Mr CLARE (Blaxland) (09:01): I rise today to remember Gough Whitlam, an Australian giant. I was born the year Gough Whitlam became Prime Minister. I was only three when he was dismissed so I do not remember his prime ministership, but I grew up surrounded by his legacy. I grew up around the corner from where Gough and Margaret lived in Albert Street, Cabramatta. The year I started kindergarten at Cabramatta Public School, Gough opened the extensions that his government had funded. The same man who poured sand into the hands of Vincent Lingiari helped pour the concrete that built Cabramatta Public School. Margaret helped out in the canteen. She also helped run the local pool where I learnt to swim. When I was not at school or not swimming, I was usually at the Whitlam Library on Railway Parade.

I am the first person in my family to finish school and the first to go on to university. In the Australia that existed before Gough, people like my mum and dad did not even think about going to university; you did your intermediate certificate and went off and got a trade or went to secretarial college. All of that changed with Whitlam. Australia changed. My mum tells me it was like switching from black-and-white TV to colour TV.

Gough's legacy surrounds all of us, from the national anthem to Medicare. It is hard to imagine Australia now without things like Medicare or multiculturalism, sewered western suburbs or trade with China. All of that started with Whitlam. In that sense, we are all Whitlam's children.

He was not perfect—far from it. He made a number of mistakes. But most of the things that he fought for were fundamentally right. The proof of that is that they have endured and that they are now largely bipartisan. It was not always that way. It is easy today to think of things like Medicare as a given, but they did not just happen through some form of political osmosis. They happened because of Gough, because of his persistence and perseverance. As Whitlam said in his 1985 John Curtin Memorial Lecture:

The most successful of my Government's reforms were the ones which were most strongly condemned at their inception, the ones which the Labor Party had to fight longest and hardest to muster first public and then parliamentary support.

There is a lesson for us in this. As Gough said in the same speech:

Persistence, patience, perseverance—these are the watchwords for Australian reformers as they take up their daunting task.

The last time I saw Gough was a few years ago, back in Cabramatta at the side of the old Cabramatta pool where Margaret used to teach. Concrete cancer had eaten away at the old pool and Gough was opening up the new Cabravale Leisure Centre. We started talking and Gough told me about his great regret. When he was in his 80s, Gough was advised to get surgery on his knees but he put it off. He told me that he did not have the courage to do it and he now regretted it, because he was stuck in a wheelchair. It is kind of funny because courage is not something that Gough Whitlam often lacked, and we are all beneficiaries of that.

In the 12th of his Philippics speeches, Cicero said:

The life given us, by nature is short; but the memory of a well-spent life is eternal.

I think that is an appropriate epitaph for a man who would have been as at home in the Roman Senate as he was in the streets of Western Sydney. Gough is gone, but the memory of his well-spent life lives on in the things he built, in the lives he changed and in the legacy he has left. He remade Australia, he extended our imagination and he left us a better country and a better people. After such a long and important life, well may we say: rest in peace.

Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications) (09:06): Gough Whitlam is associated in the public mind with many localities in Australia. Perhaps three that stand out are Cronulla, Cabramatta and Canberra. But this highly educated and erudite Australian had an association which may not be as well-known but which I want to reflect on today, which is his association with the Upper North Shore, an area falling within my electorate of Bradfield. I want to speak in particular of his association with the prominent boys' school Knox Grammar School at Wahroonga.

Some early years of Gough Whitlam's life were spent in Sydney and, particularly, his family lived at Turramurra for a period. His father enrolled him at Knox Grammar School in 1925. That was relatively early in the life of the school. In fact, he was No. 93 on the school roll. He was in year 6 the year he was enrolled and he was dux of the upper preparatory school. In 1927, he was equal second in general excellence in form 3.

He then left Knox in 1927 when his family moved to Canberra. He returned to Knox grammar in 1974, of course when he was Prime Minister, to be the guest of honour at the school speech night; a very significant speech night for the school, because it was the school's 50th anniversary. As he was speaking, he quipped, 'This would be my largest audience here deep in Bradfield.' One of the old boys recollected in some recollections assembled by the old boy's association recently following Gough's death:

In the assembly Hall I clearly remember the remark that "this would be my largest audience here deep in Bradfield". I didn't immediately understand it as I had little knowledge of the federal electorates at that stage. It certainly elicited a strong and humorous reaction from our parents and friends.

The fine education that Gough received during his period at Knox grammar together with, of course, the education that he received at other institutions clearly served him well. I want to conclude by quoting what the present headmaster of Knox, Mr John Weeks, had to say in his column in the school's newsletter recently:

This week, we were saddened by the death of Gough Whitlam, a great Knox Old Boy who made many significant contributions to our country. Our flags were flown at half-mast in honour of Mr Whitlam.

Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (09:09): I am honoured to join my many parliamentary colleagues to pay tribute to the Hon. Edward Gough Whitlam QC, AC. Gough's passing has led us all to reflect on his leadership and the outcomes of his time as Prime Minister of this country. It has taken many of us on a nostalgic journey back to our collective past. For me, that nostalgia is for my childhood; the dismissal of the Whitlam government is my first political memory. I rang a close friend on the morning of his passing. She felt his passing marked the last shreds of her childhood, now gone.

Under Gough Whitlam, politics entered popular culture. The 'It's time' slogan and television advertisement broke new ground. The song rang out from televisions across the nation and it still echoes down the years. I cannot see a man in a skivvy and not hum it. I cannot hear it and not visualise a man in a skivvy. That advertisement marked a change of course for this country.

As so many have said, Australia became a kinder, prouder, more outward looking nation, a nation that embraced its own stories and shared them with the world. We became more inclusive, as attested to by many in this chamber. Gough embraced our migrant community and our Indigenous community in a national hug that changed the way we relate to one another.

His passing sent the nation on a nostalgic journey, but it has done more than that: it has awoken us. Through the recounting of his great contribution in progressing his nation, we recognise that some battles that we thought were already won—for fairness, for inclusion, for a generous, aspirational society—are recurrent battles that must be fought and won over and over again. His passing is therefore a timely reminder of what was hard fought and that what we have taken for granted can so easily be swept away. In a very special way, in his passing, Gough served his country and his party: he reminded us of who we are and what we strive to become.

Like many at the memorial service and at home, I was moved by the tributes to Gough and struck by the list of his achievements in government in just three short years. Like others, I laughed at Noel Pearson's allegory, using that classic Monty Python line to sum up the enormity of Gough's legacy: 'What did the Romans ever do for us anyway?'

To me, one of the most important things he did was to reunite of after the sectarian schism rent by World War I. Under Gough, we reverted to an egalitarian, creative Australia, aspiring to do what was right, what was fair, rather than what we could get for ourselves. I watched keenly an interview with Barry Jones on the day Gough passed. Barry summed it up with 'I feel orphaned'. He added: 'He shaped my thinking.' He cited the opening to Gough's speeches, 'men and women of Australia', as critical to the inclusive agenda. This small measure, repeated in many speeches, signalled a shift in what was a patriarchal society.

To me, his educational reforms were his greatest achievements, and I will spend what speaking time I have left on these. One of his first acts was to commission from the Interim Committee for the Australian Schools Commission a report prescribing a framework for equitable education. That was in May 1973. I look back now and see Gough's Gonski reforms. Under his government, spending on state government schools increased by 677 per cent and spending on non-government schools in the states increased to 117 per cent. The Whitlam government introduced direct Commonwealth funding, or state aid, for non-government schools. This put an end to a long-running political debate which was one product of the virulent sectarianism that had divided Australian society for decades—Gough's first steps towards building a sector-blind school funding model. And, as many have spoken about, from 1 January 1974, the Whitlam government abolished tuition fees for students at universities and technical colleges. Like many in this chamber, I was a recipient of that vision. It was genius policy. It broke a nexus. It wrote a new social contract.

Vale Gough Whitlam, the mountain ash of Australian politics, a great prime minister—great in stature both literally and figuratively, great in intellect, a great orator, a great reformer. Like thousands of others, I am lucky to have lived under the canopy of his government and his vision.

Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (09:14): Gough Whitlam's famous 'It's time' speech, beginning with 'Men and women of Australia' was made in the Blacktown Civic Centre on 13 November 1972. It would have been three days shy of my first birthday. I would have been at home at Frederick Street, up the road from the Blacktown Civic Centre, just off Sunnyholt Road, which winds up through Campbell Street and Flushcombe Road, to that great Bowman Hall. Even today we refer to Bowman Hall as Gough Whitlam's shrine. At every event I have been to there—and there have been hundreds, including citizenship ceremonies and various community events—I am always reminded that this is Gough Whitlam's shrine. When I mention this to various community groups, who otherwise would not know much about Australia, everyone would always know that this is where Gough Whitlam made that speech.

Gough was so generous with his time in coming back to Blacktown, to the place of that great speech. Around 10 years ago he attended the opening of an art exhibition inspired by the dismissal, held at the Blacktown Arts Centre, just up the road from Bowman Hall. Again, the crowds who were there to see him, to pay tribute to him and to honour him never failed.

Only a couple of months ago Blacktown Arts Centre put on a local history exhibition. It was a project that involved locals talking, sharing photos and reminiscing about those two famous speeches that were made in Blacktown Civic Centre. Gough's eldest son, Antony, gave the speech at this particular opening. Everyone commented how fabulous Antony was. It reminds me of Gough's memorial and how well Antony spoke. He would have been so proud of his such accomplished children.

I want to focus on Blacktown, because this is an area that typifies Western Sydney and the new growth areas that Gough was so keen to make sure got their fair share. He set up a new ministry of urban affairs. His interest in city planning, his focus on local government, his passion for public libraries, his commitment to improving the quality of life of people living in the new suburbs of Sydney, with community centres and parklands, was absolutely unmatched.

When I was growing up, down the road was a magical new suburb called Kings Langley. I would look over the other side of Vardys Road and see this place that had brick houses. In 1973 Gough Whitlam actually opened an exhibition of new homes at this suburb of Kings Langley, again a testament to his focus on urban policy and housing as key ways of improving people's quality of life. I want to quote from some of Gough Whitlam's comments at the opening of the Master Builders' Association centenary parade of homes, and presentation of the Pearce Reserve, which is still there in Kings Langley today, to the municipality of Blacktown at Kings Langley, on Friday, 14 September 1973. He said:

The Australian people have been waiting a long time for a fair deal in housing. I hope you will forgive me if I recall some words I used 20 years ago, in my first speech in the national parliament. I said then: 'No one thinks that 20 years ago the people of Australia were adequately housed; and nobody thinks that they are adequately housed now.'

So he invoked his first speech in talking about how important it was to have a proper housing policy in this country.

I will take a few more quotes here, because they are still pertinent today:

Twenty years later, those words are still true. It is shameful that in 1973, the people of Australia are still not adequately housed. It is shameful that in a nation with abundant space, considerable wealth, a modest population, and a general commitment to the ideals of social welfare, thousands of Australian families are badly housed and unable to afford this fundamental amenity of a decent life.

How true, unfortunately, are those words even today.

I want to share two other memories and some of the legacy of Gough Whitlam. The first is his love of antiquity. I share this passion—I named my child Octavia. One of Gough's passions was the rightful return of the Parthenon Marbles. Reunification websites were abuzz with tributes to Gough Whitlam following his death, and rightly so. Some of Gough's words on this topic:

The Parthenon sculptures are unarguably among the world's most important surviving art works. The new Acropolis Museum gives the British Museum the opportunity of righting one of history's great wrongs.

I think it is absolutely important for all countries of the world to recognise and to reaffirm the reunification of the Parthenon Marbles.

The last point I want to make, as a former competition and regulation lawyer, is to commend Gough for his vision in reforming trade practices law in this country. Even in his Blacktown speech you can see his commitment very detailed in the context policies in these areas. I quote:

In the areas of economic law reform, we will legislate for a nationwide Companies Act; a Securities and Exchange Commission; an effective Restrictive Trade Practices Act and a modern version of the Australian Industries Preservation Act.

This represented a significant policy shift from the 1965 act. The policy approach was a combination of US anti-trust as well as public interest tests, as appropriate to Australia. There have been many reviews of competition laws since that time, as there should be. But, generally, Australia has had good stable competition law, so much so that many countries around the world have modelled their own laws on ours.

I want to end by commenting on Gough's wife, Margaret. Theirs was truly one of the great political partnerships. How fitting it was that the final hymn at Gough's memorial was Jerusalem, also the final hymn at Margaret's service. It was an honour to be present at Gough's memorial a few weeks ago. Gough changed Australia, but more importantly for me he changed Western Sydney for the better.

Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (09:21): Gough Whitlam is a true legend of our times, a Labor hero and a giant in our nation's political history. He believed so strongly in the power of governments to improve people's lives. Central to this belief was a strong agenda based on equity, social justice, and reforms that reflected a changing society. With that goal, he spent his entire political life striving to improve the lives of Australians. In doing so he redefined our nation and changed the life of a generation, and also changed the lives of generations beyond. He changed our country for the better into a more modern multicultural nation with so many more opportunities.

I was privileged to meet Gough Whitlam on a number of occasions and was always in awe of his incredible legacy. It is a legacy that many people of my generation were beneficiaries of, particularly, access to free university education, access to universal health care and the introduction of equal pay for women. Many people of my generation, particularly women, have had so many opportunities due to the vision, determination and courage of Gough Whitlam.

In leading the Australian Labor Party back into government, Gough Whitlam wasted no time in implementing the most ambitious government agenda in Australian history. In three short years, his government did so much including: introducing universal health care, through Medibank, the precursor to Medicare; the introduction of a free university education, which meant that it was a student's merit rather than their wealth that determined their ability to access higher education; he also increased funding to all schools and introduced needs-based funding; he increased age pensions; he introduced indigenous land rights; Gough withdrew Australian troops from Vietnam and ended conscription; he abolished the death penalty; he introduced the one vote, one value system to democratize the electoral system; he introduced the Racial Discrimination Act; and he established diplomatic relations with China

Many of Gough's policies significantly improved the lives of women. He fought for equal pay for women; introduced the single mother's benefit; funded support services for women; instituted no-fault divorce; established the Family Court of Australia; and he appointed the first ever Women's Adviser to the Prime Minister. Importantly, the Whitlam government also funded and supported community based organisations that provided specialist health and welfare services for women. These included support for women's health centres, refuges and crisis centres.

As well as his massive social justice reforms, Gough was also an incredible pioneer of environmental protection. The Whitlam government was the first to make protection of our natural world a key part of Labor's values. He ratified the World Heritage Convention, which gave the federal government a powerful tool to defend sites such as the Franklin River, in 1983. He also protected the Great Barrier Reef from oil drilling and created the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

Since Gough's passing, we have heard so many stories about how his life and legacy touched the lives of so many. He inspired us all in different ways and will continue to inspire us. He meant so much to so many, which is why his dismissal was so devastating at the time. I was eight years old, and my recollection is of my mother and I going to a very large demonstration outside the Liberal Party headquarters in Brisbane city. I can certainly recall the massive sense that an injustice had occurred—that the Prime Minister had been unfairly sacked.

Gough fought the good fight, and Labor will continue that fight in his honour. We will always fight to protect his legacy and continue the struggle for social justice in Australia. We have so much to thank Gough for, and naturally our thoughts and sympathies are with his family at this time, a family that has given so much to this nation. We especially remember Margaret, a remarkable and wonderful woman in her own right.

Gough Whitlam was a truly visionary prime minister who changed our country and improved our lives, and he will always be remembered. Thank you, Gough Whitlam, for an outstanding contribution to our nation. Because of your life and legacy, Australia is a much better country. Rest in peace.

Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (09:26): I pay tribute to Edward Gough Whitlam AC, QC, to his life and his achievements. I pass on my condolences to his family and friends. I pay my respects to him on behalf of my electorate of Blair, which encompasses most of Ipswich and all of the Somerset region in South-East Queensland. I thank him for the recognition of China, for ending conscription, for law reform, for regional development, for funding for the arts and for fairer electoral laws. In his three years in office, he did more than almost all his predecessors put together and those subsequent to him.

Gough was Labor's leader and, in my electorate, Bill Hayden was our federal member. We revered Gough. We were as proud of him as he was of himself! We idolised him. He made more of an impact on my family and on me individually than any other political leader. I wonder where I would be without free university education; and, having practised as a family lawyer for more than 20 years before I came to this place, I wonder what life would have been like in legal practice under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1959.

My parents and their parents before them were denied the opportunity to go to high school. Because my two brothers and I went to university, we achieved. It was because of the Whitlam Labor government, which gave us that opportunity, that we did so. Without Gough and his Labor government, none of that would have happened.

I remember the pride that my parents felt when they went to our local church on Sunday, 3 December 1972, the day after the election of the first federal Labor government in 23 years. I remember the relief my anti-Vietnam-War mother, Joy, felt when Gough ended conscription, ensuring her three sons would not be forced to go to a war which had already been raging for decades. I remember putting up a sign, a handmade poster, in my bedroom window during the 1974 election campaign which read: 'Gough's going great—give Gough a go.' My love of alliteration was obvious early on!

I recall coming home and discussing with barely concealed anger the sacking of the Whitlam Labor government in what I thought was a coup at the time by the Governor-General. I recall my father, Al, shedding tears when the results of the 1977 election disaster were clear to all of us on the Labor side of politics. Gough's political career was over.

Like many on this side of the chamber, I am fortunate to have spoken with Gough on numerous occasions, during party functions and conferences. Always he would refer to you and to people generally as 'comrade'. I thank him, simply and without emotion, for what he did for me. But today I feel the sadness of loss and what his life meant to me. Respected Queensland Times journalist Joel Gould wrote:

The nation lost a great man and Ipswich lost a dear friend.

Gough's urban and regional development policies proved a boost for Ipswich. By opening up direct funding to local councils under the Constitution, Gough was able to fund cities and regions more effectively. That funding saw almost all of Ipswich sewered. In 1972, when he came to power, Ipswich was only 50 per cent sewered. The Whitlam Labor government's assistance following the 1974 floods, which devastated Ipswich and Brisbane, including my parents' home in which I lived at the time, helped us to rebuild our community infrastructure, such as roads, and a host of other flood measures also assisted us greatly.

On 19 July 1975, Gough opened the Ipswich Civic Centre, built with federal funds. It is still an important resource in our region for our arts, cultural, civic and community events. I am pleased to have got funding in the last government to upgrade the civic centre. I recall Gough returning to the Ipswich Civic Centre for a fundraiser many years later. He was honoured and he was glorious in his element. His long speech that night was Castro-like in length. Barely any aspect of federation government and governance was left out, including a long dissertation on rail gauges, much to the mortification of my wife, Carolyn, at the time.

Following the 1975 double dissolution election, Queensland Labor was left with just one seat, Oxley, which comprised most of the current seat of Blair. Through Bill Hayden, Gough remained a great friend and a great presence in the region. I spoke to Bill Hayden about what I would say today. I am happy to repeat on the public record in the House and in Hansard what Bill said on the public record. Bill referred to Gough as 'the great man of my life' and said, 'If I achieved anything, he made me.' He said:

Everything about him was big; not just physically but the openness and generosity of his nature, the warm enthusiasm with which he could embrace new ideas and encourage others to pursue fresh thinking, the breadth and depth of his interests, the colourful range of singeing expletives he held in reserve for times of tension. But if you were doing your job he was no meddler.

To the extent I made any achievement in public life I owe a big debt to the lessons I learnt practically from Gough. A great Australian, a former colleague, now sadly departed.

I grew up politically handing out how-to-vote cards for Bill Hayden and campaigning for the former state member for Ipswich David Hamill. These men, along with former Ipswich mayor Des Freeman, are my political heroes. But Gough Whitlam stood above them all. On behalf of my family and my electorate, Gough, thanks for your contribution, your life and your example and for your beloved Margaret and her work. You will never be forgotten. Rest in peace, comrade.

Mr CONROY (Charlton) (09:32): I rise to express on behalf of the people of Charlton my sincere condolences regarding the passing of Edward Gough Whitlam AC, QC. Gough was a giant of the Labor Party and the nation as a whole, and we will not see his like again. The contributions to this debate from both Labor and coalition members have been heartfelt and generous. I would like to associate myself with all of them. Instead of trying to encapsulate all of the contributions Gough made to this country, I would like to touch on two of them that impacted on my family deeply: firstly, his reforms to welfare and, secondly, his democratisation of the Australian Labor Party.

Gough and ministers like Bill Hayden removed the stigma associated with welfare. My mother was a single mothers campaigner in the late 1960s. When she had my older brother, she was pilloried by the Catholic Church. This inspired her to seek justice for single mothers. It was only when Labor won in 1972 and implemented the single mothers benefit that that justice began to be achieved. I can barely imagine how hard it was for single mothers in the late 1960s and 1970s, stigmatised by the more conservative elements of society, often dependent upon the charity and support of family and friends. Then came along a reformist, progressive government that said: 'We understand your challenges. We will help surmount the obstacles placed before lone parents—lone parents who are often in this situation through no fault of their own.' This changed lives. This improved lives. This improved society, and my family was a direct beneficiary of this.

Party reform was also one of Gough's earliest triumphs and one of his most difficult achievements. Gough understood that the party must be reformed if we were to present a viable alternative. He attacked the culture of defeat that had led to Labor's repeated failure to win power. He took on entrenched interests and had the courage to take on hostile conferences. Gough appeared before the 1967 Victorian state conference and stared down some of the toughest and most formidable political activists. He stated:

We construct a philosophy of failure, which finds in defeat a form of justification and a proof of the purity of our principles. Certainly the impotent are pure.

… This Party was not conceived in failure, brought forth by failure or consecrated to failure … let us have none of this nonsense that defeat is in some way more moral than victory …

He then went on to say:

… I did not seek and do not want the leadership of Australia's largest pressure group. I propose to follow the traditions of those of our leaders who have seen the role of our Party as striving to achieve, and achieving the national government of Australia …

I highlight this because this is Labor's core philosophy. We fail our supporters, we fail the millions of low-income and middle-income Australians if we do not seek to achieve power. Only in government can we implement the reforms necessary to improve the lives of all Australians.

You do not establish Medicare and accessible higher education, end conscription, reform welfare and establish the Racial Discrimination Act from opposition. This is a lesson that is relevant today as we see various minor political parties attempt to appropriate Gough's legacy, in direct contradiction to his life. One of Gough's central fights was to reject their myopic commitment to purity at the cost of effectiveness. To repeat it: only the impotent are pure.

The party reforms Gough won were centralised on democratising the various state branches of the party. It is forgotten that Gough drove intervention in not just Victoria but New South Wales as well, where an independent inquiry had found stacking, bias, rorted preselections and widespread abuse of rules by the ruling head office faction. This drove the adoption of proportional representation. Without proportional representation we would not have seen generations of political titans make a contribution to this parliament. Without Gough and the intervention we would not have Senators Bruce Childs and John Faulkner or the current Member for Grayndler.

Interestingly, in the context of current debates around party reform, I should note that Gough was on the record as calling for national conference delegates to be selected by branch members at the Federal Electorate Council level and by the membership of affiliated trade unions, not state conferences—a worthy and important reform. I spend considerable time on this because without reforming the party we could not have the platform to take to the people nor could the people have confidence in our ability to govern.

In my remaining time I would like to correct the record as to the economic performance of the Whitlam government. While I do not deny that mistakes were made, I remind people that this period was dominated by the oil shocks, which presented a massive challenge to governments around the world, and not many performed well. I will also remind people that in three years of government, the Whitlam government recorded budget surpluses of 0.7 per cent of GDP, then 1.9 per cent and then 0.3 per cent of GDP, in 1974-75. In fact the 1973-74 surplus is the fourth highest on record.

In conclusion, not many people in this place can say they have fundamentally changed Australia for the better. But without doubt Gough can. He will live long in our memory for this and the various causes he strove for. My condolences and the condolences of the people of Charlton go to the Whitlam family and their friends.

Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (09:37): It is a great privilege to be able to speak in this debate and to honour a person who I believe was one of the greatest Prime Ministers Australia has had, if not the greatest. Gough Whitlam was a truly great Australian—a leader, a man of vision and ideas, and an inspiration to generations of Australian. It has been said by many who have paid tribute to Gough that there was Australia before Whitlam and Australia after Whitlam. He transformed the face of Australia. He made it a better place. He made Australians proud to be Australian. He took Australia into the 20th century. Prior to that we were languishing in a bygone age.

In my first speech I said:

Good government is inclusive. It is about developing a sense of community so that every person in that community is able to benefit from the resources, wealth and services of the country. The Whitlam government sought to do this. It was a government that had vision—the vision to share the wealth of the country with all Australians, to create a just society where everyone in the community had an equal opportunity to succeed.

And equal opportunity was something that did not exist before the Whitlam government.

One of its greatest reforms was the change to tertiary education, a change that made university education accessible and affordable for everyone, not just a few privileged Australians. When I left school I chose not to go to university. At that time I had a scholarship to go to teachers college, but at that particular time in Australia you could go to university only if you had very wealthy parents or if you actually managed to gain a scholarship. I chose not to go and not to become a teacher at that time. Instead, I worked. When I went to work I did not receive the same wage as a male from the same year I was in at school who had the same job and worked in the same workplace, simply because women at that time did not receive equal pay. Gough Whitlam changed that. He made it possible for somebody like me to go to university at a later time. He created an opportunity that enabled me to study and enabled me to get a very good job, and from that very good job become a representative of the people in this parliament.

He also changed the situation so that when my daughter started work she received equal pay with the males who were in her class at school. Gough created that equal opportunity in education and in the workplace. It was a change that created opportunity for many Australians, myself included.

It was the drive and passion of Gough Whitlam that made the Whitlam government the great reforming government it was. The first time I cast a vote, I voted for the Whitlam government. I remember the elation when Gough Whitlam led Labor to victory, in 1972, and I remember my absolute despair when Kerr sacked Gough, in 1975. It was that one act that motivated me to join the Labor Party. I was committed to the belief that my vote counted and that when I voted for a government it was my vote, the vote of all Australians, that determined who was the government of the country, not a Governor-General. It drove me to be politically active, as did his vision, his charisma and his absolute commitment to making Australia a different country, a place that we could all be proud of.

I owe so much to Gough Whitlam, as do so many people in Australia. I have been contacted by many of my constituents, wishing to express their sadness and their appreciation for what Gough Whitlam did for Australia. There are very few people whom we could say have transformed a nation, and that is exactly what Gough did. He transformed the nation and created opportunities for all Australians. He was committed to fairness, equity and social justice. I thank him, the people of Shortland thank him, and I know the people of Australia thank him for his contribution to our nation.

Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (09:43): I rise today to pay tribute to the life and work of the Honourable Edward Gough Whitlam AC QC, our 21st Prime Minister, and to extend my condolences on behalf of the people of Newcastle to his family: Catherine, Nicholas, Tony, Stephen, their partners and their families.

Australia has known few visionaries as great as Gough Whitlam, and fewer still who left such a remarkable legacy for generations to come. I concur wholeheartedly with the comments made in this House by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Member for Sydney, when she noted just how fitting it was that Gough Whitlam was Australia's 21st Prime Minister, because it was with Gough as Prime Minister that Australia finally came of age. It was Gough who averted Australia's gaze upwards and outwards. He encouraged us all to think big, to step out from the dark shadows of colonialism, and to forge a modern, independent, optimistic and ambitious nation instead.

His three years as Prime Minister were three of the most transformative years in our nation's history. He was a revolutionary without violence. Politics and persuasion were his weapons; social justice and equity his guiding principles. He introduced a national universal public health system; opened the doors of higher education to all; abolished the death penalty; established legal aid; increased pensions; protected the Great Barrier Reef; created a national art gallery; and redressed Australia's dismal history of race relations, while also getting rid of the old imperial honours system and giving our nation a new national anthem, Advance Australia Fair. He also lowered the voting age to 18 and gave Australia its first ever youth radio network, Double J. And, as the member for Grayndler noted, Gough is the only Prime Minister to have a rock band named after him.

A staunch critic of entrenched privilege, Gough made Australia a more equal, tolerant and free society. He was a true social reformist and, after 23 years of conservative rule, he knew there was no time to waste. Gough Whitlam had had decades in opposition to prepare for government, so when he was elected in 1972 he hit the ground running, appointing himself and deputy Lance Barnard to all cabinet positions for the first two weeks in his government. Whitlam ended conscription, recognised communist China, applied sanctions against South Africa and embarked on an ambitious program of support for the arts.

As his cabinet expanded, so too did the reform agenda. It was, for example, the Whitlam government that established the Commonwealth's first commission of inquiry into poverty. With Professor Robert Henderson at the helm, this inquiry fundamentally changed the way in which Australia was to think about the poor. For the first time ever, poverty in Australia was not seen as a personal attribute or failing, but rather as a direct consequence of the structure of our society. Perhaps even more importantly, this inquiry gave voice to those who were traditionally marginalised in the national debate.

It was the Whitlam government that first understood the importance of our national estate museums and collections for the national consciousness. It was Whitlam who established the National Gallery of Australia and made the bold decision to purchase Jackson Pollock's Blue Poles at the cost of $1.3 million in 1973—then a world record for contemporary American painting. Although the work was reviled at the time as the work of 'barefoot drunks', Gough's decision has stood the test of time. In retrospect, it was, of course, one of the nation's most savvy art purchases. Worth some $300 million, Blue Poles is now the pride of the NGA's collection.

As a young anthropologist working in Aboriginal Australia both before and after the High Court's Wik and Mabo decisions, I knew firsthand of the ongoing significance of Gough's determination to abolish the White Australia policy and introduce the Racial Discrimination Act, which established the right of all Australians to equal treatment under the law regardless of race or ethnicity.

It was this act that was to have the most profound effect on our common law for decades to come—because it paved the way for the Mabo and Wik decisions—and the lived experience of Indigenous people throughout Australia. Likewise, his establishment of a department of Aboriginal affairs and the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission were amongst some of his most remarkable and lasting reforms.

But it is Gough Whitlam's unswerving commitment to gender equality and the difference this has made for generations of Australian women that I would like to focus on now. The Whitlam government came to office at a time of immense social change. There was the large increase in the participation of women in the workforce. Whitlam's government instituted reforms to ensure that social legislation and institutions kept pace with social change and community values.

One of Gough's first acts as Prime Minister was to reopen the national wage and equal pay cases at the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. This led to the decision that Australian women undertaking work similar to that undertaken by men should be paid an equal wage. Half a million female workers became eligible for full pay for the first time and women's wages rose by one-third. The commission also extended the adult minimum wage to include women workers for the first time after Whitlam passed legislation to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

Maternity leave was also introduced for Commonwealth government employees. The legislation provided for 52 weeks of leave for mothers, 12 of which were on full pay, and it outlawed discrimination against Commonwealth employees because of their pregnancy and legislated instead to provide rights relating to the preservation of employment and status.

In 1973, Gough appointed Australia's first women's adviser, Elizabeth Reid. She established the basis for significant feminist programs and secured Commonwealth underwriting of the delivery of a range of new women's services, including women's refuges, rape crisis centres, equal opportunity policies in education, training and employment, and housing programs. Ms Reid has said of the time:

We talked in factories, in housing centres, on farms, in schools, at women's meetings, in dairies, in gaols, in universities—in short wherever women were. I was deluged with letters invariably beginning 'thank god, at last there is someone to whom I can talk to, someone who might listen and understand'.

Through this leadership, the first women's refuges opened their doors to those in need, including the Working Women's Centre, now the Hunter Women's Centre, in my electorate of Newcastle.

Gough's actions also helped enable women to be in charge of their bodies as well as their lives. Within 10 days of taking office, he removed the 27½ per cent luxury tax on all contraceptives and put the pill on the national health scheme list. These two measures reduced the price of the contraceptive pill to $1 a month—giving Australian women access to safe, reliable and affordable contraception. He established the single mothers benefit, which drastically reduced the risk of women living in poverty, he passed a number of laws banning sexual discrimination and his leadership saw the end to adversarial divorce.

Many have argued that the passage of the no-fault divorce laws are Gough's greatest contribution to the reduction of social misery. Prior to these reforms, a marriage could only be dissolved if one party could prove that the other was at fault in the breakdown of the marriage. 'Matrimonial offences' such as adultery, cruelty or 'desertion' had to be proved before divorce could be allowed. The indignity of this process was compounded by its very public nature. Divorce proceedings were prime fodder for gossip columns in newspapers and the financial cost of this fault based process was prohibitive to many. According to Gough: 'The only test of a marriage is whether both parties agree to maintain it.'

It is perhaps hard for many Australians to imagine what life under the previous archaic divorce laws was like, but the stories of our mothers and grandmothers are stark reminders of the need for these law reforms. Today, we take many of these reforms for granted and severely underestimate the level of opposition they faced at the time. To his great credit, however, Gough never blinked when it came to controversy. He never shied from prosecuting the case for change. Guided by the principles of social equity and justice, he was determined to drive these reforms, changing the lives of Australian people for the better. And for that we remain forever grateful.

Vale, Gough Whitlam. Your legacy for the men and women of Australia lives on.

Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (09:53): I am proud to offer a tribute on behalf of the people of Kingsford Smith to the life of Edward Gough Whitlam and the profound effect that he had on Australia, particularly those in my community. Gough Whitlam changed the way Australians saw themselves and, indeed, the way the rest of the world saw Australia. He inspired Australians. He gave us a new confidence, a renewed spirit and an optimism about the future that we previously never had.

The famous Australian artist Arthur Boyd once said that when the Whitlam government returned to power he felt proud to call himself Australian again. The fact is, all Australians again felt proud to call themselves Australian as a result of the Whitlam government. Gough Whitlam saw politics as a noble profession and an honourable one, and he saw the role of leadership in politics as fundamental to progress and making a difference to the lives of Australians and indeed the attitudes and the confidence that Australians had about themselves and their nation. He changed Australian lives in so many ways: the introduction of universal health care; in education, introducing needs based funding for schools; free tertiary education; having the first adviser on women in his government; equal pay for women; no-fault divorce; income support for single mums; land rights for Aboriginal Australians; the introduction of an Aboriginal Legal Service; protection of the Great Barrier Reef; and the introduction of the Australia Council for the Arts. He even gave our nation its national anthem.

For me, the leadership and the foresight of Gough Whitlam is summed up by the very controversial purchase of Blue Poles, the famous artwork by United States artist Jackson Pollock in 1973. At the time, Gough Whitlam was hounded by the conservative politicians and the conservative media in this country about the purchase. The head of the Australian National Gallery was concerned about the purchase. He wrote to Gough Whitlam and said, 'I'm wondering whether we should be a little bit more conservative about this purchase.' Gough Whitlam quickly wrote back to him and said, 'Purchase the artwork and disclose the price to the Australian people.' And that is what he did: $1.3 million for the purchase of that artwork.

As I said, Gough Whitlam was hounded by the conservative forces in this country. But that did not deter him. Gough Whitlam published a photo of Blue Poles on his Christmas cards that year, so proud was he of what he was doing for Australia. That particular artwork, which hangs in the National Gallery of Australia, is now worth over $100 million, and the United States government is actually quite disappointed that they allowed such an iconic artwork to be purchased by a foreign government for such as low price. I think it is a great symbol of the value Gough Whitlam added to Australia. Not only did he add value to this artwork—a great asset for the Australian people—but he also added value to Australia in so many ways: in our economy, by reducing tariffs; in social services, through Medicare; through land rights and the like; and through support for Australia's position throughout the world.

In international relations, he is often well known for re-establishing relations with China and establishing a strong relationship with Indonesia. He was a master of international diplomacy and saw Australia expanding its sphere of influence throughout Asia and the Pacific Islands. He was also a staunch supporter of decolonisation. When he was elected, Gough turned his attention to Papua New Guinea. Papua New Guinea benefited tremendously from the election of the Whitlam government. In 1973 he granted PNG self-government and delivered independence two years later. Papua New Guinea's first Prime Minister, Sir Michael Somare, recalled Gough Whitlam when he spoke recently about the incredible impact Gough Whitlam had on him and his country:

He said to me one day, 'when Labor's opportunity comes, we'll make sure we will push for self governing and independence for Papua New Guinea'. And of course, it happened.

He pushed other Australians and said to them, 'Give an opportunity to the Indigenous of their country and they will achieve what they want.'

The current Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, Peter O'Neill, also paid tribute to Gough Whitlam recently when he said:

Gough Whitlam's Prime Ministership was almost synonymous with Papua New Guinea's transition to independence and the people of our nation express our gratitude.

Gough was also a great friend of wider Pacific nations, in particular fighting to end atmospheric nuclear testing in the region. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, when the French government conducted nuclear tests in French Polynesia, with the fallout spreading throughout the region, Gough Whitlam strongly opposed those actions because of the impact it was having on human health and the fact that it violated a resolution of the United National General Assembly. Gough was a big believer in the foresight and effect of the United Nations in terms of peace and stability throughout the world. On 9 May 1973, the Australian and New Zealand governments took France to the International Court of Justice, seeking an injunction against further testing. On 22 June, that injunction was granted.

Gough Whitlam's influence has been felt far and wide, the hallmark of a true leader who has left a remarkable legacy not only here in Australia but around the world. On behalf of the people of Kingsford Smith, I offer my condolences to the Whitlam family. May he rest in peace.

Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (10:01): If it was not for Gough Whitlam, I do not believe I would be standing here today representing the people of Canberra. As I said in my first speech, Gough Whitlam's reforms to secondary and tertiary education allowed my sisters and me to escape a cycle of disadvantage—to break the tradition of three generations of single mothers who were denied choice, options and equality of opportunity due to their lack of education and the resulting poverty. In 1969, Gough said:

Poverty is a national waste as well as individual waste. We are all diminished when any of us are denied proper education. The nation is the poorer—a poorer economy, a poorer civilisation, because of this human and national waste.

Education is the great transformer—'the great instrument for the promotion of equality'—and my and my sisters' education gave us the foundation to think big and to dream big. It liberated us from potentially timid lives. And there are thousands and thousands more like us, particularly those who went to state and systemic Catholic schools.

I was nine when Gough was elected. He was dismissed in my last year of primary school and his legacy was the backdrop of my secondary education. My teachers were rabid Whitlamites, and the passion that surrounded the discussion of his government and the Dismissal in the classroom aroused an enduring love of politics and public policy.

Gough believed: 'Of all the objectives of my government, none had a higher priority than the encouragement of the arts—the preservation and enrichment of our cultural heritage. Our other objectives are all means to an end. The enjoyment of the arts is an end in itself.' Gough painted a vivid policy canvas 'to promote a standard of excellence in the arts' and, most importantly, 'help establish and express an Australian identity through the arts'. His bankrolling of Australian culture, and the resulting 'unparalleled burst of creativity in this nation', meant that for the first time we studied Australian history, Australian literature, Australian film, Australian art and Australian politics. For the first time, we were reading works that told our story, with our own subtexts, in our own language. For the first time, we were watching films that reflected our landscape and echoed our sounds, and that studied our vivid and all too forensic light, not the subdued and golden hews of the Northern Hemisphere.

Gough invoked a pride in our own narrative and outlook, and gave us the confidence to believe we were no longer just second-rate Europeans. Given Australia's achievements in every facet of creative life over the last 40 years, it is really hard to imagine how liberating it felt at the time. But it was a coming of age for our country and an end, finally, of the cultural cringe.

As a young woman with aspirations, Gough helped tend the flower of the women's movement in the seventies and provided the infrastructure for me and thousands and thousands of other women to achieve our potential. One day in my English class, my teacher asked us: what had been the most important liberator of women in history?

She then wrote two words on the blackboard: 'the pill'. That is because, until Gough, oral contraception was only available to the wealthy. By getting rid of the sales tax on the pill and making it available through the PBS, he gave women easily accessible and affordable control over their own fertility, which is the absolute fundamental to female empowerment.

Some regard the Whitlam government as anti Defence, but I suggest he did more to underwrite the defence of Australia and defence policy than many hawks. Gough regarded conscription as:

… an impediment to achieving the forces Australia needs. It is an alibi for failing to give proper conditions to regular soldiers … By abolishing it, Australia will achieve a better army, a better-paid army—and a better, united society.

In the aftermath of the Vietnam War, when we could have so easily turned away from the US, he held on to the US alliance and helped give birth to an understanding that Australia could defend itself. He created a bipartisan consensus on defence policy, which endures today, a belief that we can create an independent capability for our own defence, an action that reinforces rather than weakens the US alliance.

He initiated large-scale cooperation with Indonesia. He launched the Department of Defence. He amalgamated five departments. He gave birth to the term 'Australian Defence Force' and was part of the movement to establish the Australian Defence Force Academy. He appointed a military ombudsman and created a new charter for the Citizen Military Forces. He 'moved steadily and firmly' towards the aim that Australia should have the defence forces she needs: 'finely equipped, highly professional, highly mobile and highly respected'.

That respect also extended to the Public Service, which he radically transformed through equal pay, through maternity leave, through annual leave and through decent pay and conditions.

Gough came from a privileged background. His father was the Deputy Crown Solicitor, and he attended Telopea Park School and Canberra Grammar. In fact, he is the only Prime Minister to have grown up here in our great national capital. But he used his privilege to eliminate inequalities that were 'riveted on a child for a lifetime'.

He unleashed a confidence among Australians about their nation, about their place in their world, about what they could achieve, which I believe had been denied them since Federation. He reimagined and redefined us locally, nationally and internationally.

Since his passing, I have received many heartfelt messages from Canberrans and friends on his legacy. One of my oldest high school friends wrote:

Thanks to him, my sister was able to study medicine, my mother got a degree in psychology, I got my own degree, my son has been able to get medical attention from the day he was born due to a public healthcare system ... the list goes on.

Had we continued to live in America I wonder where we would be. When my parents came to Australia in 1971 and Gough came to power, they thought they had reached Nirvana!

As I am a member of parliament, his death has made me pause to reflect on why I am here. When hearing the news of his passing, my mum left a teary message on my phone saying I had to remember his legacy and to use my time in this place to make a difference, to improve people's lives, as Gough did.

Despite the turbulence of his government, his life has encouraged us to challenge people, to inspire people and—as the member for Wentworth so eloquently put it—to not let the petty hatreds consume us. Most of all, he encouraged us to be ambitious about what we can achieve in life. And for so, so many of us, he gave us the foundations to be optimistic as Australians, to be confident as Australians, to think big, to dream big. Thank you, Gough. Vale.

Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (10:09): It is indeed a privilege to be able to stand here and speak about Gough Whitlam. I begin by extending my condolences to his family members and his close personal friends, by whom his passing will be felt the most and for whom the loss will be the greatest.

I met Gough and Margaret Whitlam on several occasions, but I do not claim to have had a close personal friendship with them. But, as an ALP campaigner at the time, I well remember Gough's rise to the top, his period as Prime Minister and leader of the ALP and his departure from parliament. I also knew well many of the South Australian members of parliament that served with Gough in parliament during the Whitlam years. I refer particularly to people like Clyde and Don Cameron, Ralph Jacobi, Chris Hurford, Jim Cavanagh, Reg Bishop and the great Mick Young.

With the exception of a few intellectual lightweights, there has been universal acclamation that Gough Whitlam was an exceptional character. Indeed, that so much has been said about him since his death speaks for itself. No other Australian political character in my own lifetime has inspired so many or evoked so much passion by both admirers and detractors. Even those who speak negatively of him begrudgingly acknowledge his dominant presence. He was an extraordinary man. He was one of a kind—a unique individual. Everything about him was extraordinary—his persona, his intellect, his wit, his achievements, his rise to fame, his failures and his demise were all extraordinary features of Gough Whitlam. Just as extraordinary is that such an exceptional person, whom today the nation widely acknowledges, was so convincingly rejected by the Australian people in 1975.

Gough was ahead of his time. His vision was not readily accepted at the time, and it was only after changes were bedded down that the wider community saw the value of Labor's reforms. They have withstood the test of time. His sacking, conceived by the two highest non-political officers in the land, the Chief Justice of the High Court and the Governor-General of the day, was the greatest political miscarriage of justice I can point to. It was also the greatest test of the Governor-General's powers and the Australian Constitution that Australia had ever been confronted with, and the first and only time that an Australian Prime Minister was removed from office by a Governor-General.

The diverse array of Whitlam's front bench, a double dissolution, breaking of convention and appointment by the Queensland Bjelke-Petersen government of Albert Field to the Senate all add to the extraordinary turbulence of the Whitlam government era. But it was also the greatest reforming government Australia had ever seen. For myself as a South Australian, the election of the Whitlam federal government after 23 years of a Liberal government, followed closely after the re-election of the Dunstan Labor government after 28 years of Liberals in South Australia, was a great time. Whilst they were very different in character and stature, politically Don Dunstan and Gough Whitlam had very much in common. Both were well educated intellectuals. Both were brilliant lawyers and had been appointed QCs. Both had been elected to parliament in the early 1950s. Both came from relatively well-to-do families and neither came from a union background. Importantly, and sometimes together, they changed Australia.

Between 1972 and 1975, over 500 bills were passed by the Whitlam government. It was an extraordinary achievement, given that there was an election in between, in 1974, and that so much of the legislation was anything but routine changes of law. Ending conscription, consumer protection, Indigenous issues, the arts, the environment, multiculturalism, human rights, foreign affairs, equality, abolishing High Court appeals to the Privy Council, education and health care were all placed on Gough Whitlam and Don Dunstan's agenda, and the reform process began. For South Australians, the reforms were simultaneously being enshrined into both state and federal laws. It was, indeed, a time of great change. National ALP secretary Mick Young, who was based in South Australia, was a common link between Gough and Don during this critical period.

There has been some conjecture about who abolished the White Australia policy, with some crediting former Prime Minister Harold Holt and others Gough Whitlam. My understanding is that both can take credit for it, with the process commencing under Holt and being sealed by Whitlam. It was also Gough Whitlam, jointly with Don Dunstan, who in the mid-1960s moved to abolish the White Australia policy from Labor's platform. It was under Gough Whitlam that Labor brought in the Racial Discrimination Act, acknowledged Australia as a multicultural nation and promoted equality amongst all peoples.

Following the Whitlam government's defeat, from 1976 to 1981 I was employed by Senator Jim Cavanagh. Senator Cavanagh had served as a minister throughout the Whitlam government era in what I believe was his most significant role, Minister for Indigenous Affairs. He was the minister who oversaw the original draft of the Northern Territory land rights legislation which—although it was subsequently passed under the Fraser government because of the termination of the Whitlam government—was indeed a Labor initiative. One of my first tasks with Senator Cavanagh was to identify any differences between Labor's legislation and the Fraser government's redrafted bills. There was very little difference that I could spot. The land rights legislation was a major breakthrough in having the Indigenous people's connection with their land finally recognised.

When Jim Cavanagh passed away in 1990, Gough Whitlam attended and spoke at his funeral held at the Port Adelaide town hall, as he had done with so many of his other former cabinet colleagues. He valued all of his former government colleagues.

There is often a tendency to embellish a person's life when speaking about them after their death. But Gough Whitlam's life needs no embellishment. By all measures Gough was an exceptional person. As more years pass, his achievements become clearer. His determination is vindicated and in turn Gough becomes legendary. It was the Whitlam government that opened up Australia to the world and the world to Australia. It was under the Whitlam government that Australia came of age as an independent free-thinking nation that could stand on its own two feet.

It was under the Whitlam government that Australia took control of its destiny, and Australia did that without breaking away from the Commonwealth or becoming a republic. Whilst today we take such matters for granted, that was not the case in the 1970s when community attitudes were very different. Whitlam's reforms took courage, determination and persuasiveness. Gough Whitlam was not driven by what was popular but by what was right, convinced that in time all Australians would see the righteousness of his direction. And indeed his reforms have withstood the test of time. Whilst many may try to emulate him or match his political stature, I doubt that Australia will ever again have a political leader of the ilk of Gough Whitlam.

In a service befitting his legendary status, Gough was farewelled by a crowd of thousands at the Sydney Town Hall memorial service. I felt privileged to have been there and to have lived through the Whitlam government era. The service brought to a close the Whitlam era, but his reforms endure and Gough Whitlam will long be remembered. I thank Gough Whitlam for his contribution to Australian life.

Ms MacTIERNAN (Perth) (10:17): I remember, when I was around seven or eight, sitting at home in our housing commission house being full of Melbournian pride. I recall saying to my sister: 'Aren't we lucky! We are living in Melbourne, and Melbourne is the capital of Victoria, and Victoria is the best state in Australia, and Australia is the best country in the world!' My older sister looked at me and said: 'We are a pissant, insignificant nation that is led around by the nose by America, and we are the laughing stock of the world.' I did not realise until 1973 just how profound the black cloud that had descended upon me as a result of that conversation was.

I remember very clearly a moment in February 1973. It was a Saturday morning. By this stage I had moved to what was truly the best state in Australia. I was going into my Saturday morning job. I hopped off the bus. It was a beautiful sunny day, and there was the Perth Town Hall in all its glory. Suddenly I felt this black cloud lift. I felt so proud to be an Australian. I felt that we were now truly a nation that we could be proud of, a nation embarking on an independent foreign policy, a nation that was accepting the proper rights of Aboriginal people, a nation that was allowing women freedom, and a nation that was focusing on great social justice issues such as education. It was a magic moment. And for that I will always deeply thank Gough Whitlam and the work that he did, particularly in that first 100 days that led to this great energy.

The Whitlam years were really transformative. For my generation, just ending conscription and our involvement in the Vietnam War had immediate impact on family and friends. There were two issues that I was engaged in politically as a teenager: opposition to the Vietnam War and land rights for Indigenous people. Gough embraced both of those issues. For my generation, many of my cohort, my friends, had fought conscription. My partner had been jailed for refusing to register for national service as had many of my friends. Many of them had spent a number of years on the run semi in-hiding to avoid being jailed for refusing to register for national service because of their extreme objection to being involved in the Vietnam War. It was really energising to be part of an Australia that thought for itself.

There was definitely, as Paul Keating said, a 'before Whitlam' and an 'after Whitlam' Zeitgeist. That is not to deny that under Holt and Gorton some modernising had commenced. But it was a crack in the wall. What happened with Gough and his government was that the windows of this country were opened and the energising breezes of modernisation swept throughout the land. It has been extraordinary to be reminded, since his death, of the reach of his government. The number of areas that were changed and changed very profoundly, the areas of policy that he penetrated within his time, has been truly amazing.

I just want to focus on two areas that perhaps have not had as much attention as they should. As someone who was reared in the Irish Catholic tradition, I had been part of a sector of society that had seen Labor's objection to state aid to Catholic schools as sectarian. Whitlam and his government cut through magnificently that Gordian knot, by changing the whole debate to one of equity of funding for schools. No longer was the debate around whether it was government or non-government; it was a debate around equity. He accepted and took on and embraced responsibility for ensuring that both government and non-government schools were funded adequately, to ensure that there was real equality of opportunity across the country. He recognised that the issue was not Catholic versus non-Catholic; it was about accessing education and creating opportunities for Australians. Although we had free and compulsory primary and secondary education, the product on offer was very uneven.

Much of the debate and remembrance of Gough has focused on the role the Whitlam government had in making tertiary education widely accessible, but I would put it that it was indeed the work that was done in lifting the standards of primary and secondary schooling throughout the country that has been the more profound education legacy, and one that Mr Whitlam himself put as one of his central and core achievements.

I want to also reflect on the role he played in modernising our intelligence agencies. I think it is very important to reflect on this at this time, when we are expanding the powers of our intelligence agencies to deal with external threats. I think it is important for us to learn some of these important lessons, of which Gough was aware, about the capacity of such agencies to develop a culture that confuses legitimate dissent with subversion. Gough had a very detailed knowledge of the intelligence services, and it is extraordinary to think now that at the time there was not even official recognition that a number of these services, such as ASIS and Defence Signals, existed. It is clear that these organisations had developed an obsession with anti-communism and had indeed focused far too much of their attention on activities that were a legitimate part of the Australian political landscape and failed in fact to look at some of the real threats that were presenting themselves to the Australian community. The establishment of the Hope royal commission has led to some very significant and lasting changes in the Australian intelligence community and a lot more transparency about the nature of the work that is undertaken and has started the process of providing real and important parliamentary oversight of those activities.

Again, listening to the debate, just here today, the contributions that have been made remind us of the breadth and reach of the change. I remember well the dismissal. I remember being out there on that night handing out flyers to people at the Perth railway station, telling them about the dismissal—because in those days, before email and other electronic media, a lot of people coming out of work at five o'clock at night certainly had been unaware of this tumultuous change that had occurred. But I agree with Noel Pearson and the magnificent comments he made in his eulogy to Gough—that we should not lament that he had only three years, because these were three years of crowded hours. It was certainly not an age without a name. It was a massive achievement, and it was indeed the pace of change that was itself transformative. It was very much the montage of revolution that occurred that enabled—that really fed and created—the energy that has underpinned Australian life ever since.

I have been very proud to be part of the Labor family, and I thank Tony Whitlam in particular for his very inspiring words about the importance of the Labor Party in continuing the very great legacy of Gough. And, like the member for Canberra, I have found that the whole experience of reliving those Whitlam years has given me an increased focus on the importance of the work we do here and the importance of continuing with a modern Labor Party and fighting for those Labor values.

Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide) (10:29): It is a great pleasure to follow those beautifully crafted words from the member for Perth and obviously a great pleasure and privilege to speak on this condolence motion. I want to thank the government for agreeing to this motion being debated in this chamber, and I also want to acknowledge the very fine words of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in leading off this debate.

It is very hard to sum up the life and legacy of anyone in five minutes, let alone someone who managed to cram as much activity and purpose into their 98 years as Gough Whitlam did. In the short time I have I would like to reflect on Gough's legacy in the area of environmental protection, because it was a very significant legacy. Gough Whitlam came to power with a very ambitious platform in this policy area, as he did in so many others. After a short stint in the environment portfolio during the famous duumvirate with Lance Barnard, he appointed the very energetic Moss Cass, who held the environment portfolio in the Whitlam government for two and a half of the three years. The Commonwealth role in environmental protection then was a relatively blank slate. In Australia and other developed nations, particularly the United States, the environment was only then just beginning to emerge as a significant political issue. The previous government had only appointed a minister to the portfolio in the last year or two of its 23 years, and had not managed yet to really craft much of an agenda.

Gough Whitlam's approach to this area, though, was consistent with all of the other policies he focused on. Firstly, he again was ahead of his time in grasping the importance of progressive change in this area. As one example, in his 1974 campaign speech Gough Whitlam said:

Labor believes the polluter should pay, not future generations of Australians.

Which is a debate that we know only too well remains unresolved today.

He also boldly promoted the role of the Commonwealth, or the Australian government, in protecting our beautiful natural environment. As he did in so many other policy areas, Gough unashamedly employed and deployed every provision he could find in the Australian Constitution to support his goals. Gough strenuously opposed the Bjelke-Petersen government's plan to drill for oil in the Great Barrier Reef, for example. He took the then unprecedented step of passing a Commonwealth law to override the Queensland government in the Seas and Submerged Lands Act. The conservative state, not just Queensland but a number of others, took Gough to the High Court, claiming that it was up to the Queensland government to decide whether or not to drill in one of the seven natural wonders of the world. Gough's government argued that one of his favourite provisions of the Constitution, the external affairs power in section 51(39), gave the Commonwealth power beyond the low-water mark to enact legislation of that type, and the High Court agreed. On that foundation Gough built the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and legislated to create the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, which remains in place today.

Gough also used the external affairs power to sign Australia onto the World Heritage Convention, Australia being one of the first countries to do so. On that basis we have seen in the last four and a bit decades the listing of so many precious areas onto the world heritage list, a decision ultimately that was validated again by the High Court, memorably in the Franklin Dam case. Gough ratified a number of other conventions to drive better domestic environmental protection. I do not have the opportunity to list them, but notably the Ramsar convention, which protects wetlands and associated biodiversity.

The role of the Australian government in protecting Australia's environmental assets that have world heritage values is a great Whitlam legacy, a legacy that the Labor Party today seeks to extend and protect in opposing the current government's attempts to hand back the protection powers over world heritage properties to the states and territories.

Gough also used the fiscal reach of the Australian government to introduce laws requiring environmental impact assessments, for the first time, of developments that involved Commonwealth land or Commonwealth funds. He also established the National Parks and Wildlife Service, a highlight among so many examples over so many decades of Labor's strong connection and support for our national park system. He also established the Australian Heritage Commission, recognising that our wonderful heritage does not only extend to our beautiful natural environment.

As the years passed the focus of environmental politics obviously shifts. The challenges of climate change and water scarcity, for example, were not much discussed in the time in which Gough Whitlam was Prime Minister. But the framework that Gough established for this parliament to play a leading role in nurturing and protecting our beautiful natural environment remains as relevant today as it was when Gough first prosecuted that argument.

Vale Edward Gough Whitlam. He was a true pioneer.

Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (10:34): We in this House today and for many days pay tribute to and remember the Labor warrior and true reformist, Gough Whitlam. So much can be said about Australia's 21st Prime Minister: his service to the Labor Party; his commitment to the community of Werriwa where he was the former federal member; his dedication to reforming and shaping Australia into the dynamic, egalitarian society we enjoy today; and his devotion as a loving husband and father. But I would like to focus on one of Gough's greatest achievements in particular, a subject close to my heart: education.

Education affects as all. It shapes our way of life, and I am privileged to have the role of shadow minister for education. Gough saw education for what it was and is: a great transformer; the single greatest opportunity to improving the quality of life and standard of living for every Australian; and the best possible mechanism for improving and strengthening our economy.

In coming to government in 1972, Gough set about transforming Australia's education system into a far more equitable and affordable endeavour for all Australians. He abolished the 'morally unjust and socially wasteful' dichotomy of opportunity afforded to private school students versus government school students, arguing that 'no democratic government can accept this disparity'.

Gough threw open the doors to Australia's higher education system, offering students of all backgrounds a free and affordable university education for the first time in our history. This proved to be a profound reform; a hallmark of Gough's brief but momentous time in office. Gough could not know back then that this reform would continue to echo around this place some 40 years later, highlighted now by the current government's proposed higher education reform package.

Education was a personal passion of Gough's. In fact, in his 1969 campaign launch, Gough argued:

When government makes opportunities for any of the citizens, it makes them for all the citizens. We are all diminished as citizens when any of us are poor. … The nation is the poorer—a poorer economy, a poorer civilisation, because of this human and national waste

I think this is something that the government should consider while it is pursuing some very radical, unfair and distasteful reforms.

Gough used this sense of universal education and social justice to unleash many educational reforms, including the abolition of university fees, the granting of state aid to independent schools, lifting the funding to public schools and the creation of the Australian Schools Commission.

Under Gough's leadership, government spending on non-government schools increased by 117 per cent, while spending on government schools increased by 677 per cent. This funding injection tipped the establishment on its head and went a long way to eradicating the inequity in public school funding.

Gough's reforms in education were big, broad and visionary. Following a long stint in opposition, Gough knew what needed to be done to transform Australia's education system into a fairer, more equitable institution that benefited and served the wider Australian community, not just the fortunate few.

It is fair to say that, if it were not for Gough Whitlam and his visionary education reforms, particularly in higher education, many in this place today would not have a university degree. Many would not have been afforded the opportunity to go university or even finish school. We in this place and right across this country owe Gough a debt we can never repay. The opportunity to gain an education is the first step in gaining meaningful employment, social mobility and financial freedom.

What people may not know is that Gough was also the champion of Australia's modern dental school plan, which originated in my electorate of Kingston—this is getting off the topic of education but something that is probably little known. This information came from the former member for Kingston, Richie Gun, who took the then shadow minister for health, Bill Hayden, on a tour of a Christie's Beach dental clinic in 1969. The clinic was trialling a first of its kind: a dental service, that was local, could be easily accessed and was affordable. So impressive were the results of this state health department trial, it was quickly introduced into the Labor Party platform in 1971 in order to extend the program nation-wide. Gough gave this policy his full support and went about introducing a national dental service as a matter of urgency after having won office in 1972. Gough was a driver of change in Australia. This small policy was just one of the many policies that not only made my electorate of Kingston a better place to live but also made this country a better place to live.

We need to take this opportunity to say thank you, Gough, for what you did for this country. People would argue that taking this country from where it was to where needed to be was a massive step. It required momentum, it required passion and it required drive and they were things that Gough Whitlam certainly had.

Gough was a great man, a great reformer, a great Labor leader and a great Prime Minister. I think we can all continue to fight for his principles and his beliefs. We can all continue to mark his legacy in a way that is fitting for the modern Labor Party. He will be missed.

Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (10:41): I am one of the younger members of the House but I am also living proof of Gough and his legacy of his time in parliament. I thought it was important to contribute to this condolence motion, not necessarily on my own reflections of the great man but of the reflections of many of the Labor branch members and stalwarts in my electorate.

There is no more fitting person's recollections to place on the record first than those of David Kennedy, a federal member for Bendigo from 1969 to 1972. David developed a strong, close, personal friendship with Mr Whitlam and recalls that he was an inspiration. In David's words, Mr Whitlam was a larrikin of parliament. He said that Mr Whitlam bowled us all over just because he kept cracking jokes, that Mr Whitlam was full of life and that he wanted others to enjoy life. David remembers warmly the nickname that Gough Whitlam had for him—Nap, short for Napoleon. People in Bendigo were not surprised by this nickname.

David also said that Gough inspired a generation of people in Victoria. He was a great champion of liberty, equality and fraternity. For a lot of Labor supporters, the passing of Gough was a really personal thing. David said, 'We admired him, we cherished him and we loved him. He stood for all we believed in.' Finally David said, 'To lose him is to lose a sense of self.' David's words and thoughts and warmth are echoed by many Labor Party life members from my electorate. They remind us how important Gough was to Labor in Central Victoria.

Labor party life member Elaine McNamara said that Whitlam symbolised everything that was good and caring in the Labor Party. Elaine said she joined the party as soon as she could at age 18 and got to meet Gough Whitlam whenever he visited Bendigo. 'He was a well respected person,' she said, 'when he came to Bendigo, and he did so quite a lot. In person he was very quietly spoken at times but he always had a strong presence about him.' Elaine said, 'Margaret and Gough were a very gentle couple. But then in his role as Prime Minister, he became dogmatic, and you really felt like you had a fighter, someone standing up and fighting for you in your corner.'

Elaine fondly remembers attending rallies and political meetings with her grandfather and how she used to be on the back of a truck at Trades Hall and would ring the bell to call the members to order. She remembers many of the speeches that Gough made at Trades Hall during his visits there. Elaine's fondest memory of Gough was when, as Labor leader, on his way to Bendigo, he stopped in at Castlemaine to buy some Castlemaine Rock for her young son. Elaine says that whenever she thinks of Gough, she now thinks of Castlemaine Rock. This is the warmth of the man that we have lost. Elaine said that it would be the first year in a long time that she would not be sending Gough Whitlam a Christmas card—another symbol of how close he was to so many in the Bendigo electorate.

Another life member of the Bendigo branch, Elaine Walsh, who joined the party in 1962, said it had been such a privilege to volunteer and be involved in the labour movement under such a leader as Gough Whitlam. Elaine said: 'I'm proud to have been there at the time that he was elected. Gough did in three years what other governments could not do in 10 years,' and that was probably because he knew he could and he had the guts to do it. Ms Walsh said the party had changed a lot since Whitlam's time in office, but she said that it was his actions in government that helped define the debate for Labor and the community for many generations to come.

Eric Dearricott's life membership of the Bendigo branch comes up next year. Eric said that he was inspired to join the Labor Party after Whitlam's dismissal from government in 1975. Mr Dearricott refers to that time as being exciting and engaging. As a young teacher, he and his wife, Margaret, thought it was their duty to get involved, to join a movement, to stand up not only for the rights of their generation but for the rights of many generations. Eric said that he was influenced by Whitlam's policies and foresight. He said, 'When I think about Gough Whitlam and Labor and the period of the late sixties through to the late seventies, I think about the principles that they stood for.'

There is an entire generation of people who joined the Labor Party and got actively involved in Labor and in the community because of Gough Whitlam. Other branch members joined the Labor Party and got actively involved because they were opposed to the war in Vietnam. Paul and Mary Reid often reflect that they joined the Labor Party and got actively involved because of Labor's stance against our involvement in the Vietnam War. Those are the principles that Eric, Mary and Paul refer to when they talk about why they joined the Labor Party. Decades on, that is still their motivation for continuing to be actively involved in the labour movement. It was Whitlam's vision for education, his recognition of China and his work for women and health care are just some of the many policies that Eric continues to admire and be empowered by today. Eric said, 'In my lifetime he is certainly the most inspiring leader that I have known.' These are the words of some of the many people actively involved in Labor then and today, and I wish to place on the Hansard record their thoughts and reflections on the passing of Gough Whitlam.

Gough Whitlam in government created change that would continue for generations. He created change in his lifetime, in our lifetime, and his reforms and leadership continue to create real and lasting change both in the community and in the Labor Party. Just reflect on the change that he made to the great Australian Labor Party. Gough was a giant of the Labor Party and a great leader of our nation. It is very fair to say that he loved the Labor Party. In 1964 Gough made a speech to the Labor Party at the Trades Hall in Melbourne. He said he could not deliver the speech because there were two Labor parties: the men, delegates and candidates; and the women making the tea and preparing the meals out the back, then and today known as the Labor ladies. Gough declared then that we could not deserve to be called the Labor Party until we were one Labor Party, and until we were one Labor Party we did not deserve to govern. So the women stopped making tea and no longer were consigned to the back room, and so began the modern making of Labor.

We are a modern Labor Party and well on our way to achieving Gough's goals. Within Gough's lifetime, we have achieved another milestone. Almost 50 years since Gough made these remarks at the Victorian Trades Hall in Melbourne, at the last federal election in the state of Victoria three Labor women, new women, were elected to enter this parliament, and three Labor men, new men, were elected to enter this parliament to join the Labor ranks: Jo Ryan, in Lalor, Tim Watts, in Gellibrand; Clare O'Neil, in Hotham; Andrew Giles, in Scullin; David Feeney, in Batman; and me, in Bendigo—another example of how, within Gough's lifetime, he changed the modern Labor Party.

Change that Gough created will continue on for generations, and some of the achievements that I would like to mention profoundly changed our community to make it a stronger and more inclusive community. We have mentioned the opposition to Australia's involvement in Vietnam, and many reasons why a generation of young people stood up and demanded to be heard.

His social welfare reforms included supporting the mother's benefit and welfare payments to homeless people. Before 1973, only widows were entitled to pension payments, so other women who were raising children on their own were faced with impossible choices. Recently, when I caught up with the Eaglehawk community committee of management, they were talking about Gough Whitlam, and one brave great-grandmother told me her story about how Gough supported her raising five children when she was a single mother. She was in a violent relationship and had to leave for the sake of her children's safety, and it was impossible, before Gough, to survive, but with his reforms he made it possible. Today she is grateful for the generosity, the vision and the compassion that this great man had.

Equal pay for women is another example of what legacy Gough has left us with. One of the first acts of the Gough Whitlam government was to reopen the national wage and equity pay case at the Commonwealth Arbitration Commission. In 1972, the equal pay case meant that Australian women doing similar work to that of men should be paid an equal wage, and two years later the commission extended the adult minimum wage to women workers for the first time. It is hard for my generation to believe that it was not until 1974—that women working as cleaners, women working in hotels, the many, many women on minimum wage, did not receive equal pay until that period.

These are some of the lasting legacies of a great man, a Labor man. These are some of the policy areas that continue to be fundamental to today's debate. He changed the debate in this country for many decades and continues to inspire not just generations of Labor people but generations and generations of a nation, challenging us to be bold, to live up to what we believe in, to be bold to take the debate out there. The Hon. Gough Whitlam is a Labor legend who in death, as in life, will continue to inspire a nation for many generations to come. May he rest in peace.

Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (10:54): I rise to join my colleagues and express my sincerest condolences on the death of Edward Gough Whitlam, the 21st Prime Minister of Australia. Gough Whitlam was a political titan, a crash-or-crash-through politician, a leader of conviction. If we were to ask ourselves the eternal question, 'Does history make people, or do people make history?' I dare say Gough would be among the very few in the latter category.

And yet his character was forged by history and his times. Though from a comfortable background, he was born during World War I, in his teens during the Great Depression, a bomber navigator in his 20s, and an MP and father in his 30s. He was among, indeed from, the great generation. Before even emerging upon the national stage, he had already seen human misery on a grand scale, faced death many times and even contemplated the existential threat to modern democracy throughout the world. With this experience, is it any wonder that he was a man in a hurry, with an ambition that was so grand, matched by a determination so fierce? It culminated on 13 November 1972 at Labor's campaign launch. 'Men and women of Australia,' he proclaimed, at once changing the political lexicon of his times. He went on to say:

The decision we will make for our country on 2 December is a choice between … the habits and fears of the past, and the demands and opportunities of the future. There are moments in history when the whole fate and future of nations can be decided by a single decision. For Australia, this is such a time.

Such rhetoric rarely rings with such truth.

After 23 years in exile, caused as much by division and defection than by anything the conservatives did, the Labor Party, led by this magnificent leader, was not there to govern for governing's sake. In no particular order, the Whitlam government ended conscription, released conscientious objectors from our jails, introduced universal health care, created no-fault divorce, created the Family Court of Australia, reduced tariffs, abolished appeals to the Privy Council, abolished prohibitive university fees, cut the voting age to 18 years, funded our fledgling film industry, enacted Aboriginal land rights and the Racial Discrimination Act, recognised China, ended our involvement in the Vietnam War, repealed the death penalty, instituted legal aid, abolished knights and dames—which a future Labor government will do again—ratified the World Heritage convention, removed sales tax on the pill, reopened the equal pay case, embedded the Australia Council for the Arts, paid single mothers a pension, established the Australian Law Reform Commission, sung a new national anthem and so much more. His was a government not for the faint-hearted but for the big-hearted and the high-minded.

In the brief time I have left, I also feel compelled to address the charge of economic illiteracy or indifference. There were flaws with this government, without a doubt; there were mistakes and scandals. But let us not conclude that the absurdity of dealing with Khemlani or the titillation of Morosi and Cairns's relationship has anything to do with the economic policy record of the Whitlam era. That was trivia. That was ephemera. That was irrelevant. That sold newspapers, but it did not tell of the 1970s economic policy or experiences.

You do not judge an economic record according to those who seek to justify Whitlam's dismissal or conservative politicians or even Labor's successors. You judge the economy on how the economy was, not on how vested interests said it was. You judge it on the facts. You judge it on the results. By the early 1970s, a consensus of macroeconomists formed regarding inflation and unemployment. It was contended—and, as I say, it was a universally held view—that they are inversely related. When one goes up, the other goes down. That orthodoxy of economic policy, however, did not apply to the oil price shocks of the 1970s and virtually no economist or government anticipated such a shock happening. The shocks increased both inflation and unemployment simultaneously—not a shock unique to Australia but a global phenomenon. No-one had any good ideas on what to do to fix it.

Consider inflation between 1972 and 1975 in a series of countries. Inflation in the G7 countries increased from 4.5 per cent to 11 per cent; in Europe it increased from seven per cent to 14 per cent; in the United States it increased from three per cent to nine per cent; the United Kingdom's inflation increase was from seven per cent to 24 per cent; in Australia it went from six per cent to 15 per cent, well within the median range of inflation increases at the time. Unemployment all over, as in Australia, doubled. As for growth, Australia did relatively well, falling from 2.6 per cent in 1972 to one per cent in 1974, and by 1975 it was back to 2.6 per cent. Therefore, it is not right to say that somehow the Whitlam government's record was anything other than consistent with what was happening throughout the world as a result of the oil shocks of the seventies.

Stagflation was not solved by other countries, with the exception of Scandinavian countries at the time, and not by the political beneficiaries of Whitlam's sacking and subsequent election loss—and not by the Thatcher and Fraser governments that implemented draconian contractionary fiscal and monetary policy. Let's remember: Treasurer Howard left the Hawke and Keating governments with 11 per cent inflation and 10 per cent unemployment to deal with—and, with the trade union movement partners in an Accord, deal with it they did. So let me repeat the simple clear message which the actual microeconomic outcomes in the Whitlam years reveal. Economic policy was conducted about as well—or as badly, if you like—as in every other country dealing with the oil shocks.

On a personal note, his impact upon me and indeed upon my Irish migrant parents was immense. He was a man of the future, an advocate for independence and a tireless supporter for equal opportunity. His election and achievements made it much more likely for factory workers' kids like me and others that I knew not only to aspire to university but also to go to university. Indeed, I am one of those beneficiaries, to be the first in my family to go to universities along with my siblings, He made it clear that serving the public was a noble profession and something that we should all think about, and we should all thank him in this place.

His tragic, unconstitutional tearing down as our Prime Minister turned many Labor voting families, like mine, into lifelong Labor Party members and activists. Vale Edward Gough Whitlam.

Debate adjourned.

Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:21): Labor supports the passage of the Customs Amendment (Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014. These bills are an important part of the implementation process of the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement. Labor supports stronger trading relations within our region and the world. Former Labor trade ministers Simon Crean and Craig Emerson contributed to the progress of negotiations on this trade agreement with Japan. Those negotiations were part of Labor's embrace of our region. The former Labor government's 'Australia and the Asian Century' white paper mapped out the opportunities and the challenges for Australia in our region. It is a bit hard to find the white paper these days—the incoming government junked key white paper initiatives and banished the document itself from the website of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet—but anyone who can get a hold of a copy will appreciate the seriousness with which the former government embraced the task of preparing this nation for the coming Asian century.

In relation to trade, the white paper identified the following pathways to help navigate our way: 1) working persistently to reduce barriers to trade and investment through existing multilateral and regional forums such as the World Trade Organisation, the G20, the Asia Pacific economic cooperation forum, the Association of South-East Asian Nations and its free trade agreement partners and also through bilateral arrangements; 2) working towards a free trade agreement for the Asia Pacific region by encouraging competitive liberalisation and regional agreements through our ongoing participation in negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement and participation in negotiations for the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership; 3) promoting rules of origin in trade agreements that lower business compliance costs and facilitate trade; 4) assessing the benefits of joining the Pacific Alliance of Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru as part of our efforts to position Australia as a connecting rod between Latin America and Asia; 5) working to increase access for Australian investment in Asian markets; 6) continuing to advocate market based reforms in Asia that promote stable, efficient and open financial markets, for example through further work towards the establishment of direct trading between the Australian dollar and the Chinese renminbi in mainland China; and 7) supporting efforts towards complementarity of financial market regulations within the region to open up market opportunities, for example through APEC's financial market integration efforts including the Asia region funds passport initiative.

These pathways were part of a whole-of-government plan to encourage and support Australian businesses operating in and connecting with growing Asian markets. The white paper notes that Australian businesses and their employees can be big winners from the Asian century with new and expanding opportunities for our miners, our manufacturers, our farmers and our service providers. It notes, however, that Australian businesses—no matter how competitive—cannot participate in the Asian century if they are locked out of markets. That is why in addition to pursuing multilateral and plurilateral agreements, the former Labor government was committed to concluding high-quality bilateral trade agreements with South Korea, China and Japan amongst other trading partners. The key phrase here, of course, is 'high-quality'.

In the assessment of many the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement fails to meet that test. In almost every area of activity cynicism about what this government is doing is warranted. The conclusion of bilateral trade agreements negotiated according to arbitrary time lines and concluded to coincide with available photo opportunities are no exception. Australian industries were short-changed to facilitate an announcement of the conclusion of negotiations on the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement during the Prime Minister's visit to Japan in April. That is not just a Labor observation. The National Farmers Federation, the Minister for Trade's old employer, said that the agreement

… falls short of the mark. It does not improve or marginally improves market access and terms of trade for a number of sectors such as dairy, sugar, grains, pork and rice.

Australian Pork Ltd described the agreement as 'substandard and a missed opportunity'; canegrowers called it 'another kick in the guts for Aussie cane growers'; the Ricegrowers Association was extremely disappointed; the Australian Dairy Association observed 'our words fell upon deaf ears'. These judgements are from industry organisations that rely on governments to advance their trading interests abroad.

After time to review the full agreement and the opportunity for inquiry and report by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, Labor and many others have formed the view that, on balance, the agreement is in the national interest. Labor welcomes the modest market access concessions it achieved. These concessions represent a crack in the door for many exporters, especially for Australia's premium agricultural products and our advanced, high-quality service sector. The Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement will enable Australian exporters to establish and build strong quality and reliable brand names in households throughout Japan. This will be crucial in order to hold on to the first-mover advantage provided by this agreement. We know that other competitors, including Canada and the European Union, are negotiating their own preferential bilateral trade deals with Japan. The agreement with Australia includes favourable review mechanisms and most-favoured nations provisions, which hold promise for wider and deeper market access. We urge the government to proactively utilise these mechanisms to gain further market access to Japan, especially for those export sectors dudded by the Abbott government in its haste to announce a deal.

Labor welcomes the liberalisation in investment agreed to in the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement. Lifting the Foreign Investment Review Board's threshold to over $1 billion for non-sensitive investment from Japan treats Japanese investment the same way as non-sensitive sector investment from the United States, New Zealand and South Korea. Australia has always relied on foreign capital growth. Lifting the threshold for Japanese investment is a good thing. What is not a good thing is the government's pandering to the National Party by lowering the Foreign Investment Review Board's threshold for agricultural land and agribusiness. It is simply unrealistic to think Australia can scale up to the level needed to meet demand for our premium agricultural products without the help of foreign investment. Additional barriers to investment do not encourage additional investment.

Labor welcomes the absence of an investor-state dispute settlement provision in this agreement. In contrast to other agreements negotiated by the minister over recent months, the Japan-Australia economic partnership agreement does not provide foreign investors with greater rights than domestic investors. Labor strongly opposes the inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement provisions in investment in trade agreements. We note with some concern the investor-state dispute settlement review mechanisms embodied in them. It is difficult to understand why the signing of a future agreement with another country containing investor-state dispute settlement provisions should trigger a review of Australia's agreement with Japan.

Last week the government announced that it had concluded negotiations on a preferential agreement with China that unfortunately includes investor-state dispute settlement provisions. Pursuant to the terms of our agreement with Japan, Australia must commence a review within three months following the date the Australia-China agreement enters into force with a view to establishing an equivalent investor-state dispute settlement mechanism under the agreement with Japan. This is most regrettable. The folding of the Abbott government on investor-state dispute settlement provisions in the Korea-Australia free trade agreement, and now in the China agreement, has not been warmly welcomed by the Australian community. It is clear that such provisions, notwithstanding the inclusion of so-called safeguards, are not desirable and present significant risks.

The Gillard government showed global leadership in this area in 2011 when it announced that it would not agree to provisions in investment and trade agreements that confer greater rights on foreign businesses than domestic businesses or provisions that constrain the ability of the government to make laws on social, environmental and economic matters. Labor has not supported a private senator's bill in this parliament that sought to grow the treaty making powers of the executive. But no sensible government can or should ignore the concerns of many Australians, including the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, regarding investor-state dispute settlement provisions.

Today Labor again urges the Abbott government to rethink its decision to include investor-state dispute settlement provisions in trade agreements. In relation to the Japan-Australia economic partnership agreement, we caution against the backdoor introduction of investor-state dispute settlement through the agreement's review provisions. A future Labor government would exercise Australia's right as a party to the agreement to propose the excision of any subsequently included investor-state dispute settlement provisions.

In relation to the movement of people provisions in the Japan-Australia economic partnership agreement, Labor is disappointed by the lack of balance and reciprocity between the parties, specifically with respect to contractual service providers. As with the Korea-Australia free trade agreement, the government has given up the right to undertake labour market testing ahead of granting 457 visas to categories of foreign workers. These visas allow foreign residents to work temporarily in Australia. In most cases, there is a requirement for labour market testing to demonstrate local skills shortages. We are particularly concerned about the government's decision to deny itself the capacity to undertake labour market testing with respect to contractual service providers from Japan.

Good trade agreements should support and create jobs for Australians. Australians should have the opportunity to fill job vacancies where they have got the capacity to do the job that is required. Exemptions from labour market testing in this and other agreements do not support that objective. No doubt we will get some assurance from the government that the Japan-Australia economic partnership agreement will create more jobs for Australians and no Australian worker will be displaced as a result of the exemption from labour market testing. If that is the case, we ask the government to put in place measures to more accurately track visa entrants based on trade agreement provisions, including exemptions from labour market testing requirements. This will allow us to more accurately measure their impact and devise future policies that better support Australian businesses and workers.

I want to say a few words about the China-Australia free trade agreement announced by the government last week. While we welcome the finalisation of long-running negotiations, Labor is concerned that the deal struck by the government to meet its self-imposed timetable will deliver sub-optimal outcomes. We cannot make an assessment of the quality of the agreement because the government has not seen fit to release the text. Consistent with recent tactics from a government that is well versed in political spin, all we have seen is a bunch of press releases and glossy pamphlets. Last month my colleague Senator Penny Wong, the shadow minister for trade and investment, set out clear benchmarks for a high-quality free trade agreement with China. We will closely examine this deal against those benchmarks. We urge the government to release the text of the agreement so that Labor, the parliament and the Australian community can assess its quality.

Japan and Australia have a good, strong and stable relationship. We welcome the opportunities provided by this economic partnership agreement to further build on that relationship. We have been reliable trading partners for many decades. In 2013 Japan was our second largest trading partner, with two-way trade valued at $70.8 billion. We are also reliable investors. Japan has been a long-term investor in Australia, with investment stock of $131 billion at the end of 2013. This investment has been critical to enable Australia to capitalise on the demand for our resources and provide jobs and economic growth.

Australia has also invested in Japan, with Australia's stock of investment in Japan at $50 billion at the end of 2013. Japan is Australia's second largest agricultural market, with approximately $4 billion in exports in 2013. Australia's agricultural industry is significant for Australia's future economic and job growth. Currently the red-meat sector alone employs more than 200,000 workers, most of whom are in small local government regions. Dairy is forecasting jobs growth in excess of 6,000 skilled workers next year. Australia is the first major agricultural exporter to conclude an economic partnership agreement with Japan. This gives Australian exporters a real competitive advantage.

Japan is also Australia's second largest partner for non-agricultural goods, with over $42 billion in export trade in 2013. This agreement opens the way for significant export growth and jobs in these sectors. On services, this agreement opens the door to expand service exports to Japan—in particular, legal, education, telecommunications and financial services. Australia's service sector employs four out of every five workers. So we believe that the government could and should have secured a more comprehensive and inclusive agreement with Japan. Nevertheless, we believe that, on balance, this agreement with Japan provides benefits to Australia and is in the national interest. We support the Japan-Australia economic partnership agreement and we support the bills before the House. This support is not however without reservation. For the reasons I have outlined, I move:

That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading the House urges the government to:

(1) not agree to any inclusion of investor state dispute settlement provisions in the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement;

(2) enact policies to ensure that Australian workers benefit from jobs growth created under the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement; and

(3) utilise the review mechanisms in the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement to seek further market access gains, especially in agriculture.'

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): Is the amendment seconded?

Dr Chalmers: I second the amendment.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable Deputy Leader of the Opposition has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr HUTCHINSON (Lyons) (12:37): It gives me great pleasure to rise in this debate on the Customs Amendment (Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 and speak on what truly was a historical agreement for this nation. In a past life, I spent nearly 14 years working for a Japanese owned trading company in Melbourne. I have spent a lot of time in that country over the years. I have many friends and colleagues there and have done a lot of business there over many years, mainly within the wool industry. This agreement truly is ground breaking.

I acknowledge the work that Minister Robb did with the South Korean free trade agreement—prior to the announcement of the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement. That was, indeed, an agreement of some note as well. If we are being brutally honest, it was about playing catch-up cricket, I suppose, with our competitors in that space—countries like New Zealand and the United States which had a distinct advantage. Let's make no mistake: we are competing as a nation, as an agricultural exporter, with countries like New Zealand and the United States. The agreement with South Korea was indeed noteworthy from the point of view that it set in place an opportunity for Australia to compete on a level playing field. Let's make no mistake about this: this was the single most protected agricultural importing market in the world, bar none, and we broke through. Minister Robb broke through.

I thought for a minute there that I was in a parallel universe. Those opposite had six years. There were white papers and there were media releases, but there was no agreement. Nothing happened, and they had six years in government. Member for Sydney, for goodness sake, I come from a regional area of Australia. The member for Sydney mentioned dairy. I will make one comment about dairy. Yes, they did not quite get everything they wanted—that has been well and truly made up for in the recent China agreement, mind you—but they got concessions, and one of the things that they got concessions for was cheese. Lo and behold, my state of Tasmania exports 95 per cent of all the dairy products we produce and much of it is cheese. The tariff free quota on cheese into Japan has increased enormously—so we are not complaining.

For six years we stood there and nothing happened. We were committed, but we were living in a parallel universe and nothing happened. It is about time and we are getting on with it. Did we get everything we wanted? No, we did not. But that is what happens in negotiations. You never get everything you want. I commend Minister Robb and all of those people who did magnificent work. And rice was mentioned rice. Even my 15 year old knows that rice is sacrosanct in that market. If there were one agricultural commodity that was not going to get through, it was likely to be rice.

Make no mistake, this is a huge win for our nation. Whilst the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement was catch-up cricket, this was groundbreaking stuff with one of our most important customers. Indeed, Japan is Australia's second largest trading partner. As a result of a historic economic partnership agreement which was signed in April this year, more than 97 per cent of Australia's exports to Japan will receive—and here is the key word—'preferential' access or enter duty free when the JEPA is fully implemented. We are competing as a nation and we are an exporting country.

I touched briefly on dairy. The member for Corangamite—who sits here—also comes from a state where they manufacture dairy products. I think the majority of Australia's dairy products are manufactured in the state of Victoria. So, whether it be the by-products of milk powder, the proteins and different things—all of which now have preferential access into that important market—or whether it be dairy and the cheeses that I mentioned previously, whilst they did not get everything they wanted, they were all advantaged enormously there.

There are a number of things I could talk about. I could talk about, for example, the education services and the cooperation that will undoubtedly come with, for example, the University of Tasmania and the excellent research capacity that that the Japanese have in Antarctic research. I have no doubt that, as a result of these collaborative arrangements, and the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement, we will see further collaboration as a result.

My state is not a big producer of wheat, but we do produce a lot of malting barley—and indeed some very fine beer to go along with that malting barley. But what I wanted to focus on particularly, though, was beef and the benefits for the beef industry from this agreement. I do not believe there are too many beef cattle in the member for Sydney's electorate. But, nevertheless, beef was unanimously hailed as a success out of the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement. Significant concessions have been given upfront—and this is very important. Whilst the tariffs do reduce over a period of time, we have got substantial reductions in tariffs for beef.

When I look through this agreement, it could have been the Tasmania-Japan free trade agreement, because the benefits are there for seafood and the benefits are there for beef. Indeed, we have a Japanese owned feedlot in Tasmania that I know as a result of this agreement is planning to expand its commodity lines. Who do we compete with there? We compete with the United States. We are an expensive country, and there are the freight challenges that we have out of my state, and all of a sudden the feedlot in Tasmania is looking to compete with US beef into the Japanese market with frozen product. Their primary product, of course, is high-value chilled product. That is the main game for this country and certainly for my state of Tasmania. We do not have the scale of Queensland, notwithstanding the terrible drought they are having there at the moment, or the Northern Territory but we can put high-quality branded grass-fed and grain-fed beef into a very important market like Japan. It is not a particularly attractive issue, but the concessions granted on offal are significant as well.

The member for Sydney in her contribution acknowledged the most favoured nation status that Japan has given Australia in this agreement. What does ‘most favoured nation’ mean? It means that if at any time in the next few years the United States or any similar competitor to Australia exporting into the Japanese market get a better or more substantive agreement we can revisit our agreement immediately. These are well-negotiated and significant concessions, and again I commend the minister for the work he has done. This truly is a groundbreaking agreement. It has been a long time in the making—it started under John Howard, but for a while after that there seem to have been a parallel universe, in terms of the contribution of the member for Sydney. Nevertheless, this is something that we should as Australians celebrate. This is the second of three substantial agreements that this government has been able to negotiate since coming to government. Did we get everything we wanted? No, we did not. Will this be of substantial benefit to our nation, that is an exporting nation, and will it put more money in the pockets of farmers in the electorate that I represent? Absolutely—and that is the ultimate test. Yes we have to get behind a whole range of other initiatives that, again, the government was concerned about in respect of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment Bill, which we debated prior to this bill—allowing, for example, not just cows to access insurance but also the product that those cows produce, milk. That is pretty important as well. So there are some practical changes that the government is making.

This agreement is a game changer. After the announcement was made I sent an email to a number of colleagues I had worked with in Japan many years ago just to get their feedback. The press in Japan was very positive about this. Make no mistake, Japan has made enormous concessions—it has been a very protected market for a very long time. The thing that the Japanese customers and consumers were looking forward to most was being able to buy more Australian beef—and some of that beef will be Tasmanian. That is a wonderful story. I thank the House for the opportunity to make a contribution today.

Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (12:49): These customs and customs tariff amendment bills implement the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement, and we are also debating the amendment moved by my colleague the member for Sydney. We have had some very distinguished visitors to this chamber and to our country in the past 12 months or so, some of them associated with the G20 that has just finished, but it is important to recall the visit of Japanese Prime Minister Abe to this chamber earlier on during this parliament because he did bring a very welcome message to Australia about the deepening of economic and defence ties between our two democracies. There were some light moments in that speech, as there were in some of the other speeches given by esteemed leaders in this place, but that fundamental message about closer economic ties was a message our whole nation could appreciate. That is what we are talking about in the context of this agreement. As my colleague said, we have a number of reservations but we do support the agreement that the government has struck with the Japanese.

The agreement is the second of the three significant trade negotiations that Australia concluded this year, the others being with Korea and China. Colleagues on both sides of the House have mentioned those agreements and it was appropriate that the member for Lyons mentioned the work of the trade minister. Whether you agree with every aspect of every agreement, they are hard work for the people associated with them. I want to pay tribute in particular to the DFAT officials, the PM&C officials and the Treasury officials—Australian patriots who work on these agreements over a long period, certainly longer than the life of any of the last couple of governments. They do put in long hours to bring these agreements to fruition, so I want to pay tribute to them. I also want to pay tribute to the six years of work done by my esteemed predecessor in Rankin, Dr Craig Emerson, along with Simon Crean and also Richard Marles for the role that they played in these agreements.

Throughout the life of at least the last three Labor governments we championed freer trade, because that is consistent with Labor principles and it is consistent with our approach to growing the economy and creating jobs here in Australia. We do appreciate that average Australian families are major beneficiaries of freer trade because of cheaper consumer goods and greater access to a diversity of products from right around the world. Free trade also helps us to develop stronger international ties culturally and economically, which makes for a far more dynamic and resilient economy. In that context, a trade agreement with Japan is an important stepping stone for Australia.

Honourable members are aware of some of the statistics about the trade relationship. Let me just touch very briefly on some of those. Japan is already Australia's second-largest agricultural export market, worth about $4 billion last year. It is also our second-largest market for non-agricultural goods—something like $42 billion worth in 2013. Our trade surplus with Japan was a bit over $28 billion in 2013, which is second only to our trade surplus with China. Exporters have historically faced, and currently face, higher tariffs into Japan, with agricultural tariffs of up to 219 per cent currently being levied. As it stands, Japan is a big market for Australia. There are some really good foundations of that relationship, but we hope and expect to see this agreement build on that economic relationship to the benefit of Australians.

When it is implemented, Australia will become the first major agricultural exporter to enter into a bilateral agreement with Japan. This gives Australia what the aficionados call 'first mover advantage' over our competitors. It means Australia will be able to develop a whole lot of relationships and have greater presence with Japanese consumers before some of our global competitors can. It also means Australian exporters will have access to preferential tariff arrangements that our competitors in New Zealand, Canada, the US and the EU will not necessarily have. On top of that, the inclusion of a most favoured nation provision means that we will maintain that first mover advantage even as other nations enter into agreements with Japan. Any tariff cuts that Japan gives our competitors in the future will automatically flow through to Australia as well.

It is worth touching on some of those tariff advantages that Australia will enjoy as a result of the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement. More than 97 per cent of our exports to Japan will enter duty free or will receive preferential access when the agreement is fully implemented. It entirely eliminates tariffs on all of our current minerals, energy and manufacturing exports. Given that LNG, coal and iron ore are currently Australia's top three exports to Japan, this will be a big benefit to the resources industry. In the services sector the agreement guarantees Australian service providers outcomes equal to or better than the best commitments Japan has made in any of its other agreements. There are a range of ways that that will be important. Japan will maintain levels of access for Australian legal service providers, financial service providers and telecommunications companies, and Japanese students will also become eligible for certain government scholarships to study at a university in Australia, which is also very important.

In the investment space, the decision to raise the Foreign Investment Review Board screening threshold for non-sensitive sectors should be interpreted by Japan as a sign that Australia is keen for Japanese investment here. In agriculture, as my colleague said, we do think it would have been possible to secure a more comprehensive and inclusive agreement. Despite all of the other benefits I have mentioned, it is the case in some areas—acknowledged by the member from the opposite side of the House—that there have been some exclusions from the deal. We acknowledge some good aspects, including the abolition of tariffs on milk products, wine, seafoods, lamb, beer, wool, honey and cotton. We also acknowledge that Australia will become the only nation with a preferential tariff on beef, which will be a good head start for the Australian beef industry. Tariffs on beef and pork will be reduced, but they will still be in place even in 18 years time, which is not an ideal outcome.

The agreement does not contain tariff reductions, as others have mentioned, for processed or high-polarity raw sugar, which makes trade with Japan more difficult for the sugar sector. As a result of these weaknesses, the agreement has been criticised by a number of industry groups, which we should note in this place, including the NFF, the canegrowers associations, the Australian dairy industry, the Ricegrowers' Association of Australia and Australian Pork. As part of the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, we have called on the government to work harder to seek further market access gains, especially in those agricultural areas.

As well as sharing the agricultural sector's, or part of the sector's, concerns with the market access outcomes in parts of the agreement, the opposition also has concerns around labour market testing requirements under the Japan-Australia agreement. We do believe that Australians should have the opportunity to fill job vacancies where they have the capacity that is required to do the job. This is a really important point, even for those of us who support the agreement. This is a crucial point worth noting. We are concerned about the government's decision to deny itself the capacity to impose labour market testing on contractual service providers from Japan under the 457 visa program. Section 457 visas allow foreign residents to work temporarily in Australia. In most cases, there is a requirement for labour market testing to demonstrate those local skills shortages, as is appropriate.

This agreement provides that Australia will permit Japanese nationals to perform certain categories of work temporarily in Australia without any requirement for labour market testing to assess whether the work can be performed by Australian residents first. These categories include the traditional business visitors, intracorporate transferees and investors, as well as the contractual service suppliers. We believe, on this side of the House, that the government should retain labour market testing or comparable safeguards on temporary migration, and that is another reason why we have moved our amendment.

One of the major issues identified in the very good JSCOT committee report on the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement was non-tariff barriers. A common view held by businesses who currently trade with Japan is that the market is complicated and difficult to work in, with unique trading arrangements. A recent study for the Export Council of Australia, undertaken by Austrade, Efic and the University of Sydney, found that the key barriers to doing business in Japan were licences and standards, local culture and a complex regulatory framework. For example, Japan's sanitary and phytosanitary protocols are exceptionally high, even by Australia's very stringent standards.

Apple and Pear Australia reported that despite the tariff reductions on Australian apples, only nine per cent of apples grown in Australia are able to be exported to Japan. In particular, all apples grown on the Australian mainland are prohibited, making tariff reductions meaningless for many of those growers. As it stands, only Tasmanian apples may be exported to Japan. These, we feel, are overly stringent non-tariff barriers. They can make gains from trade very difficult for affected industries.

The agricultural sector is not the only one to have to deal with a difficult regulatory framework in Japan. The Financial Services Council have also indicated the need to simplify regulations, including their desire for a licensing mutual recognition arrangement. Action to address non-tariff barriers to trade between Japan and Australia was one of the key recommendations put forward by the JSCOT when they examined this treaty. The government needs to do as much as it can, even more than it is currently, to resolve the non-tariff barriers to trade between Australia and our trading partners, including Japan.

I have argued in this place previously that we need to evaluate trade agreements on balance and not on the basis of one very specific part of an agreement or another. In trade, as in business, as in all fields of life, not every deal is a perfect deal, which means that Labor is always committed to closely scrutinising the outcome of all of the Abbott government's trade negotiations. As policymakers and as parliamentarians we do have a responsibility to be hard headed and to seek an agreement which is, on balance, in the best interests of Australians, whether that be our businesses, our workers or both.

Despite our concerns about labour market testing and a less than ideal outcome in the agreement for parts of the agricultural sector, Labor will be supporting the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement. In doing so, we acknowledge that bilateral FTAs will never be the ideal way to go about trade liberalisation, for those of us who believe in trade globalisation, and I think that was a point made very well by colleagues on both sides of the House in that important JSCOT report. The best progress is multilateral and an approach that addresses both the tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade. But, in an environment where multilateral momentum has stalled, bilateral and regional FTAs do play an important role as 'stepping stones to multilateral agreements', as my colleague Senator Wong has described them.

The Japanese academic Takashi Terada has described this as the 'domino approach' to regional integration in a piece for East Asia Forum, which is a tremendous source of information and commentary on these matters. He and other trade academics are excited by the prospect that the trade deal signed between Japan and Australia will lead other countries to feel an incentive to strike deals and agreements with the two countries. So, really, the writing is on the wall for the US and others to obtain similar benefits as a result of negotiations for any proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. This means that one of the most profound effects of the JAEPA could be, in an ideal world, the regional and multilateral progress we see as a result.

Labor is supporting the agreement and the bills before the House today. We have noted our concerns about labour market testing and the non-tariff barriers to trade. But, on balance, we will be supporting the deal for three key reasons. The first is that the agreement will likely create economic growth and jobs for Australians; the second is that it will give Australian exporters first-mover advantage over our competitors; and the third is that it will ideally lead the way for further regional and multilateral trade progress into the future.

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (13:03): It is a pleasure to follow Dr Jim Chalmers, the member for Rankin, who in a past life was chief of staff to the immediate past Treasurer and who succeeded Craig Emerson in the electorate of Rankin. He acknowledged Dr Emerson's work in getting these trade agreements through, and I too acknowledge the former member's work in this regard. I will admit also that my friend the member for Rankin was Executive Director of the Chifley Research Centre after leaving Wayne Swan's office and then was preselected for Rankin. That is a bit of history for you on Dr Chalmers.

The Chifley Research Centre is replicated in the National party by the Page Research Centre, and the Page Research Centre, in conjunction with Senator Matthew Canavan—who is doing some fine work for Queensland as a Nationals senator—has republished this book in recent times, John McEwen: His Story. This relates to the legislation before the House, and it is historically important, because John McEwen helped to forge Australia's first relationship with Japan as far as trade is concerned. I will just read from this little 86-page book, about when Black Jack McEwen went to Japan and helped to forge that first relationship. He writes:

The second great international negotiation I was involved with in my first years as minister for trade was the creation of a trade treaty with Japan. The Japanese economy was discussed extensively with the trade department, between John Crawford, Alan Westerman and myself.

He writes:

The circumstances that had made Britain and Australia such big customers for each other's products were being repeated with the Japanese. In addition, under the terms of the peace treaty following World War II, Australia was obliged to make some move in favour of trade with Japan. We decided to have a go at negotiating a trade treaty with Japan. The negotiations were complicated by our obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

Now, it would not have been easy for Black Jack to help forge a relationship with Japan, particularly at that time, when there was a lot of hostility—understandably—from many Australians towards the Japanese following the atrocities perpetrated on prisoners of war during the Second World War, between 1939 and 1945. There was a lot of racial intolerance towards the Japanese over what had been perpetrated on Australian soldiers, Australian nurses and Australians in general. Black Jack fought through that, realising the great potential there was in having a trade treaty with Japan—and full credit to him.

Similarly, this government has forged another trade agreement with Japan. The Customs Amendment (Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 are good pieces of legislation, and it is with pleasure that I speak on these bills. The economic partnership agreement between Japan and Australia established earlier this year by the Prime Minister and the minister for trade, Andrew Robb—who is doing a fantastic job, an absolutely fantastic job—is a groundbreaking trade deal. It will drive economic growth and continue to build and to develop stronger trading relationships in Asia.

Collectively with the Korea-Australia and China-Australia preferential trade agreements—I prefer to call them preferential trade agreements, because they are not totally free trade; if they were, rice and all these other things would be included—the Japan-Australia economic partnership agreement forms a powerful trifecta and positions Australia as a major partner to these three economies, which are powerhouse economies both in our region and globally. Indeed, the three trade agreements with South Korea, China and Japan, negotiated and concluded by the coalition government this year, are the most comprehensive trade deals ever achieved by Australia in Asia. Together these three economies represent more than half of Australia's exports. Not only will all Australians benefit from this landmark agreement with Japan but regional Australia in particular will be a substantial benefactor. I represent the seat of Riverina, which will be a winner from these trade agreements, the Japanese trade agreement in particular. Australia and Japan concluded negotiations in April this year during the Prime Minister's historic and highly successful visit to North Asia. He conclusively signed the agreement with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe during Mr Abe's visit to Australia on 8 July.

Japan is an economic heavyweight. John McEwen recognised that. Tony Abbott recognises that. Japan has a population of almost 127 million people, a rapidly growing middle class and the third-largest economy in the world, and it is our second-largest export market. This partnership agreement with Japan represents enormous new opportunities and an expansion of current trading relationships for Australian producers, farmers and exporters. This is the most ambitious trade deal Japan has concluded with any nation whatsoever. It is the first time that Japan has signed a trade deal with another major agricultural country—and it is with Australia. It is a remarkable achievement, particularly for Australian farmers, for Riverina farmers.

Australia will benefit from major concessions across a wide range of areas, most notably in agriculture but also in education. A domain of traditional sensitivity for the Japanese is agriculture. This agreement will give Australian primary producers and exporters a significant competitive advantage by expanding current access to new Japanese markets. It eliminates high tariffs on a wide range of Australian exports. It will see more than 97 per cent of Australia's exports to Japan either receive preferential access over our global competitors or enter duty free when the agreement is fully implemented. This agreement positions Australia to capitalise on providing produce and services to an exploding population across Asia, which is expected to grow from 600 million to more than three billion people within the next 15 to 20 years. This economic partnership is an important step forward in our trade relationship with Japan, but the establishment of trading agreements with South Korea and China are a significant advancement for diplomatic relationships in the wider North Asia region. Building stronger trading relationships with Japan will have profound effects on local job creation, will lead to greater market certainty and will secure a positive future for Australia's economic growth.

Australia's agriculture sector is world class. We all know that. We should be extolling the virtues of Australian agriculture at every possible step. We all should—on both sides of the House—because Australia's agriculture is the very best in the world. We produce more than we can consume at home. About two-thirds of our domestic agricultural production is exported overseas, as it needs to be. We need trade agreements. We need to help the balance of payments. To reduce the barriers we face in major agrifood markets overseas we do need these sorts of trade agreements. Our competitors in the United States of America, Canada, New Zealand and Brazil, for example, will not have the level of access that we have negotiated, that Andrew Robb has negotiated.

This is a major win for our beef producers. Under this agreement the frozen-beef tariff will be reduced from 38.5 per cent to 19.5 per cent over 18 years and that for fresh/chilled beef will go to 23.5 per cent over 15 years. This is an excellent outcome in our largest market for beef, with a trade valued at close to $1.5 billion last year. I know how much the Minister for Agriculture, Barnaby Joyce, has pushed our beef—pushed the live cattle, pushed the chilled boxed beef—at every opportunity. We are making great strides in that area. Meat and Livestock Australia forecasts that, as a result of the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement, sales will jump by $5.5 billion over the next 20 years. Importantly, unlike our competitors, Australia will never again have to face Japan's 50 per cent snapback tariff on beef.

Similarly, we have also negotiated good export outcomes on dairy, wheat, malt/barley, sugar, seafood, oilseeds, wine and a whole host of other agricultural goods. It is great news. A large number of these horticultural products are produced in the Murrumbidgee and Coleambally irrigation areas in the Riverina. I actually have some of the irrigators sitting in my parliamentary office here in Canberra now. I know that they are very excited about the prospects that these sorts of trade arrangements have for themselves, for the local producers whom they represent.

In citrus—oranges—the 16 per cent tariff faced by Australian exporters in our peak exporting season will be eliminated over 10 years under this economic partnership agreement. What great news, absolutely fantastic news, for Griffith, for Leeton, for Coleambally, for Hillston, for Narrandera, for all of those great citrus-producing areas in the Riverina!

With dairy there are new market access opportunities in a heavily regulated industry, with a complete network of World Trade Organization quotas and domestic laws and quotas controlling all aspects of production and importation. However, Japan is one of Australia's most important dairy markets and Australia is Japan's largest supplier. Our exports were valued at $452 million last year, including $372 million of cheese, which faces tariffs of up to 29.8 per cent. Under the new partnership agreement dairy exporters will be able to access a new Australia-only duty free cheese quota for natural cheese for processing, growing from 4,000 tonnes to 20,000 tonnes, and also for cheese for shredding, growing from 1,000 tonnes to 5,000 tonnes. That is good news.

For a company trying to resurrect its original 1921 locally made and handcrafted cheese-producing facilities, this agreement is just the kind of incentive, just the kind of opportunity, that Coolamon Cheese Company in my electorate, would be looking for and could potentially benefit from. The Coolamon Cheese Company is expected to open mid next year and will see the creation of 12 to 15 full-time jobs in Coolamon. That might not sound like too many to the member for Kingsford Smith, who is sitting opposite, although he has been to my area and he knows that for little towns 15 jobs is a huge number. The multiplier effect from that is massive. Coolamon Cheese Company will produce handcraft boutique cheeses under the guidance of Australia's most experienced cheesemaker, Barry Lillywhite, and will be an icon for the Riverina. I am sure the member for Kingsford Smith will enjoy some of that product when I bring it in after the factory opens mid next year.

Mr Thistlethwaite: Look forward to it!

Mr McCORMACK: I will have to do it now, won't I? This multifaceted agritourism business will bring benefits locally to the Riverina but there is also the potential to expand and access international dairy markets such as Japan's under this partnership arrangement.

This landmark agreement also has improved outcomes for wine producers. We all know that the best wine comes from the Riverina.

Mr Baldwin: Ha!

Mr McCORMACK: 'Hear, hear,' I hear the chamber say! Wine exports to Japan were worth an estimated $42 million last year. Australian wine is currently at a disadvantage to Chilean wine. Under their partnership agreement with Japan, Chile secured tariff elimination over 12 years. It is a great result for Australian wine producers, such as De Bortoli and Casellas, in the Riverina that the 15 per cent tariff imposed on our wine will be eliminated over seven years under this agreement. When I bring the member for Kingsford Smith some Coolamon cheese, I will have to bring him some Riverina wine as well!

Honourable members interjecting—

Mr McCORMACK: You can hear that the chamber is so excited about the prospects for these small Riverina farmers!

Our grains—including wheat, barley and sorghum—and their milling products are one of Australia's biggest agricultural exports to Japan, worth $770 million last year. Wheat on its own was worth $356 million, making Japan our fourth largest wheat market. Wheat is so important. It is so critical to the Riverina. Whilst we normally want rain—and lots of it—because there is money in mud, at the moment we just want dry and clear skies because our farmers are busy stripping. Riverina farmers on their headers listening to this broadcast know how valuable and good our wheat is in the Riverina—and elsewhere.

Japan's grain trade is highly regulated. While there are relatively low tariffs on grain, there are complex tendering arrangements, WTO quotas, duties and other mark-ups. Outside this quota system, wheat for food and feed faces prohibitive tariffs when quotas have been met. Under the economic partnership agreement, Australian grain growers will exclusively be able to immediately export wheat and barley for feed duty free outside of the existing quota system as well as have streamlined export arrangements for some Australian wheat varieties. This is another win for Riverina grain growers. With the rise of a bulging middle class across Asia, Australian growers have a premium product for a premium market which poses little threat to local regional growers across Asia, so crucial to economic growth in developing nations. This partnership agreement with Japan presents increased opportunities for Australian producers, who will inject high-quality products into new and existing markets.

By establishing and building upon our existing strong trade relationship with Japan, this coalition government is achieving results. Farmers, industry and regional Australia can only get stronger and better because of what we as a government are doing. We are kicking goals. We are doing what we said we would do. We are getting access to these rich Asian markets. I commend the trade minister, Minister Robb, for what he has done to forge these relationships. I can only commend these bills to the House. They are very important. They are certainly important for Australian farmers. When Australian farmers are strong, so too is our nation.

Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (13:18): I look forward to the wine and cheese night next year in the parliamentary secretary's office! I support the passage of these bills . This is enabling legislation which gives effect to agreed reductions in tariffs and rules-of-origin agreements under the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement. I support the passage of these bills because they liberalise trade. They will create greater access to a very large and growing market in Asia for Australian producers. In turn, that will create jobs.

However, that is in respect of this enabling legislation. In terms of the wider Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement, I and the Labor Party have reservations, particularly in relation to the elements related to access to the Australian labour market. Under this agreement, access to the Australian labour market by Japanese labour will be liberalised in the form of the removal of and reduction in some of the guarantees and protections that are currently in place for Australian labour through labour market testing prior to Japanese or any other labour being introduced into the Australian market. I will have more to say on that in a moment.

I support these bills because they encourage greater access to markets. They will create jobs in Australia. This legislation will give Australian exporters increased access to the Japanese market and a 'first mover' advantage over key competitors such as New Zealand, Canada, the United States, the European Union and others who are seeking further market access in Japan.

In the past, Australia's trade relationship with Japan has focused on energy and resources. In 1957 Australia and Japan signed an agreement on commerce which designated Japan as a 'most favoured nation'. As a result of this agreement and the resultant increased ties with Japan, Australia benefited greatly. In the late 1960s, Japanese investment and vision helped to develop the Western Australian iron ore industry. In turn, Japan benefited from access to Australian iron and coal, supercharging its industrialisation and economic boom in the 1960s. Trade between our two countries would go on to increase four-fold from the mid-1970s through to the 1980s. This is a wonderful example of trade liberalisation resulting in benefits, economic growth and job creation for both of our economies. Our economic partnership has continued to grow, with Australian exports to Japan doubling from $24 billion in 2001 to $50 billion in 2011.

Labor has strongly valued the work to bolster Australia's economic relationship and ties with Japan. It was between 2008 and 2013, under Labor, that the majority of the negotiations—the heavy lifting, if you like—for this agreement were conducted. In addition, to a large extent, Labor is responsible for laying the groundwork necessary for Australia and Japan to come together and reach this agreement.

In October 2012, the Labor government released the Australia in the Asian century white paper, designed to ensure we had the very best chance at maximising the opportunities of large-scale growth in the Asian region. The white paper included a comprehensive examination of five key areas: strengthening the economy, particularly through stronger trade relations; building capabilities; connecting with growing Asian markets; building sustainable security; and developing deeper and broader relationships.

It is good to see that vision outlined by Labor in the Asian century white paper being brought to fruition in this agreement. Growth in two-way trade between Australia and Japan has also coincided with the diversification of products and services that passed between our countries. Today, Japan is Australia's second largest agricultural market for Australian agricultural products, with approximately $4 billion exported in 2013. Australia's agricultural industry is significant for our nation's future and for jobs growth. Currently, the red meat sector alone employs more than 200,000 workers, most of whom are in small local government regions. Dairy is forecasting jobs growth in excess of 6,000 skilled workers next year.

Japan is also Australia's second largest market for non-agricultural goods, with over $42 billion in 2013 being traded with Japan. This agreement opens the way for significant export growth in jobs in these sectors. But the agreement on the whole, not specifically the legislation that we discussed today in terms of tariff reductions, does have some misgivings and shortcomings, and it is not without its detractors. Labor believes that the government should have done more to secure a more comprehensive and inclusive agreement with Japan. The agreement is being criticised by a number of industry groups and organisations whose job it is day to day to represent Australian businesses who are looking to secure greater access to markets in Asia, particularly Japan. The president of the National Farmers' Federation, Brett Finlay, was quoted in The Sydney Morning Herald on 8 April, saying: 'The agreement does not improve, or only marginally improves, market access in terms of trade for a number of sectors, such as dairy, sugar, grains, pork and rice.' The canegrowers association, the Australian dairy industry, Ricegrowers' Association and Australian Pork Ltd also had a few choice words for this agreement earlier this year.

The largest reservation that I have and the great disappointment about this agreement is the reduction in the liberalisation of protections put in place to ensure Australians have first access to Australian jobs. This agreement provides that Australia will permit Japanese nationals to perform certain categories of work temporarily in Australia without the requirement for labour market testing to assess whether the work can be performed by Australian residents. That is something that does not have the support of the wider Australian community. All Australians believe that, given that we have large youth unemployment in particular regions throughout Australia and an unemployment rate that is growing in our nation, Australians should have first access to jobs, particularly jobs in some rural and regional communities through which these will be based. To remove elements of labour market testing—the requirement for employers to advertise locally first, to test the market in a local economy before advertising and before going to foreign labour to fill vacancies—does not wash with the Australian public. It is a great deficiency in this agreement. I only hope that this is not the thin end of the wedge, and Labor waits with bated breath to see what has been negotiated in terms of the details with regard to the China free trade agreement. Some of the categories that will be allowed greater access to the labour market and where the labour market testing rules will be relaxed include traditional business visas, intercorporate transferees and investors, and contractual service suppliers. Labor is disappointed that the agreement does not maintain policy space for labour market testing conditions, particularly for contractual service providers, which cover a whole host of industries throughout Australia.

Labor does agree with the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report on the Japan-Australia economic agreement, including its conclusion, to support the implementation of this agreement, and JSCOT's concluding comments, which state: 'The Japan-Australia economic partnership agreement will give Australian exporters significantly improved market access in goods and services, eliminating or sufficiently reducing tariffs on a wide range of Australian goods exports, including beef, natural cheese, wine, horticulture and energy resources and products. It will guarantee equivalent or better market access than Japan has provided any other trading partners in key areas of commercial interest to Australian service providers, including education, financial, legal, telecommunications, engineering and other professional services.'

That is why I support the passage of these bills. That is why Labor supports the passage of these bills—for the benefits that they will bring to those industries and those exporters in Australia. Nevertheless, we reserve our rights to oppose the wider agreement in respect of what has been negotiated by the government relating to labour market testing and the relaxation of those conditions in Australia, which unfortunately may see Australians miss out on job opportunities, particularly in rural and regional areas.

By supporting these bills, Labor will ensure Australian industry gets the earliest possible access to first mover reduced tariffs on goods exported to Japan and new market access for services. Labor has for many years recognised the great opportunities that will continue to present themselves in the Asian region and has worked hard to highlight the importance of harnessing these to further enhance jobs and growth for the Australian economy.

Labor supports these bills but exemplifies our commitment to labour market testing and the ideals contained in that. I want to congratulate and put on record my congratulations to the people who do the heavy lifting with these trade agreements, and they are notably the staff of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Credit also needs to be given to former trade ministers, in particular Craig Emerson and Richard Marles, for their work in bringing this economic partnership agreement and these bills to fruition.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour

Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (13:30): Yesterday in question time we had the unedifying spectacle of the Prime Minister giving us a demonstration in lying about lying. We all know that the night before the election the Prime Minister promised the Australian people that there would be no cuts the ABC and no cuts to the SBS. Those opposite were elected on this platform of no cuts the ABC or the SBS. They have betrayed that trust with their local communities.

That promise was made by a Prime Minister looking straight into the camera in Penrith in Western Sydney. No amount of hand wringing, petitions against oneself, letters to Mark Scott or feigned indignation from the front and back bench of those opposite is going to change the fact that they have ripped half a billion dollars out of the ABC and the SBS after being elected on a promise not to make any cuts. All of those opposite are guilty of inflicting these cuts that was see, amongst other things, 400 ABC employees lose their jobs; the Adelaide ABC production studio close; regional ABC posts in Wagin, Morwell, Gladstone, Port Augusta and Nowra shut; Radio National's Bush Telegraph cease; and the Newcastle afternoon show axed. There will be no more state specific 7.30program. Women's sport is cut. Those opposite can have an ABC that is nothing more than a glorified Twitter feed if they like, but Australians want diversity of content. They want Australian stories and they want our ABC protected. (Time expired)

Mr HOGAN (Page) (13:31): It is always a highlight when you have a local school visit Parliament House. I had a special highlight today because not only did the Alstonville Public School visit Parliament House but the Alstonville Public Primary school band also played in the Great Hall in Parliament House. It was a fantastic performance. This assistant principal, Kirstin Beck, conducted the band. They had teachers Luke Miller and Helen Mooney there. They only got off the bus from home at 6.30 this morning. They then helped launch the Christmas season at parliament, which was officiated by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Bronwyn Bishop, and the President of the Senate, Senator Stephen Parry.

They played a number of songs: True Colours, which was fantastic; Rule the World; and Rock U Melody. Mrs Beck also got us to dance to Eye of the Tiger. They did their teachers, their parents and our community proud with a wonderful performance in the Great Hall. They are visiting again tomorrow to have a tour. There are two other schools here tomorrow from my electorate: the Westlawn Public School will be here as well, with teachers Robyn Anders and Brendan Alford and parents Michelle Price and Anthony Elward. Then in the afternoon, the Yamba Public School will also be visiting with teachers Mary Hogan—I do not think she is related to me, but we will check—and Craig Paul and support teacher Megan Bell. It was a great pleasure today.

Mr CONROY (Charlton) (13:33): Yesterday we learned that 1233 ABC Newcastle has been decimated by this government. Because of their budget cuts, we will lose Helen Clare, Carol Duncan and their teams who produce quality radio shows that speak to and about our community. Most importantly, our community will suffer because this will have an impact on the station's ability to provide emergency coverage.

Nobody from Newcastle, Lake Macquarie or the Central Coast will forget the devastating bushfires that ravaged our region in October last year. In my electorate in Minmi and in Wyee, families were evacuated and traffic diversions put in place. It was the local ABC radio that kept us informed of where evacuation centres were, when it was safe to return home and what the impact was on our environment and on our towns. It was the local ABC radio that provided a space for the outpouring of community spirit. They harnessed the generosity of the people that live in the Hunter and helped coordinate donations for those who had been forced to flee their homes and who had lost so much.

It is in times of disaster that we see the best in our communities and 1233 ABC Newcastle is a vital part of ours. To see it gutted by this government is devastating. The government is hurting the people of the Hunter region and they should be ashamed. They made a solemn election eve promise of no cuts to the ABC. It is the people of the Hunter and the great services of the 1233 ABC that suffer because of this lie.

Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (13:34): I take seriously my roles as a husband and a father. I know that most Australian men do too. This year, I became an ambassador for White Ribbon, the male-led campaign to end men's violence against women. White Ribbon is about challenging the behaviours of the minority who use or condone violence against women. While these are the views of a minority, family violence is a serious matter. In Australia, family violence is the principle cause of homelessness for women and their children. Family violence is the leading contributor to death, disability and illness in Australian women aged 15 to 44. One in four children see family violence during their childhood, which is a form of child abuse.

This year, I formed the bipartisan group of Parliamentarians Against Family Violence with my colleagues Tim Watts and Andrew Broad. Today, I swore an oath never to commit, excuse or remain silent about violence against women. Almost 140,000 Australians have sworn the same oath and I hope that many more do the same. Good men cannot and will not sit on the sidelines while those they love are at risk of harm. In particular, if we take a stand on a very unified basis, then we can make a difference to the lives of our women in Australia, their children and their families.

Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (13:36): It was the eve of the election campaign. There was our would-be Prime Minister. He could see the holy grail. He could taste the prime ministership. Then came the question. He reached for the grail with his final promise: no cuts to the ABC or SBS. He promised one thing and did the opposite. This time, it was the ABC. I want to highlight that the cuts will impact on the televising of women's sport. This will send participation and gender equality backwards.

I want to highlight Minister Pyne's hypocrisy in organising a petition that is best summed up with this contribution in his petition from Arthur Spanos:

Mr Pyne, what is the point of you being a minister in the Federal government if you need to resort to change.org in order to exert an influence on a policy of your own making?

Will you use the same tactic when the university of South Australia increases the cost of a degree?

Mr Pyne the petitioner, we have a message for you today: tens of thousands have signed a higher education petition. I look forward to your capitulation!

Mr LAUNDY (Reid) (13:37): Earlier this month, I was delighted to join hundreds of people at the annual Greek street fair in Burwood. Dancing performances, live Greek music, competitions, market stalls and, of course, wonderful Greek food were showcased with typical Greek hospitality.

The event was brilliantly organised by the Greek Orthodox parish community of Burwood and the district to mark the feast day of their patron saint, St Nectarios. It was a fantastic day of sharing Greek cultural heritage and spirit with our wider local community.

All proceeds from the event went towards the projects of the Greek Orthodox parish, including maintenance of its heritage gothic sandstone church, funding of its Greek language school and vital community activities for people of all ages. The parish was first established in 1970 and has been serving the spiritual, cultural and educational needs of my local Greek Australian community since that time.

I would like to congratulate all the volunteers involved in organising the event with particular mentions going to: Chris Syrios, president of the parish community; Christina Efthymiades, secretary of the parish; Father George Liangas, the parish priest, whose lovely family I did meet as well; the ladies auxiliary and all the members of the event on the committee. It was, as always, a fantastic day and I urge everyone in Sydney to try to get along to the fair next year. I know I will. Opa!

Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:39): I would like to express my concern about cuts to the ABC and the resulting loss of content. Aside from shedding 400 jobs, the public broadcaster is cutting content, and I am particularly concerned about a loss of great local journalism and TV around the country, particularly in rural and regional Australia. The announcement to close five regional radio outposts at Nowra, Wagin, Morwell, Gladstone, and Port Augusta will have an enormous impact on those towns. These local radio stations are often the lifeline of their towns. They allow residents to connect through storytelling where it is often difficult due to distance.

These types of regional radio stations also provide sometimes lifesaving messages to their communities in disasters. I want to know: what will happen in an emergency once these regional outposts are shut down? How will the people of Nowra or Morwell stay safe in a bushfire this summer?

I still can remember how the ABC, here in Canberra, covered the 2003 bushfire disaster and how the Canberra community turned to a known and trusted source in that time of emergency. That is why I stood on the lawns of Parliament House this afternoon, fighting for a cause I believe in.

Our ABC should be an ABC for all Australians, whether they live in Melbourne, Sydney or Gladstone. They deserve the diversity of local content that only the ABC can offer. Australians have a right to feel betrayed by the Abbott government, and I will continue to highlight its broken promises.

Mr TAYLOR (Hume) (13:40): I would like to congratulate the community of Gundaroo on some recent village events which have been a great success. A couple of weeks ago, I was delighted to attend the 150th celebrations of the old Presbyterian church in the village. The church building was a ruin in the 1980s; however, over the past few decades it has been restored by the local church community. As part of the celebrations, there was a community picnic with old-style games and a brilliant speech delivered by Marion Meischke, Sasha Sheehan and Deborah Colliver which covered significant events in the history of the church.

Last month I also attended the Gundaroo Music Festival, another great day, featuring a range of local and regional bands, and culminating in a performance by none other than Daryl Braithwaite—more my vintage than the next. The music festival is now in its second successful year, thanks to Scott Harding and a team of helpers. The origin of the event is very local. Resident Scott Windsor is a keen musician and was diagnosed with motor neurone disease around 18 months ago, and Scott, with his family and friends, had the idea of creating the event to raise money for, and awareness of, the disease.

I look forward to attending another significant anniversary for Gundaroo in March next year, joining principal Sue Kominek in the 150th celebrations of the Gundaroo Public School. Gundaroo is a great little community. Keep up the good work.

Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (13:42): Last week, we felt that the gold medal for hypocrisy in this place was going to go to the member for Sturt. We thought he was a deadset winner. This guy is the Liberal Party's one-man answer to GetUp! because he said the land speed record in rushing from the cabinet meeting where he stuck his hand in the air and voted for the cuts to the ABC and then rushed back to his electorate to put out a petition against his own government, his own cabinet saying, 'You can cut anywhere you like, but keep the cuts out of my electorate.'

Since that extraordinary display of cabinet solidarity, we have seen an absolute conga line of coalition MPs who have stood up and said these cuts to the ABC, particularly in regional Australia, are an absolute outrage. The problem for them is that they have shown, once again, that those in the coalition are lions in their electorate but they are absolute lambs when they come here to Canberra. One such lamb is the member for Gilmore, Ms Ann Sudmalis, who has written this breathless letter to the CEO of the ABC, calling the cuts and the closure of the ABC's Nowra office absolutely deplorable. Well, I have got a proposition for the member for Gilmore: you can barrack for the fire, or you can barrack for the fire brigade. You cannot do both, or you will end up burning yourself.

Ms LANDRY (Capricornia) (13:43): It was with much pleasure that I recently hosted our honourable Speaker of the House of Representatives on a visit to Rockhampton. Madam Speaker spent time with Year 12 girls from five high schools as a motivational speaker encouraging young women, and she addressed a business lunch hosted by Capricorn Enterprise.

Madame Speaker also addressed 91 women at a women's breakfast hosted by CQUniversity at its Willby's training restaurant. CQU recently merged with CQ TAFE to become Queensland's first dual-sector university. The meal and service was provided by students undertaking certificate training in kitchen and hospitality duties. During the breakfast $500 was raised for the Zonta breast care cushion program.

Rockhampton's Zonta President, Rosalie Welburn, explained that Zonta volunteers hand-sew special cushions for women who have undergone surgery for breast cancer. The cushions are handed out in local hospitals to women who have had a breast removed and required immediate support in their breast area. This is a very personal service that Zonta provides to our community.

Nationwide, up to 15,000 are diagnosed with breast cancer each year. The diagnosis and subsequent surgery can have a devastating psychological impact. I commend Zonta for their support of women who are faced with such a predicament.

Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (13:45): Last week, in Bendigo, over 100 people rallied in Hargreaves Mall, at the front of Senator Bridget McKenzie's office, a Nationals member, calling on the government to reverse its savage cuts to the ABC. People in Bendigo signed petitions and stood up and said that they loved their ABC and that they did not support the government's cuts to the ABC and SBS. I was proud to stand on the lawns of Parliament today, with that banner and ready to present to the government. That is representation. It is not representation to be part of a party, to be part of a coalition, that votes in favour of cuts, that is quite complicit as it sits here and agrees with that, and then goes on TV and on radio and says, 'Oh, the ABC shouldn't be cutting services in my electorate. It shouldn't be cutting those services to my constituents.' The ABC has got to cut somewhere. Costs go up.

Those opposite claim to be the government that represents big business, so who is it going to be? You have got part of the government saying, 'Do not shut down the studios in Adelaide.' You have also got part of the government saying, 'Do not shut down the Bush Telegraph.' What is it going to be? Is it going to be the bush, or is it going to be Adelaide? The government need to reverse these cuts. They need to listen to the Australian people. The ABC is not the propaganda arm of the government of the day. The ABC is the people's voice. It is the people's broadcaster. And it is time this government did the right thing and reversed the cuts to the ABC and listened to the Australian people.

Mr RAMSEY (Grey) (13:46): Yesterday I spoke in the Federation Chamber about the ABC closing down Port Augusta and its withdrawal of service from South Australia. I am transfixed to sit here today—because I spoke about the cuts to the ABC—and listen to speaker after speaker on that side of the chamber now describing a 4.6 per cent cut as a savage cut. This shows they have absolutely no understanding of what businesses throughout Australia are going through. In fact, the ABC is being reduced from $5.5 billion to $5.2 billion over the next five years. That is not a savage cut. Any organisation worth their salt could follow the plan put out by the efficiency review board to identify those easy savings.

Let me point out that this same organisation had the money to send the Q&A show to Indonesia, to China and to India. It has the money to advertise ABC programs on Fox. It is a major sponsor of the Festival of Dangerous Ideas in Sydney. It booked out of the Sydney Opera House. That is no cheap venue. I do not exactly know what the rates on the Opera House are at the moment, but I can tell you that it is a lot of money. The ABC had ample room to cut their expenditure, without cutting into regional Australia—one of the few places they fulfil their charter.

Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (13:48): It has been just over a year since literally millions of Australians and nearly 100,000 in my electorate of Hotham went to the ballot box and made a decision, as is their democratic right, on who should form government in this country—and they did so based on a number of promises that were made. We heard so clearly throughout the campaign that there would be no changes to pensions, that there would be no cuts to health and that there would be no changes to education funding in Australia. Then right on the night before the election, we had the Prime Minister go on SBS and say in crystal clear language that there would be no cuts to the ABC and the SBS. Over the last year, we have watched each of those pillars of trust being cast aside by this Prime Minister and this government. I have to say that the feeling out in the electorate at the moment is that this promise about the ABC and the SBS is the straw that broke the camel's back. The man who is leading this country cannot be trusted. Nothing that comes out of his mouth can be relied upon by the Australian people.

We know in this chamber that the ABC and the SBS provide very important services, and we have heard a little bit about that today—regional and rural content, the important role that the SBS and the ABC play in delivering emergency services and children's programming—all of these things. But even if you do not think these are important services, the breach of trust at the heart of this unbelievable. Not only are the government lying; but they are lying about lying—and that is what is so disappointing. Front up, prove to the Australian people that you have got some integrity and at least be honest about these cuts. (Time expired)

Mr BROAD (Mallee) (13:49): Today I rise to talk to the Australian parliament about the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, the South Korea Free Trade Agreement and the Japan Free Trade Agreement. All these agreements have been very welcomed by the agricultural producers across the electorate of Mallee. We know in the electorate of Mallee that we can produce some of the best fruit and vegetables that can be produced anywhere in the world, and we welcome the opportunity that presents itself through a free trade agreement. We are also very conscious that this opportunity must make its way into reality by delivering good financial policy, good roads and good employment services so that we can make sure that we have got people to capitalise on the opportunities of the free trade agreements.

One of the things in these free trade agreements which I am very proud of is that we have made provision within them to lower the limit for agricultural land purchases from $248 million to $15 million. I look forward to being part of a government that brings this to fruition. We must have a register of land ownership for Australian agricultural land. We must lower that threshold to $15 million. We must broaden the skill set of the Foreign Investment Review Board so that they have a passion for making sure that Australians can sell their product, instead of selling the farm, and we must increase compliance and prosecutions for those who seek to step outside that. A good agreement, a good export opportunity and Australians being able to capitalise on that agreement instead of selling our land is what this government is committed to delivering.

Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (13:51): I am delighted today to welcome students of Victory Lutheran College to the Parliament of Australia. These students are from all over my electorate but particularly from Wodonga, the beautiful Yackandandah and the especially wonderful Indigo Valley. The vision of Victory College is to build a Christian community devoted to developing the whole child—a learning community, a spiritual community, a celebrating community and a prophetic community. Victory College in 2015 will have over 670 students and 80 staff and so it plays a major role in my community, providing education from P right through to year 12.

I have been delighted to be a guest at the college on a number of occasions and recently meeting the members of the school board and the Lutheran Parish Council. I would like to congratulate Mr Cain McDonald, the principal, and the Lutheran community of Wodonga for their fantastic effort in establishing this school. To the students of this college: I hope today sets a really strong foundation for your involvement in politics and being part of the wonderful democracy that is Australia.

Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (13:52): I rise today to speak about the scourge of our society—domestic violence. It is a blight on our country. It is unacceptable that nearly half of the Australian population has experienced violence since the age of 15.

I have been a proud member of Zonta for many years and we are running a determined campaign called 'Zonta Says No' to help combat violence against women on an international scale. Since 1923 Zonta International has been striving to end violence against women by increasing the level of non-discriminatory education, guaranteeing women access to resources and representation on the same basis as men, protection of women with one-stop medical, legal and social help and by ensuring perpetrators of violence are held to account.

As well as supporting women in need, Zonta is also providing training and engagement seminars for men as violence against women is not just a women's problem. In Queensland, between January and June this year, 11 women were actually killed as a result of domestic violence. So far in Australia this year, 58 women have lost their lives. We need to be ever vigilant and alert to the level of all forms of domestic violence in our country and, indeed, countries like our nearest neighbours Papua New Guinea, where the situation is one of the worst in the world. It is indeed time to talk more openly and honestly about domestic violence and to say to the victims, 'I believe you.' Zonta says 'no.'

Mr FEENEY (Batman) (13:54): Australians were shocked this week to hear that the government had broken yet another promise and proceeded with its plans to attack the ABC, slashing some $200 million from their budget.

This July I assisted and supported the organisation of a public meeting in my home electorate of Batman, bringing together the ABC Friends organisation and members of the community. Literally, hundreds of passionate Batman constituents turned out to voice their opposition to the government's proposed cuts and to voice their support for the independent broadcaster, which has been such a constant in many of our lives.

In addition, I have received innumerable letters, emails and petitions, calling on the government to keep their hands off the ABC budget. The people of my electorate have clearly spoken in support of our national broadcaster. They are very plainly saying to those opposite, 'This is not what you promised, this is not what we want and we will hold you to account.' Let's hope those opposite will finally listen to the Australian people and overturn these cuts, because perhaps the saddest thing of all is that not only has this been a dramatically broken promise, but it has been delivered by a government that refuses to even admit that it has broken a promise—adding insult to injury.

Mr PITT (Hinkler) (13:55): In 2013 Bundaberg was devastated by flood for the second time in three years. Nearly every home in North Bundaberg was inundated and sustained significant damage.

Yesterday the Bundaberg North State School received a 2014 Resilient Australia Award for its BEAR Plan. The BEAR Plan—Breathe, Exit, Ask, Relax—successfully assisted students to overcome the associated trauma. The school became the hub for physical and emotional support for students and their families. By teaching deep breathing, along with other strategies, such as moving to a safe location, checking their negative self-talk and some relaxing activities, the students became better able to cope in the classroom.

Students were also given teddy bears to help calm them when they became emotionally overwhelmed. Having a school teddy bear for comfort also provided a secure, safe connection. They also received rulers, water bottles, fridge magnets and wrist bands—like the one I am attempting to wear today, but I am not quite the right size, I am afraid—to remind them of the BEAR acrostic. They received the award from the federal Minister for Justice Michael Keenan at a special ceremony at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra yesterday.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the minister for visiting my electorate last week. Hinkler residents had the opportunity to discuss the impacts and causes of crime in the community at a forum in Hervey Bay. The event was well attended by Neighbourhood Watch groups, local police, businesses, schools, state and local government representatives. Minister Keenan also met with the Fraser Coast District Law Association and Hervey Bay Chamber of Commerce, as well as stakeholders concerned about the exploitation of workers in the horticulture and tourism sectors.

Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (13:57): Today the outrage from the community continues about the cuts to the ABC. Not only is there outrage about the cuts and outrage about the broken promise, but there is outrage about the hypocrisy of those on the other side who want to protect their local community but who also sanction the cuts wholeheartedly. Of course, one of those is the member for Sturt whose hypocrisy is in full flight. He thinks that the South Australian people are silly enough to not realise and see through his game. But they do.

Indeed, you only have to go to his own petitions to see some of the comments. First, Sharlene: 'Talk is cheap, Mr Pyne—no cuts to the ABC or SBS.' Then there is Elizabeth: 'The irony of this situation is that Mr Pyne is part of the problem but he wants to be exempt from the consequences. Christopher Pyne needs to persuade the cabinet to reverse these ABC cuts.' My favourite is from Twitter; it sums up his hypocrisy the best: 'Petitions are fun. That's why I am asking you to sign my petition to myself—asking me to petition me about cuts we're making to the ABC.' Quite frankly, it is time for Christopher Pyne, the member for Sturt, to stand up in Cabinet and actually vote against these cuts—and not just go to change.org to try to make a change, because that is not going to work.

Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (13:58): Last week it was a great pleasure to join Victorian Premier Denis Napthine at the opening of the Waurn Ponds Police Station in South Barwon SES. Just up the road is the new Waurn Ponds train station—yet another example of how the Victorian government is delivering across the Geelong region.

This Saturday there is a stark choice. A re-elected Napthine government will build the East West Link and deliver nearly 7000 jobs during construction. State Labor will shut it down and destroy those jobs. State Labor is also intent on harming local beaches and our precious environment on the Bellarine; its Bay West port plan to blast Port Phillip Heads and dredge the bay will do irreversible environmental damage. Over the past four years the Napthine government has built a strong and prosperous economy, delivered surplus budgets and Victoria is the only state with a AAA credit rating. State Labor and Daniel Andrews, with their insidious links to the CFMEU, will send our state backwards. Member for South Barwon, Andrew Katos, and Liberal candidates Paula Contell, Tony McManus and Ron Nelson are working hard to build a better Geelong. Better schools, better local hospitals, a bypass for Drysdale, a $35 million redevelopment of GPAC, funding for a new convention centre are some of their local commitments. To build a better Geelong and a better Victoria, I urge all Victorians to get behind—

The SPEAKER: It being two o'clock, in accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.

The SPEAKER (14:00): The question is that the motion moved by the Prime Minister be agreed to. I ask all honourable members to signify their approval by rising in their places.

Honourable members having stood in their places—

Question agreed to.

The SPEAKER: I thank the House.

The SPEAKER (15:10): Before people leave the chamber, I would just like to say—on a happy note—that today the President of the Senate and I switched on the lights on the Christmas tree in the marble foyer, which is a giving tree. I encourage all members to purchase from the gift shop a red disc, which you can hang on the tree indicating the donation that you are prepared to make to the two charities involved, which are Lifeline and the Aboriginal Literacy Foundation. If people could dig deep for those two charities, I think that would be a wonderful way to express our Christmas spirit.

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

The Abbott Government’s unfair Budget damaging Australia’s economy.

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

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

Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (15:15): In recent days, the parliament and the people have been exposed to the spectacle—the undignified spectacle—of the Prime Minister ducking and weaving, denying promises that he made on camera, denying the implications of what he said, denying what he said to the Australian people and the firm commitments he made to the Australian people before the election. It is an undignified spectacle from the Prime Minister of Australia. He has had one defence against all of it; he says: 'Yes, but I am fixing the budget. I am doing all this to fix the budget. I know I said before the election that I wouldn't use the budget as an excuse to breach my promises, but I'm fixing the budget.' That is his alibi to the Australian people. That is his excuse for the breach of his commitments to the Australian people right across the board, including Australia's pensioners, Australia's families and Australia's Friends of the ABC and Save Our SBS. That is his alibi and excuse. But his alibi is a false one; his excuse is a feeble one, because, despite that excuse, he is not fixing the budget. Even by his own test, the budget is getting worse on his watch and on his Treasurer's watch.

It takes a special kind of talent to bring down a budget so unfair and so regressive and so rejected by the Australian people and the parliament! This is a budget which rips our social fabric as well as making our economy worse; that takes a special kind of talent from a very ordinary Treasurer! We have a Treasurer so driven by prejudice that he is prepared to bring in cuts which not only damage Australian families but also damage confidence in the Australian economy, damage the budget itself and damage business conditions right across the country. This is a Treasurer who is so determined to score political points that he is talking our economy down and using irresponsible language. The Treasurer of Australia is so determined to play politics that his words and deeds are a wrecking ball to confidence.

We have an unusual situation in Australia. Normally, it is the government talking the budget up and the government talking the economy up. That is the normal situation. In Australia, we have a Treasurer determined to talk the economy and the budget down, and an opposition responsibly pointing out the economic and budget fundamentals. That is how extreme and desperate this Treasurer is. The Treasurer talked the economy down in the lead-up to the budget, and we saw the impact immediately. When the Australian people actually saw the budget and the cuts their Treasurer had in mind, we saw the impact on our economy even more starkly.

We had the Treasurer and Prime Minister say there would be an adrenaline rush to the economy and consumer confidence just by their very election. Well, some adrenaline and some rush! We have seen consumer confidence fall 13 per cent since the election. The now Treasurer, the former shadow Treasurer, has had plenty to say about consumer confidence over the years. He issued a press release on 14 December 2011 in relation to a decline in consumer confidence entitled 'Consumers lose confidence in government'. He tweeted—he does like Twitter, our Treasurer, and he used to like it a little more. He used to consult it about public policy, about little matters like climate change! He did a cracker of a tweet on 14 May 2013! He tweeted:

This Budget delivers even more debt, deficits, taxes and broken promises from a Government that can't be trusted.

He's a clairvoyant! He saw his own budget coming 12 months in advance! I am often critical of our Treasurer, but he could see into the future on that particular occasion!

But make no mistake: the impact on the Australian economy and on consumer confidence is a direct result of his words and his deeds, and there are plenty of people who have made this point. In relation to the latest Westpac index of consumer sentiment in May, Westpac's chief economist, Bill Evans, commented:

The sharp fall in the Index is clearly indicating an unfavourable response to the recent Federal Budget.

That was one of the sharp declines in consumer confidence. When asked by Westpac in May what impact consumers expected the budget to have on their family finances over the next 12 months, 59.2 per cent considered that they would worsen—and they are right. What an impact that had on consumer confidence right across the country. In September, the budget still loomed large. It was delivered in May; in September, it still loomed large in relation to consumer confidence. On recall of major news items, the proportion of respondents recalling news items relating to budget and taxation issues was the second highest since the survey was introduced in the mid-1970s. Do you know when the highest one was, Madam Speaker? It was the one just before, under this Treasurer as well. He has the highest and the second highest on his watch. This is a direct result of his words and his deeds.

We hear a lot from this Treasurer and this government about how they are business friendly and they understand business, but there actions belie their words. The Australian Institute of Company Directors have called them out for what they are. They did a survey of directors across the country, with almost half the directors claiming the government's performance is impacting negatively on their business decisions. A majority of directors believe that the federal government's performance is negatively affecting consumer confidence—well, there is plenty of evidence for that. Around half of directors rate the government's performance in office as poor or very poor. It gets worse. Directors have become more pessimistic about the future, and an increasing number of them say the federal government does not understand business and does not understand their concerns. This is the impact of this so-called pro-business government and this pro-business Treasurer.

This has a direct impact on the budget bottom line. We are going to see a budget update in a couple of weeks. Remember when the previous government had to write down revenue? The Treasurer would get into full huff-and-puff mode. He would beat his chest like only he can. He would allege a scandal; he would allege incompetence; he would say that there was no revenue problem and that it would all be different under his watch. What do we get today when we ask, 'What will you do: will you blame revenue or blame Labor?' He is not a man for half measures, our Treasurer. He proudly proclaims, 'Both.' He is going to blame both. What a diminished figure this Treasurer is.

We will see the impact of his own actions and words in a couple of weeks in the budget update. We have already seen it in the figures. We have seen it in consumer confidence. We have seen it in the national performance of services survey. Seventy per cent of our economy is services and we have seen them contract for eight consecutive months. We saw in September the link made directly by that survey to the budget. The survey raised 'concerns about the weak state of the local economy and the effect of federal budget uncertainties'. That is a direct result of this Treasurer's incompetence, his lack of an economic strategy and his lack of an ability to convince the parliament or the people that his policies are fair—because they are not. His budget is fundamentally unfair and it is also wrong for the Australian economy.

We have a Treasurer who fundamentally misjudged the state of the economy in May, who thought that the economy could do with a dose of him talking it down, who thought that the economy could do with a dose of his harsh cuts and who thought that the economy could do with a dose of his rhetoric and his actions—and the economy is paying a price. Every Australian worker is paying a price. Australia's young people are paying a price, with youth unemployment the highest it has been since the now Prime Minister was minister for employment, with youth underutilisation at a record high in the labour market and with a youth unemployment crisis—and what is this government's response? To deliberately create an underclass by throwing people under 30 off the Newstart allowance. That is a shame when it comes to fairness and it is a shame when it comes to economic policy.

Is it any wonder that we see senior Liberals privately speculating in quite an extraordinary development, and perhaps senior Nationals as well, that the Treasurer might not make it to the next election? He might join that small and exclusive group of treasurers who are so incompetent that they cannot make a term. This Treasurer might be sacked by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Communications put in his place. This Treasurer is so incompetent that senior Liberals speculate that he will not make it because he is incompetent, because he misunderstands the economy, because his unfair policies are bad for Australian families, because he has created budget emergencies right across the country—

Mr Briggs interjecting—

The SPEAKER: It all sounds a bit disorderly to me! You will desist across the table.

Mr BOWEN: because he has created budget emergencies for Australia's states, because he has created a national budget emergency, because he is incompetent, because he is not up to the job, because he is a bad Treasurer, because he does not understand the Australian economy, because he does not understand the impact of his words and his actions and because his prejudice is so bad that he introduces unfair policies which not only are unfair but are bad and damaging to the economy, which is in his care. (Time expired)

Mr Albanese: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. During the last two minutes of the shadow Treasurer's contribution, the member for Mayo yelled out unparliamentary language and was not called to account by you, in the context in which today, in response to my question, you indicated that there was unruly behaviour in the House. I put it to you, Madam Speaker, that both sides need to be held to account, not just one side. That was an example of outrageous behaviour—

The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. The behaviour being complained of by you after today's performance is just so ironical that it is not worth passing comment on. What we saw were two men in this chamber shouting at each other.

Mr Albanese interjecting—

The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat.

Mr Albanese: Aren't I entitled to raise a point of order?

The SPEAKER: Not if I anticipate that I know what it is.

Mr Albanese: Well, you're a genius then, Madam Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Indeed I may well be, compared to you.

Mr Albanese: You might allow me to make the point, Madam Speaker.

The SPEAKER: No, I am going to call the assistant minister and ask him: did he use unparliamentary language during the shouting match? If he did, he will withdraw.

Mr Briggs: I withdraw.

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (15:27): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to put on the Hansard record that I do think you are a genius. I commend you on your 'giving tree'. I think it is very appropriate, and I would urge members to take the opportunity to make a donation and put an offering on that tree, which has an angel on top which I believe bears a resemblance to your face, Madam Speaker.

The SPEAKER: I don't think so!

Mr McCORMACK: Given the fact that it is 25 November, one month out from Christmas, and with apologies to Clement Moore, I have a poem for the House. Labor is fixated with the night before the election, so here is my poem:

Twas the night before the election, when all through this House

Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse.

The stocking was empty, the cupboard was bare,

Because Labor had governed for six years without care.

Indeed they had. That is why our nation is in such a mess.

The member for Gippsland pointed out to me that during his effort the member for McMahon's was talking about the Prime Minister using an alibi in that the budget was worse than expected. Yes, Member for Gippsland, the budget was worse than expected, but an alibi is only needed, as the member for Gippsland pointed out, when a crime has been committed. The only crime that has been committed was by the Labor Party, and that was over six long, shameful years when they took the electorate for granted, they took the nation for granted and they took the economic management of our country for granted.

On 12 May 2011, Wayne Swan, then the Treasurer, was caught out on morning radio, when he could not answer as to the last time a Labor government had produced a surplus. It was pointed out that it was 1989, which was before the member for Longman even saw the light of day—before he was born. The member for McMahon was sworn in as Treasurer on 27 June last year, after those rather forgettable years of mismanagement by Wayne Swan, the member for Lilley, and he served until the election. The deficit blew out from $18 billion to $30 billion in just a few weeks prior to the election.

Then when the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook was produced, the Treasurer, Joe Hockey, discovered to his horror that the deficit was, in fact, $48 billion, with cumulative deficits as far as the eye could see—$123 billion. We heard in question time today—it may not have been heard in this raucous end of the chamber—the member for Fraser calling out, 'What are you doing about the deficits, Joe?' Fair dinkum! Love a duck! Really and truly! The deficits were caused by that side.

Seeing as I am into quoting today, Aristotle said more than 400 years before Christ, 'To avoid criticism say nothing, do nothing, be nothing.' I think that probably sums up to this country what the Leader of the Opposition, who is not fit to lead, is all about. On 12 November this year, a journalist asked him, 'What would you say to Vladimir Putin if you came across him at the G20?' Shorten said, 'Nothing.' The journalist asked, 'Just to clarify, you would not seek to talk to Mr Putin?' Shorten said, 'Not in the first instance.' Doesn't that sum up what the member for Maribyrnong offers to this nation, what he brings to this parliament and what he gives to the Australian public? Nothing. It is absolutely diddly-squat.

The contrast between the coalition's success after just 14 months in government and Labor's legacy after six years in office could not be more stark. Contrary to what those opposite would have you believe and contrary to what the red-faced member for McMahon was shouting across the dispatch box, we are cleaning up after Labor's debt and deficit legacy. We are investing for the future. We are getting on with the job of building a more prosperous nation for Australians.

Labor did not have the stomach for difficult choices. But we are getting on with the job. I bumped into the Minister for Immigration the other day in the airport. He told me that we have closed nine detention centres. The member for Rankin might laugh, but we have closed nine detention centres. Most of the unauthorised arrivals in those detention centres came when the member for McMahon was doing the job or trying to do the job or, indeed, failing dismally at the job of being the immigration minister. Labor's policies allowed in 55,000 people—half of whom came under the member for McMahon's watch—who we then had to deal with and process. Each and every one of them cost taxpayers $170,000.

Labor put more beds in detention centres than they put into hospitals in Australia, which is absolutely shameful. If we had not had to spend money on those sorts of programs, maybe the ABC would not had to undergo the savings that it is now and would not have to undergo a saving of less than one per cent per year for five years of their $5,500 million budget. The choices are quite stark. You either get Labor again at the next election and they will bring back the carbon tax, a revised version of the mining tax and the illegal arrivals, or you stick with the government of the day, the coalition, who are building the roads, stopping the boats, ending the waste and doing everything that we said that we would do.

Let's not get too caught up in an interview on SBS the night before the election. Let's not get too cute about what might have been said the night before the election. We are doing things because our economic situation, as left by Labor, is in a mess and we need to fix it up. The mums and dads out on the street expect us to do just that. They do not get too caught up with the big words and weaselly words of the member for McMahon, who is just doing a job advertisement to be the next opposition leader. Do not worry. He is not counting the numbers of the deficit. He should have been doing that when he was the Labor Treasurer for a few short weeks. He is doing the numbers on getting the job of opposition leader. Quite frankly, I feel a little bit sorry for the member for Maribyrnong. I feel sorry the him because he has not got the wholehearted support of those people behind him. Nor does he deserve to have it, because he knifed two Labor Prime Ministers—Rudd and Gillard. Let's not forget that.

But the fact is we have a Prime Minister who has the wholehearted support of the Liberal and National parties. That is what we are about. We are about solid, strong, secure government. That is what we are bringing to the Australian people. That is what we are bringing to make sure that the debt and deficit legacy of Labor is but a distant memory. We have removed the carbon tax, as we said we would. That is a $550 saving for the average family. We have removed the mining tax, as we said we would, so that we can create jobs and growth in the electorate of, for example, the member for Flynn, who I can see in here. I know the member for Dawson was absolutely elated when that mining tax was lifted.

Had it not been abolished, Labor's mining tax could have been expected to raise $668.5 million over the forward estimates. But the associated spending by Labor was expected to reach more than $17,000 million. How could they raise $668.5 million but forward spend $17 billion and then go and promise the regions all these sorts of things that they knew they were never going to have to deliver? Labor knew they were never going to be able to deliver them because they knew they were not going to be in government. They knew that they had mucked it up so badly in six long, disastrous years that change was needed. Indeed, on 7 September last year, change was accomplished.

Achieving efficiency savings across the Commonwealth and the ABC has to occur. We would all love to be able to fund the ABC to the level it has now. But under Labor there were 10 per cent efficiency cuts in defence. Did we hear the chest beating and hand wringing from the ALP on that? Did we hear that once? Not really. They just came in and cut defence. They pared it back to pre World War II levels, back to 1938. People in my electorate were absolutely outraged. I know how people in the electorate of the member for Gippsland—who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence and doing a damn fine job at it, too—were outraged about that. So let's not get too cute about a few cutbacks to organisations which need efficiency measures to be implemented. Let's not get too cute when their side actually cut back spending in defence by 10 per cent at a time when we were fighting a very deadly war in Afghanistan. Let's not get too cute about that. We have abolished the carbon tax. We are getting on with the job of building the roads of the 21st century. We are repairing the mess that Labor left. We are fixing up the budget so that we will, one day, get back in surplus.

Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (15:44): Member for Riverina, you are no poet laureate. You should stay away from the poetry and stick to the limericks. The one about the budget standing on the burning deck, as if all of your commitments are turning into ash and all of your promises about what you would do would go. The only thing I will give the Treasurer credit for is he is very effective at this one thing: he will tell you something with such bluff and bluster that in six months time you will be guaranteed he will walk away from it, guaranteed that he will crab walk away from the commitment he made. Because, remember earlier in January 2013—

Mr Pasin: Let's talk about Swanny's surplus.

Mr HUSIC: and thank you member for Barker for walking straight into it. Because earlier, in January 2013, I remember the shadow Treasurer, now Treasurer, telling ABC AM, and I quote: 'Our commitment is emphatic. Based on the numbers published today, we will deliver a surplus in our first year and every year after that.' That is what he said last year. And guess what happened? He walked away from that.

The member for Mayo wants to refer to our time in government. You often hear from the coalition a reference to, 'But what about your time in government?' The thing is this: on the path to your office, on the path to election, you made it a virtue by saying that what you say you will do you will deliver. Those opposite said that, if they make a commitment, they will deliver it. But, every time they make a commitment, they cannot.

The other time when the Treasurer spoke with such confidence, such gusto that he would be able to achieve was in May 2013, when he said: 'I can promise that the coalition will deliver a better budget bottom line than Labor.' A better bottom line. Let's fast forward six months to their first MYEFO document. PEFO—independently established—said that the budget deficit will be $30 billion. What happened? By MYEFO it went to $47 billion for their first one. This was not a case of trying to blame the former government; there were active decisions that were made by those opposite that contributed to it: the $9 billion they gifted and handed over to the Reserve Bank; the $1.1 billion that they turned their back on in terms of profit shifting and the way you could have dealt with that. They turned their back on changing the way in which wealthy superannuants are taxed. Their active decisions deteriorated the budget. So when the Treasurer, in May 2013, said, 'I can promise that the coalition will deliver a better budget bottom line than Labor,' again, wait six months and it all turns to dust.

The Treasurer got a few good confidence figures in November 2013 and he suddenly went out and told everyone. He got a few good figures on consumer confidence and in November of last year said, 'Consumers have now started taking their wallets out of their pockets.' And guess what happened six months after that. After the consumers took their wallets out of their pockets, these people opposite took $6,000 out through their budget. A budget that ripped people off. It ripped off pensioners. It lifted fuel tax. It ripped off people who wanted to send their children to university. It imposed a GP tax. The consumers took their wallets out and then they got thugged by this government in their very first budget. And what happened as a result? Confidence tanked.

When you look at all of the figures, one after the other, the business sector cannot believe what they are seeing. What they are seeing now is people concerned about whether or not they will be able to spend, because the budget has ripped $6,000 out of families. At a time when the economy needs that confidence, it is not there. The only time you see confidence is from one person, and it is the Treasurer just before he is about to make another stuff-up; he will tell you one thing on one day, and in six month's time it will end and be departed from. Just like a Prime Minister who is simply incapable of telling the truth. You cannot trust a single commitment given by this government; they will walk away from it once they have the votes, and that is what people should remember.

Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications) (15:42): The proposition before the House this afternoon is that apparently there is an unfair budget which is damaging Australia's economy. That is the proposition which has been put. Let us remember that what damaged the economy of Australia was six years of chaotic and incompetent management. Who can forget the rank incompetence of a Treasurer who stood up in May 2012 and said: 'The four years of surpluses I announce tonight are a powerful endorsement of the strength of our economy'? What about the ignominious failure to deliver? What was that a powerful indicator of? What that was a powerful indicator of was that panicky and inexperienced hands were at the economic wheel. This was a man who promised a surplus for 2012-13; he actually delivered an $18 billion deficit following deficits in the previous four years of $27 billion, $54 billion, $47 billion and $43 billion—and yet he expected the Australian people to believe that he would deliver a dramatic turnaround in one year. An indicator of rank incompetence and rank inexperience. What he did do was leave this country on a trajectory heading towards a massive government debt, had corrective action not been taken, of $667 billion by 2024 according to his own documents.

Who can forget some of the high points of the damage to Australia's economy that was done by the chaotic incompetence of the previous government? Who can forget the blow-out of $11 billion in border protection costs? Who can forget the blow-out of some $6 billion to $8 billion in the cost of school halls? Who can forget the pink batts program, which cost $2.8 billion and four lives, or the $900 stimulus cheques sent to 27,000 Australians overseas and 21,000 dead people? We ask who can forget? I will tell you who can forget that: it is the people on the other side of the chamber who are forgetting that. They have wilfully blinded their minds and they have closed their ears to the historical record. But the accuracy of the historical record is there. The Labor Party has the temerity to talk about an unfair budget; what could be more unfair than the generational inequity of loading a huge debt burden on successive generations because you are too weak and too incompetent to make the necessary decisions?

By contrast, what is boosting the economy is a well-structured budget that is part of an integrated economic strategy to back the private sector and to build prosperity. Let's look at some of the indicators: the ABS data released on 6 November this year is that jobs growth is 12,300 per month this year. That is more than double the 2013 average. In the ANZ's consumer confidence survey released on the 25th, consumer confidence is at 114.3—above the long-run average since 1990. The NAB's monthly business survey for October showed that confidence was up by 12 points, which is the biggest monthly gain since 1998. Those are the facts about how the economy is performing. It is doing that because what this government is doing is establishing the conditions for the private sector to prosper.

If there is one thing that the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government never understood, it was that the prosperity that generates the tax revenue—on which all of the incidences of a civilised society depend, such as health, education and aged-care—depends on the private sector. The Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government seemed to think that you could solve everything by pumping taxpayers' money into government owned ventures: $43 billion was pumped into the National Broadband Network company and $10 billion went into the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

What were we left with? A series of deficits and a huge debt, which we are now steadily and credibly working to turn around. We have a steady and credible plan to reduce the budget deficit over four years. We are steadily doing what we said we would do. We have removed the carbon tax and the mining tax, as we said we would. We are putting in place the stimulus to get the private sector working and we are capturing business opportunities through the enormously important free-trade agreements in Korea, Japan and China. We are doing what we said we would do to stimulate the private sector. That is the way to generate prosperity, boost the economy and create more jobs. What could be fairer than that?

Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (15:47): In February 2013, as the days of summer and cricket gave way to the days of autumn and football, the now Prime Minister stood up in Sydney and promised two things. The first thing he said was that if the coalition government was elected, there would be:

…an instantaneous adrenaline charge in our economy.

The other thing he said to CEDA on 15 February 2013 was that there would be an 'instantaneous surge of confidence' in the economy. Of course, the reality has been very different.

As the shadow Treasurer has said and as my other colleagues have said, the government has misread the economy. That has cost confidence. When you damage confidence, you damage growth and you damage jobs. If we cast our minds back to the time of the Prime Minister's speech, they were handing out this glossy pamphlet with Joe Hockey on the front with the blank look on his face and they were promising that the sun would shine and the birds would sing if they were elected. They said that confidence would be boosted, jobs would be boosted, the cost of living would come down and living standards would go up.

If we cast our minds to that period, we know that the reality has turned out very differently. When they try to justify it and when they try to explain all of their other broken promises on hospitals, schools, the ABC, the SBS, pensions and petrol—all of those broken promises—they say, 'Don't worry. We know we broke all of those promises, but judge us on our economic promises.' That is as if there is some sort of hierarchy of hypocrisy that the Australian people will let them get away with. They say, 'We have broken all of these other promises, but judge us on the economy.'

On the basis that you can choose opinion but you cannot choose facts, let's run through some of them. Our world ranking on living standards has gone from 8th to 14th in the world since the government was elected. The cost of living, as a result of their budget, is an extra $6,000 per year for an average family. The unemployment rate was 5.6 per cent on the day that the government was elected; it is now 6.2 per cent. There are 40,000 extra people looking for a job today than the day that the government was elected. When it comes to consumer confidence, it is down 13 per cent since the government was elected. Business confidence has gone down since the budget came out. When it comes to the budget, in the first mid-year update the Treasurer doubled the deficit.

We now have another mini-budget coming up. It is due in the next few weeks. Already, the excuses are mounting about this mini-budget coming up in a couple of weeks' time. Our front bench asked the Treasurer today to pick from a menu of excuses and he said, 'I will have all of them. I will have all of the excuses. I will have every excuse on the menu. Any excuse you want to pitch up to me, I am happy to rely on.' As the member for Wakefield said, it was like fish jumping into a boat. It was like we had hooked him by making him admit, two or three weeks earlier than he had hoped, that he is going to go for every single excuse. He is going to blame everyone else except himself, despite having been the Treasurer for the last 15 months.

I remember very well when the Treasurer was the shadow Treasurer he would always say, 'Well, you can't hide behind the iron ore price. You can't hide behind the global economy. You can't hide behind fluctuations in world prices for resources.' Already, we have seen with the sneaky little leaks to the gallery upstairs that that is exactly what he intends to do. The government promised that they would make the budget better. The budget in this mini-budget will be worse. They promised that they would fix the cost of living. If you ask families in my community and communities right around Australia, including communities represented by those opposite, they know that the budget makes the cost of living worse. The government said that they would be part of the solution when it came to the budget or cost of living and they have turned out to be part of the problem.

There is another little sneaky thing that people need to keep an eye out for. The member for Jagajaga and I have been discussing this. With all of these are cuts that are rightly held up in the Senate, the Treasurer—in his typically sneaky way—will try to claim them as savings and improvements to the budget bottom line when the mini-budget comes out. Is it any wonder that Laurie Oakes talks about Joe Hockey being like the Hindenburg?

There is a quote in the Laurie Oakes piece, and it says:

People criticised Joe for going on holidays to Fiji. Now some of us are sorry he came back.

I think that a lot of people on that side of the House over there, judging by their silence and judging by them pretending to read and all that sort of thing, agree with it. The fact is, it is beyond question: their misreading of this economy is costing this economy confidence, and when it is costing this economy confidence it is costing growth and jobs as well.

Mr WHITELEY (Braddon) (15:52): What an interesting MPI we have here today; the Abbott government is unfair and is damaging Australia's economy! Let us talk about an unfair budget. What is more unfair than a political party, that held office in this country for six years, that has basically stolen every last dollar and cent from my children and my future grandchildren. Going into the future, accumulated deficits of $123 million and debt owed by this country of $667,000 million. What is more unfair than that?

Doing what is right for our great country is not easy. It is not easy; in fact, it is tough. It takes courage, and it takes courageous people, and it takes a courageous political party. Doing what is right for your political party in the case of the ALP is always easy—just instil fear, promise the world to everyone and tell everyone that you are a friend. It is like the old Joh Bjelke-Petersen line: feed the chooks—just had out more money.

The question is, to all the smart alecs on the other side, who is paying for it? Who is paying for it? The member for Charlton over there stood in this place recently, talking about the fact that he wanted a future for his children while he was talking about the carbon tax. He wanted a tremendous future for his children. Why did he not actually make a similar speech as each and every budget was rolled out by his treasurers every single year when he accumulated a deficit? Why don't you tell your children about that?

This lot opposite, who held the Treasury benches for six years, had leaders that could not lead, treasurers that could not count, immigration ministers that could not say no and finally they had a foreign minister that could not find a pair of pyjamas that matched his ego. They stand for nothing. They have great bravado in this place, as we just heard a few moments ago, where they are hanging their hats, their coats, their jocks and their socks on the power of the Senate to stand in the way of a courageous government that is trying desperately to get this country's debt and deficit under control. Well, I have got news for you, and if you listen then you might learn something. The news is: you do not, even with your best friends the Greens, hold control of the Senate. I actually believe that the crossbench senators in the other place are more than honourable. They are certainly more honourable than you and the Greens, that is for sure. I think, deep down in my heart of hearts, that they too want to be courageous, that they too want to save their children and their grandchildren from the absolute cliff-face dilemma that this country is going to face through the next generation. I think, with all the honourable intentions that we can find, that we will find a way, together with the crossbenchers, to make a move forward.

We are a government that is serious about what is best for the country, not what is best for us. If we were doing what is best for us, we would be taking the easy road as you did for six years. After six years, this is the question I have for the Australian people. They gave a verdict on September 13 last year. The question is this: did they vote to give us the mandate to do the things we want purely because this lot over here were relationally dysfunctional, or was it because they were economically incompetent, or was it both? It was both. The Australian people installed a government to get debt and deficit under control. As I wrap up, I will tell you something for nothing: you can do a lot to instil fear into individuals and into individual groups and scare the daylights out of them, or you can do something for the nation and build a future. (Time expired)

Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (15:57): As you well know, during the last Labor government we had a global financial crisis, and because of the expert financial management of that Labor government, what did we come out of the global financial crisis with? We had a AAA credit rating, one of the lowest net debts in the OECD and the 12th largest economy in the world. If you want to talk about debt, you compare the net debt that Australia had at the end of the global financial crisis with the OECD average. Everyone in this chamber knows that Labor's expert management during the global financial crisis saved hundreds of thousands of jobs. It is something we are very proud of because on this side of the chamber we actually care about jobs. We are not out there saying that the cuts to the ABC, the flagrant breach of promise by this government, is somehow not of any consequence, when one in 10 jobs in the ABC is going. We actually understand that every one of those people who are losing their jobs before Christmas is going to be devastated because we care about jobs, unlike this mob. What have they done?

What is the unemployment rate now? It is 6.2 per cent, seasonally adjusted. A 6.2 per cent unemployment rate because of the record of this government. When are you lot going to start taking responsibility? You are in government. Start taking some responsibly for the state of this nation and the state of its economy—6.2 per cent unemployment. Might I add that in my home state of Queensland, it is seven per cent, seasonally adjusted. It is an absolute disgrace. It is an absolute shame what Liberals and Nationals do to our economy and to our unemployment rate.

Why does this mob opposite, this government opposite, not care about the jobs for working Australians? Don't they understand that in a more equal economy, in an economy where people have dignity, they have work, not only is it good for the economy; it is good for the budget? I say on this point of jobs that one of the greatest problems with not having a job is that it makes it even harder to bear the cost of living. What has this government done for the cost of living?

A government member interjecting—

Ms BUTLER: I hear someone over there interjecting about the carbon tax. I am so pleased that that is being interjected to me, because 59 per cent of households say that the repeal of the carbon tax has had absolutely no impact, no reduction, on their household expenses—no reduction whatsoever. But what is happening with the cost of living, what is happening in households, what is happening around the kitchen table is that one half of households say that they are cutting back on essential items. How is that for consumer confidence! How is that for the economy! Half of households are cutting back on non-essentials. What is an even greater shame than that is that one-third of households are cutting back on essentials. In fact, 15 per cent say that they have deliberately missed paying a bill by its due date, because of the cost of living pressures that are on their household at the moment. It is a crying shame.

It is about time that the Liberal-National government, the Abbott government, a year into their first term, started taking some responsibility for the consequences of their own actions. Stop pointing the finger at Labor. Stop pointing the finger at our side of the chamber. Stop being so obsessive about us and start taking some responsibility for what you have done. What is our economic legacy? The 12th biggest economy after the global financial crisis, hundreds of thousands jobs saved, AAA credit rating and one of the lowest net debts in the OECD is what our legacy is. What is your legacy going to be members opposite? Is it going to be tens of thousands more unemployed? There are 40,000 more people in employment queues since this rotten first Abbott budget. It is an atrocious record so far, and one of which this government ought to be ashamed.

What about consumer confidence? We know that this government's first rotten budget smashed consumer confidence. Consumer sentiment is down 13 per cent since the election. Unfortunately, it is what economists have come to expect of this government, with Westpac's chief economist saying in November: 'This is an unsurprising but still disappointing result.' They are not surprised that you lot are smashing consumer confidence; they are just very, very disappointed. It is a shocking first budget, it is an unfair budget and it is damaging the Australian economy—and you ought to be ashamed.

Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (16:02): I welcome the opportunity to speak on this MPI.

Mr Pasin: Go easy, Luke.

Mr SIMPKINS: I will be nice. What we have come to see in the last year is a number of great achievements. The carbon tax has been taken away; it is gone. Hence, Australian families are $550 a year better off. We have even had lower public transport fares and the lower cost of utilities—it is endless like that. From a Western Australian perspective, the mining tax has gone. And we are doing what we can to help out that sector as well. There is stopping the boats. This is an $11 billion saving as a result of having a border control system, a humanitarian intake that now depends on need, not on how much cash you have got—a compassionate approach at last.

In amongst all of that, we have made great steps forward with the free trade agreement with Japan and the free trade agreement with China. This is helping to build the economy and helping to concentrate on what can be achieved in the future so that we can go to our schools and talk about what great benefits are coming in the future. I think these are really good things. There are a lot of positive things to be said. There is the red and green tape reduction. There is over $2 billion at least a year in savings as a result of what this government has done. So there are lots of good stories to be told.

I guess one of the things that we still must approach is the fact that we have been left with a budget problem; there is no doubt about it. We have got to manage the budget. We have got to have this country living within its means. We cannot just increase the debt. I hear a young child up there in the gallery, and I do worry about the debt levels that are going to be left to the children of this country. I think it is the responsibility of this government and this nation to make the adjustments that we need right now so that this country can live within its means, so that we are not just shifting the debt to future generations. Children being born today will effectively have $25,000 or more in debt allocated to them, because what has happened in the past has to be fixed. I worry about the standard of living of people who are being born right now, unless we can get the budget under control. When I look across to the other side, I think the children of the future will remember who was responsible for that. In fact, I think in the future children will curse the day that Kevin Rudd was elected and then Julia Gillard, who followed him, and then Rudd again. They will curse the day that these people who could not manage an economy, who could not manage a budget, have shifted that debt to them. The people who will have to pay for the reckless spending in this country will rue the day that those opposite were elected, because they have to live with what that lot left them.

There are a lot of people in this parliament who are friends of groups. I believe that the friends of motoring are having a function and the friends of netball also have a function coming up soon. But there is also a group that is not bipartisan, and that is the friends of debt and deficit over there and they joined with their mates, the Greens—people who get in the way of responsible government and will not help this country and this government to make this country live within its means. They reach out to the Greens and they ask everyone, 'What's in it for you?' They reach out and try to get people to think only of themselves, and in that they are betraying the future generations of this country—the children of this country who will have to live with generations of problems, debt and a lower standard of living—because they will not help us get things back under control. It is an absolute disgrace, and they will be held accountable for it. The Australian people will remember who was responsible for this mess.

Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (16:07): I rise to join with my Labor colleagues in drawing the House's attention to the unfair nature of this government's budget and the absolute damage it is doing to the Australian economy. There is only one member opposite who has actually nailed this, but they are not actually present today and that was the member who, when this budget first came down, had the courage to call this budget what it is—

This stinking, rotting carcass around this government's neck.

It has been that since day 1 and they can't shake that smell—they can't get rid of it. They have shaken it every which way, but nothing helps.

It is the Australian public that knows exactly—they have your measure on what this budget is like. The people of Newcastle know full well what this budget is doing. There is so much evidence to show, contrary to the bluster from members opposite—the busting of business confidence, the plummeting of consumer confidence post-budget. This so-called adrenalin charge is astonishing—I mean: the battery ran out sometime ago; I don't know where it has gone; but it is just spluttering along at some terrible pace behind. For people in my electorate this budget is making it harder and harder to get a job. Since this budget came down there are more than 40,000 Australians who have joined the job queue—sending the unemployment rates to the highest level since 1997.

Mr Pasin interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Barker.

Ms CLAYDON: Since this budget came down in my electorate of Newcastle the unemployment rate has nearly doubled, moving from 4.7 to eight per cent. Thousands of people in my electorate have lost their jobs since this government was elected—workers at Arrium, the Hunter TAFE, WesTrac, Pacific National, QantasLink and Sandvik, just to name a few, have lost their jobs. What about this week, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the cuts that were never going to happen—the cuts to the ABC. Remember? Now we have the farcical situation where members opposite are lying about the lies. We have petitions from government members—

Mr Keenan: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The member is aware that that is unparliamentary and she is required to withdraw.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think you will note that on both sides that has been used quite frequently in the last few days and so it is not a point of order.

Ms CLAYDON: The cuts to the ABC which have been so devastating in my community of Newcastle—1233 Newcastle has lost more than a third of their staff this week. Members opposite, where were you when the Commission of Audit was coming down? Were you warning about these job losses from the ABC? Not a peep from members opposite! Where were you when the budget was being debated in this chamber? Were you worrying about jobs in regional Australia? There was not a peep—nothing from you guys whatsoever. These are real jobs in my community, and people are really hurting. There are people grieving for their work—

Mr Whiteley: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was wondering if the member could clarify how much the Labor party intends to put back into the ABC budget.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

Ms CLAYDON: Those opposite own their own budget and their own stinking, rotting carcass. They need to take a little bit of responsibility for what they are doing in government, because the people of Newcastle have their measure. They know what you are up to. In addition to the job losses at the ABC, workers in the shipbuilding industry at Forgacs still face an uncertain future, because this government could not bring themselves to bring forward some contracts for supply ships that might be tendered out to Australian manufacturers. No, oh no. Remember the lies we had? The lie about no capacity in Australia to build these ships—it was another lie. If this government continues down this current path and locks Forgacs and other shipbuilders will be out of multibillion contracts, then it is going to mean that everyone is out of work. (Time expired)

Ms PRICE (Durack) (16:12): I think we all know who the rotting, stinking carcass belongs to. This topic for the MPI today takes me back to my university debating days. It would just be dreadful today if I had drawn the affirmative team and had to speak in support of this ridiculous topic. My team would be the losers for sure, hands down, just like Labor lost—lost control, lost sight, lost their way, lost the right to govern in September 2013. But today, Labor's matter of public importance is not difficult to oppose. Yes, they lost the plot as well.

We have heard it all today in this MPI, but it is worth repeating. Let's look at a few facts about Labor's 2007-2013 mess. Between 2008 and 2009, Labor delivered a deficit totalling $191 billion. Labor left accumulated deficits totalling $123 billion. If you say it quickly enough, it does not sound like a lot. Without intervention, the Australian budget would have been in deficit for 16 consecutive years—not just 'unfair', but incredibly irresponsible by those on the other side.

But we have intervened to stop the madness—the Abbott government's good fair budget management will recover the Australian economy. Let me say a little more on Labor. Labor presided over the fastest deterioration of our debt position in more than 50 years—since the Second World War. Labor introduced more than 20,000 new or amended bits of regulation, and that is new red tape; that is money and time down the drain; that hurts business; that is unfair and that damaged the economy. Without intervention, small business might just be down the gurgler, but we have intervened, chopping the tape, reviving business—that is the Abbott government's good fair budget management: rebuilding the economy, rebuilding confidence. We have our eye on the ball, our eye on the budget, our eye on the outcome to reduce Labor's appalling debt legacy and restore Australia's budget situation.

Let me turn to rural and regional matters. The National Farmers' Federation issued their scorecard on the Abbott government's recently announced FTA. The NFF have awarded the maximum five stars to dairy, beef, veal, sheepmeat and horticulture and four stars to wine—and I am very pleased for my member opposite. This means either major or outstanding improvements on Labor's dismal economic and budget legacy. The China FTA will create more jobs and opportunities by providing for Australia to invest in China in industries such as aged care, private hospitals, telecommunications, hospitality, travel agencies, construction and motor vehicle insurance. So those opposite can have their little outburst, but the facts speak very loudly. The Abbott government's fair and disciplined budgeting is rebuilding Australia's economy.

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

Mr Brough interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I heard those comments and they were not complimentary to the occupant of the chair. You might like to withdraw them.

Mr Brough: There was no intention whatsoever of being offensive to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I very genuinely withdraw.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.