Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (10:01): As Chair of the Petitions Committee, in my last statement I discussed the role and origins of the Petitions Committee. Today, I will discuss the petitions that are considered by the Petitions Committee but, for one reason or another, are not able to be presented in the House. As you know, House standing order 204 sets out rules for the form and content of petitions. Unfortunately, not all petitions meet these requirements, and as a result some cannot be presented in the House as petitions. An important part of the committee's role is to examine petitions and certify they meet the rules for petitioning the House.

When a petition is found not to meet the requirements, it does not receive the same treatment as a petition that is found to be in order. These non-compliant petitions are not presented in the House as petitions and they are not referred to the responsible minister. This in turn means that these petitions may not be brought to the attention of the relevant decision makers and that the petitioners are unlikely to receive a ministerial response to their request.

One of the most common mistakes petitioners make relates to the way the petition is addressed. Standing order 204(a) requires petitions to be addressed to the House. Accordingly, petitions should not be addressed to a member, minister or to the Australian government more generally. The traditional and most common form of words for the address is: 'To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives'.

Similarly, standing order 204(a) requires that petitions make a request of the House. The most common form of words preceding requests in petitions is: 'We therefore ask the House to'. Unfortunately, some petitions instead ask the Australian government or a specific minister to take a specific action. In these cases, the petition is deemed non-compliant and cannot be presented as a petition, even if it is addressed to the House correctly.

A number of petitioners make the mistake directing their petition to the wrong legislature. Standing order 204(a) requires that all petitions to the House must be on issues which are the responsibility of the federal government rather than state or local government. The House cannot take actions outside its jurisdiction and I would advise any potential petitioners to check carefully that they are directing their petition to the correct level of government.

Another common mistake petitioners make is sending electronically gathered signatures to the committee for consideration. Standing order 205(b) requires that signatures be handwritten originals, and thus they cannot be electronic, copied, scanned or emailed. A principal petitioner must submit a hard copy with the original handwritten signatures in order to meet this requirement. When drafting their petitions, principal petitioners should also be careful that they are not promoting illegal acts and that the language used in the petition is appropriate.

The Petitions Committee provides a range of materials to help potential petitioners to effectively navigate the requirements for petitions to the House. For example, the committee's web page contains an explanation of the relevant standing orders, a template petition and copies of petitions previously presented in the House. In addition to these resources, the web page contains contact details for the committee secretariat, which can provide advice on draft petitions and the petitions process more generally. A recent addition to the committee web page is a short video on petitioning, in which I discuss the standing order requirements and provide further information on what happens to petitions once they are presented in the House.

In addition to the webpage, the committee provides pamphlets and brochures on petitioning the House. I encourage all potential petitioners to contact their local member, visit the web page or contact the committee secretariat before they commence gathering signatures. This will help to ensure that their petition attracts the full range of benefits that petitioning the House can bring.

As you can see, there are a range of resources available to the Australian public on petitioning the House. The committee works to ensure that as many Australians as possible have access to this information. Petitions are an excellent way for this House and its members to keep informed of the issues affecting the Australian community, and it is in everyone's interests that as many petitions as possible are found to meet requirements, presented in the House and referred to the relevant decision makers for consideration.

Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (11:56): On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works I present report No. 2 of 2015 entitled Referrals made December 2014, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Leave granted.

Mr PERRETT: This report deals with two matters: the fit-out of new lease premises for the Department of Finance here in the ACT, and the Hamilton Island Replacement Fire Station Project. Sadly, I missed the inspection of the new Department of Finance building, but even more sadly I missed out on going to Hamilton Island to look at the replacement fire station project. Some committee members were able to make it along but I went up to Cairns with another committee to deal with another cyclone. The inspection was ably handled by Mr Goodenough, the member for Moore, and was oversighted by the former chair of the committee Mrs Karen Andrews, the member for McPherson.

I want to make a few comments about her role as chair, because, whilst she has been promoted, she is sorely missed by the committee. We wish her all the best in her new endeavours. She was a wonderful chair and will be missed by the Public Works Committee—and that is not taking away from Senator Dean Smith, who will be taking over as chair. On behalf of the committee, I wish her all the best.

In accordance with standing order 39(e) the report was made a Parliamentary Paper.

Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (12:09): I move:

That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.

Question agreed to.

Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (12:10): Five per cent is low compared with the return that the Future Fund presently enjoys of approximately 13 per cent for the previous financial year. The static wage growth one sees today is because Labor never encouraged or supported these bold but better investments. Investing in science and technology will be the rock star performer for our economy.

It is true to say today that I am concerned. I am concerned today that business and consumers are losing confidence. I am concerned that they are becoming less optimistic. But I am not concerned in any way with the knowledge the coalition has a better plan for Australia. This government is listening to small business, families, and first home buyers. It is not only listening but also delivering real solutions: a childcare package, a small business package and a policy to assist first home buyers. This is on top of delivering three free trade agreements with our biggest trading partners and biggest world markets.

The surest sign of confidence is the ability to recognise that there are better approaches and ideas elsewhere. Ours is a confident, mature nation. We should embed this notion of benchmarking in all our policy discussions. This coalition government has created the first one-stop shop for environmental approvals. In the coming times, I hope that the same accessibility and simplicity is applied to enterprise supports and job creation. Australia, and Western Australia, would stand to benefit from a one-stop shop on job creation. In the UK and Ireland there are websites where those seeking to employ workers or start a business can access from one place all the government support and regulation applicable to them. This is what the public expects of a modern government. This is what the business community are asking of us.

Innovation and invention need to be the watchwords of government. When people are asked on the street what the Liberals stand for and what the Abbott government stands for, let it be innovation and invention—because there is nothing so wrong with Australia that it cannot be fixed by what is right with Australia. We have the cream of the crop here in Australia and vast resources of every kind to turn idea into reality.

Confidence can be an ephemeral thing. It builds slowly. Confidence, like trust, takes time—it goes up the stairs. Hopelessness happens in an instant—it jumps out the window. One starts to get a sense of the confidence of the nation and the hopefulness of the nation when looking at the savings rates. The current trend we observe of an uptick in the savings rate, each time testing a new relative high, is indicative of a nation with money but unsure and uneasy of what lies ahead. It is the job of government to assuage those fears and to point the way ahead. After all, is that not at the heart of leadership? A leader sees what lies ahead and presents this vision to his or her people, and we all get in the same boat.

I believe the pivot of this debate is where we are going as a nation. The question is the bread and butter of any politician. However, to answer it we need to know where we have come from and have a debate about priorities and importance. In getting the budget to surplus, there are two models of growth for Australia to pursue: the high-immigration, relatively low productivity pathway, or a lower immigration and higher productivity, higher value path. High-migration models put huge pressures on central government to provide services and infrastructure. This low-hanging fruit approach to growth is not ideal if the objective is to get back to a no-debt position as soon as possible. Indeed, this is why the Labor years were so criminal and so terrible. Labor, then as now, lacked a border protection plan. Its approach is more ham-fisted than iron-fisted. It cost us then and costs us now in debt and interest repayments.

The coalition plan is clear and consistent—one message; one story; one plan. Our government is taking tough decisions to protect our nation and secure a prosperous future. This includes asking questions of foreign investment. Everyone on the coalition side knows that foreign investment is absolutely essential to Australia. It has been in the past and will be in the future. There are questions, though, about why we allow speculative investment by foreigners in residential housing markets. Australia's foreign investment policy for residential real estate is designed to increase Australia's housing stock. More efficacious would be to address the issue of land supply and release. Foreign capital would be better spent investing in wealth-creating infrastructure or research, or even industrial real estate. Our government will ask the hard questions because it is the right thing to do by the Australian people.

Innovative low-cost solutions are all around, and one such road is our national R&D spend. Again, using benchmarking we should acknowledge efforts elsewhere in the R&D space, such as the EU Lisbon agenda—a treaty to become the world's most innovative and dynamic area by committing governments to spending at minimum three per cent of GDP on R&D—and try to better that. Setting aspirational national goals is the low-hanging fruit of leadership. It costs nothing and should be done more often. Paint the picture. Point the way.

Another low-hanging fruit is getting more women back into the workforce. Increasing the overall participation rate, especially increasing the female participation rates, will help grow the economy. However, only this government is serious about taking real action on child care. Labor offered a 50 per cent rebate with no average fee guidance. Lo and behold, today we observe that average fees for child care have increased by 50 per cent. This sort of half-hearted, careless policymaking is over. The coalition government understands that accessibility and affordability of child care is one of the biggest issues facing families across Australia. Supporting families to stay in work and get back to work when they have children enables them to create more economic opportunities for their own families and for the nation. This is why one of the first actions taken by the coalition government was to ask the Productivity Commission to inquire into future options for child care and early childhood learning.

It is not in child care alone that the Abbott government is being brave. The government is carefully considering every recommendation of Professor Ian Chubb's 2014 landmark report, STEM: Australia's future, which called for a national strategy to align research, education, international engagement and innovation to boost the country's competitiveness. I welcome this and look forward to concrete announcements in this space soon. Productivity improves through innovation, and the country needs engineers, scientists and technologists to innovate. We need to have an improved level of STEM to ensure we are competing at the knowledge end of the economy. Currently, we are the 19th largest economy in the world; a PwC report, The world in 2050, has predicted that, without investment in skills and a move away from resources, Australia could slip to 29th position by 2050. Only this coalition government has a plan to secure our long-term competiveness and standard of living. The challenge ahead is the question of how to become more competitive without becoming more unequal, and STEM has a part to play in this equation.

I see that my time is short, so I would say that the way that government makes a profit to square off this equation has not been rapidly increasing. In the final analysis, our place in the world and our quality of life need to be earned every day.

Mr MITCHELL (McEwen—Second Deputy Speaker) (12:20): The bills before us today total some $1.7 billion in additional funding proposed to be appropriated. This is $1.7 billion that has already been incorporated into the budget bottom line and was presented at the last MYEFO. What did the last MYEFO show? It pointed to a $44 billion blow-out in the budget deficit over the forward estimates compared to the 2014-15 budget—$44 billion from the self-professed party of adults. Really, so much for a government of no surprises. The $44 billion was a surprise to me and it would certainly be a surprise to those struggling to make ends meet in my community.

Let us just pause for a moment and reflect on some of the public statements of this Treasurer. The member for North Sydney, the now flailing Treasurer, told the National Press Club in 2012:

… we will achieve a surplus in our first year in office and we will achieve a surplus for every year of our first term.

In 2013, the same member said he had not retreated from that pledge:

Our commitment is emphatic—

he told the ABC's AM program—

… we will deliver a surplus in our first year and every year after that.

Instead of that, the government of no surprises and no changes, the so-called adults, have doubled the debt.

We need to look at this $44 billion figure in the context of the overall economic environment. Debt is higher in the MYEFO than it was in the budget. Gross debt, over the forward estimates, is increasing by $100 billion, and net debt is increasing by $146.3 billion over the same period. Unemployment is currently the highest that it has been since August 2002. In 2002, who was the minister for employment?—Tony Abbott. Consumer confidence is still low—nine per cent lower now than it was at the 2013 federal election. Business confidence is still below long-run averages.

The additional $1.7 billion in appropriations does not tell the full story. What we do not see are the cuts that are being made. A wise man said to me last week, 'Mr Abbott is like a little dog chasing a bus. Now that the dog has caught the bus, he doesn't know what to do with it.' That pretty much sums up how this government has been since it has been in government. They do not understand how cruel these deliberate, savage cuts are to people out there, who are working just to make ends meet. Their actions give you a true insight into the minds and ideology behind this right-wing, out-of-touch, arrogant government.

The papers show that this budget is not one which cuts debt or curtails spending; it is one that systematically attacks and tries to breakdown the Australian way of life. It has attacked the sick, the poor, the young and the elderly. It savages universal health care. It robs young people of educational opportunities and causes great anxiety to the elderly about their future. It is a budget which has rewarded the rich at the expense of the poor. It delivers for the millionaires at the cost of the disadvantaged. Never before has a government concentrated so hard on destroying the Australian way of life. Of course, it must be remembered that the budget bottom line, as stated in the last MYEFO, still incorporates the harsh and unfair measures that were introduced in this government's cruel budget. Even with all these savings, the deficit still blew out by $44 billion.

The effects of this budget are very clear in my community. These systematic attacks on universal healthcare in Australia are a direct attack on the most vulnerable people in McEwen. The on-again, off-again, on-again, off-again GP tax means that the electorate of McEwen will be taxed almost $8 million a year just for being sick. Families in our community should not have to decide whether they take their sick child to the doctor or put food on the table. That is not to mention the $270 million cut from the current provisions Medicare offers. Prime Minister Abbott, instead, wants to throw that burden onto the backs of struggling, hardworking families. The budget is about forcing our sick and vulnerable out of the health system entirely.

On the night before the election, Tony Abbott promised there would be no changes to pensions. The budget has confirmed that this promise has been broken. Pensioners are quite rightly now saying that they have been Abbotted. These vicious cuts to pensions will have a severe effect on the lives of 24,600 pensioners in McEwen. The government is slashing the current system that makes sure the pension keeps pace with the cost of living, and is instead going to index the pensions by CPI. The CPI does not even come close to reflecting the cost of living, which shows just how out of touch the Prime Minister and this chaotic Liberal-National government is.

This has been confirmed by the government's Intergenerational report. The savage cuts are ensuring that our pensioners will not be able to make ends meet, especially when they are living off $20,000 a year—$384 a week. And this government is also hurting those who have worked hard for their retirement. The Abbott government has targeted low paid workers and their families by cutting the low-income superannuation contribution. Working mums, and those living in rural and regional areas, are the hardest hit amongst the 3.6 million Australians who have been affected by this cruel cut. The changes mean that low-paid workers lose a yearly tax refund of up to $500. These cuts particularly affect workers in the retail and hospitality sectors who now have to pay an additional $500 tax per year. At the same time as this was being done, the government gave 16,000 of Australia's wealthiest people a tax break on their superannuation earnings.

This budget is slashing millions of dollars from local councils, which hits regional areas of Victoria particularly hard. Over four years from the 2014-15 to the 2017-18 financial years, the estimated loss to local councils in McEwen is very clear: Nillumbik Shire will lose $1.3 million; Macedon Ranges Shire will lose $2.7 million; Hume Shire will lose $5.2 million; Mitchell Shire will lose $2.6 million; and Whittlesea Shire will lose $5 million. That is almost $17 million dollars lost in these areas alone—$17 million of services and assistance that the people of our communities will have to go without, thanks to a heartless government. This is going to wreak havoc on the community in flow-on effects, especially since it means that councils will be forced to put up rates or cut services because of this government's cruel and heartless attacks.

McEwen has the largest population of children aged between zero and five years. We are one of the biggest users of child care in this country. We have 16,139 families receiving family tax benefit A, and we have 13,856 families receiving the important assistance of family tax benefit B, so 30,000 families in my electorate are going to be worse-off because of the money-grabbing antics of this government. The Abbott government has cut millions of dollars in preschool funding, childcare services, accessibility programs, outside-school-hour care, along with freezing the childcare rebate. This is a government that is punishing you for wanting to bring up your child and raise your family the best way you can.

I would like to discuss how cruel this budget is in ruining the futures of young people in McEwen. Over $1 billion of assistance and support to apprentices and trade training centres in my electorate has been cut. Labor's program of trade training centres has been integral to building the skills and expertise of young people. Following Mr Abbott's $950 million cut, eight schools in the electorate will not have an opportunity to apply for a trade training centre, and they need it—places like    Sunbury College, Gisborne Secondary College, Salesian College, Sunbury Downs Secondary College, Candlebark, Hume Anglican Grammar, Plenty Valley Christian College and The Kilmore International School.

Before the election, Mr Abbott promised Australia's 400,000 apprentices more financial assistance to help them learn a trade and find a good job. He has cut the assistance through the Tools For Your Trade program. Hundreds of apprentices are now out of pocket since these cuts came into effect on 1 July 2014. He now has his eyes firmly set on workplace relations—and you know what that means!

With regard to penalty rates, the Prime Minister himself said, 'If you don't want to work weekends, don't.' It came as a great surprise to the thousands of people who work in industries and jobs that are needed around the clock—people such as nurses, ambos, police and defence personnel, just to name a few.

When it comes to workplace relations, as a matter of common intelligence, you have to ask yourself: how can anyone believe these dogmatists opposite who, at every opportunity, have fought to cut the wages and conditions of working Australians? Of course they will, because it is in their DNA.

I would like to highlight the significance of the heartless cuts to youth programs. We have several community organisations who work hard to ensure our youth remain either in school and complete year 12 or, at least, engage in some form of training, such as in the trade training centres that I mentioned earlier.

The Abbott government has stripped away funding for these essential programs, where only $130 million was needed to keep them going until 2015. Cobaw Community Health and Kildonan UnitingCare are two organisations involved in delivering the Youth Connections program in the McEwen electorate, which may now have to close their doors.

In some parts of McEwen, we have a 20 per cent youth unemployment rate, which is among the highest in Australia. These young adults will be completely at a loose end, with Newstart payments not kicking in for six months. So they have no job, no money and, to add insult to injury, the government wants them to now completely upend and move away from their families and support networks to find jobs—that are probably in a certain person's mind! Heaven forbid if they want to study in order to forge out a better life and career for themselves!

Prime Minister Abbott's deregulation of university fees is another matter that has caused great angst to many families in rural and regional areas. He wants to deregulate the system so that universities can 'name their price'. Experts all agree that, if universities get the chance to increase fees, of course they will.

I want to remind the House of Mr Stuart Edwards, from Riddells Creek in my electorate. He is a single dad of four kids, who works full time, while studying part time. Stuart says, and I quote:

I don't want to live in a nation where uni places are given to the rich. I don't know how I could afford to send my four kids to uni if these changes happen. Certainly nobody is offering my kids a free education, Mr Abbott!

When I asked the failing Treasurer a question in question time, I brought this specific example to his attention: what is he supposed to do now that he is losing $6,000 worth of support from the government? The Treasurer's response was breathtaking. He said, 'Maybe he needs to get a job.' Mr Edwards is working full time, he is studying and bringing up his kids. What more do you want him to do? He works full time but, because the Treasurer is so out of touch, he just says, 'Tell him to go get a job.' It is just so easy—just go out and get a job anywhere you want! It just shows how out of touch the government are, when they sit there and say: 'If you don't want to work weekends, don't. If you want to get a job, go get a job.'

Across my electorate of McEwen the local government areas of Macedon, Mitchell, Whittlesea and Hume have about 40 to 48 per cent people attending universities. These students are now weighing up that option, whether they can afford to, because they will be dealt a lifetime debt sentence.

At least nine schools in my electorate are losing funding because they hired student welfare officers instead of religious chaplains: Beveridge Primary School;    Broadford Primary School; Broadford Secondary College; Mount Ridley P-12 College; Panton Hill Primary School;    Seymour College; Seymour College—Special Campus; The Lakes South Morgan P-9 School; and Wandong Primary School. These are all schools that have employed welfare officers. But they lose them because they are not religious based, which means that the networks and the effort that has gone in over the years to build them and to get the trust of the kids now goes away. Unless they complete a religious doctrine, they will not be able to work in our schools. It is absolutely appalling.

In a recent study, Canberra's National Centre for Social And Economic Modelling reported that McEwen townships are going to be some of the hardest hit across Australia because of this budget. Families in suburbs such as Craigieburn will be out of pocket by $800 a year; Sunbury, $614; Wallan, $600; Whittlesea, $525; South Morang, $508; Kilmore and Broadford, $481; and Romsey, $410. Compare that to the figures of the Prime Minister's electorate of Warringah, one of the wealthiest areas in Australia, where they will be worse off by only $125.

This budget is a disaster for the nation and a disaster for the people of McEwen. Never before has a government failed this nation so quickly and put so many people at risk. I will continue to fight this government to ensure that our communities are looked after and I look forward to seeing the back of the worst government this country has ever had.

Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications) (12:35): I am pleased to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2014-2015 and cognate bills. In the time available to me today, I want to argue three propositions. Firstly, that Australia's economy is facing some significant challenges both structural and cyclical, which we need to respond to.

Secondly, the coalition has an economic plan for Australia, which will let us rise to the challenge and seize on the opportunities in front of us.

Thirdly, the Labor Party needs to stop denying reality and begin engaging on these issues, as a serious political party should.

We do face a combination of cyclical and structural challenges. As resources investment falls and key commodity prices drop that, in turn, feeds through to tax revenues growing much more slowly which, in turn, creates severe budgetary pressures.

We have inherited a huge budgetary mess from the previous Labor government, which delivered almost $240 billion worth of deficits between 2008-09 and 2013-14. This year we are paying around $14.2 billion in gross interest costs, which works out to be an average of $40 million every single day. So even if Australia's economic conditions meant that we could continue to expect very strong growth in tax revenues, we would face a big budgetary challenge. However, because of the end of the investment phase of the resources boom we cannot expect such continued strong growth in our tax revenues.

What we saw between the fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2008 was that, every year, revenue significantly exceeded what was budgeted—so-called parameter changes, in the jargon of Treasury, which, in some years, were as high as $30 billion, approaching two per cent of GDP. But with the resources investment boom having ended, there is no longer a huge boost to investment as resources companies rush to build new mines and plants and the prices of key commodities like coal and iron ore are down 50 per cent or more from their peak. All of this means that the budget repair task must be faced when revenues keep undershooting expectations rather than giving us pleasing and unexpected windfalls.

Then, our economy faces a number of significant structural issues. The first is our ageing population, which, as the recently issued 2015 Intergenerational report shows, involves a growing proportion of the population being aged 65 or over. Indeed, the number of Australians in this age group is projected to double in the next 40 years. The ratio of people of traditional working age to the very young and to the very elderly is falling. For every person aged 65 and over, today there are currently around four people aged between 15 and 64, which, incidentally, is down from around seven, I think, in the 1970s. In 40 years' time, that number will nearly halve.

Australians are living longer, and we have one of the longest life expectancies in the world. It is worth making the point that for all of us, as individuals, that is great news. Not only are we living longer but our so-called quality adjusted life years are also increasing. That is to say, we can expect a higher proportion of our life span to be years of quality living in which we can very much enjoy the opportunities of being alive. But this does have fiscal consequences, with important implications in growing demand for services like health and aged care, which fall very heavily on the Commonwealth budget, and, indeed, for the provision of retirement incomes—the aged pension.

Another important structural issue we are facing as a nation is the rise of Asia. This presents many opportunities, but it also presents some competitive challenges, and some of these were highlighted in the Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda issued by the government last year, which made the point that economies like China, India, Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines have grown dramatically over the past 30 years, and this is projected to continue. It is expected that by 2025 China will be the largest economy in the world. In 1985, so-called emerging Asia represented around nine per cent of the global economy. By 2025 it will be around 40 per cent. Emerging Asia has also seen its share of global manufacturing output increase from around six per cent in 1982 to 29 per cent in 2012. At the same time, its share of services exports has also grown from six per cent in 2003 to 11 per cent last year, and the important point is this in terms of the competitive pressures that face the Australian economy. As the economies of Asia invest in education, increase the skill levels of their population and move up the value chain, they are producing ever more advanced goods and services. I saw this myself over a number of years as an executive in the telecommunications sector, where the percentage of telecommunications equipment coming, particularly from Chinese vendors, started to grow and grow, and the statistics bear this out. In 2000, China produced around six per cent of the world's communication equipment. By 2010 this had increased to 26 per cent, and that is coming from brands which have rapidly become very well known globally like Huawei and ZTE.

That brings me to another structural issue that our economy is facing, which is the relentless march of technology, which is intensifying competition and fundamentally transforming the global economy. According to a 2011 report from well-known consultancy McKinsey, around a fifth of GDP growth in advanced economies over the previous five years had come from the internet and associated technologies, and, interestingly, 75 per cent of that was in sectors not traditionally seen as technology industries. Indeed, the disruption of industry after industry by a better, internet based offering is one of the great constants of modern economics. Ask Kodak about digital photography, Fairfax about SEEK or Drive.com.au, the free-to-air TV networks about Apple TV or YouTube, Angus & Robertson about Amazon, Blockbuster about Netflix, or Taxis Combined about Uber.

This transformation is having a profound industry-by-industry effect. It is also, increasingly, having a profound national impact. Some nations are doing well out of this massive economic transformation; some are facing grave threats. Certainly, we can expect a continued growth in the internet economy in Australia. In fact, according to Deloitte Access Economics, it will grow twice as fast as GDP and reach $70 billion by 2016. But, clearly, in the face of digital disruption, the first question we need to ask as policy makers is: where does a nation like Australia have a competitive advantage? We need to recognise that competition is affecting sector after sector, including in the domestic economy, in sectors which used to be protected by barriers to entry such as high costs of transport to get goods into the Australian market.

If those are some of the challenges and opportunities facing the Australian economy, it is very important that the government has an economic plan, and the coalition certainly does. It is our duty, as a government, to develop and implement a plan to respond as the global economy is changing so quickly. We have a number of strands to that economic plan. Firstly, we need to get debt and deficit under control. We cannot continue to finance spending through increased debt. Clearly, as your debt grows you become more vulnerable as a nation. With Australia, in particular, having relatively high levels of private indebtedness, it is particularly important to have a strong public sector balance sheet. To protect yourself as a nation and to avoid that vulnerability, what you want to see is a government contributing to national savings and reducing debt through budget surpluses, not adding to debt through budget deficits. We also need to address the underlying issue of rising Commonwealth spending, which, in real terms, since 2007-08, has grown by an annual average of more than four per cent, compared to three per cent during the 1980s and 1990s. Here is a little legacy of Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan, who still is the member for Lilley. In just six years to 2013-14, government spending as a percentage of GDP has risen by around 2.5 percentage points. That is an extraordinary leap in a short period of time.

So, if our first priority is getting debt and deficit under control, the next priority is to really get our university system firing because we face, as a nation, the imperative of capturing technology driven economic growth for the reasons I spoke about earlier. It is, therefore, vital that our university system is able to perform to its full potential. In the 21st century our universities must be engine rooms of innovation and discovery, and it this reality which underpins the government's plan to give universities the freedom to set their own fees, student numbers and strategic direction. And it is fascinating to see a growing number of Labor luminaries, no longer constrained by caucus discipline, coming out in support of the sorts of changes that we are advocating to the university system.

Another priority for the coalition government in responding to economic challenges is to capture as a nation the trade opportunities in Asia in both services and products. We have a set of policies that look to the future and capture the opportunities available to Australia thanks to our geography, our endowments of natural and economic resources and the talent and creativity of our people. In just one year Trade Minister Andrew Robb has secured new free trade agreements with Korea, Japan and China which not only offer significant opportunities for our agricultural and resources exporters but also reduce barriers that until now have held back Australian services exports in these markets.

Another priority is supporting Australian business in this new, intensely competitive world. Industry Minister Macfarlane has recently updated industry policy to recognise the new imperatives of competition. He has reprioritised funding, putting money towards building better linkages between industry on the one hand and researchers in universities and institutes on the other, with the aim of leveraging Australia's considerable research strengths into new business opportunities.

Another part of the coalition's economic plan to respond to the challenges and opportunities we face is to enhance our national infrastructure to increase our productivity. From Infrastructure Minister Truss and Communications Minister Turnbull, we are seeing billions of dollars going into enabling infrastructure to make our economy more competitive and productive: a second Sydney airport; expressways to move people and freight more quickly around our major cities; and the National Broadband Network to make high-speed connections available to all Australians.

Let me turn to the third proposition that I wish to put to the House this afternoon. At a time of challenge for the Australian economy, it is incumbent upon the Labor Party to stop denying reality and begin engaging seriously on these issues—just as happened 30 years ago when Australia faced serious challenges as our heavily protected and regulated economic model left us increasingly uncompetitive. The Labor Party of today seems miles away from the Labor Party of that day, which engaged seriously with those issues. There is a challenge to our political system in 2015 to come together to address these strategic issues that we face as a nation. I quote from what respected economist Warwick McKibbin had to say in the Financial Review today:

Labor appears to cling to the fallacy that adroit fiscal policy explains Australia's success .... The continued belief in Labor's fiscal miracle appears to underlie the reluctance of current Labor leaders to acknowledge the extent of the multiple problems Australia faces. Australia can't continue to attempt to keep the economic structures of the previous century when resources—human and physical—need to be channelled into new industries.

Those are some comments by a very respected economist about the challenges our nation faces and the importance of the Labor Party engaging seriously with policy responses. Instead, I am disappointed to say, so far we have only seen some fairly silly political game playing. According to the Leader of the Opposition we do not have a serious budget problem, we simply have 'a budget task'—those were his words in the budget in reply speech last year. The shadow Treasurer dismisses Australia's federal debt challenges as mere rhetoric. He is quoted as saying: 'Debt is expected to peak at 17 per cent of GDP. Compare that to Canada—a well-run, resource-based economy, conservatively administered with debt more than double that ... or Germany at 52 per cent. We're not talking about Greece or Portugal or Ireland here.' So the shadow Treasurer seeks to dismiss the issue of government debt. He mentions Ireland, and it is instructive to look at what actually happened in Ireland. In 2007 Ireland had a debt to GDP ratio of only 11.1 per cent. But the Irish economy then fell into deep recession. Banks needed to be recapitalised with public money. The net debt to GDP ratio exploded. Six years later in Ireland, net debt as a percentage of GDP is well over 90 per cent. And here is the social consequence of that: unemployment in Ireland today, at 10.5 per cent, is more than double the rate it stood at prior to the GFC.

So despite these claims from the Labor Party that we do not need to worry about the debt to GDP ratio, if we look at Ireland and other examples around the world, ongoing budgetary mismanagement of a sort the Labor Party continues to advocate has serious social consequences, including savagely high unemployment rates—and that is an outcome the coalition is working very hard to make sure we do not face in Australia. Australia faces both cyclical and structural challenges, but our fast-changing economic circumstances also offer rich opportunities. The coalition has an economic plan for Australia which will let us rise to the challenge and seize on the opportunities. I would like to see the Labor Party join in a serious engagement with these issues in the national interest.

Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga) (12:50): I am pleased to be speaking today on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2014-2015, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2014-2015 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2014-2015. A few weeks ago I was at a street stall in the suburb of Greensborough in the heart of my electorate. Extraordinarily, some 10 months after the government's flawed budget was handed down, people are still talking about it. Many people stopped me to raise their concerns over the GP tax and the government's plan to deregulate the higher education system, which is currently being debated in the parliament. The level of outrage in the community over this government's budget is unprecedented in my time in politics. In a little over an hour, around 200 people signed a petition against this government's plans for universities. It did not matter whether they were young or old, everybody I spoke to that day was very concerned about the affordability of higher education. People who had never set foot on a university campus in their lives were adamant that young Australians should have the chance to go to university if that is what they want to do.

So the message I received very clearly that day was that Australians should not be priced out of a university education. Make no mistake: that is exactly what this Liberal government wants to do to Australia's higher education system. It will see a reduction in participation by young Australians in higher education. How on earth does that serve the national interest? How does making it harder for young people to go to university improve the employment prospects of our young people? How is it good for generating economic growth and innovation in our economy? These are the questions which the previous speaker, and in fact the whole of the Abbott government, simply have been unable to answer. It is why we on this side of the parliament, and so many Australians, oppose the government's higher education changes. We will continue to fight for a fair higher education system no matter how hard the government tries to destroy it.

The other big issue that people in my electorate raised with me is jobs, particularly for young people. Of course, many local people are worried about their own jobs. They are worried that if they lose their job there will not be enough new jobs created to help them find employment. Unemployment is still at 6.3 per cent, and, significantly, youth unemployment remains at a stubbornly high 13.9 per cent. The proportion of young people, 15 to 19 years of age, who are looking for work and cannot find it is now almost 4½ times the general unemployment rate—only just off record highs. The Brotherhood of St Laurence recently released its analysis of unemployment data, revealing the scale of the problem. The impact of the global financial crisis on employment has lasted far longer than the impact of the last recession in the early 1990s. It has been more than six years since the global financial crisis, and unemployment remains high.

What is this Liberal government's response to the problem of unemployment rising on their watch? The response is not a jobs plan, as we might have hoped for. In fact, in the budget that was brought down 10 months ago, the government wants to cut young people off from Newstart for six months at a time. I have argued that this is the harshest measure of all in the government's budget. Young people looking for a job will be forced to wait six months before receiving any income support, and in some cases they might cycle through this six months of no income support for many months longer. The government is saying to these young people who lose their jobs or cannot find a job, 'You're on your own.' If, after six months without income support, that young person has not yet found work this measure will require them to take part in Work for the Dole. After the period on Work for the Dole, if they still cannot find work they will lose their unemployment benefit for another six months.

I have been at many pensioner forums around the country recently, and older Australians have expressed to me the concern they have for young people who will find themselves with absolutely nothing to live on—no income support at all. These older Australians really understand that young unemployed people need help to find work, not the sort of punishment that this government wants to deliver. I have never, ever seen a government in Australia abandon its young people in the manner of this Liberal government. Leaving young job seekers with nothing to live on for six months is simply cruel. The government's policy risks confining young Australians to an endless cycle of poverty and despair. It will see young job seekers pushed into crisis and homelessness. In fact, the Department of Social Services last year admitted that they anticipate around 500,000 new claims for emergency assistance as a result of this measure alone.

People are very worried about work, and especially the government's response to rising unemployment. They are worried about the kind of Australia that this government wants to leave for our children: a harder, colder Australia, where it is much more difficult to get ahead; an Australia where it is harder to get an education and harder to find a job, and where the government abandons you when things turn bad. It is not the kind of country that most people want to live in.

Rising unemployment is also, of course, a threat to families—particularly to single-income families already being targeted by this government's cuts to family payments. The government is cutting family payments by $5.5 billion. Of course, that $5.5 billion that the government wants to cut out of family payments will all come out of the pockets of Australian families. The government plans to throw families off family tax benefit part B when their youngest child turns six. As a result of this government's budget, some single-income families on an income of around $65,000 a year will be around $6,000 a year worse off. The Prime Minister has said that he wants to make the government's families package front and centre of the political agenda in 2015. These huge cuts to family payments are front and centre right now, and the government should get rid of them. This is a serious attack on the living standards of Australian families.

On top of all of this, we have seen the government axe $270 million from the Department of Social Services discretionary grants program. This is the money that goes to community organisations that help so many vulnerable Australians, such as people who get help battling homelessness and mental illness, and those recovering from the devastation of bushfires. These organisations were informed via email on the eve of Christmas that they would be losing funding. In my electorate alone, community organisations like Diamond Valley Community Support, Banyule Housing, Banyule Support and Information Centre and Volunteers of Banyule face an uncertain future as result of this government's funding cuts. These organisations provide front-line services to some of the most vulnerable people in my local community. It is just impossible to understand the government's logic behind the callous cuts to these community organisations. It is also impossible to understand why the government decided it would cut funding to disability advocacy groups—groups like the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations, Autism Asperger's Advocacy Australia, Blind Citizens Australia, Deaf Australia, Down Syndrome Australia, and the National Council on Intellectual Disability.

There has been some good news—that the government has decided to grant some transition funding to eight disability organisations. This is a victory for the disability sector, but this funding needs to be made permanent. You only have to look at the government's plan for Australia's retirement system to see this government's appalling policy making. The proposed changes to pension indexation are of course a blatant broken promise. The pension has been benchmarked to wages for 40 years—and for a reason: so that pensioners' standard of living keeps pace with the standard of living of the working population more broadly. John Howard, when he was Prime Minister, knew that. That is why he said:

… enshrining of pension entitlements at 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings is an important safeguard.

Well, this safeguard is about to be broken by this government, if they get their way.

Pensions should be indexed by whichever is the higher—the consumer price index, male total average weekly earnings or the pensioner index that Labor introduced to provide additional protection to Australian pensioners. The new minister now has had plenty of time to come and explain to pensioners why they deserve to have their pension indexation cut. We have seen the new minister, Minister Morrison, spending a lot of time parading himself around as a contender for the Liberal leadership. I would have thought he should be getting out there to explain to pensioners why he thinks it is okay to take $23 billion out of the pockets of pensioners by 2023-24—$23 billion less will be spent by this government if they get their way in cutting pension indexation. Labor of course will vehemently oppose these cuts.

The former minister, Minister Andrews, despite all his flaws, did explain to the House in 2011 how the wages benchmark 'enabled pensioners to keep ahead of cost of living increases'. So, I call on the new Minister for Social Services to explain why he thinks the current indexation arrangements linking pensions to wage increases are too generous. Why does he think Australian pensioners deserve to have their pensions cut by $80 a week within the next decade? These are figures from the Australian Council of Social Service, who have made clear what will happen to pensions: an $80-a-week cut for pensioners over the next decade if this government gets its way. So many pensioners feel absolutely betrayed by this government. Of course, Labor delivered the biggest increase to the base rate of the pension in the pension's 100-year history.

And that is not all this government wants to do to older Australians. The government wants to increase the pension age to 70, and they have also decided to delay the increase in superannuation that Labor had proposed to see the superannuation guarantee go from nine per cent to 12 per cent. So, this is really what the Liberal Party is saying to Australians: they want you to work longer, and when you finally do get to retire the pension will be worth less, and along the way they are going to deny you the opportunity to save for your retirement during your working life by slowing down the increase in the superannuation guarantee. This is the sort of poor public policy that this Liberal government has become renowned for. Of course, poor public policy is not the only reason the Australian people have lost faith in this government. This Prime Minister promised he would not do so many of these things that are prominent in the budget. The Prime Minister said before the election: 'No cuts to pensions, no cuts to health or education, no cuts to the ABC or SBS, no adverse changes to superannuation and no new taxes'. On every single one of these he has broken his promise to the Australian people, and he will never be believed again.

Dr HENDY (Eden-Monaro) (13:05): I rise to speak on the most recent appropriation bills. It gives me an opportunity to speak more widely about my electorate and the government's policies. I note that a large part of my electorate, and half of its name, is titled 'the Monaro'. The great Australian historian Keith Hancock wrote the history of the region in his 1972 book, Discovering Monaro. Apart from the history of the most beautiful region in the nation, Hancock also wrote one of the most influential accounts of Australia written in the 20th century. This book was appropriately entitled Australia. In this book he challenged the three core pillars of what would later be referred to as the Australian settlement: the policies of industry protection, state socialism and the white Australia policy. These three pillars, argued Hancock, worked together towards stagnation.

Much of the Australian settlement has been dismantled in the decades subsequent—and rightly so. However, not all parts of the settlement were bad. Another element of the Australian settlement was what I have labelled the country-city compact. It has now mainly disappeared. This compact supported a legitimate call on the nation on behalf of country people. From the time of Federation, our nation's founders recognised that the country needed to have a fair share of attention and resources. The country-city compact formed an integral part of the nation's economic and social fabric. It recognised the interdependence of the country and the city that was so crucial to the tremendous success of modern Australia. It recognised the mutual obligation to share the burden of the costs of living in the country. It also recognised that the country formed a critical part of our nation's character, producing much of our national narrative, collective memory and many of our heroes.

For many decades, Australia, so the saying went, 'rode on the sheep's back.' Indeed, my electorate covers a region with one of the highest concentrations of sheep in the entire country. However, Australia no longer rides on the sheep's back—this much is true—but country regions like ours remain vital to Australia. Around 93 per cent of the food consumed in Australia is grown in Australia. Almost a third of Australians live outside of our major cities. Sadly; however, there is significant social and economic inequality between country and city. This is unacceptable, and we need to do better. We need to focus our efforts on nation building, we need to focus on building capacity and we need to ensure the infrastructure and services that have been neglected in the country are rebuilt.

When I came into parliament, I dedicated myself to making the argument for a reinvigoration of the country-city compact. It is at the forefront of my mind when I talk to people about their lives all throughout Eden-Monaro. It is at the forefront of my mind when I bring those concerns here to Canberra. It is at the forefront of my mind when I make the case for this project or that. It is why I used to think differently about securing projects for Eden-Monaro. Four weeks ago, I had the pleasure of attending and representing the federal government at the community open day of the South East Regional Hospital in Bega. I was joined by the Governor of New South Wales, General David Hurley, and the New South Wales Treasurer and state member for Bega, Andrew Constance. This is a project that I am very happy to say was made possible by the federal government contributing $160.1 million. The New South Wales government contributed a further $27 million. But the project should not be thought of as something necessarily special given to the Bega Valley by benevolent politicians in state and federal capitals. It is a project that should be obvious under a country-city compact.

But why should the Commonwealth spend $160 million in an area like Bega? Let us look at rural and regional health outcomes. Life expectancy can be significantly lower in remote areas, but this inequality is reflected across a range of data. Our friends and neighbours living in rural, regional and remote areas have 20 per cent higher reported rates of 'only fair' or 'poor' health. They have 10 per cent higher mortality rates. They have 24 per cent higher rates of smoking. They have 32 per cent higher rates of risky alcohol consumption. They have 20 per cent higher rates of injury and disability. The incidents of reported injury is 33 per cent higher outside major cities. Studies reported in the Medical Journal of Australia show that people diagnosed with cancer in regional areas were 35 per cent more likely to die within five years of diagnosis than patients in cities. Tragically, the further a cancer patient lives from a metropolitan centre the more likely that patient is to die within five years.

Living in the country is different. Most of us living in rural and regional areas do so for a reason. We not only understand the critical part country Australia plays in our national economy but we also enjoy the way of life. But that contribution and that freedom to live a good and productive life—or, as Thomas Jefferson famously said, 'the pursuit of happiness'—should not come at the excessive cost that it does. People in rural and regional Australia deserve the quality of life and the opportunity to pursue their goals just the same as urban Australians do. They do not just deserve that chance, they are owed it under a country-city compact.

This compact is not just the heavy hand of government bestowing bounty from above. It should be about communities and all levels of government working collaboratively to achieve optimal outcomes. It is about communities and government working collaboratively to achieve an equality of opportunity, because it is an equality of opportunity rather than an equality of outcome that country people desire. Country people do not sit back and demand the same outcomes in their lives as city people achieve. This is not the country way. What they deserve and are owed are the same opportunities to achieve. They deserve the opportunities to convert their resources, their capital and their enterprise into a meaningful and secure life for themselves and their families.

Of course, the federal government is already working collaboratively with local communities, and across all levels of government, to provide better outcomes. In Queanbeyan, the council compiled and assessed a number of road project priorities. These were large projects that would require significant support of both the federal and New South Wales governments. As a result, the $50 million Queanbeyan bypass project is now a reality. The community articulated their priorities through council and the federal and state governments allocated funding in accordance with those priorities. This is the collaboration required under a country-city compact.

Similarly, the federal government provides funding to local governments through the Financial Assistance Grants program. In Eden-Monaro, local governments will receive a total of over of $32 million in untied funding to support communities to deliver the services and facilities they need. The grants are untied, so councils can spend the money according to local priorities. This is the collaboration required under a country-city compact. Likewise, the Roads to Recovery program allows councils across Eden-Monaro to direct local road funding to where it is needed most—$23 million of which is allocated to Eden-Monaro. For instance, the Cooma-Monaro Shire Council will receive $3 million over the next four years, the Eurobodalla Shire Council will be allocated $4.4 million and so on for the seven shires. Again, these payments allow councils to direct local road funding to where it is needed most. This is the collaboration required under a country-city compact.

We can point to bridges in our local community. These critical pieces of infrastructure provide the linkages for our community and the commerce and transport required, allowing areas to grow. But they cost money—a lot of money, not only to build but also to upgrade and maintain. The federal government's $300 million Bridges Renewal project does just that. In Bombala, an injection of nearly $250,000 allows for the upgrade of the Parsonage Creek bridge. This project will help in access for trucks to the Dongwha timber mill, which is a major economic development project. In Broulee, nearly $1.1 million in federal funding will make the Candlagan Creek bridge at Mossy Point safer and more reliable—again, a project with obvious economic development benefits for this important tourist destination. These projects are made possible by close and effective consultation between local and federal government. This is the collaboration required under a country-city compact.

Further, the $15 million Port of Eden redevelopment will proceed because of $10 million in federal funding. In Queanbeyan, $500,000 of federal funding to the council made the upgrade of Seiffert Oval possible, and I enjoyed seeing the Raiders rugby league team return home to Seiffert Oval a few weeks ago. In Moruya, the new Eurobodalla Sub-Acute Rehabilitation Unit at the District Hospital was opened a couple of weeks ago. This $11.8 million facility was funded by the federal government's COAG subacute beds program.

These projects are all made possible by cooperation and collaboration between the community and government. But there is more to be done. We will provide funding to address mobile black spots in Eden-Monaro. Further, The federal government has made a high priority of transforming Labor's fantastical promises of the NBN into a commercially viable reality.

Three weeks ago I was joined in Queanbeyan by the communications minister, the member for Wentworth, when we welcomed the era of super-fast broadband to our town. We visited one of the first businesses to switch onto the NBN in Queanbeyan, Codarra Advanced Systems. The NBN will bring multiple efficiency and productivity benefits to Codarra's operations, including providing flexibility for their workforce, allowing them to work from home, on the road or from clients' offices.

Somewhere in the order of $90 to $100 million in NBN spending is in the process of being rolled out in Eden-Monaro. Further, there are major infrastructure projects that I will continue to pursue. The Moruya and Merimbula airports have been identified by local councils as a priority to allow for increased tourism and economic growth. I strongly support these projects and will fight to secure finding.

Another project I will champion is high-speed rail or very fast train, particularly between Canberra and Sydney. I am strongly behind the high-speed rail project, because of its major implications for developing regional Australia. With respect to that project, an objective reading of the research shows that even with private-sector involvement there would be a heavy reliance on the public purse. But how is that different from the tens of billions of dollars being spent on urban infrastructure, right now, for which rural taxpayers see little commercial return to help them meet their cost-of-living pressures?

Regional Australians do not begrudge taxpayer spending on urban infrastructure but seem to cop it when it is used as an excuse for why they do not receive it in return. The high-speed rail project has genuine win-win potential. Allowing us to grow regional Australia and attract population away from the choking megacities, this is where we can see the full potential of the country-city compact realized—economic development and growth in the country, coupled with a reduction in urban stress in our cities. The country-city compact has not been fully revived. It should be something that every school child in the nation knows, as part of their understanding of how this great nation should go forward in the 21st century. Whatever makes country Australia stronger will also make Australia as a whole stronger.

The Liberal national government, through its actions, acknowledging the needs of country Australians, is doing its bit. However, more needs to be done. Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Mr MATHESON (Macarthur) (13:18): I rise today to talk about the government's historic investment in infrastructure in my electorate of Macarthur and the benefits and opportunities this will provide for people in the region for generations to come. For too long the people of Macarthur were overlooked by previous state and federal governments. Labor's neglect led to a lack of local public-transport connections, road congestion, limited local job opportunities, and health and community services to service our rapidly-growing population.

I am proud to say that the Abbott government has a clear plan of action to end Labor's investment vacuum and is delivering a record $3.5 billion roads package, over 10 years, in the area. That will create 4,000 jobs in addition to other economic spin-offs, not to mention slashing the drive time for local residents. In addition to the $3.5 million Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan, the government is providing $1.5 billion for WestConnex, linking Western Sydney and South-West Sydney with the city, Kingsford Smith Airport and port precincts. In conjunction with our state liberal counterparts, this government has ensured the redevelopment of Campbelltown Hospital. We have invested in new schools in Oran Park and Wilton and preserved a rail corridor for extension of the south-west rail line.

The Abbott government has also invested $350,000 in Campbelltown, through the Safer Streets program, to tackle the increasing incidence of crime, in places like Queen Street, that is concerning local residents. I again acknowledge and thank Campbelltown City Council and Campbelltown Police for supporting this initiative. Visible cameras will make many potential criminals think twice before committing a crime. While reducing assaults and petty theft in and around the national precincts, we can restore the confidence of local shoppers and shop owners and make these areas vibrant, safe and enjoyable places to be.

Not only is the Abbott government tackling crime in making the Macarthur community a safer place to be but also it is providing funding to make our roads safer. This is through the roads' national black spot program, which saw Camden Council receive $295,000 from the federal government. This investment in the black spot project in Cut Hill Road will result in a safer road for residents through targeted upgrades that will help save lives and reduce road trauma, making it safer for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. Our government has also invested $2.9 million in the Roads to Recovery Program to assist with local road infrastructure and maintenance. A major benefit of this program is that councils are free to spend this funding according to their unique local priorities, ensuring that local knowledge delivers the best local roads.

Through the Western Sydney infrastructure plan, and thanks to our government, work has already begun on the $500 million upgrade of Bringelly Road that will see it widened from a two-lane road to a minimum four-lane divided road from Camden Valley Way to the Northern Road. Bringelly Road is one of the principal road links within the south-west growth centre, and its increased capacity will make sure that it can handle future traffic growth in the area. It will also improve access to the new Leppington Railway Station, M5 and M7. The upgrade will improve safety for motorists by providing traffic lights at major intersections and a central median to separate opposing traffic flows.

The infrastructure plan will also see the construction of a $1.25 billion motorway alongside Elizabeth Drive, which marks the Northern Road boundary of the Badgerys Creek airport site. This will provide direct access to the airport from the M7 Motorway, while maintaining access to Elizabeth Drive for local traffic. The Northern Road, which is a key north-south arterial link between the major centre of Narellan and the M4 motorway, is also being upgraded to the tune of $1.6 billion—thanks to this government. It will open up our region to the commercial precincts of Liverpool and Hoxton Park, as well Penrith and the North West Growth Centre. The upgrade will take the Northern Road from two lanes to a four-lane divided road along its 31-kilometre length. Provision of a wide median will also allow for a six-lane road to be provided into the future. In addition, the Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan will see more than $200 million of funding to enable the government to invest in a range of minor works in local government areas and to improve local transport connections in Western Sydney. Minor upgrades such as traffic lights, roundabouts or additional turning lanes will have the greatest benefits for local communities by increasing safety and improving traffic flows.

The main street of Camden, which is a common topic of conversation for many locals, will benefit from the government's local roads package, with $2.6 million in funding to upgrade the street, providing a solution to a number of traffic congestion points and hazards. This investment will reinvigorate the town centre and allow better pedestrian access to shops and businesses. Ultimately, the Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan is a $3.5 billion project, which will see a once-in-a-lifetime investment in the Macarthur region to upgrade our arterial roads and create an economic powerhouse for job creation and commercial opportunity. Our government is investing in the infrastructure blueprint for Greater Western Sydney, which will see our region in Macarthur thrive. I am proud of our Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan. It is a real win for my community of Macarthur. It also happens to be the single, biggest infrastructure investment in any electorate in recent history. This is forward thinking and forward planning by the Abbott government.

As a father, I am always conscious of the need to ensure that we create jobs and opportunities for future generations. I am very lucky that I have two bright and beautiful daughters, born and raised in Macarthur. I want to ensure that my grandchildren have the same opportunities of study, work and recreation in our area that I have had and that my daughters have been blessed to have as well. I want so see skilled jobs creation in Macarthur. I want to see more jobs where our tertiary-educated children can apply their skills locally and receive a good wage. I want to see young families and entrepreneurs being supported and having the confidence to venture out and start their own businesses, which will create more jobs and opportunities for the rest of the community.

For too long, I have seen the frustration in the Macarthur community as they face congestion on Narellan Road, Camden Valley Way and the Hume Highway as they set off to work outside of their electorate. This has cost businesses in Macarthur billions of dollars in lost productivity as they have to contend with congestion throughout the day because our main arterial roads are clogged with traffic—thanks to years of Labor's neglect. Before the last election, the Hon. Joe Hockey and I announced an investment of $53 million, with the New South Wales state government contributing the same amount, for the upgrade of Narellan Road. Part of the upgrade has already been completed and the second stage is currently underway. This is over $100 million to upgrade Narellan Road and will see residents across Macarthur being able to access the Hume Highway more quickly and easily than ever before. The New South Wales government recently completed stages 1 and 2 of the $280 million Camden Valley Way upgrade between Oran Park Drive and Bringelly Road in Leppington, which was completed months ahead of schedule. Both these two major upgrades provide vital east-west links within the Greater Western Sydney region and are yet more examples of infrastructure investments that will drive productivity and job creation in Macarthur. Once complete, they will enable local residents to have shorter commutes. Small businesses will be able to operate in the Macarthur region, without having to worry about delays and costs that arise with congestion. Most importantly, these projects are creating literally thousands of local jobs and opportunities for small business.

This government also knows how important it is that communities receive fast internet speeds as soon as possible. Over 54,000 premises are set to receive super-fast broadband through the National Broadband Network, with the build to commence on the network by June 2016—thanks to this government's NBN strategy. This important milestone for the area offers great certainty for homes and businesses in Macarthur as they prepare for super-fast broadband services. This is a remarkable investment in the Macarthur region. It goes to the heart of what this government is trying to achieve, which is to deliver the means by which the community can enjoy future growth and prosperity.

Under the previous Labor government, investment in infrastructure was virtually non-existent in Macarthur. Photo opportunities were more important than creating real solutions for growing communities. That is what the previous government delivered—a string of flashy photo ops, unworkable school halls, pink batts and projects such as the Dharawal Aboriginal health clinic in my electorate, which provided a building but not the funds to fit it out and run the service. The difference with our government is that we are committed to making legitimate and long-term improvements in Indigenous health by working with communities to improve access for Indigenous families to primary or preventative health care. Last week, I was proud to announce that Indigenous communities across Macarthur will benefit from $7.75 million in funding in primary and preventable health care as part of the Abbott government's ongoing commitment to closing the gap.

I am proud to say that those dark days of Labor's incompetency are over, but we are still dealing with the very serious repercussions of six years of total and utter fiscal incompetency and contempt for the Australian people. The previous Labor government ran up the national credit card and now it is up to the coalition to clean up the mess. The people of Macarthur and, indeed, the people of Australia were very clear at the last election that they wanted a genuine and committed government—one that could make decisions for the good of the nation, like living within our means but also having a clear vision for the future by investing in the infrastructure that our communities need in the long term; but it does not stop at roads and rails.

Our government is investing in our environment, with Green Army projects already on the ground in Macarthur. The teams of participants are cleaning up Kennedy Creek in Appin, preserving the critically endangered Cumberland Plain Woodlands, the Western Sydney Dry Rainforest and ecological communities at the Australian Botanic Garden, Mount Annan. Last month, I was pleased to announce yet another Green Army project that will be rolled out in Macarthur, where participants will establish habitat for the vulnerable species of eucalyptus Camden white gum by removing 2.4 hectares of its main threat, privet. The Green Army team will also remove 8.84 hectares of African Olive and African boxthorn from a number of reserves on the Cumberland Plain Woodlands.

The Abbott government has also partnered with local councils to provide state-of-the-art recreational facilities, such as providing Campbelltown City Council with a $500,000 investment for a synthetic turf surface at Lynwood Park oval, the home of the Macarthur Rams. This project will reduce maintenance costs by tens of thousands of dollars each year, as well as allowing the fields to be used in all weather conditions throughout the year. This government has also given the Narellan Jets Rugby League Football Club and the Campbelltown Rugby League Club $200,000 each for field upgrades that will offer improved sporting facilities and sporting opportunities for our growing communities.

I am also incredibly proud to have had the Prime Minister in Macarthur to deliver $335,000 of funding for the Mater Dei special needs school to purchase solar panels, which will provide a sustainable heating solution for their swimming pool. As a school that caters for children with mild to moderate intellectual and physical disabilities, the swimming pool facilities are an incredibly important part of their education program. I am delighted that children will have an even better environment to enjoy swimming.

The government also provided over $110,000 in grants for local organisations in Macarthur through the Anzac Centenary Local Grants Program. In November last year, I was delighted to announce that six local organisations will be given more than $73,000 of funding through this program. The Veterans Recreation Centre, Campbelltown RSL Sub-Branch, Campbelltown City Show Society, Camden Community Connections, Anglican Parish of Cobbitty and City of Campbelltown RSL Sub-Branch all successfully applied for funding.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour when the member will have leave to continue their remarks.

Mr MATHESON (Macarthur) (15:13): One of the successful applicants, Lauren Hokin, has been awarded $33,375 to write and publish a book commemorating the citizens of Macarthur who enlisted in World War I. This research project, the first of its kind covering the whole of Macarthur, ensures that the great sacrifices made by local men and women from our region during World War I will be formally acknowledged and recorded in history. These are just some of the fantastic investments that the government is making in the Macarthur community. This government is investing in the future of my electorate of Macarthur and the future of Greater Western Sydney and south-western Sydney that will benefit the region, the state and, ultimately, the country.

I am proud that I have been given the opportunity to represent my community and to help secure this funding to create jobs, to create opportunities and to create a safer, more integrated community. My electorate of Macarthur stands as proof that the Abbott government is providing the right mix of infrastructure, public transport and investment in health, education and sporting and cultural activities that is making, and will continue to make, Macarthur one of the best places to live and work in the country.

After six years of the chaos and dysfunction of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments, the Abbott government is focused on delivering the infrastructure of the 21st century. As the saying goes, purpose is the engine, the power that drives and directs our lives. The government's unprecedented investment in Macarthur has given our region the purpose and the opportunity it needs to reach its full potential, and in doing so Macarthur and south-western Sydney will in turn become the power that will drive our economy.

Mr GRAY (Brand) (15:14): Next month, on 17 April, my dad would have been 81. But, if he had not died, as he did, I would not know him as well as I do now. I am pleased that I know him well. I wish he had not died, but I treasure the love we did share, and I am proud of Dad—proud of how he died and proud of how he lived. It has been six summers now since my father, Gordon, died. He was a mate, a partner and a supporter that I often did not know I had. Dad died in August 2009. He was proud of me, of my brother David and of my twin sister, Carol, and after 53 years he was still in love with our mum, Olive.

Dad's death came at the hands of cancer—an oesophageal tumour identified in late January 2009, which meant that in 202 days Dad was dead. There are worse things than a cancer death. After his diagnosis, Dad and I could talk about our relationship. We talked about our conflicts—many matters I came to understand which before he began dying I just did not know about. There were many things I did not know, but by the time of his death I understood more. We had taken long walks together throughout March, April, May and June 2009 and by July he could not walk, but we could still talk.

I learned about my dad before he died. That was a blessing. That he died was simply inevitable; an oesophageal tumour is a fatal opponent. I had been impatient and sometimes aggrieved by Dad. He was a good bloke. He enjoyed a beer, did not work too hard and lived by a simple working-class ethic. 'The kids will be okay if I look out for Mum'—and he did that. He would vote Labor nationally, and he said, 'Workers will get whatever little bit is able to be given by a Labor government.' He would also say, 'The Liberals, by their nature, won't help at all.' He would vote conservative in local government elections. He would say, 'They will keep the rates down.' And he would vote communist in union elections: 'They'll give the bosses hell,' he'd say. None of that is a philosophy I agreed with, but it was Dad.

Gordon Gray was born at home in Dalton Brook, Yorkshire, in 1934. His mother, Fannie, was 22 years old. His father, David, was a 28-year-old stonemason. Gordon often talked about his father's work as a stonemason on the maintenance of All Saints Church in the centre of Rotherham. Gordon attended Doncaster Road Primary School and was a full-back with the school soccer team. He grew up in the shadow of the Great Depression and was a boy during World War II. Gordon talked of the bombings of Sheffield, of the life of a child in air-raid shelters, of growing up when there was not a lot to go around, and how his mother's sister—his Aunt Kath—became the most important person in his life. Kath lived with the family in Dalton Brook. She gave Gordon the love and support his mother could not.

Gordon's grandfather, Robert Gray, had been a coalminer at the Silverwood colliery. Like his father, Gordon was determined not to work down a coalmine. Gordon left school at 14 to start an apprenticeship as a motor mechanic. He worked on Bedford trucks. However, in 51 years I never, ever saw Dad display any mechanical skill whatsoever. I guess that is why, in 1949, answering the call of the Navy, Gordon began training with HMAS Raleigh. Over the following six years he visited ports in South Africa, South Korea and South America. He later transferred to submarines, serving on T-class submarines HMS Telemachus. Gordon enjoyed life in the Royal Navy—in particular, the raucous life of a stoker. In 1955 Gordon's father succumbed to cancer—he was 48—and Gordon returned to England.

That year Gordon met Olive Lees and they married on 14 January 1956 at All Saints Church in Rotherham. Through the late 1950s and early 1960s Gordon worked as a steelworker and he and Olive began a family. David was born on 11 July 1956 and the twins, Carol and I, on 30 April 1958. Gordon was convinced that his young family would have greater opportunities in a new country. In June 1966 they packed a few suitcases and a tea chest of belongings and boarded the Fairsea and moved to Australia. Gordon thrived in Whyalla. Indentured to the Broken Hill Proprietary Company as a labourer, he enjoyed the town, its life, the sun and the beach, the Ada Ryan Gardens, and the people. Most of all he enjoyed the opportunities on offer for David, Carol and myself. The family even bought a car—a Volkswagen beetle—in 1967, in which family tours of the Flinders Ranges and Eyre Peninsula would be taken. Gordon held positions in the local naval club and the RSL. He was not just a club joiner; he was a doer. As a long-term treasurer his financial numbers always added up. He took pride in getting his numbers right, and he was a popular and social person—very smart, very clever.

From BHP Gordon moved to the Electricity Trust of South Australia. He enjoyed his work as a storeman, but, most importantly, he enjoyed his life with Olive and his children. David became an electrical engineer at BHP and now lives in Brisbane, I am a parliamentarian and live in Western Australia, and Carol is a carer in Whyalla, South Australia. Throughout their adult years, Gordon and his children often mused that Gordon's Victa lawnmower arrived after David and Gary left home, and the air-conditioner and the colour television set were purchased when Gordon and Olive moved out of their housing trust house into one that they owned themselves once all three kids had left home. Gordon and Olive planned and built their lives together and around each other. In later years Gordon and Olive travelled on yearly pilgrimages to Brisbane and then Canberra and Perth to visit David's and my families. Carol lives in Whyalla, and Gordon played an important part in the life of her daughter, Victoria. This relationship was reminiscent of the one he had enjoyed with his own Aunt Kath while growing up in Dalton Brook, Yorkshire, 70 years before.

Gordon was diagnosed with oesophageal cancer in January 2009. And Gordon died as he lived—in Olive's loving care—on 17 August 2009. He was strong and in complete control of his life and his death. You see, Gordon had made an informed and thoughtful decision about dying. Under care, Dad could have lived longer. He did not want that, and he told me so. He told me that if the positions were reversed he could not bear to see mum as sick as he was, and he could see that his pain hurt mum more and more. He chose his end carefully, thoughtfully and with some humour. He checked into palliative care on a Friday night, having first checked the detail of his will with his solicitors—checking again and again that Mum would be okay. On the day he died—on the Monday—from his room at the palliative care ward at Whyalla hospital, I was able to ask Mum to go home, so that she could get dressed in her best clothes and return, as she did, looking beautiful. By then I had all the medical machinery, the bottles, the pipes and the like removed from Dad's room. The bedsheets were changed. Dad was clean, neat, tidy and rested. The room was full of flowers, full of the music Mum and Dad loved—and there was Mum and Dad, he with a central line delivering him the peace and ease he wanted. Dad died, as he lived, in mum's care. And he died, as he wanted, in mum's arms. Dad died at 12.30 pm that day.

Later that week we celebrated dad's life where the sun, the sand and the beach meet at Ada Ryan Gardens on the Whyalla foreshore. Mum did not like the idea of a funeral at the funeral home. 'It's too dark,' she said, preferring the beach, the sun, the trees, the grass and the sounds of children playing—even during the funeral. Dad's casket was near the garden seat where she and he had often sat watching children play.

You see, there are worse ways to die than cancer, because with cancer I had the time, and dad had the time, to say goodbye. How we die is important. It is not as important as how we live, but we should be able to die peacefully and, as best as we are able, with dignity, as dad did. I will miss Gordon—husband, father, grandad and great-grandad. He is survived by his wife Olive; his children David, Carol and Gary; his grandchildren Sonia, Andrew, Victoria, Riley, Darcy and Toby; and his great-grandchildren Aydan, Charlotte and Oliver.

I do not support many of the calls for legalising processes that govern how we die. I do believe that, in our modern hospital system, in our modern systems for providing care and palliative care, with good general practice, with good doctors, and with consent, care, compassion and love, it is possible to die with dignity, without attempting to regulate and unnecessarily create black-letter law around those provisions that govern our dying. I think my dad demonstrated that, and the doctors who cared for him and his family demonstrated that it is possible in our current system—perhaps especially possible in a regional hospital, or perhaps especially possible with a GP who has known a patient for 20 or 30 years, or perhaps especially possible with a person like my dad who realised he would not get well and that mum would only get more worried, more sick and more uneasy by dad's slow and painful death so he made the choices that he made. He made them as a loving husband, he made them as a person who enjoyed life and he made them in a way that made me proud. Thank you.

Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Science) (15:25): It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak to Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2014-2015 and related bills and to talk about the work the Abbott government is doing to help the people in my electorate of McPherson and all Australians. Every day we, the government, are working to build a stronger economy and a safer Australia. The Abbott coalition government is continuing to deliver growth, jobs and real opportunity for all Australians.

Today, I would like to speak about some of our recent achievements, including that the carbon tax is gone, saving the average household $550 a year. Our Direct Action Plan is making a practical difference to the environment without slugging Australians with a carbon tax. Major projects worth $1 trillion have been given environmental approval which will provide many of the jobs of tomorrow. We have delivered the biggest cut in electricity prices on record, which is good news for everyone looking to save money. The mining tax is gone, so this vital sector can create more jobs. Our $50 billion infrastructure program is underway. This includes major projects right around Australia to save you time and money. We are cutting red tape, with $2 billion in red tape savings already identified. We are driving trade with our neighbours by delivering free trade agreements with Japan, Korea and China. This means more exports, more jobs and lower prices for families, and we are working with Australian businesses to ensure we are taking advantage of these new opportunities. The NBN is being rolled out in a way which is fast, more affordable and less costly to taxpayers. There is a $200 million boost for more than 770,000 Australian part-pensioners and allowance recipients, with the lowering of the social security deeming rates. This has certainly been well received in my electorate of McPherson where we have a high number of retirees. We have put in place better scrutiny and reporting of foreign purchases of agricultural land. These are just a few of the many things that we have achieved.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Science, I would like to take this opportunity to speak about some of the great things happening in that portfolio. We have introduced the Industry, Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda. This has been the focus of the first full year of our government, and we have been very active in this area. Some of our achievements to date associated with this agenda include the rollout of Industry Growth Centres, with three chairs already being announced: Mr Andrew Stevens, Chair of the Advanced Manufacturing Growth Centre; Ms Elizabeth Lewis-Gray, Chair of the Mining Equipment, Technology and Services Growth Centre; and Mr Peter Schultz, Chair of the Food and Agribusiness Growth Centre. We are well on the way to reforming the vocational education and training sector, and this work is continuing in the education and training portfolio. I congratulate the Assistant Minister for Education and Training, Senator Simon Birmingham, for the work that he is doing in this area since his appointment as the assistant minister in December last year.

In schools we are promoting the stem subjects of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. We are implementing the Entrepreneurs' Infrastructure Program, worth $484 million, to support SMEs. In Tasmania, we have established the Tasmanian Innovation and Investment Fund in recognition of the unique challenges this state faces. We are now assessing more than 130 applications from across the Tasmanian economy, including in forestry, food, furniture and tourism. In Victoria, the Geelong Region Innovation and Investment Fund rounds 1 and 2 have now been completed and round 3 is to follow. Melbourne's North Innovation and Investment Fund round 1 has been completed. Australia's anti-dumping system has been reviewed and there is now legislation before the House that deals with a number of very important reforms.

I turn now to some of the important commitments the government is making in science. Science is vital to Australia's future, particularly given the strong impact of science on industry. Across government we are continuing to make a strong commitment to science and the critical role it plays in the economic growth of Australia. In 2014-15 we are spending $9.2 billion in science, research and innovation across all portfolios. Over the next four years this government will spend approximately $5.8 billion for science and research in the Industry portfolio. This includes $3 billion for CSIRO over the next four years. This will see year-on-year funding increases over the forward estimates.

We are also making new investments of $181.2 million to secure the operation of vital scientific activities and promote the benefits of science to Australians, including $65.7 million for CSIRO to operate and maintain the new research vessel, Investigator. There is $31.6 million over four years for ANSTO to operate the Open Pool Australian Lightwater reactor, OPAL, at full capacity. There is $25.9 million over four years for the permanent and safe disposal of used Australian nuclear fuel. There is $28 million in science for Australia's future, which includes National Science Week. There is $10 million to extend the Australia-China Science and Research Fund and there is $20 million to extend the Australia-India Strategic Research Fund.

Australia's ability to compete in global markets—in all sectors—depends on our ability to move up the value chain. Producing high-quality innovative or niche products and connecting science to industry is the cornerstone of our industry policy. The Australian government is continuing to support businesses to innovate and engage in research and development through the R&D tax incentive, which is expected to provide over $1 billion in tax offsets for eligible companies in 2014-15.

I turn now to a topic dear to my heart, STEM. As part of the government's Industry Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda, announced in October, we are delivering an extra $12 million to improve the focus on science, technology, engineering and maths—the STEM subjects—in primary and secondary education. I am privileged to have been given the responsibility, by the Minister for Industry and Science, to assist in the preparation and implementation of the whole-of-government response to the chief scientist's STEM strategy and recommendations. It is essential that we inspire young Australians to participate more actively in the STEM subjects and to develop strong STEM skills. We must continue to promote the value of STEM skills not just to the students of tomorrow but to all Australians. We need to promote the impact that STEM research has had on our quality of life as well as the impact STEM will have in the future. Those STEM skills are critical to future economic growth, sustainability and social wellbeing.

I will briefly touch on skills and training, having worked closely with Minister Macfarlane on this area before becoming the parliamentary secretary. It was pleasing to see the successful implementation of the trade-support loans, with legislation passing through both houses last year. Pleasingly, this was one of the first pieces of budget legislation that went through and is now delivering support for thousands of tradies around the country. With our VET reforms, started by Minister Macfarlane and continuing under Assistant Minister Birmingham, we are changing the focus of the system to be more outcome focused and industry led.

From 1 January this year we saw new training provider and national regulator standards introduced that have allowed for a crackdown on dodgy practices through new requirements around marketing and advertising policies. It was this government that provided new funding of more than $68 million, over four years, for the national regulator, ASQA, to focus on serious breaches of standards. From July this year we will see the new Australian Apprenticeship Support Network take off. This will provide a one-stop-shop for apprentices and their employers. It is currently out to tender. Very exciting for both industry and workers is the new $476 million Industry Skills Fund, which includes two new $44 million youth pilot programs. The Gold Coast will definitely benefit from this.

Turning to my electorate of McPherson, as a government we are spending more than $23.4 million in road infrastructure for the 2014-15 financial year. One of the major road projects to which the government has committed more than $111 million, over the life of the project, is the M1 Nerang to Robina widening, which will have a huge positive impact on both my electorate and the Gold Coast region. Across my electorate, our government is getting on with the job of tackling black spots on the roads. From Coolangatta to Cottesloe Drive at Robina we are making our roads safer through this vital road-funding project.

I am committed to working with other local members and all levels of government to further improve transport and road infrastructure for the Gold Coast. I have spoken in this place on many occasions about the transport issues that are facing Gold Coast residents and tourists. Effectively, the problem we have on the Gold Coast with regard to transport is that the Gold Coast is very different from every other major city—just about in the world, but particularly in Australia. Instead of having a central CBD, where all of the road and transport infrastructure emanates from, to the outer suburbs, the Gold Coast has evolved from a number of small villages that over time have developed and joined together. The Gold Coast is effectively a long coastal strip.

This gives us a number of significant issues with relation to transport infrastructure. We have three opportunities available to us on the Gold Coast and they serve somewhat different purposes. We have the M1, which is going through an upgrade process, interchange by interchange. It certainly would have been more advantageous if the former Queensland Labor government had not changed the priority from Tugun to Nerang to further north, closer to Brisbane. That way, we may well have—and should well have—had the M1 widened by now, all the way through to Tugun. But it is progressing.

Secondly, we have the heavy rail from Brisbane which currently terminates at Varsity Lakes. This is perhaps three stations away from the airport at Coolangatta. We also have the light rail, which at this stage has very limited capacity on the Gold Coast and terminates south at Broadbeach, which again is a long way from the airport at Coolangatta. We do know that tourists to the Gold Coast wish to stay within a kilometre of the beach, and so the light rail is ideally suited for our tourist visitors as well as our local residents.

Work clearly needs to be done on all three—the M1, heavy rail and light rail. The priority of people who speak to me is, at this stage, getting the light rail through to the airport. I would also say that we must continue at the fastest possible pace to upgrade the M1, which provides commuter access up through to Brisbane and is invaluable. What I would see as the third priority is getting the heavy rail down to the airport. We of course cannot ignore the fact that the Gold Coast is developing westwards. We need to have good transport links to the east and to the west to make sure that we are looking after the best interests of our residents on the Gold Coast.

As I indicated earlier, I have spoken in this place on many occasions about transport on the Gold Coast. It continues to be an issue, and it is an issue that I will continue to fight for, not only by talking here in Canberra to my colleagues but also by pushing the new state government in Queensland to make sure that the Gold Coast, and particularly the southern suburbs of the Gold Coast, is not ignored when it comes to transport infrastructure.

In conclusion, I say to the naysayers and those engaging in constant negativity, we as a government are getting on with the job of good government. We see very little by way of real positive policy alternatives coming from those sitting opposite. We are a government that is responsible, sensible and united—united in our commitment to clean up the mess left by those opposite and united in delivering a better future for all Australians.

Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (15:39): I rise to speak on Appropriation (No. 3) Bill 2014-15 and related bills and, in doing so, update the House on a number of exciting initiatives from across Bennelong. This will include the latest news on the Hyundai Bennelong Table Tennis Schools Program and Bennelong Cup in the year of the Anzac Centenary, as well as the Bennelong Gardens Initiative and the resumption of the Bennelong Village Business campaign.

As I have informed the House on several occasions, I founded the Bennelong Schools Table Tennis Program in 2011, when, during visits to local schools, I identified cultural divides amongst students in their participation in sport. Through the generosity of Hyundai Australia, and in cooperation with Table Tennis Australia, table tennis tables have been provided to almost all schools in Bennelong. Coaching clinics for the students were organised for each school, and the Bennelong Schools Table Tennis Competition was born and is now held every year.

Bennelong is home to a diverse range of cultures and identities, and table tennis is a great way to get people of all backgrounds active and interacting with each other. It is an excellent exercise in inclusiveness, which is bridging the cultural divide throughout my electorate. I warmly remember a moment from the competition in its first year. I watched a particularly timid child grow before my eyes when his table tennis ability was shown off with a leading Korean champion in front of his school mates. With his sudden popularity came confidence, acceptance and a renewed zest for school life. His table tennis career is progressing well too. If this program can bring this sense of fulfilment to more children, it will continue to grow into a roaring success.

Likewise, the international tournament is this year also taking on a very exciting and topical turn. The Hyundai Bennelong Cup is an official annual sporting event, involving the Australian table tennis team and international competitors. It is held annually, with games played within my electorate and some exhibition matches played in the Great Hall right here in Parliament House. Hyundai Australia has extended its generosity to sponsor these test matches, and over the past four years the tournament has involved high-level competition between four nations: Australia, South Korea, China and Japan. This year, I am very happy to announce that two more countries will be joining us: Malaysia and New Zealand. I am particularly delighted that we will be joined by our friends from across the Tasman.

In this year that commemorates the 100th anniversary of the ANZAC landings, I am happy to declare that this strong relationship of partnership will continue as the Australian and New Zealand teams will be together, competing as one Trans-Tasman team. This sporting collaboration is not a first. In fact, we owe our grand slam status to our friends from across the Tasman. New Zealand and Australia originally competed in the Davis Cup, with great success as Australasia. There are countless other collaborations that could be mentioned from the fields of sport, academia, diplomacy and more. However, it is our 100-year old military alliance which I would like to briefly speak to.

One hundred years ago, when the Australian nation was forged on the Turkish beaches of the Gallipoli peninsula, a special bond was created not only amongst our diggers but also with the allies who shared our trenches. New Zealand celebrates their national baptism on 25 April like we do, yet the creation of the shared bond between us, forged at the same time as our respective national identities, receives less attention. The ordeals were shared between two nation's troops, which were of course no more segregated than those of the Australian states. And 100 years on from this momentous time our troops will once again be working alongside our New Zealand allies in the Middle East. The Anzac spirit of partnership is still alive and well.

Bennelong will, along with the rest of the country, be hosting a plethora of events for the Anzac Centenary. Over $100,000 in Anzac Centenary grants have already been approved to a vast range of organisations across Bennelong. To pull out some highlights: Rydalmere East Public School is putting on a theatrical production entitled 'Do not Forget, Australia'; Gladesville Public School and Denistone East Public School will both be building or upgrading memorials on their grounds; St Alban's Anglican parish in Epping is restoring its World War I memorial; and Epping RSL is providing an exhibition of First World War memorabilia.

I would like to officially congratulate all of the organisations who are contributing to these commemorations and I look forward to visiting each of these projects over the coming months. I also look forward to visiting all of the excellent RSLs within Bennelong for the large number of events that I know are being organised. The celebration and commemoration of this anniversary is being taken up wholeheartedly across Bennelong, and I know that the Anzac spirit will not be forgotten in my electorate.

The centenary will be an important time to reflect on the ideals that have grown out of the trenches. These same ideals have gone on to forge our Australian identity and indomitable spirit. It is right that this centenary of the Gallipoli landings is indeed a celebration of this spirit as well as a memorial to the brave diggers who gave their lives and suffered on the other side of the world.

And it will be all the more symbolic for 300 families following this month's announcement that once again our troops will be returning to the Middle East—and, again, we will be alongside our trans-Tasman neighbours. I wish all our troops well on this new mission and hope they all return safely and soon.

To return to electorate matters, alongside the revamped and expanded Hyundai Bennelong Cup, there are a number of big initiatives that are continuing this year that I would like to update the House on. I have spoken in the past about the Bennelong Gardens initiative which I am promoting, and now it is coming along at a rapid pace.

Bennelong Gardens is a large-scale, commercially viable community gardens project, utilising unused public lands across Bennelong. It provides rewarding work for people with disabilities as well as volunteer opportunities for local retirees and others who will benefit greatly from social interaction and physical activity.

This initiative has been hugely popular across the electorate and is being supported by a large and varied number of other groups. These include Achieve Australia; Royal Rehab; Harris Farm Markets; Ryde city council, the New South Wales state government; Australian Native Landscapes; TAFE New South Wales; NOVA Employment; and Social Ventures Australia. In addition, a number of businesses and individuals have pledged money, expertise and materials to ensure that Bennelong Gardens are a success.

The aim is to establish commercial gardens across approximately 100 acres of unused land throughout the electorate. Fresh fruit and vegetables grown in the Bennelong Gardens will be sold on site to local greengrocers and members of the public. Harris Farm Markets has agreed to allocate shelf space to Bennelong Gardens, with all sales going directly to our social enterprise.

As beneficiaries of the Bennelong Gardens social enterprise, the people with disabilities will gain economic benefit from the sale of produce. Achieve Australia have agreed to administer the project. Their expertise in the field of disability employment has been invaluable. They will be essential to the ultimate success of the garden's main goal, which is of course providing social and physical activity for those who need it—from people with disabilities to retirees.

Seed funding for Bennelong Gardens comes from the establishment of the Granny Smith apple Heritage Orchard—in honour of Bennelong being the home of Grandma Maria Smith and her famous apple variety. Each tree will be sponsored by a company or individual for $1,000, and I was delighted to purchase the first tree.

Royal Rehab in Putney is housing the first of the apple trees. Royal Rehab is another fantastic local facility that helps get people back on their feet after tragedy strikes. Like Achieve Australia, they fully appreciate the necessity of movement and social interaction in the rehabilitation process.

Towards the end of last year, I visited Royal Rehab to turn the first sod in our silver spade event. The first of the trees in the Granny Smith Heritage Orchard were planted, and the event was a huge success. Subsequent to this, more donations have come in and the trees will continue to be planted, highlighting the huge popularity of the scheme and the real desire to see it succeed.

Ryde city council has also been consulted with extensively, and I addressed the council in the last month. The support was unanimous from all sides of the political divide, and my office is currently working with all of the partner organisations to get the paperwork approved so we can get plants in the ground as soon as possible.

This project represents direct action to support those that need it most in our community, to empower them to achieve independence and an increased sense of personal pride. It will have fantastic outcomes, and I look forward to it becoming a reality very shortly.

Finally, I would like to update the House on my ongoing local campaign known as the Bennelong Village Businesses. In conversation with a number of local businesses, I heard that there is real concern within Bennelong—and indeed across the country—with local businesses being forced out by the larger supermarkets and chain stores.

The BVB program is designed to reinvigorate community shopping villages through a combination of strategic business initiatives. To promote the enormous benefits to shopping locally, each month I will be celebrating a new

Bennelong village—22 shopping precincts have been identified across Bennelong which will take turns for the honour. They will be publicised widely and even have access to cheaper advertising rates in one of the local papers.

The 22 villages are made up of over 200 small and local businesses. Small businesses are the lifeblood of our communities; yet they are often overlooked for the apparent convenience of the larger shopping centres. The allure of bigger shops is plain to see but denies some real local benefits.

The benefits of shopping local are wide and varied, including supporting the local economy, the convenience of staying close to home and, of course, the social benefits to elderly or less mobile local residents. A core group of 10 reasons to shop local has been set out by my office and forms the cornerstone of the campaign.

This campaign will resume in the middle of April with a fantastic little line of shops that have been a part of the local community for as long as it has existed. The exact location will be announced in a matter of weeks and will be the first in a long line of local shopping districts that will receive the benefit of their local community's support. These are just a few of the exciting developments in the suburbs of Bennelong.

Mr PASIN (Barker) (15:51): I rise to speak on the cognate appropriations bill before the House and to highlight the significant contribution to South Australia being made by the Commonwealth through the budget—in contrast, of course, to the hysterical claims being made by the South Australian state Labor government. As members would be aware, in 2007 Australia had an unemployment rate of four per cent and zero government debt, and we were operating budget surpluses. When the Labor government left office six years later, they left us with over 200,000 more unemployed Australians, gross debt projected to rise above $667 billion, $123 billion in cumulative deficits and, of course, not to forget, the world's biggest carbon tax.

This budget has begun the long, difficult task of fiscal repair that will be the basis for sustained economic growth and prosperity into the future. It is clear that the former Labor government's approach of using borrowed funds for current expenditure was neither sustainable nor desirable. What the coalition has done, as laid out in the budget and in the Intergenerational report tabled on 5 March, is to remove the debt burden from current and future generations. These decisions have been difficult and have been opposed, in most cases, by those opposite, despite the responsibility they bear for having caused the budget crisis we inherited. Despite the fact that some of the saving measures were in fact proposed by those opposite, they are now opposed by those opposite in the Senate. This is the height of political opportunism and the first best demonstration that the Labor Party does not have the political maturity or, indeed, policy honesty to govern this country.

Even more disturbing than federal Labor's economically reckless tactic from opposition are the tactics of the South Australian state Labor government. First, I want to place on record the level of Commonwealth investment in South Australia. Total Commonwealth funding to South Australia continues to increase in each and every year over the forward estimates. Total Commonwealth payments to South Australia will rise from $7.6 billion last financial year to $8.2 billion this year, to $9.3 billion in the last year of the forward estimates, that being the year ending 30 June 2018—a $1.8 billion increase over this time. Going forward, South Australia is projected to receive $35.6 billion in total funding from the Commonwealth across the forward estimates. This figure includes both GST revenue and payments for specific purposes. Comparing the numbers contained in federal Labor's last budget, that of the 2013-14 fiscal year, to the numbers in our latest MYEFO, over the same common four-year period, from 2013-14 to 2016-17, South Australia will receive an extra $1.4 billion from this coalition government.

At the 2014-15 budget the Commonwealth government provided $2 billion in funding for major South Australian road projects, with $1.8 billion to be spent over the next four years including, of course, a billion dollars for the north-south road corridor upgrade to improve freight transport productivity across Adelaide. The Commonwealth government has abolished the carbon tax and the South Australian Labor government has booked a $10 million dividend from that abolition. The abolition of the carbon tax is also helping households, who are benefiting right now through lower electricity prices—a drop of eight per cent in my electorate of Barker alone. Commonwealth funding for South Australian hospitals will increase by $293 million, or 30 per cent, from the level we saw in 2013-14 to the projected level in 2017-18. This funding grows at an average rate of seven per cent per year. Across the forward estimates Commonwealth funding to schools in South Australia will increase by $274 million. Year on year, school funding to South Australia grows by seven per cent, six per cent, six per cent and six per cent. This is a significant investment by the Commonwealth into South Australia, but that is not the story you will hear from Premier Weatherill or Treasurer Koutsantonis.

The South Australian state Labor government has a very clear strategy in place designed to shift blame, distract and avoid scrutiny over the myriad problems it has presided over for more than the past decade. Central to that strategy is to use the responsible but politically unpopular decisions of the Commonwealth as cover for its own mismanagement. Every time it has failed to invest properly in infrastructure, schools, education or regional development, the South Australian state Labor government points to Canberra and says, 'Blame them.' Well, I am sorry, Premier Weatherill, but you need to show some leadership and take ownership of your own decisions.

It is the Weatherill government that refuses to accept $25 million in Murray-Darling Basin diversification funding—money that is available for my electorate today, if Minister Brock were to act. The Commonwealth has put the money forward. It has been waiting for Premier Weatherill and Minister Brock to confirm the projects since August 2013—not August 2014; August 2013. In an all too familiar pattern, the South Australian government is dragging its heels on its responsibilities, when every other state government has agreed to the package, confirmed the projects and indeed, in many cases, has spent the money, which is intended to help create new jobs and new opportunities for people living in river communities.

Despite the fact that they signed up to this agreement when federal Labor was in office, because it is no longer politically advantageous for them they are confecting some sort of claim about GST funding, the figures of which are very rubbery, and punishing people who do not live in metropolitan postcodes because—and here is the rub—it may be possible that they will lose some GST money that they can spend in Adelaide. They would prefer to harm the people of Barker, the Riverland and Murraylands than lose any of the capacity to spend that money in marginal Labor seats in Adelaide.

It is the Weatherill government that refuse to maintain the pensioner concessions on council rates, instead pocketing $98 million. Despite being responsible for $171 of the $190 rebate, they are using the federal government's decision to pull back $19 of that same rebate as cover for their decision to save, as I said, $98 million. It is the Weatherill government that are closing hospitals across the state, like the repatriation hospital. I have seen firsthand the reckless and wilful neglect of the state Labor government in inflicting damage on regional hospitals and health services. Thanks to the state government, there is not a single MRI machine outside of Adelaide, nor a resident clinical psychiatrist between Adelaide and Warrnambool in Victoria—and that is before the government's Transforming Health process starts. Now we have a clear stated intention to cut services to the bone. You cannot even go as far as from North Terrace to Noarlunga before you run out of emergency departments under the government's plan. How are the people in the Riverland and Mount Gambier expected to access metropolitan equivalent emergency services when the people in the southern suburbs of Adelaide cannot?

Sorry, Renmark; sorry, Murray Bridge—you do not even rate a mention in the document, and Berri and Mount Gambier are referred to only once in relation to some much needed and long-overdue mental health beds. But there is nothing on accident and emergency and nothing on increasing surgical bed numbers, even at the new RAH, and yet somehow, despite all these cutbacks and chronic lack of investment, regional services are magically going to achieve better outcomes for patients because we are putting more people through fewer fully equipped hospitals. It is your government, Premier Weatherill, that has imposed massive increases in the emergency services levy and now wants to impose an additional $1,200 land tax on every single South Australian family home.

Despite these actions, the South Australian Labor government continues to run deficits year on year and has a ballooning debt crisis. It is the Weatherill government that has presided over the worst unemployment rate in Australia, at 7.3 per cent—clearly shameful. What is the state government's answer to these problems? Its first tactic is to blame the Commonwealth for everything, as I said earlier. The second tactic is to announce an investigation into controversial subjects without actually taking a firm position or taking any action on them itself. An example is a discussion which has begun around a South Australian nuclear industry. I think it is a great debate and a good one to have, but what is the state Labor government's position on this? It does not have one because this is all an exercise in distraction. No-one knows its position, but the state government will spend millions of dollars on finding out what it already knows. It ought to be mentioned that this is the same proposal that the South Australian state government some years ago spent hundreds of thousands of dollars arguing against in a High Court challenge.

Should we change time zones? That is another distraction. You could hardly believe it, but it is what is occupying the minds of North Terrace at the moment. Talking about time zones is certainly more important than the government providing details about what services it is cutting from regional hospitals or about how it has manifestly failed in child protection or what really went on with the Gillman land deal. I jest, of course, but this seems to be the debate that is wont to be had in South Australia, as I said, as an exercise in distraction. These are just a few of the examples where the duplicity of the state Labor government's claims about federal funding is revealed. It reflects the very clear intention of the Weatherill Labor government to punish people in regional South Australia and intimidate them into changing their votes lest they face some kind of further reprisal. It is not just a preference for economies of scale available in metropolitan Adelaide but a deliberate ploy to punish people for their democratic choices.

The third tactic is to say that anyone who criticises them is not a team player. I cannot begin to tell you the number of times I have heard the state government announce with much fanfare that they are undertaking a massive infrastructure project, complete with hard hats, high-visibility jackets and shovels, only to later find out that the project will only go ahead if there is substantial federal funding and that there was no agreement between the governments before the state government made the announcement. In fact, I understand that in one case in particular, despite heaping blame on the Commonwealth for not funding a certain project, the state minister has not once, on my investigations, raised that issue with his federal counterpart across 18 months. Instead, we get taxpayer funded, party political advertising campaigns, each one costing $1.1 million, attacking the federal government. These actions are not those of a responsible government and do not reflect the fact that there is now more federal investment in South Australia than ever before.

The people of South Australia are being repeatedly taken for mugs by this state Labor government and being fed a campaign of lies and misinformation. There are serious challenges facing our country and my state, and this budget is a serious attempt at addressing those challenges before they become insurmountable. Unlike those opposite and those back home on North Terrace, we will not avoid our duty to leave Australia in better shape than how it was left to us and we will not hide behind cheap political tricks to obscure the hard decisions that need to be made. I commend these bills to the House.

Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (16:04): I rise today to speak to the appropriation bills and update the House on the electorate of Solomon and the solid progress that the coalition government is making for the people of Darwin and Palmerston.

When the government were elected we promised we would stop the boats. And we have. For the people of the Top End, people-smuggling activities were more than something we read about in the newspapers. They were something that we dealt with on a daily basis. Mr Deputy Speaker, you probably remember that one boat got within 13 kilometres of Bathurst Island and another one landed on Croker Island undetected. When the number of boats surged after Labor opened the gates to the people smugglers, my electorate was one of the ones that bore the brunt of it. At the peak of the boat arrivals in 2013, there were five immigration detention centres within, or immediately surrounding, my electorate. You would have heard me, Mr Deputy Speaker, saying that Labor opened more detention beds than hospital beds during its term in government.

Labor's complete loss of control over the immigration system had a number of flow-on effects for my electorate. Essential services had to cope with the rapid influx in the population. The ambulance, police and fire services felt the strain, as did the Royal Darwin Hospital and the other medical services in my electorate. The tourism industry felt the squeeze, with entire hotels in the CBD booked out by immigration, either to accommodate asylum seekers—yes, things got so bad that the immigration department rented an entire CBD hotel as a makeshift detention centre—or detention centre workers, and there were fewer rooms available for tourists. Even major construction projects and heavy industry were put out, with the developments built to accommodate the fly-in fly-out workforce snapped up by Immigration.

This is why I welcomed Minister Dutton's announcement last month that, due to the coalition government's success in stopping the boats, the Blaydin Point facility would no longer be required by the Australian government. The Blaydin Point facility is the 11th immigration detention facility that the coalition government has closed in just over 12 months. The savings to the federal government from the centre closure will be around $18 million in lease costs alone. Despite Immigration moving out, the local economy will not suffer. I am pleased to advise the House that the facility at Blaydin Point will actually revert to its original intended purpose as accommodation for fly-in fly-out workers on a nearby major construction project.

You have heard me speak, a number of times, about Tiger Brennan Drive. When I was campaigning for re-election I promised the people of Solomon that we would deliver on the duplication of Tiger Brennan Drive. Tiger Brennan Drive is one of the major arterial roads linking my home in Palmerston to the Darwin CBD. It gave me great pleasure to stand beside the Deputy Prime Minister and my Northern Territory colleagues at the opening of another stage of the Tiger Brennan duplication. The duplication of the section between Woolner Road and Gonzales Road is easing the congestion and improving safety for traffic arriving to the CBD.

The $88 million duplication of Tiger Brennan Drive's section between Woolner Road and Berrimah Road is well underway. Just last Friday I was joined by my good friend the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, Minister Briggs, and another good friend of mine, the Northern Territory transport and infrastructure minister, Peter Chandler, and we inspected the works that are currently underway. Despite the wet season, it did not rain while we were having a look.

The many thousands of constituents who commute between Darwin and Palmerston every day along the road will already be seeing construction of safety barriers and heavy equipment moving into place, as well as the specialised machinery building up the roads in low-lying areas to protect against storm surge. When these are completed, these works will give the 22,000 vehicles that use the road each day easier access between Darwin's CBD and the Palmerston and rural area. It will reduce traffic on the parallel Stuart Highway, and will ease congestion of traffic between the East Arm Wharf and the Darwin industrial areas.

And that is what this government is all about. We are about delivering on our promises—delivering infrastructure. Tiger Brennan Drive alone represents a $103 million commitment. The coalition government promised that we would deliver the roads of the 21st century; that we would be an infrastructure government. I am very pleased to report that, in Solomon, we are doing exactly that.

It is not just in constructing world-class road infrastructure that the coalition government is making life easier for people in the Top End. We are also doing our very best to drive down the cost of petrol. Darwin and Palmerston motorists—and, indeed, all Territorians—have being paying far too much for petrol for far too long. At its worst, someone filling-up in my electorate would pay probably 30 cents per litre more than a driver in Sydney. That is an extra $18 on every 60 litre tank of fuel. A forum convened by the Northern Territory government had an immediate impact by reducing prices by a few cents a litre, but Territorians are still paying too much.

That is why I was delighted to hear the news last week that the ACCC is to undertake an unprecedented investigation into the fuel price in Darwin. Under its new powers, the ACCC will break down each element of the supply chain to determine where it is going so badly wrong for Territory motorists and to see what can be done. And I would like to place on record my thanks to all the Territorians who got involved in the campaign to get the ACCC to come to Darwin and investigate. It is a true sign that people power actually works.

A fortnight ago I was also delighted to announce to my electorate that a proposal for an $18 million joint defence logistics facility at Darwin's East Arm Warf is being investigated by the Public Works Committee, and I am hoping to have their sign-off very soon. This facility, including barge ramps, staging areas and supporting infrastructure, will give the Navy the ability to operate their new helicopter, and to dock ships and amphibious vessels out of Darwin harbour. It will also be available to commercial operators such as the Top End's transport, fishing, oil and gas operations, and pearling fleets. This is another big win for Darwin and Palmerston. A facility of this scale will mean jobs in the construction phase, ongoing civilian and military jobs to run the facility, and a boost to the industries which will use this area.

Another thing that I have talked about many times in this House is the Palmerston hospital. Throughout my 2010 election campaign and my first term in office, I fought hard for the people of Palmerston to get a hospital. Northern Territory Labor had 11 years in office, and federal Labor, as we know, had six years through the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era, and in that time they could have built a hospital. Throughout this time, though, the only progress towards a Palmerston hospital was a temporary fence erected around a small bush block on Palmerston's fringe—hardly something that I would call progress.

I can tell you that works are now well underway upgrading infrastructure around a larger site in the area to accommodate a major new full-service hospital at Palmerston. The roads, intersections, traffic signals and paths in the area are already in the process of being upgraded and planning for the hospital itself is well underway. There is room for the hospital to grow, which was always the Country Liberals plan: to build a hospital that is going to grow with the community.

Labor were aiming to underdeliver. It was a box-ticking exercise for them. They were aiming to build a small hospital on a small block, with no room for growth, in the fastest growing city in Australia. And they could not even manage that!

As I said, during the six years in the federal government and 11 years in the Territory government Labor managed to deliver only a temporary fence around three hectares of bush. Thanks for nothing!

When complete, the new Palmerston Regional Hospital will be the first facility of its kind built in the Northern Territory for more than 40 years. The coalition is delivering a level 3 facility, meaning it will offer a 24-hour accident and emergency department, as well as general medicine, surgery, maternity and children's services. The hospital will have a full-support service, including pathology and pharmaceutical services. The Palmerston Regional Hospital will complement the service already offered by the Royal Darwin Hospital, the Northern Territory's only level 6 facility.

The Northern Territory Minister for Health, John Elferink, along with my Palmerston Territory colleagues Lia Finnachiaro, member for Drysdale; Peter Chandler, Minister for Infrastructure; and Nathan Barrett, member for Blain and I are all absolutely united in our drive to deliver a new hospital for Palmerston and the Greater Darwin area.

Minister Elferink will be here this week, meeting with our new federal health minister, Minister Ley, and me, to update us on the Palmerston hospital, because there are some mistruths being spread by those opposite.

Mr Frydenberg: Very unusual!

Mrs GRIGGS: I know it is very unusual, Assistant Treasurer, for those opposite to spread mistruths! But, in this case, they are. The coalition government is not the only organisation investing in Northern Australia. Private enterprise is flourishing under this 'open for business' government. New industrial and commercial areas are springing up throughout the Top End.

Perhaps the best example of this is the beef industry. After Labor's disastrous knee-jerk decision to ban live animal export, the Territory's cattle industry was absolutely crippled. Many farmers and agribusinesses were bankrupted. There were some terrible stories which I know you, Deputy Speaker Scott, are aware of.

However, just south of Darwin, the Australian Agricultural Company has invested $90 million in a new beef-processing facility. I, along with the Prime Minister, was delighted to attend the opening of this facility just a few weeks ago.

Compare and contrast: under Labor, an entire industry and a sizeable chunk of the Northern Territory economy was deliberately crippled in one fell swoop. Now, 18 months into a coalition government, we have a diversified industry: live cattle and boxed beef, attracting major investment. So what has changed? The government. Under the coalition, stability has returned. Free trade agreements with Korea, Japan and China are opening up economic opportunity for Australian businesses. This means that our agricultural, mining and service industries in the Top End now have access to huge new markets.

The China free trade agreement alone will drop or eliminate tariffs on exported products, including live animals, beef, hides, skins and leather. This agreement will give Australian exporters unprecedented levels of market access to the world's second largest economy, with a population of 1.36 billion and a rapidly growing middle class. This will mean greater economic growth, more jobs and higher living standards for those households across the country but particularly those in Darwin and Palmerston.

Free trade agreements will provide a range of new opportunities for our service providers—everything from legal services, financial services, education, tourism, agriculture, architecture, urban planning and transport, and many more.

In summary, the people of the Top End bore the brunt of Labor's incompetence. It is a great honour to stand here as part of the coalition government to report that things are getting better. Job creation is running at three times the rate it was under Labor. Job ads growth is currently at 13.6 per cent so that is 585 jobs a day.

The Australian Stock Exchange is sitting at a six-year high. Thousands of pages of unnecessary red tape have been slashed. The carbon tax is gone, the mining tax is gone and the boats have stopped. (Time expired)

Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (16:20): It is an honour to speak today on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2014-2015 and cognate bills. Given the wide-ranging nature of the debate, I want to focus on an issue of paramount importance to not only my electorate of Deakin and the state of Victoria but, increasingly, all Australians and that is the progress of Melbourne's East West Link. I refer to the abysmal way in which that project is now, purportedly, being handled by the state Labor government and, unfortunately, the way in which that project is being treated by the Leader of the Opposition, given some comments that he made earlier today, which I will refer to a little bit later on.

For those who do not know, the East West Link is the most important infrastructure project, in recent memory, in Melbourne. It is a cross-city link that will basically enable the free flow of traffic from, as the title would suggest, the east to the west of Melbourne, saving commuters in my electorate of Deakin and, indeed, all throughout Melbourne, up to three hours of travel time a week, enabling the free flow of goods from our major port to the eastern suburbs and indeed the western suburbs of Melbourne and also the free flow of all goods between small businesses operating in Melbourne. So it is, absolutely, a productivity-enhancing piece of infrastructure. It is also a piece of infrastructure that will improve the lives of Melburnians who are living in an ever congested city. With a population set to grow quite significantly in the years to come, quite frankly, it is a project that will be catching up on work that should have been done previously.

I was very fortunate to be able to secure $1½ billion before the last election for stage 1 of the East West Link, which was really the federal contribution that unlocked the ability of that project to happen. We were then able to secure an additional $1½ billion before the election for stage 2 of the East West Link. So, $3 billion of federal funding was committed to ensure that this transformational infrastructure project could go ahead. On the basis of that very generous commitment, the former state government committed, with a consortium, to proceed with the project.

Where we are now is that the project is shovel ready, it is fully funded with contributions committed from the federal and former state governments and, obviously, from private operators. The problem is now, though, that the state Labor Party is committing to tear up the contracts and potentially open up Victorian taxpayers to hundreds of millions of dollars—if not over $1 billion—of compensation not to build the East West Link. It is quite extraordinary. We now have a state Labor government which has said, 'No thank you. We don't want the $3 billion the federal government's committed to the East West Link. And not only are we going to say we don't want the $3 billion commitment, we're actually going to cancel the contract that we said before the election wasn't worth the paper it was written on. We know that was a lie. But we will cancel a contract and pay potentially over $1 billion not to build the East West Link, a piece of infrastructure that the Labor Party has championed for many years, all the way back to 2008.'

In the submissions to the 2008 Eddington review, which was commissioned by the former state Labor Party under John Brumby, there was a very good submission from the Australian Workers Union. The key submitter here was Bill Shorten, the National Secretary. They absolutely supported the East West Link and said it was crucial to the future development of Victoria and was key to the economic prosperity of Victorians.

Mr Frydenberg: I thought he was against it!

Mr SUKKAR: Bill Shorten, the now Leader of the Opposition was right when he said that. But after he entered parliament in 2008, when he was the member for Maribyrnong, he co-signed another submission, to the East West Transport Options Review, again supporting the East West Link, saying that he and the other members that wrote the submission support a cross-city road link from the western suburbs to the Eastern Freeway. That is called the East West Link.

But, quite extraordinarily, I have been waiting for this moment for a while, because we all know the bumbling Leader of the Opposition just bloviates and waffles and pulls up pointless historical references—as we all heard on John Faine last week—and basically gets through interviews without saying a thing. He has done that on half a dozen occasions, but today he let the cat out of the bag. Finally, he got pinned down to giving an answer. The question asked by a reporter was: 'So, do you support the building of the East West Link? You've written two submissions previously broadly supporting Sir Rod Eddington. Do you now support the building of the East West Link?' Given the Leader of the Opposition has supported it twice, as correctly referenced by that reporter, and given that he is a man of such conviction who never really changes his mind—he is not known for changing his mind very often—I was wondering what the answer would be. This was his answer: 'No, not in the current circumstances.'

So there we have it. Mark it in the diary. Today is the day that Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, notwithstanding his previous strong support for the East West Link, is giving Daniel Andrews and the state Labor Party permission to trash Victoria's economic reputation and ruin the development of Victoria by tearing up the East West Link contracts. I held very slim hopes for the Leader of the Opposition, because you may not have picked up from my comments when I said he does not change his mind very often that I really had my tongue in my cheek when I said that. We all know that he does change his mind on a far-too-regular basis. Just ask Kevin Rudd or Julia Gillard. I was hoping he would pick up the phone to Dan Andrews and say, 'Dan, this is not just a Victorian problem.' Victoria is an economic powerhouse in this country. It represents 25 per cent of the Australian economy. If a state Labor Party is going to trash the economic reputation of the state government and the state in its entirety, this has flow-on implications for the rest of Australia, and for that reason I thought the Leader of the Opposition would do the right thing and pick up the phone and tell him to change this outrageous proposal to cancel the East West Link contract.

But it actually gets worse, because now the state Labor Party is saying that in order to get out of possible compensation that will be payable—potentially over $1 billion—they may legislate to cancel any damages claim that the consortium may have. So we have got the first lie, and that lie was that this contract is not worth the paper it was written on. That is what the state Labor Party said. That is what the Leader of the Opposition supported before the Victorian state election. When that was proven to be a complete falsehood and compensation is definitely payable and most likely over $1 billion, the state Labor Party have said that they are actively considering legislating to ensure no compensation is payable. This has sent shock waves through the investment community, including not only through those investors in Australia but also through international investors. A very reputable publication, Infrastructure Investor, had a front page just a couple of weeks ago. The headline to the article referencing Dan Andrews and the state Labor Party and now the Leader of the Opposition and all of the Labor opposition was: 'Can Australia be taken at its word?'

The first line of the article says: 'Retrospective legislation—two words designed to send shivers down the spine of infrastructure investors following the post crisis solar PV debacle in Spain.' The solar PV debacle in Spain was just another example of a government retrospectively legislating away previous commitments it had made, previous contractual arrangements it had made. The article went on to say this: 'So why would any other country even think about following suit today? And, more to the point, what would the world's leading infrastructure market think about it? Those questions are being directed with increasing frequency at Daniel Andrews, Premier of the Australian state of Victoria.' So we now have reputable publications around the world highlighting that the market and investors whom Australia relies upon for a lot of our development—in particular, our infrastructure development—will not want to touch Australia with a 10-foot pole if the environment is such that a contract legally entered into in good faith is cancelled by an incoming government.

I can assure members opposite that, every time a coalition government takes power, there is a hell of a lot of stuff that we would love to cancel—because we always inherit an absolute mess. In my state of Victoria we inherited a white elephant desalination plant. It is costing us millions of dollars a day and not even a drop of water is coming out of it. We inherited the myki ticketing system on our public transport system which, frankly, is moribund. But so much money was invested in those things that it was not prudent, not in the interests of taxpayers, for those contracts to be cancelled. So we did not cancel them—even though, to our core, we dislike those projects.

But here we have got a project which in addition to the time savings for commuters will also create nearly 7,000 jobs during the construction phase. It will be the economic shot in the arm Victoria needs. Victoria cannot afford to say: 'Thanks but no thanks; we don't want 7,000 construction jobs.' But that is what the state Labor government is doing and that is what the federal Leader of the Opposition has today endorsed. So we are now in a situation where we are absolutely on the edge of it. I know there are a lot of Labor Party people who are shaking their heads at the thought that they would trash Victoria's reputation like this. I appeal to those few sensible people in the Labor Party to speak to Dan Andrews and the federal Leader of the Opposition and tell them this would be an absolutely disastrous decision for the Victorian economy.

I would also recommend that everybody get behind our campaign. Recently we launched the Build the Link campaign—at buildthelink.com.au—and we got nearly 40,000 signatures in a couple weeks. The reception from the electorate has been absolutely extraordinary. Victorians want the East West Link. They absolutely weep at the thought that the disgraceful Labor Party would spend over $1 billion of taxpayers money not to build a piece of infrastructure that is going to future-proof our city. We are already congested and Victoria is projected to grow quite significantly over the next five to 10 years. This is going to affect the lives of everybody, not just the people in my electorate of Deakin. Sure, the people in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne will be hit hardest. We will be the ones who pay the best price for Labor trying to win over a few inner-city Greens voters. I say to the Labor Party: don't look at the inner-city Greens voters as your core constituency, look at what is right for all voters—and that includes people who live in the outer eastern suburbs of Melbourne. I say to Bill Shorten and Dan Andrews: walk away from this ridiculous position and build the East West Link.

Mr BALDWIN (Paterson—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) (16:35): I rise today to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2014-2015 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2014-2015. These bills seek approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the ordinary annual services of the government. I am pleased to speak on the appropriation bills today because they help provide a road map that aids us in achieving sensible, responsible budgetary measures. I note that standing order 76( c) provides that, when we are debating appropriation bills, members of parliament are able to speak freely about issues in their electorate. When considering these bills, I think about the concerns and funding needs in my electorate of Paterson.

Our future depends upon what we as a nation do today. Every generation before us has contributed to the quality of life that we enjoy so much today. Our nation's prosperity is not just a matter of luck. Prosperity needs to be earned; it should never be taken for granted. It is our turn to build, it is our turn to contribute, so that the generations to come may enjoy a prosperous quality of life. As 2015 has well and truly commenced, I am looking forward with renewed vigour, energy and enthusiasm to working with my coalition colleagues to produce real outcomes as we continue to build a strong and more prosperous economy for a safe and secure Australia.

I want to take this opportunity to update the House and my constituents of Paterson on what action has been recently taken to advance their cause, as we have recently seen some great outcomes in my electorate and, indeed, across the Hunter. I am absolutely pleased to report on a number of road and infrastructure projects that are taking place within the electorate of Paterson. I know that the government had a clear mandate prior to the 2013 election, and this mandate was to reduce road fatalities, to make our roads safer, and to increase the efficiency and ease of use of our roads and our motorways, in particular for road freight and traffic movement.

I am proud to announce that the coalition government is delivering on this promise. One such example is through $325,000 of federal funding to update Woerdens Road Bridge near Clarence Town in my electorate of Paterson. This funding is part of the government's new Bridges Renewal Program. By way of background, I sat and talked with the Mayor of Dungog Shire Council, Harold Johnston, and the General Manager, Craig Deasey. We sat down and we had a look at the bridge that was there. It was an old bridge. It was in tatters. It was unsafe, and it was actually propped up with a temporary bridge structure that they had bought from an army disposal. This funding of $325,000 will go towards the cost of replacing this bridge, which will provide certainty of access for the farmers and the community there. And it is good that that temporary bridge structure will now be moved to support another failing bridge. More work needs to be done, and I make the minister aware and I warn that I will be knocking on his door regularly, seeking funds to help repair and rebuild bridges in my electorate.

We have also seen a great example of the fusion of council and the federal government, coming together to develop infrastructure projects that will benefit the community. Recently we committed $28.5 million, matched by proponents, to 29 projects across New South Wales as a part of round 1 of the Bridges Renewal Program. This coalition government has also recently delivered $100,000 to fix an extremely dangerous black spot within my electorate through the government's Black Spot Program. The intersection of Head Street and West Street in Forster has been in dire need of urgent attention for years. The dangerous intersection has seen six accidents—sadly including one fatality—and three injury crashes in the five years to June 2012. This upgrade will see the installation of a concrete median island and signage on both sides of West Street at the intersection, reducing the risks of accidents. This is all about putting safety first. The additional works on the existing narrow concrete median and the line marking on Head Street will increase lane width for vehicles turning right from Head Street into West Street.

This funding follows a number of funding packages in the past year for my electorate of Paterson to upgrade roads, to ensure that my constituents have safer, better driving conditions and to make travelling around my electorate much easier and, as I said, much safer. Last year, $265,774 was allocated for Phoenix Park Road in Maitland; $350,000 was allocated for the Pacific Highway from Gates Road to Swan Bay Road, as there were eight dangerous crashes on this stretch of road in the five years prior to 2012. There was $195,943 for Maitland Vale Road and Melville Ford Road, as there was 2.2 kilometres of road along this stretch that caused six serious injury crashes in the five years to 2012. There was $100,000 for Gresford Road, as there have been, in tragic circumstances, one fatal crash and two serious injuries on this stretch of road.

I know that more work needs to be done. I know how hard it is for councils to fund roadwork, and I am sure that this federal government will, in the process of time, provide much needed support to upgrade these roads. But these funding announcements are on top of the $13.8 million that was announced by the Deputy Prime Minister through the Roads to Recovery funding. The $13.8 million is to give councils in my electorate the discretion to use that money based on local needs—to ensure that this funding was directed to where it was most needed within our community. I am proud to report that Paterson electorate has received a 22.31 per cent increase in funding under the Roads to Recovery program since between 2009 and 2014, an increase on what was outlined under the previous, Labor government. I am amazed that they could spend so much money and create so much debt and deficit and not deliver road infrastructure projects to my constituency. The 22.31 per cent increase is a welcome injection of funds into roads and infrastructure in Paterson, and it is necessary to ensure upgrades to our rural and regional roads and bridges to make them just a bit safer and a bit better.

Under the Roads to Recovery program the Dungog Shire Council received $2.4 million. Great Lakes Council received $4.5 million. Maitland City Council received over $3.5 million, and Port Stephens Council received $3.2 million. I have also campaigned hard for upgrades to the Tourle Street Bridge. Although I note that this bridge falls outside my electorate, it directly services the thousands of my constituents who utilise it and commute daily into Newcastle for work, study at the schools and universities, or for leisure and recreation. The $51.9 million that has been allocated to the Tourle Street Bridge under the infrastructure and investments program is being matched by the New South Wales coalition government, and I congratulate them for that.

I want to point out that the members opposite will try and say that this funding was always going to be matched by Labor, but this is grossly untrue. It is grossly untrue because Labor's so-called commitment was predicated on a mining tax—a mining tax to fund a bridge; a mining tax that delivered little or no revenue. How were they going to fund these projects when, indeed, there was no revenue from a mining tax? The mining tax was a poorly conceived tax that actually stymied investment in the industries that support my electorate so well. This $51.9 million, promised and being delivered by the coalition government, is based on real dollars for this project—not whimsical promises based on non-performing and burdening taxes. Under Labor's reign, road funding in my electorate eroded and the people needed affirmative action—not spin and news articles, but real action and real dollars—delivered on roads. It was time for the rubber to hit the road. I am proud of these funding announcements, as they demonstrate that the Australian government's focus is not just city centric, but that this government is committed to upgrading regional and rural roads and infrastructure. Each of these funding announcements are in direct action to the mandate given by my constituents to target road upgrades to save lives and reduce road trauma.

I am also pleased to update my constituency on projects that pertain to my portfolio as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment. I welcomed the announcement that my electorate of Paterson will be hosting four new projects under round two of the government's Green Army program. I am passionate about the Green Army, as I was of the previous Green Corps, and about these recent developments for two main reasons. Firstly, my electorate of Paterson features some of the most beautiful coastlines, rivers, creeks, forests and national parks in New South Wales, if not Australia. I, like all of my constituents, want to only see this natural beauty preserved, developed and maintained.

Secondly, I see that the Green Army provides opportunities for young Australians aged 17 to 24 to gain training and experience in environmental and conservation fields and explore careers and future studies in conservation management, while participating in projects that generate real benefits for the Australian environment and their communities. It is a win-win. I see this as a great fusion of educating and providing practical, hands-on experience for the next generation with fostering and cultivating our existing and fragile beauty.

In round two of the Green Army projects being rolled out in my electorate, Minister Hunt announced $11,000 for habitat regeneration at Clarence Town wetlands, the ex-pony club and Wharf Reserve to reverse years of neglect and environmental degradation; $10,000 for Caring for the Dungog Common Recreation Reserve to protect and preserve the locally listed eucalyptus glaucina through weed removal; $10,000 for Enhancing Littoral Rainforest Connectivity and Wallis Lake Clean-up Project; and $9,560 for Living in Harmony with Nature for the Port Stephens Koala Corridor Restoration to protect and enhance habitat vital to the survival of our koala population in Port Stephens. That does not sound like a lot of money, but each of these projects is backed up by over $190,000 in wages, support and training. That money I announced was for the capital aspect of the project; there is more to it.

This is very welcome funding that will help young people in Paterson to be a part of an outcome that directly benefits our community and delivers important local conservation outcomes. I look forward to visiting and meeting with these teams and observing and monitoring the results through the six-month program. I welcome and encourage applications within my electorate and, indeed, from across Australia for round three of the Green Army projects, which are now open until tomorrow, 17 March 2015.

I am also proud to announce that the Myall River, Corrie Island and Jimmy's Beach in New South Wales—which are in my electorate, around the Port Stephens area—will benefit from $750,000 as part of the Australian government's National Landcare Program, which is being matched by $743,000 from the NSW government's Coastal Management Program. That is part of $3.1 million project that is supported by Great Lakes Council to dredge the channel at Corrie Island. Importantly, it is to rehabilitate, provide restoration and get rid of feral animals that have been going across because of the siltation that has occurred, which are affecting this Ramsar wetland. This is a complete package that will deliver for the long-term. It is placing much-needed dredging infrastructure in on a permanent basis to help rehabilitate Jimmy's Beach. It will also provide protection for Corrie Island.

I congratulate the Myall River Action Group on their work in bringing this project to fruition. This area around Winda Woppa and Jimmy's Beach has some of the worst erosion issues in Australia. The siltation of the channel near Corrie Island has had a very detrimental effect to the health of the whole Myall lakes and river system because of the lack of flows. It will also provide a great benefit for tourism in my electorate, as constituents and businesses alike will be able to safely navigate these waterways. Again, I congratulate the Myall River Action Group.

Time limits me from being able to speak about the many more projects that have been delivered. I want to give this commitment to my constituency: while each and every one of those projects may not be able to be spoken about in parliament because of my restricted speaking abilities as a parliament secretary—which means I do no adjournment debates, et cetera—I want to assure my constituency that I have no shortage of time for them. I am knocking on ministers' doors, demanding that their projects be funded and putting forward the best case. I will continue to do that, as I have done in the past, because I believe I am fortunate to represent the very best area in Australia with the very best people. They deserve the best of representation.

Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson—The Nationals Deputy Whip) (16:50): I rise to speak on Appropriation (No. 3) Bill 2014-2015, Appropriation (No. 4) Bill 2014-2015 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) (No. 2) Bill 2014-2015. When this government was elected, the people delivered to Canberra a very clear request to do a number of things. These things were spelt out clearly in the Liberal-National campaign. We were going to stop the boats, axe the carbon tax, scrap the mining tax and clean up Labor's mess. After just one year, the Liberal-National government has already put runs on the board with those issues: the boats have stopped and people have stopped drowning at sea; the carbon tax is gone and families are saving on their power bills; the mining tax is gone, making Australia less risky for business investment; and the clean-up of Labor's debt and deficit disaster is ongoing.

The scale of Labor of the mess left behind cannot be overestimated. The 2015 Intergenerational report: Australia in 2055 forecasts that Australia's net debt position under Labor's policies would put us in the same league as Greece and Japan and worse than Italy, France, the UK, the United States, Spain, Germany, Canada, Korea, the Netherlands and New Zealand. Those countries were already carrying enormous debt levels seven years ago. That was at a time when Australia had zero net debt and a time before Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard got their hands on the public purse strings—and not to forget the member for Lilley.

It was clear during that Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era that Labor set the debt levels of Greece as their target. But just as worrying as their waste on the spending side of the budget was a determined undermining of the economy on the revenue side. Labor's reign weakened our economy, and their allegiance with the Greens, in particular, attacked jobs.

A key focus for t he Liberal-National g overnment now is to rebuild the economy and to create the jobs that families need to put food on the table and that the government needs to fund services. In his address to the National Press Club last month, the Prime Minister said:

During 2015, our priority will be creating more jobs; easing the pressure on families; building roads; strengthening national security; and promo ting more opportunity for all— with a new families policy and a new small business and jobs policy.

To create more jobs and more opportunities for families, the Prime Minister said we must build a stronger economy. He said a stronger economy would provide a foundation for a stronger Austral ia, make everyone's life better and help everyone who is doing it tough. That includes:

parents wrestling with school fees and health costs;

small business people anxious to keep their staff;

seniors whose superannuation has to fund their retirement;

volunteers wondering if they can still afford to serve the community; and

young people looking for their first job and their first home.

In North Queensland we are witnessing first hand the effects of putting politics ahead of the needs of ordinary Australians. At a time when we have seen thousands of jobs disappear from the mining sector, we have seen the extreme green movement actively campaign against projects that would create in excess of 10,000 jobs for the state of Queensland. The motivation of the se extremists is nothing to do with the Great Barrier Reef, as they often trumpet. T hey have used the reef as a weapon to wage war against coal mining.

This has been especially evident in the ir war against the expansion of the Abbot Point coal terminal near Bowen in my electorate. Even in the lead-up to the 2013 election, the Greens candidate for Dawson admitted that they would not necessarily opp ose the dredging and expansion o f the terminal if—get this!—it was bein g used for agricultural exports rather than coal exports. This wa s at a time when the proposal included disposal of dredged material at sea. So they would not have minded if that had taken place if it was ag exports, but, given that it is coal, they do not want it.

As a result of the extremists' campaign against the port expansion, including delaying the project through many frivolous legal challenges, a different solution was negotiated. The then Liberal-National g overnment in Queensland and the federal Liberal-National Abbott government pu t forward a land based solution which would place dredged material on land adjacent to the current terminal, including on a man-made wetland area . The affected area where the spoil was going to go was around three per cent of the Caley Valley W etland s. I have to say that the Caley Valley W etland s are far from being a century-old pristine wilderness. It was once a dry flat plain before two gun clubs got together in the 1950s and diverted water courses to create a wetland where they could shoot ducks. So s uddenly the Greens were out t here campaigning to save a duck- hunting pond. The Liberal-National g overnment at the time were not going to be fooled by such a ridiculous campaign . We were on the verge of approving the Queensland government 's proposal when the state election happened and the government changed.

The newly elected Labor government in Queensland was immediately fooled by the Greens campaign to save this duck pond and caved into the extreme G reens and their plan to close down coal mining in Queensland . While the Labor Premier claims a victory by moving the dredge spoil location a stone's throw to the left, what she has actually done is reset the clock on this to zero. The move triggers a new application process and is likely to set the project back by another year at a time when the proponents have said extended delays could place this in jeopardy. I note the state development minister Anthony Lynham has said it is going to take six to nine months to get the application through. We simply do not have six to nine months. We probably have six months at best for everything, including the federal approvals, to get out. It will need to happen if this project is to go ahead this year, and there is desperate need for that to happen this year.

Instead of seeing job advertisements going in newspapers this week, we see these 10,000 or perhaps even up to 20,000 jobs put back on the shelf. At stake is not only the port expansion at Abbot Point but also the job-creating coal mines in the Galilee Basin and the rail infrastructure that would link the mines to the port. These are the jobs that were needed last year. They are the jobs t hat would have been created this year if the Greens were not at war with coal mining. As these jobs have gone begging, we have seen dozens of businesses in the town of Bowen close down. We have seen families pack up and leave from Bowen and the Mackay region and from right throughout Central Queensland. And t here will be more to come because, i nstead of jobs being advertised this very week , as they would have been under the LNP, the project is going on hold once more all for the sake of three per cent of the Caley Valley W etland s, which is a man-made duck-hunting area. There was a time when the Labor Party actually stood up for jobs and stood up for workers and that they wanted jobs to be created for working families. But that time looks long gone.

Already, we have seen the evidence that the Queensland Labor government is getting ready to walk away from its commit ment to end 100 per cent fly-in fly-out operations at mines throughout Central Queensland. In the lead-up to the Queensland election campaign, the now Premier put out a policy document clearly promi sing to end 100 per cent fly-in fly-out operations that are killing local communities in the Bowen Basin. One of the Labor Party's commitments in its policy document Strong and S ustainable Resource Communities is this:

Review, within the first 100 days of office, all existing 100% FIFO approvals. Where a mining operation is located near a resource town or regional community, 100% FIFO will not be permitted.

But just four days after the election there were signs that Labor was walking away from that commitment. In a radio 4BC interview with Patrick Condren on 4 February , the now Deputy Premier Jackie Trad said:

Just for clarification it’s 100 percent fly-in fly-out, so it’ll be about new proposals for mines, so it won’t be retrospective.

It will not be retrospective, yet before the election its policy said it would be.

There is no way BMA's current 100 per cent FIFO mines can be seen as anything but located 'near a resource town or regional community'. If a miner living at Moranbah wants to work at the mine just a few minutes up the road from his home, he must go to the Moranbah airport and fly to Brisbane, get off the plane, get on another plane and fly back to the Moranbah airport. That is because the FIFO workers must fly from Brisbane or Cairns to Moranbah. But even that is not allowed, according to current job advertisements.

This morning, jobs were advertised on Seek that were very specific about where you must live to be allowed to apply for the job. There is an advertisement for mining jobs in Mackay and the coalfields, for 'CHPP Operators/ Fixed Plant Fitters'. And here's the kicker:

Please note only those residing within 100kms of Brisbane Airport or Cairns will be considered for these opportunities

Another ad for a job in Mackay and the coalfields is for 'FIFO Document Controllers', with the ad stating:

Must live within 100 kms of Brisbane Airport.

In North and Central Queensland at the moment there is no policy more unpopular that 100 per cent fly-in fly-out. Even the number of people employed on 457 visas has dramatically reduced under the Liberal-National government. When so many in mining communities and the regional service centres are out of work, there should be no requirement for FIFO workers and there should be no requirement for 457 workers in the resource sector.

If employment in North Queensland is to be restored, the radical green movement, which has hijacked the environment to fight a socialist cause, must be exposed for what it truly is. Governments must see through the lies and deception and concentrate on delivering for families, and that starts with employment creation, with industry, with jobs. We cannot give in to the Greens and their anti-nuclear power stance, as the Queensland Labor government did last week when they declared a ban on uranium mining in the state. Uranium mining is just one more industry that should be a part of the mix for growth in North Queensland.

As a member of the committee inquiring into the development of Northern Australia, I was privileged to visit many parts of the northern half of the continent where potential job-creating projects and development opportunities are going begging. Sometimes they are blocked for environmental reasons. While I support environmental regulation where it is appropriate, at times you have to say that it is highly inappropriate and counterproductive.

In the Burdekin, in my electorate, an aquaculture project was stalled because of ridiculous environmental regulations. A new prawn farm proposed to extract water from the Great Barrier Reef lagoon to feed into ponds. The water would be treated so that it would be a higher quality than the original water and then put back out into the lagoon. So the water would be cleaner going back out than when it came in. But the environmental regulations do not allow it.

There are also environmental regulations that prevent a new industry in the Whitsundays—the superyacht industry. The regulations apply to boats larger than a certain size, despite the fact that smaller boats, laden with tourists, have a far greater impact on the marine environment. The superyachts would carry only a handful of passengers but would make enormous contributions to the local economy in terms of jobs and revenue. A local, Paul Darrouzet, from Abell Point Marina, explained to me that every week one of these superyachts is in dock $50,000 is injected into the local economy. In Noumea, I understand the average stay for a superyacht is a week or more, and they have 200 visits a year—a $10 million boost to their economy that could be coming into the Whitsundays. But, because of environmental regulations, they cannot come.

These are industries the government should be supporting. These are job-creating industries that you would expect to be supported by any party that supports workers in Australia. It is vital to encourage new industry and also to support the industries our nation was built on. It is not government that creates jobs; it is business that creates jobs. But government needs to do whatever it can to help businesses employ people and to keep the doors open—even the doors to the farmhouse.

In North Queensland, the biggest concern for sugar growers at the moment is their relationship with their mill. Since Wilmar announced that the sugar they milled would be withdrawn from the marketing process undertaken by QSL, growers have voiced concerns to me about losing their right to have a say in how their sugar is marketed. I am currently chairing a government task force looking at the need for a code of conduct in the sugar industry. If we do not stand up for the long-term viability of farmers today, there will not be any farmers tomorrow. We need to do whatever we can to lower their costs. The cost of electricity for those farmers in sugar and horticulture is spiralling out of control. Families also face cost-of-living issues with electricity, child care, and an issue specific to the North: insurance. The government is working on these issues because balancing the household budget is as important as balancing the national budget. We are enabling business to create jobs and we are building a stronger Australia.

Mr BROAD (Mallee) (17:05): At the heart of good government is good financial management. The challenge we always have in this place is to turn what we believe into reality. It is easy to stand by and say, 'I believe in free education for all.' I have heard that said by some in this place. It is another thing to say, 'I believe in universal health cover.' These are wonderful things—they are wonderful things to believe in, and it is good to have beliefs and dreams. But what separates the boys from the men in this place is the decisions we make. Talking about appropriations bills really heightens this, because they are about the decisions we make. It is very easy to have dreams; it is a lot harder to take those dreams and turn them into reality.

I fear that we have not taken Australian people on the journey, like we should have done. Perhaps that is an overhang of our history. If you think back in recent history to 1992, when Australia had the recession it had to have, people felt the pain of bad economic management—the difficult times when houses were repossessed, when people lost their jobs, when there was high unemployment. When it came into power in 1996, the Howard government presented a rather disciplined and tough budget, but people accepted it because they could understand that there had to be tough choices made. They accepted that a parliament needs to make tough choices—choices that are not always universally popular.

Contrast that with the scenario in 2007, when the world went through a global financial crisis, which was largely driven by people living beyond their means across the world—people had high personal debts. The government of the day attempted to stimulate the economy by moving private debt into public debt, and the borrowings of the country were substantially increased. They threw money around; I got the $900 cheque, as many other people did, including a few dead people—at least they probably could not cash their cheque. The government attempted to stimulate the economy by moving things into public debt, and we now find ourselves with a substantial public debt of $320 billion. But we do not have an Australian population who was put on the journey, though they have lived through the consequences of those decisions. We are trying to say to the Australian people that we need to tighten our belts and that we need to live within our means because at the heart of good governance is good financial management.

We believe in quite a number of things in this parliament. We believe in creating opportunities for our children to make sure that they can access good primary education, secondary education and good higher education, but we have to make tough decisions about how we afford that. We believe that a strong society looks after those who are unwell, but we have to fund that. What separates us from the other side is that we are putting forward scenarios and suggestions and ideas on how to do that in a sustainable fashion. We also believe in good aged care. I think those who have worked all their lives, who have been valued and have contributed to the Australian economy—if they are unable, through their own means, to pay for their retirement—we need to make sure that they are not on the poverty line. We are putting forward suggestions on how to address that—difficult suggestions so that our welfare and pension remain viable, ongoing and sustainable. The greatest thing you can give to a senior Australian is surety that the pension will go into their bank book every fortnight. It is these things that separate us.

It is easy to talk about what you believe in, but it is harder to talk about what you are going to do about it. This appropriation bill is quite important to me, because it allows about $90 million for agricultural concessional loans. It is appropriate that our food producers, who contribute so much to the Australian economy, have a government that stands by them in difficult times. They usually ask very little. I know even in my electorate in a good year they would produce $5.3 billion worth of economic activity to the Australian economy. What we have proposed is some low-interest loans of $30 million. The advantage of offering low-interest loans is that it introduces some competitive tension with their existing finances. In the past some banks were inclined to put the penalty interest rate up in order to mitigate the risk and the outworking of that was that the interest rate became even more burdensome for the business going through a difficult time. A low-interest loan affords us the opportunity to say to a farmer that there are other options, and it also puts less pressure on the banks to put penalty rates up.

As well as running a strong, robust economy, we are also building. It is also important that the government has a role in growing the economy and in looking at ways that we can achieve growth so that we can ultimately set ourselves up for prosperity. Even in my electorate in the last 18 months, we have received over $297 million of additional federal investments. There is the $103 million of federal money for the Sunraysia Modernisation Project—a project that will revolutionise agriculture in a horticultural region and that has the potential to export to the world with the additional free trade agreements that we have developed and achieved. We have to take the next step of getting the protocols right, so producers can access those markets. The Sunraysia Modernisation Project has largely been built by local contractors. We have seen $4 million to upgrade to the Henty Highway and $5.6 million to upgrade to the Western Highway. We have opened trade training centres to harness the potential of our young students and give them the skills to build productivity. We have given additional money to local councils for Roads to Recovery—doubling that money in fact in the 2015-16 financial year.

I am a strong believer in practical environmentalism—environmentalism where young Australians can experience the environment and where their love of the environment is fostered by doing something. My passion that comes from my farming background. When you walk around the farm, you have time to think; you have less noise; you can hear the birds tweet in the trees. It makes you realise just how special the Australian ecosystem is—very unique. Having Green Army projects that take our young Australians and give them those opportunities to identify a scar tree or the type of grass or to understand the difference between a eucalypt and a wattle; to understand birdlife and to understand why, for example, carp do so much damage to the Murray system, whereas Murray cod do so much good. It has been a good project.

We have announced money for a Headspace, not only for Swan Hill, but also for Mildura and Horsham. Headspace centres show we stand by young Australians as they experience the struggles of life. We have seen rollouts of NBN in the Wimmera, Mildura and Kerang. We are providing Safe Haven Enterprise Visas to give opportunities to people who come into our communities to work. We have upgraded Longerenong College—$2 million in partnership with the state government to invest in the skill set of our food producers into the future. So—amongst the difficult budget—we are doing a lot of things. To continue on with the list: we have committed to building an overtaking lane between Red Cliffs and Ouyen to make it safer for people to drive on the roads; and we have invested in tourism, with $1.86 million for the Heartbeat of the Murray Experience.

My great dream is that more Australians will come to my part of the world—because it is simply a beautiful part of the world to come to—and not only that, but that they will come and spend time: to the port of Echuca; to then move their way on to Swan Hill and the pioneer settlement, where they can understand the trials and tribulations and value of our history; and to see the Heartbeat of the Murray while they are there—which is going to be a great laser light show on water; and that they will then to continue on to Robinvale, the sister city of Villers-Bretonneux—which will be particularly relevant in three years' time, when we celebrate the struggles of Australians at Villers-Bretonneux at Anzac Day Centenary events in 2017; and then continue on to Mildura, which is the mecca of great food. So we have invested in that tourism route. We have also provided cheap energy. We have committed to a natural gas pipeline in Robinvale, Swan Hill and Kerang; something that was raised with me on behalf of business. I know there is some argy-bargy—is gas going to be cheap?—but if you can provide gas—an energy source—with our food production, it then facilitates secondary business. We have made it easier for business by repealing the carbon tax—something we said we would do and something we have delivered on. And we are also valuing our culture with the Anzac Centenary Local Grants Program: a great program that has also given us the opportunity to restore some of the memorial plaques in our country halls, and to educate schoolkids and inspire them about the sacrifices of so many before us.

We were also very blessed last Thursday to have the Prime Minister of Australia, Tony Abbott, come to the electorate of Mallee. In my understanding, it is the first time a Prime Minister has visited the electorate of Mallee in over 32 years, with the last to visit being Malcolm Fraser. It was nice that the Prime Minister came, but what was more important was that he came with money! He came with $1 million to commit to the $1 million that the community is raising—and hopefully the state government will commit another $1 million—to build an oncology wing to look after people with cancer. In fact, I have to say the Prime Minister did commit $1 million, and also $100—because I gave $1,000 of my money, and that kind of shamed him into having to reach into his own wallet and pull out two $50 notes and chuck them in the tin as well. That is all he had in his wallet—I can verify that he did give every last cent that he had on him at the time. So that is the way to get some additional funds out of a prime minister!

At the heart of good government is good financial management: we are doing this. We are slowly but surely offering up suggestions about how to tackle the hard decisions—to make our economy and to make our society great. It disappoints me at times that those hard decisions and ideas which we put forward are not given time to be considered by the opposition before they are just dead against them. It is perhaps a utopian dream that we should consider ideas and listen to one another a little bit more, rather than being dead against them. I know that if Labor were in government, there would be real soul-searching as to how they, too, would go about making the tough decisions that have to be made. The future is determined by the decisions we make. The decisions we make are certainly an outworking of the beliefs which we have but, ultimately, it is the decisions that define us.

The future for the Mallee electorate is pretty good, I think. We have free trade agreements that create opportunity. We need to turn the opportunity into reality. Today, I have written to the Prime Minister outlining that, whilst Andrew Robb is leading the way and opening up these great opportunities, we also need to be resourcing someone—as assistant minister, or certainly someone in the department—to make sure that we can turn the opportunities into realities. How do we work with small business people who want to export, and help them to become exporters? I think our free trade agreements are good. I think our liveability in the regions is great. I think we have great opportunities for those people who want to realise their assets—and who are in capital cities which might be a little bit congested with traffic; the region might be reasonably well-priced for those people to come and shift to our region: we can use your skills—and the weather is warmer, so it is better for your arthritis!—and there are some great golf courses. We can have you in our country area.

We are what we believe, but we are defined by the choices we make. Our government is prepared to make the tough choices—sometimes the unpopular choices—to set up Australia's prosperity in the future. When our performance review comes up at the next election, I think Australians will consider that, and will look favourably upon us.

Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (17:20): It is a great pleasure to rise to speak on these appropriation bills. Today, I want to focus in my contribution on the many job creation programs and initiatives that our government is rolling out in Corangamite and across the Geelong region. Our government proudly has a very strong focus on job creation: front and centre in reflecting that focus is the commitment of the Australian Bureau of Statistics to an ARC Centre of Excellence that will be commencing operations in Geelong next year, with 250 jobs coming to Geelong. This is particularly significant because it stems from a review of the Victorian economy, chaired by industry & science minister Ian Macfarlane, that was established in the wake of the announcement of the end of car manufacturing in this country. The review identified a number of different initiatives including asking how we as a government can work with communities around Australia, including in my electorate of Corangamite, to create the jobs of the future—not the bandaid solutions that we saw under so many of the programs delivered by Labor.

A great example is the money that was given to Alcoa. Very sadly for our town, Alcoa is closing its operations in Point Henry. This is causing enormous distress and concern amongst many families in Geelong. But we are focused on the long-term solutions. We are focused on creating long-term jobs—not on band-aid solutions, not on giving money here, not on giving money there, but on building a strong and prosperous economy. We are investing in businesses, because let us not forget that 80 per cent of our economy is driven by private enterprise. Unless we support businesses—small, medium and large—we will not see those jobs generated.

The ABS Centre of Excellence is one of the initiatives identified by the review panel. It is a great opportunity to bring part of this agency to Geelong. It will be based at Deakin University on the waterfront and will open up many other opportunities for both Deakin and our town. That is very, very positive. As part of the review that we conducted, we established a $155 million growth fund including $30 million that will be rolled out shortly for regional infrastructure and $60 million for a next generation manufacturing investment fund.

Again, I come from a proud manufacturing town. It was with some significant disappointment that in a recent contribution I heard the member for Corio speak about the fact that, under the federal government, manufacturing has died. It was regrettable. I think the member for Corio now regrets what he said. He knows that is not the case. Manufacturing is responsible for something like 40 per cent of our local GDP—12,000 jobs and 500 manufacturing companies—and we are going from strength to strength. Yes, we have challenges, but our growth fund announced last year by both the industry and science minister and the Prime Minister in Geelong—a great heartland of manufacturing—will help to drive the jobs of the future.

One of the applicants under the next generation manufacturing investment fund that I am supporting is AKD Softwoods, a wonderful softwood saw mill in Colac. They are investing enormous dollars in their local business and in the Colac economy. The forestry industry is very important in my region. AKD supports about 300 local jobs, and I am very, very supportive of the investment that they wish to make.

Of course we have the Geelong Region Innovation and Investment Fund, which to date has created something like 750 jobs at wonderful companies such as Cotton On and new and developing companies like Carbon Revolution, an advanced manufacturer which is making state-of-the-art carbon fibre wheels and is making Geelong so proud. The GRIIF is primarily funded by the federal government but there is also funding from the state government, Ford and Alcoa. Our government helped to negotiate a $10 million contribution, with $5 million going directly into the GRIIF. Under this fund, we are helping to drive these advanced manufacturing jobs. I visited Carbon Revolution recently with the defence minister, Kevin Andrews, and we saw what they are doing already. It is incredible. Already this new factory that has been developed—again at Deakin University, but this time at the campus in Waurn Ponds—is delivering something like 160 new jobs. Another recipient of the GRIIF fund is Quickstep, which is working in the area of high-tech automotive materials development for the global auto industry. Anyone who says that manufacturing in our town is dead needs to come down to visit and see what is going on. We are proudly investing in these jobs. We are a proud manufacturing town and we have a great future in manufacturing. Just last week we announced, under our auto diversification fund, a $200,000 grant for another great manufacturer—Backwell IXL, which is also doing wonderful things with the manufacture of solar panels.

That is one of the reasons that I have been so supportive of the renewable energy target. The renewable energy target is incredibly important for driving jobs, investment and opportunities, particularly in regional Australia. I am very pleased with the announcement today from both the environment minister and the industry and science minister in relation to the important position that we have reached in trying to get a deal. We really hope that the Labor Party comes to the table. We have certainly made some concessions because, as even the Australian Workers' Union has said, the 41,000 target is actually going to hurt jobs because it absolutely will impact on the aluminium sector for one. We have tried to come up with a practical, rational proposal—one that I think is supported by unions such as the AWU. There is a lot of support from bodies such as the Clean Energy Council. The position that we have announced is a very important one because it recognises how important renewable energy is in Australia. It is certainly embraced very widely across my electorate of Corangamite, where some 24 per cent of homes have either solar PV systems or hot water systems. The RET has been very, very important in driving up this uptake in solar energy.

I have also been very, very proud of a local program that we have announced—the Geelong employment connections program. This is a $500,000 program assisting the delivery of local job creation programs. It is doing some incredible work. It is supported to a large degree by the Geelong LLEN. I must particularly mention Anne-Marie Ryan, who has been driving that program and bringing local employers together with industry and retrenched workers to introduce them to new opportunities. There are some wonderful programs, such as the community services taster program, which gives retrenched workers an insight into the opportunities in the community services sector. The 'On the front foot' series was also funded. This was a series of six half-day sessions targeted at retrenched workers but open to all job seekers that again identified areas and gave people the incentive, enthusiasm and skills to find out how they could seek opportunities in those areas.

There is another program, the advanced manufacturing taster program, which is, again, a very important program in helping workers and job seekers identify new opportunities in advanced manufacturing. We talk about advanced manufacturing very broadly, from companies like Carbon Revolution right through to Boundary Bend, which is the biggest producer of olive oil in Australia and a very proud local manufacturer. The Foot in the Door program is being rolled out—again, giving job seekers the important opportunities to identify the jobs in our region. And the National Disability Insurance Scheme—the Barwon trial—is being rolled out, and that has been a great success, with some 3½ thousand participants already reaping the benefits of being involved in the NDIS trial. We proudly have the headquarters in Geelong, and when it is up and running by about 2018 it will deliver some 300 jobs—again, some wonderful opportunities for our region.

One of the projects I am championing, which will absolutely be a game changer for our region, is the LAND 400 project—the $10 billion Defence contract which will deliver armed combat vehicles. It is an incredibly important project for the region. I have got on the front foot on that project. It was wonderful to be there with the Defence minister—on an ASLAV, wearing my hard hat—and saying to all the primes, the international defence companies, 'Come to our region, and if you leave Geelong out of your bid you do so at your peril.' I was pleased to see that the Victorian government has announced a defence procurement office for Geelong. But I am disappointed—and I do want to make note of the fact—that, while it was a $5 million commitment, so far we have had a commitment of only three jobs in that office and very little evidence of an expenditure of $5 million by the Andrews government. The Victorian government really needs to ramp up its effort if it is going to compete with South Australia. We need an ambassador, we need an incentives package, we need the sorts of incentives to bring defence companies to Geelong to make sure that we are front and centre on the LAND 400 project. The Victorian government and Premier Andrews need to get their act together very, very quickly.

We have some incredible roads infrastructure projects in our region: the Princes Highway, a project for which I have been advocating for some six years, has been rolled out. Some sections of the road between Geelong and Winchelsea have been opened and work has started on the section between Winchelsea and Colac, and that is going to make such an enormous difference for Winchelsea, for Birregurra, for the people of Colac. And for the Great Ocean Road a $50 million commitment has been made by ourselves and the previous Victorian government. It is very disappointing that this project—such an iconic tourist road—was so opposed by Labor in the lead-up to the last election and is still being opposed by Labor.

As we heard in question time today, the big missing link is the East West Link. This is a project that will deliver 7,000 jobs. This is a project that, frankly, is making Daniel Andrews look like an absolute laughing-stock in the eyes of investors right around the world. This is a project that will save commuters in my home town of Geelong some three hours a week during peak hour. And this is a project for which Daniel Andrews is threatening to pass retrospective legislation to ensure that the Victorian government does not have to pay compensation for ripping up the contract.

As the Prime Minister said in his letter to the Premier on 11 March, this is a vital project for Melbourne and it is a vital project for Geelong, and the threats made by Premier Andrews are, frankly, quite frightening, because they will cause irreversible damage to our state and they will cause irreversible damage to our reputation as a place to do business. So, once again, as I have been campaigning for, for many months, let us build the East West Link. Let us deliver almost 7,000 jobs. Let us invest in this vital infrastructure that is so important for jobs, for our future and for our regional economy—where, frankly, we need every job we can get.

Last but not least is the NBN. I am incredibly proud that after such a mess under the previous government—where the satellite did not deliver what Labor said it was going to deliver, and, on fixed wireless, the government did not acquire the spectrum it was meant to acquire in order to roll out fixed wireless NBN—we are now rapidly rolling out the NBN. In my electorate some 34,000 premises will receive the NBN under the first 18-month rollout, on top of about another 5,000 premises under fixed wireless. And all of the small towns, like Barongarook and Alvie and Coragulac and Gellibrand—so many small towns that were left off the rollout under Labor—have now been embraced by our government, because we committed that we would fund and we would roll out the NBN to those towns that need it first. But I am very much on a mission that Geelong must be included in the next rollout, the southern suburbs of Geelong—Belmont, Highton, Grovedale, Marshall and Waurn Ponds. It is so important for our local economy and so important for our future.

Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (17:35): The people of the Central Coast deserve a government that delivers on its commitments, and I am pleased to say that with this package of appropriation bills before the House today this coalition government is doing exactly that. We took to the electorate of Robertson the coalition's growth plan for the central coast, a document with clear commitments to our region that would deliver growth, jobs and opportunity. I am pleased to say that we are delivering, and in some cases increasing, our commitments to the people on the Central Coast. These commitments reflect the concerns and aspirations of people in my electorate. We are privileged to live in the best region of the best country in the world, but we also need to see better infrastructure, more jobs and a place where hope and opportunity abound.

As part of this positive growth plan for the Central Coast which we took to the last election, we pledged to locate a Commonwealth agency, or part thereof, in Gosford's CBD. This is a city that local newspapers have recently described as a 'dead zone' with empty buildings and run-down streets. We want to revitalise Gosford so it can truly be the capital city of the Central Coast that our region needs. Combined with the other commitments that I will outline today, and the great work being done by the New South Wales state Liberal government and by Gosford City Council, things are starting to turn around. In fact, many community leaders are declaring that they are more optimistic than ever.

The Commonwealth agency relocation—thanks to the delivery by this coalition government—has the potential to add significantly to their optimism, because this is an investment of 600 jobs. That is 600 new jobs for Gosford right into the heart of the CBD. In the lead-up to the election we committed 250 to 300 jobs, but in last year's budget we doubled it to 600. Five hundred of these jobs will be from the Australian Taxation Office, with another 100 from a complementary agency or agencies. There has already been significant interest in this project and in the tender process, which will ultimately see a purpose-built building constructed in Gosford and open by the end of 2017. In fact, the Treasurer recently described this Commonwealth agency as 'a centre of excellence for Gosford', and in his earlier visit to Gosford outlined why this will have such a vital impact on the Central Coast as a whole. The economic multiplier effect of 600 jobs into Gosford shows great flow-on effects to our economy. That is 600 more lunches that will need to be bought and 600 more coffees every single day—and, if you are like me, that is probably 1,200 coffees that will need to be bought.

Mr McCormack: Eighteen.

Mrs WICKS: Eighteen some may say. And, of course, there will be a rise in demand for accommodation and services. So that is hundreds of additional new jobs that we have demonstrated can be created as a result of the significant investment by the federal government. It is an important commitment that has been embraced wholeheartedly by my community, and it is one that I am determined to ensure becomes a vital part of Gosford's long-term future.

We have also committed $7 million in funding for Kibbleplex, a project that will further revitalise Gosford by transforming the old market town building—once a vibrant shopping centre that I frequented as a teenager that now lies dormant and is used as a car park. The Australian government delivers on its election commitments and we will deliver funding for this project. We committed the funding in last year's budget, and the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development is now awaiting information from Gosford City Council so that a value for money assessment can occur and a funding agreement can be prepared. In turn, I am advised that council is working with the State Library of New South Wales on possible locations for a city library in Gosford with the planned Kibbleplex Learning and Enterprise Centre one of the preferred places. The council has advised me it is still working to finalise the remaining tenant mix for the Kibbleplex project and the review of the state library's report will form an important part of this process. Work to build the Gosford Smart Work Hub is also well underway, and I am advised that council also plans for this to be located in Kibbleplex.

The vision that council have outlined includes a mixed-use complex, including a hub for collaboration and innovation, new business start-ups and education and research that delivers educational, business and other services to the Central Coast. As part of our growth plan we have also indicated we would consider stage 2 funding for a performing arts centre in Gosford should the New South Wales state Liberal government and Gosford council pledge support. As somebody who used to learn violin from expert violin teachers at the Central Coast Conservatorium of Music and as somebody who taught music and violin to young students on the Central Coast, I warmly welcome the Baird Liberal government's recent commitment to this project. I encourage Gosford City Council to consider applying for a grant from the federal government's National Stronger Regions Fund to assist us seeing this vision become a reality for our city.

For those who may know the city of Gosford, you will also know its proximity to the M1 and the thousands of commuters who head down the freeway to Sydney or north to Newcastle each day. In my electorate of Robertson alone, that adds up to around 30,000 commuters who leave their homes early in the morning and return late at night to their families. For decades there has been debate about building what the locals now know as the 'missing link', joining up the M1 at Wahroonga with the M2 down Pennant Hills Road. I am pleased to say that this project, now of course called NorthConnex, is underway. The first sod has been turned, and we are on track for completion in 2019. The federal government has committed $405 million towards this project which will build a nine-kilometre tunnel that will service up to 50,000 vehicles in each direction. For the people of the Central Coast who head down to work every day—including my husband Chris—NorthConnex means that you can bypass around 21 sets of traffic lights and save up to 15 minutes of travel time each way. That is 30 minutes every day, around 10 hours a month, that families with commuting members can spend at home with their family instead. With NorthConnex a reality you could also drive from Newcastle to Melbourne without a set of traffic lights. NorthConnex will also deliver 8,700 jobs as a direct result of construction each year. Once open, there will be about 120 jobs to support operation, contributing around $32 million directly to the state's economy with a flow-on effect of $17 million a year.

We are also delivering funding for local roads. Our growth plan includes $675,000 for the dangerous intersection at Langford Drive and Woy Woy Road in Kariong. In the lead-up to the 2013 election, 3,000 locals put their name to a petition, calling for us to help improve safety in the area. After consultation with Gosford City Council, I am confident that we are close to securing a traffic solution that will make this busy intersection, which is near a much loved community centre, safe for pedestrians. We are delivering a share of the Australian government's $2.1 billion Roads to Recovery program to assist with local road construction and maintenance. Just this month we have delivered the latest instalment of more than $400,000 into my electorate of Robertson. We have also announced $305,000 to fix two dangerous black spots in Narara and Kincumber as part of a separate Black Spot funding program. For the commuters I mentioned earlier we have also launched a petition for fairer petrol prices. Our petition attracted hundreds of signatures within just a few days to help put pressure on the ACCC to select our region as a place to investigate fuel price disparity.

Our growth plan also includes funding for important community and civic infrastructure. We have delivered $3.5 million for the redevelopment of Woy Woy Oval for the construction of a new grandstand building, clubhouse, change rooms, forecourt and field relocation. Many local clubs that use this field have told me how this project will be a great boost to the peninsula as well as to its club members, and will improve the region's ability to meet the demands of population growth and the need for more recreational facilities. The project will create approximately 186 jobs during construction, which I am pleased to say is already well underway. We have also committed $100,000 for the popular Terrigal sportsground, Brendan Franklin Oval. Local sports groups have told me the field has been reshaped, irrigated and turfed and the drainage is also expected to be completed soon.

Another massive uplift for our community is the rapid rollout of the National Broadband Network into my electorate. We recently added another 17 suburbs to the rollout plan to June 2016, and have seen start-up companies choose suburbs like Koolewong as their headquarters, because they trust our NBN rollout and its rapid progress.

Unfortunately, Labor's record on the Central Coast was abysmal in this regard—just 203 connected premises after six long years in government and misleading announcements about who will be connected and when. But under this government we are delivering to more than 50,000 premises, which is great news for people living and working in places like Umina Beach, Woy Woy, Pearl Beach, Patonga, Green Point, Killcare, Killcare Heights, Ettalong Beach, Booker Bay, Daleys Point, St Huberts Island, Blackwall, Bensville, Saratoga, Davistown and Koolewong.

We also have a $100-million plan to fix mobile phone black spots, to assist people who need it most in regional areas that may be currently under-served by mobile coverage. This is an issue I campaigned on at the last election and which we included in the coalition's growth plan for the Central Coast. I am pleased to say that while there is always more work to be done in this area we have made some great progress. We have announced locations that have been nominated as having poor mobile coverage, after consultation with the community. The first list of base stations will be announced by the end of June this year.

I have also fought hard for—and now we have seen a change to—the district of workforce shortage system for the Central Coast. This will allow GPs in busy locations, like Erina, to hire more doctors, because finally the data is up to date and shows, in over 20 suburbs in my electorate, where we need more medical services. To give the House an indication of the weight of importance of this announcement, the Erina Fair Medical Centre Practice Manager, Peter Carr, has described the change as the biggest single positive step to get more GPs to the area than anything in the last 20 years. Mr Carr said it was smart policy as it gives all practices an equal opportunity, unlike the Super Clinic idea, and it does not cost the government anything to do it.

We have already delivered—or are delivering—so many things in my electorate, but there is always more to fight for on behalf of my community. There is one issue, in particular, that weighs deeply on my heart—that is, seeing a university campus in Gosford established at some stage. In our growth plan we recognised the crucial role that universities play in driving development, in regional areas, through job creation and educating the community. We pledged to work in partnership with the Central Coast community to identify further training and education opportunities, particularly in progressing approvals that are necessary to facilitate universities to develop campuses on local government owned land.

In this effort to have or fight for a strong university presence in Gosford, I welcome the state Liberal government's support for a globally connected, fully integrated Central Coast health and medical research institute. It is an issue very close to my heart. I have been lobbying the state government for around six months, alongside the University of Newcastle Vice-Chancellor, Professor Caroline McMillen, for capital infrastructure funding to deliver a medical research institute and medical school attached, perhaps, to the new Gosford Hospital. This is a unique opportunity to deliver a shared vision for a university in Gosford, which would be another centre of excellence, right in the heart of the city. These facilities have the potential to become a base for world-class health care, medical research and education co-located with a fantastic hospital.

The University of Newcastle is working with partners to develop two shared components in the plan: a globally connected, fully integrated Central Coast health and medical research institute and a co-located Central Coast medical school. This plan would help tackle emerging health issues on the coast as well as attract high-quality students, clinicians, researchers and health-care professionals to Gosford. We are keen to see this happen as soon as possible. We want to work in collaboration with the world class University of Newcastle and key stakeholders across the Central Coast.

This is a government that is determined to ensure we deliver hope and opportunity to the Central Coast. Our growth plan is a major part of seeing these projects become game changers for our region. We are delivering growth, jobs and opportunity to a region that has a perception—perhaps made too real until now—of being long forgotten. But it is now seeing real solutions delivered to benefit future generations in the most important and beautiful region in our nation. I commend this bill to the House.

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (17:50): Firstly, I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate on these additional estimates appropriation bills and for the member for Watson's grand-standing amendment. I will come to that shortly.

As is often the case with appropriation bills, the debate in the House has been wide ranging and informative. This place is, I think, at its best when members speak about the part of Australia they are privileged to represent. We heard the member for Robertson do just that. That is, after all, the purpose of this, the people's House. So it is a pleasure to have this opportunity to reflect on members' contributions to this debate on these appropriation bills.

A theme in this debate—at least in contributions from this side of the House—was this importance of pressing on with the task of repealing red tape, creating export opportunities for Australian businesses and investing in all-important infrastructure. We are repealing red tape, doing away with regulations that stifle enterprise and that do not serve a wider public purpose. We have already exceeded the target of $1 billion per year that we set ourselves, but that is no reason to rest on our laurels.

The member for Page hit it squarely on the head when he remarked during the debate that 'red tape is real money and a real cost to our businesses'. We have another repeal day coming up, and I know the member for Pearce and Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is on the case, continuing the good work initiated by his predecessor the member for Kooyong. I am always pleased to hear from the member for Page—he is a good member. It was terrific to hear about the opportunities that preferential trade deals with China, Japan and Korea are opening up for businesses in his electorate of Page, particularly for his dairying enterprises and meat processes and, I understand, even for a local manufacturer of campervans! It is the same story I hear as I travel around my electorate of Riverina. I know that citrus growers and horticulture producers throughout the Murrumbidgee and Coleambally irrigation areas are excited about the possibilities created by the significant cuts to tariffs that these agreements will deliver. We will see Australian businesses reap the rewards of preferential trade deals with China, Korea and Japan for many, many years to come. Nobody underestimates the challenges involved in reaching a similar agreement with India, but I have every confidence that the Minister for Trade, and member for Goldstein, is very much up to the task.

It is a pleasure to be able to reassure members opposite that despite all their fears and protestations to the contrary there have been no cuts to the Financial Assistance Grants. Local councils are $30 million better off this year than they were last year. It is true that as part of our budget repair strategy we have paused indexation of these grants for three years, but we are also making important investments that will benefit local councils and the communities they serve, including an extra $200 million for the road Black Spot Programme—totalling half a billion dollars; $2.1 billion for the Roads to Recovery program, including a double $350 million payment in 2015-16; a new $300 million Bridges Renewal Programme; and an expanded $200 million Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Programme.

The member for Mallee said that the basis for good government is good financial management—and he is dead right. The member for Dawson, who spoke earlier tonight, understands that in order to build a stronger economy government needs to focus on job-creating industries. I know how much the towns and communities in his electorate around Mackay rely on the resource sector and how passionate he is in standing up for farmers to ensure they have a viable future. In the Riverina, we have seen funding for road upgrades. There is the upgrade of the Byrnes Road with funding of $1.276 million under the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Programme. There is the Carrathool Bridge upgrade with funding of $7½ million under the Bridges Renewal Programme. The communities have waited 30 years; the coalition, in conjunction with the state government, is answering their call. I was very, very pleased to be there just last week with the member for Murrumbidgee, Adrian Piccoli, to announce that joint funding initiative. The Gobarralong Bridge project in Gundagai is receiving $1.046 million—again, under the bridges renewal strategy. There is $27½ million, in conjunction with the state government, for a new Kapooka Bridge. I know how hard The Nationals Duncan Gay, the upper house member in the roads ministry in New South Wales, has fought, in conjunction with the member for Wagga Wagga, Daryl Maguire, to provide that funding for the Kapooka Bridge. There is half a million dollars for closed-circuit television in the Wagga Wagga central business district.

We have all got Anzac grants. It is still a good initiative, with up to $120,000 for each electorate. With the Financial Assistance Grants, there is more than $52 million for the Riverina. There is more than $5½ million in funding confirmed for local trade training centres. The coalition government is funding the round 5, phase 1 trade training centre projects. This is fantastic for Riverina students. It means that the Riverina will have funding for four trade training centres, which will benefit six schools. Temora High School, Batlow Technology School and Tumbarumba High School will each have a trade training centre facility, with Ardlethan Central School, Ariah Park Central School and Barellan Central School as partner schools in a $2.845 million centre. These four trade training centres will provide students with certificates in engineering, building and construction, agrifood operations, carpentry and joinery and the metal fabrication trade. We have also provided $3.8 million for the University of Notre Dame Australia’s Australian Rural Clinical School, Wagga Wagga.

Members on this side understand the importance of investing in road infrastructure—we really do. In some parts of Australia we are dealing with years of underinvestment in roads. The member for Forde noted that much of the investment we are making in road infrastructure in his electorate is the result of a failure of infrastructure to keep up with population growth in the region. We have heard members on this side from Victoria speak passionately about the need for the East West Link. The members for Corangamite, Aston and Casey—to name just three—all called on the Andrews government to just get it done. We heard the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development in question time today talk about the reputational damage the Andrews government is doing to Australia as an investment destination; it is not good enough.

It was great to hear the member for Capricornia explain in this debate what the investments we are making in repairing roads across Central Queensland will mean for her community. The people of Capricornia made a wise choice sending her here. Her response to the recent devastation caused by Cyclone Marcia just goes to show they have elected a true and strong local champion. The member for Calare understands the importance of infrastructure. I know he is passionate about the $250 million upgrade to the Great Western Highway, specifically the stretch between Katoomba and Lithgow. It is a project that will create local jobs—that is important; but, more importantly, it is going to save lives, as will the upgrade to the Pacific Highway. I know that this is a project of vital importance to the members for Lyne and Cowper and the communities they serve. The Pacific Highway is an important artery for keeping our nation's economic pulse beating. We have made good on our commitment to invest $5.64 billion to finally get the job done on the duplication of the Pacific Highway, and we are on track to see it finished by the end of this decade.

I note that the member for Longman spoke of his pride in having delivered a headspace centre for Caboolture, describing it as one of the best things that he could possibly do during his time in parliament. I trust that he will have many more years of delivering for the people of Longman, but I agree wholeheartedly with him about the importance of mental health support and facilities, particularly for our young people. I am also proud to have finally delivered a headspace centre for Griffith, in the western section of the Riverina. It was the result of a strong grassroots campaign, involving local advocates, council—particularly Peta Dummett—and literally thousands of people who contacted me, indicating their support for a headspace facility in Griffith. I particularly want to acknowledge the advocacy of Griffith teenager Jenna Thornton, a victim of school bullying who made it her personal cause that this centre became a reality—and, under the coalition government, it has.

Mental health and issues of addiction are two of the most serious health challenges facing our communities. It is certainly something I hear about a lot as I travel across my electorate of Riverina, which is almost as large as Tasmania. The member for Gippsland and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence spoke about the impact of ice on his community and particularly its infiltration of local sports clubs, especially football clubs. He has seen firsthand—as I am sure have many members on both sides of the parliament—the invidious effects of this pernicious drug. As the member for Gippsland said, there are no easy answers but that is no reason not to try. We have made ice the focus of work to be undertaken by the Australian National Advisory Council on Alcohol and Drugs, and I know it is something that the Assistant Minister for Health is very engaged in and that is good.

The impact of ice and amphetamine use in regional Australia was also an issue raised by the member for Parkes—an outstanding local representative who also mentioned the great work the government is doing by continuing to fund the successful Great Artesian Basin Sustainability Initiative. It sounds long-winded but it is so important in the overall scheme of what the member for Parkes is getting on with and doing for his electorate. He knows the value of this program, because he has seen firsthand the difference it has made to protecting the important environmental and economic resource that is the Great Artesian Basin.

And it was great to hear members, including the member for Hinkler, speak of the good being done in their electorates through programs like Work for the Dole and the Green Army. I know we are spending $50,000 in Riverina with the Green Army, but in electorates like Hinkler, where unemployment is a real and ongoing challenge, these programs can make a real difference in helping to get job seekers, job ready. Having been an apprentice himself, the member for Hinkler knows the value of the $20,000 trade support loans that we are making available for tools and the like.

Turning now to the member for Watson's amendments—amendments that reveal that Labor has not learned; no, they have not learned—yes, the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook confirmed we are still facing a very real and serious budget deficit—a deficit that would have been worse had we not taken action to get it under control, had we not take action to get government spending in check. As the Intergenerational Report showed, without any policy change—

Mr Feeney: How is it going?

Mr McCORMACK: I will tell you how it is going, member for Batman: we were on track for a growing budget deficit. In fact, we would face continuous budget deficits for the next 40 years—that is how it is going—had we not done something.

But as a result of the tough decisions we have taken since coming to office, we have started to get spending growth under control—something Labor is not used to, but we are. There is still more to do, and we understand that we are going to need to bring the community along with us.

As the member for Moncrieff and parliamentary secretary to the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Trade put it during this debate: 'It's easy to be Santa Claus'. It is easy to tell people they can have whatever they want and not to worry about the consequences. We credit the Australian people with a little more nous than that. And that is why the IGR is such an important document—it demonstrates what is at stake tomorrow from the decisions we take today. And what is at stake is nothing less than the living standards that our children and grandchildren will enjoy.

In closing, I would like to highlight five areas relating to the delivery of the government's commitments that are supported by these bills. First, these bills provide the Department of Defence with just under $558 million, reflecting, in the main, additional funding for Defence's overseas operations; the re-appropriation of amounts between Appropriation Acts to better align funding with Defence's current work programs; and supplementation for foreign exchange movements. I know the member for Batman will be interested in that, because I know how interested he is in defence. But he also knows how under Labor we let Defence slip as a proportion of gross domestic product down—down to 1938 levels.

On this side of the House, we are certainly interested—here we go.

Mr Feeney: Mr Deputy Speaker Hawke, I seek to intervene.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hawke ): Is the member for Riverina willing to give way?

Mr McCORMACK: No, I am not, and he knows full well that this side of the House understands the importance of spending on defence. He understands the importance of making sure that infrastructure is so important at places such as Forest Hill and Kapooka. Labor never worried about it, but we are.

The Department of Employment receives just over $115 million, primarily for increased payments to providers following an increase in the number of successful job placements and to implement the new employment services 2015 contracts.

The Department of Agriculture receives $90 million for concessional loans under the Drought Recovery Concessional Loans Scheme. These funds will be used to provide support to eligible primary production businesses in Queensland and New South Wales that are experiencing financial difficulties resulting from the impacts of severe and prolonged drought conditions, or as a result of the combined effects of drought.

The Australian Customs and Border Protection Service would be provided with just under $35 million for additional counter-terrorism activities and to repurpose the Australian Defence Vessel Ocean Shield for transition of its ownership from the Department of Defence to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service.

Finally, the Department of Parliamentary Services would receive additional appropriations to enable it to enhance the security of the Australian Parliament House, including the enhancement and upgrade of closed-circuit television equipment and access systems. It will also cover additional Parliamentary Protective Service staff. The total of the appropriations being sought through these three appropriation bills is just over $1.7 billion. I commend this bill to the House.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Watson has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Question negatived.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the bill be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (18:06): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (18:08): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (18:09): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (18:10): The Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2015 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 2015 make several relatively minor amendments to Australia's antidumping laws. The explanatory memorandum of the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2015 states that the following changes will occur and that those changes will:

…simplify and modernise publication provisions for anti-dumping notices, consolidate lodgement provisions for anti dumping applications and submissions, clarify the length of the investigation period in anti-dumping matters, clarify the cumulative assessment of injury, clarify normal value provisions, clarify the calculation of the dumping margin, clarify material injury determinations, clarify effective notice periods, clarify the definition of a subsidy, amend provisions dealing with new exporters, clarify provisions regarding consideration of the lesser duty rule, streamline the processes and implement a higher procedural and legal threshold for review to be undertaken by the Anti-Dumping Review Panel and allow the Government to replace the statutory International Trade Remedies Forum with administrative business consultative arrangements.

The bill also changes the act to allow the introduction of fees for reviews by the Anti-Dumping Review Panel.

The Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 2015 makes consequential changes from the first bill relating to, firstly, the publication of notices on the commission and review panel's websites instead of the Gazette or newspapers; and, secondly, clarification of the lesser duty rule, which I have already referred to. It also clarifies the minister's power to exempt goods from dumping duty with limited retrospective effect. The exemption can only take effect from a date that is no earlier than the date the exemption application was made.

Dumping occurs when goods exported to Australia are priced lower than their normal value, which is usually the comparable price in the ordinary course of trade in the exporter's domestic market. Where the price in the ordinary course of trade is unsuitable, normal value may also be determined using comparable prices of exports to a third country or the cost of production plus selling, general and administrative expenses and profit. Dumping is not a prohibited practice under the World Trade Organisation agreements. Rather, the WTO agreements permit antidumping duties to be imposed when dumping causes or threatens to cause material injury to an Australian industry.

Australia's antidumping legislation is based upon the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 and the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. Where material injury has been caused by the dumping of a product onto the Australian market, antidumping action can then be taken. The same action can also be taken where a government subsidy has been provided for an imported product. It appears that the number of cases of product dumping have increased in recent years, and I suspect that was aided by the global economic downturn, where in some cases there would have been a glut of products for which there was no market. The strength of the Australian economy, combined with the high Australian dollar in recent years, made Australia an ideal country in which to dump products. I will refer to a comment made by the director of Capral Limited, Mr Phil Jobe, on 26 February, in giving evidence to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry in its inquiry into this very issue. He said:

In recent times in our industry, over 500 direct jobs and almost 2,000 in total, which is about one-third of the workforce, have been lost in Australia. We put this down mainly to unfair dumping of extrusions. This has not been helped by the high exchange rate, which is now coming back to a more reasonable level.

In government, Labor on several occasions amended Australia's anti-dumping laws to make them more effective. Labor also established the Anti-Dumping Commission and the International Trade Remedies Forum. It is evident that importers use very clever techniques to circumvent Australian laws or frustrate the existing process. Circumvention is a practice used by exporters and importers of certain products to avoid the full payment of dumping and countervailing duties. I note that circumvention is currently the subject of an inquiry by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry, and I referred to that just a moment ago. Circumvention activities include assembly of parts in Australia, assembly of parts in a third country, export of goods through one or more third countries, arrangements between exporters, and, I understand, in recent times, the use of phoenix companies—and there may be other ways that people find to circumvent the current process. It seems that, wherever there is a will to rort the system, there is a way.

The use of clever techniques highlights why Australia's anti-dumping regime needs to be continuously reviewed. This legislation makes changes to Australia's anti-dumping laws that Labor believes are steps in the right direction and, collectively, should improve the current process. In what Labor believes is a retrograde step, however, the legislation also abolishes the International Trade Remedies Forum. We also have concerns about the fees for appeals to the Anti-Dumping Review Panel. Labor does not support abolishing the ITRF and I will be moving an amendment to retain the forum at the conclusion of my remarks. I also note that the appeals fees will be set by regulation. We do not know what the fees will be and, whilst the minister states that lower fees will apply to small and medium-sized businesses, the lower fees are not written into the legislation, providing no guarantee that the lower fees will apply into the future.

For the benefit of anyone who is following this debate, I will briefly comment on some key provisions in the amendments as I understand them. If my understanding is incorrect, perhaps the minister in summing up the debate can clarify the matter for us. Firstly, I will deal with the submission deadlines. This bill introduces more stringent deadlines for the submission of information to dumping and subsidisation investigations. The period in which submissions should be lodged in response to the initiation of an investigation, review of measures, continuation inquiry or anti-circumvention inquiry would be reduced from 40 to 37 days. This would align with the minimum time frames established under the relevant WTO agreements. It would also allow information to be considered earlier by the anti-dumping commissioner when deciding whether a preliminary affirmative determination can be made. The reduction from 40 to 37 days does not seem significant, but it is worth doing. Every day matters and every day that a dumping matter continues can cost local industry tens of thousands of dollars. With respect to lodgement and publication requirements, notices related to anti-dumping processes and decisions will be published electronically on the Anti-Dumping Commission and the review panel's website instead of in the Gazette or in newspapers.

The length of an investigation period has frequently also been raised as a matter of concern by parties involved in anti-dumping cases. The bill inserts a new subsection which intends that the commissioner cannot vary the length of the time for the investigation period once the investigation period has been specified by a notice issued by the commissioner. Again, I think that that is a good thing. In time, we will see how well it works. When considering the termination of an investigation, in certain circumstances the cumulative injurious effect of exportations of goods to Australia from multiple countries can also be considered.

The bill also provides clarification that there is no hierarchy for the methods available to determine a normal value. To clarify the calculation of dumping margins, the investigation period of a dumping investigation considered for the purpose of working out whether dumping has occurred and the levels of dumping is not less than one month. The amendment clarifies that, in calculating a single dumping margin for the good over the entire investigation period, the normal values and export prices of different models or types of that good can be compared over separate one-month periods prior to aggregation.

The definition of a subsidy for the purpose of Australia's anti-dumping system is amended to better align the definition with that of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. The amendment provides that the receipt of a financial contribution by a government does not, in and of itself, confer a benefit but that it must be determined whether that contribution provides a benefit. The bill amends the definition of 'new exporter', narrowing the period used in the definition. This potentially enables more exporters to access accelerated review. The minister's ability to declare that a dumping duty notice not apply to the applicant will also be removed. Instead, when considering an accelerated review, the minister can only leave the duty unaltered or change the variable rates.

The Customs Act would also be amended to require that, where an undertaking converts to a duty, the duty expires five years after the undertaking was accepted, unless terminated earlier. I also note that, although periods prior to the investigation period can be examined for the purpose of determining whether material injury has been caused, a determination that dumping has occurred prior to the investigation period is not permitted. Provisions of the Customs Act would be amended to require that the minister is not required to have regard to the lesser duty rule where a country has not submitted a notification of its subsidies, as mentioned in paragraph 1 of article 25 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, at least once in the compliance period.

I now turn to the conduct of the review by the review panel. The bill would also increase the procedural and legal thresholds for applying for review by introducing requirements that an application must, firstly, set out the grounds for a review; secondly, set out the decision the applicant considered should have been made; and, thirdly, set out how the grounds support the making of the applicant's proposed decision. There will be a requirement that the Anti-Dumping Review Panel can only conduct reviews on reasonable grounds. The bill will also empower the review panel to hold a conference for the purpose of obtaining further information. This includes the ability to hold a conference prior to commencing a review in order to obtain further information from the applicant and the commission. This seems to be a sensible measure and I will be interested to see if, over time, it makes a worthwhile difference. The bill also amends the Customs Act to allow applicants for review to withdraw their application. Withdrawals will be required to be written and given in the same manner as applies to applications. Importantly, parties continue to be able to apply for judicial review of anti-dumping decisions to the Federal Court in order to resolve issues with certainty, consistent with Australia's obligations under the relevant WTO agreements.

I now turn to some of the savings and non-legislative measures within these bills and within the changes in policy. Labor supports the government's intention to use the savings generated from the measures in these bills to offset the costs of implementing some non-legislative measures of the reforms package: specifically, firstly, the establishment of an anti-dumping information service; secondly, the expansion of the International Trade Remedies Advisory Service; and thirdly, a hotline as a central point of contact for inquiries about Australia's anti-dumping system. We also welcome the establishment of a market research function to enhance the capability of the anti-dumping investigators as part of the anti-dumping information service. That will provide targeted economic analysis of trends and trading behaviours across markets to provide better information earlier in the investigation process. The intention for the minister to direct the Anti-Dumping Commissioner that, wherever possible, provisional measures be imposed at day 60 of an investigation is also a positive move.

Finally, I come to the two matters about which Labor has concerns. The first matter I refer to is the fee for review by the review panel, which I alluded to earlier. The bill will allow the government to introduce a fee for applying to the review panel, as I pointed out earlier in my contribution. There will be, I understand, different fees for different kinds of applicants. The introduction of fees will likely lead to fewer applications for review. Whilst this may benefit the Australian producer when the original decision was to impose duties, it also makes it more expensive for Australian producers to review decisions which did not impose duties. In other words, if you lose the appeal and there is no finding of dumping, and you want to appeal, and you are an Australian business, then obviously it puts another cost in front of you. I note that the government has stated that the intention is for there to be reduced fees for small and medium-sized businesses.

I made the point earlier on that, as the fees are not in legislation, but are instead established under an instrument made by the minister, we have no guarantee that those fees will apply into the future, or that that principle and the intent of it, will be continued into the future. So, we will reserve our final position in respect of the fees until we have at least seen the schedule of fees proposed. I also note that the coalition's election policy document in respect of the Australian manufacturing sector stated:

The current anti-dumping laws are cumbersome, slow and prohibitively expensive for many Australian businesses to utilise.

I would be interested to hear the minister's explanation of how a fee for review by the Anti-Dumping Review Panel is consistent with this statement, in particular with the term 'prohibitively expensive'.

A further concern which I bring to the minister's attention is that exporters may channel their requests for review through the importer, which is likely to be a significantly smaller business than the exporter, in order to unfairly access the reduced fee structure for small and medium-sized businesses. The point we strongly make is that we would want to be assured that the system of having different fee scales is not going to also be abused or rorted in any way.

Finally, I come to the International Trade Remedies Forum. Labor initially established the ITRF in August 2011 following the announcement of the Streamlining Australia's anti-dumping systems policy. The legislation to formally establish the ITRF came into effect on 10 June 2013. The forum is a stakeholder body comprised of representatives from manufacturers, producers and importers, as well as industry associations, trade unions and relevant government agencies. The forum provides advice and feedback to the government on, firstly, the operation of the anti-dumping system; secondly, the implementation and monitoring of government reforms to the anti-dumping system; and, thirdly, other information which may lead to the further improvement of the anti-dumping system. It provides a good sounding-board for the government when it is considering matters that arise in respect of dumping legislation.

Prior to the announcement of the reforms in June 2011 there was no stakeholder body to provide feedback to government on the operation of the anti-dumping system. The forum was established specifically to do just that.

The former, Labor government committed to establishing the International Trade Remedies Forum to provide strategic advice and feedback to the government on the implementation and monitoring of the proposed reforms. The ITRF was established in legislation to ensure that this valuable dialogue with industry continued into the future. At the time that the legislation was debated in this place, the coalition did not oppose the ITRF, and in fact they supported it. At the time their spokesperson said:

… we support the establishment of the International Trade Remedies Forum. Indeed, the coalition has said for a long time that industry must be given a much greater voice in articulating improvements to the system and, more to the point, that its voice should be far more clearly heard … If we take the government at face value on this and accept that its genuine intention is to bring together representatives from local industries, importers and unions and give them a better say in identifying problems and suggesting future improvements to our national antidumping system, then it is certainly a step in the right direction.

Those were the words of the former member for Indi who was, at the time, the opposition shadow spokesperson on this matter.

The ITRF has made a positive contribution through the work it has undertaken, which included determination of normal value when a particular market situation is found. Indeed, the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Improvements) Bill (No.2) 2012 implemented its recommendation to remove the limitation to the inclusion of profit when calculating the normal value of a good in its country of origin in certain circumstances.

I note that it appears as though the forum has not met since March 2013, despite being required by the Customs Act to meet at least twice each year.

Labor believes that the ITRF was a constructive body that did good work and that the government should utilise the ITRF legislation that is currently in place and the forum itself. It seems that it has, indeed, done the opposite. We have seen no justification for abolishing the forum and I do not accept, as the minister said in his second reading speech on this matter, that the ITRF is red tape or that it is a 'rigid and restricted method' for consultation. I therefore move the following amendment. I move:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

“the House is of the opinion that the bill should be amended to delete the section of the bill which abolishes the International Trade Remedies Forum.”

With those comments, and having moved the amendment, I commend the amendment to the House.

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

Mr Feeney: It is.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Makin 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 BALDWIN (Paterson—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) (18:31): I rise to speak to the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2015 and cognate bill. This bill introduces a range of reforms designed to strengthen Australia's anti-dumping system.

In December last year this government released a blueprint to strengthen our anti-dumping regime—the first of two tranches of planned improvements to Australia's anti-dumping system.

When the Minister for Industry, Ian Macfarlane, and I, as his then parliamentary secretary, began looking further into industry's claims that we had fallen behind world's best practice, we acted quickly. We began looking at how the rest of the world was tackling dumping and addressing countervailing and subsidisation practices.

I am happy to say that nearly 90 per cent of Australia's approach was world's best practice. In fact, we soon found out that our investigations were amongst those who took the shortest time to complete in the world—with the US taking nearly double the time to finalise their investigations—and yet we were getting comparable results.

What we did find, though, is that we could further strengthen the anti-dumping regime. For example, under WTO laws, Australia could apply stronger penalties to exporters who were found guilty of dumping or to governments who were found guilty of countervailing or subsidisation practices. So that is what we did.

In December last year, Minister Macfarlane and I outlined how we would strengthen our antidumping regime. This included: implementing the outstanding four election commitments and I will talk further about these shortly; abolishing or reforming less useful and underperforming features of the anti-dumping system, including improving the merits review process; improving support services in order to provide better advice, assistance and information to Australian businesses engaging in the anti-dumping system; and seeing a range of other technical amendments made to the system that would simplify and clarify various aspects of antidumping investigative processes.

I would like to focus, just for a minute, on one of the coalition's promises to reverse the onus of proof. We soon discovered in coming to government that reversing the onus of proof was illegal under our WTO obligations and that no other jurisdiction in the world did this, so we were not going to entertain that idea any further.

However, we discovered that the policy intent of this commitment could be achieved by placing a greater onus on exporters to cooperate with the antidumping investigations, something that other international jurisdictions do.

I am proud to say that the policy change has already been implemented and it is working as intended. A good example of an outcome we have already received is that a number of canned tomato exporters from Italy, who were uncooperative with our investigators last year and who were later found guilty of illegal dumping, were slapped with a 26 per cent duty, instead of an eight per cent duty. That duty will last for five years.

To further show the teeth in this new policy, even when the eight per cent duty was reviewed and downgraded to five per cent earlier this year, the uncooperative exporters were not given any reduction and are still paying 26 per cent. We have also seen exporters of wind towers, canned pineapples and various steel products face the same fate for being uncooperative with investigators.

This policy change is doing what it intended: providing an incentive for exporters to cooperate with investigators and for dumpers to stop targeting our Australian industry. I believe this government is also sending a strong message to dumpers that we will not tolerate this practice in Australia.

Another change we took to cabinet was creating a cost-recovery mechanism surrounding the review of a dumping decision. When we looked at who was seeking reviews of decisions and how often, about two-thirds accessing this information were exporters from overseas and more than three-quarters of the reviews backed the Anti-Dumping Commission's original decision. Exporters were essentially getting a free kick at taxpayers' expense and chewing up another 90 days before duties could actually be imposed.

We also made it tougher to access a review by demanding the ADC and exporters attend a mediation session and, in tightening the grounds for an appeal, we now expect more solid grounds for a review to take place. The coalition government will also introduce a range of measures to assist Australian manufacturers and businesses.

One thing that Minster Macfarlane and I quickly realised was that applicants were unsure which type of investigation they wanted to undertake. They were unsure whether they required a dumping, countervailing or subsidisation investigation. I understood how this was happening, because trade law is extremely complex and most companies do not have antidumping experts working with them. To address this, a new unit of dumping experts will be formed in the future. The information service will have three key functions. Firstly, to provide general information and guidance to applicants. Secondly, to undertake a market analysis project, which will help identify dumping trends so we can attack dumping on the front foot. Thirdly, to collate data that we can share with industry to help applicants determine whether they have a genuine case.

The steel and aluminium industry is the one we found that was being most targeted by dumpers. In fact, close to 80 per cent of all cases last year were applications from this industry. So we took it upon ourselves to try and understand why so many applicants were coming from this industry. That was when we were educated about a devious practice taking place called circumvention. For all of those who do not know what circumvention is, it occurs when a foreign business changes their products, often only very slightly, to avoid duties. One case we later nicknamed 'pixie dust' showed just how devious exporters were getting. The steel industry alleged an exporter was avoiding duties by adding, for example, five per cent boron to its steel product. They then claimed it was another product, so duties did not apply. Yet it was still used for the exact same purpose.

Under the current system, we realised they had found a legal loophole. This government has now closed this loophole with a policy change and a test that helps identify these situations and takes action much more quickly. But to ensure we kept a level playing field, we have also provided avenues for Australian importers who feel they have been unfairly caught up in circumvention decisions. They can ask for a duty assessment, a review of the duties or an exemption, which ensures natural justice is adhered to. Australian industry voiced their concerns about circumvention to us and we acted. But there is much more to do in terms of tackling circumvention. In fact, at a meeting last year of the world's dumping experts, they found that circumvention, subsidisation and countervailing were growing trends around the world.

While the Australian government was addressing the 'pixie dust' issue, we asked for a bipartisan committee from the House of Representatives to look further into circumvention, subsidisation and countervailing more broadly. We are expect their findings to be delivered later this year, and it will help us further strengthen tranche 2 of our reforms when we expect to deliver it at the end of this year. When I was first tasked with looking at the antidumping regime back in December 2013, industry was extremely vocal. We also had a number of highly publicised cases, including SPC Ardmona's canned tomatoes case, local wind tower manufacturers were unhappy and the phone was just ringing off the hook from steel and aluminium manufacturers wanting to meet. Instead of hiding, we went proactively on the front foot. We engaged with and worked closely with the Australian manufacturers and importers and industry as a whole. We found a common ground. We all wanted a fair and level playing field within Australia to operate within. This was then used as the basis to investigate whether the regime could be strengthened.

A bit over one year later and I can say our work has paid off. Their collaborative approach led us to announcing the first tranche of reforms in December last year. I could tell you how closely we listened to worked with the stakeholders, but I would rather you read what they said about the first tranche of reforms. Innes Willox, the Chief Executive of the Australian Industry Group said:

The comprehensive package of reforms, which honours remaining pre-election commitments, includes reversing the onus of proof in line with practices in other international jurisdictions. This will ensure that Australia meets WTO rules placing greater emphasis on overseas producers to cooperate with anti-dumping investigations.

The decision to abolish less useful and underperforming features of the anti-dumping system, including through improving the merits review process, makes considerable sense.

You may remember SPC Ardmona's canned tomatoes case and the problems that they faced. The member for Murray made constant and solid representations on their behalf to bring about change that supported Australian industry and, in particular, addressed issues that SPC were having. Peter Kelly, the Managing Director of SPC, came out 12 months later and said he was happy with the progress of this government had made to improve the antidumping regime. He said:

These reforms to our anti-dumping system are a significant step forward for Australian manufacturers and producers …

   …   …   …

As an Australian food producer this gives SPC a tremendous level of confidence to invest in our future as a proud Australian Company…

I previously said that about 80 per cent of antidumping applicants came from the steel and aluminium industry. So it was heartening to me to see the support through Don McDonald, the Chief Executive of the Australian Steel Institute. He said:

… the reform package will improve support for a fairer trade regime by providing enhanced remedies for upstream and downstream Australian steel manufacturing companies.

   …   …   …

These reforms will assist in leveling the playing field through a tougher approach to timeframes and remedies, and they will improve the process for Australian steel manufacturers through expanded information and support services …

This bill and the reforms have always had bipartisan interests. When in government, the member for Blair spoke to the Brisbane Times about the importance of improving our antidumping system and ensuring a level playing field for local manufacturers. He did this because Capral, one of Australia's largest aluminium extrusion companies, sits within his electorate and claimed at the time that dumped aluminium extrusions from China had seized about 40 per cent of the Australian market and had put the domestic extrusion industry under severe stress. Capral spoke about the circumvention issues, and I am glad to say that their allegations were recently proven. An overseas exporter's aluminium product has now had dumping duties placed on them.

My neighbour, the member for Hunter, also experienced the effect of dumping and circumvention. Hundreds of jobs within his electorate were lost when Arrium downsized last year. Arrium cited pressure placed on them due to subsidisation and circumvention practices as the reasons for the job losses. I am glad that the member for Hunter is a part of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry, chaired by the member for Grey, which looking into these circumvention practices, because he also knows firsthand the effect of dumping at an electorate level.

I ask colleagues on both sides of the House to support this amendment bill as it goes through this House, and ask you to encourage your Senate colleagues to support the bill in their chamber. I am confident this bill will get through the House and Senate because there is no reason for delay. The reason is that this bill is in Australia's interest. It is in both our trade interest and Australian jobs interest. It takes Australia's antidumping measures to the very WTO limit, without crossing the line and, therefore, endangering Australia's reputation as a fair and free trader. At the same time it sends a very strong message to those who seek to dump, circumvent or countervail through subsidies into our market that Australia is the wrong place to do so and we will take every action and apply every penalty in our power under WTO rules to stop you.

Finally, I would like to thank the industry minister, Ian Macfarlane, for giving me the opportunity to drive these reforms as his parliamentary secretary. I thank Stephanie McKew from Minister Macfarlane's office and my staff member Aaron Parnell for their hard work. I thank ADC Commissioner Dale Seymour and the department for helping to shape a policy that is so right on so many fronts. I commend this bill to the House.

Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (18:45): I too rise to speak on the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2015. I thank the parliamentary secretary, the member for Paterson, for the implicit praise for the Labor Party policy in our last government. I embrace the bipartisan approach to this policy area because this is an important issue for my electorate, where Arrium—OneSteel—is located, for Victoria's manufacturing base and for Australia.

Last week I had an interesting meeting with Brendan O'Brien, the director of O'Brien Boilers Services, a local boy whose company is situated in Sunshine in the electorate neighbouring mine. He is a proud business owner and director in our area who is innovating and developing some outstanding solutions to energy production across Australia. This business prides itself on quality and, having tried cheaper imported products—in particular, steel—finds the short-term benefit of a cheaper price is a false economy as the quality does not stand up over time; the long-term maintenance costs cancel out the short-term gain in production. In the west of Melbourne, an area proudly represented by many on this side of the House, anti-dumping laws are vital to ensure our local industries are competing on a level field. But while some businesses have the capacity to make that judgement call, many competing on tight margins do not feel that they can. This can have very detrimental impacts on business and, as we have seen in recent reports, on consumers.

A recent example—and one I am sure we will hear a little about tonight—is in the electrical space and it demonstrates the danger of product dumping in Australia. It is the story of cheap imported electrical cabling. This cheap Chinese cabling, imported to Australia and sold in most of our major hardware stores, has been used by electricians in the domestic building market—a small price gain for electricians competing for business that is usually awarded on cost. The problem is that this cabling has been recalled due to its inferior quality; the product becomes brittle and thus has the potential to start house fires. But how do you go about recalling electrical cabling? Most home owners would not know what brand of cable was used when their house was being built so they are unlikely to make a claim.And then there is the question: at whose cost will the replacement be done? Surely not the poor electrician? The hardware retailer that supplied the substandard product? The Chinese manufacturer? This probably explains why only 15.5 kilometres of the 4,000 kilometres of defective electrical cabling known to have been used has been withdrawn—that is, less than 0.5 per cent of this dodgy product has been recalled.

These examples show why Labor in government had a strong record of protecting industry from dumping. Sure, it is important for our manufacturing industries—as we have already heard and will no doubt continue to hear—but it is also important for the average Australian consumer and the average Australian job. Labor established the Anti-Dumping Commission in 2013, after implementing anti-dumping legislation, and on several occasions amended the anti-dumping legislation to ensure it was focused and effective.

A recent example of the good work of the commission is the case involving Capral Aluminium, as we have just heard. Capral was significantly impacted by the rise of cheap Chinese aluminium being dumped into Australia for several years—and the company could probably be partly credited with the former government's decision to establish the Anti-Dumping Commission. Capral is a quality business with start-of-the-art facilities and a strong, well trained workforce. It was heavily impacted when cheap Chinese aluminium imports incurred only a seven per cent import duty when other countries were routinely charging 30 to 60 per cent. Capral brought this case to the Anti-Dumping Commission. The company recently received welcome news when Commissioner Dale Seymour found that the biggest Chinese exporter, PanAsia Aluminium, had indeed circumvented anti-dumping measures. As a result the Minister for Industry, Ian Macfarlane, approved a steep rise in duties. This is an example of the anti-dumping system working well and in Australia's interest.

This case also shows that our free trade agreements allow for anti-dumping duties to be imposed when dumping threatens to cause 'material injury to an Australian industry'. Apparently the US aluminium extrusion industry is enjoying a resurgence thanks to duties on Chinese product averaging 33 per cent but ranging as high as 400 per cent. China managed to capture 20 per cent of the US market by late 2009 but duties imposed since 2010 have crunched that to less than one per cent. Let's hope we have a similar outcome in Australia. Markets are tough places and Australia must play hard and fair. Our anti-dumping legislation means that we will be playing hard and fair—and 'fair' means not allowing countries to dump product and flood our markets the short-term with a view to killing off our industries in the long term, particularly where our product is superior and necessary for safety.

This legislation, which works to build on Labor's proud record, is a step in the right direction. We also welcome some new initiatives proposed to be introduced through regulation: the establishment of an anti-dumping information service; the expansion of the International Trade Remedies Advisory Service; the establishment of a market research function to enhance anti-dumping investigator capabilities; and the establishment of a central hotline for inquiries about Australia's anti-dumping systems. We welcome these measures because, as we have heard before, these are complex areas of law. Labor welcomes these as sensible measures. They will assist Australian industries to get information and start proceedings where dumping threatens material injury to an Australian company.

There are, however, some aspects of the legislation that Labor does not support. We do not support the abolition of the International Trade Remedies Forum. This forum brings together representatives from manufacturers, producers and importers as well as industry associations, trade unions and some government agencies. The forum was established in 2011 and formalised in June 2013 and was designed to provide strategic advice and feedback to the government during the implementation of proposed reforms. It was the stakeholder body that gave good feedback to government throughout those reforms. Its existence ensures continued engagement across the sectors. It ensures that all voices are heard and that the processes and penalties are constantly reviewed.

It is an important forum. It is an important piece of the puzzle to ensure that those conversations continue. It is a feedback and ideas mechanism—something governments should value, particularly in the protection of our industries. Its continuation would ensure that valuable dialogue between industries continues in the future. Given the current government's support, when in opposition, for the establishment of the forum, and given there was never a discussion about its abolition during the election campaign, Labor is not sure why the abolition of the forum is now proposed. This body was constructive, had bipartisan support and did good work. I know Labor will suggest amendments in the Senate that will ensure its ongoing capacity. The so-called increase in flexibility for stakeholder engagement, which the government seeks, could easily be accommodated by the forum's current structures.

We also have reservations about the introduction of fees. This second aspect of the legislation is the ability to charge a fee for review when making an application for the review of an anti-dumping practice. Whilst there is some justification for a fee for service, the introduction of fees may have a negative impact—particularly for small businesses wanting to bring forward a case. This introduction of fees also goes against the coalition's election policy. The coalition's Policy to boost the competitiveness of Australian manufacturing states:

The current anti-dumping laws are cumbersome, slow and prohibitively expensive for many Australian businesses to utilise.

The introduction of a fee, therefore, seems to be counterproductive to that idea. And given that later this week the government plans to introduce a further round of red tape repeal, why is this hindrance on business being introduced? Despite arguments that they are mostly triggered by importers, fees could still be a barrier for local business.

I want the businesses in my area to be growing and innovating, and many already do this. The dumping of cheap imports in Australia, in my view, achieves so little—a cheap, short-term gain that has been shown to be negated by long-term quality issues. We need to have a strong anti-dumping legislative framework to assist our local businesses to compete on a level playing field, and, mostly, from my perspective, to ensure hard-won jobs are secure into the future, because in the west of Melbourne these are good and important jobs that we need to ensure continue.

I therefore support the legislation but question the two pieces that might make the laws and the commission less effective. We have already seen, even where successful claims have been made and prosecuted, that local jobs have been lost. We should be keeping measures in the legislation that will ensure that there are continued conversations that includes all the important stakeholders. And when I say 'all the important stakeholders', I include the unions. I include the unions because of my very local experience where the unions, particularly in steel and aluminium, are working productively and collaboratively with business to protect the industry and to protect their jobs. A fee for review might discourage business, particularly small business, from prosecuting a case. So I have concerns there.

The abolition of the International Trade Remedies Forum could potentially hinder the responsiveness of government. Ensuring regular contact and dialogue with all stakeholders, including the unions, is critical to ensuring government remains responsive to this very live and shifting issue. As we have heard earlier, this is a very complex area of law, and so it remains live and there will be more loopholes found, I am sure.

I welcome the government's continuation of Labor's hard work on policy and legislation in this area—as do businesses, industries and unions in my electorate. In fact, this area of anti-dumping sees intense collaboration between business and unions. They are all working hard to stay competitive and working together to ensure the viability of the businesses and the jobs they have created. I commend the bill to the House, but suggest the amendments to two areas.

Mr HUTCHINSON (Lyons) (18:58): Before the member for Lalor leaves, I note her comments. It surprised me a little bit that there are not more people speaking on this bill, because it really is an important bill. For anybody that cares about jobs in Australia—certainly in terms of steel and aluminium—the bill is absolutely critical, and I think we have all heard stories about issues where the quality of imported products is not exactly what it should be.

But I suppose when it comes to her point about electrical cables there are other processes, aside from the things that this bill addresses, by which quality and standards are considered—such as Standards Australia. I stand here as somebody who has, in my electorate, a very important business that has taken a case to the Anti-Dumping Commission. I will talk a little bit more about that later. Let it not be said that I am somebody that is not in favour of fair and, particularly, free trade.

I have been a very strong advocate for the work Minister Robb has done in terms of South Korea and Japan and, more recently, China in expanding the opportunities for exporters in our country to take advantage of those large markets to our north. But at all times there should be an element of fairness in that. I note the comments from the member for Lalor about the fundamental support for this legislation. It goes to what I think every Australian would expect of their legislators, and that is to the very edge of the obligations that we have under World Trade Organisation regulations. I do not think that is overreach, I do not think that is unreasonable, because I think they do want governments. I note what the previous administration did in this area, and acknowledge that, but they do not want business that will sacrifice local businesses at any cost. Yes, it is a competitive market, and yes, anybody in business understands that competition is a critical and vital part of delivering better prices and ultimately better products to consumers, and that is something we should all support.

So, there are a number of elements to the bill before us here, and, as I said, I will touch on one specific business in my electorate that has been impacted by that. I look forward also to the contribution by the member for Murray, because I know that she has been as passionate as anybody could be about her manufacturer, SPC, and issues they had regarding tomatoes. So, I will not go into details there, but I will look forward to her contribution. The bill does a number of things, not least of which are in terms of a number of commitments we made before the last election. One was to move the Anti-Dumping Commission's responsibilities from Customs into the Department of Industry, because, at the end of the day, it is industry that is impacted by that. Notwithstanding obligations that Australia rightly has under WTO guidelines, this policy has allowed the reforms to go to what is quite within the guidelines but to the edge of the World Trade Organisation guidelines. They will put a much heavier onus on foreign exporters to cooperate with investigations if and when they are brought forward. And indeed, if they do not cooperate, they will reserve the right to impose those duties sooner.

And I think 'sooner' is the critical thing here, based on the experience I have had with Norske Skog in my electorate. This is a big business. This is a multinational business. But from their point of view, once they have put a case forward to the Anti-Dumping Commission and are ultimately given a preliminary adverse determination then the timing of that process is problematic for many businesses. I do appreciate the efforts and the intent that is within this bill to send those clear signals that are designed to send and change the behaviours of those exporters that are dealing in this space to react in a time frame that is more appropriate to the fact that we want to see that determination made in a way that allows the business to get on with business or at least limit the damage that is incurred.

The member for Lalor—and I will not dwell on this—made some points around the International Trade Remedies Forum. I am not an expert in this area, I must say, but in terms of stakeholders in issues like this we want efficient mechanisms, we want flexible mechanisms, and these are not the sorts of things you need to bring people kicking and screaming to, I do not suppose. Where there are stakeholders engaged in a process there, where there are concerns, where there are potential cases in this instance of dumping in this market, it is not going to be hard to engage with stakeholders. So, on a case-by-case and in a specific sense, the government's intention is to be able to bring together working groups, and no doubt those working groups would include the different representation that the member for Lalor suggested.

Again, I cannot understand why more people are not on the list to speak to this bill, because it really is important. Small businesses are the engine room here. The difficulty with the whole notion of the process to bring a case of anti-dumping is that it is indeed problematic for those small and medium enterprises. It is less problematic for a business like Norske Skog, whose case I will touch on in a minute. But I am particularly pleased to see that the initiatives within this are all designed to support small and medium enterprises that believe they have a case to make to the commission. And I think that is pretty consistent in terms of what this government is trying to do across a range of areas, not least of which started up with the Minister for Small Business, who is doing a wonderful job to support small business, including the grocery code he initiated in recent weeks. I think this is further evidence of the importance—in terms of procurement but also in this case antidumping—that this government places on small businesses. And many of these businesses are often family businesses, and the timing issue I touched on before is very problematic for some of these businesses.

As I mentioned, Norske Skog is located at Boyer, just near the town of New Norfolk in my electorate. They recently brought a case before the Anti-Dumping Commission in relation to newsprint, and, as I mentioned, they had a preliminary adverse determination. As much as anything else, it is about confidence for that business to know that there is a process there that is supporting local manufacturers. If you take that notion of confidence and that notion of support for local businesses—in this case, manufacturing businesses—it leads on to how you might muse about or what you might consider to be a disincentive to invest in the future.

Norske have traditionally been involved in the production of newsprint. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to understand that consumption of newsprint around the world is declining for reasons that we are all well aware—we read our newspapers on iPads and a whole range of other things. This innovative business have branched out into the production of lightweight coated catalogue grade paper and they are the only manufacturer in Australia of that product. I am not privy to the process they went through to consider whether or not the substantial investment. A loan from the state government at the time in Tasmania was provided to assist them and there was also a grant from the federal government, as it was at the time, to assist them in the substantial investment—$80 million from memory—required for the establishment of a new line there.

I have seen that line first hand and the very high technical nature of that paper manufacturing process. If you pick up a newspaper and it has a catalogue in it, more often than not, that is where it has come from in Australia. There is a market for around 300-odd thousand tonnes—out of the 400-odd thousand tonnes of paper—of lightweight coated paper in Australia. At the moment, the Norske Skog mill at Boyer is supplying about 120,000 tonnes and we hope in time they will be supplying a little bit more than that into the Australian market. Obviously, they have got advantages in terms of their ability to supply on a just-in-time basis whereas a product coming from overseas takes a little bit longer.

But I come back to my fundamental point, which is that if we want businesses to invest they should have the confidence that there are appropriate mechanisms and a timely process in place—a process that is not so cost prohibitive that it is impossible, particularly for those small and medium enterprises, to bring forward cases initially seeking preliminary adverse determinations that would then be able to incur tariffs if it were deemed to be appropriate.

As I mentioned before, a number of other cases have been brought before the Anti-Dumping Commission recently. I will not go into the details of the member for Murray's contribution. I know she is very passionate about this. We have had cases of cheap timber. As a fellow Tasmanian, I cannot understand why on earth a country like Australia would need to bring cheap timber into this country. It is quite beyond us but that is another conversation. The member for Lalor touched on steel and quality issues that are sometimes there, but arguably that is the decision for customers. That is not an issue for this bill. Where there is product meeting a certain standard being brought in and it is being sold at a price less than what it might be in their domestic market, that is where the Anti-Dumping Commission's role comes in.

After talking to about this with the Rod Bender, the managing director at Norske Skog, I can say that the difficult thing for local companies trying to fight this is that it is difficult to prove in the required time the financial hardship experienced from the dumping. This is an important and relevant bill. I note the member for Lalor's concerns, but we do want efficient and flexible mechanisms that are much less formal, because the stakeholders involved will bring themselves to the table and, on an as-needs basis, we can bring together on specific issues working groups that will no doubt include representation from a broad range of stakeholders. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (19:12): I rise to speak in favour of the amendment moved by the member for Makin to the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2015. In the beginning of my contribution, I want to briefly touch on a comment that we hear from parliamentarians, including the PM, quite often: 'We want to be a country that makes things.' It is a catchphrase that is just thrown out there. I will say that it is a seven-word slogan. So it is a step up from a three-word slogan. With 'We want to be a country that makes things', we are up to seven words. But, as a government and as a country, we need to be doing more than just mouthing more slogans when it comes to manufacturing. We need to ensure that we have strong manufacturing and that we are in fact a country that makes things.

There are three things I believe that, as a country, we should do to support our manufacturers, to support those businesses, and to support the people they employ in those businesses. Yes, we have got an antidumping bill before us, and that is one thing that government can do. A very simple thing that government can do is buy the things we make. What I would like to see from this government are government procurement policies that are being put forward where the government takes a proactive step to buy the things that we make. If we want to be a country that makes things, then let's show leadership and buy the things we make. I speak specifically about everything from defence manufacturing to the toilet paper that we have here at Parliament House. There is such a wide variety of things that we manufacture in this country, and we need to show leadership in our domestic market by buying the things we make.

I have just returned from a political-exchange delegation to Japan, where I had the great honour of talking to the Vice Minister of Defense about the fantastic Bushmaster, which is manufactured in Bendigo. I talked to the Japanese government about why they should buy the Australian Bushmasters; we as a government and country have purchased 1,000 Bushmasters. This demonstrates how good we are and how good this vehicle is. I did not know how many toilet papers we have bought but, if I had known, I would have been able to speak about those.

One of the things we can do to support manufacturing is to buy the things we make. Another thing government should start looking at, apart from antidumping, is in terms of government procurement when we put out to tender big chunks of money for capital works projects. The Prime Minister has said he wants to be the Prime Minister for infrastructure. There are a lot of dollars on the table for construction. There are a lot of materials and labour required, so let's see some leadership and have local content in those contracts. Talk to the states; talk to local government about how they can help secure local manufacturing jobs by putting local content in government procurement documents. This is another way the government can help support local manufacturing businesses and local manufacturing jobs.

The third way the government can help local manufacturers and those they employ is to have a strong antidumping regime., making sure we have a robust system so that our manufacturers and the people they employ are competing on an even playing field. This is what the antidumping legislation should be focused on. Dumping occurs when goods imported to Australia are priced lower than their normal value, which is usually the comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, in the exporter's domestic market. Where the price in the ordinary course of trade is unsuitable, the normal value may be determined by using comparable prices from exports to a third country or the cost of production plus selling the general administrative expenses and profits.

There are already established terms about what dumping is, and previous speakers have spoken on those. Previous speakers have also mentioned that dumping is not a prohibited practice, under the WTO agreements. The WTO agreements say, however, that countries which believe they are subject to antidumping can introduce bills, like this one, to introduce schemes, like those of the former Labor government, to ensure there is an even playing field. The current Australian antidumping legislation is based on the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994,and the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.

This WTO agreement seeks to bring together nations that have similar costs—for example, Canada, the US and the EU. It allows those countries to establish a system of ensuring that cheaper product from overseas is not dumped unfairly on their markets. This is an urgent matter. We need to make sure that we are not sitting idly by and watching otherwise competitive, profitable local industries—providing sustainable jobs in our local communities—succumb to rampant trade malpractice employed by other nations and other companies in those nations. The consequences of inaction to adequately address dumping will be the loss of not only those businesses but also those workers, their families and their communities who are too often subject to loss of employment.

What we have seen, so far, is a lot of people speaking from the outer suburbs and regional areas. They know the impact that cheap product dumped on the domestic market can have on jobs in their local areas. My electorate is no different. We have a large pine plantation at Woodend. Some of that has started to be harvested and over the next five years it will continue to be harvested. One of the concerns of local workers in that industry is the cheap imports that are being dumped on the market and what they will do to value price—and the pressure it will put on the company to process its timber into the wood we need for our frames.

To give a scale of the difference between product dumped on our market and what we are able to produce locally, we are not just talking about wages cost: we are talking about product that is so cheap that even in the country of origin—China or parts of America—it is less than the cost of production. It is very hard for our domestic manufacturers to compete with product so cheap that it is being produced at a loss in the country of origin. It is not about us having high wages in this country or a high Australian dollar, it is about a coordinated effort by some companies and countries to dump cheap product on our market.

The sustainability of Australian manufacturing is under threat because of this cheap product being dumped. It is vital that government adopt a strict rule-of-law approach to illegal practices that is consistent with our World Trade Organization entitlements. It is important for us to defend our local industries; it is in the national interest. Local industry is worth defending. Australian manufacturing employs five times as many people as mining—five times as many! When you include agriculture, which is another area where product is quite often dumped on our market, it means that seven times as many people are employed in agriculture and manufacturing as they are in our mines. So we are talking about a significant chunk of Australian workers whose jobs are at risk if we do not get the antidumping scheme right.

One of the arguments that is being put forward is that it is okay to have these cheap products come onto the market because they provide a better deal for consumers. This is simply an illusion, because the short-term prices remove local jobs and local industries. Prices will increase as local competition is killed off. Dumping cheap products is a deliberate strategy. Once the local competitors are gone, the price of that product will increase—and that is just the way the market works. This is why it is so important that we follow the lead of other countries around the world when it comes to antidumping. They make sure that their local industries and their local jobs are protected.

I want to acknowledge the work that some of the industry leaders have played in this debate. They have been very vocal in this area for quite some time. I know that many in the government like to criticise the role of unions, particularly the AMWU, the AWU and the CFMEU. They have formed, in partnership with employers and industries, a joint initiative, a round table, to put on the record the need for very strong antidumping legislation rules to make sure that we are doing our bit to protect jobs. In many ways, this joint round table is doing the work of government. It is put putting out there why Australia should be exercising its rights under the WTO to standing up and protect our manufacturing. The round table is in response to an urgent concern of members who work in these industries about their local jobs and local products being undercut by cheap imports.

There are two ways that other countries and their companies are undermining our locally produced products: one is through the cheaper product coming in; the other thing is by having a number of subsidies, which in many ways support what is going on. A note to the people who are drafting the text of the free trade agreements would be: perhaps when it comes to the steel, forestry and other industries, there should be some discussion about the subsidies that some countries have for their steel and forestry industries. Their subsidies prop up these manufacturers, who then go on to dump their cheap products onto our market.

This bill is complex and involves a number of technical changes. Two parts outlined in the bill are controversial, and this is why I am speaking today to the amendments. The first is the abolition of the International Trade Remedies Forum. This forum was initiated to keep the conversation going. The forum is a stakeholder body comprised of representatives such as manufacturers, producers, importers, industry associations, trade unions and government agencies. Perhaps it is because the forum involves trade unions that the government wants to abolish it. As I have demonstrated, our trade unions have taken a leading role in standing up and saying that we need to do more as a country. We want to see our government do more to protect and support local manufacturing and to create that equal playing field. The forum provides advice and feedback to the government on the operation of the antidumping scheme, the implementation and monitoring of the government's reforms on antidumping and other information which may lead to further improvements in an antidumping system. Because we are dealing with overseas companies, because we are dealing with an international market, it is important to have a body or a forum like this to continually review whether the rules we have in place are doing enough.

All the speakers that I can see on the list for this debate have local examples which they will be speaking about. What is really important is that we keep the conversation going about how we can continue to ensure that we have the best antidumping regime for our country so that we can support local manufacturing jobs. If we want to be a country that makes things it is important that we not only buy the things we make, that we not only ensure we as taxpayers get the best value for our dollar about securing local content but that we also have the strongest antidumping scheme possible to create a fair playing field. This is important not just for the manufacturers and the companies but also for the people who work for them. There are five times as many people working in manufacturing than in our mines and almost seven times as many people working in agriculture and manufacturing— (Time expired)

Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (19:28): I have great pleasure in rising tonight to speak on the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2015 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 2015. I would like to make a few initial comments about dumping because you can hear from the member for Bendigo's contribution there is much confusion about this issue in many people's minds. Provisions against dumping are not about stopping so-called cheap imports. Provisions about dumping are simply about allowing a country to take action against another country whose goods are being imported at a lower cost than what they are being sold at in the home market. It is not about predatory pricing systems, selling below cost or cheapness; it is about where country A sells something for one price in their home market but when they go out into the international playing field, the export market, they sell it at a lower price. Under the World Trade Organization provisions that in itself is what is considered dumping.

Ultimately, it is simply a form of geographic price discrimination. We could call it 'international geographic price discrimination'. One thing that has always surprised me—in fact, I find it quite hypocritical—is that, if we say that geographic price discrimination is bad when we do it across international borders, how then is it an acceptable practice if it is done across interstate borders or locally within regions?

In our Trade Practices Act, we have no provisions whatsoever, unlike many other countries, to enact or have prohibitions on localised or internal geographic price discrimination. The World Trade Organization says that, if that happens internationally, it is actually bad because it can harm businesses.

It is also very difficult to prove a case of dumping. How can you compare the price in the home market with the price in the export market? You are not making an apples-for-apples comparison. How do you determine the normal price in a home market and compare the two? We know prices in today's global markets change quickly. They respond to demand. Just look at how quickly the prices of some of our commodities from iron ore to coal and oil change and in such a short period of time.

How do you make allowances for different quantity purchases? If the quantities sold in the local home market are a thousand units but 500 units for the export market, how do you make comparisons between the two? There are also credit risks. Are there greater credit risks in the home or export market? What about statutory warranties? A supplier in Australia often has to cover a lot of statutory warranties, which adds costs to selling in Australia; but those costs may not exist in foreign countries. This makes it very difficult for Customs officials to make an apples-for-apples comparison to determine if there has been a case of dumping. That is probably why it has been such a difficult area in the past.

We also need to admit that this is important legislation. It is very important that in Australia we get the legislation right—the balance right—and that it is not simply a panacea for competition in Australia to stop cheap imports.

I know the member for Bendigo was very quick to say that she wants us to be a country that manufactures goods. I think everyone in this parliament would say that but, if we are going to be a country that manufactures goods, we need to get our costs locally under control. We need to make sure that the cost of doing business here in Australia is not putting us at a competitive disadvantage. Of course we saw that under the last Labor government. They decided that Australian industry should be burdened with a carbon tax. So if I was manufacturing a product here in Australia, I would have the burden of a carbon tax; but if I was manufacturing that exact same product overseas, I would not pay a carbon tax. Misguided, confused policies like that simply put Australian industry at a competitive disadvantage and make it harder and harder for people to manufacture products in Australia.

We have got rid of the carbon tax and we have seen the biggest fall in electricity prices on record. That has helped make Australian companies more competitive, but there is still a lot more to do. We have seen the renewable energy target. If you mandate or force onto the market a higher cost and inefficient production, you simply force the price up. The renewable energy target simply forces up the price of electricity. The higher the percentage and the more gigawatts we have under the renewable energy target, the higher the cost of electricity. It is as simple as that.

We also have the threat of an ETS. We know that the current policy of the opposition, should they ever come to government, is to implement an ETS upon Australian industry. Again, many of our overseas competitors would not actually have to pay that. It would be another burden on Australian industry, which is the reason why our costs are higher.

I come to the importance of lowering electricity costs. We have seen the most disgraceful and shameful scare campaign in New South Wales on the privatisation of electricity costs. We have New South Wales members of parliament and their union mates running a terrible, disgraceful scare campaign, claiming that privatisation would lead to an increase in electricity prices.

Mr Husic: Terrible!

Mr CRAIG KELLY: I note the member for Chifley is sitting at the table. I hope he will show some leadership and condemn his fellow New South Wales state parliamentarians, and say what a disgraceful scare campaign it is. I hope the member for Chifley will show some leadership in that respect and not join the throng of those who are carrying on with this nonsense—this misleading scare campaign.

We then heard from Rod Sims, Chairman of the ACCC, that if the privatisation goes ahead, electricity prices will be lower. We have had Bob Carr, the former New South Wales state Premier—and very highly distinguished foreign minister well known for his requirements of fine-quality pyjamas on first-class flights—also agreeing that electricity needs to be privatised.

We have had the former New South Wales Treasurer come out and say that costs will be lower. We have had ex-Labor Party member after ex-Labor Party member come out and say: 'Costs will be lower, if we privatise electricity.' Perhaps the member for Chifley sitting there at the table could come and add his voice to his former colleagues like the former resources minister, Mr Martin Ferguson, who came out today and said he was ashamed of the Labor Party for not doing the right thing and standing up for the privatisation of electricity. I see the member for Chifley has let this opportunity go. I cannot say that I have not given him the opportunity.

In lowering our costs, we need to look at our tax rates. We currently have a corporate tax rate of 30 per cent, which puts us out of step with our near neighbours. If we look at countries like Hong Kong, it is 16.5; Taiwan, 17; and Singapore, 17. At 30 per cent, we are simply out of step, and again that puts more pressure and makes our industry less competitive.

I know some on the other side would like to raise company tax because they think it would raise more revenue. I suppose if you sit down and think of it on a very basic level, which I know many members of the opposition do, you could come up with that. They think that if we raise the rate of tax we will get more money in and that will give us more money to spend. But our history has shown the exact opposite. Over the last 50 years, every single time that we have lowered the rate of company tax, do you know what has happened? We have not got less revenue; we have got more revenue. We have got more revenue not only in gross terms but also—the most important measure—as a percentage of GDP. Every time our corporate tax rate has been lowered the Treasury has received more revenue as a percentage of GDP. So, even if you like the idea of big government and plenty of money to spend, the best way you can get that is by lowering the corporate rate of tax, because that will also assist in making our Australian industries more competitive.

This bill works to get the balance right. If your antidumping provisions are too generous, too easy to bring claims under, you have some of the situations which we have seen in America. Many American companies in the furniture and bedding industry brought claims against Chinese manufacturers and very punitive dumping duties were placed on those manufacturers. But that did not actually do anything to protect or save American jobs. It did not do anything to reduce the flow of imports of Chinese furniture into the United States. It simply worked as an anticompetitive tool. That is why I support the bill—because it works on getting the balance right. That is what we need to do—get the balance right in this dumping area.

There are a couple of things that the bill does. It establishes the Anti-Dumping Information Service and increases the number of international trade remedy advisers to better support business engaging with the system. It directs an Anti-Dumping Commissioner to impose provisional duties at day 60 of an investigation where relevant conditions are met. That is most important, because where there are cases of dumping it is very important that the legislation and the system we have in place work quickly. There is no point in bringing in countervailing duties or taking action months and months after the action has occurred, because by then the horse has bolted and the damage has been done. So reducing that to 60 days is a very important provision. The bill also provides less tolerance for uncooperative exporters. If companies do not respond to requests for information, the Anti-Dumping Commission will proceed with their investigations on the basis of information which could be from an application brought forward by Australian industry. Again, this is an important provision.

In the final minutes left I would like to quickly say that I do not support the amendment proposed by the opposition. The amendment involves the International Trade Remedies Forum, which was set up by the previous Labor government. For all intents and purposes that forum is redundant. We know that it is stacked. By its regulations, it is compulsory that it has a discriminatory provision where four members must be union members. I know that the opposition likes to have these things to give jobs to their union mates. This is an unnecessary, redundant provision, and I oppose the amendment. All up, I commend this bill to the House. It is a good piece of legislation. It works on getting that balance right, without going too far as we have seen in countries like the United States, to make sure that we give Australian industry the ability to bring claims and to act quickly where a dumping case comes up.

As I have said, ultimately, we need to make sure that in government we work to get the costs off Australian industry. We cannot save Australian industry through antidumping legislation. The only way we can save Australian industry is to get their costs down—to get their electricity costs down, to get the taxes down, to get the red tape off their back, to let them get out there and compete on an international playing field. I know from my own personal experience before coming to this place that our Australian companies are good enough to go out and compete internationally and win export orders. That is what we can do, and that is what we want to encourage them to do. We want to encourage our businesses in Australia to get out there and fight on that international playing field, to take the risk and to use their innovation. We have done that with the trifecta of free trade agreements with South Korea, Japan and China. That is what we want to do: incentivise our industry, incentivise our exporters and incentivise our entrepreneurs to get out there. We want to make sure that if they set up a business in Australia—and that is what this bill does, too—they will have effective provisions against dumping and there will be a quick remedy. I commend this bill to the House.

Ms MacTIERNAN (Perth) (19:42): I strongly support the amendment that has been moved by my colleague. I support the underlying thrust of the legislation but I certainly object to the removal of the industry forum, and I will go through each of these separately. I think it is really important for us to understand that we need antidumping laws because markets are not as perfect as people like to imagine. We know that an industry can be under attack from overseas competitors who flood a market with a product at below the cost it takes to develop that product. Of course, one of the advantages of doing that, particularly if you have small market like Australia, is that, for a relatively incidental cost for the company doing that, they can ensure that in that process they can eliminate some of their competition. So smaller countries like Australia, in particular, have to be very, very vigilant about this to ensure that our markets are not improperly and unfairly overrun. We do understand and support the fundamental notion that we are in a globalised economy, but, just as we have within our own country internal laws to prevent unfair competition and certain commercial practices which actually are anything other than equitable and fair, where people can use their position in the market to unfairly disadvantage their competition, likewise we need to do this in an international forum. It is a very real problem for us in Australia.

In Western Australia, one of the areas where there is strong concern about improper pricing of steel is in the lintel industry. Our standard technique of construction in Western Australia is somewhat different to the sticks that you hammer together in the eastern states. Our standard form of construction is double brick, and so we have a much higher strength lintel. Our manufacturers are very concerned that this galvanised product is coming in from China at about one-third of the price that it can be produced in Western Australia. There is concern that this is a galvanised product. Galvanisation is a risky process, where there needs to be a great deal of care, otherwise people can be injured. There is certainly a level of disbelief that that product is indeed being produced in China for that price. Unfortunately for many manufacturers, particularly the smaller outfits that we tend to have in Western Australia, the delays and the complexity involved in taking an anti-dumping case really militate against it being an effective remedy. The Steel Institute's James England, based in WA, said: 'The delays are the most costly part of the whole exercise. It is assumed the imposition of a tariff against dumped goods will stop the goods damaging our firms, but it is too late to act after the damaged good has been sold.' He went on to talk about how that underpriced good goes right through the supply chain, making it more and more difficult to take action against complex transformed products.

We support and welcome the government continuing the work that Labor has done. This is one of these areas where we have seen governments each building upon the initiatives of previous governments to strengthen these positions. In particular, some of the provisions in relation to making it easier to establish that there has been a breach and ensuring that remedy is available earlier are really important, because delay, as I said, is one of the great impediments to taking an action, as is the complexity. But these things will be totally ineffective if we are not properly resourcing the Australian Anti-Dumping Commission. I note with some concern that Australia's only solar panel manufacturer, Tindo Solar, are seeking to bring an action against the importation of certain crystalline silicon solar panels, which they believe—and they seem to have some evidence—are well below production cost and that many companies have collapsed or been absorbed in recent years as the global supply wreaked havoc through the solar manufacturing industry. So we have a situation where there is possibly a problem in China itself leading to our markets being flooded and our capacity for any local manufacturing of solar panels has arguably been compromised, but, for the second time, the Australian Anti-Dumping Commission has put off the investigation of this matter because it claims it simply does not have the resources given the heavy workload that it has. It is all very well to come in here and talk about a new legislative framework that is going to make it easier, but, if, as with the case of Tindo Solar, you cannot get any action taken because the entity does not have sufficient funds, it is all for naught. So I think that we are going to have to be very vigilant in ensuring that this legislation is something other than a hollow gesture and that the ADC is in a position to take the action that we are here empowering it to do.

I want to talk a bit about the other aspect of this, which is the abolition of the tripartite consultation body. This is a very, very disappointing example of a tendency that we have seen with this government—the extreme anti-union attitude that it has, which ultimately is in fact very destructive to our economy. When we established the International Trade Remedies Forum, it was a body that represented business and the unions. Indeed, one might argue that it had a singularity of interest here in ensuring that Australian manufacturing and agriculture in particular were being given a level playing field on which to compete. I know that, as has been said here previously, since the Abbott government has come to power the forum has not been active, and this has, I think, been to the detriment of business. When representatives came to Perth in the first half of 2013, after the body was formed, it was very useful for manufacturers to come to this forum to get a clearer understanding of what was going on and to know that their concerns as stakeholders were being taken into the heart of government.

I think that it is really interesting to compare this ideological, anti-union position that we have here in Australia with what we see in Germany. It is interesting to look at an article that was written last year entitled 'From sick man of Europe to economic superstar', which talks about Germany's resurgent economy, and how they have managed to survive. They have had their difficulties, but when you consider what else the rest of the Western world has been through, they have managed to, in some very trying circumstances, keep their economy afloat while bailing out and underwriting the economies of southern Europe.

The article talks about the distinctive characteristic of the labour market institutions—those employee associations, trade unions and work councils that have been established and which have underpinned German economic success. It really allowed Germany to react with much greater flexibility than we saw in other jurisdictions during the GFC. This is because they have a system that has buy-in from across the society. They have a system of wage floors which are negotiated periodically between trade unions and employer associations, typically at an industry or regional level. This really has been the corner-stone of furthering the common interests in improving productivity. They have, in these agreements, created a flexibility within the wage system to increase or decrease the hours of work, which really has been a major contributor to Germany being able to keep the unemployment rate low during the GFC. We can see that even under conservative administrations like Angela Merkel's there is an acceptance of the usefulness of having these tripartite arrangements—the usefulness of having every quotient in the industrial equation engaged in trying to solve these problems and trying to solve these issues.

Unfortunately, what we have here, is the reverting-to-type Abbott, primitive, conservative, old-school response to the fact of unions and their involvement. That is not a creative way to take our economy forward. I think that this is indicative of what we see the government doing. I understand there are a great number of tripartite bodies that this government are either dismantling or taking the union membership from. I think that will make government the poorer. Certainly, it will not boost our productivity or our effectiveness.

These anti-dumping laws are very important. We must make sure that we ensure—in our relatively small economy, operating in a global environment—that our manufacturers, agricultural producers, and service providers have a fair and proper basis for competing in that international community. I will make the comment: it amounts to nothing if we are not going to provide adequate resources to the ADC to implement the changes that we are going to be making here today.

Dr STONE (Murray) (19:56): I, too, rise to support the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2015. I have spoken often in this place about Australia's anti-dumping regime. In the past I have been condemning it in saying how poorly it has served the Australian nation, particularly our small, medium and larger sized enterprises. But tonight I can stand here proudly and say that this coalition government has brought to an end the travesty of justice that too often was the experience of Australian manufacturers or suppliers of goods when it came to trying to have an anti-dumping regime delivered to stop dumped imports.

It is a fact that, for years, Australia's anti-dumping regime was considered virtually non-enforceable. We had company after company finding that it took forever to bring a case; that costs were prohibitive; that they were buried in red-tape. The government officials themselves did not seem to be interested. In fact, they seemed to take delight in finding no case to answer. I wonder if that was perhaps because, if there were a case brought against a decision in the WTO—a decision challenging Australia's decision to bring on an anti-dumping set of duties—that the government department would have to pay the cost of that particular challenge.

All of that is behind us I am very pleased and proud to say. I am also pleased and proud to say that a lot of the changes were brought through the experience and tenacity of the CEO of SPC Ardmona, Mr Peter Kelly. He had the most extraordinary experience at the height of the problems that surrounded the survival of the last Australian fruit processing company. He was trying to maintain exports, and at the time when the dollar was a little lower, the Australian canned fruits and preserved fruits were some 30 per cent of SPC Ardmona's earnings in the export markets. When the dollar went beyond parity with the US currency, those markets were lost and we saw a flood of imported, cheap and, too frequently, dumped product—tomatoes from Italy; peaches from South Africa; peaches from China—flooding into the Australian market. They were snapped up by supermarkets and the hospitality industry, who loved the big three-kilo cans of tomatoes, for example, which sold on average for $8 or $9 compared to $13 or $14 for the same sized can of Australian product.

The difference of course is that the Chinese imported cans of, say, peaches have been tested and have been found to contain levels of lead which are way above human tolerance and are very dangerous to health, particularly of the elderly, the young and those with compromised immunity systems. But the public was not to know that, given that all they saw was this product on our shelves. No antidumping actions were taken against them and hence the incredibly cheap prices that were simply added to the profit margins of, in particular, the two big supermarkets, Coles and Woolworths.

With this new regime that the coalition has ushered in, we are going to reduce the time for deadlines for submissions from 40 days to 37 days. Three days difference might not seem much, but this is the minimum time allowed under the WTO. Every day that you have dumped product accumulating in the big supermarket warehouses that will then be sold in competition against your Australian product, you can cut out from those transactions. It will serve the interests of your Australian industry.

The government are also going to crack down when overseas producers refuse to cooperate with antidumping investigations. It has been a bit of a joke in the past where you simply refuse to give information or you claim that the product that you were having investigated was different—for example, that it was organic tomatoes not non-organic tomatoes—and therefore should not be treated as like product. This was of course absurd and a nonsense, even when Coles stamped their cans of imported dumped tomatoes as 'Certified Australian Organic Consistent.' Indeed, there were no agreed organic guidelines at the time but Coles were very happy to put that label on the side of the product. It often confused the customer, who saw the word 'Australian,' picked up the can and imagined they were in fact consuming an Australian tomato product.

Also, if you have not given adequate information and have not responded to the request for data, we will proceed with the investigation based on the best information already supplied. That might be the information supplied by the Australian industry bringing the case. To me, that seems only fair. For too long it has been all the other way.

We will strengthen enforcement of the provisions of the WTO agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures. This will be implemented by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which represents Australia at the WTO and other international forums. This will give us a stronger stance internationally and more transparency on foreign subsidies, including those identified during antidumping investigations. Let me say that when the antidumping case was brought against Italian canned tomatoes by SPC Ardmona, of the some 90 separate importers investigated, about 88 or so of those were found to be dumping the product—in other words, selling it below the normal price that was charged in the home country. But two of the companies got away with it. They were found to have dumped but below two per cent, so they did not have the dumping duties applied to their product. It just so happened that those two exporting brands constituted more than half the market in Australia.

One argument used at the time by SPC Ardmona was that the antidumping agency had not taken into consideration the subsidies that were embedded in the low prices that the Italian tomato manufacturers could pay to their growers. Under the EU agricultural reform policies they were receiving subsidies, which could then be passed on to the manufacturer in the form of very cheap raw material for canning. The SPC Ardmona case has now been brought back against the remaining two large Italian exporters of tinned tomatoes. This time the subsidies embedded in the products will be given proper examination. So there we see how the antidumping regime has evolved in Australia to be fairer, more transparent and will now more closely conform to WTO guidelines and benchmarks.

The government will also provide better advice to Australian businesses with a hotline. We will enhance the support services with the International Trade Remedies Adviser, in particular, by increasing the number of advisers. We will establish an antidumping information service, to provide new information about products including market analysis. All of this is very important because too often in Australia, as I said before, we have seen poor representation of Australia's interests by the antidumping agency, until these amendments came into being.

With the previous regime, we also had a culture of not appearing to care. I have a lot of faith in the new director in particular. I think he has national interests at heart. But I am also pleased to see that we will no longer always take the side of the imported product, because let me give you one short story. At the height of the dumping activity in Australia, when the dollar was so high, when we were in the middle of the worst drought on record, there was a huge volume of imported peaches from South Africa. They came into the country and ended up on our supermarket shelves. Both Australia and New Zealand at the same time were requested to consider bringing in antidumping duties by their respective industries. In the case of New Zealand that antidumping regime immediately found on behalf of the New Zealand fruit growers that this South African peach product was dumped. They immediately reimposed antidumping duties that had in fact been in place before.

At the same time, the Australian antidumping regime, looking at the same product and the same complaints, ruled that there was some antidumping action but that the Australian company simply had to get over it. They were not going to have the support and the fairness of imposing antidumping duties against the South African tinned peach product and it could continue to flood into the Australian market. And it did.

Very recently there was an extraordinary news item out of South Africa, which trumpeted the fact that the South African consumer protection and competition agency itself was fining these companies that Australia had let off the hook for anticompetitive behaviour in export markets. Here was South Africa saying their own companies had not done right by their behaviour in export markets, and they, therefore, fined them. Yet Australia's own antidumping regime had let these same companies off the hook, while New Zealand had set antidumping duties to protect its own industry. That is a classic case of how poor Australia's antidumping regime has been in the past.

Under the previous government, they did not seem to care. They just simply had the attitude that anything that gives cheap product to the Australian consumer will do. They seemed to share the same notion as Coles and Woolworths that down down, everyday, low prices best serve the Australian grocery buyer. Unfortunately, we have seen in very recent days that that cheap, down down, everyday, low price can sometimes lead to very serious problems with food safety when a company disguises the true country of origin of that food, made from local and imported ingredients, by poor labelling.

We have had the hepatitis A outbreak in imported frozen berries from China. I mentioned the lead in the tinned peaches, and they were assessed and found to be contaminated over 12 months ago. There has been more recent testing of tinned peaches from China where arsenic and lead are under very close scrutiny. I am very fearful because, in particular, the big hospitality size cans of this product, typically, are served to people in institutions like hospitals, prisons, the armed forces, Defence forces, school canteens and other types of public institutions, and those products are fed to people without them being able to check a label and see what its country of origin is. I have said that we have real contamination issues with heavy metals. But there are also other problems like biological contaminations, such as with Escherichia coli, which is an indicator of faecal contamination, and hepatitis A.

So we have had a whole raft of problems affecting the Australian food manufacturers when they have had to compete against cheap, dumped, imported product with few fair and reasonable results being delivered by the previous antidumping regime. They have had to deal with complex, confusing and probably deliberately non-transparent labelling laws, which allowed a lot of the imported, dumped, cheap product to compete with Australian product without its actual origins being well known and well understood by the buyer. We have also had a problem of poor food security checking at our border. We have product coming into the country now which has serious food safety issues associated with it.

This recent scare of hepatitis A in frozen berries, accompanied by the arsenic and lead contamination in more imported canned fruit products, combined with this new and improved antidumping regime, spells a new potential capacity to compete for our Australian manufacturers. Whether they are in the business of making aluminium, car parts or clothing, we have to have fair play. The World Trade Organization understands this and they have had rules in place for a very long time. Australia has been gutless in the past. We are courageous on the battlefields. We are courageous on the sporting grounds. When it has come to sticking up for Australian enterprise, we have run away. We have hidden our heads for reasons that are quite beyond me. I commend this Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2015 to the House. I hope that we will never again see the cowardly behaviour of an agency like we had for too long in the form of the Australian antidumping regime.

Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (20:11): I am very happy to rise and contribute to this debate and, indeed, support the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2015, however modest it is. It is an improvement to the current arrangements and it may provide some further support to local industry that has been confronted with serious challenges by antidumping and by certain companies who have sought to breach WTO provisions. For that reason, whilst there might be some amendments foreshadowed by the opposition to strengthen the bill, I think it does assist with efforts by government to ensure that our local manufacturers are not unfairly affected by improper, unlawful conduct by those companies seeking to take some of the market share.

But, to place it into some context, I think it is important to reflect upon some of the very significant measures that were outlined and implemented by the previous Labor government in relation to dumping. As Minister for Home Affairs, I had responsibility for this area of public policy in 2010, 2011 and 2012. As a result, I met with many of the significant manufacturers who were dealing with a number of challenges, some of which were beyond the control of government but, nonetheless, were ones that were causing them great difficulty, namely and in particular, the exchange rate.

These manufacturers, like the tourist industry, were dealing with a very high and persistent dollar, which, as you know, can be helpful to Australians who, for example, want to travel overseas. It is a wonderful thing to have such purchasing power to travel to New York and have a dollar that has more value than the American greenback, and it is good for importers to purchase goods. That can, indeed, be a benefit to importers or consumers who are purchasing imported goods. But it may not be for those manufacturers exporting and for the tourist industry relying upon incoming tourists—and, of course, the value of their currency has a great sway on whether they choose Australia as a destination or choose another destination—and upon the local tourist, who sought to go overseas because of that advantage. For manufacturers exporting there were great challenges in that period.

As a result, we looked at our anti-dumping mechanism through the prism of whether it was of any use to our manufacturing sector and concluded that significant reforms were required to protect the interests of our sector, to ensure that jobs were not unduly lost and to ensure that sectors of our economy such as manufacturing and tourism thrived, not just survived. For that reason, as minister at the time, I introduced a whole range of anti-dumping measures which, if I may say so, were the most significant reforms that had been undertaken in this area of public policy for at least 20 years. It was really responding to the needs of manufacturers. I have recently spoken to OneSteel, BlueScope and other significant employers in this country. They tell me that those reforms, in combination with the further reforms by Minister Combet and further work done by Minister Clare in the portfolio that I held a little earlier, have led to very significant benefits for our manufacturers. These reforms were all in keeping with our WTO obligations but, in combination, sent a very strong message to those who wanted to take a market share of our economy that they would have to do so within the rules.

What I found when I examined comparable anti-dumping regimes around the world was that our regime was probably the least effective. The Productivity Commission, in many cases, does good work but, despite what I found, the PC's review of anti-dumping sought to weaken the regime, to weaken the support for local industry and to introduce measures that would have acted contrary to the interests of manufacturers. So I was not in an easy position in having to receive a report that I supported in part but not substantively. From that point, we as a government introduced new reforms which were welcomed by industry and by unions. And there were further reforms undertaken by the then ministers Combet and Clare. So there was a suite of reforms throughout that entire period because it was so obvious that the acute impact of the exchange rate on our manufacturing sector was such that, if we could not provide ways to mitigate it—and one of them was to use the quite reasonable approach of approving our anti-dumping regime—there would have been more job losses and more company failures. It would have been a terrible thing.

This bill is more modest in its reach but consistent with the approach taken by the previous government. While I applaud the government for its introduction, I would refer to the fact that an amendment has been moved to retain the International Trade Remedies Forum. The government wants to abolish that forum. I think that is the wrong move and it is critical that the forum be maintained. It is of great use. If you speak to manufacturers around the country who rely upon government support and this particular regime, you would find almost universal support for that forum. Therefore, it would be a mistake for the government to abolish such a forum—and that is why Labor has moved an amendment to that effect.

The one thing this government seems to have failed to do in areas of public policy is to maintain stakeholders in the process. We accept there are times when you can remove obsolete bodies that are not being effective. But there are many bodies where you have wonderful people from industry and other walks of life providing really good advice to government, and the idea of just sacking all those people under the heading of getting rid of red tape or getting rid of bureaucrats—they are not bureaucrats, they are not public servants; they are industry people—is a big mistake. In relation to this area, whether it is the International Trade Remedies Forum or other areas of public policy, the government would do well to think about the use of mechanisms that provide a platform for industry or others to inform government.

We therefore seek some amendments. But it is good to see that the coalition, whilst failing to do anything when they were in government during the Howard years, have ensured that there is maintenance of the reforms that we implemented. Specifically, on 2 March 2011 we moved to make changes to laws governing the process for reviewing anti-dumping measures. Dumping is when an overseas country exports its goods to another country at a price that is below the price it charges in its home market or below the cost of production. That is the essence of dumping. We sought to respond to that because it was unduly prevalent in some sectors of our economy. What we did was put in place a bunch of reforms. The legislation, for example, outlined a specific procedure for applying for revocation separate to the existing review process. The bill clarified that, if a party wants the minister to revoke anti-dumping measures, it must initiate the request or apply within a certain time. This move, we argued then, would make the review process more open and transparent, giving Australian manufacturers adequate time to respond to an application for revocation.

There were many impediments—and I just point to that example—to enabling manufacturers, particularly smaller manufacturers, to be involved in reviewing a decision as to whether or not a good had been dumped in our economy. Removing those impediments and providing support for industry has led to a much better result. For example, I have been advised by local companies that they have won cases on review that they believe they would never have won without the reforms that were undertaken in the period when Labor was last in office. Therefore, it is good to see that in this anti-dumping measure—other than the wrongful step of looking to repeal a forum that I think is of use to government—there is no effort to turn back those reforms that were so important to local industry.

Local manufacturers like BlueScope Steel and OneSteel—those very innovative and remarkably good companies—were confronted by the higher Australian dollar and overcame that challenge. Then, assisted by good government, they overcame some improper conduct by some exporters to Australia, which were in breach of anti-dumping rules. As a response to those things those companies have come through very well. If you look, for example, at the profit margins of some of those companies, you will find that they are now in the black—and they were in the black in recent times. That was not the case five years ago. That was not even the case four years ago.

We—employers, unions and government—should collectively be very proud of the fact that what we did back then was the right thing to do. It has been affirmed to me as recently as last Tuesday, when I was meeting with the very senior managers of these companies, who informed me that those reforms made the difference between whether they found themselves running at a profit or a loss. That is how significant it was. I pay credit to this government for not seeking to change those, but instead to add to some measures. I would only like to suggest—I do so by way of finishing—that we do not proceed with removing the forum that is referred to within the regime. This particular forum, the International Trade Remedies Forum, is very important. It should not be abolished. If the government accepts the amendment I think it would mean that there would be a unanimous position—it would certainly be a position of the two major parties, if not of all parties—that this bill should be accepted in its entirety.

Mr RAMSEY (Grey) (20:25): Australia is undoubtedly open for business. We are open for free and fair trade, but we are not open for unfair trade. That is why we have laws against the dumping of products into our Australian market. I am currently the chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry, and at the current time we are involved with an inquiry into the circumvention of Australia's anti-dumping laws and regulations. From about August and September last year, in my position as chair of the committee, I received repeated contacts from our manufacturing industries—the steel industry, the aluminium industry, the food industry and forestry, just to name some of the respondents. I give some credit to the previous government—and the member for Gorton has just been on his feet—who had a go in this area and tried to make some difference. I think their legislation has made some difference, but I do not think we have wrapped it all up yet. I think there is a way to go.

I must say that since the previous government's legislation was implemented in the middle of last year, I have been somewhat surprised that only one company—up until a few days ago, at least—had lodged a complaint under the new legislation. That was Capral. The recent ruling by the Anti-Dumping Commissioner, not only imposing a duty on the offending aluminium products but backdating the penalty to the time the application was lodged, has given Australian industry some heart. However, anti-dumping rulings, and the effective circumvention of them, is a slippery beast indeed—a little like taxation law. We often make alterations to laws surrounding tax in Australia, and as soon as the smartest brains in parliament come up with some new laws to stop taxation evasion, then the smartest brains in corporate law and accounting work out ways to get around them. It seems to be the same with anti-dumping rulings.

My committee has been listening to witnesses in the last few weeks, and in fact Capral Limited was in to speak to us back on 26 February. Referring to the Anti-Dumping Commissioner's decision to impose a penalty—and a back penalty retrospectively—on the importer, Mr Phil Jobe said:

One of the aspects of this decision we were not pleased with was the retrospectivity back to April. We were very pleased that the principle was achieved, but in this case the importers set up a $2 company just after the inquiry was announced and starting buying, we understand, the bulk of the metal through that company, which was not listed in the original application, and by that very simple act they appear, at this point anyway, to have avoided something like $8 million to $8½ million worth of—

Unfortunately, the chair on that day—which happened to be me—cut the gentleman off. I said to him:

This would be what you refer to as a phoenix company?

Mr Jobe said, 'Yes.'

At this stage, we only have Capral's assertions on this issue, but I have no particular reason to doubt what they say. It clearly demonstrates just how difficult this area is, and how quick the actions are of those intent on avoiding our legitimate tariffs—tariffs that are put in place to level the playing field against those who either subsidise their production or practise predatory pricing policy against Australia. Certainly affected industries are very pleased with the appointment of the Anti-Dumping Commissioner and his different view on like goods. They are also very pleased that the government is taking this situation seriously, and today's legislation is the first in what is likely to be a number of amendments to this system.

Already I have had a steep learning curve as to what constitutes circumvention. Antidumping rulings are put in place when the commission finds that goods that are being imported into Australia are subsidised and/or sold at a lower price than the one at which they are sold in their home market. This can make it very difficult for the commission to gather sufficient evidence to prove either case, particularly when they may be dealing with a closed economy and/or questionable accounting practices. One of the tools the commissioner has been afforded is the ability to look at like economies to estimate what a fair price is for a good. Further, they can now, following the Capral decision and its backdating of penalties, put much more pressure on importers and their sources to provide information.

I might take the time to point out some of the methods that have been pointed out in my committee already that constitute circumvention—for instance, slight alteration of the product. In the steel industry, manufacturers have been adding boron to their steel mix. For all intents and purposes, boron does not improve the steel, and neither does it do any harm to the steel. But, in a strictly technical sense, it turns the steel into an alloy. Thus it avoids the original antidumping action. With aluminium, we find that the aluminium manufacturers are altering the extrusions. They might be making them slightly over specification by a millimetre, or under specification by a millimetre. They might be drilling holes at certain places in the extrusion. So, they say that that is not the same product as the one that has been named in the antidumping action.

And then there are foodstuffs. I was listening to my friend the member for Murray, who knows much about the cases around SPC. For tomato mixes, it is so simple if you have a pasta sauce or a chutney to change the variable rates of the spices that might be added to the product and say, 'This isn't the same product as the one that has been named in the antidumping action; this is a completely new sauce'—or a completely new chutney. That is another way that our antidumping rulings have been circumvented. Another way that companies might seek to go around Australia's regulation is to move their products through a third country. They might even rebrand the product while it passes through this country. So, a country that might have an antidumping ruling against it may move it to a second country and rebrand—or not even rebrand but just say that it is sourced from a different country and bring it into Australia that way. Another method is to, instead of importing the entire product into Australia, perhaps bring in a number of parts and assemble here, and maybe source some of the parts from different parts of the world. And of course, as Mr Phil Jobe pointed out, there is the incidence now of phoenix companies, whereby once an action has been started against an importer then they could close that company up today and then bring in that product through another company.

One of the things our Anti-Dumping Commissioner needs is the power of legislation and the flexibility to deal with these issues on basically a daily basis so that when it is clear that the object of the change is to circumvent our rulings then we can act in an appropriate manner—which of course brings us to today's legislation. One of the things this legislation will do is tighten the time lines for response. Admittedly it is only from 40 days to 37 days, but there is a limit to how low we can go, and we think this is as feasibly low as possible. We will be increasing the pressure on foreign exporters to provide transparent access to their businesses for our investigators, and this is a very important point. We have to be able to see the books of the companies that are exporting into Australia so that we can understand exactly what that product is worth in their market and whether there has been a significant input of subsidies or other things that might be going on in their economies that are holding their prices up but depressing them when they send it into our country. If they do not cooperate, then we will take the opportunity to inflict penalties earlier in the process. We will take a stronger line in international negotiations surrounding the WTO. We are tightening the merits review function, and this will more fully deal with the issues of circumvention.

The whole process can be daunting for businesses actually bringing the information to the Anti-Dumping Commissioner. It takes quite a bit of effort. So, very importantly, I think, we are introducing a range of measures to assist our businesses in formulating their cases. It always comes back to self-interest—well, maybe not always, but I think one of the great adages in Australia is, 'Always back self-interest, because at least you know it's trying.' And in my particular case, Whyalla has one of only two blast furnaces operating in Australia. The OneSteel Arrium steelmaking works in Whyalla employs over 1,600 people directly, and it is the heart and the soul of the city. Three or four years ago that steelmaking plant was losing a lot of money, and Arrium quickly expanded its mining and direct export process to a point where it was exporting 13 million tonnes a year. They had opened up a new iron ore mine in the north of the state—which, paradoxically, is called Southern Iron, but it just depends where you are standing on the map when you are looking at it, I guess. Unfortunately, Arrium has announced the closure of this mine, the mothballing of it. It will cost them in excess of $70 million; 600 workers are losing their jobs. The flipside of that is that they are increasing production out of the Middleback Ranges somewhat, but it will not cover all the losses and it will not cover all the jobs.

In that time frame, the steel industry has got back into the black. It is not making a lot of money, but it is performing better than it was some years ago. Anything that is threatening that recovery, and it can be dumped goods, is of great personal interest to me and the city of Whyalla. So I am very pleased to be in the position I am at the moment as chair of the committee that is looking into this circumvention issue. As I said, back self-interest and at least you know they are trying. So those people will know I am trying, that I am trying to find the truth and trying to find the right answers for the government so we can deal with this on an ongoing basis—because, as I said, it is like taxation law: once you change the law then the smartest brains in the business are out there trying to find a way around it again.

OneSteel, Arrium, are confident they can compete in an even market, but not if others are cheating on us. As I said, Australia is open for business. Australia welcomes free and fair trade but it must be fair trade, and that is the underlying issue. There are another couple of points that are concerning me around Arrium and OneSteel at the moment. They are not directly connected to this bill, but I would like to lay them on the table very briefly at the end of this speech.

I have been making some noise recently about our Coastal Shipping Act. It has a very strong effect on my GRA gypsum mine, which is out west of Ceduna, producing up to 90 per cent of Australia's gyprock, and the steel makers in Whyalla who use coastal shipping both to bring coal to Whyalla from around Australia and to ship steel. Recently, Arrium have been trying to bid for a steel contract in Queensland—I will not go any further than say that they are bidding for a major steel contract in Queensland—only to find, though, that their competitors can now bring steel into Australia freight-wise cheaper from Korea, China or Japan than they can shipping it from Whyalla around the coast under our Coastal Shipping Act.

The Deputy Prime Minister has put out a discussion paper and has spoken to the Australian public and said that he needs to make reforms in this area. I strongly support that position. At the end of the day, if we just protect those jobs that are associated with the Australian shipping lines and put our major businesses out of work, like the steel works and gypsum works, then there will be no jobs for anyone to fight over. There will be no loads on the ships, so they will not have to worry about their jobs, and there will be no-one working at the steel works and no-one working out a Phnong. Let's hope it does not come to that and that there is some sense here. This is at the margins, but it is a very important margin. I thank you for your forbearance there, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know that was a little off the subject, but I thought I would get it on the plate anyway.

Mr IRONS (Swan) (20:40): I too rise to speak on the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2015 in the debate on the second reading and on the amendment moved by the member for Makin. I see the member for Gorton is here. He grew up in Victoria, like I did—in a manufacturing state. Now I live in Western Australia, which is a state that is a net exporter of goods. To manufacturing states, this is a bill that will be highly important to them. The member for Gorton mentioned the previous work done by the Labor government and also congratulated the current government for the work they are continuing to do.

We do not have a lot of manufacturing in the electorate of Swan, but we do have a freight rail and head that is very important to the north-west and the export of iron ore which is then turned into finished goods overseas. What I would like to do is go slowly through the bill for the benefit of members and the people of Western Australia—which is not as strong a manufacturing state as Victoria and all the other states. The antidumping reforms will implement the outstanding four election commitments. The bill will also abolish and reform less useful and underperforming features of the antidumping system, including fixing the merits review process. It will improve support services to provide better advice, assistance and information to Australian businesses engaging with the antidumping system. It will also see a range of other technical amendments made to the antidumping system that will simplify and clarify aspects of the antidumping investigation processes.

Also for the people in Western Australia who do not know what dumping is: dumping is the sale of goods by overseas exporters into our market at a price lower than the normal value, which is generally the price payable for those goods in the exporter's domestic market. Australia can apply antidumping duties up to the difference between the export price and the normal value where dumped goods cause or threaten material injury to the Australian industry producing like goods.

I am sure the member for Gorton has travelled overseas, like I have. I travelled extensively when I was working for a manufacturing base for a commercial industrial air-conditioning manufacturing company in Victoria that originated in South Melbourne and then moved out to Cheltenham. We not only produced our own goods but also relied on importing products from other manufacturers from overseas. This bill not only affects Australian manufacturers but also affects manufacturers in other countries who export to Australia and play by the rules. It is not only the Australian manufacturing companies that are affected by dumping; companies that play by the rules, meet the Australian standards, meet the antidumping laws and produce goods within the restrictions of the anti-dumping laws are also affected.

To give an example, the company I worked for was an importer of Sanyo air-conditioning equipment. On many projects that we supplied to around Australia, they would always make sure that they did not discount the pricing. They had to maintain their factory, the quality and standards for their workers and their profits. During the 20 years that I worked for their company while I distributed Sanyo products in Australia, the Japanese never discounted or dumped into Australia. One of the side effects of that was that they eventually closed down their operations in Australia, because their sales had reduced due to other companies that probably were not playing by the rules and were dumping products based purely on price for sale and not on quality or anything like that. That is another example of how it affects the manufacturers of Australia and the manufacturers of other countries who meet our standards.

The company I worked for—for nearly 50 years—had to cease production because it could not compete with overseas products. Whether there was any hint of dumping into Australia was very hard to prove in those days, back in the eighties. When I finished working for that company there was a potential for not only the loss of manufacturing but also the loss of jobs and all the workers who went with it. There was the engineering department, the guys who unloaded the stock that came in for the manufacturing component and the loss of goods being supplied to the company by metal manufacturers. There was no work for the trucking companies anymore either. These types of things can affect everyone across the manufacturing industry. So it is important that we have these new anti-dumping reforms put through.

When the government investigated this issue, on coming into government, it was clear that no jurisdiction had reversed the onus of proof, in the legal sense, as this would have been a breach of the WTO guidelines. However, the policy intent of this bill was to increase the onus on exporters to cooperate with anti-dumping investigations. This is certainly being implemented. Our reforms place a significantly heavy onus on foreign exporters to cooperate with anti-dumping investigations. If they do not cooperate then we reserve the right to impose antidumping duties sooner in the investigation process and impose heavier trade remedies.

The member for Gorton would have travelled to manufacturing plants, as I did quite often, throughout Asia. We had a manufacturing facility in Singapore and relationships with Chinese companies. He would have seen, as I did, when we went to those particular places that their factories were always full of stock. To clear that stock, particularly the companies that had products which were not well-known brands, they would reduce the price—with the sweep of a pen—by up to 25 per cent.

Any company that can afford to do that is either rorting the system already or they need to turn that stock over as quickly as possible. They need to keep manufacturing. They build in their manufacturing programs for the year, they forecast and they pre-buy their components 12 months out. If that stock is not cleared off the floor, it means they will have to pay extra money to house the stock that is still being manufactured.

The anti-dumping laws hopefully will prevent those types of companies from slashing their prices purely to clear the stock off the floor. More often than not, there is a quality relationship with some of the stock that goes, because it is not always designed for Australia. That is not the issue here today, but sometimes we see products come to Australia that do not meet the standards of the anti-dumping laws. Why should we not just take advantage of those low prices offered by cheap imports? The anti-dumping and countervailing duties cannot be applied just because imports are cheap. Such duties can only be applied where dumped or subsidised imports cause or threaten material injury to Australian industry producing like goods. Countries that have low barriers to trade, like Australia, need to have recourse to effective anti-dumping action. This is to prevent damage to our local industries by overseas producers who use profits generated by subsidies and protected domestic markets to persistently sell cheap goods into our markets.

What is expected to be achieved by introducing more stringent deadlines? It is important to industries injured by dumped and subsidised goods that they have access to the quickest relief possible. More stringent deadlines will mean the Anti-Dumping Commission gets access to information quicker, allowing the commission to resolve matters sooner. What is expected to be achieved by modernising publication provisions? Removing the requirement to publish notices in the newspaper and the gazette represents savings for the government. These savings will fund better access to the system for potentially injured businesses, particularly for small and medium businesses. Stakeholders will have increased certainty that all anti-dumping notices will be found on the Anti-Dumping Commission's or the Anti-Dumping Review Panel's website.

How much will business have to pay to seek a review on this decision? I am sure many businesses would like to know that. Applications to the Anti-Dumping Review Panel will be subject to a $10,000 fee. Small- to medium-sized businesses will be eligible for a reduced fee of $1,000. Applicants who withdraw their applications will be eligible for a partial refund. The fee reflects that providing merits review of anti-dumping decisions comes at significant cost to the government and can destabilise confidence in anti-dumping decisions. The fees will be prescribed by a legislative instrument.

What is expected to be achieved by removing the legislative requirements for the International Trade Remedies Forum? The forum is a rigid and inflexible method of consulting a narrow range of stakeholders. Removing the legislation establishing the forum will allow the government to adopt more flexible administrative arrangements for consulting anti-dumping stakeholders. The legislation that establishes the forum is unnecessary. Stakeholder consultation can operate under administrative arrangements.

We have heard from the member for Gorton, the member for Grey and the member for Makin, and I see the parliamentary secretary is here. He is keen to get on his feet to talk to this bill before we—

Mr McCormack: I'm enjoying listening to you!

Mr Brendan O'Connor: He's learning something.

Mr IRONS: You are enjoying it? That is great! I will keep going. I will tell you about the current anti-dumping landscape. In the last three years—January 2012 to December 2014—33 investigations were conducted by the Anti-Dumping Commission, the ADC, which resulted in the imposition or extension of anti-dumping duties. Over the same period, a similar number of investigations were performed in Canada, the United States, the EU, China and Argentina. New Zealand carried out far fewer investigations, only five cases, and Brazil performed far more—132 cases.

In the last three years in Australia, January 2012 to December 2014, the largest portion of the investigation was made with respect to steel products. Some mates of mine worked in the steel industry in Victoria. The killer of the Australian steel industry was imported products, particularly from Asian countries. These countries are processing Australian products for Australian exported iron ore and bringing in steel at a far lower and cheaper price than the Australian manufacturers could do.

In the last three years, January 2012 to December 2014, a large majority of the measures either introduced or extended in Australia were applied to the metals sector, particularly steel products. A substantial number of measures were also applied to the electronic goods and the processed food and beverages sectors. In the last three years, the largest amount of antidumping measures either introduced or extended in Australia were applied in descending order to the products being imported from China, South Korea and Taiwan. We have a lot of stakeholder endorsements for these reforms—and you can understand why. Australia manufacturers—and I am sure there are many of them—would want to make sure that everything is about a level playing field. If these reforms can introduce and then make sure that there is a better and stronger level playing field than has previously been the case then they can only assist Australian manufacturers.

I can talk about other manufacturers in Western Australia. There was another airconditioning company out at the old Telstra building. They were an opponent of ours—they employed about 500 people at one time—but they, too, eventually had to close up shop. It was not because they were not good manufacturers, and it was not because the unions gave them a hard time. It was purely because they could not compete with the imported products. You could not establish whether those imported products were dumped because at that particular time the legislation—which is what these reforms will bring in—to find out whether those issues had an effect on those manufacturers was not in place. As I said, we have many stakeholder endorsements. SPC Ardmona CEO Peter Kelly said:

These reforms to our anti-dumping system are a significant step forward for Australian manufacturers and producers.

The Australian Steel Institute said:

These reforms will assist in leveling the playing field through a tougher approach to timeframes and remedies, and they will improve the process for Australian steel manufacturers through expanded information and support services.

The Australian Forest Products Association said:

We welcome the proposed changes to place a significant onus on foreign exporters to cooperate in anti-dumping investigations. The imposition of higher dumping duties and interim measures as soon as possible for those companies that do not comply with the Anti-Dumping Commission (ADC) is a particularly welcome reform.

As you see, industry is right behind these reforms. I refer again to my experience in manufacturing, because we also had another business—and it is a nice little story which I might finish off with—which manufactured a product that was Australian designed, Australian manufactured and Australian tested. It was a multi-packed style chiller, and we manufactured it in Bays Water in Victoria. One of my clients came to me one day and said, 'I just saw one of your chillers down on the port at Fremantle and it is marked to Carrier Inc. in Taiwan. I said: 'That's interesting. We don't send anything overseas via Carrier to Taiwan.' They were our opposition. I contacted my uncle, Bobby Dix, who was then the secretary of the painters and dockers union, and within 15 minutes I had Kim Beazley on the phone saying, 'How can I help?' Kim Beazley was very willing to assist. We eventually got that a guarantee from Carrier to say they would not copy it—they would not manufacture it—because Kim Beazley threatened to withdraw the Sikorsky helicopter contract. That is going back to the eighties, but it is nice little way to finish the story. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (20:55): I want to take parliament back just for a short moment to the 19th century. On the Griffith University's website, I read a very interesting online article by Cameron Muir about Australia and its agriculture in 1800s. He writes:

Governments needed to redeem the settler project, and agriculture based on scientific principles emerged as an unexpected solution. The idea that agriculture could play a significant role in the development of the colonies had been largely abandoned as settlers focused on mining and pastoral pursuits. Few people thought agriculture could pay in such a dry climate, with such a small population and long carting distances.

This has lot to do with the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2015 and related bill before the House, because it talks about the importance of agriculture. It talks about the fact that agriculture then, as now, has such an important role to play. Mr Muir goes on to write:

In 1892, William Wilkins, the Under Secretary for Public Instruction, wrote a fifty-page treatise on agriculture in New South Wales, which began, ‘It was a maxim of ancient statecraft that the food supply of the people should be raised within its own boundaries.' … Wilkins went on to comment, however, that imperial relationships and international trade had rendered this obsolete. New South Wales, following Britain, could import its food. Although Wilkins was an advocate of agriculture in Australia, he cautioned that the necessary economic conditions must exist before agriculture could succeed.

It rings so true today.

I note that the member for Makin is in the chamber. I also note that the member for Makin has put some amendments to this antidumping bill. I further note that the member for Makin, who travelled right throughout the Murray-Darling Basin with the Standing Committee on Regional Australia, came to Griffith in my electorate of Riverina. There he saw how important growing food is not just for our country but for other countries as well.

I recall in my maiden speech in 2010 that I spoke of the fact that each and every Griffith farmer—and the member for Ballarat who is in the chamber will be interested in this—grows food to feed 150 Australians each year but also 450 people from overseas. Griffith farmers feed a significant number of people. Antidumping legislation is very important to Griffith people. It is very important to the people I represent, because they want to be sure that when they grow their food they are competing on as level a playing field as they possibly can.

I am really pleased that this legislation is being put before the parliament, because, in the words of the Minister for Industry, the member for Groom, and his parliamentary secretary, the member for Paterson, in their joint media release of 15 December 2014: it is going to bolster Australia's antidumping system with a range of welcome reforms. It is going to strengthen what we have got now as far as this legislation or policy is concerned, while complying with the international trade rules. We have got a good record on trade on this side of House. We have just signed preferential trade agreements with Korea, Japan and China, and we are working hard to get one with India. The minister went on to say:

Australia supports free trade, but free trade should also be fair trade.

He is so right. He continues:

The dumping of goods from overseas is harmful to Australian businesses and action can be taken to prevent this behaviour under World Trade Organization rules. Where local companies are being injured by dumping practices they are able to seek trade remedies.

Of course he is right. What we also need to protect is our Australian growers—our fine Australian producers—because the very best farmers in the world are those from Australia. I would almost dare say that the very best farmers in Australia are those from the Riverina. Of course you would expect me to say that—but they are! And the Riverina is indeed the food bowl of this nation. This legislation is going to help protect and preserve that great food bowl. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate interrupted.