am Maronite.' I asked him what that meant and he said, 'It means I'm more Catholic than you are.' I have a great local parish, St Joseph's Croydon. Charlie Sara and all the team there are fantastic to me.
Finally, I would like to record my deepest sympathies. Lebanon, the country of the community's birth, is still a country where at times there are terror attacks. Last week was an occasion on which such a callous event occurred. It was a stark reminder of the need for us all, especially coming to this parliament, to work non-stop to stamp out terror wherever we may see it. To the people of Reid of Lebanese descent I again pass on my best wishes. To those at St Joseph's at Croydon, led by Charlie Sara, I look forward to seeing you again shortly. Happy 70th anniversary for Lebanese Independence Day.
Hunter Medicare Local
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (09:48): Earlier this month I had the pleasure of attending the 10th anniversary celebration of the Hunter Medicare Local's GP Access After Hours program. It was particularly good to welcome back the founder of the program, Dr Arn Sprogis, and to acknowledge the contribution of the outgoing CEO, Mark Foster, who has taken up a new role as the medical director of the Awabakal Aboriginal medical service.
GP Access After Hours has enjoyed bipartisan support in our region, and I thank my Labor colleagues and the member for Paterson for their continued support. The program provides comprehensive after hours primary medical care for patients of the Hunter region, including my electorate of Newcastle. It has provided services to more than one million patients and is of particular importance for parents, giving them direct access to a GP for their children when they need it.
The Medicare Local's core purpose is simple: keeping people well and out of hospital, and the Hunter's program is a leader in New South Wales, with fewer hospital admissions in the region for acute conditions like gastroenteritis and ear, nose and throat infections. In the past 12 months, the after-hours service has managed 52,205 patients in its clinics, including more than 8,000 that had initially presented to hospital emergency departments.
Hunter Medicare Local continues to expand its services, and I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge just two of its other successful programs. The connecting care program targets chronic disease and is making fantastic connections with local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to encourage earlier detection and better management of chronic disease, helping us to further close the gap. Hunter Medicare Local also delivers a primary mental health care program that has reached more than 3,000 patients in 2012-13, referring them to psychologists for some 15,000 sessions.
Hunter Medicare Local is a core component of Newcastle's primary healthcare delivery, and I am concerned for its future under this new government. Disjointed and confused messaging throughout the election campaign, where Medicare Locals were going to be shut, then they were under review, then they were not going to be shut, and now they may be just changing direction, has left patients, families and healthcare workers concerned for how primary health care will be delivered. The Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association have called on the Minister for Health to come clean on the government's plans for the centres to allay public concerns.
Medicare Locals are doing exactly what they are designed to do. They are finding and addressing service gaps in the primary healthcare sector and keeping people out of hospital. Closure of the Hunter Medicare Local would place significant stress on our local hospitals. I call on the Minister for Health to pledge his support for our Medicare Locals and provide the certainty they deserve.
Petition: Australian Government Procurement
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) (09:51): I rise to present a petition which has been found to be in order by the Petitions Committee. It contains 4,300 signatures, which were achieved in just one week earlier this year. The petition has been driven by the local CFMEU members on behalf of mill workers at the Maryvale Mill, paper manufacturers in the electorate of Gippsland. I suppose some listening might think it is unusual that a member from the National Party would be standing here today tabling petitions from the union movement, but I have been working very closely with the CFMEU in relation to the issue of government support for paper manufacturing in an Australian sense. I will always stand up for local jobs, and I am proud to be here today on behalf of the CFMEU people who have initiated this petition and in partnership with the Australian Paper mill at Maryvale and the owners of that facility.
The future of the mill in Gippsland is of great interest to the regional economy, but it is also, more broadly, an issue of great significance to the Australian economy. The Australian government is one of the biggest purchasers of paper products, but at present contracts are awarded on a financial basis only—that is: which company can provide paper products for the cheapest price? That is a point in this campaign put forward by the CFMEU. It calls on the government to take a broader view of how we make those procurement decisions.
This petition makes the point that purchasing policies need to reflect what we call a 'true best value proposition'. Once you consider all the socioeconomic benefits associated with a local producer such as Australian Paper at Maryvale, the support for Australian jobs, the environmental credentials of our own paper-manufacturing industry and our own timber industry, and the taxation receipts of the government in the longer term, the petition makes the point quite clearly that the cheapest is not always the best. It calls on the government—it was the previous government that it called on originally, but now it calls on this government—to consider a pilot project in the Gippsland region, taking into full consideration the true best value proposition.
Many members may have received a letter in the last couple of weeks from Australian Paper. It was written by the chief executive officer, Jim Henneberry. It made it clear to members that, as a local manufacturer, Australian Paper is facing unprecedented pressure from the high Australian dollar and imported papers, including some that are currently the subject of an Anti-Dumping Commission investigation. Despite those difficulties, the Australian Paper mill in Maryvale is investing in a de-inked recycling plant. This $90 million plant will divert up to 80,000 tonnes of local waste paper from Australian landfill each year, producing premium recycled pulp to make innovative Australian recycled copy and printing papers.
I urge all members to consider purchasing locally where they can. Australian Paper delivers fantastic products to the Australian community. So I urge MPs and I urge businesses right across Australia to make an informed decision, when they make these decisions, to support Australian jobs by purchasing locally made products wherever possible.
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House:
That Australian Paper at Maryvale is Gippsland's largest private employer. Almost 1000 people work at the pulp and paper mill and many more thousands of jobs in the community rely on its operations. Last year workers from the Maryvale mill went to Canberra to talk to politicians as part of the CFMEU's 'Let's Spread It Around' campaign (www.letsspreaditaround.com.au).
The Australian Government is the biggest purchaser of paper in Australia and we want the Government to buy less imports and more Australian made paper to support our jobs, our families and our communities.
Workers are still concerned that Australian companies continue to lose procurement contracts with Federal Government agencies to overseas suppliers which are putting jobs at risk.
We therefore ask the House to:
Commit to getting true value for money when buying paper and paper products by taking into account the socio-economic benefits to the community of supporting Australian manufacturing jobs, the significant taxation receipts from local production and the environmental benefits of procuring paper which reaches high Australian Standards.
Achieve this through implementing a pilot project covering all Government procurement of paper and paper products which core principle is preference of Australian made product except where it is independently assessed against agreed Government-CFMEU criteria that net cost to the community of the imported product is lower than the Australian made product.
from 4,293 citizens
Petition received.
Throsby Electorate: Broadband
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (09:54): Like a lot of offices in this place, my office has been inundated by questions from concerned constituents about the future rollout of the National Broadband Network, and they are right to be concerned. One day they see NBN trucks rolling down the street, hauling cables; the next day they have disappeared. One day they log onto the NBN website and see their suburb and their street registered on the map; the next day it has disappeared with no warning, no apology and no explanation. Just today it has been revealed that 40 workers contracted to work on the rollout of the NBN in the Illawarra region have lost their jobs because there is no certainty about the future of the project in our region. The mood of the electorate is summed up well in this letter to the editor of the Illawarra Mercury from a constituent, Mr David Taylor:
Over the last 12 months I have watched with eager anticipation the NBN rollout along the main road near my house.
Their website told me NBN would be available to my house in December this year. Oh joy.
Then overnight things changed.
My area has been completely wiped from the rollout map, with no further information available. What bastardry.
Yes, those unspeakable persons said they would abandon the NBN but surely it would make economic sense to finish what is nearly completed?
Turnbull would not even make himself available for comment. What arrogance. Another case of let the peasants eat bread, cake is too good for them.
I bet the Liberal politicians and their mates don't miss out.
What will they do or undo next?
Mr Taylor hits the nail on the head. When in opposition, the government said they would honour every contract; now they are saying, 'Not now, maybe never.' Local workers are losing their jobs as the construction contracts dry up. Invisibility is not transparency. What has happened to the rollout maps? The government has a responsibility to explain to constituents like Mr Taylor—people who were due to be connected in months—when they will get the NBN. His suburb of Horsley and the surrounds are some of the highest priority areas in the country for quality broadband. Other suburbs such as Albion Park do not even have access to ADSL. Large growth in the Illawarra's population over past decades has put a significant strain on our outdated copper wiring system and lack of capacity has caused massive overcrowding on our exchanges.
Constituents like mine in regions like the Illawarra have been promised the NBN. It is critical to the future economic development of our region. I join with Mr Taylor in calling on the minister to give us transparency and certainty for the future.
Solomon Electorate: Achievement Awards
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (09:57): I rise this morning to celebrate the achievement of one of my very talented and hardworking constituents. Ms Yolande Morris, known to locals simply as 'Yo', has recently been awarded the National Rugby League Women in League achievement award for her services to the local South Darwin Rugby League Football Club. It is great to have outstanding achievers in the Northern Territory recognised on the national stage. Yo was chosen from six finalists from around Australia and New Zealand, and the Territory could not have been prouder when she won. Yo has been a coach and on the committee for over a decade, a great achievement in itself. On behalf of our community, I personally thank Yo for her dedication to local rugby and, inadvertently, for keeping us fit and healthy.
I spent some time with Yo earlier this year before the federal election when I announced that the South Darwin Rugby League Football Club would receive $99,000 in Commonwealth funding for much needed upgrades to Warren Park, the Souths juniors home ground, where a majority of the Northern Territory Junior Rugby League games are held. Upgrades to the park will include installation of a demountable for officials, roller door upgrades, construction and installation of removable shade structures, plumbing repairs, irrigation upgrades and reparation of field lights.
The Abbott government recognises that local sport is an important aspect of the Territory community. Community sport organisations encourage a healthy and active lifestyle for both children and adults. I thank Yo once again for her tireless efforts. I look forward to working with her when the coalition delivers on its election promise of $99,000 for the upgrade to Warren Park.
In what little time I have left I would also like to acknowledge another extraordinary Territorian: Shellie Morris. She is a very famous Territorian and I have spoken about her in this House before. Shellie is the Northern Territory finalist for the Australia Day award. Shellie is known worldwide for her singing and songwriting skills. Her music is very special and it really moves you.
Shellie toured with Yothu Yindi, another famous Territory band. She has done some amazing work in Territory communities, helping Aboriginal people to write and share their stories. She also does some very good work with the Fred Hollows Foundation. I wish Shellie all the best in January, and my fingers are crossed that she will be recognised nationally as the Australian of the Year.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
ADJOURNMENT
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (10:01): I move:
That the Federation Chamber do now adjourn.
Schools Visit to Parliament House
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (10:01): I rise today to speak about the schools that came to visit us yesterday here in Parliament House. I had the great privilege to welcome and speak with students of the following primary schools: Elmore Primary School; Our Lady of the Sacred Heart Elmore; Goornong Primary School; Drummartin Primary School; and Raywood Primary School. These were the first schools for me to receive here in Parliament House. Whilst they are small schools in the electorate of Bendigo and are at the very north of the electorate they are not small schools when it comes to school spirit.
The visit by these schools and by their community really embody regional Australia. I had the opportunity before they came to Parliament House to visit these schools during my campaign, particularly Our Lady of the Sacred Heart and Drummartin Primary School.
These schools try to do everything. They are a family and a community. Their community rallies around these small primary schools. They are meeting all of the challenges that all of our primary schools have. They have their fair share of students with special needs and their fair share of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. They have a larger than usual share in the electorate of families from farming communities. They also have long family connections to many of their primary schools. Their constant worry is: will their school be shut down?
When I meet with these schools they talk about funding. They raise the issue of ensuring that they get their fair share of resources, which is why Labor's Better Schools Plan was very much a key topic of discussion when I met with these schools in my electorate.
I would like to just highlight some of the questions that I asked of the students and their responses. When asked what they enjoyed about their visit to Parliament House, they said they enjoyed the role plays, and 'I got to meet our future Prime Minister and opposition leader.' Some also liked question time. However, some thought that the behaviour during question time was something to be questioned. When asked what message they would like me to pass on to the Prime Minister and other members of parliament, they very loudly and clearly said: 'Stop the bullying and be nice to each other.'
I spoke to the primary school students upstairs here in Parliament House. When I asked what message they would like to pass on to the government about schools and what they would like to see their representatives do, they said they would like better IT. For many of these smaller schools they have online virtual learning. In particular, they share the resources of a language teacher—Indonesian. Quite topical! Their access to broadband is continuing to be a challenge, so something like the National Broadband Network would help these schools.
They also said that they would like a vegie garden and the continuation of the Stephanie Alexander program. They wanted all schools to have access to that program—a successful program that teaches children from garden to kitchen. They said—and this did not come just from the teachers but also from the students—that they wanted increased funding so that they can have more books and more teachers. They—the primary school students—also said quite loudly and clearly that they support 'I give a Gonski'.
These children are right. Elmore was listed on the NBN rollout map earlier this year. The status is now unknown. For the vegie garden program and the Stephanie Alexander program, again the status is unknown. The status of the funding for Labor's Better Schools plan—where every child irrespective of where they live, which school they attend and their background would get the best possible education—is unknown.
The final question I asked the students was: who amongst them wanted to be the next member for Bendigo? Almost every hand went up. So, Deputy Speaker, I had better watch my back!
Casey Electorate: Reefton CFA
Mr TONY SMITH (Casey) (10:05): I want to take the opportunity this morning in this House to recognise and pay tribute to some great community builders in the Casey electorate. First, I would like to inform the House about the 30th anniversary celebration for the Reefton Country Fire Authority. Reefton is a small country town in the heart of the Yarra Valley on the Warburton Highway beyond Warburton. It is one of the most fire prone towns in the Yarra Valley. The CFA, in celebrating their 30th anniversary, looked back on all that they had achieved. It was also a time to present some medals relating to the 2009 Black Saturday fires.
Those from Victoria, in particular—including my colleague across the table, the member for Bendigo—know that a CFA formed 30 years ago would have been formed in the wake of the terrible Ash Wednesday fires, and that is the case with Reefton. In the 2009 Black Saturday fires a number of members of the Reefton CFA performed an extraordinary feat in rescuing a resident who was in great danger. The anniversary celebration was a time for National Emergency Medals to be presented to those members of the CFA who had shown outstanding courage. They included Danny Bennett, Andrew McDonald, Andrew Kane, Ross Minifie, Kathy Tilley, and Rachel Bennett. Those medals were presented by me, the Mayor of the Shire of Yarra Ranges, Jim Child, and a number of others from CFA headquarters, including the Regional Director, David Baker.
The event was also a wonderful opportunity to honour service across the 30 years. A number of members were recognised. A 30-year service award went to Ross Minifie, who has been there for every day of the Reefton CFA's existence. Andrew Kane, Andy McDonald, Cathy McDonald, Danny Bennett and Susan Holman were recognised for 10 years of service. A five-year service award went to Zoey McDonald, Kathy Tilley, Rachel Bennett Jedda Edwards and Jane Abbott. It was also a time to recognise members of the junior brigade—the next generation who will, in the next 10, 20 and 30 years, serve the Reefton CFA and the wider Reefton community. Reefton is a small town but it is a passionate town, and I was very pleased to be able to attend the event on Sunday, 6 October on behalf of the electorate of Casey. In this House I want to thank all of those at the Reefton CFA for all that they have done and congratulate them on the work that they do for the benefit of the community.
Briefly, on another subject, I want to make mention of another event that occurred in the Casey electorate just last Saturday at Phil Munday's Panel Works. Phil Munday is a renowned community contributor and he decided to host at his business a number of V8 supercars and classic cars, all with the purpose of raising money for juvenile diabetes, a cause that all of us here in this House lend our support to. On the day $15,000 was raised, with people paying entry to see the V8 supercars and classic cars. There were lots of raffles. There was even a pit crew and a tyre-changing event that I participated in. Deputy Speaker, you will be pleased to know I did a bit better than you would have expected!
Forgotten Australians
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (10:10): I rise today to remember a very significant moment in the history of our nation. On 16 November 2009, thousands of Australians came together here in Parliament House to witness our former Prime Minister, the Hon. Kevin Rudd, deliver the national apology to the forgotten Australians and former child migrants. I am so pleased to be joined here in the chamber today by the member for Jagajaga, who was the then minister for this area, and also the member for Swan. They both did an enormous amount of work in ensuring that we could bring this apology to the Australian parliament.
This past weekend was the fourth anniversary of the apology. I was fortunate enough to be able to join the Care Leavers Australia Network as they reflected on the significance of the long-awaited recognition of the pain and suffering that was inflicted upon both children who were taken from their families and placed in institutions and children who were sent to our country without consent.
16 November 2009 was the day when Australians gathered together to finally acknowledge the horrific wrongs and injustices committed against these individuals in the past, many of whom were deprived of their childhoods and many of whom suffered abuse at the hands of those who were supposed to care for them. It was the day when Australians gathered together to say sorry to these individuals who were profoundly harmed in what was a shameful period in our nation's past. It was the day when Australians gathered together to hear their stories so that the mistakes of the past would never be repeated.
I want to take a moment to remember some of the words of this apology that were so poignant for so many Australians:
Sorry - that as children you were taken from your families and placed in institutions where so often you were abused.
Sorry - for the physical suffering, the emotional starvation and the cold absence of love, of tenderness, of care.
Sorry - for the tragedy of childhoods lost - childhoods spent instead in austere and authoritarian places, where names were replaced by numbers, spontaneous play by regimented routine, the joy of learning by the repetitive drudgery of menial work.
Sorry - for all these injustices to you as children, who were placed in our care.
I strongly believe that it is important that we recognise these tragic events and that we also recognise the lasting trauma that they have caused to so many.
The formal national apology was a critical first step towards healing for so many Australians. The previous federal government also introduced a range of measures aimed at meeting the needs of the recipients of the apology, including historical projects to ensure stories of care leavers are never forgotten, a family-tracing service for care leavers and continued funding for advocacy groups. That is to name a few.
These measures are significant, but I do know that many advocacy and support groups for care leavers feel that more still needs to be done. Importantly, they feel that we should never ever forget these Australians again. To echo the national apology, sadly we cannot give back the lost childhoods, nor can we undo the suffering of the past. But I say to care leavers around the country that what we can do and what we will do is continue to raise awareness about this as an issue and the unique experience that care leavers had and the trauma that was caused to ensure that we always advocate for additional support and services for these individuals.
While this is an occasion for acknowledging a dark part of our history as a nation, I also believe it is very important to recognize and celebrate the incredible spirit of those who have survived and the work that they do to ensure that this does not happen to another child in the future. I have to say that, if this was something that had happened to me, I do not know if I would have had the courage to stand up and say that I would work tirelessly to put in place things to ensure that it would not happen again.
Groups like CLAN—and there are many of them out there—are to be acknowledged and commended for the impressive work they have done over many years and that they continue to do, not just in advocacy, which has been very important, but also in the support they provide. It is important, and I would like to thank the member for Jagajaga, who is here, for her work with the former Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, in establishing the royal commission. This is a very important step where we can actually give people a voice and let their stories be heard. It is an important step into the future.
On this fourth anniversary, it is important that we do not forget these Australians, the forgotten Australians, that we remember the wrongs of the past and that we make a commitment not to repeat them into the future. (Time expired)
Swan Electorate: Science
Mr IRONS (Swan) (10:16): First I would like to acknowledge the member for Kingston for her recognition of the fourth anniversary of the apology to the forgotten Australians and also the member for Jagajaga, who was heavily involved, along with me and other members in this place, in formulating and putting that ceremony together. It still strikes a strong emotional response from many forgotten Australians and care leavers who were involved on that day. I will have more to say on that, hopefully in the other chamber today.
Contrary to commentary in the press, the Abbott government does have a science minister: my good friend the member for Groom. While the term 'science' may not be present on his abbreviated business card, I can assure scientists of Australia, of which we have many exceptional individuals in the electorate of Swan, that as a cabinet minister the member for Groom takes cutting-edge science into the heart of cabinet discussion and into the heart of government practice.
On Friday I was pleased to be able to represent the science minister at the launch of the Pawsey Centre supercomputing facility at the WA Technology Park in Kensington, in my electorate of Swan—another great technological stride forward for our state. The event was attended by the Premier and science minister for Western Australia, the Hon. Colin Barnett. It was great to be able to receive a tour of the facility before the official opening, which was courtesy of Dr Neil Stringfellow, the Executive Director of iVEC, and also the Hon. Dr Mal Bryce. The Pawsey Centre supercomputing facility is supported by the Australian government, receiving $80 million from the Education Investment Fund as part of the Australian government's Super Science Initiative.
The Pawsey Centre is a remarkable collaborative effort, uniting Western Australia's research leaders with CSIRO through the support of the Australian government. The coalition government has committed to making Western Australia a central hub of supercomputing infrastructure and expertise, recognising that it is uniquely situated to take advantage of the influx of technological and knowledge capital that will flow into the state in coming decades through the SKA project. It is like Star Trek has arrived in Kensington—in the famous words of Buzz Lightyear: 'To infinity … and beyond!'
Science is alive and well in the electorate of Swan. You could say it is a scientific hub. In the electorate of Swan we have two out of the 55 CSIRO sites across Australia. The Kensington site has the iVEC Pawsey Centre supercomputing facility, but it is also home to the National Geosequestration Laboratory and the Centre for Grain Food Innovation. The Kensington site has a focus on developing new technologies for oil and gas exploration and development, geothermal energy, cleaner transport fuels and mineral exploration techniques; a focus on carbon capture and storage; and a focus on researching our oceans. The second CSIRO site in my electorate of Swan is in Waterford. The Waterford site is focused on developing wold-leading hydrometallurgical processing capabilities for alumina and for base and precious metals, as well as on understanding, managing and exploiting ocean ecosystems, fisheries and marine biodiversity.
I commend the practical focus of the CSIRO and would suggest that this approach reflects the approach of the coalition in many respects when it comes to direct action. I have spoken in the past about my personal interest in the geothermal sector and the benefits that brings. The CSIRO sites are both close to Curtin University, a significant area of scientific innovation in the electorate of Swan.
Indeed, iVEC has many links with Curtin University, including seven currently shared projects. Curtin operates an outstanding research-science and research program, and the plans for the future are exciting, with the proposed medical school plan and biotechnology centre having the potential to entrench the area as a hub for health and medical services in Perth. I will continue to work with Professor Hart on this proposal.
To add to this, we have the exciting prospect of Scitech being relocated to Burswood in the near future. This was announced by the Premier prior to the state election and was well received by the community. At the time, Premier Barnett, who pledged to take responsibility for the science portfolio in his second term, said that there was often the incorrect perception that WA, the mining state, was a scientific backwater, when in fact the opposite is the case. The amount of scientific development and technological focus that goes into mining is substantial, with international competition meaning that innovation is required constantly. In fact, WA is at the cutting edge of science and development in Australia and my electorate, of which a large part sits between WA's two most significant universities of WA and Curtin, plays a major role in WA's prosperity.
On Friday, I look forward to again representing the minister at a further event in Perth, and I look forward to playing a role in the development of science in the coalition government.
Lalor Electorate: Sport
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (10:21): I would like to speak today about my local VFL club, the Werribee Tigers and, in particular, a very important community program they run—the Wyndham Sporting Opportunities Project. The Werribee Tigers are a growing footy club. Having survived threats of closure in the past, they continue to seek to expand and upgrade. The club has in fact taken on significant leadership roles in recent years. They are the elite football club in our area but they support all our football clubs, both junior and senior. Those playing in the WRFL, the GDFL, Victorian Amateurs and Super Rules make contributions and give support to all of our local football clubs.
They are looking to the future. The Tigers grew the Wyndham Sporting Opportunities Project with that vision to the future. This project is about boosting sports and recreational participation for young migrants living in Wyndham and Lalor. It is about providing opportunities for them to learn new skills, make new friends and create a greater, more connected society.
Sport is a great unifier and the Wyndham Sporting Opportunities Project is about inclusion and about community. It is a very important project, one which is, pardon the pun, already kicking goals. It is greatly appreciated by these young people and the wider community. This project is not just about football; it is about participation in all sports. The program links to other sports and sees young people participating in soccer, netball, basketball and lawn bowls, amongst other things.
Despite this, the future of the Wyndham Sporting Opportunities Project is currently at risk. It is at risk because the Abbott government is unwilling to confirm funding for the program. Announced in June, the Wyndham Sporting Opportunities Project was to receive $50,000 under the Diversity and Social Cohesion Program. In partnership with the Centre for Multicultural Youth, the local council and AFL Victoria, this funding was to be used to employ a dedicated officer, a contact point for the community, an advocate for the program, a leader in the program. Although I was not in the position I am in now, as a Tiger supporter and having been a parent, teacher and principal in the electorate, I was thrilled to hear that they would be a recipient of federal government funding for this purpose in particular. I was thrilled because I know how important sport can be, how important the Werribee Football Club is, how much this kind of program matters and how it could make a difference in our community. I was even more pleased when I heard the individual planned for this employment was Majok BOL Ngong—far more commonly known within our community as 'Shaggy'.
Shaggy and his family came to Australia in 2005 from South Sudan. I first had the pleasure of getting to know Shaggy, as we all call him, in 2008, when he became a student at a school at which I was assistant principal, Galvin Park Secondary College. Since that time I have had the privilege to watch Shaggy grow as a leader. He is a respectful, committed young man who came to our area after a few years in Australia, absolutely committed to creating a home and having his people connected to the broader community. He worked through issues in our schoolyard as a mediator. He is a first-class young man, a genuine leader. He is not just a leader amongst the Sudanese students; he is not just a leader at the footy club; he is a community leader. Through his involvement with local churches, council programs, as a welfare officer with the Manor Lakes Football Club and now through the Wyndham Sporting Opportunities Project, he has had multiple opportunities to lead. When Shaggy talks about what it means to be a leader, he talks about responsibility, awareness and trust. He and the Werribee Tigers recognise the challenges that our community faces.
In a growing and diversifying community like ours we need to be vigilant to prevent intolerance, exclusion and a lack of opportunity. They also insist that they have a role in addressing these issues. So, if they are willing to do their bit, why then is the government refusing to do its bit? Funding for this project was already launched, included in the budget and was announced back in June. Let me repeat myself: because of the coalition's refusal to confirm an integral, budgeted, promised funding, this young man could lose his employment and this program may have to close its doors.
Hinkler Electorate: Celebrations
Mr PITT (Hinkler) (10:26): This weekend I will attend the 125th anniversary celebrations of the Bundaberg Distilling Company. To mark the occasion the company will release 4,888 numbered bottles of limited edition Bundaberg rum. The commemorative product is a blend of the company's oldest and rarest rums. A list of 125 ingenious Australians will also be released coinciding with the arrival of the Bundaberg tall ship into Sydney. Earlier this month, before the tall ship departed on its 1,888-kilometre journey from Bundaberg, I attended an event where the captain was presented with the bottle numbered 1,888.
As the member for Hinkler, I am particularly proud to see our very own Bert Hinkler make it onto the list of ingenious Australians. Known as 'the Australian Lone Eagle', Hinkler was the first person to fly solo from England to Australia in 1928 and then the first person to fly solo across the southern Atlantic Ocean in 1931. Just like Bert Hinkler, Bundaberg rum is a local icon. The anniversary marks not only a momentous occasion for the company, but also for the Hinkler electorate and me personally. I worked with Bundaberg sugar and the distillery many years ago as an apprentice, and I clearly recall working around the giant storage facilities.
Bundaberg rum was born in 1888 from the ingenuity of a consortium of Bundaberg sugar mills who found a way to utilise their excess molasses. Today the distillery employs more than 50 people and is responsible for generating many more jobs indirectly. BDC's legacy has endured thanks to the passion, perseverance and creativity of all those who have worked there. Over the years it has developed into one of Queensland's most popular destinations. Tourists, both domestic and international, know Bundaberg because of our rum and ginger beer. The white polar bear is a common sight throughout Australia, including here in my parliamentary office. Bundaberg rum is a part of Australia's heritage.
As well as putting Bundaberg on the map and supporting our local economy, Bundaberg Distilling Company is a member of the Hinkler community. It is a company with a conscience. Bundaberg has flooded twice in the past three years. In 2011 the Bundaberg Distilling Company raised money for Queensland charities with the release of a limited edition collector's rum, titled 'Watermark'. Across the country pubs and clubs, including some of those affected by the floods, simultaneously hosted events to raise funds and celebrate the resilient and courageous Queensland spirit. In February this year they announced the Road to Recovery program, calling on Bundaberg rum fans from around the country to help the Bundaberg community get back on its feet. The bottles were labelled with the names of the roads and the streets that were submerged. Each flood-affected household in Bundaberg was offered a complementary bottle, featuring their road or street name. The remaining bottles were sold to the public with all proceeds going towards Bundaberg's flood recovery efforts. Only available for purchase at the distillery's tourist centre, Road to Recovery Rum attracted fans and out-of-towners to Bundaberg, injecting much-needed funds into the local economy.
BDC and its parent company Diageo donated a further $200,000 to the Red Cross Queensland Flood Appeal. Even when other companies cut back on sponsorship due to tough market conditions, BDC continued to support local community groups, like the Bundaberg Surf Life Saving Club. As a former member, I must say I was very proud to see them donate things from surf boats to wet suits. Their commitment to the local community has never waned. On behalf of all Hinkler residents, I would like to thank the Bundaberg Distilling Company for their support and I congratulate them on reaching 125 years—a very significant milestone indeed.
Automotive Industry
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (10:30): Seven hundred and fifty million dollars of research and development is spent directly or indirectly by the automotive industry a year—the largest amount of R&D of any industry in Australia. The automotive industry directly or indirectly employs 310,000 Australians, including 33,000 directly in Victoria.
I do not consider myself a revhead; nor do I follow the V8s or the grand prix, as some others in my electorate may. However, I am always a passionate supporter of Australian jobs and Australian exports. The automotive industry is in crisis—and the government has been aware of this problem for nearly a year. The automotive industry needs urgent commitment from the federal government or the industry, particularly General Motors, with its thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in investment, will be lost. Future investment is at stake, with GM thinking of investing $1 billion into developing two new models in Australia. Large-scale investment like this hinges on the federal government's commitment to the future of the Australian industry.
In Australia the cost per capita of government support is around $17 per vehicle—lower than the $90 per person in Germany and the $264 per person in the United States. There is not a car on the road around the world that is not supported by a government somewhere. The government's repeated claim of $400 per car cost of the carbon price is outrageous. Advice provided by the industry department shows that the average cost per vehicle under the fixed-price scheme was $50, which had dropped to $12 under the proposed Labor ETS.
Forty per cent of all Australian vehicles produced are exported overseas. Of course, the total automotive manufacturing industry turnover declined while the value of the Australian dollar increased. The high value of the Australian dollar is the principal reason that the Australian industry has problems. However, I would like to add that this is due not only to the high value of the Australian dollar but also the very unusual low level of the Japanese yen—understandably produced by Mr Abe to have the deliberate effect of boosting their exports. Toyota, in particular, is extremely successful with its export of cars like the Camry. One hundred thousand are produced in Australia. Even GM is still producing 80,000 vehicles.
Richard Dudley, the Australian Motor Industry Federation chief, said: 'On average, 450 businesses a year are closing in sectors such as car retailing, service and maintenance sectors,' and that a new approach is needed so that the other 75 per cent of the industry, which employs 320,000 Australians in 100,000 businesses, are not jeopardised.
When the Labor government invested $2.7 billion in this industry we saw a $26 billion return on new investment. That is a return on investment of 9:1—pretty impressive. Some may be concerned that we are spending a lot just in the automotive industry. We actually spend more on grains, sheep and beef than on auto. We spend more on primary production and more on mining. The high Australian dollar has hit production costs and has increased the cost of a vehicle by about 30 per cent.
Holden has 168 plants around the rest of the world. I am afraid that the extreme free market ideology of this government is going to affect the safety of the Australian automotive industry. The idea that General Motors, or Holden, will be driven out of Australia by Australian government inaction is an outrageous idea that will permanently affect the Australian economy. It will not only affect people directly or indirectly employed in the automotive industry; the hit to the budget bottom line of increased welfare payments if the auto industry were to close would exceed $20 billion. The death of the automotive industry would slash $7.3 billion from Australia's GDP by 2018 and the economy would be $21.5 billion smaller.
What we need is a government that is concerned with Australia in the long term. Australian automotive manufacturers are having problems exporting around the world because of the high dollar, but the idea that we would get rid of all the capital that we have built up in these marvellous Australian plants that generate so much research and development is not sensible in the long term. That is particularly so when one considers that the Australian dollar will probably return to much lower levels, when higher levels of exports will be generated. When mining declines we will need the export of manufacturing industry, including the automotive industry. The government should be more active in seeing that General Motors stays in Australia. (Time expired)
Jenkins, Ms Kim
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (10:35): Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your elevation.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Griggs ): Thank you.
Mr ENTSCH: I rise today to speak about a very, very special young woman in my electorate and welcome the opportunity to share some of her story in this place. Kim Jenkins is a local mum, married to George. They have three beautiful young daughters, Matilda, Molly-Jo and Claudia, all aged between 6 and 11. I first met Kim in 2011 when she was diagnosed with a rare spider-web-like tumour in her brain. During this extremely stressful time, I always found her to be a courageous and determined woman, and a loving and attentive wife and mother. After a massive community fundraising campaign enabled Kim to get specialist medical treatment, she achieved remission and was able to get on with her life.
Unfortunately, in March this year, I received a very distressing phone call. Kim told me that the tumour had come back and it was now inoperable. She asked if I could help out with a very special challenge. As I said, she has three daughters, who share a very small room in their two-bedroom home—they are in very cramped conditions. She had been wanting to extend the building for some year but due to her illness and the costs associated with that illness they had not been able to do so. Kim's mum, Marie, had moved in with the family to support George and keep an eye on the kids.
Kim very bravely acknowledged that the kids would have some very difficult times ahead. What she desperately needed was some space for the kids, in a way that would allow her mum to be there from time to time to support George in the future, should she not be there. George had been far too proud to ask for help, wanting to eventually do it himself, but Kim realised that she might be running out of time.
My first thought was one of these renovation rescues that we see on the TV all the time. I thought this was a chance for our community to do such a thing, but possibly on a lower profile. I formed a project committee with three very special people. Kath Kinneally is a local mum and businesswoman with whom I had worked very successfully fundraising to send her daughter, who had a tumour behind her eye, down to Dr Charlie Teo in Sydney, who was able to deal with that successfully. Kath was an absolute dynamo in that and was very keen to come on board. Builder Ron Easterbrook, from East Build Designer Homes and a friend of the Jenkins family, wanted to play a key role in this project as did Rob Arthur, from Chris Van Dyke Building Designers. Rob took on the architect, project management and quantity surveyor roles. He wanted to see what he could do with that space. I spoke to Cairns Regional Council Mayor Bob Manning. He wasted no time in pledging council's support, providing site plans and waiving council fees.
The committee and I then called on the community for donations of everything possible, from building materials and people with the necessary skill sets, to furnishings and landscaping services. We know how generous the Cairns community can be: I cannot name the 70-odd individuals and organisations who assisted. We have been humbled by the amazing donations that have come through. People have volunteered their time, funds and prizes, contributed an enormous range of building materials and household goods, and arranged minibreaks and provided publicity through the local television and the Cairns Post. We cannot thank them enough.
Today I am pleased to announce that the extension to the family home to provide the extra two bedrooms, a new bathroom and space for Kim's mum has now been completed. The girls can have their new space. This will certainly provide Kim with great peace of mind. She has done amazingly well through this project, considering that back in March she might have only had a couple of months to live. To conclude the renovation rescue we have invited everyone to be involved in the thankyou sausage sizzle on Saturday, 30 November at Trinity Beach, hosted by the Cairns North Rotary Club. There will be a few words from the committee and Kim's family and an opportunity to meet people and businesses who have supported it.
Finally, I saw Kim briefly the other day. While her brain tumour has had a profound impact, I have to say that I am full of admiration for her determination and spirit. Kim, stay strong. We are thinking of you. We love you. You are in our hearts and you are in our prayers.
Indonesia
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (10:40): Last night in the House the Leader of the Opposition spoke about the importance of 'team Australia' in our engagement with Indonesia. It is a phrase which the late great Senator Peter Cook used to use often. I wish to speak today about the personal value I place on that relationship.
I have spoken previously in parliament about some of the great Australians who helped to forge the bond with Indonesia in the 1950s. Jamie Mackie, who worked in the state planning bureau in Jakarta, lectured in economic history at Gadjah Mada University and eventually formed a group at the Monash University Centre of Southeast Asian Studies, which earned the title of 'a second Cornell' in recognition of its engagement with Indonesian issues. I have spoken too about Herb Feith, who was instrumental in setting up the Australian volunteering program, having written to the Australian Prime Minister and the Indonesian President—Menzies and Sukarno—when he was aged 22. Herb's work in building the relationship with Indonesia was absolutely vital. As Herb wrote in 1954 of Australian volunteers in Indonesia:
… these young people assert by the way they live, that racial equality is real. By having natural and friendly relations with Indonesians on the basis of mutual respect.
Herb dedicated his PhD thesis on Indonesia to his friend Djaelani, a servant in Jakarta who lived in one of the city's many slums. Herb's life is well detailed in Jemma Purdey's excellent biography.
Both Herb and Jamie were instrumental not only in assisting Indonesia but in changing Australian policies. Those policies were at times pretty awful. Labor immigration minister Arthur Calwell was shocked when the High Court ruled that he could not deport an Indonesian woman who at the time had six children with her Australian husband. We are very glad that times have changed in this regard.
Dr Boediono recently received an honorary degree from the ANU. When I was speaking with Terry Hull on the weekend, he was recounting the importance of the ANU's engagement with Indonesia on both an academic and a personal level. Dr Boediono in his speech said, 'There in the Indonesia Project I learned more about the working of the Indonesian economy than anywhere else and anytime before.' His time working in the Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies was vital, and it has led to a 40-year relationship.
My own childhood included three years living in Indonesia, a period which was important for my own personal development. We lived in Jakarta and in Banda Aceh. I fondly remember exploring among the tea plantations and down the river with my Indonesian friend Niko Zainal, who was a great companion in exploring Indonesia. I continued to do a little work on Indonesia as an academic, publishing a paper with Pierre van der Eng titled 'Inequality in Indonesia: what can we learn from top incomes?' Also, both my parents, as Indonesia scholars, have maintained a close engagement. We very much enjoyed having Chusnul Mar'iyah, now a senior Indonesian academic, living with us while she did her PhD—not, as it turned out, on Indonesian politics but in fact on internal Australian politics, looking at property approvals in the Balmain council, episodes well documented in the Rats in the Ranks documentary.
The development of Indonesia's anti-poverty program has been vital, and Australia has paid played a key role in that. My predecessor, Bob McMullan, often spoke about his pride in the way in which Australian aid had helped to build schools in Indonesia.
I will close with a quote from Tony Reid on Jamie Mackie. He said:
Jamie Mackie epitomized the best in the reformist enthusiasm of post-war Australia to open out to its region. For him as for many of that generation, Indonesia pre-eminently represented the Australian ‘other’, the Asia with which Australia had to come to terms. Because he was himself very much an Australian of that era—warm, open, maverick, visionary, irreverent, unpretentious—he understood better than most how exciting and challenging, but painfully difficult, a prospect it was to get that relationship right.
The same challenge faces us today. (Time expired)
Vietnam
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (10:45): I would like to speak today about a subject that I have spoken about on many occasions in the parliament—I think over 25 occasions now—and that is the state of democracy or the future democracy of Vietnam. There is no doubt that when you have a country that has a single-party system and democracy is not an opportunity that is available to the people there is no true representation. In many ways a country cannot be all it can be without being a democracy. So when you look at Vietnam and the rule of the Communist Party, the classic autocracy and the abuse of freedoms, you see that that is something that is holding that country back. There is no true freedom of speech. There is no true freedom of religion. There is certainly no true freedom of association.
In recent years—the last 20 or so years—the non-violent pursuit of democracy in Vietnam has been led, in many ways, by Viet Tan, the Vietnam Reform Party. This is an organisation of Vietnamese expatriates around the world who believe in making their homeland the best it can be through modernising, democratisation and the pursuit of a multiparty state in their homeland. This is a noble cause. It is not about taking up arms. It is about a non-violent struggle. It is about trying to make the best future for all Vietnamese people. There is certainly nothing wrong with that.
Particularly you can look at some of their campaigns of late. The current campaigns they run are: a campaign on internet freedom; a campaign to raise public awareness of the bauxite mining—'Save Tay Nguyen'; and also a campaign for freedom for prisoners of conscience. These are all noble and just causes, and these are all pro-democracy linked causes. There is much to recommend our support for Viet Tan.
Recently, on 1 November, I had a meeting with Dr Nguyen Quoc Quan. The doctor is one of the leading members of the central committee of the Viet Tan. He was a school teacher in Vietnam from 1976 to 1981, when he escaped. He went to the US and got his doctorate in mathematics. On the two occasions he has returned to Vietnam in support of democracy and the non-violent struggle he has been arrested and jailed. Last time—and I spoke about this last year on Vesak Day, Buddha's birthday—I spoke about how he had been arrested. At that time he had been in jail for a couple of months. He was released after pressure from the US after nine months.
The Viet Tan and their supporters, and everyone who believes in democracy in Vietnam—many of whom are Vietnamese people who are currently still within Vietnam—struggle and are courageous. They believe in freedom and a better Vietnam. That comes at a cost. So many have been jailed. People are jailed who protest against the giving up of control of some of the Paracel and Spratly islands to Chinese interests. They protest about the environmental damage caused in the highlands by the bauxite mining concessions of the Chinese companies, and they protest about the arbitrary arrests of themselves and many of the other pro-democracy people in Vietnam.
As I said at the start, a country cannot be all it can be if it is not a multi-party democracy. A country is held back if the people do not have the right to vote and the right to choose their representatives. In a country where there is one party—if it is a one-party state—then that country is being held back. I look forward to a time when Vietnam truly has freedom and multiparty democracy
Queensland Tennis Centre
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (10:51): In just a few minutes the Ashes will begin about one kilometre outside my electorate—at the Gabba, in the federal seat of Griffith. Normally the member for Griffith, the Hon. Kevin Rudd, would be here to talk about that. Unfortunately he is away. I am sure the next member for that area—hopefully Labor's Terry Butler—will be able to sing the praises of that great sporting centre that hosts cricket and the Lions. But I am here to talk about another sporting event which is taking place next month in my electorate.
Sport is an important part of Australia's culture. There was that very first boat race 225 years ago, when the ships of the First Fleet raced to get on shore. Many of us have strong memories connected to our first cricket match or our first netball, soccer or footie game. Sport brings friends and families together and promotes healthy lifestyles. Sadly, our nation is, I think—I ask the former health minister to confirm this—the fattest nation in the world at the moment. That is a record that we should not be at all proud of.
Sport plays an important part in all our lives. Sport also hooks in with tourism by providing sporting events which bring people to Australia. The event I want to talk about is being held on the south side of Brisbane at the Queensland Tennis Centre in Tennyson. Obviously, any suburb named after a poet immediately gets my attention—with all respect to Byron Bay and other places. Tennyson is right on the Brisbane River. It is a beautiful part of Brisbane, a beautiful part of my electorate. I ask everyone—the member for Mitchell and other members—to come up to Brisbane and attend the Brisbane International tennis tournament at the Pat Rafter Arena. One of the best international-standard tennis centres, the Pat Rafter Arena seats 5,500 people. Come up to the $82 million state-of-the art facility at the end of December and the start of January to see some great tennis.
If need be—I cannot organise a wedding—I am sure I can organise for you to look at an investment property or something like that, if you come up! Come up—have a political meeting with me if need be!—but make sure you come along to the tennis to see what is on show. In the lead-up to the Australian Open, former world no.1 Roger Federer will start the upcoming tennis season. The event will host six of the world's top 10 female players including Serena Williams, Victoria Azarenka, Maria Sharapova, Jelena Jankovic, Angelique Kerber and Caroline Wozniacki. The calibre of players on the field for Brisbane International 2014 is one of the greatest on record. It has been getting better and better every year and I think this year will be the best. I know the fans are looking forward to it. There is no better place than Moreton and the suburb of Tennyson, not only for seeing the tennis but also for experiencing the great cafes and function facilities and seeing the new talent coming through in some of the junior competitions. The Pat Rafter Arena is a great facility and I guarantee that you will have a good time. If you can combine it with a trip to the Gold Coast or other parts of Queensland, then come along and I will make sure that you enjoy the tournament. Obviously, it is of great economic benefit to the Tennyson community. They do do this event well in terms of bringing in people on public transport and looking after them, ensuring that they have a great experience. It actually has a great focus on family and community. There is actually a playground right across the road from the tennis court and it is probably one of the best that I have ever taken my children to in my life. I know that will be of interest to the member for Ballarat, with a young family. It is a fantastic hub for the community because, when the tennis is not on, everyone goes right beside the river to play.
The Brisbane International is shaping up to have its best year ever. It is great for the local area; it is great for Queensland. So take young people along and show them the great sport that is tennis, which is truly a sport that you can play until you drop. I have met people there who are in their 90s and who are still playing tennis and still enjoying it. It is a great way to exercise. I would ask everyone to come along at the end of December to my electorate of Moreton and to Tennyson. (Time expired)
Small Business
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (10:56): I rise today as the newly re-elected member for Mitchell to declare my service over the next three years for the small and medium business sector in my electorate of Mitchell. In Mitchell we have about 6,000 small and medium enterprises already making a great contribution. Since the election and the return of a government which takes seriously the role of small business in our economy—small and family owned enterprises—it has been great to see a Prime Minister who opened our return to government with the statement, 'Australia is open for business once again.'
It is so important the government understands the vital role that the small and medium enterprise plays in the Australian story, because the last government certainly did not understand it, with 21,000 new regulations and with a carbon tax which punished small and medium businesses more than any other sector. If you were a big business in my electorate you received a handout or compensation but, if you were a small struggling family business or a medium enterprise, you got nothing. You had to groan under the burden of increased electricity prices and increased prices for services and goods such as refrigerant gases for use in your small business. If you were a drycleaner you had to just wear the extra charges and costs associated with the deliberate policy of putting up the price of energy for every productive business in the country. That is why the Liberal Party was formed: to stand up for the small and medium enterprise, the self-employed people all around our country—those people who could not and did not have a voice in government. We know there are millions of them out there today. There are 6,000 small and medium enterprises in my electorate and I am very proud of all of them.
This week, as part of the Shop Small campaign, I will be going to a small business in my electorate, Shelton's Quality Meats, a great family owned enterprise, like so many in our country. The Shop Small campaign is a fabulous initiative, ensuring that Australians do not miss the importance of the small business sector and reminding them of the great value of the goods and services, the quality of those businesses and the things they do for our economy. We are helping small business at the moment with a root-and-branch review of the competition laws. The terms of reference will be coming out at Christmas and I fully support a review of the competition laws in Australia, given the state that we have reached. We want to make sure that confidence and competitiveness become the byword, the watchword, for the economy, especially for those small and medium businesses throughout the economy.
If we are allowed to remove the carbon tax, as per the wishes of the Australian people, we will reduce the electricity prices, the input costs, that go into these businesses and that make it so difficult. There are so many things that we cannot do. We cannot lower wages in Australia and we cannot do things that make it harder for people to purchase goods and services—that means increased costs—but we can address input costs. One of the input costs is the carbon tax, lifting the price of that critical input cost on every small and medium business in the country.
Shelton's Quality Meats is a great family owned business, operating in the Castle Mall since 1980. Two generations have worked in this business. I would be proud to serve over the counter of this great local butcher, with two generations of family who have operated this business, Ron Shelton and his three sons. One son is working for the current proprietor, Matthew Wright, who continues the fine work of the Shelton family in serving our community.
Like so many small businesses, and this is the key to it, they form the backbone of the community in Mitchell. They give to charity; they are part of their community; they donate to the local schools; they help local youth leadership forums. They do those things without any hope of return other than boosting confidence and sense of community and being good business citizens and neighbours. They provide meat trays for raffles for all kinds of charities and have done so for many years. I thank them for it. That great entrepreneurial spirit—the ability of someone to start up their own enterprise, to make a go of it and to succeed—that is what Australia is all about. Ever since I arrived in this place, it has become too hard to start a business and make a go of it in Australia. It is too hard to compete, and that is because of the burden of government legislation and regulation that oppresses people trying to do to new things. We must have less regulation and we need ease of entry for new players in small and medium enterprise. It is great that we now have a government that understands Australia is open for business—and not just big business, but for those small and medium enterprises. There are thousands in my electorate and millions across Australia who provide so much of the economic ingenuity, the horsepower of employment and do great things for our community. I want to thank Shelton's Quality Meats; I am looking forward to serving over the butcher's counter tomorrow, meeting citizens in Castle Hill. I want to congratulate their family on two generations of business success.
Ballarat Electorate: Students' International Success
Ms KING (Ballarat) (11:01): I rise to congratulate students from Phoenix P-12 Community College in Ballarat on taking out the chequered flag in the Fl in Schools World Championships in Austin, Texas last week. The Fl in Schools Program aims to help change perceptions of science, technology, engineering and mathematics by creating a fun and exciting learning environment for young people—encouraging them to consider careers in engineering, science, marketing and technology through the development of a model Formula 1 racing car.
A1 Racing Team—combining students from Phoenix College in my electorate and the Pine Rivers State High School from Queensland—defeated 38 teams comprising students from 30 nations to take out the Bernie Ecclestone World Champions trophy. The program involves over nine million students worldwide, with kids as young as 10 designing, testing and making miniature Fl cars from balsa wood. These miniature cars, propelled by a canister of carbon dioxide, are capable of speeds up to 80 kilometres per hour.
However, students are not just judged on the fastest car. They participate in a holistic learning environment, in which they learn project management, business planning, marketing and presentation while gaining vital team-building skills by collaborating with students nationally and internationally. Notwithstanding this, I would like to put it on the record that the Al Racing Team did win the award for the fastest car, completing the 20-metre race in 1.043 seconds.
Phoenix College team members—Benjamin Marshall, Dylan Sexton, Samuel Young, Michelle Clark and Casey Shevlin—had previously won the best team portfolio and outstanding industry collaboration awards at the Australian Fl in Schools national championships in February, before Ben, Dylan and Sam joined forces with Pine Rivers State High School on the world stage to make up the Al Racing Team. Michelle and Casey were official team supporters for the international race, having made an enormous contribution to get the team to Texas. I would also like to make special mention of Ben Marshall, the development engineer, who has high-functioning autism and Asperger's syndrome. Ben said the competition has absolutely changed his life and has given him incredible confidence.
I wish the team well and hope it leads them to pursue further studies. Part of the prize for this competition is, in fact, a scholarship to study engineering in London. It is an extraordinary opportunity for a group of children from Sebastopol, one of the poorer parts of my constituency. As part of the competition they got to meet and talk with Bernie Ecclestone; they got to go to the grand prix in Austin; they got to meet racing drivers; they got to be in the pits. It is an extraordinary program and one that Formula 1 should be very proud of. We often hear controversy around Formula 1, but in my part of the world it has certainly changed the lives of these young people. I want to wish the team well for whatever they decide to do in the future. Whatever their career opportunities, they will use the skills they have learned from this program. The friendships they have made and the possibilities that life has opened up for them are added bonuses. This is a truly terrific program that clearly makes a difference for young people all over the world, and I want to congratulate everybody involved in creating a program that so effectively involves students in such a fun, engaging and creative way to learn and develop future opportunities.
I also want to pay tribute to past principal Gary Taylor and the current principal of the Phoenix P-12 community college for having the foresight to introduce this program into their school. Engineering has been one of the areas that the former Sebastopol secondary college and now Phoenix P-12 Community College has been known for. We need to have more people entering engineering. They have taken the decision to be involved in this program. They have been involved in it for several years now and after cumulative efforts have had such great success not just on the Australian stage but on the international stage, setting these kids up for the future. I know they are absolute heroes within Phoenix P-12 Community College. I look forward to meeting them when they get back again to welcome them home but also to say to them, 'Job well done.' We know there are going to be some amazing things from these young people, perhaps even involvement in a Formula One racing team somewhere down the track.
Higgins Electorate
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (11:06): The constituents of Higgins are well served by unique, vibrant strip shopping centres which in effect form a village for their local communities. The shopping, restaurants and nightlife of Chapel Street in the east are a magnet for the young, and young at heart, from within Higgins and afar, while the diverse eateries and fresh food retailers in Koornang Road give the family friendly suburb of Carnegie a cosmopolitan edge. However, such activity, on occasion, brings with it unwanted antisocial behaviour and crime.
I am very pleased to inform the House that I was recently able to announce that I had secured $200,000 for these areas to enable the provision of CCTV and increased security measures, such as lighting. The funds will be sourced from unfreezing the Commonwealth's proceeds of crime fund. While no-one would argue that CCTV and increased lighting will eradicate crime and antisocial behaviour, I believe they will form a deterrent and, if crime occurs, assist Victoria Police in apprehending those responsible.
Crime is a real and genuine issue within my electorate. Since being elected in 2009, 2,987 constituents have directly contacted my office to raise their concerns with me. Such concerns are also shared by local community organisations. I am pleased that I have had an ongoing dialogue with a number of representative groups in the Prahran-South Yarra area on this very issue, specifically the Lara Barry Residents Association, the Chapel Street Traders Association and the local police command. It was therefore very pleasing that in 2012 I was able to arrange for the then Leader of the Opposition and now Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, to meet with these groups directly and see for himself the difficulties presented for those communities that live in close proximity to restaurants, hotels and nightclubs.
Similarly, I have had a strong and long-standing dialogue with the Carnegie Traders Association. In a bid to present their shopping precinct in the most positive manner, we have had wide-ranging discussions which have focused on the need to maintain Koornang Road as a family-friendly retail village and hospitality precinct. The Carnegie Traders Association were therefore delighted that funds were attained to increase security. I was particularly pleased to receive an email from a local trader who said, 'Having recently experienced attempted break-ins to my shop and with the knowledge that others in the area have had the same experience, as well as two shops being burgled, it's great to know that we have our local and federal representatives working hard to assist us in the fight against antisocial behaviour.'
Now that the funds have been secured, I am pleased to inform the House that I have today commenced the process of consulting with both communities as to the specifics of how the funds will be spent. As a first step I have today written to both Councillor Stubbs and Councillor Pilling, the newly elected mayors of Stonnington and Glen Eira, in order to maintain their ongoing support that I was so pleased to receive from their predecessors. I will also be keeping the local police representatives abreast of the process from here and seeking their input as to their areas of specific concern and talking with key stakeholders and the aforementioned community organisations over the next few weeks and months.
In addition, in January next year I will be writing directly to my constituents in the suburbs of Prahran, South Yarra, Windsor and Carnegie, inviting them to make their views known to me through a survey, by attending a community forum or at one of my regular mobile office meetings.
This information will assist in ensuring the funds are spent in the most efficient and proactive manner. It will also ensure that everyone has an input. When the worst in human nature emerges, security measures such as proper lighting and CCTV can assist in solving the most heinous of crimes. For all Victorians this was starkly illustrated in the well-publicised terrible murder of Jill Maher in Sydney Road, Brunswick. No-one should feel unsafe walking the streets during the day or night. The commitment of these funds will go a long way to making the streets of Prahran, South Yarra and Windsor and Carnegie a safer and more enjoyable place for all.
Armenian Genocide
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (11:10): One of the great things about Australian society and indeed about this parliament is the freedom to express and publish our views. We also enjoy certain rights of redress within the boundaries of what constitutes matters such as hate, racial vilification and defamation—some aspects of which I know will be topical in this parliament as the government has indicated its intention to make some legislative changes.
Today, I rise to discuss the Armenian genocide and the recent events involving Professor Justin McCarthy, an Armenian genocide denier. This is an issue of great importance to many people whom I know and respect. I recognise the concern and disappointment in the Armenian community and the wider community in general because of Professor McCarthy's scheduled presence in this Parliament House to address a private gathering. This is not the first time Australia has hosted such people and I am sure it will not be the last time. As I said, Australia is a country of free speech and that is a great thing. And, just as Professor McCarthy can say what he likes, I too can articulate my disagreement and displeasure with his views, and I choose to do that today. I also note that the Australian Institute for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, in an open letter to the federal parliament, said:
Australian jurist Geoffrey Robertson QC published his opinion on the matter in 2009. Based on British documents he examined, Robertson concluded the events—
in question—
constituted genocide. Of McCarthy, he stated: "I do not regard his analysis either as legally correct or as factually excluding a finding of genocide."
I can also understand the heightened frustration that many Australian-Armenians feel on this matter because of the venue at which this event is scheduled to take place. My views on this are well known. I have joined in the past with members of parliament and community leaders from all sides of the political spectrum including the members for Berowra and Bennelong, and the New South Wales Liberal Minister Gladys Berejiklian, to recognise the Armenian genocide, most recently at this year's commemoration in Chatswood. As I commented at that event, Hitler said before he marched across Europe, 'No-one remembers the Armenians.' As I have said, we should remember the Armenians. The events between 1915 and 1923 which saw the systematic killing of Armenian, Hellenic and Assyrian people represent a scar on the face of humanity. The Armenian genocide remains one of the least known and misunderstood episodes of the 20th century. The Armenian National Committee states:
Australian POWs recorded the marches, the massacres and the complete destruction of Armenian churches, villages and city quarters. ANZAC servicemen also rescued survivors across the Middle East.
Today I acknowledge the tragic events of 1915 and affirm my commitment to never forget what happened to the Armenian people, who were effectively eliminated from the homeland they had occupied for nearly 3,000 years. The reason I choose to take a great interest in this matter is, indeed, a very personal one. Two of my closest friends—Ara Margossian and Vanouhi Nazarian, who are of Australian-Armenian descent—brought this matter to my attention many years ago and have contributed in many different ways to the Armenian community in Sydney. Ara and Van recently became parents for the first time.
As I noted in my address to the commemoration in Chatswood earlier this year, I think it is very important for us to reflect on the fact that so many people who were pictured in the videos that we saw at that event, those victims, were probably the ancestors of many people who were watching that. I found it very difficult to watch a lot of the footage that was provided on that occasion.
Baby Lori, who was born only a few weeks ago—she was in her mother's womb at the time in the audience watching me—is a very happy little baby. Against the odds for many of her ancestors, she has a safe home in Australia. She will grow up to be a wonderful Australian woman, I know, with fantastic parents and a fantastic community around her.
This week I noted a humanitarian plea to assist people in the Philippines who were the victims of natural disaster, and I want to end this speech by noting that Australia's first major international humanitarian relief effort was in fact to help Armenian orphans from the genocide.
Gippsland Electorate: Small Business
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) (11:15): I rise to encourage Gippslanders and in fact all Australians to shop locally and support small businesses in their own communities. As we approach the festive season, I make the point that the best gift you can give a young Gippslander this Christmas is a chance at getting a job in their own region. Most of us would be aware that by shopping locally or utilising local tradespeople and contractors we help to retain a strong small business sector and help to create jobs and opportunities for young people to have a future in our region.
I fear that we export too many young people from regional Australia into our cities because of the lack of career opportunities in some of those regional towns. It has been very interesting to watch over the past 12 months the focus on supporting local businesses and Australian made products. Throughout this year we have seen initiatives such as the Too Big to Ignore and Shop Small campaigns which have been driven by the Australian small business community to highlight these benefits to a broader national audience. I note that the Prime Minister himself was involved in the launch of the Shop Small campaign in the federal seat of Deakin, where he said:
Every small business is providing a service. Most small business are employing people and small business is at the heart of the creativity which our economy needs.
The average small business person has put his or her life on the line in a way that big business people don't. The average small business person has a mortgage over his or her house to keep the business going and that's why small business is a section of our community which deserves particular respect from government and from officialdom.
The Minister for Small Business, Mr Billson, also said:
We're encouraging people to consider spending some money in a small business to show that this is something that's valued in our community.
I commend both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Small Business for those comments.
As we approach the festive season—and people do tend to spend more at this time of the year—this is a very important message to get out into the broader community, particularly through Gippslanders. As I say to them, 'Before you fill up the car and head off to the city to go shopping, take a closer look at what is available in our own community. Our region has an extraordinarily diverse range of businesses which offer a range of services, facilities and retail opportunities, and it is a perfect time to give them a chance to do a deal with you.' I accept that some people believe they can go to the city and chase down a bargain. But, by the time you factor in the fuel prices and the lack of return service, in the sense that they are not part of your local community, I do not think you actually get a bargain at all.
This is an issue that regional people need to consider, in the sense that it is the small business community in our regional townsthat we rely on on a day-to-day basis. We rely on them to provide support for our sporting and community organisations, and it is a bit hard to expect those small local businesses to support you if you are not prepared to support them during the rest of the year. So I say to the people of Gippsland and throughout regional Australia that before you log onto a website and purchase items from an overseas based company—which does not even pay taxes here in Australia and contributes nothing to the health and wellbeing of our nation—give your local small businesses a chance to do a deal. In most cases, when you purchase something online there is no benefit flowing into your local community. Young people in your community do not get any benefit whatsoever from that. Young people do not get the opportunity to get a part-time job to develop their skills which may well go on to lead to career opportunities for them down the track.
Since being elected I have run a constant campaign called Putting Locals First. It has been something that I have promoted over the past five years. It encourages people not only to shop locally and to use local services but also to take a break in the Gippsland region. As we approach this holiday season, there is a real opportunity for people to get out and explore their own region. Gippsland is one of the greatest regions in Australia. I argue that it is the greatest region in Australia. There is a diverse range of attractions—from the Gippsland Lakes to the mountain alps, to the rivers and streams and the Ninety Mile Beach. There are a whole range of places in Gippsland you can visit. By taking a break in Gippsland—exploring your own region and getting an understanding of the culture and the heritage of our own region—you are also going to help the local economy at the same time.
The message that I am giving to the people of Gippsland this summer is one of supporting small business by buying your presents for the festive season locally. Also, if you do get a chance to take a break, try to take that break in the Gippsland area. If you shop or have a holiday in Gippsland this Christmas, you will be helping to give a young Gippslander a job, and I do not think anybody could ask for a better present than that.
Corio Electorate: Leopold Football and Netball Club
Mr MARLES (Corio) (11:19): I acknowledge the fine contribution of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence, who made some very good points but was sadly misguided about what was the best region in Australia; that, of course, as we well know, is Geelong and Bellarine. Notwithstanding that error, it was a very good contribution and so I commend the member.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Griggs ): I might have to challenge you on that because it might be that the Northern Territory is the best region!
Mr MARLES: Far be it from me to cast aspersions on the chair. I am not sure whether we can move dissent from the chair in this chamber; but, if we could, I would!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not think you are going to try!
Mr MARLES: In any event, Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to tell the House about the Leopold Football and Netball Club. I visited Leopold Football and Netball Club earlier this year; it was just at the beginning of the football season, mid-week, and it was a very, very happy scene indeed. There were literally hundreds of kids across a range of teams out there on a Wednesday evening—cold but not terrible weather—being active and providing community spirit.
This is, of course, the story of so many community sporting organisations around the country but particularly in relation to the community of Leopold in my electorate it is really the sporting club which is the heart and soul of that community. At this point in time Leopold does not have a community centre, but we hope to change this. So, in this sense, the football and netball club really plays that role.
What is wonderful about it also masks something which is of concern, and that is that the physical infrastructure, the buildings around the grounds, is very outdated. The buildings have not been renovated since the late 1970s. In the early 1980s the population of Leopold was 4,000; today, it is close to 13,000. So you can imagine the stress which is being placed upon those buildings. It was for this reason that I was very pleased to be able to announce with the then Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Senator the Hon. Penny Wong, a $500,000 grant for the Leopold netball pavilion in order to begin the process of renovating their facilities.
The grant was awarded under the Round Five program within the federal government's Regional Development Australia Fund. This was money which was allocated in the last budget. This entailed a process where the Leopold netball pavilion, the Leopold Football and Netball Club, had to go through a competitive process of putting their case before Regional Development Australia and in that process were successful in doing it and were awarded this $500,000 grant—money which had been committed in the budget and passed through this parliament. That is money which is now being said by the new government to not be flowing. We are now in a situation where that is a cut which seems to be occurring. Although there is a question mark about it, all the indications are that that money is not going to flow. This is of deep concern.
The best argument that we have from the government about why it is not flowing is that contracts were not signed, which is disingenuous in the extreme. We all know that, having gone through a competitive process like that, the time it takes in order to sign a contract can often be months, as planning permits need to be obtained and a range of other processes need to be gone through. But the critical thing from the point of view of the federal government is that the money had been passed through this parliament, set aside and in a competitive process allocated to this club for a very important need, and now it is being taken away by the Abbott government.
It is not surprising then that there is enormous concern within the Leopold Football and Netball Club about that. In the last couple of days, I spoke to Brendan Thompson, the president of the football club. He expressed his great concern about this development. He made the point that right now there are no disability facilities; there are no women's facilities, women's change rooms; and there are no umpires' change rooms available at the club. Yet this is a club which has 600 participants across 41 different teams. There are umpires who are not coming to umpire games at the club because there are no change facilities associated with it. It is a disgrace and it is something that needs to be rectified. I say to Brendan and to all those at the sporting club in Leopold: I am going to fight on your behalf. We are going to do everything we can to get this money back.
La Trobe Electorate: Ferntree Gully CFA
Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (11:25): On Saturday, 16 November, I had the great pleasure of attending the Ferntree Gully CFA's annual dinner and presentations. The CFA at Upper Ferntree Gully has a fantastic history, going back to 1926. I look at them as being the keepers of the watch. They have the very important role of protecting the base of the Dandenong Ranges from bushfire. There are many members of the upper gully brigade who have served for many years. On the night of 16 November we had the great pleasure of awarding some of them for their service record: Tracey Jenner, five years service; Andrew Ritchie, 10 years service; Rod Simpson, 15 years service; Craig Waters, 15 years service; Mark Goodchild, 25 years service; Captain Peter Smith, 40 years service; and Garry Lee, 45 years service, which is a truly amazing commitment. I thank all the CFA volunteers for their fantastic efforts and assistance.
On the night, Captain Peter Smith reminded us that every time there is a bushfire or the CFA volunteers are called out these days it is most likely that they are going to put themselves in harm's way. I go back to the days of Ash Wednesday, back in 1983—my father was a member of the Sassafras-Ferny Creek CFA—I recall going home on the school bus that day. These days you would not be going home on the school bus if there were a fire, but in those days you did. I looked across from upper gully and could see the plumes of smoke. It was like a nuclear cloud was coming out of Belgrave South. At the same time, there were other fires in Cockatoo. At night we would go home, but my father was not there for days on end because he was out fighting the fires.
Something I mentioned in my maiden speech highlights the dangers involved for CFA volunteers. Two days before Ash Wednesday Captain John Minett from Narre Warren crew was named firefighter of the year. He went out with his crew of six from Narre Warren and with six members of the Panton Hill crew to Upper Beaconsfield. Sadly, a fire storm engulfed both trucks. The bodies of the 12 CFA volunteers were found huddled together. That really highlights the dangers for CFA volunteers, who put themselves in harm's way each year.
On the upper gully presentation night we also honoured a number of members who received the National Emergency Medal for their service during the Black Saturday bushfires in 2009. They are: David Bull, David Clark, Fourth Lieutenant Mark Goodchild, Nathan Greaves, Aaron Jelbart, Tracey Jenner, Peter Jetson, Robert Koevets, Dean Lankester, Garry Lee, Michael Pulford, Captain Peter Smith, Craig Waters, David Willoughby, Scott Brown, Trevor Coglan and Andrew Ritchie. I say to them: you did a fantastic job on Black Saturday.
I must congratulate also the organiser of the night, Gillian Heisey: you did a fantastic job. Again, I thank all of the volunteers in the CFA throughout my electorate. There are so many CFA volunteers. I thank especially the upper gully crew, who with neighbouring CFA crews stopped the fire at Quarry Road, which is at the base of the Dandenong Ranges. At the same time there was a fire at Narre Warren. If those two fires had taken off, the Dandenong Ranges would have been devastated, like Marysville and other places in Victoria.
My thoughts are with all the volunteers as they go out to fight fires in this fire season. We have already seen what has happened up in New South Wales. Also, our thoughts are with the family members, who hear the pagers go off, knowing that their loved ones will be going out and putting themselves in harm's way to protect Victorians and, in my case, the people of the Dandenong Ranges.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 11:30