2011-09-14 43 1 4 House of Reps 0 0

Wednesday, 14 September 2011

The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

BILLS 9997 BILLS Clean Energy Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2011, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Shortfall Charge—General) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Auctions) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Fixed Charge) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (International Unit Surrender Charge) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Charges—Customs) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Bill 2011, Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011, Climate Change Authority Bill 2011, Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011 9997

Clean Energy Bill 2011

Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011

Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Bill 2011

Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011

Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011

Clean Energy (Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011

Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2011

Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011

Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2011

Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2011

Clean Energy (Unit Shortfall Charge—General) Bill 2011

Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Auctions) Bill 2011

Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Fixed Charge) Bill 2011

Clean Energy (International Unit Surrender Charge) Bill 2011

Clean Energy (Charges—Customs) Bill 2011

Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Bill 2011

Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011

Climate Change Authority Bill 2011

Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011

Second Reading 9997 09:01 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I welcome the opportunity to speak on this climate change legislation. Let us be absolutely blunt about the bills now before the parliament. This is a bad tax based on a lie and it should be rejected by this parliament. The Prime Minister said yesterday that the question for members of this parliament was: 'Are you or are you not on the right side of history?' Let me say that this is arrogant presumption by a Prime Minister who is on the wrong side of truth. That is the Prime Minister's problem: she is on the wrong side of truth when it comes to this issue. Let us consider the record of this Prime Minister on this subject. This is a Prime Minister—and we know this happened because her predecessor has described this in public—who sabotaged her predecessor at least in part because of her predecessor's desire to bring in an emissions trading scheme. She brought down her predecessor on this issue, and I say to the Australian people: if Kevin Rudd could not trust this Prime Minister, why should the people of Australia trust her on this subject? Not only do we have a Prime Minister who brought down her predecessor in part on this subject, but we also have a Prime Minister who revealed her true position on this subject in a secret memo to the inner cabinet, where she said that direct action would in fact work, that it was capable of bringing our emissions down by five per cent and it was capable of doing that without a carbon price. That is the one spark of truth that we have seen from this Prime Minister on this topic. But having sabotaged her predecessor over an emissions trading scheme, having told the inner cabinet that direct action would work, she then said to the Australian people at the election campaign that what we really needed was a people's assembly to deal with this whole question of climate change. This citizens' assembly was not going to meet, listen to a few experts and then quickly decide what the policy was; this citizens' assembly was going to sit, it was going to deliberate, it was going to keep deliberating and it would not come to a conclusion that would be acted upon by government until there was 'a deep and lasting consensus'. So far we have had three positions from the Prime Minister: first, sabotaging her predecessor over an emissions trading scheme; second, telling the inner cabinet that direct action would work; and, third, a citizens' assembly that would not conclude until 'a deep and lasting consensus' was achieved. Talk about a real Julia and a false Julia; the fact is that when it comes to this subject there seems to be no real Julia at all, because having had all of those different positions we come, finally, to her pre-election statement—I would say her fatal pre-election statement—that 'there would be no carbon tax under the government I lead'. This is the statement that haunts this debate. This is the statement that haunts this government. This is the statement that makes the whole debate we are having fundamentally illegitimate, because this is the very tax that this parliament should not be considering. Let me say this, Mr Speaker: it is one thing to change your mind as circumstances change, it is an entirely different thing to pervert the democratic process of this country by saying one thing before election to win votes and to do the exact opposite after the election to hold onto your job. That is precisely what this Prime Minister has done. What she has not done is the decent, honest thing, which would have been to take a change of position, had that genuinely taken place, to the people at an election. This is a Prime Minister who has from time to time compared this carbon tax to the great reforms of previous governments. She has even compared it to the great tax reform of the former government of the former Prime Minister Mr Howard. But the fundamental difference between the Prime Minister sitting opposite today and the Prime Minister who took the tax reform package through this parliament is that he took it to an election first. If the arguments for the carbon tax are as strong as this Prime Minister says they are, why hide from the people? Why not expose these arguments to the people? I say to this Prime Minister that if she really does want a deep and lasting consensus to be attained in this country, there is one way to do it, and only one way to do it: take it to the people and win an election on it. I say to this Prime Minister: there should be no new tax collection without an election. That is what this Prime Minister should do. If this Prime Minister trusts in the democratic process, if this Prime Minister trusts her own judgment, trusts her own argument, that is what she should be doing—she should be taking this to the people. The whole point of this tax is to change the way every single Australian lives and works. That is another reason that this should be taken to the people. This is not just a minor bit of financial engineering. This is not just, if you believe the government, something to do with the revenue. This is a transformational change. This is something which is supposed to impact on our country not just today, not just next year, not just next decade, but forever. That is how important this is, if the government is to be believed, and this is why it should go to the people first. This tax is all about making the essentials of modern life more expensive. Modern life is utterly inconceivable without fuel and power—without fuel to move us around the country; without power to make our homes, our businesses and our factories work. So, if this tax comes in, as the government wants it to do, we will not be able to turn on our air conditioner or our heater without being impacted by this tax. We will not be able to get on a bus or a train or, ultimately, drive our cars without being impacted by this tax. That is how important, how significant, this tax is. This explains the obvious impact that this tax will have on every single Australian's cost of living. This explains the obvious impact that this tax will have on every single Australian's job. And this explains why it is so necessary for this tax to go to the people before the parliament tries to deal with it. If this parliament is to have any democratic credibility on an issue like this, there must be an appeal to the people before a decision by the parliament. The longer this debate lasts, the clearer it is that this tax is all economic pain for no environmental gain. On the government's own figures, under this tax there will be an immediate 10 per cent increase in electricity prices, a nine per cent increase in gas bills and a $4.3 billion hole in the budget. That nine per cent increase in gas prices and that 10 per cent increase in electricity prices is what we will get—well, we are not quite sure whether it is what we will get with a $23 a tonne carbon price or a $20 a tonne carbon price because they still have not given us the modelling on this. But once the price goes up to $29 a tonne—or to $131 a tonne, as it is forecast to do on the government's own figures—these prices for gas and electricity just go up and up and up. And that is the last thing that the people of Australia need, given that they have suffered from price rise after price rise in the 3½ years since this government came to office. Let us look at what the Australian Bureau of Statistics tells us. Let us look at the story of price rises under this government. There has been a 51 per cent average increase in power prices. There has been a 30 per cent average increase in gas prices. There has been a 46 per cent average increase in water prices. There has been a 24 per cent average increase in education costs. And there has been a 20 per cent average increase in health costs. All of these prices are going to go up and up and up under a carbon tax. As members opposite are only too well aware, since the carbon tax was first announced at the press conference in the prime ministerial courtyard, hijacked by Senator Bob Brown, and since carbon Sunday, I have been spending quite a bit of my time going around to the workplaces of Australia talking to the workers of this country—who, I regret to say, have increasingly been abandoned by members opposite. Just to give you a snapshot of some of the increases that will be faced by the employers of those workers that the Labor Party once represented: Austral Bricks—a $2 million a year additional cost; the Victorian hospital system—a $13½ million a year additional cost; Nolan's Transport in Gatton—a $300,000 a year additional cost. And it just goes on and on and on. This is at a time when Australian business, particularly Australian manufacturing business, is under great pressure. This is at a time when the world financial situation is experiencing unprecedented fragility. And what does this government do? They do not think: 'Now is not the time to add to the burdens on business. Now is not the time to add to the burdens on families. Now is not the time to add to sovereign risk issues associated with Australia.' They do not think any of that. No, they think: 'What we need now is just another big new tax.' On top of the mining tax and all the other taxes that they want to put on us, they want a carbon tax as well. We heard from the Prime Minister yesterday that the carbon tax is somehow going to create jobs. This is a government which sometimes talks about economic credibility. Show me a credible economist, Prime Minister, who thinks that higher prices create more jobs. Show me a credible economist who thinks that higher taxes create jobs. This is not just nonsense; this is nonsense on stilts by a government which has no real understanding of the economy of the real world in which most of us live. This government constantly tells us that the modelling shows most people will be better off. Well, there is modelling and there is modelling. This is a government which says that the modelling of the Commonwealth Treasury—and, as I said, it still has not given us the correct modelling—shows people would be better off. Well, that is not the only modelling. The Victorian government commissioned Deloitte Access Economics. Their modelling showed that there would be 23,000 fewer jobs across Victoria by 2015 as a result of the carbon tax—and members opposite should listen to this—with the Latrobe Valley, Geelong, Port Phillip, Monash, Boroondara and Whitehorse the worst hit areas. The Victorian government's modelling says that the Victorian economy will be $2.8 billion worse off in 2015 thanks to the government's carbon tax. The New South Wales Treasury modelling—and this was modelling originally undertaken for the New South Wales Labor government when Michael Costa was the Treasurer of New South Wales—predicts that 31,000 jobs will be lost in New South Wales by 2030 as a result of the carbon tax, with 18,500 in the Hunter Valley alone. I say to members opposite representing Hunter Valley electorates: stand up for jobs in your area; stand up for the jobs of your constituents; stop making excuses for a floundering Prime Minister; and stop putting the political interests of this Prime Minister ahead of the economic interests of your constituents. The New South Wales government predicts that state finances will be $1 billion worse off between now and 2014, with—listen to this, Mr Speaker—a reduction in gross state product of close to one per cent per year by 2020, and that electricity prices in New South Wales will rise by $498 next financial year as electricity generators pass on the cost of their carbon permits. The Western Australian Treasury modelling predicts that within three years Western Australian households will be paying more than $2,120 per year for power compared with $1,515 per year now. Members opposite will say: 'They're just the coalition states. What can you expect from modelling commissioned by coalition governments?' Well, let us go to the Queensland modelling. The Bligh government commissioned a report from Deloitte Access Economics, and that modelled that Queensland's gross state product would be 2.76 per cent lower by 2020 and 4.11 per cent lower in 2050 with the carbon tax than it would be without one. That is a five per cent reduction in Queensland's gross state product under the carbon tax. Deloittes predicted a loss of 21,000 jobs in Queensland. And then there is the Queensland Treasury, which anticipates a net loss in the economic value of the state's generation companies of $640 million, all of which ultimately will be passed on to consumers. Nearly all the claims that this Prime Minister is making for her carbon tax are wrong. It is a bad tax based on a lie, and the argument that she is marshalling for this tax is one lie after another. She talks about green jobs. A United Kingdom study released in March this year found that for every job created in the renewable energy sector 3.7 existing jobs were lost. A 2009 Spanish study found that for every green job created by subsidies and price supports for renewable power more than two jobs in other industries are lost. Her claims that no-one need worry about this tax because everyone is going to be compensated are wrong, even based on her own figures. Her own figures, in her own carbon Sunday documents, show that more than three million Australian households will be worse off. These are not just rich people. A teacher married to a shop assistant: worse off under the government's package even by the government's own figures. A policeman married to a part-time nurse: worse off, under the government's own figures, thanks to the carbon tax. A single-income family with a child, on the government's own modelling, starts to be worse off from below average weekly earnings. That is what this government is doing to the struggling families, the forgotten families, of Australia. The Prime Minister tells us that we have to introduce a carbon tax to keep up with policies in the rest of the world. Dead wrong. Since Copenhagen, if anything, the rest of the world has been moving against carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes, and in the period in which Australia intends to reduce its emissions by five per cent China is forecast to increase its emissions by 500 per cent and India its by 350 per cent. Let me now come to the heart of my objections to this government's carbon tax proposal: it will not even reduce emissions. Every member of this parliament should go to page 18 of the government's 'carbon Sunday' document, Strong growth, low pollution: modelling a carbon price. I am looking at the government's own document. Our current emissions are 578 million tonnes. What we are supposed to be doing if we are to reduce our emissions by five per cent on 2000 figures is getting it down to 530 million tonnes. But the government's own figures do not say that we are reducing our emissions by five per cent; the government's own figures say that we are in fact increasing our own domestic emissions from 578 million tonnes to 621 million tonnes. Ms Julie Bishop 83P What's the point? Mr ABBOTT EZ5 What is the point? What is the point of all the pain of this carbon tax if our emissions are actually going to increase? But it just gets worse. At a $29-a-tonne carbon tax, our emissions go up from 578 million tonnes now to 621 million in 2020. It gets worse. At a $131-a-tonne carbon tax in 2050, we do not get an 80 per cent reduction in emissions; we actually get a six per cent reduction in emissions. Our emissions in 2050, on the government's own figures, will have gone from 578 million tonnes to 545 million tonnes. So all of those bold claims in the Prime Minister's speech yesterday—all of that big chest-thumping talk of a massive reduction in emissions as a result of this tax—are utterly wrong and disproven on the basis of the government's own documents. We are not reducing our emissions; we are just engaging in a massive transfer of wealth from this country to carbon traders overseas. That is what is happening under this tax. It will be $3.5 billion in 2020 to purchase almost 100 million tonnes of carbon credits from abroad. It will be $57 billion—1½ per cent of gross domestic product—shovelled off abroad by 2050 to purchase some 400 million tonnes of carbon credits from abroad. The Prime Minister claims that we are all going to get richer and richer under this carbon tax. Again I say to members opposite: if you do not believe me, look at your own modelling document, which says that Australia's gross national income per person will be almost $5,000 less in 2050 with the carbon tax than would be the case without it. So what is the point of this carbon tax? We know part of the point: to satisfy the Greens, without whom this Prime Minister would not be in the Lodge and would not have been able to cobble together a majority after the election. But that is not the only point. Deep in the DNA of every Labor member opposite, I regret to say, is an instinct for higher taxes and greater regulation. And isn't that just what we are getting under this carbon tax proposal—more taxes, more bureaucrats, more regulation, more burdens on the life of the Australian people and more economic pain for no environmental gain whatsoever? As I have been saying right around the country ever since this was proposed, there is a much better way to reduce emissions, and the better way to reduce emissions is to work with the grain of the Australian people and to further encourage the intelligent, sensible things that Australians and Australian enterprises are doing now to reduce emissions. Australian farmers are planting more trees, and they are doing it now without a carbon tax, because they know it is good for our environment and for their agricultural productivity. Australian farmers right now are moving from chemical to organic fertilisers. They are reducing emissions, and they are doing it not because of a carbon tax but because it makes economic and environmental sense. Australian businesses are taking sensible measures to reduce their fuel bills and power bills. Linfox has better trained its drivers and, as a result, its total emissions have reduced by 35 per cent since 2007. Visy are moving from high-emitting power from the Latrobe Valley to power that they are producing by burning the garbage that cannot be recycled. This is not just zero-emissions energy; this is negative-emissions energy, because that garbage would otherwise be emitting not just carbon dioxide but also methane in landfills. They are doing all of this without a carbon tax, and none of this would be easier—in fact, all of it would be harder—with the carbon tax that this government is proposing. Listening to the Prime Minister, you would think Australians have been complete environmental vandals until this government came along with its carbon tax. I can tell the Prime Minister that, because of the environmental decency and economic common sense of Australians and Australian businesses, our emissions intensity is 50 per cent down over the last decade and a half, and all of that happened without a carbon tax. All of that is going to be put at risk by the carbon tax which this Prime Minister now wants to put in place. True environmental progress will be harder with a carbon tax. True environmental progress will be encouraged and facilitated by the direct action policies of this coalition. Let me say that, when it comes to our direct action policies, they are costed, capped and fully funded from savings in the budget. This carbon tax proposal from the government would be disastrous for our democracy. How can Australians continue to trust our democracy when the biggest and most complex policy change in recent history is being rammed through this parliament by the most incompetent government in recent history? It is the biggest and most complex change sponsored by the least competent government in recent times. Not only does this government not have a mandate to do what it is proposing; it has a mandate not to do what it is proposing. That is why this package of bills is so disastrous for our democracy. It is disastrous for our democracy, and it is disastrous for the trust that should exist between members of parliament and their electorates. Why are the members for Throsby and Cunningham sponsoring such damage to BlueScope and to the coalminers of the Illawarra? Why is the member for Hunter and the other Hunter Valley members of the government doing such damage to the heavy industries and to the coalmines of the Hunter? How can the Climate Change minister talk to his constituents with a straight face, given what he is doing to them? How can the member for Capricornia want to close down so many mines in her electorate? How can the members for Corio and Corangamite be doing this to the cement industry and to the aluminium industry and to the motor industry of Geelong? What we have from this government is politically, economically and environmentally disastrous. But it is more than that; it is going to turn out to be the longest political suicide note in Australian history. 09:31 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs It is with great pride that I rise today to speak on the government's Clean Energy Future plan. In my first speech to this House three years ago I spoke about my hopes for this country's future, and I spoke about my belief that we should live in this land in a way that will leave it improved on our passing and not depleted. I spoke about my belief that we have a duty to sustain our land for the sake of our children and our children's children. After decades of parliamentary debate about climate change, we have before this House a plan that has majority support within this parliament, a plan that will cut carbon pollution and drive investment in clean energy technologies and infrastructure, like solar, gas and wind. It will help build the clean energy future that current and future generations deserve, and it will ensure Australia's continued prosperity while decoupling economic growth from emissions. Put simply, this plan will leave our country improved on our passing and will deliver a better environmental and economic future for our children's children. Central to the government's plan is a carbon price. While climate change science tells us we need to act, economic understanding tells us the most cost-effective ways of doing so—two fields that those opposite appear to have an inability or an unwillingness to grasp. Putting a price on carbon is the most environmentally effective and cheapest way to cut pollution. This is a fact that is well recognised by economists from Australia and around the world and respected institutions such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and Australia's Productivity Commission. Releasing carbon pollution is currently free in Australia, despite the catastrophic threat carbon pollution poses to our environment. To tackle climate change, therefore, we need to correct what is routinely called the 'greatest market failure the world has ever seen'. The government's carbon price mechanism sends a powerful price signal to the market that the emission of harmful carbon dioxide into the atmosphere can no longer occur without consequences. It gives effect to Australia's international obligations under the Climate Change Convention and the Kyoto protocol and ensures that Australia is on track to meet its long-term target of reducing net greenhouse gas emissions to 80 per cent of 2000 levels by 2050. And, as we know from the experience of other nations and regions, a constraint on carbon pollution will drive innovation across the economy. It will provide the incentive to find new energy and carbon efficient ways of doing business to invest in new low-carbon products and processes, and it will stimulate the scientific and engineering research that complements our transition to a low-carbon future. Starting at a fixed price in 2012-13 and then moving to an emissions trading scheme, the carbon price will generate incentives to reduce pollution and invest in clean energy, breaking the link between pollution and economic growth. This is what the eminent economist Sir Nicholas Stern calls the new industrial revolution. Under the mechanism, around 500 of the country's biggest polluters will be required to pay for each tonne of pollution they release into the atmosphere. This creates a powerful incentive for all businesses to cut their pollution by investing in clean technology or finding more efficient ways of operating. A price on carbon will also create economic incentives to reduce pollution in the cheapest possible ways, rather than relying on more costly approaches such as government regulation and direct subsidies. These incentives will flow through the economy. A carbon price will make lower polluting technologies, especially clean energy technologies, more competitive and will boost investment in those technologies in this way. Introducing a price on carbon will trigger the transformation of the economy towards a clean energy future. Carbon pricing and climate change policy have been widely debated in Australia for well over a decade, including through no less than 35 parliamentary committee inquiries. The first review of emissions trading by an Australian government was in 1999, some 12 years ago. There was extensive policy work undertaken by the former Howard government, most notably by Peter Shergold, which concluded that pricing carbon was the best approach. The member for Flinders should be ashamed of his current stance. He spoke in 2008—and I am pleased he is here to listen to what he then said about the Howard government's plans for a carbon price. He said: Perhaps the most important domestic policy in recent years has been the decision by the Howard government that Australia will implement a national carbon trading scheme. The task group on emissions trading established by the previous government concluded that Australia should not wait until a genuinely global agreement had been negotiated. It concluded that there would be benefits which outweigh the costs of early adoption by Australia of an appropriate emissions regime. The task group was also firmly of the view that the most efficient and effective way to manage risk would be through market mechanisms. The announcement in September last year by the previous government of a new national clean energy target was another important step towards a comprehensive national emissions trading scheme. Importantly, the coalition pledged to establish a climate change fund to reinvest a substantial proportion of emissions trading revenues in clean energy technology and support for households most affected by the impact of a price on carbon—in particular, low-income families and pensioners. He said, 'We hope that the new government will take up this proposal.' Of course, we have taken up those proposals. In addition, Professor Ross Garnaut has conducted two major reviews on Australia's best policy options for tackling climate change. The government's Clean Energy Future package was developed through a parliamentary committee process, the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, which met for nine months before completing its work in July this year. The federal coalition, the Greens party and the Independents were invited to participate in the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee. Only the coalition declined. Today, from the Leader of the Opposition, we have heard yet more of the misinformation, seemingly wilful ignorance and relentless negativity that, regrettably, we have come to expect from the opposition over the past several months. Moving to a clean energy future will provide new economic opportunities for Australia and its businesses and workers. Opportunities will open up in existing businesses. Jobs will be created in clean industries such as renewable energy generation, carbon farming and sustainable design, to name just a few. The government recognises that it is now time to act, to harness these opportunities. We recognise that if Australia fails to enact this vital reform the costs of tackling climate change will only become greater in the years ahead. Undertaking this reform will ensure Australian businesses remain globally competitive in the decades ahead. The Gillard government recognises that the transformation of the economy to a clean energy future presents opportunities for industry but also challenges. Dynamic and competitive industries are essential for Australia's economy and for jobs. We are a Labor government and our priority will always be jobs. That is why the Clean Energy Future plan includes measures to support industry and jobs. The Jobs and Competitiveness Program will support jobs in high-polluting industries that have competitors in countries where those industries are not yet subject to comparable carbon constraints. Over the first three years of the carbon price the government will devote $9.2 billion of the carbon price revenue to assistance for affected jobs in these industries. This assistance will be in the form of free carbon permits and will shield those business activities from the impact of a carbon price while maintaining incentives to invest in clean technologies, which will underpin their competitiveness as the world moves to price carbon pollution. The Jobs and Competitiveness Program is not the panacea for supporting manufacturing in Australia. Under a carbon price it is essential that the government assists manufacturing directly, in improving energy efficiency and supporting research and development in low-pollution technologies. The government is also helping households and businesses improve their energy efficiency. The government's Low Carbon Communities program will be expanded to provide funding to local councils and communities to improve energy efficiency in council and community-used buildings and to assist low-income households. Turning to the land, the government has excluded the agricultural and land sectors from the carbon price but these sectors will still have opportunities to secure economic rewards under the Carbon Farming Initiative. The farming, forestry and land sectors have as important a role to play in reducing carbon pollution as governments, households and other industries. The Carbon Farming Initiative rewards farmers and landholders who take steps to reduce carbon pollution above what commonly occurs. It works by creating credits for each tonne of carbon pollution which is stored or reduced on the land. The Carbon Farming Initiative legislation, passed in the parliament last month, will commence operation from December this year. It will create a new income stream for farmers and new jobs for rural and regional Australia and will provide strong incentives to identify and implement low-cost methods of pollution reduction. Credits generated under the Carbon Farming Initiative and recognised for Australia's international obligations under the Kyoto protocol on climate change will be able to be sold to companies with liabilities under the carbon pricing mechanism. This includes credits earned from activities such as reforestation, savannah fire management and reductions in pollution from livestock and fertiliser use. People on the land will have an opportunity to earn new streams of income and contribute to the national effort to tackle climate change. The government will initially be investing around $1 billion in land sector measures over the next four years to support the Carbon Farming Initiative to reduce emissions and to maximise the benefits of storing carbon in our landscape. It is resoundingly clear that if we do not reduce carbon pollution the world risks catastrophic consequences from climate change. The consensus among the scientific community is that our climate is changing and that human activity is causing it. In Australia and other polluting nations we must take action to cut carbon pollution if we are to prevent dangerous climate change. We know that fair and effective global action to achieve ambitious emissions reductions is in Australia's national interest. We need to demonstrate that we are willing and able to do our part. The Gillard government is committed to ambitious pollution reduction targets as our contribution to global action. The bills before this House will put in place policies capable of delivering these targets. There is an optimism about Australia's low-carbon future, and it is an optimism shared by many countries around the world, most notably the United Kingdom. That is why the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, David Cameron, wrote to congratulate our government for its announcement of the Clean Energy Future plan. The United Kingdom government understands—regrettably, our political opponents here in Australia appear not to—that the future of the 21st century lies in a low carbon economy. Unfortunately, amidst the optimism about Australia's low-carbon future, there skulks the Liberal-National coalition, wedded to old, dirty and inefficient technology, who have perfected the art of obstructionism and the drumbeat of no, no, no. The opposition have spent the previous year in hysterics over the carbon price mechanism. They have attacked the scientists and they have attacked the economists who are urging us to act. They pander to climate change deniers with an extraordinary level of wilful ignorance. As representatives of all Australians we will be judged by our actions. Climate change is a global problem; it is a generational problem. Our strength in the debate as it unfolds over the coming months—the strength of the Gillard government and those who stand with us—will ensure the future prosperity of Australia and ensure that Australia is able to take its place with the other countries in the world who are taking action on climate change. I would urge members of the opposition who believe in this cause, members of the opposition who have publicly supported policies to put a price tag on pollution, to be courageous. We know that almost half of those opposite us support pricing carbon, support an emissions trading scheme. That is the policy that their party took to the 2007 election. That is the policy that their party supported right up to the end of 2009. I say to all those opposite, including the member for Flinders, that now is the time to cross the floor and vote for the Gillard government's plan for a clean energy future. You will be remembered for your actions, as indeed Senators Boyce and Troth are remembered for their action in crossing the floor in the Senate in late— Mr Hunt 00AMV Troeth. Mr DREYFUS HWG Troeth, I am sorry. Mr Hunt 00AMV You made a point about remembrance! Mr DREYFUS HWG Yes. From 1 July 2012, Australia will have a carbon price. I call upon all those opposite who wish to see the action we need on climate change to support these bills, as a majority of the members of the House of Representatives and a majority in the Australian Senate will be doing. (Time expired) 09:46 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders Let me begin in Hastings, in my electorate of Flinders. Mick Carroll is the proprietor of Carroll's Injection Moulding. It is a firm which, when you include him and his wife, employs six people as of my last discussion with him. Carroll's Injection Moulding is a proud Australian firm—Mick and a number of members of the firm are part of the Mount Martha Fire Brigade—but it has to compete against international imports into Australia. What Mick has told me is a story that has been repeated around Australia. He said: 'I'm proud of the environmental savings we have made within our firms, but the increase in electricity and gas prices under the proposed carbon tax is likely to be the final straw and I will have to export much of my manufacturing offshore and some of these six workers will lose their jobs.' That is what Mick Carroll has said. That has been the story around Australia in so many places, from so many people, and what it means is that global emissions will not go down but that Australian jobs, investment in Australia and Australian emissions will be exported to China, India, Indonesia and other countries with different regimes. In many cases, the emissions for the projects in question will go up if they are occurring in a less developed environment. So let us begin with the heart of the matter, and that is that this scheme at this time in this form will not reduce Australia's emissions and it will not reduce global emissions, but it will hurt real people with real jobs and it will hurt every Australian who has to pay electricity bills, gas bills and grocery bills. But there is a choice. There is fundamentally a better way than a massive tax on electricity, gas and groceries, and it is an exemplar of the two philosophies in contest in this chamber. One is a philosophy of tax and punishment. The other one is a philosophy of incentive, hope and optimism. That is what we bring to this chamber, that is what we bring to the Australian people—and, strangely enough, that is what the Prime Minister purported to bring to the last election when she ruled out a carbon tax. In speaking on the Clean Energy Bill 2011 and related bills, I want to proceed in four clear themes: firstly, democratic respect; secondly, the truth about international action and where Australia fits in that; thirdly, the flaws in the tax itself and, in particular, the inelasticity on a relative basis of electricity, the impact on families, the impact on the economy and the true cost in economic terms of what is being proposed here; and, fourthly, the fact that there is an alternative, a better way, which is effective, costed, capped and fully funded from offset savings. Let me turn first to the notion of democratic respect. The nature of democracy is that parties take to the people a platform on which they seek election. Their fundamental duty is to outline that platform, to seek a mandate and to implement that platform. Mr Oakeshott IYS Rubbish. Mr HUNT 00AMV There will be moments when it may have to change, but not the fundamental nature— Mr Oakeshott IYS Rubbish. Mr HUNT 00AMV I have had enough of you, mate. I have had enough of you, with your performance, coming into this chamber and lecturing people on democracy, when you did not seek information about the mining tax, you did not seek information about water trading, you turned a blind eye to your constituents. So no more cant or hypocrisy. Your electors will no doubt make their own judgment in due course. The nature of democracy is this: we have a duty, we have a responsibility, we have a task, to set out what we seek, to ask for the people's mandate and to implement it. This Prime Minister, not just once or twice but on multiple occasions, made it clear, firstly, that there would be no carbon tax and, secondly, that there would be no pricing mechanism until there was 'a deep and lasting community consensus'. On the carbon tax, the Prime Minister said clearly and absolutely prior to the last election: There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead. We all know about 16 August. We all know about 20 August, the day before the election, when the Prime Minister said: I rule out a carbon tax. That was the Prime Minister's final pledge and pitch to the Australian people to seek a mandate not to do precisely what she is doing today. I seek leave to table the Prime Minister's 13 statements during the course of the election campaign. Leave not granted. Mr HUNT 00AMV Leave is not granted to table the Prime Minister's 13 statements to the Australian people that she would not introduce any form of carbon pricing until there was a 'deep and lasting community consensus'. That was a statement of principle, that was a statement of belief and that was a statement of commitment. All of this was broken and none of it had to be. The reason it was broken was it was always intended to be broken. It was an act of deliberate deception from the outset. On the night of the election, the incoming member for Melbourne told the Australian people that he would support the ALP. That was before any deal, before any agreement. Every member of this House knows that the Greens were going to support the ALP. That was set out in public on election night. So the Prime Minister's claim that circumstances changed is false. Circumstances did not change. She was always going to have the agreement of the Greens. With that we saw that the democratic respect owed to the Australian people was fractured. The Prime Minister should take this to an election to seek a mandate for a tax, which she ruled out repeatedly prior to the last election. Let us turn to why it matters beyond sheer democratic principle, which itself should be enough to seek an election in order to enact these proposals if the Prime Minister has changed her mind. The international reality sets out the environment in which this policy will operate. It makes it all the more likely that this policy will fail. Let us look firstly at China. Contrary to what the Prime Minister would have us believe, China is going through the fastest growth in human emissions in history. We will see a 496 per cent increase in Chinese emissions between 1990 and 2020. We will see coal consumption grow from 1.4 billion tonnes to four billion tonnes between 2002 and 2015. We will see Chinese emissions grow from 5 billion tonnes to 12 billion tonnes, or seven billion tonnes of growth alone, which is approximately 100 times what this entire bill is seeking to achieve in reductions over the same period from 2005 to 2020 in Australia's net emissions. That is the reality and there will not be a carbon tax with an effective increase in electricity prices on a systemic basis across China. There is no chance of that. I believe all members of this House know that. Secondly, in India, similarly, there will be no systemic carbon tax. We will see a 350 per cent increase in Indian emissions between 1990 and 2020. In the United States a cap-and-trade system, which is their equivalent of a carbon tax, is absolutely dead and buried. The modelling upon which the Prime Minister relies includes an assumption that the United States will have a system which will be a full part of an international trading system by 2016. That is a completely false and unsustainable assumption and no member of the government has been able to point to any evidence in the United States from a legislator, from a member of the cabinet or from White House officials which justifies that assumption. It is an utterly unsustainable assumption. Europe does have an emissions trading scheme but it is a radically different system to what is proposed here. The European system, on a per capita basis, is just more than $1 per person per annum across the economy. The Australian system will be approximately $400 per person per annum. Just over $1 per person per annum in Europe and approximately $400 per person per annum in Australia is radically different. It is the difference between a bowling ball and a feather. All of that affects how this tax will operate in Australia. It means that we will simply be sending our emissions, our investment and our jobs offshore. The flaws in the tax itself are these: firstly, it relies upon an assumption that somehow people will either change the demand for or supply of electricity. But electricity, on a demand basis, is inelastic—not absolutely but significantly. New South Wales IPART showed us a 50 per cent rise in the cost of electricity across multiple millions of people over five years—so a massive economic test case—saw a six per cent decrease in per capita consumption. We see it as an incredibly blunt and ineffective mechanism backed by economic history, backed by economic reality, backed by economic fact as found by New South Wales IPART under the previous Labor government in New South Wales. Secondly, there will be no significant change in supply under this proposal, as the government has recognised, because the only way they will try to change supply is by turning to the coalition's approach of direct incentives on a competitive basis to clean up power stations, although they would go further and close them, which we reject. They will adopt the coalition's own mechanism because their approach of trying to tax them will not be effective, because the power stations simply push through the prices. At the heart of their mechanism is an acknowledgement that neither supply nor demand will be changed, which is why they will have to go offshore to purchase their emissions. Their tax will see emissions in Australia increase by 43 million tonnes from 578 million tonnes to 621 million tonnes by 2020. How will they do this? They will go offshore to buy almost 100 million tonnes of credits from China, from India, from Indonesia at a cost of $3½ billion by 2020. That is money that will go straight from Australia to countries overseas. There has been some debate about whether this will come from taxpayers. Of course it will come from taxpayers in the form of higher electricity, gas and groceries. It will then go to companies that purchase from overseas. It will be Australian taxpayers who will bear the costs of these purchases of foreign carbon credits. The Australian Crime Commission found this year that there was a $5 billion fraud in Norway, a mature country, under the very type of system that this government is proposing and that was in a radically smaller market than the one it is proposing here. So if you think pink batts and green loans were bad, you ain't seen nothing yet. That leads me to the true economic cost of what is proposed here. The true economic cost is very simple. The cost of domestic abatement under this system is more than $160 per tonne of abatement. How does that come about? It is because it is a $9 billion a year tax. We are reducing only 58 million tonnes in Australia—the rest comes from offshore. The effective cost of abatement in Australia is over $160 a tonne. If you take out the 20 million tonnes that they are proposing to save per year by cleaning up power stations using our direct action method of purchasing then you find that the actual cost per tonne of abatement from the tax alone in its economic form is more than $200 per tonne. That is why Nobel economic laureates from the last decade, such as Thomas Schelling, Vernon Smith and Finn Kydland, have declared that a carbon tax is the least effective way of reducing emissions on a cost-effective basis if you want to use an economic instrument. That is the heart of the matter. That is why we have proposed direct action in the form of a market based reverse tender to buy emissions at the lowest cost wherever they can be found. That is within the Australian context. Every dollar will be spent in Australia. It is costed and it is capped; therefore, that is the amount we will spend—not a dollar more than we have budgeted. This is the difference ultimately between a mentality of tax and spend and a mentality of incentives and creation. That is what we stand for and that is who we are. 10:02 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fraser Over the past few decades, as we in this place have debated solutions to climate change, climate science has become increasingly unequivocal: the world is warming and human beings are causing that warming. This parliament sits in a city that shares a close connection to the natural environment. The bush capital is particularly vulnerable to climate change. Unchecked climate change over the next five decades could subject Canberra to more high and extreme fire danger days, more frequent droughts, more scorching hot days when elderly people and young kids cannot go outside, and less water in our dams. We cannot blame climate change for any single extreme event but we know that more of them will impose a greater cost to households. Canberra's devastating bushfires in 2003 delivered a damage bill of a third of a billion dollars to what was then just a $16 billion economy. If you increase the probability of extreme fire danger days then you increase the expected cost of bushfires. One way of regarding climate change mitigation is as a form of insurance. I am not in the habit of regularly quoting Rupert Murdoch, but he says: Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats. We may not agree on the extent, but we certainly can't afford the risk of inaction. If you accept that asbestos is very likely to cause malignant mesothelioma and that bad cholesterol is very likely to increase the risk of a heart attack then you should accept that our greenhouse gas emissions are very likely causing global warming. The coalition like to flirt with climate change deniers. Their Western Australian branch recently called for a royal commission into climate change science. But in their official policy the coalition have recently accepted the science and agreed to an emissions reduction of five per cent on 2000 levels by 2020, so the question we in this chamber have to think about is: what is the best way of getting to that bipartisan target? The choice is clear: direct action or a market based approach. The problem is that the coalition's policy is indirect and it will not take action in the most effective way. When you reject a market based mechanism and place your faith in command and control you lose a lot of flexibility. You can see this if you look, for example, at Australia's projections of renewable energy growth in the decade from 2000 till 2010. At the start of the decade experts projected that two-thirds of the renewables growth would come from bagasse and none from wind. By the end of the decade bagasse had contributed less than one-tenth of the renewables increase while wind had contributed nearly half. When you reject the market based mechanism you do not tap the ingenuity of the market. You lock yourself into an inflexible system. We should never forget that a price on carbon pollution is not just a disincentive to polluters but also an incentive to investors and entrepreneurs looking to invest in renewables. Joshua Gans, one of Australia's brightest economists, said about the two contrasting policies: The point is that this game could go on and on with very little impact and possibly negative impact on total emissions. And there is example after example of this. Think of the taxes required to employ all the inspectors and personnel to ensure that regulations are doing what you wanted without unintended consequences. Sure, it can be done but you will need a government that would make Lenin blush to make it happen. Contrast that with a carbon price—by tax or trade. That requires none of this because it hits directly on the problem: emissions create external costs so we need everyone to build that cost into their decision-making. The problem is, as right-wing economist Frederick Hayek pointed out, that no-one has the information required to plan out what individuals might do themselves. By placing the decisions of environmental management in the hands of the people, you can let things work themselves out in a way the heavy-handed Government involvement cannot. He went on to say: I can’t parse the dual hypotheses that either the Coalition just deny economic evidence or that they actually want more emissions and handouts to business. Perhaps one of their number can enlighten us. Professor Gans is not alone in favour of an approach which prices carbon and allows business to innovate in their solution. A poll of members of the Economics Society of Australia, released at the July Australian Conference of Economists, found that 79 per cent agreed with carbon pricing and only 12 per cent supported direct regulation. This is not some complicated economic theory. It is based on lessons from first-year economics. The best way of addressing a negative externality is to put a price on it. And it is not unproven theory either. In 1989 when US President George HW Bush proposed the use of a market based mechanism to deal with acid rain, the electricity generators warned that costs would skyrocket. Today, that market based emissions trading program is universally regarded as a success. It achieved its emissions targets at around one-third of the projected costs. Why was it so successful? Researchers found that firms used a variety of approaches to reduce emissions. Some of them retrofitted emissions control equipment. A number switched to cleaner fuels. Others retired their dirtiest generators. Because each firm took the lowest cost approach to abatement, the social cost was minimised. Those opposite used to subscribe to such an approach. In 2007, their election manifesto said, 'A re-elected coalition government will establish the world's most comprehensive emissions trading scheme.' Whenever I speak at schools and universities, I meet young Australians who are optimistic about a clean energy future and want us to get on with pricing carbon. They get the science and they want us to act. Young people can and do make a positive contribution on environmental debates. Indeed, in 1990, one young person argued that a 'pollution tax is both desirable, and, in some form, is inevitable'. That young person pointed out that the national interest must be favoured over sectional interests, saying 'even if some of the Liberals' constituents do respond negatively, a pollution tax does need to be introduced to properly serve the public interest'. Who was this young person? It was the member for Flinders, and his remarks were from his law honours thesis. I cite his work not as some cheap political trick in this place but rather as demonstration that there are still some opposite who deep down know that the advice of experts and economists is right, that acting on climate change using the most efficient means possible is the right thing to do. As recently as 28 April 2008, the member for Flinders told a Sydney audience: Perhaps the most important domestic policy was the decision of the Howard Government that Australia will implement a national carbon trading system. But the reluctance of conservatives to listen to the best advice is not new. We know that Senator Minchin, political godfather for many of those opposite, did not accept the scientific evidence on the need to act on smoking or on climate change, which he believes to be some 'vast left-wing conspiracy to de-industrialise the world'. Former Liberal Premier of New South Wales Nick Greiner lamented this approach, saying in 1990: Regrettably, too many people on the conservative side of politics still view environmental consciousness as some sort of left-wing conspiracy Amongst both the Liberal and National Parties there is still a cringe when the environment is mentioned, a subconscious aversion that arises, I believe, from a misconception that there is some fundamental philosophical inconsistency between environmental consciousness and democratic capitalism. Sadly, more than 20 years on, those remarks have never been more relevant. Recent history, including the Liberal Party's leadership change in December 2009—which is a great example of the fact that tipping points really do matter on the issue of climate change—lays bare this reality. Pricing carbon is in the traditions of capitalism. Business recognises this and has been calling for certainty in this policy area. For example, the Energy Supply Association of Australia called for a well-designed emissions trading scheme back in February 2007. Nathan Fabian of the Investor Group on Climate Change has said: Delaying the introduction of a carbon price is a false economy. We know we must achieve lower domestic emissions, send clear investment signals and support a stronger international agreement. It's time to get on with the job. Like the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, the Clean Energy Future plan that we are debating today has a fixed-price period which, yes, operates like a tax, followed by a floating-price emissions trading scheme. For those who dislike fixed prices, also known as carbon taxes, I have good news for you. After 2015 there will be no carbon tax. Under a carbon price, our economy will continue to grow. More than 1.6 million jobs will be created, jobs in clean and renewable industries, jobs in industries that are yet to develop. The revolution is already taking place. In my own electorate we have students in industries taking advantage of this. Earlier this year I was with the Minister for Resources and Energy—who I am pleased to see in the chamber today—at the Australian National University for a launch of a major project to increase the efficiency of photovoltaic solar cells. The project secured investment from Trina, a Chinese company that is a world leader in global energy. Late last year, my friend Andrew Barr, a member of the ACT Legislative Assembly, and I opened the Sustainability Hub at the Canberra Institute of Technology. That facility allows Canberrans to get practical experience in the latest green building applications, materials and new products for residential and commercial sectors as well as in renewable technologies, like wind and solar. Canberra is already pioneering an electric car grid, with battery charge stations provided by Better Place—and I acknowledge the work my friends Evan Thornley and Macgregor Duncan do at that company. The world is also harnessing these advantages and we cannot afford to be left behind. Reviews have been conducted for governments of both persuasions and they have been crystal clear on this fact. Those opposite often deride what is going on in China. China's wind energy industry is projected to top 150 gigawatts by 2020, and that is up from earlier projections of 30 gigawatts. China is introducing emissions trading schemes in some of its largest cities—including Beijing and Shanghai—and is reported to be planning a nationwide trading scheme to commence in 2015. That is right: a nominally communist economy is more committed to the market than the Liberal Party of Australia. In Canada, four provinces—British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec—are partners in the Western Climate initiative which aims to introduce emissions trading in phases. British Columbia's carbon price is already at $25. In the United States, a coalition of eastern states—with a combined population twice that of Australia's—participate in an emissions trading scheme covering the power sector. California will start a carbon trading scheme in 2012 and is working with the four Canadian provinces to progressively establish a regional trading market from 2012 onward. International linkage makes economic sense. Climate change is a global problem and we want to get the lowest cost abatement. Japan and South Korea are piloting voluntary emissions trading schemes. South Korea introduced economy-wide mandatory emissions trading legislation into its parliament in April 2011 to commence in 2015 and it is seeking to pass the legislation this year. All European countries and Australia's top six trading partners—China, Japan, the United States, Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom and India—have implemented or are piloting emissions trading schemes, carbon taxes or coal taxes at the national, state or city level. The fact is the world is acting and Australia has a role to play in that action. In December 2009, Christina Ora, a young person from the Solomon Islands, stood up in front of the world and spoke these words: I am 17 years old. For my entire life, countries have been negotiating a climate agreement. My future is in front of me. In the year that I was born, amid an atmosphere of hope, the world formed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to solve the climate crisis. I am confident we can answer Ms Ora's challenge, that a global solution can be found, that collectively we can stabilise our emissions while allowing economies to grow and, importantly, allowing development that will see millions of people brought out of poverty. The Australian government has been debating acting on carbon pollution since Graham Richardson brought a submission to Bob Hawke's cabinet in 1989 to reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. We have had 35 parliamentary reviews into climate change. I am a proud supporter of this economic reform. This is economic reform that sets our nation up for the challenges of the future. It is the stuff of which Labor governments are made. Labor governments brought down the tariff walls in Australia, Labor governments floated the dollar, Labor governments put in place Medicare and Labor governments implemented universal superannuation. For each of these reforms it has taken a Labor government to harness the prosperity of the future. None of these reforms were uncontroversial at the time of their enactment but all of them have paid dividends and increased our nation's prosperity. I am confident this reform will stand the test of time and secure our clean energy future in the low-pollution world of tomorrow. 10:16 Mr IAN MACFARLANE WN6 Groom I rise today to speak on the Clean Energy Bill 2011 and related legislation, the Gillard government's latest euphemism for its economy-destroying carbon tax. There is no more significant an issue confronting this parliament at the moment, but not for the reasons the government attempts to fob off on an electorate that is increasingly incredulous that its government is going out of its way to put economic restraints and growth shackles in place that will cost Australians jobs. This is a tax which will destroy Australia's competitive advantage. It will place layer upon layer of costs and red tape on some of our most important and productive industries, from those in the resources sector to those in the manufacturing sector, which are already doing it tough. This tax will drive up the cost of electricity to every home and business in Australia. Every home and business in Australia will pay more because of this tax. It is a tax that will create uncertainty for electricity generators because it will cause substantial devaluation of their assets. It is a tax based on a lie. I listened carefully to the previous speaker as he waxed lyrical about what people want from a carbon tax. He just forgot to mention that this government did not have the guts to actually say to the electorate in the lead-up to the last election, 'Oh yes, by the way, we will introduce a carbon tax because that is what you want.' In fact, they went out of their way to deny that they would introduce a carbon tax. Particularly the Prime Minister and the Treasurer explicitly ruled out a carbon tax, to the point where the Prime Minister of Australia said, in her own words, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' Fast forward to a year later and here we are debating the most job-destroying piece of legislation I have seen in my 13 years in politics and in probably my 56 years of life. I have never seen a government so desperate to stay in power, so desperate to hang on to the blue carpet and the letter that they are prepared to destroy Australia just to sit on that side of the chamber because that is what the Greens in the other chamber tell them to do. This is a disgrace which every Australian will pay for in jobs, income and standard of living. Are we so blind in Australia that we cannot see that for everywhere else in the world being competitive, being able to export your goods at a competitive price and being able to maintain your standard of living are the key issues? Virtually every other nation in the world would love to be in Australia's position and this government is doing everything it can to put Australia in their position, to drag us backwards, to cost us jobs, to introduce a scheme that is going to have a devastating effect on Australia's future. This policy has been built from the rubble of one of the most fundamental breaches of trust with the Australian people after the Prime Minister went back on her key words, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' How can she stand at the dispatch box and say this is good for Australia? If she were so sure of that, why did she not have the guts to say it before the people voted so that people at least had a chance to give her their view? Australians will pay with higher electricity bills because the Labor government either does not care about the living cost pressures or is in so deep with its Green alliance that it has no option but to ignore the cost of living pressures that this tax will put on Australians. I do not buy that each and every member on the other side of this House can rest easily with this approach. I know the Labor Party, I know how tribal they are, but most of all what I know about this government is that they are desperate to stay on that side of the House and not face the people. So I say there are members on that side who need to muster up their courage when this comes to a vote and vote as their constituents want them to vote—against this tax. I know what my constituents want. I meet with my constituents regularly, in formal meetings or with a quick chat on the street when I am off to get a cup of coffee, and I read their hundreds, if not thousands, of emails. I cannot believe that those on the other side can so brazenly turn their backs on their constituents, without even the smallest of whimpers or a twinge of unease. I cannot accept that members from regional areas in the Labor Party in particular are prepared to sell out their constituents so greatly, when we all know that it is regional Australia that will bear the brunt of this tax. Since the $23 a tonne carbon tax was announced and the details finally put on the table, after months of policy vacuum, there has been substantial debate about how the carbon tax will affect households and families. But an equally pressing issue is how it will impact on Australia's energy supply and energy security. The answer does not inspire any confidence at all. No matter what the Prime Minister or the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency say to coal companies, the objective of the Gillard government's carbon tax and carbon abatement policy is to reduce Australia's reliance on coal and cut jobs in Australia's coal industry. This has implications in particular for Queensland workers and Queensland coal communities, which will suffer a significant downturn if the steaming coal industry is scaled back. Of course, that will have a knock-on effect to the cost and reliability of the electricity supply in Australia because, quite simply, electricity will become more expensive. The coalition believes there is a better way to reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions, without crippling Australia's economy, costing us jobs and lowering our standard of living. One of the key components of the Gillard government's carbon tax is the $5.5 billion compensation package for electricity generators. Yet nearly all that money will go to Victoria and South Australia, and the generators in New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia will get no compensation at all. The O'Farrell government in New South Wales have stated that the cost to that state alone will be in the vicinity of $5 billion, and the reality is that that loss in Queensland—although the Queensland Labor Premier, Anna Bligh, has not come out with a complete figure—would have to be close to that same figure, $5 billion. Even the figure she has given, $1.7 billion, is still a substantial amount of money. No matter how the Queensland government tries to downplay it, there is clear evidence from two reports released last month that Queensland will be hit hardest by this carbon tax. It has been interesting to watch Premier Anna Bligh try to take two bob each way. She is a good enough politician to know what this is going to do to Queensland. She knows, as she travels around Queensland, what people are saying, but she is trying to support a Prime Minister who is in desperate trouble and desperately trying to appease her alliance partners, the Greens. Anna Bligh knows that in an economy so dependent on energy and resource industries, like Queensland, the Treasury modelling says that the state's gross product will be 3.5 per cent lower because of this tax by 2049-50. Another report, from Deloitte, shows that, based on a carbon tax of $33 a tonne, economic growth will fall by 4.11 per cent by 2050. That is the impact on the economic growth, but of course the central feature of the carbon tax is that it will increase cost of living pressures and the cost of operating expenses for homes and business by forcing up the price of energy used in those homes and businesses. The chief objective of a carbon price is to make activities that generate a lot of greenhouse gas emissions more expensive. The theory is that that will encourage a switch to alternative activities that generate fewer greenhouse gas emissions. But that switch is already happening. Households and businesses in Australia are doing everything they can to lower their energy footprint. Also, this tax is not big enough to actually cause a change in fuel use by electricity generators. As the Minister for Resources and Energy, who is sitting opposite me, knows, the price is something like $60 a tonne. Is that really the agenda of this government—to get in a small tax and then treble it? We have much to worry about as we look at what is going to happen under this government's proposed tax. The fact remains that, whatever happens, there is going to be a change in Australia's electricity base, and in Australia's coal fired electricity base the change will be the greatest. By the government's own modelling, by 2050 coal fired electricity will contribute just 10 per cent of Australia's energy mix—down from 80 per cent. We know what that means. We know it means less coal being mined and it means fewer jobs. But, most of all, it means higher cost electricity. This is all pain and no gain. When the Greens, the Labor Party's alliance partners, demonise large industry and call them 'big polluters', they are actually talking about industries that quite literally power our economy, put electricity in our homes and employ tens of thousands of people. I hear those opposite wax lyrical about clean, green jobs. Well, show me where they are, prove to me the sustainability of those jobs, and show me an example of an economy that has done that. How about we look at Spain—four to six jobs lost for every green energy job created. Is that what this bill is going to do to us? Is that the damage this carbon tax is going to wreak on Australia? I think so. This mirage, this petticoat, of green jobs that they keep trying to the hide behind, is not real. The jobs of building solar panels and wind turbines are going to go to those countries already dominating in that field, and, as we all know, Australia is not one of them—in fact, China is. While I mention China, we need to be mindful, of course, that China's emissions are going to rise by 496 per cent on their 1990 levels by 2020. The world changed at Copenhagen. To use the words of the previous Prime Minister, there was a fork in the road. The rest of the world went the way of common sense, maintaining their economies, keeping the cost of living down and keeping their industries competitive and Australia has gone this way—and this way ends up in oblivion. That fork in the road is what changed my view on whether or not we should have a carbon trading scheme now. I certainly never supported a carbon tax, but if we want to look at where we are now and where we are heading, while the rest of the world fights to keep their economies afloat we are blindly sailing off to the left by ourselves. There is no-one else in sight—no other country with a carbon trading scheme anything like the magnitude of this, no other country putting at risk its industries, no other country inflicting costs on households. Here we are, led by the Gillard-Brown government, sailing into oblivion as Australian industry is destroyed by this tax. The coalition does have an alternative. As well as that alternative, there are numerous ways—smart ways—by which we could lower emissions, if we were really serious about lowering emissions by 150 million tonnes a year. Just get out of the way of the LNG industry and do everything we can to promote it so that it lifts its exports to 60 million tonnes. The offset in coal being burnt in Japan, China and Korea would more than amount to a global saving of 150 million tonnes. Let's employ new technology like what I saw yesterday, where municipal waste is no longer dumped in landfill but used to generate electricity and thus save the emissions of methane gas. This has long been a spend-and-tax government. This tax is going to add to the tax list that they have compiled but in the process, unfortunately, will destroy Australia's future. 10:31 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I note the previous speaker has had a road to Damascus conversion on this issue, because he previously was the chief negotiator for the member for Wentworth when he was the Leader of the Opposition. He said on Lateline on 30 April 2007, displaying his climate change scepticism: … what I am sceptical about is some of the more exaggerated claims that are being made about the connection between CO2 emissions and climate change. So he is another sceptic. He has gone from being a supporter of taking action on climate change under the opposition of the member for Wentworth to being someone who is an Abbott devotee and a paid-up member of those people who listen to the ravings of British hereditary peers who present the case that we are engaging in some sort of communist conspiracy. It is a nonsensical attitude that they are undertaking. The absurd, misleading and deceptive aspects of the coalition's scaremongering on this issue are appalling. It is deceitful, unprincipled and reckless. Once again the Leader of the Opposition demonstrates he is unfit to lead this country, and we saw that on display again today. He was a senior minister, and so was the member for Groom, in the Howard government. They went to the election in 2007 advocating a carbon pollution reduction scheme. We saw, for example, that the Leader of the Opposition had position after position after position on this issue. He is a complete weathervane. He came in today and talked with such unctuous and righteous indignation about this when he supported this type of arrangement under John Howard when he was the Prime Minister and under Malcolm Turnbull when he was the Leader of the Opposition. He was on the public record on numerous occasions supporting an emissions trading scheme in this country. And now, today, having had this road to Damascus conversion himself, he tries to claim that he now never believed in this sort of thing. This is what the opposition are about: constantly campaigning on fear, never on the facts. In relation to political issues, I did not principally come into politics to advance green issues. In my maiden speech nearly four years ago you will barely find a word in relation to climate change or environmental issues. I got into public life to advance the cause of the Labor Party and the labour movement by ending Work Choices and replacing it with a new, fair, simple and balanced industrial relation system; to build better schools and universities; to improve health and hospital systems in my area and my state; and to fix the Ipswich Motorway locally and create a more sustainable, job-friendly, healthy and environmentally-effective community in Ipswich, a fast-growing area in South-East Queensland. I did not stand for preselection to build some green utopian Jerusalem but to achieve practical and pragmatic outcomes to help families and individuals in Ipswich. My sympathies have always been with the jobs of law-abiding timber workers and their families rather than lawless people who chain themselves illegally to trees. But my decision to support the Clean Energy Bill 2011 and its associated bills comes not from some green, pantheistic passion but from two sources: firstly, my faith; and, secondly, the facts. First, I believe we are placed by providence on this planet and have a responsibility to care for it. We are stewards or custodians of it. We need to give the planet the benefit of the doubt. Second, I prefer not to respond to the rantings and ravings of shock jocks. I accept the findings based on evidence of the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and the Academy of Science. I accept the recommendations of reports and reviews by Stern, the IPCC, Garnaut and the Productivity Commission. They tell us that climate change is real, that it is caused by greenhouse gas emissions, that human activity contributes to climate change and that, if we do not act, there are serious adverse environmental, economic and social consequences to our country and our communities. The most environmentally effective and economically efficient way to deal with dangerous climate change is by pricing carbon and by an emissions trading scheme, and that is what we are proposing to do today. The clean energy legislation before us does indeed introduce a carbon pricing mechanism. It is a market based scheme we are going to. In the Labor Party we believe in the market and the national interest, and we believe in the market in the national interest on climate change. But take a look: we have 18 related bills, far more than just a carbon tax. The real issues we are debating are real action on climate change, protection of Australian jobs and assistance with cost of living. The clean energy legislation is part of one of the most significant reforms this country will ever face, and one of the biggest challenges we will ever face is climate change. I challenge those opposite to avoid the trap of mindless nay-saying. It is time to investigate this legislation, it is time to pass this legislation, it is time to act on climate change. Since 1994 we have had 35 parliamentary inquiries, numerous reports and reviews into climate change. I charge that those opposite will not be distracted from the duty they have to act in the national interest. Before us is a raft of legislation designed to transform this nation's future into a sustainable one, to transform the way we live, to sustain the environment, jobs and households. The experts say that since the 1940s every decade has been warmer than the one before and that the 2000s were the warmest decade on record. Australia happens to be one of the world's largest emitters of carbon pollution per capita, equating to about 27 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person. About 30 countries in Europe are already participating in an emissions trading scheme. Ten states in the United States already participate, with California joining next year. Even across the Tasman, New Zealand has an emissions trading scheme. We have heard businesses questioning these reforms locally. Three-quarters of New Zealand's businesses were sceptical, according to surveys in 2008, but three years later about two-thirds of them now support the scheme. And China is transitioning to emissions trading schemes in many provinces with hundreds of millions of inhabitants. China invests more in renewable energy than any other country and has some of the most ambitious emissions targets in the world. This legislation of associated bills will deliver a reduction of 160 million tonnes of carbon pollution by 2020, the equivalent of taking 45 million cars off the road. But we are going to protect jobs, as we did during the global financial crisis, because that is in our DNA. Unlike what the member for Warringah, the Leader of the Opposition said in relation to this issue, we supported jobs during the global financial crisis and we are going to create jobs in the future. Treasury tells us there will be 1.6 million jobs by 2020 and 500,000 jobs by the middle of 2013. Those opposite tell us this legislation is bad for the economy, but I say it is time to act. It is not bad, it is important for the economy. They say it is not time to do this, but they have always said it is not time to do this because they are always nay-sayers. Whether it was universal superannuation, the pension or Medicare many years ago, they have fought reform tooth and nail. They always have, they have always been on the side of reaction. They are not liberals, they are reactionaries. We have created under our watch 750,000 jobs since being elected in 2007. We are going to support jobs in high-polluting industries with competitors in countries where those industries do not yet have comparable carbon constraints. Over the next three years we will devote $9.2 billion of the carbon-pricing revenue to assist those industries and to help jobs in those industries most affected. This includes $300 million to help transform the steel industry, $1.2 billion to support the coal industry, $1.2 billion to clean energy technology and manufacturing. The jobs and competitive program we are undertaking will support activities in those areas that generate about 80 per cent of emissions in the manufacturing sector. They say all politics is local, and I want to talk about one of the major employers in my area, JBS Australia. They are the largest meat-processing company in Australia. They will certainly be among the top 500 polluters, mainly because of the power they use. The largest meat-processing plant is in Dinmore, in my electorate of Blair. I can assure you that JBS Australia is already acting to reduce its impact on the environment. In Dinmore they have invested millions to develop ways to recycle water, to minimise waste and odours, to minimise the amount of power they use. The water they release back into the Bremer River is much cleaner than the water already in the river. The Dinmore plant is an example of best practice in meat processing in Australia, if not the world. This is a company that will take advantage of the food and foundries investment program, worth up to $150 million in the food processing industry. They will be able to apply for grants to support them and other businesses as they invest in research and development. The carbon-pricing mechanism will not apply to 9,971 small businesses currently operating in Blair, in Ipswich and the Somerset region. These small businesses will not have to monitor carbon pollution or electricity use. They will not have to fill in one additional form as part of their reform package. This government recognises the contribution of small business, with over two million businesses employing about five million Australians. The government is legislating to make changes to benefit business with tax reforms designed to improve cash flow while allowing small businesses to depreciate assets more quickly, while reducing compliance costs, and by simplifying depreciation rules. I ask again: when is a good time to introduce this legislation? When is a good time to act on climate change? It will cost us more if we do not act. I can assure you, Deputy Speaker, we have a responsibility to the Australian people to act, because a coalition government could not and would not act and procrastinated for 11½ years under John Howard. What we know is that the coalition continue to flip and flop on this issue, salivating slogans as the Leader of the Opposition goes around the country, whipping up fear, when in reality their plan would cost people in my electorate and across the rest of the country about $1,300 a year. That is right: families and communities would pay, not big polluters. The difference between us and them is that big companies—the big polluters—pay and the community is supported and assisted under our scheme. Under the coalition's scheme the community pays and the big polluters and their supporters get subsidies and assistance. It is once again a demonstration that the coalition is not on the side of the market or small business or families and individuals. They will not create jobs. Their plan will not work. As the member for Wentworth said: it is the plan you have when you do not want to have a plan. This accords with what they did in the last election and since then: their failure to respond to the Queensland floods and come up with the savings they needed, their failure in relation to their costings before the last election—the $11 billion black hole—and the $70 billion budget black hole that they have also talked about. The depth of the gap between their promises and Australia's fiscal reality—not to say action on climate change—is stark. The coalition would tax every man, woman and child in this country in relation to climate change. And they have not ruled out cuts to pensions and the cuts that we will make to taxes. We will give assistance in my electorate. Of the 53,000 taxpayers in my electorate—taking in most of Ipswich and all of the Somerset region—about 47,000 taxpayers will receive a tax cut, and 40,000 of them will receive a tax cut of a least $300 a year. Those tax cuts, and the assistance we provide, will be permanent in the future. In my electorate 42,800 people will receive some form of household assistance through pensions and family assistance payments. About 14,100 of my local families will receive household assistance through family assistance. This assistance provided is greater than the anticipated cost increases caused by the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and the carbon-pricing mechanism. I have 23,000 pensioners in my electorate and I am pleased to say that every single pensioner will be $338 better off while couples will receive $510, and they will be better off. The pension increases will come in next year. They will be better off because we will put a buffer in to assist those on low incomes and fixed incomes. We are Labor, and we support those in need. We support them and we want to make sure that they are not left behind. It took the Leader of the Opposition 25 full minutes in his speech to finally talk about the coalition's policy in relation to this. As the member for Wentworth has said, it is not possible to criticise the opposition's policy on climate change because one does not really exist. When it comes to climate change there is only one party that will act right now. Across the country, we need to take steps in relation to climate change. We are the party that will undertake this reform. We are the right people, on the right side of the Speaker's chair, to take action. It is the right package at the right time. It is a bold step. It is acting in the national interest. Other countries—South Korea, China and the USA—are acting as well. This legislation is important for the future of this country and it is in the national interest. (Time expired) 10:47 Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P Curtin The opposition will be opposing the Clean Energy Bill 2011 and associated bills. We oppose a carbon tax. We do so not simply because it represents one of the most breathtaking cases of monumental deceit in modern Australian political history. Australians well remember that the Prime Minister promised during the last election campaign: There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead. We do not simply oppose it because the Prime Minister has trashed her solemn promise to the Australian people. It is not just because the Prime Minister has broken faith with the public. We oppose this carbon tax because it is bad policy. The government's carbon tax is more about socialism than environmentalism. It is actually a massive redistribution of wealth, motivated by the need to raise revenue rather than to reduce emissions. Indeed, the tax itself will not even reduce Australian emissions. The extent to which that may occur at some point in the future would be due to other action taken, not because of the imposition of a tax. We also oppose this policy because now is one of the worst times to introduce such a damaging economic instrument. This is not economic reform, as the government maintains; this is economic vandalism. Has the government even bothered to scan the world economic environment before proceeding with this reckless scheme? Has the government honestly and objectively assessed the Australian economic environment before proceeding? Since 2008, Treasurer Wayne Swan has brought down successive budget deficits so large that he has been too embarrassed on occasions to publicly acknowledge them. Over his four budgets, the cumulative deficits total $150 billion. The government has borrowed to fund the deficits, and net government debt is now around $120 billion. Our debt ceiling has been lifted by this government from $75 billion to $250 billion. The current budget deficit is $49 billion, yet the Treasurer continues with the pretence of announcing a 'return to surplus' several years in advance. This lack of fiscal discipline has made Australia more vulnerable to the impact of a second potential world downturn, and no longer as well prepared to resist external shocks as we were in 2007 and 2008. Australia should be wary of relying heavily on other nations to provide protection from global economic events without first ensuring that our own house is in order. This means cutting wasteful spending and reducing expenditure rather than embarking upon tax grabs from productive sectors of the economy. The threatened increase in the cost of living from a carbon tax is sapping business and consumer confidence. The combined threat of the carbon tax and mining tax is raising serious concerns internationally about Australia as an investment destination. With an uncertain global economic environment likely to remain for some time, the government should abandon its carbon tax and do everything in its power to build greater confidence among consumers and businesses within Australia and those looking to invest here. Let me turn to some other aspects of the government's carbon tax policy. A key element of the policy is designed to ensure that Australia reaches the target of a five per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, not by cutting that volume in emissions from Australia but by purchasing carbon credit offsets from other countries. When asked about the purchase of offshore permits the Prime Minister said: Yes, this is going to be an internationally linked scheme and so it should be. It is alarming that the Prime Minister has given no indication that she is even aware, or has any understanding, of the recent history of the operations of international carbon credit markets. The World Bank reported recently that the international market in carbon credits has suffered a debilitating collapse, and expressed doubt about the ongoing viability of global markets. According to the World Bank, trading in credits commenced after the Kyoto protocol was adopted in 2005 and about $25 billion was generated over the years to 2009. However, that market collapsed to $1.5 billion last year due to ongoing concerns about the commitment of nations after the expiry of the Kyoto protocol in 2012. The United States withdrew from the Kyoto protocol in March 2001 and has indicated it will not commit to any replacement treaty. Russia, Japan and Canada have all stated recently that they will not continue with the protocol after it expires. Last December the European law enforcement agency, Europol, issued a statement about extensive defrauding of the European Union emissions trading system. Europol reported that it had raided several hundred offices throughout Europe and had arrested more than 100 people. In one operation in Italy, the police conducted raids on 150 companies in eight regions as part of an investigation into huge volumes of suspected fraudulent transactions on the Italian Power Exchange. Europol reported that raids also occurred in Norway, Switzerland, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Latvia, the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic and Portugal. After all these actions, trading volumes in Europe dropped by 90 per cent. It has also been reported that 90 per cent of trades in the European Union emissions trading system were fraudulent, resulting in a loss to European taxpayers of more than $6.6 billion. The Wall Street Journal concluded that the European Union emissions trading system was not actually a functional scheme at all but was a 'political smokescreen' to enable European politicians to claim green credentials while avoiding difficult decisions on reducing emissions. A former correspondent for the Australian Associated Press based in Port Moresby wrote recently of the 'cowboys' who flocked to PNG in pursuit of carbon credit riches. He detailed the first arrival in 2009 of 'carbon cowboys' offering villagers 'sky money' for the right to use their land in international carbon trading schemes. This led to alleged corruption of local officials who also stood to gain from these get-rich-quick schemes. The Prime Minister of Australia is proposing in her carbon tax policy that an estimated $57 billion of Australian taxpayer funds will be sent offshore to buy carbon offsets to enable Australia to reach Labor's new target of an 80 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050. The logic of her proposal is that Australians should pay people overseas tens of billions of dollars for the right to burn our own coal so as to meet her commitment that the coal industry has a 'bright future'. This is apparently to be achieved through a nonexistent international trading system. It is naive at best for the Prime Minister to assume that such a scheme will emerge given the clear signals internationally that major emitting nations are moving away from trading in carbon credits, and the minister in the House at the table knows this. Of more concern is that the Prime Minister appears blithely or wilfully unconcerned about the fraud and criminal activity that has beset trading in carbon credits in developed countries of the European Union, let alone what is taking place in developing countries. Deloitte Australia has warned that carbon credit fraud is 'the white-collar crime of the future'. The Prime Minister must explain clearly, before there is a vote on this legislation, why it is that her carbon tax on what she terms 'the big polluters in Australia' will not meet the emissions reduction target by 2020 and why billions of dollars in taxpayer funds need to be sent offshore in order to do so. How on earth can this Prime Minister ensure that the tens of billions of Australian taxpayer dollars committed to purchasing international carbon credits will not end up in the clutches of carbon cowboys? So we oppose this bad policy because it is full of flaws. We also oppose it because it will cripple the mining sector, which contributes so much to Australia's prosperity. The government accuses the opposition of a scare campaign, but it is the government's shameless scare campaign that should be condemned. The Prime Minister has spent months attacking the 1,000 big polluters—or is it 500 big polluters? Then it was 400 big polluters, and yesterday it was back to 500 big polluters. Tomorrow it could be 1,000 big polluters. She has demonised these Australian companies by claiming that they are causing 'more bushfires and drought', 'agricultural land in the Murray-Darling Basin no longer being able to be used for agriculture' and 'icons like the Great Barrier Reef being threatened'. These examples of her scare campaign run into reams of paper. But the reality is that the government's policies will massively damage the coal sector. In order to meet Labor's latest target of 80 per cent reductions in emissions by 2050, the coal industry cannot continue to operate in this country. Yet the Prime Minister seeks to con coal workers into believing the government wants to support the coal industry's 'bright future'. Given that the vast bulk of our electricity is generated by coal-fired power stations and that coal is by far the largest contributor to Australia's greenhouse gas emissions, the Prime Minister is either unaware of the contradiction in her two positions or being deliberately dishonest. The Prime Minister cannot have it both ways. Either coalmining has a future in this country under her Clean Energy Future or it does not. Her power-sharing partners in government, the Greens, have no such difficulty. Greens leader Senator Bob Brown was asked during an interview on 26 June this year whether the carbon tax will close down mines overnight, and Senator Brown, the co-prime minister of this country, said: But that has to be the outcome. You know the coal industry has to be replaced by renewables. Further, the Prime Minister conveniently ignores the fact that the challenge of reducing emissions is a global problem. The atmosphere does not differentiate between emissions released in Australia and those in other parts of the world. Australia is responsible for just over one per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and as a developed country we should play a responsible role in the global context. However, Australia could reduce emissions to zero yet produce no discernible environmental gain if the major emitters such as China and India continue to increase emissions. Adopting the Prime Minister's flawed logic, companies mining coal which is burned to produce electricity in Australia are big polluters here and must be punished to prevent damage to the environment, yet simultaneously companies mining coal to be burned in power stations overseas and for steel production overseas have a bright future in this country. What the Prime Minister is deliberately trying to conceal from the Australian people is that her carbon tax is designed to make electricity generated from coal increasingly expensive to the point where it virtually guarantees the shutting down of the coal-fired electricity sector in this country. There can be no other way to meet the target of an 80 per cent emissions reduction by 2050. According to the Productivity Commission, Australia is the only country on earth seeking to introduce an economy-wide carbon tax or emissions trading scheme. Despite the glowing references to the European scheme by government ministers, it should be noted that European steel companies recently wrote to the European parliament warning of the competitive disadvantage that would come from unilateral action on carbon pricing and that it could 'increase global emissions as market share is off-shored to non-EU countries with inferior emissions standards'. If other nations such as China, India and, indeed, the United States do not impose an economy-wide carbon tax, Australia is handing manufacturers offshore an enormous competitive advantage over Australian manufacturers. The Prime Minister is wishing and hoping that her leadership will encourage other nations to follow suit. The arrogance behind this policy on a wing and a prayer ignores the lessons that should have been learnt from the Copenhagen climate change conference. Most countries in the world are focused on their own economic development and improving the standard of living for their citizens. Australia's so-called leadership seems hell-bent on destroying the standard of living our country enjoys. The government has been unable to implement the simplest of concepts—pink batts in people's houses, building school halls—without disastrous consequences. We have no faith that this government can competently implement good policy. Imagine what it will do with bad policy and with legislation that runs to 2,065 pages. History will judge this Prime Minister and, even if it is only a footnote rather than a chapter in Australia's political history, it will begin with her broken promise to the Australian people that there would be no carbon tax under a government that she led. 11:02 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I rise to voice my strong support for the Clean Energy Bill 2011 and 18 related bills before the House. It is an honour to do so with you in the chair, Deputy Speaker Livermore, because I know you feel passionately about this as well. I note that this is the third time I have risen in the House to speak in support of a system that will set Australia on a course to a clean energy future. Mr Randall interjecting— Mr PERRETT HVP The opposition have wrecked our previous two attempts to put a price on carbon emissions, although I should commend the member for Wentworth, the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull, for his courage to cross the floor on those occasions and also the two very brave Liberal senators, Sue Boyce and Judith Troeth, who had the courage to also cross the floor in the Senate. I saw them do so on the day that the Greens voted with the National Party against that legislation. Who knows what would have happened if a few more people had had the courage to support the CPRS then, but that is history. We cannot change our yesterdays, but we can influence our tomorrows. Mr Randall interjecting— Ms Plibersek 83M I rise on a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the shadow parliamentary secretary for roads and transport is going to continue to interject, you might wish to ask him to listen in silence. Mr Randall PK6 Is that a point of order? Ms Plibersek 83M Yes, it is a point of order. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83A I take the Minister for Human Services' point. I ask everyone in the chamber to listen to the member for Moreton in silence. Mr Randall interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83A The member for Canning will not start up again. Listen in silence please. Mr PERRETT HVP It is very easy for me to ignore him, but I know it is harder for others. The member for Warringah has won some positive headlines lately as a result of his opportunism and opposition, but this debate is not about the polls or tomorrow's headlines; it is about our future. One hundred years from now our descendants will face the consequences of our decisions in this place. I hope they can be proud that as a parliament we put egos, political divisions and ambitions aside to come together as one on this issue of climate change. As the largest polluter per person in the world and the 16th overall, Australia must not shirk from our international responsibility to reduce our emissions. We cannot continue to ignore the science that tells us that excess carbon pollution is causing the climate to change in dramatic and previously unseen ways. Extreme weather events, higher temperatures and deaths associated with those, more droughts and rising sea levels are just some of the things that are happening. In Australia, the driest continent, our environment and climate are particularly vulnerable to climate change. While so much of the political debate focuses on our differences, we should also acknowledge what the major political parties have in common. We have much in common. Both major parties agree that climate change is real and that human activity through carbon emissions is contributing to it. Former Prime Minister Howard took this notion to the ballot box in 2007, and so did I. The Hon. Tony Abbott took this to the ballot box in 2010, and so did I. The major parties agree that now is the time for Australia to act, and the major parties agree that with sluggish global action we need to start with a modest reduction target of five per cent. That is what the major parties agree on. I note that in his speech the Leader of the Opposition was trashing his own five per cent target and in the same breath misleading us about China's growth. The 500 per cent figure for the projected growth in China that Mr Abbott used is completely misleading. The 500 per cent growth figure is for the years 1990 to 2020. Now, I have not been to China for a while, but a little bit has happened in China since 1990. There has been quite a lot of development since 1990, so we are actually talking about the next eight years. It is quite misleading for Mr Abbott to suggest that there will be a 500 per cent increase—totally misleading. Mr Baldwin LL6 Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I would ask you to remind the member that he is to address members by their correct titles. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83A Thank you. The member for Moreton will address ministers by their correct titles. Mr PERRETT HVP The member for Warringah. Of course, where we differ is on the best way to achieve this target. It is ironic that the once great defender of the free market, the Liberal Party, is advocating a centralist state solution through its direction action plan—although, to be honest, I have not heard the Leader of the Opposition or anyone opposite talk about this plan much lately. There is actually a deafening silence on either side of that shrill 'No!' In his 30-minute speech on these bills, the opposition leader devoted just 15 seconds to his direct action alternative—and I notice the member for Groom, who followed, was actually a little bit duplicitous there as well. The member for Groom said that this mirage of green jobs is not real, but his own direct action policy document says: The Coalition recognises the potential for clean energy to underpin future employment growth in key regional areas. The member for Groom, based in Toowoomba, needs to read his own document. The Labor government is introducing a market based carbon pricing mechanism. Hearing the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I was surprised to hear that the member for Curtin no longer supports a price on carbon. Just a few years ago, the member for Curtin said: The Liberal Party has a policy of both protecting the planet and protecting Australia. We support, in principle, an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) as part of a three pillar approach to climate change which also includes clean energy and ongoing international pressure for reduced world emissions. The opposition also claim that the government does not have a mandate to introduce this legislation. That is complete rubbish. They need to go back to the maths books and work out what a majority is. As far as I can work it out, a majority is 50 per cent plus one. They can either rewrite the laws of mathematics or rewrite the Constitution, but to suggest that we do not have a mandate is completely erroneous and specious. They seem to think that just because the Leader of the Opposition could not cajole or bully the Independents or sell anything to them to entice them into supporting him that somehow that is a reason that we do not have a mandate. This is the Leader of the Opposition who was elected, I recall, by one vote: 42 to 41. That was in a ballot where there was spoiled ballot paper—and how you can spoil a ballot paper when there are only three people in it I do not know—and a sick MP who did not turn up for the vote. But the Leader of the Opposition says, 'Oh, no, no.' I would not for one minute suggest that he does not have the right to be the Leader of the Opposition. My understanding of mathematics is very simple: if you get the majority, you have the support of those behind you, even the 41 who did not vote for you. The Leader of the Opposition wants to bully this parliament into rejecting this bill and waiving our responsibility to secure Australia's clean energy future. As the government, we were elected to govern in the best interests of the Australian people— for today and for our future; for our children and our grandchildren— and that is exactly what we are doing. My electorate knows where I stand on action on climate change and they always have. At the 2007 and 2010 elections, I was upfront with my electorate that a Labor government would price carbon pollution—and I am more than happy to show my election materials to anyone who doubts this. The Gillard Labor government made a clear election commitment to put a price on carbon, and that is exactly what we are delivering. I know full well that my community will hold me accountable to deliver on that commitment. Wherever I go in my electorate—at street stalls, at schools, at aged-care homes, at shopping centres and at other places of business—there is strong support for action on climate change. At a community cabinet in my electorate earlier this month speakers on the floor expressed strong support for a carbon tax. The Clean Energy Bill introduces a mechanism to price carbon and to set Australia on a course of global leadership in our response to climate change. From 1 July 2012, 500 of the biggest polluters—those that emit more than 25,000 tonnes of CO2, will pay a charge for each tonne of carbon pollution they emit. For the first three years, the charge for each tonne of pollution will be fixed and will start at $23 per tonne. Then, from 1 July 2015, the mechanism will shift to a cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme. Under this system, the market will set the price. I am sure the Liberal Party remembers what a market is. The fixed price in the initial stages will provide stability and certainty for business and enable a smooth transition to our new low carbon economy. Smart businesses will then be able to focus on reducing their greenhouse gas emissions and thus reduce the costs of production. Those businesses that innovate and reduce their emissions will be the ones ahead of the game, both domestically and globally, and the ones able to pass on the savings to their customers. That is how a market works. Once the market shifts to the flexible price, the government will set a carbon emissions cap to ensure Australia meets its pollution targets. As I said, they are targets that are the same as those set by those opposite. A price ceiling of $20 per tonne higher than the expected international carbon price and a price floor of $15 a tonne will be set in 2015 to ensure that there is no risk to long-term investment in clean technologies. The carbon price will apply to stationary energy, non-legacy waste, industrial processes and fugitive emissions. The price will encourage pollution reductions across all sectors of the economy. It will provide the motivation that industry needs to invest in renewable energies like solar, wind, geothermal and wave and build the momentum needed to get new technologies like clean coal out of the science laboratory and into the real practical solutions to climate change. In turn, these alternative energy industries will be a source of thousands of new low carbon, green jobs. The bills before the House represent a major reform and a massive shift in the Australian economy; we acknowledge that. But they also include appropriate measures to assist households, to protect Australian jobs, to shield trade-exposed industries and to support innovation. Nine in 10 households will receive assistance through some combination of tax cuts and payment increases. On average, the carbon price will cost households $9.90 per week but, to compensate, they will get about $10.10 in assistance. Government payments, such as family payments, pensions and allowances, will increase by 1.7 per cent, well above the average price impact. Obviously, if you just went out yesterday and bought five new air conditioners, you will be disappointed, but if you are energy frugal, you will actually do very well out of this. Of course, government assistance will increase as necessary in the future. The Gillard Labor government will devote $9.2 billion of the carbon price revenue to assist high-polluting, trade-exposed industries. These companies will receive free carbon permits to shield their businesses from the impact of a carbon price while maintaining incentives to invest in cleaner technologies. As the world follows Australia's lead—and that is what will happen as per the commitment at Copenhagen; I know it was not humanity's finest hour, but there were some positive things that came out of it—in moving to a clean energy economy, Australian industries will have an advantage on their international competitors. And we do need that advantage because, in terms of competition and productivity combined with our high wages, we need some advantages. It will be good to see Australian green steel being sent around the world. The Gillard government will invest $800 million in a clean technology program to help manufacturers invest in low-pollution technologies and processes. That is a logical investment, rather than just the Work Choices, low-cost-labour target of those opposite. We will also deliver an additional $200 million over five years to support research and development. This government was elected to act in the national interest. We cannot turn our backs on the science. I am not a scientist, but I must believe the CSIRO. So, when the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and the Australian Academy of Science stand in agreement with other scientists around the world, we must respond; it would be stupid not to. Now is the time for Australia to act to move to a clean energy future before the task becomes more costly and more difficult. I commend the bills to the House. 11:15 Mr RUDDOCK 0J4 Berowra In a debate of this type, it is very interesting to focus on the comments of the member who spoke before you because they sometimes bring the issues into clarity. What interested me was the member for Moreton's statement that the world was about to follow our lead. This is about Australia leading the world—that is the comment that was made—and it is, I think, the major difference between the government and the opposition in relation to a price on carbon. I would be encouraged if I believed the world was about to follow our lead, but I see little evidence of that. I am strongly of the view that Australia should play its part in concert with the rest of the world, but there is no evidence, following the Copenhagen conference, that even the enthusiasm that was evident at Kyoto will continue. There is another conference planned, in Durban, and there is no evidence yet that suggests that the major emitters of the world are going to respond positively, with new initiatives, then. It is important to understand, whether or not you accept the science, that Australia produces a little over one per cent of the world's emissions. Our acting alone, our 'leading the world', will not make one iota of difference to climate change, if the evidence is as the member for Moreton suggests. The reason I wanted to speak in this debate was to spell out my own views. I am not a climate change sceptic. I am one who is strongly of the view that, if the evidence is that clear and unambiguous, the world would want to respond and in that context Australia should play its part. I am not of the view that Australia should be trying to set some example which it hopes, after disadvantaging itself in world trade terms, others will want to pick up. It is very interesting to look at the way in which this issue is progressing. Even the participants in the global carbon market have told the World Bank that they are pessimistic about the likelihood of any new, globally legally binding treaty being reached on climate change in the near future. I think that really is the test that we have to look at in relation to these matters as we debate this Clean Energy Bill 2011 and the related bills today. There are commitments that have been made by the opposition, to the Australian people, as to how we can deal with these issues in a modest way, directly, out of the budget, with budget savings, without the imposition of new costs on Australian businesses and industries and without destroying our international competitiveness. This is not a question of Australia being left behind. This is a question of whether we ought to tie one hand behind our back and leave ourselves exposed internationally to the loss of markets for the sorts of products that we are able to produce and allow others to produce goods and services and put them on the Australian market in circumstances where Australian industry cannot compete. So, for me, the major issue with this new tax is that it is the worst possible time for Australia to be destroying its international competitiveness. Let us look at what is happening around the world right at this time. In the United States, there is the possibility of a second or double-dip recession. They are looking at unemployment rates in excess of nine per cent and growing. They are grappling with in the order of 27 per cent of their population living in poverty. This is a situation in which the United States is unlikely to be able to lead Australia out of the very difficult environment in which the world is operating. In Europe—and it is in the United States and Europe that people are expecting serious activity in terms of limiting potential climate change—what are they worrying about at the moment? They are worrying about whether the banks in places like Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece are likely to survive and whether the governments of those countries are likely to be able to keep them within the European Union. This is a diabolical time for Australia to be tying one hand behind its back in terms of its international competitiveness and to believe that we are able to lead the rest of the world. The fact is that under this legislation Australia's manufacturing industry, which is already under pressure, will face a carbon tax which will increase costs and which our overseas competitors will not have to pay. Jobs in Australia will be going offshore as a result. If other countries were imposing similar taxes or implementing an emissions trading scheme which imposed additional costs, it might not be as difficult or as diabolical for us. But the fact of the matter is, and it has been acknowledged, that in the United States all efforts towards a national cap-and-trade scheme have been abandoned. There are suggestions that in one or two states there may be some initiatives. Europe has an ETS, but it does not cover the whole economy. It provides industries with free emissions permits. I saw reports from Emma Alberici on the ABC about the way in which people are avoiding their obligations under the ETS in Europe. It raises only about $500 million whereas Labor's carbon tax will raise over $9 billion a year from Australians. The government claims that China is acting to reduce its carbon emissions, but we all know that emissions in China are forecast to rise by 500 per cent by the year 2020. We are pursuing an initiative which will have no appreciable impact upon climate. The CO2 emissions for Australia will continue to increase, according to the government's own statements, from 578 million tonnes to 621 million tonnes between 2012 and 2020. Even Professor Flannery, one of those people whose comments they adopt, observed: If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years. When you are dealing with observations of that sort it is very important to understand that, in the climate in which we are disadvantaging ourselves, we are not going to appreciably change anything when others have not essentially come on board. The other matter I want to deal with is Labor's claims about the nature of this package. This package will clearly disadvantage Australian industries. It will lead to people losing jobs. Labor claims that families will be compensated for the price impact of the carbon tax. I do not know why you impose a tax if you are going to compensate people for it. There seems to be a little disconnect there. We now know that the compensation will be only 50 per cent of the carbon tax revenue going to families as compensation for the direct cost of living hikes. We know that pensioners, self-funded retirees, small businesses and people who struggle to be able to make ends meet will be facing very significant increases in their costs. This $9 billion carbon tax will see, for instance, electricity prices go up considerably. In Sydney, where I live, we have faced significant hikes already under the former state Labor government. We will see as a result of this measure a 10 per cent increase in electricity bills alone in the first year and a nine per cent increase in gas bills for the same year. Mr Perrett interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83A Order! I beg your pardon, I was reminding the member for Moreton that he should be listening in silence. Mr RUDDOCK 0J4 Was he being rude? Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Higher marginal tax rates for lower and middle income earners will be a consequence as well. In addition, its proposals will have an impact on the budget. These are very significant issues for the Australian community. As I said in my initial remarks, I am not a climate sceptic. I am prepared to see Australia play its part, but I do not believe Australia ought to be leading the rest of the world, as the member for Moreton suggested. What I want to do today is to put in context some of the comments that the government members have been making about former Prime Minister Howard and the commitments made by the former Howard government. It is important to understand that the Howard government was quite prepared to be part of a world solution, but John Howard in his own comments since Copenhagen has made clear his disappointment that the rest of the world was not ready to come on board at that time. That had an impact on his view as to the way in which the commitments that were made by his government ought to be seen. I say to honourable members opposite that if they want to know the way in which substantial tax reform ought to be implemented in this country they should follow the lead of John Howard. John Howard was a Prime Minister who was able to put in place very clear and significant tax reform. Its impact on the Australian economy has been commented on favourably. The Howard government went to the Australian people seeking a mandate for the direct tax change—that is, the GST—that it intended to implement. Members opposite have been prepared to say that Howard at an earlier point in time said 'there would be no GST under a government I lead'. He conscientiously went to the Australian people at another election after he made that commitment. I remember well fighting the election campaign on that issue. That is quite opposite to the way in which this government is endeavouring to implement this change—I will not call it a reform. This change is clearly a change that the Prime Minister said before the last election should not be anticipated. But, even worse than that, the government are trying to force this issue through the parliament without adequate scrutiny. I encourage them to look back and even to reconsider the approach they are taking and use the approach the Howard government agreed on in the consideration of the GST. The Howard government and the coalition agreed to four separate parliamentary committees to inquire into the GST. They had four months in which to report. No debate on the measure occurred in the parliament after the introduction of the measure. All the committees had non-government majorities and were overwhelmingly chaired by Labor. The coalition submitted itself and its policies to total public scrutiny, and there is the difference. We are debating this measure today that was introduced into the parliament only on Tuesday, yesterday. We are debating it knowing that there is to be one committee that will scrutinise it, with very little time to be able to thoroughly address those issues, and knowing that the matter is being considered under a guillotine. This is not the way in which substantial economic reform in this nation, if it is claimed to be that, should be achieved. The Howard model was far better, more appropriate and far more honourable because John Howard sought to make changes after he had the endorsement of the Australian people at an election. These proposals have never been endorsed by the Australian people at an election. 11:30 Mr CREAN DT4 Hotham The Australian economy is in transition. We are confronted by many challenges, not just climate change. Our high dollar is impacting not just on our manufacturing base but on other big export earners, such as education services and tourism. Natural disasters have also played their part in reducing our capacity and competing for resources. There is also the uncertainty in the global economy. Against all of those challenges and uncertainties Australia is better placed than any other developed economy to absorb those challenges. We are the only developed economy in the world to have avoided the last recession. We have posted incredible job growth—750,000 jobs since we came to office four years ago—growth that recovered quickly from the downturn and from the disasters. We have room in monetary policy. We have a huge pool of domestic savings in this economy that will be set to grow further, courtesy of a compulsory superannuation scheme that was introduced by Labor and that will be continued and expanded under a Labor government. Those successes that I talk about all came from our preparedness as a nation to confront the challenges we faced in the 1980s and 1990s—the need to open our economy, to seek new markets, to become competitive and productive and to diversify our economic base. It was a Labor government again that led those reforms. The floating of the dollar, the cutting of tariffs, the controlling of inflation and the implementation of national superannuation and Medicare were all bold reforms. Some of them were unpopular at the time and some of them were contested, but all of them were necessary because they laid the foundation for our prosperity and are the reason why today we are the envy of the rest of the developed world. It is against that context that the Clean Energy Bill 2011 and related bills become so important. Climate change is just another challenge. If we handle it properly and boldly we can be set up for even greater sustainability, both environmentally and economically, looking forward. Our planet is warming. Human behaviour is a significant factor. Climate scientists around the world are telling us that carbon pollution is causing climate change. Ninety-seven per cent of climate scientists, those who specialise in studying our atmosphere, agree that climate change is caused by humanity. We have compelling advice and on that evidence we have to take steps to change human behaviour in a lasting way to lower the carbon footprint and to cut pollution. We also need to do that in a clever way that rewards good behaviour. We owe it to our future generations, but the current generation can benefit as well because a carbon market that rewards good behaviour is a market that will reward creativity and innovation. It will play to our strengths and create new job opportunities. Treasury has estimated 1.6 million jobs will be created by 2020 under the proposals that we are putting forward. As the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government the challenge is: what slice of that job growth action can the regions secure? It is a challenge they are rising to. There are new manufacturing jobs, new service jobs and green jobs from green energy solutions. I have spoken much about the patchwork economy and I have visited many of those patches, our regions. I have held 16 carbon forums around the country in the last two months. Those forums were organised by regional development bodies and were attended by community leaders and stakeholders. All of those forums and all of the RDAs have two common themes built around seizing the opportunity, firstly, to diversify the economic base and, secondly, to embrace a cleaner energy future. Both themes embrace not only economic opportunity and jobs but also liveability—a cleaner, healthy environment for them and their children. Communities, local government and businesses set their own targets to reduce emissions well before our package was announced. They had determined what needed to be done. They were looking for how they could be helped to achieve their agenda. This package of bills supports that agenda in so many ways. These bills ensure that nine out of 10 households are compensated. The price effect of the carbon price is low. It is less than 1c in the dollar. Remember that the GST added 10c to every dollar spent. This opposition has the gall to complain about the cost impact of these proposals. Compensation will be made through increased pensions, direct payments and tax cuts. The assistance is permanent and it will increase, and, if people change their behaviour, those payments will make them better off because they are compensated as if they do not change their behaviour. But under our Low Carbon Communities fund we will help low-income households make the efficiency improvements. Industry too will benefit. There is a significant package of grants and access to loans through the Energy Finance Corporation available to industry to assist them make the transition to cleaner energy options. We do not expect them to do it on their own. Likewise, in the skills and jobs space there is significant assistance. It is going to be very important to develop the skills to strengthen our capability to get the competitive advantage that will be sought not just here but around the world, and there is a $9.2 billion Jobs and Skills package to develop green job skills to build our capability to develop better our competitiveness, a competitiveness that a carbon market will value and will reward. Also, in terms of the farm sector there is a $1.7 billion package for carbon farming and biodiversity. Farmers do not pay the tax but under these initiatives they can be big winners. They can be winners through the Biodiversity Fund which enables them to access grants to improve soil and vegetation quality thereby lifting productivity. That is going to be of advantage because it will improve their farm outputs. But it is also a valuable service export to a world that increasingly is being challenged by the food security issue. There is also the additional opportunity under the Measures for Carbon Farming, where in the development of the capture of carbon, the measurement of it and the storage of it, they can trade the credits. As for local government—because I have the responsibility for local government—here too there are significant opportunities in terms of landfill. We know that landfill generates methane. We are looking to encourage more innovative solutions for local government to reduce landfill waste and emissions, initiatives that involve recycling. The Lismore City Council is a great case in point in recycling all of its organic waste. There is the capturing of methane gas for electricity, which is happening in the Shoal Bay waste disposal site in Darwin City. There is the flaring of gas, which is happening in the Moreton Bay Regional Council. And there is the diverting of compostable household waste away from landfills, and that is happening in the Hobart City Council organic waste measures. These are opportunities that we want to continue to encourage—to have the councils see the opportunities that are there in the challenge that we must embrace. So this is a package of measures available to assist in making the transition, a package designed to reduce carbon emissions by five per cent by 2020. Interestingly, that is an objective shared by both sides of this parliament because it also happens to be the coalition policy, although you would not believe it when you listen to them. Both Labor and the coalition therefore agree on what needs to be done. The question is: how do we achieve it? This package of measures is our 'how'. The coalition package of measures, Direct Action—and I do not hear them talk about that much these days—has been ridiculed by all objective analysts. It gives no assistance to small business and it will make households pay an extra $1,300 per year. Yet they cry crocodile tears in arguing that ours is going to price people out of existence. The Leader of the Opposition has become the Dr No of Australian politics. It is not surprising when you think of his background, because his background is around boxing and debating. He became the opposition leader and he is always looking for an opponent to knock down, and he always seeks the no case when it comes to a debate. His inflexible opposition to the measures in these bills—and they can complain all they like about the lack of time to debate this—means that we know what the end result will be under his leadership. It will be to say no. He will listen to no reason because he is hell-bent on opposing everything that is put forward. But in the opposition blindly following him down this path, they will be denying households their tax cuts and pensioners their pension increases, and imposing under his proposals another $1,300 on top for all households. They will be denying industry access to the land grants and they will be denying farmers the carbon farming initiatives. I have had the opportunity over the last couple of months to visit many regions that are looking at innovative solutions. I have been to Geraldton and the midwest Gascoyne region of WA. They see themselves as the second Pilbara, but they have committed themselves as a town and a region to become carbon neutral. They are looking to renewable energy sources to power the huge growth that is going to happen. They have got private investment interested in coming there and they see this package as underpinning that commitment. I have also been to Whyalla in South Australia where the Leader of the Opposition, Dr No, went and said that they would be wiped off the face of the earth when this package came in. I went to sites that were looking to increase job opportunities, sites involved in rare earth extraction. Because China has closed their exports of rare earths, there is the opportunity to extract and process rare earths. Why are rare earths important? Because they underpin green technology. They underpin smart solutions in terms of lighter ceramics and the sorts of technology, manufacture and fabrication that we are going to need for the challenges that are ahead. Australia is the best placed of any country in the world in terms of its resources, its innovation and its capability. What we want is a market that recognises and values those things and that is why this package, the suite of measures that we are introducing, is designed to create that market to advantage and secure Australia's future going forward. We do not expect people to do it on their own and we have a series of transition measures that we are talking about. I have seen local government, I have seen businesses, I have seen regions rise to the challenge. They know what needs to be done. This side of the House also knows what needs to be done. We have taken the hard decisions. This is the same reform that we were prepared to embrace in the eighties and nineties to set the country up and that is why these bills need to be supported today. (Time expired) 11:45 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I am pleased to rise to speak on the Clean Energy Bill 2011 and related bills or the carbon tax package of legislation. I begin by saying that in 2007 and 2008 I was a supporter of an emissions trading scheme. The Howard government proposed a policy in favour of an emissions trading scheme based on the Shergold report. Throughout 2008 and then into 2009, when the debate occurred over the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, while the opposition at the time had serious concerns about the CPRS and attempted to make it better and assist the government to introduce an emissions trading scheme that was not able to be done for a number of reasons. Many of those reasons were because, in the negotiations that the opposition had at the time, the government, instead of accepting the good faith of the opposition and working with the opposition in order to bring about an emissions trading scheme, turned it into a political issue and used it to bludgeon the opposition on a daily basis. We have seen already the precedent that this government establishes when it wants opposition support. It does not come to the opposition and say, 'Can we work together?' Even when the opposition offers to get the government out of a bind of their own making what we do not see is the government attempting to work with the opposition. What we instead see is the government abusing, hectoring and bludgeoning the opposition as though that will achieve the outcome that it is seeking. And so we saw that with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. When the member for Wentworth was Leader of the Opposition and did attempt to bring about an outcome that would see an emissions trading scheme he essentially had sand kicked in his face by the then Prime Minister, the now foreign minister, and the attempt to work together with the government was stymied by them in not negotiating in good faith. Then of course the world changed at Copenhagen at the end of 2009 when all the goodwill that countries like Australia had invested in the Copenhagen process of bringing about a world response to climate change faltered on the rocks of the Copenhagen conference. China was one of the leading nations at the Copenhagen conference to ensure that there was not a world agreement to move forward and try to bring about action on climate change. I support action on climate change. I believe that climate change is occurring and I believe that it is a mixture of natural impacts that occur whatever human beings do and of human beings playing a part in bringing about some change to the climate. I do believe that we should act on climate change and I did support an attempt to do that between 2007 and 2009. But the Copenhagen conference dramatically changed the world outlook on action on climate change. The government responded in two ways. Firstly, they pretended that the Copenhagen conference had been a tremendous success and that they were going to plough on with their Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Secondly, the then Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Education convinced Kevin Rudd, the then Prime Minister, to abandon the CPRS. They did that for base political reasons because they believed that they were losing politically on the issue. Having done that the government dumped the then Prime Minister, the member for Griffith, and during the election campaign the Prime Minister deceived the Australian people in a bald-faced way by telling them that she would never countenance a carbon tax in any government she led. After the election the Prime Minister ditched that promise to the Australian people and that is the hole in the heart of this Prime Minister's stewardship of this government. That is one of the reasons that the Australian people have utterly lost faith in this government and in the authority of the Prime Minister. Now we see the government trying to introduce a carbon tax which will do tremendous damage to the Australian economy. It will obviously export our emissions to overseas countries. It will export jobs to those same countries. It will not produce any environmental benefits. In fact, emissions will increase. It is a great big new tax built on a deceit during the election campaign which will push up the cost of living of every Australian whether they are a family or an individual and, of course, it will push up the prices for every business. I support the direct action plan of the coalition to address climate change. It is a 'no regrets' policy. What that means is that, even if you do not believe that climate change is happening, even if you do not believe the government should take action on climate change, because it is a hologram, these are still good policies and good changes that will benefit the environment and ensure that the Australian government is playing its part in ensuring that we have a better environment in the future and better environmental practices. The direct action plan of the coalition achieves exactly the same target as the government's plan: a five per cent reduction in emissions by 2020. It does it without any cost to families, it does it without any new taxes and it does it without raising electricity prices—which of course the government will raise through its carbon tax. I can make that claim because every one of the $3.2 billion that has been allocated over the next four years for the coalition's direct action plan is funded out of savings which we announced at the last federal election. There are no new taxes to pay for this policy, no new increases in prices, no imposts on business, no exporting of jobs and no exporting of emissions. And it is a 'no regrets' policy, which means that it is a good policy in spite of any views about climate change. There are no new taxes, yet the government keep making the claim that we will add an impost to Australian households. That is a complete fabrication from a desperate government prepared to say and do anything to try and convince the Australian people that they are not one of the most incompetent and inept governments in Australian history—'Please don't vote us out, because the opposition is worse.' The government are now at the point where they are trying to argue that, even though they admit they have made many mistakes and cost the Australian people many hard-earned dollars through wasted taxes— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S The member for Sturt has been given a great deal of latitude on these bills, but we are actually dealing with the clean energy bills and I would bring him back to the bills before us. Mr PYNE 9V5 I am talking about the carbon tax and the fact that the government are so desperate to try and hang on to power that they are prepared to pretend that figures that they have pulled out of the air actually reflect fact. But I hear your admonition, Madam Deputy Speaker, and because of my longstanding respect for you— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S You are too kind, Member for Sturt! Mr PYNE 9V5 I will move on to the direct action plan of the coalition. The direct action plan of the coalition has a number of elements. It establishes an emissions reduction fund. The funds that we have allocated to addressing climate change will be placed in that emissions reduction fund, and there will be a proper process by which the best ideas, the best projects and programs from around Australia, will vie for the funds out of the emissions reduction fund—ideas like capturing carbon in soil, planting trees on non-prime agricultural land, cleaning up waste coalmine gas, cleaning up landfill gas, promoting energy efficiency and converting some of the older, dirtier, coal fired power stations to gas. This would achieve exactly the same reduction in emissions, of five per cent, that the government claims it will do through its own policy. One of my most serious objections to the government's carbon tax legislation is that it will very seriously impact on Australian households, individuals and families at a time when they can least afford it. Households are struggling with the rising cost of living, and yet the government's response to the rising cost of living is to slap a new tax, the carbon tax, on the Australian people through this legislation, which will push up cost-of-living pressures even more. The South Australian Council of Social Service's annual Cost of Living survey shows that since 2001 food prices have gone up 13.2 per cent, utilities have risen 33.4 per cent, health costs have gone up 22.8 per cent and rental costs have gone up 8.4 per cent above inflation. In Adelaide, utility prices have skyrocketed, with a 37 per cent increase in electricity in August this year, a 14 per cent rise in gas prices and a 30 per cent increase in water prices. One of the roles of any government is to do no harm to the Australian people. Yet this carbon tax does direct harm to the Australian people through increasing prices at a time when they can least afford it. Now is the time for the government to be reducing pressure on households, families and individuals across Australia. Now is the time for the government to find measures that reduce the footprint of government in the Australian society, reduce regulation and reduce red tape, not create new programs which require more bureaucrats, more regulation, more red tape and more spending. Ms Plibersek interjecting— Mr PYNE 9V5 We know that the member opposite, the member for Sydney, has been in favour of every spending proposal that has ever come across her desk as a minister or as a member. As a leading member of the Left, she has never even thought of any possibility of saving taxpayers' money because, as far as she is concerned, it is her money. The member for Sydney regards the taxpayers' money as her money. This carbon tax will also cost jobs. It will export jobs overseas. Every government in Australia along the eastern seaboard and Western Australia have done their own analysis of what the carbon tax means, and it is not good news for those people who need their jobs to be able to pay their mortgages or school fees, or just to pay their grocery bills. The Deloitte Access Economics report that was commissioned by the Bligh government—which, last time I looked, was a Labor government—predicts that Queensland's gross state product would be 2.76 per cent lower by 2020 and 4.11 per cent lower by 2050 than it would be without a carbon price. It predicts the loss of 21,000 Queensland jobs and a net loss in the economic value of the state's generation companies of $640 million, meaning higher electricity prices. The Victorian government commissioned an analysis, which found that 23,000 jobs that would have been created will not be created across Victoria by 2015 as a result of the carbon tax and that the Victorian economy would be $2.8 billion worse off in 2015 and $3 billion worse off in 2030. In New South Wales, analysis commissioned by the Labor government and released by the O'Farrell government found that 31,000 jobs will be lost in New South Wales by 2030 and 18½ thousand in the Hunter Valley alone. In Western Australia, the Western Australian Treasury has shown that over half of all Western Australia households will be worse off because of a carbon tax. In the closing minute of my speech on the carbon tax legislation, I want to deal very briefly with the issue of the government hypocrisy in even being prepared to come into this House and introduce this legislation. I do not need to remind Australian people of the Prime Minister's promise: There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead. They certainly have that indelibly printed on their minds. Then there was the Treasurer's promise: We have made our position very clear. We have ruled it out. But someone obviously did not tell the Minister for Finance and Deregulation that they were going to go ahead with a carbon tax, because during 2009 and 2010 she said things like, 'A carbon tax does not guarantee emissions reductions,' and, 'A carbon tax is not the silver bullet some people might think.' We know that she cannot have any environmental certainty with a carbon tax when she says: I have been very upfront about why I think a carbon tax isn't the most sensible thing for Australia. I could not agree with her more. (Time expired) 12:01 Ms O'NEILL 140651 Robertson I heard the intense argument coming from the shadow minister for education, apprenticeships and training regarding this package of clean energy legislation, but the reality is that he is on the record with a few interesting comments of his own. On 27 July 2009, he made these comments on Sunday Agenda: Let's not forget it was the Opposition that first proposed an emissions trading scheme when we were in government. The idea that … the Liberal Party is opposed to an emissions trading scheme is quite frankly ludicrous. We are on our way towards that goal and I think there is too much protesting by far going on on the other side for no reason other than simply to obstruct the progress of this nation. Again, in December 2009, he said: … we took an emissions trading scheme to the last election. We believe in climate change action. Judging by today's speech, you could have fooled me that he really believes that. Mr Pyne said on that day: I believe passionately in climate change action. Today he is passionately telling us that there is nothing wrong and we should advance no cause. Somewhere in the middle perhaps lies the truth, although I would not be absolutely confident of that in this context. I welcome this day. I am very proud to stand here as a Labor member to add my voice to those of the Prime Minister, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, my colleagues and fellow travellers in this place to support this historic legislation. Today, after years, decades even, of public debate on climate change, it is our Labor government, through these landmark clean energy reforms, that is setting our country on course for a secure, sustainable, clean energy future. Let no-one be tricked by those who seek to diminish and dismiss the importance of this challenge. For years, governments all over the world have wrestled with the reality of climate change. And no government has taken as measured, as methodical or as inclusive an approach to this issue as the Gillard Labor government. There was exhaustive debate in the last parliament about an emissions trading scheme, two major reviews by Professor Ross Garnaut and no fewer than 35 parliamentary inquiries. No one issue has had so much parliamentary scrutiny. The public scrutiny has been even longer and just as intense. There were the policies for action on climate change that Labor took to successive elections, through to the government's formulation of our Clean Energy Future package at a macro level. At a micro level, the Clean Energy Future materials all householders received over the last month have ensured that, despite those who would spread fear and alarm, the detail and reality of our careful and household centred package of support is now available to all. We have spread the message and the facts—the real information—far and wide. At Kariong, in my own electorate, the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government provided a carbon pricing forum just last week. We have been comprehensive and inclusive in our approach—because that is the Labor way. Now it comes to us in this House to act. I strongly believe that our role as members in this place is to make the difficult decisions, not for the short term or for narrow political interest but for the long term and the national interest of our constituents. I am so proud to have as my leader here in this place a strong woman, our Prime Minister, who is committed to leading our nation, taking determined action for the long-term national interest. I have absolute confidence in her. The future of my children, my nieces and nephews, my former students and their own children—all these young people—matters to me. I care deeply for their future and I know that I am absolutely in unison with the thousands of Central Coast residents who are dedicated to building a great future for our kids. I will leave no stone unturned in doing everything I can to make sure that there are jobs and opportunities for our young people where we live. This is the Labor way—rising to the tough challenges and faithful to those ordinary Australians who live alongside us as equals, not beneath us or subordinate to us. It is the opportunities and jobs for the future of the Central Coast that I am most excited about when I look at the package we are debating today. As the minister for regional Australia explained last week at Kariong, a clean energy future will allow regions like the Central Coast to diversify their economies in a way that was formerly unimaginable, by encouraging the uptake of new skills and by the development of smarter, clean energy economies. A price on carbon will provide an incentive to cut our carbon footprint, create sustainable environmental jobs and drive different renewable energy options. I know that the people on the Central Coast are avid early adopters of the massive uptake of various solar energy initiatives we have seen across the coast at federal and state levels. As a region we want our fair share of the projected $100 billion that will go into renewables by 2050. And we on the Central Coast want our fair share of the 1.6 million new jobs that Treasury modelling is projecting by 2020. We want a future for our children that embraces a sustainable region not only in terms of the environment but also in terms of the work and opportunities that our growing community needs. The people on the Central Coast love where we live. We are committed to making sure that, for our time of custodianship of this land, we act in a way that allows our children and their children's children and further generations after that to enjoy our place. That is why Labor is determined to undertake this major structural economic reform in a way that not only meets the environmental challenge but also ensures that we make sure our people, ordinary working Australians, do not bear the burden of this major structural economic reform. That is why nine out of 10 households will receive assistance through some combination of tax cuts and payment increases. Two in three households will get tax cuts or increased payments that cover their expected average price impacts, and over four million Australian households will get assistance that is in fact 20 per cent more than their expected average price impact. And, yes, this assistance to households will be permanent, ongoing and indexed to the CPI. On the same day that the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government was holding a forum in my electorate, the Leader of the Opposition was also on the Central Coast, deliberately spreading his poisonous misinformation about this assistance. To the Leader of the Opposition I say this: this government is about caring for older Australians. All you are about—and all you revealed on your visit to the coast—is a capacity to scare older Australians. So I repeat: the Gillard government's household assistance under this legislation will be permanent, ongoing and indexed to the CPI. That will include very many households on the New South Wales Central Coast. In addition to this, one million Australians will no longer need to lodge a tax return. That is going to be a very welcome piece of news to very many Australians, and particularly to those people who are going to be earning up to about $20,000 now without having to engage with the taxation system. I have spoken to many people on the Central Coast, particularly mothers and grandmothers, who will now consider taking up part-time or casual work because we are tripling the tax-free threshold through this legislation. Some of those opposite acknowledge that there is a problem with carbon pollution spewing into our atmosphere. That is why their policy goal for 2020 is exactly the same as the Labor goal: a five per cent reduction in emissions by 2020. But their solution is to pay big polluters to pollute and punish ordinary working Australians. That is the difference between us and them. We in the Labor Party have in our DNA a deep commitment to the ordinary householders and workers who carry this nation each and every day. The Leader of the Opposition's plan is to take $1,300 from ordinary households—from people like those I represent in Umina, Kincumber and Woy Woy—and use their hard-earned money. These constituents on the Central Coast in the seat of Robertson can ill afford the irresponsible $1,300 bill that the Leader of the Opposition would give them. That is right: those opposite would take from the little guys and give to the big guys; they would subsidise polluters and rip off regular families in areas such as mine. This is the bottom line. It is the dark underbelly that is the reality of the modern Liberal Party, because the buck never stops with them. If those opposite were true conservatives, they would respect the institution of the CSIRO—an institution that a conservative prime minister established. Instead, those opposite have trashed and ridiculed the sensible, mainstream science of that treasured institution. In my role as a member of the Australian parliament, I respect mainstream science and I certainly respect the CSIRO. I respect the intellect and integrity that informs that institution, and I acknowledge the great guidance that the CSIRO and other such learned institutes have provided the Australian public over many, many generations. It is well known that if global emissions continue to increase at the present rates then we face the certainty of dangerous climate change. These are the conclusions of sensible, mainstream scientists—scientists that the Leader of the Opposition continues to call 'crap'. I support the clean energy bills because they will provide the incentive mechanisms needed to drive private investment in clean energy. As one of the biggest per capita polluters in the world, Australia cannot claim that as a nation we do not have the ability to reduce our national emissions. Furthermore, I do not believe that those opposite can deny that it is in the nation's interest to provide an incentive to invest in clean energy. Indeed, if they were true to their party's policies they would be supporting sensible, practical measures designed to reduce our emissions by five per cent over year 2000 levels. If those opposite were true to their principles they would support a market based mechanism. They would support that to enable the private sector to invest in a clean energy future. I support the government's market-based solution because it is right, because it makes the big polluters pay for polluting and because it provides a powerful and correct incentive for the industry to invest in a clean energy future. The details of the government's clean energy plan have been debated at length both inside and outside this parliament. It is important to understand that the fixed price of carbon is only a temporary measure and that it will only operate for a short period of time until an emissions trading scheme is implemented in 2015. The charge of $23 per tonne will rise in accordance with inflation over the next three years. According to the fixed-price mechanism, businesses covered by the legislation will be charged $23 for every tonne of carbon pollution they put into the atmosphere. Finally, I want to bring in a faith perspective to this debate in the House today. I want to put on the record in the chamber the response of Christians who take seriously the words of the Holy Bible, in particular Genesis chapter 1, verses 28 and 29, and Genesis chapter 2, verse 15. They are the elements of the Bible that we often hear about, on the intimate relationship with the earth on which we walk. The intimacy of humankind's relationship with the earth is embedded in these famous pieces of text. The custodianship of the earth and the incredible responsibility that that confers on each of us is to keep the earth and to replenish the earth, and that is not lost on Christians whose faith provides the moral compass of our lives. The understanding of the importance of the response to the challenge of climate change is well articulated in the Australian space by the Micah Challenge group, who are so active in our communities and determined to ensure that Christians are taking up our share of the burden in achieving the Millennium Development Goals. I know that many of those opposite support the Micah Challenge. I know that they worship in communities that support the Micah challenge. They need to heed the very clear advice that impels us as Christians to act to price carbon and to undertake the change to a clean energy economy. It is time for leadership and responsible action, particularly by those who express a Christian faith and have this discourse to inform their conscience and their political action in this place. This is no time for carping negativity, for selfishness or for cheap political stunts. The future we create for our children and their children and the future we offer all who share this planet with us depends on our capacity to get out of our own way, to abandon selfishness and to act for others. In the long term, millions of others will receive the benefits of this honest and responsible enactment into law of wise custodianship of our earth, our sea and our sky. In the true Labor way, we have ensured that ordinary Australians, for whom we are the voice in this place, will be assisted financially through this major economic reform which will set us on a path to a clean energy environment and 1.6 million clean energy jobs—and all of that by 2020. I close by encouraging all people of Christian faith and all members of this House to consider the clear advice that impels us to act in the interests of our country and the future of our planet. I commend these bills to the House. 12:16 Mr ROBB FU4 Goldstein I rise to speak on the Clean Energy Bill 2011. In the absence of a global emissions trading scheme, imposing a carbon tax in Australia is an act of economic self harm and totally futile from an environmental perspective. I think that both sides of the House share the view that we should protect our land and our country, but this bad policy does nothing. There is no obligation to support bad and futile policy in the pursuit of supposedly protecting our land. To better understand why going it alone on a carbon tax will harm the Australian economy, think for a second about the question solely in an Australian context. What would happen if a great big new tax on carbon was levelled at businesses only in my home state of Victoria and in no other state? In no time at all, in order to remain competitive, Victorian businesses and jobs would start to relocate—to the great detriment of the Victorian economy—to New South Wales, to Queensland and to other states where no tax was applied, and the emissions that relocating businesses generated would go with them. If you go back and think about the proposed carbon tax, you will realise that the same thing will happen, except that in this case it will happen on a global basis, because our businesses, becoming increasingly uncompetitive, will simply relocate to other parts of the world, and the emissions created by those businesses will go with them. Australian businesses, jobs and emissions will relocate where no tax applies. Key Republican congressman on climate change Jim Sensenbrenner, who led the US congressional delegation to Kyoto, described what the Gillard government is doing as 'unilateral economic disarmament'. We know that the prospects of either a cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax are dead in the US. We know from key Democrats that President Obama will not be campaigning on either in the lead-up to next year's election. After the failure of the Copenhagen conference, the world is further away from a global agreement than it has ever been. The government lectured us for three years about the importance of a global scheme in the lead-up to the last election, but now we are being lectured about the importance of bringing in a scheme unilaterally. The world is further away from a global arrangement than ever before, yet there is urgency here, in the face of very difficult economic circumstances for many sectors of manufacturing, to bring in a great big new tax. It makes no sense unless you look at the politics behind the introduction of this bill. While the Gillard government likes to highlight the European emissions trading scheme as a reason that we need to undermine our great strengths, even in Europe there is a high degree of pessimism about the prospect of a global scheme. In fact, the UK parliament's Energy and Climate Change Committee recently launched a new inquiry into the EU emissions trading system. The committee said that, in the absence of binding emissions reduction commitments under the UN reduction framework, the scheme 'is looking increasingly isolated'. It went on to say: The lack of an international framework for emissions reductions and carbon trading poses some serious difficulties for the future viability of the EU ETS … Regardless, though you would not know it from the rhetoric, the European scheme—which has been the subject of huge rorts—is really nothing more than a pilot scheme, is a mere pilot compared to the carbon tax proposed here. The European scheme does not apply at all, in many cases, to electricity generators, much less many other trade exposed industries. The Gillard-Brown scheme will raise more in revenue in its first four months than the European trading system has raised in total over the last five years. If you were to put a price on carbon, this scheme would be just about the most inefficient and most complex way you could go about it. It is the most bureaucratic, the most interventionist and the most socialistic scheme that you could contrive. There are many other schemes that you could use if you were to put a price on carbon. There are even cap-and-trade schemes which you could design to put a price on carbon and which would give you exactly the same price but not strip the balance sheets of companies, which is what will happen with this government scheme—they will tax every tonne of CO2, and the cost of abatement is only one-sixth of the total tax take. This is a scheme designed to maximise the tax return—as we are seeing in Ireland, where they have just doubled the price of carbon because they have a fiscal problem. The same thing will happen in Australia, and it will not be one scheme but 500 schemes. The so-called '500 big polluters' that Labor has raged about for 12 months no longer matter, but we still do not even know which companies will be taxed. When we do, however, there will be bureaucrats crawling all over them. Under the government's scheme, different activity definitions apply, different levels of assistance apply and the enormous tax churn not only underscores the scheme's inefficiency but also suggests that, first and foremost, the scheme is a vehicle for wealth redistribution. Herein lies the fundamental difference between the carbon tax and the coalition's far more efficient direct action policy. The carbon tax approach requires many tens of billions of dollars in compensation because of the huge increases in electricity prices, and the direct action approach requires no compensation because it does not drive up electricity costs. Frontier Economics exposed this fact with an analysis it did based on Treasury's 2008 modelling of a carbon price. Looking at electricity generators alone, it found that the cost of technology to reduce CO2 emissions from 2012 to 2020 was $6.6 billion—that is, the cost of abatement for electricity generators over the next eight years would be $6.6 billion. During that period the government would reap not $6.6 billion but $37.5 billion in tax from the generators, and consumers would pay an additional $45 billion for electricity—the price would be passed on to electricity consumers. This shows that those who are creating the CO2—the so-called 'big polluters', the derogatory term used by this government—are not paying. It will be consumers who pay, and everyone knows this. The government is doing itself a great disservice by trying to imply that the tax falls on the so-called 'big polluters' and not on individual Australians and small business. This shows, too, that the government's tax take is almost six times the actual abatement cost, and the increased cost of electricity is nearly eight times the actual abatement cost. As Frontier's Danny Price prophetically said earlier this year 'the excess tax will be churned via the political process which will bring its own distortions'. Bureaucrats will be making decisions about technology and innovation, not companies themselves. This town will be crawling with lobbyists seeking some investment crumbs from the government's table. It is a giant money-go-round, but the money will end up in the hands of politically well-chosen beneficiaries. Danny Price said that political control of so much tax revenue explains why the Greens have been such enthusiastic supporters of the carbon tax. He said, 'They will be in the box seat in deciding how these funds will be distributed,' and he was spot on. These bills will provide for the creation of the $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation—or the Bob Brown bank. The slush fund— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S Order! The member knows he must refer to people by their appropriate titles. Mr ROBB FU4 will be all borrowed money. It will be used to fund high-risk pet projects of the Greens and Labor, projects the private sector would not touch with a barge pole. The lessons of the failed Tricontinental bank, the failed State Bank of South Australia and WA Inc. are so easily forgotten. It is criminal; it is pure politics; it is not policy inspired. No less than Don Argus said he was bemused that such vast sums of money were being staked on risky and expensive renewable energy and not carbon capture and storage—it was explicitly excluded from those $10 billion funds. He said: This example highlights just how politically expedient this government's tax reform agenda has been. … The government has rushed ahead with proposals that are … not in the best interests of our country— despite the endless mantra about what is the in the interest of the country being pursued. While Senator Brown rages against foreign ownership in mining, he remains silent about wind farms. About 30 per cent of Australian wind farms are foreign owned and their manufactures are all foreign owned. Doesn't he have a problem with this—their proliferation and the way they are shattering communities? We know from the lessons learned in Europe that all the talk about green jobs, which will replace jobs in traditional industries, is pure nonsense. In fact, it is quite disingenuous the way in which this government comes into this House every day to talk about green jobs. The US study by Verso Economics recently found that for every green job created 3.7 jobs in other parts of the economy were destroyed. This supports similar findings from Spain, Germany and other parts of Europe. This is what we can expect in Australia in manufacturing, mining and resources. Thousands of jobs will be lost—and the cost of green jobs is extraordinarily high, compared with traditional jobs. Look at the billions this government has wasted on green rip-offs: $2.4 billion on pink batts, $850 million on solar homes, $300 million on green loans and, despite the enormous tax take under this scheme, $9 billion a year that cannot even make the numbers add up. Incredibly, this scheme will cost the budget $4.3 billion over the forward estimates. That is a real black hole, yet, according to the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, this adds up to broadly budget neutral—and they wonder why people are so sceptical about their management skills of this economy. No wonder they are a laughing stock. Senator Wong wants nothing to do with this carbon tax. Here is a snapshot of her past comments: The carbon tax does not guarantee emissions reductions. …   …   … A carbon tax … is a recipe for abrupt and unpredictable changes. She goes on to say that the introduction of a carbon price ahead of effective international action can lead to perverse incentives for such industries to relocate or source production offshore. That is the current finance minister, the former Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. These are all contradictory in terms of the carbon tax policy that has been laid down and which we are debating here today. I could not have said it better myself. They are also creating six new bureaucracies to administer this dog's breakfast of a scheme. This will cost a staggering $382 million. I went to Tasmania recently, where they built a beautiful dam for $34 with hydro. It changed the economics of that small region. You could build 11 of those around the country for the cost of the carbon tax bureaucrats each year. By contrast, the coalition's direct action policy will cost $3.2 billion over four years and it will be transparently funded from savings within budget—and capped. Virtually all this money will be spent on purchasing least-cost abatement through competitive tender. Competitive tendering is a market based system but one which does not come with tens of billions of dollars of new tax and tens of billions of dollars of higher electricity charges. Direct action is a no-regrets policy. If there is still no global agreement by 2020, Australia will have remained competitive while reducing emissions by five per cent, avoiding tens of billions of dollars of tax, yet still in a good position to assess the way forward from there. The direct incentives to invest in lower energy and emissions technology in our business sector, greater carbon levels in our soils and tree planting in appropriate areas will see major productivity gains regardless of action taken by the rest of the world. On the other hand, going it alone with a carbon tax and then an emissions trading scheme is highly irresponsible. This politically inspired going-it-alone policy approach guarantees that Australia will be far worse off than if a global agreement applied. In fact, under a global scheme, closures of inefficient power generation and value-adding resource plants, such as zinc and aluminium smelters, would occur elsewhere in the world first. This carbon tax will deliver around 40 million tonnes, or just 25 per cent, of overall abatements. The world economy is facing the likelihood of a further major slump over the next 12 months, yet this government wants to introduce an economy-wide tax. I urge any government members opposite who want to do the right thing by our nation and our communities to reject these bills. (Time expired) 12:31 Mr OAKESHOTT IYS Lyne If I ask the member for Warringah or the member for the Cowper at the table whether they want to live under an emissions trading scheme, I suspect their answer would be no, yet the joke is that they already do. The New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme was introduced on 1 January 2003. To quote from the website: It is one of the first mandatory greenhouse gas emissions trading schemes in the world. The new Liberal-National government in New South Wales maintains this scheme and it covers the seats of Warringah and Cowper. It is this same greenhouse gas abatement scheme that the member for Warringah himself openly says is the backbone of Liberal and National party policy on climate change nationally. I have advocated for a price on carbon through emissions trading since my first speech in this chamber. At that time I said that I looked forward to working with members and ministers on both sides on water quality, catchment management, natural resources management and renewable energy issues throughout the Mid-North Coast. We as a region are really well geared to address these other local issues if we can get some offset returns through the emissions trading scheme. My view over the past three years has not changed; if anything, it has firmed. At the last two federal elections at which I stood, in 2008 and 2010, I was open and honest with my communities and said that, if elected, I would be working on pricing carbon via emissions trading. I have remained consistent and today have delivered on those election commitments. Unlike many others who chop and change or describe themselves as weathervanes on climate change, my word is my bond and I do what I can to uphold that bond. So I stand up for the new economy of Australia, I stand up for jobs and I stand up for fewer taxes, and I do this by strongly supporting Australia moving to an emissions trading scheme in 2015. On behalf of the 90,000 residents of the Mid-North Coast, I personally chose to participate in the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee process—a unique cabinet process established to make sure that this time moral challenges will actually be delivered. My position on the Clean Energy Bill 2011 and associated bills is therefore well known to all. I will support these bills. I also expect the members for Melbourne, Denison and New England to support these bills and therefore expect these bills to pass. After all the discussion and debate on this issue over many years, I hopefully have time to say three more things. First, I say why I support these bills. They are the same reasons I have stated every time this issue has come before the parliament and they are the same reasons I have stated in open letters and public forums throughout my electorate over many years. At elections in 2008 and 2010, I publicly and openly supported a price on pollution in emissions trading markets. Unlike almost every other Australian politician, my position has not changed. In my view, common sense tells me to seek and trust expert advice. If your child is sick, you go to the local doctor for trusted medical advice. If you are planning to retire, you seek trusted financial advice. The issue of climate change is no different. Even the most conservative Australian scientific advisers, including the CSIRO, who we have trusted for 70 years, tell us that climate change is a risk demanding a response. The most conservative Australian economic advisers insist that the lowest-cost response is to make the biggest emitting businesses reduce or pay for their emissions. I have chosen to respect and accept this expert advice on both the science and the economics. In my view, politicians who reject this advice ignore the scientific risks and accept higher long-term economic costs. The features of this package before the House that improve on the old CPRS—that at one point, I remind everyone, 148 out of the 150 members of this parliament publicly supported—are many. Included in the improvements negotiated through the MPCCC is a better governance model with the independent Climate Change Authority. Members can check unsuccessful amendments last time around with the CPRS and will see my consistent position on this. It is important that this is now a governance feature piece. I am pleased this suggestion helped as a circuit-breaker in the trench warfare on emissions targets between the Labor Party and the Greens that had stalled this issue for too long. This is an important improvement that removes the toxic debate and focuses decisions on independent science and independent economic advice. Secondly, we have increased benefits to protect pensioners, retirees and low- to middle-income earners from consumer price changes of less than one per cent. Thirdly, we took the opportunity for tax reform, turning Ross Garnaut's very good work into Ken Henry's very good tax reform work, and achieved substantial tax reform as part of the agreements reached. Fourthly, we worked to assist key industries and helped small business to adjust, including $150 million for adjustments in the important food processing sector and financial support for small business. Fifthly, we have allowed new resource and development funding that will allow us to keep pace with the world in both renewable energy and in carbon farming. Sixthly, we now have a $1.8 billion land sector package that does push back on behalf of marginal lands, pushes back on concerns of the international peak soils crisis globally and pushes back on behalf of the high loss of biodiversity in Australia's unique ecosystem. I thank those who took the time to participate in the land use forums that I hosted in the parliament earlier this year, at a critical time in the decision-making process around this. It did and does matter. Finally, and I think importantly, we have negotiated Indigenous enterprise in land use and the targeted land sector provisions for Australia's original—and, in my view, best—land managers. I am pleased to hear that the two groups who are already hitting the phones to environmental planners on this topic are agriculture companies and individuals as well as Indigenous enterprises, both looking for ways to value-add to the 18 bills before the House today. All of this is done with a firm eye on the macro-economy. I can confirm that undisputed, independent Treasury advice identifies our economy will continue to grow and our standard of living will continue to rise, even with a price on carbon. The Australian story for the next 50 years is a good story not a bad one. We really do live in the right place at the right time. Reform for the better suits these times. It is my firm view therefore that the bills before us are the best overall solution to the real climate risks facing Australians of the future and that our generation does owe it to future Australians to resolve this issue now. I acknowledge that many members of parliament and community members do not agree with this decision, but I am confident that at least they understand it and I am confident that consistency in thought is at least respected. This brings me to my third and final point. In the politics of the debate in Australia, the one thing that has hampered constructive public debate on this topic is the lack of detail, clarity and consistency of the major parties. I include the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the National Party in this criticism. They have collectively been consistent in their inconsistency on pricing carbon. Today we see the Liberal and National parties, in opposition, showing all care on pricing carbon and absolutely no responsibility. They say they care, but a responsible opposition would at the very least put an alternative policy to the legislature for debate. They have not. They have called for a plebiscite as a demonstration that they have private members' powers to contribute to the parliament, but they deny the Australian people to look at or see the details of this alternative policy. What have they got to hide? This is not a choice in this House between an emissions trading scheme or nothing. It is a choice between an emissions trading scheme or what I consider a Liberal-National party grants tax that Australia is consistently being denied the details of. I was disappointed again today to see the member for Warringah once again dodge the opportunity to table their alternative for the House to consider. Consider this—and this is not politics at play—if parliament rejects the current 18 bills before the House, those of us like me who have consistently supported action on climate change must consider supporting the Liberal-National parties' alternative option. But what is the alternative? If I asked the member for Wide Bay or the member for Warringah the following six questions, I am assuming at this stage the answers would be 'yes'. Firstly, do the Liberal-National parties support a five per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020 on 1990 levels? My understanding is: yes. Secondly, do the Liberal-National parties support the words spoken by the Leader of the Opposition in the launch of his policy in February 2010 that their policy is modelled on the New South Wales Labor government's GGAS, meaning a lot of emissions reduction at comparatively modest cost? My understanding is: yes. Thirdly, would the Liberals and Nationals establish an emissions reduction fund to invest an annual average of about $10.2 billion in direct CO2 emissions reduction activities by 2020, funded by tax revenue? My understanding is: yes. Fourthly, will the emissions reduction fund purchase 85 million tonnes per annum of CO2 abatement through soil carbon by 2020, regardless of whether soil carbon is in any relevant future international agreement—at an estimated cost of $8 to $10 per tonne—and is this the single biggest investment the emissions reduction fund will make? My understanding is: yes. Fifthly, will the emissions reduction fund be prevented from purchasing emissions reductions from overseas, even if those emissions reductions are verifiable and less expensive than those able to be purchased in Australia? My understanding is: yes. Sixthly, and finally, if a business that already reports under the Howard-Costello-Vaile-sponsored National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme undertakes an activity with an emissions level above its business-as-usual level, will that business incur a financial penalty? My understanding is: yes. In other words, the Liberal Party and the National Party are pursuing the same reduction in emissions, relying heavily on just one technology, to be purchased at an assumed price by a government fund—with any trade in carbon emissions specifically prevented. Big emitters under this approach face the real possibility of financial penalties if they expand, with no opportunity to buy offsetting abatement from another source. This is a potential job killer and a potential economic growth killer. With this in mind, there are two more questions I would like to ask and have answered, but the answers at this stage are critically unknown. Firstly, will the Liberal-National party members of this parliament match the $14.2 billion over four years in reduced income taxes, Indigenous employment, soil research, biodiversity funding and higher benefits provided for under the package currently in the 18 bills before the House and, if not, what exact level of reduced income taxes or higher benefits would the Liberal and National parties provide and how would these be funded? Secondly, if the Liberal-National party members of this parliament think they can buy abatement at $8 to $10 a tonne, how do they justify any argument that says the market price in an emissions trading scheme would not be the same? Surely the price of a tonne of carbon is either $8 a tonne or $29 a tonne in 2015. Which one is true? Again, until this is answered, in my view they debate with false anger. At this stage, on this difference between $8 a tonne and $29 a tonne, someone's policy in this debate is a fraud. I am backing $29 a tonne in 2015 based on all sound economic advice, yet it is unknown how on earth based on this advice the coalition can then buy in at $8 a tonne. What product in history in any market economy can be bought at one-third of its price on an ongoing basis? Do we buy milk at 80c a tonne when it is $2? Do we buy bread for $1 when it is $3? How is this so? Please, member for Flinders, member for Warringah, member for Wide Bay, explain your policy. I would be grateful if that is answered in this debate. Until then, I strongly support the 18 bills before the House. I strongly support pricing carbon. It is not a tax. We all know you cannot buy and sell a tax. This is a carbon permit trading scheme. It is the smartest, lowest cost, lowest risk solution to the very real science question before us. I strongly encourage this House to this time, importantly, in the national interest, back this package. 12:46 Mr TRUSS GT4 Wide Bay The Constitution of Australia requires in section 52 that the parliament shall make laws for the 'good government of the Commonwealth'. This legislation is not good government, it is not good law and it is not good for the people of Australia. It is an incredible piece of national self-harm, a massive new tax that will add to the cost of all that we do, a new tax that will cost Australian jobs as industry relocates to other parts of the world that do not have a tax like this. It is a massive new tax that seeks to destroy our competitive advantage by artificially raising the price of electricity. It is bureaucratic, it is concocted, it is illogical, it is negative, it is dishonest, it is inconsistent and it is structurally unsound. It will do nothing for the environment in Australia, and indeed it will increase global emissions. With all the overblown rhetoric that we have heard about this scheme and about the legislation before the House, it cannot possibly achieve its objectives. Is it any wonder that the public are bewildered? They see this as a gigantic scandal, a fraud being perpetrated on the Australian people. They are asking: 'How could our government do such a thing? How can a government that is interested in the welfare of the people do such a thing? Why do they want to hurt us so much? Why won't they listen when we cry out for sensible policies?' This is a monumental piece of government incompetence. It will be a $9 billion tax in the first year and collect well over $30 billion in the first three years, but it still leaves behind it a $4.7 billion black hole, and that is without the compensation that will have to be paid to close down coal fired power stations. This is simply illogical. US Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner put it correctly when he described what Australia was doing as 'unilateral economic disarmament'. It simply makes no sense. It is a tax that is based on two broken promises by the Prime Minister. At her very first media conference after the coup that removed the member for Griffith, the member for Lalor said that she had convinced her predecessor to dump his carbon pollution reduction scheme because he did not have community consensus: I came to that decision because I fundamentally believe that if you are going to restructure our economy so that we can deal with a carbon price and deal with all the transformations in our economy that requires, then you need community consensus to do so. You must have community consensus. There clearly is no community consensus in favour of the carbon tax. There is very strong consensus in opposition to the carbon tax. The Prime Minister has broken her promise to develop community consensus before taking action to implement a carbon pollution reduction scheme or a carbon tax. The second broken promise is even more profound, and it rings in the ears of every Australian every day when they are talking about this issue. Infamously, before the 2010 election, she said: There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead. She later went on in a pathetic way to say she did not really mean to mislead. If she did not mean to mislead, why didn't she correct the statements that were in the media before the election instead of waiting until after the event, when she was trying to negotiate to get the keys to the Lodge, to walk away from that commitment? It was a fundamental breach of trust. The chairman of the company produced a prospectus and asked the shareholders to invest in the company. The prospectus included a promise that there would be no carbon tax. As soon as the share offer was over, the prospectus was changed and revised. The prospectus was false. If our Prime Minister were a company director, she would be heading for a long term in jail. But she is the Prime Minister and she is not in jail; in fact, she is still in the Lodge. But she still fundamentally misled the shareholders of the company. I know some of the other company directors are now plotting to get themselves a new chairman, but it is not just the chairman who is to blame; it is the whole company. As I see members opposite standing in this House to defend this legislation—members who have refused to speak out in their own electorates even though they know this legislation is going to devastate local industry, who have already seen factories close with the threat of this legislation but refuse to speak out—they are just as culpable now as the chairman of their board. How could anyone believe any of them ever again? They identified themselves with the promise; they have now identified themselves with the breaking of the promise. Is it any wonder that public respect is at an all-time low for this government and its Prime Minister? My greatest concern, my deepest regret, is the damage that this is doing to our democracy as a whole. The public respect for our parliament is in decline. Lasting damage is being done to the profession of members of parliament. When members' word is not their bond, when they make promises to the people before the election and then walk away from them as though nothing had ever happened, is it any wonder that the public are upset and disgusted with the performance of this government? We know why it has all happened. The Prime Minister was so keen to get the keys to the Lodge that she was prepared to make any compromise. She was prepared to cave in for the carbon-pricing ambitions of the Greens. The Independent members for Lyne and New England are just as culpable as the Greens in driving this extremist and pointless agenda. I recall the infamous press conference where the Greens and the Independents took over the Prime Minister's courtyard and grinned at the Australian public as they announced the ditching of Labor's no-carbon-tax promise and the harshest carbon tax anywhere in the world. The member for Lyne certainly wanted a new carbon tax, as he made it abundantly clear in his own recent remarks. He had said previously, 'Let the market rip, let the science fly.' He also made that clear when discussing the CPRS bills. He said the Prime Minister's plan did not go anywhere far enough. The member for New England rejected the CPRS bills because they did not go far enough. He said a five per cent reduction was nonsensical and he wanted an 80 per cent cut in emissions by 2050, but more of that shortly. The reality is that the government ditched their promises and their commitments because they were so desperate they were prepared to trade off anything to get the keys to the Lodge. But then there was the so-called Multi-Party Climate Change Committee. It just had Greens, Labor members and Independents. You were not even allowed to be on the committee unless you were fundamentally committed to Labor's version of the carbon tax. You were not even allowed to participate in the process unless you were determined to deliver on exactly what the Greens and the Independents wanted. This tax is just like that committee—a camel—full of anomalies. Everybody got their little piece. There was no consultation with the community. There has been no attempt to address the issues. They were not listening when people raised genuine concerns, and so we end up with a scheme that lacks public support. In spite of what the member for Lyne just said, the public do not understand it. The government have not attempted to explain it to the Australian people. If any scientist or economist had different views to those associated with the gospel on climate change, they were simply excluded from the process, ridiculed and not treated with any respect. The government spent taxpayers' money on television advertisements, and now on a 20-page booklet, about the carbon tax. There are actually only three pages out of that 20 that even talk about the carbon tax. The rest are about taxation changes, many of which are not relevant to the purpose of the carbon tax, which is supposed to be to reduce CO2emissions. The starting price of $23 per tonne is precisely the level set down by the Greens in January 2010, 13 months before the so-called Multi-Party Climate Change Committee was even established. The concept of a built-in growth mechanism over the fixed period is precisely the mechanism put forward by the Greens in January 2010. The transition to a floating price and full emissions trading by 2015 is a mirror reflection of the transition process favoured by the Greens in January 2010. The quasi-independent body to advise the government on rolling caps for the trading era beginning in 2015 is precisely the format sought by the Greens and by the member for Lyne. The whole Multi-Party Climate Change Committee was also a facade. The agenda had already been laid down by the Greens, and the government was prepared to pay the ransom price just to get the keys to the Lodge. This legislation is dishonest, counter-productive and deceitful. It will be a massive blow to the Australian economy, which this government has already brought to its knees with its mismanagement and its waste. It will make no difference whatsoever to the Australian climate. It will actually result in increased global emissions, as factories and industries leave Australia and go to countries where there are no rules like ours. Prices will increase across the board. Treasury has estimated 10 per cent more for electricity and nine per cent more for gas. Car manufacturers estimate an increase of around $400 for the price of a new car—that is, of course, if we are left with a car industry in Australia at all, as manufacturers move to places where you can make your cars without paying this tax. Builders have told us to expect $6,000 more for the price of a new home. Groceries are estimated to go up between three and five per cent. Bus and train fares will rise. From 2014, all road transport costs will rise with the planned reduction in the fuel tax credit. Our export industries, including agriculture, will be hit with the extra cost burden that our competitors simply do not pay. Steelmakers are unable to compete and the government has included in this package of legislation compensation for the steel industry, even though they are saying that the recent closures have got nothing to do with the carbon tax. The reality is that decisions are already being made by Australian industry on the basis that this tax is ahead of them and gives them another good reason to relocate elsewhere. Coalmines with high levels of methane emissions will close. The cost of building roads will go up by an estimated five per cent, meaning that we will have less money available for the vital infrastructure we need across the country. Even taking a load of rubbish to the dump will cost more because the operators of the land fill will be responsible for methane emissions. It just goes on and on. All this is supposed to be something that Australia is going to do by itself to save the planet—to save the polar bear, the Great Barrier Reef and the Murray Darling Basin. Australia, accounting for 1.4 per cent of the total global emissions, is somehow or other going to change the climate of the world on our own. Even Professor Flannery says that is rubbish and that it will take a thousand years to make the slightest difference to our temperature, and no difference at all if, in fact, the rest of the world does not follow the nonsense in the direction that Australia is following. We were told we had to do this so that we could catch up with the rest of the world, but in practice there is no other country that is proposing a tax of this nature. There is no carbon scheme anywhere in the world that comes close to what is happening here. The Americans are walking away from a cap-and-trade scheme and the Chicago Carbon Exchange has actually closed. They talk about reductions in China, but in the time that we will reduce our emissions—our very small emissions by global standards—by five per cent the biggest emitter in the world, China, is going to increase theirs by 496 per cent! What we are doing is complete nonsense. Also in relation to what China is supposed to be doing—closing down coal-fired power stations—for every one gigawatt they close down they are opening up 10 gigawatts of new. We have to close 90 per cent of our power stations in Australia but we are going to double our coal exports so that other people will in fact use our coal to achieve the same objective. This is the biggest carbon tax in the world, and the government has no mandate to deliver it—no authority; they have lost their legitimacy. It will do nothing for the environment, and this legislation should be rejected. (Time expired) 13:01 Ms SMYTH 172770 La Trobe It is always a privilege to be in this place and to stand here as a member of a Labor government, but never more so than on days like today when I know that my voice and my vote will make a very real difference in a significant national debate and a very real difference in relation to a global threat. I knew on coming into this place that this government was not going to shy away from these sorts of big debates—debates that had been left aside by our predecessors. These are big debates that, then and now, they have neither the capacity nor the moral courage to address. We all recall that John Howard aspired to a relaxed and comfortable Australia, but in reality what he and his party aspired to then and now was stagnation—a kind of policy stupor that left to one side issues critical to our nation and to our globe. This included the increasingly urgent question of climate change. When the Howard government finally began to see climate change as possibly an important issue it was in the way that a rabbit might see the headlights of an oncoming truck. But at least I can credit John Howard with recognising that it is a critical issue on which action is required. At least I credit him with respecting the science and some of the economics of the issue. These certainly are not attributes shared by his successors, and certainly not by those on the other side who have very recently contributed to this debate. I have to say that it will be to their great shame when our country inevitably reflects on this debate in the future. Indeed, we have seen so many members of the former Howard government who originally said that they supported pricing carbon now change their minds to score cheap political points. For instance, one of the last speakers, the member for Goldstein, said on ABC on 27 July 2009: We are very supportive of a price on carbon. We introduced the scheme to do that. He went on to say: … we are serious about good policy in this area. We are serious about a price of carbon. What a difference a couple of years makes in this debate, so serious is he now about pricing carbon that he is in fact debating on the opposite side of it. On so many issues Labor has shown that ours is the only party that has both a vision for the future of this country and the tenacity to manage the transition to make that vision a reality. To make ideals and vision a workable reality for all Australians requires that we work with people right across our community. On this issue that has meant dialogue and cooperation with expert scientists and economists, industry, community organisations, farmers and others to achieve a realistic nationwide change. The bills before us today will make Labor's vision for a clean energy future a reality for every Australian and will contribute to the very real global action against climate change. On that note I might correct some of the views that were put by the most recent speakers from the opposition in this debate, who seem to have missed quite a few fairly significant international events around the issue of carbon pricing and climate change. For instance, the member for Goldstein remarked that we were 'further away than ever from a new international agreement'. He might be advised that, in Cancun in December 2010, some 89 countries representing 80 per cent of global emissions pledged to take action on climate change. That is hardly evidence of a lack of action, as the opposition increasingly likes to claim. Scores of countries have already started the transformation to a low-pollution economy: 32 countries and a number of US states already have emissions trading schemes. Indeed, Australia's top five trading partners—China, Japan, the US, Korea and India amongst others—have implemented or are piloting emissions trading schemes, carbon taxes and coal taxes at a national, state or city level. We know that New Zealand introduced a trading scheme in 2008, initially covering only forestry, but which in 2010 was expanded significantly to cover the liquid fossil fuels, stationary energy and industrial processes. We know that China has indicated that it will introduce emissions trading pilot schemes across a number of provinces, including the industrial centres of Beijing, Shanghai and Guangdong. The World Bank has recently indicated that these regional schemes may be expanded to a national scheme by 2015. So far, from the remarks of the member for Goldstein, the leader of the Nationals and others on the opposition benches asserting that there is seemingly no international action on these matters, it seems that at least the top five of Australia's trading partners are taking meaningful action on climate change and the issue of carbon pollution. Indeed, some 89 countries around the world have pledged their commitment to take meaningful action on climate change. If we are to meet a target of a five per cent reduction on year 2000 levels by 2020 and an 80 per cent reduction by 2050 we are not going to do it with a piecemeal approach. The problem that we face in climate change calls for concerted, nationwide action and a change in attitudes and behaviour, and these are the attitudes of whole industries, communities and regions. A price on carbon is the way to ensure that fundamental and permanent economic and behavioural changes are made. The coalition has put forward its so-called direct action plan, and we already know that it will rely on $1,300 from every household in every year in order to be implemented. We know that it is not intended to, and will not, change the actions of big polluters. We know that the coalition is not serious about the abatement mechanisms in their policy, because otherwise they would have supported the government's efforts to incentivise farmers and other landholders through the Carbon Farming Initiative to really put an emphasis on abatement mechanisms. When it came time to support real abatement activity, the opposition shirked that responsibility. So essentially we know that the direct action plan will be expensive, poorly targeted and amateurish. But then there is the important question that has been raised even by members of the opposition themselves: the question about whether the direct action policy would ever be implemented at all or whether it might just be ditched. I believe I am speaking a little earlier in this debate than had been anticipated, because we have had a notable person remove himself from the debate today—namely, the member for Wentworth. I presume that he is revisiting his position in relation to the carbon price as we speak. We heard the member for Wentworth as recently as last year saying in very strong terms that direct action policies on climate change were a 'recipe for fiscal recklessness'. Specifically, he had this to say this year: … a direct action policy where the Government—where industry was able to freely pollute, if you like, and the Government was just spending more and more taxpayers' money to offset it, that would become a very expensive charge on the budget … The member for Wentworth is right: it would become a very expensive charge on the budget—an $11 billion charge on the budget, requiring hundreds of public servants to deal with the administration of the plan—and it is still not clear how it might have meaningful carbon abatement effects. So, despite the Leader of the Opposition regularly and loudly pretending that this plan will materialise out of thin air, it is in fact going to be a burden that every taxpayer would share as individuals. We have also heard a few members of the coalition say that direct action policies are easy to stop if you do not believe in preventing climate change. Indeed, we have heard the member for Wentworth again on this issue, but we have also heard the member for Goldstein say to a forum in Sydney on 19 July this year that their direct action policy could 'be easily adapted'. When the coalition talk about their policies being 'flexible' and 'adaptable', what they mean is that they can be dumped or watered down so much that they will be next to useless. The final point to make about the rather unfortunate direct action plan is about that little paragraph on page 14 of the document. It reads: Businesses that undertake activity with an emissions level above their "business as usual" levels will incur a financial penalty. The value of penalties will be on a sliding scale at levels commensurate with the size of the business and the extent to which they exceed their "business as usual" levels. That is an extraordinary 50 words to avoid using the one word 'tax'. Their own policy includes a tax. We heard the seemingly endless rhetoric of the Leader of the Opposition this morning about the terrible circumstances of legislation imposing taxes, and after all that, buried in the fine print of their very own policy, is a new tax. Apart from the environmental case for taking economy-wide action on climate change, there is an extremely compelling economic case to make the transition to a clean energy future. A carbon price will generate structural change in our economy by giving industry a reason to adjust, to innovate and to develop low-emissions-intensity products and services. By doing so, it will allow us to break the nexus that currently exists between economic growth and growth in carbon pollution so that our continued prosperity does not rely on the degradation of our environment. Climate change presents consequences for all aspects of our nation's life, from infrastructure to planning to population health to industry to agriculture. For that reason it requires a policy response which generates long-term structural change while maintaining our nation's prosperity. In fact, Treasury modelling projects real national income per person growing strongly under a carbon price. With a carbon price in place, Treasury estimates that real national income per person would be 16 per cent higher than current levels by 2020. As we have heard in this debate, it also estimates that national employment will increase by 1.6 million jobs by 2020 at the same time as growth in carbon pollution generated in Australia slows. By 2050, it is estimated that a further 4.4 million jobs will have been created—with a carbon price. The modelling goes on to predict a very significant increase in the demand for low-emission goods and production processes once a carbon price is implemented. So a carbon price will see stronger growth in industry sectors which produce those products. Critically, Treasury also estimates that by 2050 the renewable energy sector will be 18 times larger than it is today. Indeed, local businesspeople in and around my electorate have talked to me about the opportunities that a carbon price presents in encouraging people to look at ways they can be more energy efficient. Phillip Revell runs his own small business, Clean Energy Solar. He has talked about the carbon price helping to 'aid the environment for the future generations, for my kids and my grandkids'. He considers that the Household Assistance Package provides families with the opportunity to make very different choices about the energy they use and the energy efficiency measures that are available to them. Rod Capuano of SolarMyHome, in my electorate, has expressed to me his disappointment that the debate around the carbon price has been so negative. A carbon price with an emissions trading scheme to follow after three years will give business the certainty needed to invest in infrastructure and innovation. A short fixed-price period will give businesses the price certainty that they need and will provide them with time to adapt and prepare for the fully market based mechanism which will apply from July 2015. Of course, we have heard a number of prominent businesses and businesspeople say that a market mechanism will give investors that certainty: people like Paul Drum of CPA Australia; Gail Kelly of Westpac; David Atkin of Cbus; and Nathan Fabian of the Investor Group on Climate Change, which includes AMP, BT and Colonial and represents funds managers controlling more than half of the superannuation money invested in Australia. We should not consider the task of making the transition to be something that is beyond us. Our economy is capable of this change. Our industries are capable of this change. We must also consider what a failure to take economy-wide action on carbon would mean for our international trade relationships. We know that global actions to mitigate the effects of climate change are already significant. Already, as I have said, 32 countries have carbon trading schemes. It is reasonable to expect that countries which do take action to curb their carbon emissions will regard high-emissions-generating countries as having an unfair advantage and will seek to impose penalties. Australia should not be exposed to that risk, particularly when we have available to us such a range of renewable energy sources and the capacity to innovate to reduce our emissions levels. Countries such as China, Japan, the US, Korea and India are taking action. The US is committed to achieving its target to reduce emissions by 17 per cent by 2020 based on 2005 levels. The US EPA is regulating large stationary sources of carbon pollution to reduce emissions and incentivise the uptake of clean-energy technologies, and is increasing fuel-efficiency standards for cars and light trucks. President Obama has committed to establishing a clean-energy standards to double the share of clean energy in the electricity supply mix from 40 per cent to 80 per cent by 2035. I am sure that he can embellish on the actions being taken by his government and various states within the US when he visits here in November. There is a range of state and regional trading schemes operating or under development including in California, the world's eighth largest economy. Meaningful international action is being taken and Australia certainly should not be left behind in circumstances where it is so capable of responding to the challenges of climate change by innovating and developing industries which are no longer so heavily reliant on highly-polluting technologies and services. We have a small window of opportunity to act on a growing global risk. The longer we delay meaningful action, the more it will cost to remedy the effects of climate change environmentally and economically and the worse the impacts will be. Whatever others might like to believe, no amount of denial or rage or posturing is going to change that reality. Australia must put a price on carbon. 13:16 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson In households and businesses across my electorate, people are unsettled for the first time in a generation. People are nervous about the direction of the country. Workers are seeing their mates laid off or their own hours of work cut back. Whilst their disposable income declines, their costs of living are rising rapidly. In suburbs like Eatons Hill, Cashmere, Kallangur, Everton Hills, Strathpine, Samford, Petrie and Albany Creek, families are seeing their home values depressed and their interest rates going up. Many families are falling behind in their repayments, and we are seeing an unprecedented number of forced home sales. Retirees like those who go to the Strathpine Senior Citizens or who live at Inverpine or Farrington Grove, or the many travelling to faraway places with a caravan hitched to the back of their four-wheel-drive, are all finding it harder to make ends meet. Self-funded retirees or those on defined incomes, like many living at Aveo at Albany Creek, look at their electricity bills and grocery bills going up and up and up whilst watching their super balance or investment portfolio going down and down and down. Small businesses are the backbone of this country, and many through areas like Brendale, Arana Hills, Dakabin and all over Dickson are hurting to a point where they are just plain angry or at breaking point because they know that at the end of the day it is their homes on the line. If this angst were isolated to one state or community across the country, that would be bad enough; but the story of the many people in Dickson is the story of many across the country, including in the great state of Western Australia, currently undergoing a mining boom. It is in this context that the government introduces this new tax. It is absolutely central to the coalition's decision to oppose the imposition of another tax with negligible environmental benefit. This is an emotive debate and most views are fiercely held, both in this place and in the Australian community. Like any debate, views have changed and matured as people have taken a greater interest and as new evidence has come to light. It is a debate which to date has contributed largely to the downfall of one Prime Minister and it threatens to destroy a second Prime Minister—and in many ways the debate has only just begun. As first principle, I am opposed to the introduction of any new tax. Our job is to make life easier for Australians, not harder, and this tax makes life harder at a time when families and employers cannot afford it. It will have no impact on global emissions. My job as an elected representative is to be part of a government that grows jobs and rewards people for their hard work. My job is to provide support to those who because of illness cannot work. My job is to support those in retirement, those who have laboured for a lifetime of hard work and deserve a dignified and enjoyable stage of life. These are the reasons I am implacably opposed to this tax, a tax which is an attack on jobs, on reward for effort, on those who cannot work and on those who want to enjoy their lives after a lifetime of work. Surely no Australian government willingly imposes harm on its people, but the motivation for this bad policy needs to be understood. The government want the public to believe that this is a tax about the environment. They want the public to believe that this is a reformist piece of economic advancement designed to set us up to be ahead of the rest of the world. Overblown rhetoric has been central to Labor's term in government—first Mr Rudd and now Ms Gillard promising historical reforms and landmark agreements, all of which have turned to dust. This debate is no different. Setting our industries up with an impost not imposed on international competitors and disadvantaging households through the imposition of a new tax is not about historical reform; it is about taking money from one group of Australians and transferring it to others. It is about setting up a government desperate for cash with new future revenue streams. It is right that we protect our environment. No Australian would argue we should not take reasonable measures to protect our environment and, where we can, the environment elsewhere. Millions of Australians recycle each week and live sustainable lives. They contribute to the rehabilitation and the protection of our environment. As Minister for Workforce Participation in the Howard government, I visited countless Green Corps and Work for the Dole projects around the country and saw the great work undertaken by younger and older Australians alike to make our environment more sustainable. It was the Howard government that invested billions of dollars in environmental projects and helped to develop a generational shift in our approach to the environment. In suburbs like Mount Nebo, Whiteside, Dayboro, Ferny Hills, Laceys Creek and Mount Glorious—in fact, right across my electorate—residents are leading more sustainable lives. They are doing so without the imposition of a great big new tax. People who have spent their own money to install insulation or solar panels, switch to gas, purchase a diesel vehicle or grow their own produce will face this tax regardless. Companies big and small are actively reducing their emissions, and even in the government's own television advertisements businesses have spoken about their efforts to reduce emissions by 20 or 30 per cent without the impost of any tax. Why will these people and businesses be punished by this economy-wide tax? This carbon tax is the only economy-wide tax in the world. Big emitting countries like the United States and China have a piecemeal approach. The important point here is there is no prospect of an economy-wide tax in India, the US, China or any other major emitter around the world. There is certainly no prospect of the impost of a tax of this nature being applied by governments of our major trading partners on their industries. We are a country of 22 million people and, despite all of our natural resources and the demand for them, we are not a superpower. We are a trade-exposed nation competing with the likes of Brazil and parts of Africa. We are a country whose economy is dependent on many of the resources in the ground. Where we once rode on the sheep's back, it is the miner who now feels the strain. If we were to close down the coal industry, as demanded by Labor's coalition partners, the Greens, our economy would go into recession. We should adopt world's best practice in terms of extraction, and we do. Even if we were to close down the mining sector, no-one should be tricked into believing world production would fall away. Fast developing nations like China and India, the current customers for our resources who have the responsibility of lifting millions from poverty, will not drop their demand. They will just seek the product elsewhere. They will seek it in markets where extraction methods are not as environmentally responsible as they are in our own country. So our workers, our industry and our environment will be the losers out of this move. This tax is not restricted to the mining industry. In the worst of all possible outcomes this tax will be applied, directly or indirectly, to every level of production and energy use in our economy. This is a cascading tax, and it will infiltrate in a way which will be difficult to quantify for the end user. It does not have the nature of a GST. That is part of the reason the Labor Party has not been able to bring the Australian people with them. Firstly, people accept that they are going to be harmed by this tax, and the government has offered compensation. Australians do not believe that the compensation offered up will be sufficient or long lasting. They know business will not absorb the impact of this tax because business cannot. Like any other input, it will be passed on to the end consumer. Secondly, people do not understand, even if they are the strongest believers in climate change, why our country would move ahead of the rest of the world. This penny has dropped for millions of Australians, particularly when there is not a glimmer of hope for global consensus. People are asking: 'Why would our federal government disadvantage local small businesses like butchers, who are big users of electricity? Why would this Labor government make it more expensive to build a home in Australia where there is no environmental benefit? Why would the Labor government increase costs to local councils and see our rates increase when there is no environmental benefit? Why would the Labor government dramatically increase the running costs of Australia's public and private hospitals when there is no environmental benefit? Why would the Labor government dramatically increase the cost that it takes to operate a medical surgery or a pharmacy when there is no environmental benefit?' I want to give one example of a small business in my own electorate that will see a direct impact. Sadly, the impact will be passed on to scores of families who live locally. I want to quote from an article in the Pine Rivers Press of 12 July 2011, which talks about a visit Joe Hockey and I made to a local business called Medical Design Innovations. It operates in Brendale and its managing director is Sergio Esteves. I will quote from the article: The Federal Government's carbon tax announcement on the weekend has Brendale business owner Sergio Esteves fearing his company will have to move overseas. Medical Design Innovations is the last medical equipment manufacturer based in Australia but Mr Esteves said with high increases in electricity and aluminium, he may have to join his competitors in China, leaving his 24 employees without a job. "In order to stay competitive, I have no option," Mr Esteves said. "We survived the global financial crisis but it put us right on the edge of the cliff. "This extra little push from the Federal Government and I will be down and out." The family-owned business has been operating in the local area since 1998 and has a strong environmental policy in place, using recycled cardboard boxes and recycling every piece of scrap metal, but Mr Esteves admitted those efforts would not be enough to save him from the Federal Government's carbon tax. The article goes on to say: Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey, who visited the business alongside Federal Member for Dickson Peter Dutton on Monday, said small businesses like Mr Esteves's were the ones who were going to be affected by the tax. "This carbon tax is going to hurt people, it is going to hurt small businesses and it is going to hurt the Australian economy," Mr Hockey said. Strathpine-based Senator Mark Furner said the tax was aimed at high-polluting companies including "high-intensive trade sectors like aluminium." "The Government made a commitment that small businesses would not pay a carbon price," he said. Mr Esteves said about 80 per cent of raw material used by his company was aluminium. So the problem for this small business and for scores of other small businesses across my electorate is that they cannot reconcile the two comments coming from government. The government says that there will be a tax imposed on the top 500 emitters and that that is where the tax will stop. But, of course, companies like this that have big inputs of energy-intensive production methods or raw materials like aluminium will face increased costs. So how can this company, which competes with companies in China and other parts of the world that do not have the impost of this new tax, play on a fair field? That is the problem that most people see in this tax as it is proposed by this Labor government. This is a complicated debate, but it must be distilled down to what is in the best interests of our country. The government have been unable to convince the Australian people that this tax is good for our country or that it will be effective in reducing global emissions. Perhaps central to the government's inability to convince the Australian public that they can get this tax right is their track record over the last four years. Very briefly, I want to take the Australian public back over the last four years. This is a government whose programs, regardless of what program they have tried to roll out, have turned out to be a disaster. It did not just commence under this Prime Minister; it commenced, of course, under Prime Minister Rudd. There were promises about taking over hospitals if they were not fixed by mid-2009. There were promises about installing pink batts. There were promises about implementing school halls and giving money away. There were promises about Fuelwatch and GroceryWatch, and border protection. But this is a government that, regardless of whether its leader is Mr Rudd or Ms Gillard, has not been able to produce the sorts of outcomes that the Australian people expected at the 2007 or 2010 election. If the government is not hearing the message from the Australian public, it will be at its own peril. Australians are lacking confidence, and it is not because the fundamentals of our economy are not strong and it is not because our people do not work hard or because we lack natural advantage in Australia. It is because they look to the leadership of this country and find it difficult to draw confidence from the daily disasters and poor policy processes that have dogged this administration since its election four years ago. People look at how hard they themselves work, at the taxes they pay, and how hard it is to make ends meet, and then they see yet another Labor government guilty of waste and mismanagement. This tax should be voted down; and, if it is not voted down, we will seek a mandate from the Australian people at the upcoming federal election to make sure that, at the first available opportunity, we remove this impost from Australian families and businesses, who are struggling like they have not struggled in a generation. We will be a government that will restore confidence to families and businesses, and we will get this country back on track. (Time expired) 13:31 Dr MIKE KELLY HRI Eden-Monaro What a tremendous privilege it is to be here today to speak on the clean energy legislation in this endgame—one last opportunity to reach out to the members opposite and ask them to participate in the greatest challenge this nation faces. How poignant and how true were the words of the Prime Minister when she said that this was where 'the judgment of history' will begin. The names will be recorded in this vote. The names will be recorded. At this time, I think of one great historical figure, a hero of mine, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose famous words have echoed down the generations: … there is nothing to fear but fear itself … Then I think of the Leader of the Opposition, whose line is 'fear everything' and 'I am fear itself', and I ask myself: who is it that will be remembered in history? Whose legacy will be appreciated by subsequent generations? I am so proud to stand with my brothers and sisters on this side of the chamber and I say: go tell the Spartans that there were 103 men and women on this side who stood shoulder to shoulder, with courage and commitment, in the face of political risk to deliver this legislation for the future of our country and our kids. But I believe that today the bell will start tolling not for us but for the Leader of the Opposition. Every day from now until the 2013 election, we will see the clock ticking on the final political demise of the Leader of the Opposition as he is exposed systematically as a fraud. There are some things I have heard in the chamber today that need addressing, such as the comments by the member for Goldstein. Who could believe that he could stand there and say that this is a 'socialistic' measure as opposed to the coalition's 'inaction plan'! Their plan is a command economy approach, which is a back the winners, make the taxpayers pay approach—$1,300 added to the taxpayer's annual bill through their plan. There is the ludicrous tree-planting scheme: they would have to plant 28 million hectares of Australia to get to where they need to be—the 'tree in every lounge room' plan. How ludicrous an approach, when all those great socialist figures around the world, like Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel, David Cameron, Arnold Schwarzenegger and, of course, John Key have all said, 'No, let's go with a market based approach'! Well, where are our free marketeers? Where are you at this time to stand up for the strengths of a market approach that everybody says is the most efficient, productive way to tackle this challenge? The OECD, the Productivity Commission, Shergold, Garnaut—all of them are lining up to say, 'This is the way to do it.' I know that at least half of the members over that side would give their eyeteeth to line up behind this legislation. I know that the member for Wentworth is out there chewing over this right now, chewing over his conscience—a man who has stood his ground previously, a man who is concerned about his legacy now and knows what the risks are. When I travel around my electorate—and I have done eight forums on this issue now—we do not talk about the debate on climate science. We talk about why this legislation is a good reform measure from the point of view of dealing with the cost-of-living challenges for our low- and middle-income earners, dealing with tax reform and, yes, dealing with creating the new economy that this country needs to meet its energy generation challenges and also to take advantage of the opportunities of the new economy. During the dark Howard years, when this country slipped backwards in this space, we saw a shameful brain drain, with the people who developed expertise in this area disappearing to the United States and China. Now, with these measures, we have the wherewithal—through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation with its $10 billion, the clean energy technology aspect of the scheme with its $1.2 billion—to generate innovation and get behind the research, development and exploitation that have so often been missing in creating a more diverse economy than we have at this point. We talk about the exposure of this economy to the two-speed or patchwork problems of the mining boom. Well, this is one of the ways that we can get around that problem, because these are the technologies, this is the innovation, that the world is hungry for. Why would we deny our young people the career opportunities here in Australia? Why would we not exploit that hunger for the benefit of the planet? We know that there has been a lot of distortion of the facts and figures here, but the modelling has demonstrated that there will be 1.6 million new jobs. In my own region, in Eden-Monaro, we know there will be 2,300 new jobs. The Frontier Economics survey that the New South Wales government distorted proves that south-east New South Wales is going to be in the top four areas of this country to benefit from this scheme. We know that the regional and rural areas of this country will be the ones to benefit. That is why it is so shameful to see the Leader of the Nationals stand up here and argue against this, as he argued against the Carbon Farming Initiative, an initiative supported by the National Farmers Federation that the farmers in my electorate are reaching out for. When Ross Garnaut came to Cooma the other day, 300 farmers turned out. My Monaro Farming Systems people and my Bega Cheese farmers are all hungry to take advantage of this scheme, which will allow them to diversify their income and achieve productivity benefits. They were already going down the road of some of these sequestration and other techniques and now they will be able to make an income out of that as well. But, no, the Leader of the Nationals would deny them that opportunity. Where is his concern for rural and regional Australia when we know that groups like the Investor Group on Climate Change Australia/New Zealand have $600 billion worth of investment dollars waiting to be unleashed? Most of that money is going to land in rural and regional Australia. But, no, the Leader of the Nationals would deny us that opportunity. The most shameful aspect of this is the deception, the distortion and the denial that we have seen demonstrated by the coalition. You do not have to take my word for it because there are a good serious journalists out there who are recording this and zeroing in on the Leader of the Opposition. For example, Ross Gittins, in the Sydney Morning Herald, back in May, wrote: I don't like using the L-word, but Tony Abbott is setting new lows in the lightness with which he plays with the truth. He blatantly works both sides of the street, nodding happily in the company of climate-change deniers, but in more intellectually respectable company professing belief in human-caused global warming, his commitment to reducing carbon emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 and the efficacy of his no-offence policies to achieve it. He grossly exaggerates the costs involved in a carbon tax, telling business audiences they will have to pay the lot and be destroyed by it, while telling the punters business will pass all the costs on to them. He forgets to mention that most of the proceeds from the tax will be returned as compensation. He repeats the half-truth that nothing we could do by ourselves would reduce global emissions, while failing to correct the punters' ignorant belief that Australia is the only country contemplating action. We have had many members in this chamber point out what action is going on around the world at the moment—in China, in Korea, in Japan, in California. We have had Linda Adams from California here this week, the eighth largest economy in the world. They will link their scheme to Europe. New Zealand will link with us and to a scheme in Asia which we can link to Europe and eventually to China, who will introduce a scheme by 2015 along with us. We have also seen some more reporting recently. A headline in the Sydney Morning Herald on 13 September read 'Coalition distorts facts in campaign on pollution charge'. Their materials that have been released, their lines in fighting this, contain so many distortions and lies that it is hard to count them up. One in particular that has been exposed is the claim that $3.5 billion a year in taxpayers' dollars will go to overseas trading systems. That Labor proposes to allow polluting businesses to buy permits overseas is true, but of course that will be at the expense of those who purchase those permits and not taxpayers. So, once again, the coalition are exposed as frauds in that claim. Today the Australian Financial Review reports 'Abbott's three degrees of dumbness'. It talks about his mistake in dealing with this debate yesterday—the new lows to which he is taking not only this country but this chamber in this debate and the decorum he shows in this chamber when it deals with serious issues. He was exposed not only as a fraud but also as someone who demeans this institution. Geoff Kitney said: Yesterday he overstepped. The empty benches looked like a prank than a protest, a piece of childishness which sent the wrong signal about the coalition's attitude to the Parliament and the climate change issue. But, unfortunately, he is not alone in his deceptions. He has been joined in his crusade against action on climate change by the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Barry O'Farrell, who blatantly went out there and distorted the Frontier Economics study the New South Wales government produced. He was called on it by Professor John Quiggin, who this year won the Distinguished Fellow Award from the Economic Society of Australia at the University of Queensland. He said: The New South Wales government has cherry-picked all the scariest possible numbers in a way that is totally misleading and absolutely dishonest. That is the way Mr O'Farrell is approaching it. Professor Quiggin also had an article in the Sydney Morning Herald where he went on to elaborate on that, saying: … Frontier Economics, who say they used the same model as the Commonwealth, with almost identical inputs. As a result Frontier concludes, "At an aggregate level, the modelling results in this report are broadly consistent with the Commonwealth Treasury modelling." How can this be? The answer is that the NSW government engaged in an exercise in misleading advertising that would make even the most shonky of infomercial vendors blush. …      …   … The most common dishonest use is to report only the bad news about industries that will grow more slowly, and ignore the good news … As the Herald's Matt Wade reported on Saturday, the Frontier modelling exercise forecast benefits for industries including financial services and communications in which Sydney is particularly strong … The reality is that the carbon price is a modest reform, about one quarter the size of the GST. Except for directly affected sectors such as electricity generation, the impact will be undetectable against a background of substantial volatility around a long-run growth trend. This was forcefully illustrated by the news that Bluescope Steel is to shed … jobs, casualties of the high Australian dollar. Now with our industry assistance package there, they of course welcome our measures. That is John Quiggin. Today I noticed under the story above where it talks about the 'Liberals shy off costing pledge', which was another shameful exercise in obfuscation in this chamber, an article by Michaela Whitbourn titled 'How to cook up a carbon tax story', again referring to the distortions by Premier O'Farrell. He was shopping around. His bureaucrats were looking to line up behind Tony Abbott, cherry-pick figures where they could, distort or attempt to manipulate information. The Department of Transport, unfortunately though, had already come to a conclusion which completely contradicted his own. The transport department said that the government carbon tax would have 'no measurable effect' on transport choices and would increase prices by less than one per cent. But, in the face of that advice and in distortion of the true situation of that advice he received, he stated that the tax would 'increase passenger fares by up to 3.6 per cent'—a blatant misrepresentation and total dishonesty on the part of the Premier of New South Wales. So we have a clear trend here and a clear record of the coalition and their state allies lining up to try to deceive the people of this country. That decision will be revealed— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 0V5 Order! It being 1.45 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the honourable member will have an opportunity to continue his contribution. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 10063 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Ball, Mr Colin 10063 13:45 Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM Cowper I rise today to pay tribute to a small business man in my electorate who has served his community for 60 years. Colin Ball left school in 1951 at the age of 14 to learn the butchery trade in his father's shop at South West Rocks. Colin was taught all aspects of the business by local butcher and slaughterman Nelson Cooper. Colin's father, Charles, saw that the young man had some potential and put him to work on the family farm running a small abattoir to provide meat for the CP Ball butchery and milking the family's dairy cows. In 1963 Charles opened a butchery in Gladstone, New South Wales, and appointed Colin as manager. The shop was very profitable and at its zenith had 137 customers on a delivery run around the lower Macleay Valley. During the major floods in the Macleay Valley in 1963, meat from the Ball butchery in South West Rocks was delivered by Army helicopter to the Kempsey hospital, Kempsey town, Gladstone and Smithtown. In 1974 Colin opened a butchery in Kempsey. He also managed the family farm and abattoir. The Ball butchery shops in Kempsey and South West Rocks are still going strong. On the October long weekend it will be 60 years since Colin Ball first started working in his father's shop in South West Rocks. A career of 60 years in the same industry, in the same business and in the same community is certainly a significant achievement. It gives me great pleasure to congratulate Colin on his achievement. I sincerely hope he will enjoy many more years servicing the Macleay Valley. Media Ownership 10064 13:46 Mr MURPHY 83D Reid In light of a number of media reports today let me make it quite clear that my calling for an inquiry into the media has nothing to do with establishing how much of the Australian media is owned and controlled by the Murdoch empire. I already know that. The words about the forthcoming media inquiry this morning said by Michelle Grattan, a very highly respected, very ethical and iconic journalist and member of the Canberra press gallery, to broadcaster Fran Kelly on her ABC Radio National breakfast program say it all. If the government does not include in its terms of reference for its media inquiry an examination of the level of concentration of ownership of Australia's media and the implications for the public interest and our precious democracy, this inquiry will be 'emasculated'. Michelle Grattan is right. How can any of us sit in this parliament and believe that News Ltd's 70 per cent ownership of all of our newspapers, together with its very extensive other electronic media interests, including its 25 per cent share in monopoly pay TV Foxtel, is good for the public interest and good for our democracy? We cannot. Youth Allowance 10064 13:48 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Labor today foreshadowed changes to the independent youth allowance criteria, enabling more regional students greater access to the funding pool from next year. In his media release the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations said: … this meets the Government’s commitment, made in February this year, to eliminate regional eligibility distinctions for Youth Allowance with effect from 1 January 2012. The word 'distinctions' should be replaced by the word 'unfairness'. The government knows it was unfair, palpably so. Labor has been dragged to this point today and thereby admitted this dreadful wrong needed to be made right only because members on this side of politics and, moreover, members of families affected demanded equity. The coalition, especially Nationals senator for New South Wales Fiona Nash, have been relentlessly demanding the government make these changes. Why Labor decided when the current Prime Minister was education minister that arbitrary lines on a map would determine whether or not country kids, many of whom were in the Riverina, could receive youth allowance defies belief, defies logic and certainly defied any degree of fairness. We are yet, however, to have Labor clarify whether these changes will be retrospective. If they are not then it means the government has hung 2009-10 inner regional zone school leavers out to dry, as these changes will not apply to them. They have been consigned to the government's current unfair rules. If this is not retrospective, the backflip is too late for students who have fallen through the cracks. (Time expired) Hospitals 10064 13:49 Mr LYONS M38 Bass I rise today to congratulate the Calvary Health Care St Vincent's and St Luke's campuses in Launceston in my electorate of Bass. They recently were jointly awarded first place in Tasmania in the Medibank Private 2011 hospital excellence survey for the second year running. This is a great achievement for the hospitals, which were jointly judged to be the best private hospitals in Tasmania after being rated by patients on a range of factors such as preadmission, discharge, follow-up, medical treatment provided, privacy, cleanliness and the food that the hospitals served. Both of the hospitals received a rating of 71 out of 100 in the survey to top the rankings in Tasmania. Calvary Health Care Tasmania Launceston scored above the national category average in the areas of preadmission, admission, communications index, physical environment and informed financial consent. They all scored in line with the category average in the area of hospital staff. This is an impressive effort for our local private hospitals in Launceston, Tasmania. This is recognition of the work of the doctors, staff and volunteers at the Calvary Health Care facilities in Launceston. I congratulate Mr Grant Musgrave, the CEO, for his wonderful leadership. Their hard work and dedication to patients has been rewarded. They should be congratulated for their effort. (Time expired) Telecommunications 10065 13:51 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan Technology is an important part of today's society, but it is essential that technology is delivered correctly with the best outcome for all stakeholders. Mobile communication represents one of the fastest-growing areas of demand. However, while mobile communication has improved and advanced over the years, the same cannot be said of its associated infrastructure. Twenty years on, communities are still confronted by the visual pollution of large, ugly telco towers dominating the local landscape. Unless compelled, companies will invariably always opt for the cheapest and easiest method of construction. So with the absence of self-imposed improvement by the industry, maybe it is time that pressure was applied. The latest manifestation of this visual pollution is the proposed Optus installation at Brookfield in my electorate of Ryan. Now the residents of Brookfield are undoubtedly enthusiastic users of mobile communications and indeed expect efficient and effective coverage. However, what the residents of Brookfield object to is the high-handed, non-inclusive approach taken by Aurecon. What the residents of Brookfield object to is the abbreviated and limited consultation with the local community. Indeed, my office was given only one week to respond. What the residents of Brookfield object to is the lack of advice and consultation with local institutions, including a neighbouring kindergarten and Kenmore State High School. What we all object to is the lack of initiative or innovation which would minimise the impact on the local community and environment. I implore Optus and Aurecon to consult more extensively with the community surrounding the proposed site at Brookfield before taking further action on this project and to come to a mutually agreed solution. I also give notice of a petition from local residents against the building of the tower that will be tabled in this place in the near future. O'Connor Electorate: Local Sporting Champions Program 10065 13:52 Mr CROOK M3K O'Connor I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the young sporting heroes in my electorate, some of whom have recently received Local Sporting Champion grants. One such local sporting champion is Olivia Morris of Esperance. Twelve-year-old Olivia has displayed a great dedication to her chosen sport, surf lifesaving. Olivia trains five days a week before school and she has also completed her Surf Rescue Certificate, allowing her to actively assist in patrolling the Esperance beaches. Olivia was a recent recipient of the Local Sporting Champions grants program, an Australian government program providing financial assistance to young people for travel, accommodation and equipment when competing in state or national championship events. With this funding Olivia was able to travel the 700 kilometres to Perth to compete in the Surf Life Saving State Championships where I was pleased to hear she received a bronze medal for the Under 13 Beach Flags events. I am pleased to note that over the past 12 months the Local Sporting Champions program has assisted 22 individuals and one team in the electorate of O'Connor, contributing a total of $14,000 to assist our young sports stars. Coming from a regional sporting background myself, I recognise that there are limited opportunities for young people in the regions to take their sporting activities to a higher level, and I commend the Local Sporting Champions program for giving our young athletes this wonderful opportunity. School Funding 10066 13:54 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston Last week the government released a number of additional reports as part of the Gonski review into school funding. These reports give an indication of the likely direction that the government will be heading with its new school funding policy once the existing agreements expire in two years time. They raise considerable concern for Catholic and independent schools generally, including those in my electorate of Aston. The key directions are threefold. First, it would introduce a 'national resource standard' or benchmark. This would work by decreasing funding if the school's total resources per capita, comprising fees and government funding, go above a certain level. The impact of this would be a massive disincentive for parental investment and a reduction in funds for many schools. Second, it would reduce the rate of indexation. The current AGSRC indexation tracks school cost increases. There is no commitment to maintain this. And, third, it would compel non-government schools to take certain cohorts of students or lose school funding. We have seen the first two directions before; they mirror Mark Latham's policy in the 'hit list' election in 2004. But, on top of this, Catholic and independent schools may for the first time be required to take certain cohorts, and this is an incredible intrusion. I am particularly concerned about the impact on the Knox School in my electorate by the likely introduction of a national resource standard. While only attracting $3,500 in federal funds, it has total resources of about $17,000. It will undoubtedly have its funding cut under the Labor model, pushing the fees up higher. The government could simply say that no school would be worse off, but it will not. (Time expired) Learn Earn Legend! Program 10066 13:55 Mr MITCHELL M3E McEwen I would like to read out a statement on behalf of an Indigenous work experience student I hosted this week. It reads: My name is Carly-Jade Chesterfield; I’m 16 years old and currently go to Airds High School. My favourite subjects at school are Biology and Community and Family Studies. I wanted to be a part of the Learn Earn Legends program to get a different perspective of the political parties and a better understanding of the decision making process. The experience has been a huge opportunity to meet new people such as my parliamentarian Rob Mitchell and his media officer, Jinane Bou-Assi, along with two journalists, Richard Willingham from the Age, and Matt Johnson from the Herald Sun. I have also met with Jim Chalmers who is Chief of Staff to the Treasurer and Deputy Prime Minister, who gives advice to Wayne Swan. I also met the media adviser, Adam Collins. By meeting those people it has given me a taste of what they do in their fields, it has also given me more self confidence with meeting new people. Hopefully at the end of the program I will get a better understanding of the political procedures along with real life hands-on experience. Another thing I will get out of this program will be exploring the different opportunities that are offered within the political field. So far in the Learn Earn Legends program I have seen the structure of the House of Representatives, also I have learnt about the differences of the political parties. It was a great opportunity and feeling when I got to see the Prime Minister Julia Gillard walk into the chamber before she introduced the carbon price bill. Personally seeing Julia Gillard was one of the best experiences I have been part of and I think will never forget the time spent in the Parliament House with the amazing people I have seen and met during the time spent here. It was a great privilege to have the opportunity to host this young intelligent person in our office. I wish Carly very well for the future. She has a very bright future ahead of her. National Retail Award 10067 13:57 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I rise today to welcome the decision of the three-member full bench in dismissing a union appeal against a decision to vary the National Retail Award, a commonsense decision. We now need to see a decision taken along the same lines so that students can work before school. Matthew Spencer and Letitia Harrison from Terang are to be congratulated for their determination to take on the union movement and see these changes made. Fair Work Australia has taken two years to get the pooper-scooper out and clean up Julia Gillard's Fair Work mess when it comes to the Retail Award. Two years is too long. It has had a detrimental impact especially on regional and rural students and their ability to get work experience and to get an income so that they can save for buying a car or for other things they want to do when they leave school. How we ever got to this I do not know, but I congratulate the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry for pursuing this matter. It is two years, and it has taken too long, but they have done the right thing and they are to be commended for having taken this to the full bench of Fair Work Australia and getting this ridiculous rule overturned. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 0V5 I remind the honourable member that he ought to refer to the Prime Minister by her title and not by her name. Youth Allowance 10067 13:59 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I would like to report to the House that sanity has finally prevailed for country students today, including those in my electorate of Farrer, with the federal government forced to admit that its application of the independent youth allowance for inner regional areas is blatantly unfair. I would like to say that this obvious fact dawned on the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations all by himself, but sadly, this was not the case. Instead, as with so many of this government's policy areas, it took an outside body, an independent review, to tell the Labor Party the obvious, which was that they had left thousands of country students worse off under their changes where the only crime being committed was that a mum and dad with a young son or daughter lived on the wrong side of an arbitrary line on a map. In my electorate the Gillard government's expanded inner regional zone penalised parents and students across Albury, Greater Hume, Corowa, Berrigan, Lockhart and Deniliquin. The SPEAKER HH4 Order! It being 2 pm, the time for members' statements has concluded. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 10068 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:00 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I inform the House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence will be absent from question time for the rest of this week as they are attending the Australia-United States Ministerial Consultations, AUSMIN, in San Francisco. The Minister for Trade will answer questions on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, Minister for Indigenous Health and the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Centenary of ANZAC will answer questions on behalf of the Minister for Defence. CONDOLENCES 10068 CONDOLENCES Lambert, Private Matthew 10068 Report from Main Committee 10068 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 10068 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Asylum Seekers 10068 14:01 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the fact that Malaysia has confirmed that 30,000 nonresidents were caned between 2005 and 2010. I also refer the Prime Minister to clause 16 of the government's Malaysia swap deal document which states: This Arrangement represents a record of the Participants intentions … but is not legally binding on the participants. Given that the arrangement is unenforceable, how can she ensure that asylum seekers dumped in Malaysia will not be caned? 14:02 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor The government has negotiated an arrangement with Malaysia in good faith and we will honour that arrangement and the government of Malaysia will honour that arrangement. To the Leader of the Opposition I say this: very simply, I do not expect him to endorse the government's arrangement with Malaysia. That is not the question before the parliament. The executive government will make decisions about asylum seeker processing. Legislative amendments will come before this parliament next week. What needs to be addressed before this parliament is ensuring that executive government, this government, any government, has the legislative authority that it needs to make the decisions it sees best in relation to the processing and transfer of asylum seekers. A little earlier today I wrote to the Leader of the Opposition— Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, on a point of order to do with relevance, the Prime Minister was asked how she could ensure that asylum seekers transferred to Malaysia were not caned. She is now answering an entirely different question. If she has finished the answer to that question, she will assist the House by sitting down. The SPEAKER HH4 The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat; he has made his point of order. The Prime Minister knows the obligation under the standing orders to be directly relevant to the question. Ms GILLARD 83L As I was saying, a little earlier today I wrote to the Leader of the Opposition and advised him that the government would ensure that relevant officials, including the Solicitor-General, were able on Friday to brief him on the legislative amendments. I trust that he will take that briefing. I know that he has been looking for one, so I am sure that something can be organised that suits his convenience. The important fact here is having the legislation in the right form to enable government to make the decisions that it wants to in relation to the processing and transfer of asylum seekers. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition does not view favourably the government's arrangement with Malaysia. I believe the government of Malaysia will honour the obligations it has freely taken upon itself. The Leader of the Opposition may well form a different view about the merits of the Malaysia arrangement, but there is only one question that will come before this parliament and that question will be the amendments to the Migration Act. I will be asking the Leader of the Opposition to deal with those amendments in the national interest. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 10069 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:05 The SPEAKER HH4 I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Speaker of the ACT Legislative Assembly, Shane Rattenbury MLA. On behalf of the House I extend to him a very warm welcome and I hope that he is looking at other things besides question time. Honourable members: Hear, Hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 10069 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 10069 14:05 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway My question is to the Prime Minister. Over the last 12 months how has the government worked to keep the economy strong, deliver reform and build a clean energy future? 14:05 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I thank the member for Greenway for her question. It is an important question about national policy and the things that are most important to Australian families. Of course, the thing most important to Australians is having the benefits and dignity of work and we are determined to keep our economy strong because we know that people must be able to get access to a job. There can be no security for Australian families or Australian individuals if they cannot access a job. That is why we worked so strongly and so hard during the days of the global financial crisis to ensure that this nation did not go into recession and to protect the jobs of 200,000 Australians to make sure that Australians had the benefits and dignity of work. Having looked after those jobs during the days of the global financial crisis, continuing to strengthen and modernise our economy is an ongoing task. That work is never finished. You need to keep strengthening, keep modernising in our world of change. That is why the government has been so determined to ensure that, in this phase of economic transformation—as we see in our economy an incredibly strong resources sector, record terms of trade and a high Australian dollar, with the implications that has, some of them positive, and the implications that also has for trade exposed areas of our economy like manufacturing, tourism and international education—we are doing the things necessary to keep our economy strong for the future. You cannot hide from the future. You cannot wish it away. There are only two choices: either you step up and shape it or it shapes you. I am determined that our nation will make the decisions necessary to make sure that we are the shapers of our future and, in shaping our future, we will be continuing to deliver policies that modernise our economy. In delivering those policies we will be focused on the importance of skills, education and human capital and on the importance of traditional infrastructure like roads and rail and ports. Of course, we will also be focused on the infrastructure of the future, including the National Broadband Network and the microeconomic reform agenda that needs to come with that, with the structural separation of Telstra. Of course, there will also be a focus on the clean energy jobs of the future. Yesterday it was my very great honour to bring to this parliament the Clean Energy Bill— Mrs Bronwyn Bishop SE4 Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In this new paradigm, requiring that there be a direct relevance to the question asked, the answer is in no way meeting that criterion. It sounds more like a valedictory. The SPEAKER HH4 The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER HH4 And she is warned! The Prime Minister has the call; there was no point of order. Ms GILLARD 83L I was talking about Australian jobs, and as I do that I expect the opposition to be focused on abusing me because they have no care or concern about the employment of Australians. We have a Leader of the Opposition who slept through the legislation to support the jobs of Australians during the global financial crisis—who was so unconcerned about Australian jobs that he stayed asleep. Yesterday I introduced in this parliament the legislation to get us the clean energy jobs of the future. This is an important national debate. I attended to listen to the Leader of the Opposition's speech this morning. I would have to say I was dismayed that he devoted only one sentence to his policy alternative. I think that is saying something about the opposition's perspective. To the clean energy jobs of the future they just say no, because for them it is always about fear and never about facts. Asylum Seekers 10070 14:10 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the fact that 30 per cent of asylum seekers processed through the Pacific solution were returned home, compared to less than two per cent since the Rudd-Gillard government abolished the Howard government's border protection regime. When will the Prime Minister finally admit that the Howard government got it right and that when Labor came to power they found a solution and created a problem? 14:11 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor In answer to the shadow minister's question I will repeat what I have said already in question time today and what I had cause to say yesterday. I understand that there are sharply divided views in this parliament about refugee and asylum seeker policy. I understand that. Indeed, our nation has lived with that for many long years—with sharply divided views on a number of these questions—and I suspect we will live with sharply divided views both in this place and in the community broadly for many long years to come. Against that backdrop of community division and different views both within this parliament and beyond, government needs to address the task and always have in its mind what is best in our national interest to secure our borders and to ensure that we meet the obligations we have voluntarily accepted under the refugee convention. The government has made a set of decisions about that. I understand the Leader of the Opposition does not agree with those decisions and I do not ask him to. But I do ask him to join with the government in putting executive government in the legal position it believed itself to be in before the recent High Court case. That is the legal position the Howard government also believed itself to be in. That is the question before this parliament— Mr Morrison E3L Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order, on relevance. I asked about this government's dismal return rate of just two per cent, and I seek leave to table the— The SPEAKER HH4 The member for Cook will resume his seat. Again, I would characterise the member for Cook's question as one that went beyond the question and had argument. If I were inclined I could have ruled that part out of order, but, as I have indicated, I allow those questions on the understanding that the questioner has to expect that it allows a wider-ranging response. Ms GILLARD 83L What I say to the member for Cook is that the question that we will present to this parliament is the question about legislative power. I remain determined to amend the Migration Act. The question does present squarely to the opposition whether it will join the government in that. We have made briefings available. We are in the process now of arranging a briefing for the Leader of the Opposition. I trust that the opposition, when it has received that briefing about the amendments, will reach the view that it is important that there is legislation in the right form to enable government to enact its preferred answer on refugee and asylum seeker policy. For us, that will be Malaysia and PNG. For the opposition, that will be Nauru. But we require legislative amendment to support either solution, so the briefing will be made available. I ask the member for Cook and the Leader of the Opposition to absorb that information and make the decisions in their shadow cabinet and their party rooms beyond in the interests of this nation. Mr Morrison E3L I seek leave to table a document which shows that less than two per cent— Leave not granted. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 10071 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:15 The SPEAKER HH4 I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon Joan Kirner, a former premier of Victoria. I also inform the House that we have present in the gallery today Ray Groom, a former member of this place for Braddon and a former Premier of Tasmania. They are both most welcome visitors to the chamber today. Honourable members: Hear, Hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 10071 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 10071 14:15 Mr CHEESEMAN HW7 Corangamite My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Will the minister outline to the House the importance of the government's plan for a clean-energy future for our economy? How has been this received and what is the government's response? 14:16 Mr COMBET YW6 Charlton I would like to thank the member for Corangamite for his question. The clean-energy package of bills that were introduced by the government yesterday will responsibly transform our economy over time. They will establish an emissions trading scheme that will cut our pollution and generate large and ongoing investments in clean energy and in energy efficiency. Our economy and our workforce will continue to grow while we are cutting pollution under the arrangements that the bills will put in place. By providing certainty for investors, in particular, over carbon pricing, the package will unleash a wave of investment in clean energy generation and clean technology innovation. Industry will invest to reduce the emissions intensity of their production processes, and many businesses are already planning that investment. That investment and improvement in emissions intensity of our businesses is critical to productivity growth in our economy over time and it is the keystone of future prosperity, because productivity growth is absolutely critical to the improvement of living standards in our society in the future. The package also includes very important changes to the income tax system. It includes income tax cuts that are achieved by trebling the income-tax-free threshold. That measure will boost workforce participation because it generates incentives for people to work. This is an economic reform important to the country's future that has the double dividend of boosting productivity and improving workforce participation. By contrast, pretty much all that we know about the position of the opposition is that they have brought forward a subsidies-for-polluters scheme that will cost Australian families and taxpayers $48 billion to 2020, or $1,300 per household per annum by 2020. The Leader of the Opposition had the opportunity today to explain his alternative policy, but all we heard was more personal invective, more negativity, more misrepresentation, more disinformation. The responsibility of leadership escapes the Leader of the Opposition. Under his leadership the coalition spends all its time conniving and deceiving for its own political benefit. There is a useful insight into this today in the Australian Financial Review, where it is reported that the Leader of the Opposition's policy director—that would not be a very busy job in the Leader of the Opposition's office, it has to be said—connived with the New South Wales Premier, Barry O'Farrell, to publish completely deceitful material on the front page of the Daily Telegraph. What took place was a deliberate ploy to misrepresent the cost impact of a carbon price on public transport in New South Wales by no less than a factor of seven. It was completely overstated by a factor of seven. That is all that we get with the Leader of the Opposition: deceit, misrepresentation, negativity. As the parliament debates these bills, I ask all of those of good conscience on the other side to consider the issues very carefully, because the government's package is very important for the future of our country, our economy and our society. I know there are many on that side who wish to support it. (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 10072 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:20 The SPEAKER HH4 I inform the House—many members of which have indicated to me—that in the gallery today we have Barry Cohen, a former member for Robertson and a former minister for environment, amongst other things. Barry, you are a welcome visitor today. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 10073 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Asylum Seekers 10073 14:20 Mrs MARKUS E07 Macquarie My question is to the Prime Minister. Given that 400 boat people have already arrived since the agreement with Malaysia to take just 800, does the government have any concluded agreement with Malaysia to take more should that be necessary? Dr Mike Kelly interjecting— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER HH4 Order! There are many dobbers in the place! I was about to say that, if that was the parliamentary secretary, he is warned. The Prime Minister has the call. 14:21 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I thank the member for Macquarie for her question. I say to the member for Macquarie: the arrangement we have entered into with Malaysia is for the transfer of 800 people. The arrangement remains for the transfer of 800 people. We have the clearest possible advice from the experts that advise government that it is the plan with the maximum deterrence effect. The member for Macquarie may want to come to a different policy conclusion. That is a matter for her as a member of the House of Representatives. But, if the policy conclusion she comes to is that she would prefer to see asylum seeker processing on Nauru, she would need to directly confront the question: what are the implications of the High Court case? The implications of the High Court case are that she could not make that decision without it being the subject of a great deal of legal doubt and she certainly could not start transferring unaccompanied minors to Nauru. The Solicitor-General's advice about the High Court case is crystal clear on that. Mrs Markus E07 Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the question was about whether the government has concluded any additional agreement with Malaysia to take more. The SPEAKER HH4 The Prime Minister will relate her material to the question in a directly relevant manner. Ms GILLARD 83L I am asked about the Malaysia agreement and I am talking about factors relating to it and operationalising it. I am reminding the member for Macquarie that, if she has not read and absorbed the Solicitor-General's advice, that is something she may choose to do. She may have already done so, but if she does absorb that advice she will see that his view, as Solicitor-General, the highest legal adviser the government has, is that processing on Nauru is subject to legal risk without amending the legislation and certainly unaccompanied minors could not be transferred. In those circumstances, even if you ran the legal risk in relation to transferring adults, you would obviously be in the position where you would be at some risk that people smugglers would start choosing to fill boats with children. No-one wants to run those risks. That means we need to amend the legislation and the question that will be before the parliament once the legislation is introduced is whether the opposition will vote for that and put executive government in the position that the Howard government was and that this government believed itself to be before the High Court case. I have been advised that the Leader of the Opposition has accepted the offer for a briefing at five o'clock on Friday afternoon in Melbourne. I am very pleased to see that. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER HH4 The Prime Minister will resume her seat. Haranguing anybody is out of order. Asylum Seekers 10074 14:24 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah Mr Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the question of the member for Macquarie. How can the Prime Minister reconcile her statement a moment ago that the 800 figure was the best advice that the government had with the concession of the secretary of the immigration department in his briefing to me last week that the 800 figure was 'just conjecture'. 14:25 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor The Leader of the Opposition has either misheard or misconstrued or is misrepresenting what I just said. Opposition members interjecting— Ms GILLARD 83L I am taking the question seriously and I will answer it, so maybe the opposition might want to cut the abuse and listen to the answer. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER HH4 The House will come to order. A question has been asked and the Prime Minister is responding. Ms GILLARD 83L We are discussing a matter of national interest and I presume all members of the House would be interested in this discussion. I may be wrong about that, but I will assume that all members of this House have an interest in securing Australia's borders and in the best possible policy in relation to refugees and asylum seekers. In response to the question of the Leader of the Opposition, I was asked by the member for Macquarie about whether we had an arrangement for 800 or whether we had extended it. I confirmed it was an arrangement for 800. I then went on to explain what I believed to be the merits of that agreement—that we had the best possible advice that the Malaysia agreement provided the best possible deterrence. I did not put that specifically about the figure and that is what the Leader of the Opposition has either misheard, misconstrued or is seeking to misrepresent. The Leader of the Opposition knows from the briefings he has received that the advice to us from the Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and more broadly is that they believe the Malaysia arrangement has the maximum deterrence. Mr Abbott EZ5 Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I asked her the basis on which the figure of 800 was chosen. Was it just conjecture? Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER HH4 Order! I did not hear the Leader of the Opposition's point of order, but it could only be on direct relevance. I am listening carefully to the Prime Minister's answer. Mr Crean interjecting— The SPEAKER HH4 Order! I indicate to the minister for regional Australia that when I talk about haranguing it is not just haranguing from my left. Mr Dutton 00AKI Hear, hear! The SPEAKER HH4 The member for Dickson should not take too much comfort. The Prime Minister has the call and all I have indicated is that I will listen carefully to her response. In no way have I indicated that I believe that she has not been anything but within the standing orders. Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker, a point of order: I would ask that the Leader of the Opposition be directed under standing order 64(a) to refer to the Prime Minister by her title. The SPEAKER HH4 All members should refer to other members by their parliamentary titles. Ms GILLARD 83L On these important questions of national interest, and in answer to the Leader of the Opposition's question, the Leader of the Opposition has received a briefing from the secretary of the department of immigration and others. That briefing has made clear to him their advice, and their advice is that, out of the options that government has at its disposal, Malaysia is the option with the maximum deterrence effect. I understand that on this question of national interest the Leader of the Opposition may well come to a different view. That is a matter for him. Executive government—this government—is determined to implement the Malaysia arrangement and to start a processing centre in accordance with our understandings with the government of PNG. I do not ask the Leader of the Opposition to endorse that. I do not ask him to stop criticising it. I do not ask him to do anything in relation to that other than what he has done for many weeks now, which is to indicate that he does not believe in it, does not support it, does not agree with it and is full of criticisms of it. He should continue to do that if that is what he has come to in his mind as the best decision in all good conscience. What I am asking of the Leader of the Opposition is that, when amendments to the Migration Act come before this parliament—which this executive government does require in order to implement the arrangement with Malaysia and the centre in PNG, and which an alternative government, were one ever elected which had the Nauru proposal as its policy, would need to implement that policy to put it beyond legal doubt and to make modifications in relation to unaccompanied minors—he support that legislation. Behind all of this partisanship is one central fact: the government believes in and wants to implement offshore arrangements in relation to refugees and asylum seekers. The Leader of the Opposition wants to implement offshore arrangements in relation to asylum seekers. In order to do so in a way which is beyond legal doubt the Migration Act needs amending, so in the national interest I believe we should be able to agree on that. Carbon Pricing 10075 14:31 Mr CROOK M3K O'Connor Mr Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the government's decision to cut diesel fuel rebates for heavy on-road vehicles, despite this not being supported by the majority of their own climate change committee. I ask the Prime Minister: has the government modelled the effect that these changes will have on regional Australians who have no choice but to rely on heavy on-road trucks to transport their goods great distances? Will the government acknowledge that in my electorate of O'Connor families and businesses will be extremely disadvantaged by these changes, more so than their city counterparts? And does the government acknowledge that this effective carbon tax on heavy on-road vehicles contradicts their claims that their carbon tax is a tax on big polluters only? 14:32 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I thank the member for O'Connor for his question on carbon pricing. I do note that I did not receive a question on carbon pricing from the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. On the member for O'Connor's question on carbon pricing: the government does intend to apply an effective carbon price to fuel use by heavy on-road transport from 1 July 2014. That is true, we intend to do that through fuel tax credits. We intend to do that because we want to ensure that there is competitive neutrality between the various ways that goods are moved around our country. Rail, domestic shipping and domestic aviation face an effective carbon price, so we believe that the alternative way of moving goods around should also face an effective carbon price. It is true that there were a variety of views about that on the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, but the government's view is that there should be such an arrangement and we are determined that such an arrangement would come into force on 1 July 2014. The government estimates—and when I say the government here, I am talking about the experts who do modelling at Treasury, who advise this government and who have advised past governments—that the impact of heavy on-road coming into the scheme from 2014-15 is around 0.05 per cent. We have, as a prudent measure, taken that into account in designing the household assistance package. So although the household assistance package will, of course, come into effect prior to the introduction of that change for heavy vehicles, the 0.05 per cent has been taken into account. That means that the member for O'Connor will see in his electorate pensioners, parents of children and income earners who earn less than $80,000 a year seeing more dollars in their pockets. There are tax cuts, there are pension rises and there are family benefits changes. To give the member for O'Connor some statistics in relation to his own electorate, more than 13,000 families in O'Connor will receive household assistance through their family assistance payments and more than 20,000 pensioners in O'Connor will receive assistance—and will recall of course that we have modelled assistance for pensioners so they get more than they need to compensate for the average flow-through impact of carbon pricing. That is so that they can come out in front. In addition, the member for O'Connor will see 2,600 self-funded retirees in his electorate see more money, as will the 1,500 students, 4,200 jobseekers and 2,400 single parents. Then, of course, people who work in the electorate of O'Connor and who live there, whom the member represents in this parliament, will also see tax cuts. The member for O'Connor is able to tell his constituents and community that, yes, there will be an impact on heavy on-road vehicles from 2014-15, but it has already been taken— Mr Crook M3K Not in these bills. Ms GILLARD 83L No, in the government's intentions. The government intentions are that— Opposition members interjecting— Ms GILLARD 83L I thank friends in the parliament for assistance on clarity. This is a government-only measure, and the government are determined to pursue it. As a government-only measure it is our determination that it come into effect from 1 July 2014, but it has already been taken into account in the household assistance package. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 10076 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:36 The SPEAKER HH4 Before calling the member for Parramatta I indicate to the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon Mary Crawford, a former Parliamentary Secretary for Housing and Regional Development and a former member for Forde. On behalf of the House I extend to her a very warm welcome. Honourable members: Hear, Hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 10076 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Parliamentary Budget Office 10076 14:36 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the importance of transparency in costing policies? What other approaches have been proposed, and what are the consequences of not taking fiscal transparency seriously? 14:36 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley I thank the member for Parramatta for that very important question, because this government is getting on with the job of rolling out a very big reform agenda: putting a price on carbon to drive investment in renewable energy; reforming our tax system; boosting national savings through our superannuation reforms; and, of course, putting in place reforms to skills and training and establishing the NBN. We are rolling out all of these reforms in a responsible way, and the rock on which they are built is a very credible, strict, clear and consistent fiscal policy. We are building on the strength of that fiscal policy by establishing a new Parliamentary Budget Office, an independent costing service. The PBO will ensure there is greater transparency and accountability in the costing of election programs in particular. For the first time ever in the history of this parliament, the opposition and individual members and senators will have access to an independent, confidential costing service outside the general election period, and they will have access to a fully transparent election policy costing service during election periods. This is absolutely fundamental to ensuring that the Australian public are informed about the costs of election promises, because the Australian people do not want to see ever again a repeat of what occurred during the last general election, when there was an $11 billion costings black hole in the budget estimates of the opposition. At the last election the opposition spent all of their time hiding their costings from the Australian people. Mr Simpkins HWE Show us your surplus! The SPEAKER HH4 Order! The member for Cowan is warned! Mr SWAN 2V5 Now we find they will say anything and do anything to run away from proper scrutiny the next time around as well. They are looking for any excuse to trash the Parliamentary Budget Office before it even gets off the ground. We had the member for Mackellar come into this House last night and mount a despicable attack on prominent public servants, and that was added to by the member for Goldstein. All of this comes after those opposite had sat on a joint select committee and supported in full the proposals for the Parliamentary Budget Office. Two shadow ministers supported it. The member for Higgins supported it, and she had this to say about the PBO back then: 'It will enhance transparency and accountability.' What has changed in the past five months? What has changed in the past five months is that there is a $70 billion crater in their budget estimates, before they add any new policies for the next election. The shadow Treasurer is so scarred by his incompetence that now he wants to hide from scrutiny during the next election campaign. There are 70 billion reasons why the shadow Treasurer wants to keep his costings hidden from the Australian public—70 billion reasons why this mob cannot be trusted to run an economy and are unfit for public office. Asylum Seekers 10077 14:40 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her earlier answers to the member for Macquarie and to me about the Malaysia people swap, and I ask: once the 800 ceiling has been exceeded, what will the government's policy be then to stop the boats? 14:40 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor In answer to the Leader of the Opposition's question: (1) the government's policy is that we want to implement the arrangement with Malaysia, and that does require amending of the legislation, as I have already indicated to the Leader of the Opposition, and that is a decision he faces; (2) we have taken the best possible advice on structuring this arrangement and its deterrence value, and I am advised that the Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Mr Metcalfe, in discussing these questions with the opposition—he certainly said this to government, so this is the advice to us—said that the deterrence impact of transferring people will be very strong. So we obviously designed the Malaysia arrangement to have the maximum, strongest possible deterrence impact. So this is not about saying that this is processing of a certain number of people overseas in the way that, for example, under the Howard government a number of people were processed on Nauru. This is about people being transferred—people who are then not processed and do not come to Australia. So the deterrence effect— Mr Abbott EZ5 Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was a fairly simple question: what happens when the 800 ceiling is breached? I think that is the question the Prime Minister should answer. The SPEAKER HH4 The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Dr Mike Kelly interjecting— The SPEAKER HH4 The Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a). The member for Eden-Monaro then left the chamber. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER HH4 Order! Those that are here listening should behave also. Ms GILLARD 83L What I am endeavouring to explain to the Leader of the Opposition—based on the expert advice we have been given by the Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, and what I believe the secretary actually said to the Leader of the Opposition in the briefing that he provided to the Leader of the Opposition—is that the secretary said it is up to 800 asylum seekers. Of course, our hope is that we would not need to transfer that many. Our aim is that we do not have to transfer that many, because the advice to us is that the strength of the deterrence effect is such that this will smash the people smugglers' business model. Mr Hockey interjecting— The SPEAKER HH4 Order! The member for North Sydney is warned! Ms GILLARD 83L I am conveying to the House expert advice we have been given which has also been available to the Leader of the Opposition. This has the maximum deterrence effects. It smashes the people smugglers' business model because it takes away from them the very product they seek to sell, which is that people will be processed and end up in Australia. Whilst the Leader of the Opposition may contest all of this—and I know that he does—that is the advice that has been provided to us, and that is the advice that we are relying on. Once again, I say to the opposition that it is open to them to say they do not want to rely on this advice. It is open to them to say that they prefer a different policy solution. It is open to them to identify that policy solution as Nauru. That is a matter for them. Then they would have to answer a series of questions about costs, what happens when it is full and what happens when the expert advice proves to be right that there is no deterrence effect and the asylum seekers are resettled here in Australia. That will be a matter for them, but the important point before this parliament is not the contest between our plan and the opposition's plan. The important point that will come before the parliament next week is having the legislative foundation stone so executive government can implement the plan that it prefers; for this government to implement Malaysia and PNG and for a future government, should one ever be elected with the policy of processing asylum seekers on Nauru, to have the opportunity to do that. That is the question that the Leader of the Opposition will need to answer. I do not ask him to endorse the government's plan. I ask him to seriously consider, in the national interest, amending the legislation as he will need to do to support the plan he says he believes in. Gillard Government 10079 14:46 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter My question is to the Leader of the House. Will he outline and summarise the important legislative reforms that have already passed through the House during the course of the 43rd Parliament? What support has there been for the government's legislative agenda? How will the government progress its future legislative program? Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER HH4 Order! The Chief Government Whip was pretty specific that his question was to the Leader of the House. Nobody else was invited to speak. The Leader of the House has the call and he should be heard in silence. 14:46 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the Chief Government Whip for his important question, which comes 12 months to the day since the Gillard government ministry was sworn in after our election victory last August. That is why we are sitting on this side of the House and why the opposition are still on that side of the House. Indeed, the government has a very big agenda. Since we were sworn in, the House of Representatives has carried 191 bills through the House—that is, 191 in this column and a big zero in their column because not one piece of legislation has been defeated. The parliament is functioning and it is functioning well in spite of the wrecking tactics of those opposite. The parliament said yes to the structural separation of Telstra; those opposite said no. The parliament said yes to rebuilding Queensland after the devastation of the floods and Cyclone Yasi; those opposite said no. The parliament said yes to a fully-costed and fair paid parental leave scheme; those opposite said no. The parliament said yes to a budget that invested in jobs and the economy with record spending in mental health; those opposite said no. The parliament said yes to national health reform; those opposite said no. The parliament said yes to the National Broadband Network, with not just one but five bills carried through the House; those opposite said no, no, no, no and no. The government is determined to meet our future challenges. That is why we are saying yes to the creation of a Parliamentary Budget Office. That is why we are saying yes to the clean energy bills that are before the parliament, but in this case not everyone is saying no. The member for Wentworth, who was due to speak this morning on the clean energy bills, took himself off the list. But he knew that he could contribute because prior to question time he had this to say in response to the question, is the carbon tax to the plan that you and Ian McFarlane negotiated? I think all of these schemes have got a lot in common. This one obviously has quite a lengthy fixed-price period. That's why it's called a carbon tax. All of these schemes—whether it is one Peter Shergold canvassed when we were in government or the Rudd CPRS, as amended in the negotiations with Ian and myself, or this one—have a lot in common. Indeed they do. Both had a fixed-price period, both led to an emissions trading scheme and both were supported by the member for Wentworth—not just in his heart but in his head, as they are supported by everyone who takes climate change seriously. It is only this side of the parliament that has a future agenda on jobs, skills, infrastructure, education and health. Those opposite simply have a negative agenda of carping and opposing everything that is put forward. Asylum Seekers 10080 14:51 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright My question is to the Prime Minister. What did the government ignore in the expert advice of officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade earlier this year that was later cited by the High Court in its judgment that raised concerns about the treatment of asylum seekers in Malaysia? 14:51 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor The question simply is not right. The member is misrepresenting the situation, but if the member is in any way interested in expert advice then I would suggest that he get across the expert advice that is being provided to government and to the opposition. Can I say generally to the opposition, I understand that there will continue to be political contest about the nature of policies and plans in the area of refugees and asylum seekers. So be it. That is what the House of Representatives is for. We will in that political contest refer to the expert advice that supports us. The opposition may choose not to rely on that expert advice. That is a matter for it. What this parliament will be called upon to determine is the legislation and how it should read. Facts are facts and you cannot wish them away. The Solicitor-General has been clear that for offshore processing to proceed, whether that offshore processing is in PNG, in Nauru or whether there is the Malaysia transfer agreement— Mr Abbott interjecting— Ms GILLARD 83L The Leader of the Opposition is saying, 'That is not a fact; it's an opinion.' It is a fact that the highest legal officer who advises government gave this advice. That is fact and you cannot wish that fact away. The Solicitor-General has advised government that to put offshore processing beyond doubt, even it were occur in Nauru, as the Leader of the Opposition prefers, the legislation needs amending to ensure that such arrangements could include the transfer of unaccompanied minors. If you do not make that amendment then you run all of the legal risks. Then what do you do? You send a message to people-smugglers to fill boats with children. These are facts. They cannot be wished away. They cannot be denied. They must be dealt with. The only thing we are asking the opposition to do as we absorb these facts together, and the Leader of the Opposition gets the opportunity to have briefings in depth, is to put the law in an appropriate state— Ms Julie Bishop interjecting— Ms GILLARD 83L Exactly. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, 'Put the law back as it was.' Yes, put the law back so executive government is in the position that the Howard government believed itself to be in in relation to offshore processing and this government believed itself to be in in relation to offshore processing before the High Court case. Then, having amended the law, we will implement the Malaysia arrangement and one with PNG, the opposition can knock themselves out with criticisms of that arrangement, we will have the election in 2013, and the Australian people can make a decision between the government's policies and plans and the opposition's policies and plans. What the opposition should not do, in my view, is refuse to amend the legislation and in doing so deny themselves the legal foundation stone for the policy that they say they support. So this is the decision for the parliament. Legislation will be introduced next week. The Leader of the Opposition will get briefings on Friday afternoon. I think it is a very good thing that he is availing himself of those briefings. I am pleased we were able to negotiate and get a time that works for everybody on Friday, and I trust that he will seriously consider the advice and information that he receives during that briefing in the national interest. Anti-Dumping Reforms 10081 14:55 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham My question is to the Minister for Justice, the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Privacy and Freedom of Information. Will the minister update the House on the progress of the government's anti-dumping reforms in supporting Australian industry? What other proposals have been put forward and what is the government's response? 14:55 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I thank the member for Cunningham for her question. She is a true advocate and champion for manufacturing workers in this country, and I can assure her that the government is working to keep our economy strong by making sure that Australian manufacturers are supported from unfair trading practices such as dumping. The government's improvements to the anti-dumping system will deliver faster resolution of complaints. Indeed, we are committed to increasing staff of Customs from 31 to 45 to ensure Customs has the right level of resources but also to ensure additional experts such as forensic accountants in order to ensure we have quicker and more effective advice so we can prevent dumping in this country. Customs, of course, will also consider the need for provisional measures at the earliest opportunity in an investigation rather than waiting until verifying all data, something that I believe has been a problem for manufacturers and producers in this country for some time. Indeed, the legislation that has passed the House will have a 30-day time limit on the minister's decision making for such cases. By way of comparison, under the Howard government Minister Vanstone would take up to more than one year to make decisions in this area. That certainly frustrated the parties. The government's improvements will also enable us to identify dumping behaviour by making particular market situation provisions more effective and making significant changes to the appeals process and amending the definition of material injury. The reforms will ensure greater consistency with other countries by taking into account relevant cases and practices in other jurisdictions, specifically in relation to non-cooperative parties. Indeed, legislation currently before the parliament also rectifies an omission of the Howard government, ensuring that Australian industry can take action against the same unfair subsidies overseas that everybody else can. These are very important reforms. The government will also ensure compliance with the trade remedies in place through increased monitoring and anti-circumvention measures. The International Trade Remedies Forum has been established, representing industry, to provide ongoing advice to governments on the effectiveness of anti-dumping. I have been asked about alternative views. The fact is that there are no alternative views coming from the opposition, other than to say that the Leader of the Opposition, in his budget reply in speech in May, made reference to dumping but has done nothing since. Indeed, in February, the opposition set up a task force— Mrs Mirabella interjecting— The SPEAKER HH4 Order! The member for Indi will withdraw. Mrs Mirabella 00AMU I withdraw. Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Indeed, the member for Indi chairs this task force, which has no tasks and indeed no meaningful force. It has been there since February, telling workers around this country it is going to help them. But what have we seen since February? Absolutely nothing. The member for Indi was at the Press Club today. She spoke for 30 minutes. There were no announcements, no reforms, in this very important area, because in the end, when it comes to the opposition, they are a policy-free zone. We have rhetorical drivel from the member for Indi. The reality is that this government cares about manufacturing in this country and it cares about agriculture in this country. That is why the employer bodies, the unions and the National Farmers Federation have supported our reforms. What we know is that the Leader of the Opposition may talk about dumping but in the end he will use workers as a prop in a media stunt; he will walk away from those workers in the same way he will walk away from their entitlements. Giving the Leader of the Opposition control of employment conditions is like giving Dracula the keys of the blood bank. (Time expired) Member for Dobell 10082 15:00 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the disparaging remarks she made with respect to the Chief Justice of the High Court when he rejected her failed Malaysia people-swap deal. How does the Prime Minister reconcile her criticism of Chief Justice French for doing his job with her rock-solid support for the member for Dobell, who is alleged to have misused the union funds of the poorest paid workers on personal items of art; restaurant, accommodation and liquor bills; airline tickets for himself and his spouse; election expenses; and escort agencies? Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker, as you would be fully aware, that question is out of order. It is not in order for a member of parliament to cast aspersions upon another member. Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, on the point of order: the question simply juxtaposes the Prime Minister's statements about the Chief Justice of the High Court with her full, expressed confidence in the member for Dobell, and mentions that the items that I read out are allegations. Mr Shorten interjecting— Mrs Mirabella 00AMU Mr Speaker, I ask you to ask the Assistant Treasurer to withdraw his offensive comment. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER HH4 Order! Before we proceed can I just ask members to proceed with a great degree of care. We will deal with the matter immediately before me. I did not hear a comment but, given the reaction, as I said earlier this week, I think that it is in order that I ask the Assistant Treasurer to withdraw. Mr Shorten 00ATG I withdraw. Mr Mitchell interjecting— The SPEAKER HH4 Order! The member for McEwen should not take the lead from some of his more senior colleagues during today. I have indicated that the haranguing from either side does not assist, especially at this point in time. When the question was first asked, whether by juxtaposition or otherwise, the comments made by the member for Sturt about another member appeared to go further than was allowed by the standing orders. His explanation on the point of order is not the way that I characterised the question. But if he is saying that he has only couched the things he has mentioned in the way that they have been couched on other occasions, it would be in order. But what this does illustrate is that there is a fine line. I have indicated that I am troubled by questions about members, especially members that are not part of executive government. But it has appeared over this parliament and the previous parliament that the House has wished me to give some flexibility. That is the only reason that I have allowed those questions. What I am saying is: people should be very careful in the way that they use material that would go beyond the ability and capacity for this House to make any sort of judgment about the actions of a fellow member. It would be in that context and that context alone that I would allow the Prime Minister to respond to the question. But it is not in any way condoning a form of words that has been used against a member of this place that goes beyond the standard practice. Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker, with due respect, standing order 90 is very clear: All imputations of improper motives to a Member and all personal reflections on other Members shall be considered highly disorderly. And action is allowable under standing order 91. I also refer you, Mr Speaker, to standing order 100(d): Questions must not contain: (i) statements of facts or names of persons, unless they can be authenticated and are strictly necessary to make the question intelligible; It is out of order under standing order 100(d)(ii)—arguments. It is out of order under standing order 100(d)(iii)—inferences. It is out of order under standing order 100(d)(iv)—imputations. It is out of order under standing order 100(d)(v)—insults. It is out of order under standing order 100(d)(vii)—hypothetical matter. I would ask you to rule the question out of order. The SPEAKER HH4 Well, this is a big change in the game. I have to decide whether I rule out most of the questions from both sides. I am happy to do that if that is the wish of the House. I have tried for four years to get a sensible set of rules for question time. If members want me to implement my version of the rules, I am happy to because I would rule every question about members of the House out of order. I have the dilemma that I have to decide what the House wants me to do. That is an interesting dilemma because the same will apply to responses. If we want to start from now, I am happy to rule the question out of order. Pensions and Benefits 10083 15:08 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell Mr Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Minister, how is the government delivering on its commitments to support pensioners to balance their budgets? What risks are there to this support? How is the government responding? The SPEAKER HH4 The last two parts of that question are out of order. I will allow the first part. 15:09 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga I thank the member for Calwell very much for her question because she knows that this government is determined to continue to implement the commitments we have made to put a price on carbon pollution and the commitments we have made, and continue to make, to pensioners to support them and help them meet their household budgets. It is the big polluters and not Australian pensioners who are going to have to pay for the pollution that those big polluters put into our atmosphere. We are delivering a real and permanent increase to the pension. Under our plan to put a price on pollution, Australia's 3.4 million pensioners will receive assistance that more than covers their average expected price increases. Australia's 3.4 million pensioners will get that extra assistance as a result of the legislation that this government has introduced into the parliament. Pensioners will receive both the clean energy advance and a clean energy supplement to make sure that they get ongoing assistance. That assistance will be worth $338 a year for singles and $255 a year for each member of a couple. It will be the case that both the pension and the clean energy supplement will be indexed to make sure that pensioners can keep up with the cost of living. As the member for Calwell and everybody on this side of the parliament knows, this builds on the very significant increases to the pension that we have delivered since 2009. From next Tuesday, 20 September, pensioners in Australia can expect to get another increase to their pension as a result of improved indexation that this government has delivered as a result of the major reforms we have put in place. What we know, unfortunately, is that the Liberals in New South Wales— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER HH4 Order! The minister should be very careful. She is now wandering past the part of the question that I allowed. Ms MACKLIN PG6 It is absolutely relevant to what we are doing for pensioners because, as the Speaker may recall, the Prime Minister put a request to the premiers and chief ministers of Australia asking them to make sure that the pension rise that we put in place in 2009 stayed in the purses and wallets of pensioners, that it was not gobbled up in the increased public housing rents. Unfortunately, it is the case that last week the New South Wales Premier announced that he is reneging on that agreement and they are increasing public housing rents. The SPEAKER HH4 The minister will now bring her answer to a conclusion. Ms MACKLIN PG6 They are now increasing public housing rents for 68,000 pensioners in New South Wales. Union Funds 10084 15:13 Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P Curtin Mr Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her answer yesterday where she agreed with the Minister for Human Services that the use of the union funds of some of the poorest paid workers for sexual services was inappropriate. Is this the Prime Minister's belief in all cases? 15:13 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I suggest to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that if she is going to quote the Minister for Human Services, she do it accurately and in its entirety. My attitude today is exactly the same as the attitude I expressed yesterday. Tobacco Plain Packaging 10085 15:13 Mr MELHAM 4T4 Banks Mr Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. What progress is being made on plans to remove advertising and the glamour from cigarette packages? How does this fit with international developments? 15:14 Ms ROXON 83K Gellibrand I thank the member for his question. The government are proud that 12 months ago, when we were sworn in as a government, we had already declared that we would be the first country to introduce plain packaging for tobacco products. Now, 12 months on, this chamber has passed the measures. We expect that the measures will be before the Senate next week. I hope very much that the Senate will support the measures in the same fashion that they were supported in the House. It would be particularly timely given that next week, as part of the United Nations General Assembly, the first non-communicable diseases conference is being held. It will be only the second time in the history of the United Nations that they have had a dedicated health forum combined with the General Assembly. Last time, as members would know, it was to deal with HIV. Now it is to deal with the growing burdens caused by cardiovascular diseases, diabetes and a range of other illnesses, which are caused in large part by a number of risk factors and tobacco is the leading one amongst them. We are very proud to be part of a government that is delivering on our commitment to be the first country to introduce plain packaging. Of course this reform has not been easy. It will not necessarily have an easy passage in the Senate. It is being met by very ferocious opposition from big tobacco companies that have spent in the order of $10 million on negative advertising campaigns. We are absolutely determined to do what is right here. We know that, if we can reduce the harm from tobacco related disease, not only will we significantly reduce the number of Australians who die each and every year from tobacco related illnesses—15,000—but, more importantly, we will also ensure that the number of families who suffer as a result of those deaths is reduced in the future. I hope the opposition will encourage their Senate colleagues to support this measure in the Senate next week. I think it will be a proud moment for Australia, which has a history of both sides of politics having taken ambitious steps in leading the world on tobacco control, to have this measure passed at the very time the rest of the world is debating measures that can also be taken on tobacco control. If Australia is the first to introduce this measure, we know we will not be the last. That will be good for countries around the world and many thousands of people. It is estimated nearly six million people around the world die every year from tobacco related illnesses. We can take a step to make a difference. We can help the rest of the world take a step to make a difference too. Member for Dobell 10085 15:17 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt My question is to the Prime Minister. In light of the Prime Minister's answer to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's question and her answer yesterday, does she stand by her statements she has made in the last few weeks that she has full confidence in the member for Dobell? The SPEAKER HH4 If I were going by my thoughts on this I would be ruling this question out of order, but given that this arises from previous questions—and only on that basis—I will allow the question. 15:17 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I believe the member for Sturt's question is grossly inappropriate because it is doing what I do not think should be done in this place about any member of parliament and what I will specifically decline to do about members of parliament who face some sort of inquiry and that is to make a decision in advance of that inquiry about what the facts may be. If I were the sort of person who did that then I could start doing that about a senator from the Liberal Party. I do not believe that would be appropriate. Indeed, I believe that would be quite wrong. Let us be very transparent about what has been done today. Mr Speaker, on another occasion you may choose to reflect on these questions. The opposition has put a values proposition about something in general and then has basically sought to assert that a member is in breach of that values proposition with no facts or evidence before them. If we are going to start that, I do genuinely fear where it will end. The appropriate conduct for members of parliament if matters are being investigated by appropriate authorities is to await the outcome of those investigations. Education 10086 15:19 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Throsby My question is to the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth. What reforms has the government delivered to our education, schools and training system to help Australians secure the jobs of the future? 15:19 Mr GARRETT HV4 Kingsford Smith I thank the member for Throsby for his question. I know he carries on a very proud tradition of members from the constituency of Throsby really arguing long and hard for jobs in their electorate. The government is serious about reform because reform is all about making Australia a better place for people to live in and to grow up in. It is about tackling dangerous climate change by putting a price on carbon pollution. It is about rolling out an accessible National Broadband Network. It is about transforming education right around the country to make every school a great school. It comes on the back of a proud tradition of Labor reforms which can tell people what we on this side of the House are about. Whether it is Medicare or compulsory superannuation, we are fair dinkum about reform and about bringing these policies through to make sure they improve the opportunities for Australians in the future. There are some big reforms out there in education if you think about it. There is a new building in every one of our schools—not 3,000 flagpoles against 3,000 libraries, but new halls, new classrooms, new science laboratories; an Australian curriculum accessible to every student wherever they live; national standards for the teaching profession; and hundreds of thousands of computers installed. I put out a statement today saying that I am pleased to see that we had 75 per cent of the total installed by the end of June. We have invested record amounts in literacy and numeracy and record amounts in assisting kids from low socioeconomic communities lift their education capacity. Of course there is the once-in-a-generation opportunity through the independent Gonski review of school funding. We are also doing it in higher education. There is a significant amount of investment again—nearly double what we saw from the previous government. There are 130,000 new training places now being provided and record numbers of apprentices and trainees with skills. In higher education we now have more young Australians than ever before being given the opportunity of a university degree. There was an important announcement today that students from inner regional areas are able to access the independent youth allowance under exactly the same rules that apply to students from outer regional, remote and very remote areas. I am asked how this is being received. On the BER, Trevor Gordon, the Principal of Cairns State High School, said in the Cairns Post in October: It is one of the most wonderful facilities I've seen in my 38 years as a teacher. I have heard many comments like that from principals around Australia, as I know have my colleagues on this side of the House. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER HH4 Order! The minister has the call. Mr GARRETT HV4 On the national curriculum, Martin Dixon, the Victorian minister, said: It is a historic occasion. It is one that teachers and educators have been waiting for for a long time. I could not agree more. On national professional standards for teachers, Sheree Vertigan, who is from the Australian Secondary Principals Association, said: The standards are a crucial platform for building teacher quality in all secondary schools across Australia. Those opposite may not be willing to have their budget cuts subject to the scrutiny of the Parliamentary Budget Office, but our investments in education ensure that young Australians now will have jobs in the future. Carbon Pricing 10087 15:24 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the fact that the government is amending the Fuel Tax Act as part of its carbon tax package to remove the exemption which allows the delivery of fertiliser to farms to be defined as agriculture. Does the Prime Minister agree with Clarke Roycroft, the owner of a fertiliser business in Camperdown in my electorate, who says that whoever proposed this amendment has been 'doing too much drinking downstream of the herd'? Mr Crean interjecting— The SPEAKER HH4 Order! I invite the minister for regional development to first of all read Practice where it says, whether you like it or not, a member when they are quoting, whether a constituent or not, is assumed to be quoting directly. Also, I say to the minister for regional development, if he wants to make comments on points of order, there is a procedure in the standing orders that allows him to come to the despatch box to make that point of order. I have a different view from the member for Wannon's predecessor about the naming of people in questions. In this case, it is on the shoulders of the member for Wannon that he is actually quoting the person that he has named. The Prime Minister has the call. 15:24 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor To the member for Wannon I say that I am happy to talk to him about an individual constituent matter, if that is what he would like me to do. More generally I say to him that we are determined to create a clean energy future for this country. That is why we introduced the legislation yesterday. This is a nation-changing reform about jobs and prosperity in the future and about making sure that we do the right thing by our environment and that we accept the best of scientific advice and the best of economists' advice. It does really amaze me as we move to the end of the second question time after the introduction of these bills that the Leader of the Opposition has been asking about everything else but not asking about this. Perhaps that is because he knows he cannot explain his policy, because he failed to do so in his speech today, which I came in to listen to. The SPEAKER HH4 Order! The Prime Minister will bring her answer to a conclusion. Ms GILLARD 83L So, to the member for Wannon, if he genuinely has an issue on behalf of a constituent then I am very happy to address that matter with him directly. Defence Equipment 10088 15:27 Ms GRIERSON 00AMP Newcastle My question is to the Minister for Defence Materiel. How has the government improved the capabilities provided to our troops over the past 12 months? What is it doing to strengthen the skills of the Australian defence industry? 15:27 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I thank the member for Newcastle for her question. In the last 12 months we have delivered a lot of equipment for our soldiers in Afghanistan. That includes the upgrading of our Bushmaster vehicles. Our troops in Afghanistan now also have new combat body armour and are wearing a new combat uniform. We have also rolled out a new counterrocket system that warns our troops of rocket attacks at the base at Tarin Kowt as well as a number of our forward operating bases. They are all part of the $1.6 billion Force Protection package that the government is implementing. I was in Afghanistan a few weeks ago and had the opportunity to talk to our soldiers about this new equipment, and their feedback on the ground was very positive. That said, there is still more work to do. There is always more work to do particularly in the area of IEDs. Earlier this year we made the decision to purchase an additional 101 Bushmaster vehicles to replace those that had been destroyed, as well as supporting current and future operations. On Monday, the Minister for Defence and I announced an agreement with the Canadian government for a number of ground-penetrating radar systems to help to clear the roads of IEDs in Oruzgan province. In Air Force in the last 12 months, 20 of our new Super Hornets have been delivered and the next four Super Hornets will be delivered in the next month. In March, members may remember, we made the decision to purchase a fifth C17 heavy-lift aircraft, and it will arrive in Australia in the next few weeks. Work is also well underway on the first air warfare destroyer and I know some of that work is occurring in the member for Newcastle's electorate. Work is also underway on the two new landing helicopter dock ships. The Largs Bay, which we have purchased from the UK government earlier this year, will arrive in Australia in December where it will be commissioned HMAS Choules, after Claude Choules who died in May this year and who, members will know, served in the Royal Navy in World War I and then migrated to Australia and served in the Royal Australian Navy in World War II. The question also asked about the Australian defence industry. The Australian defence industry does a lot of work for Defence, about $5½ billion worth every year. Over the next decade that will increase to about $7½ billion in today's terms. There is a reason for that. Over the next 10 to 15 years we will replace or upgrade 85 per cent of our military equipment, and that is a big challenge. It is important that we get it right and a key part of that is making sure that we have the skills that we need to do the job. The biggest mountain we will have to climb is the future submarine project, potentially the biggest and most complex defence project Australia has ever undertaken. It will potentially involve hundreds of companies, thousands of workers and a lot of skills that we do not currently have in sufficient numbers today. Some of the skills will come from overseas but many will need to be grown here in Australia. That is why I have asked Skills Australia to work with Defence and the defence industry on the range and depth of skills that we will need over the next decade and the best way to build them. This will help us to meet the challenges that lie ahead. Ultimately, that is what government is all about: meeting the challenges of today and the challenges of the future. Whether it is climate change, building the National Broadband Network, increasing the superannuation of Australian workers or providing our troops with the equipment that they need, this government is delivering now to meet the challenges of the future. (Time expired) Ms Gillard 83L Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be place on the Notice Paper. COMMITTEES 10089 COMMITTEES Selection Committee 10089 Report 10089 The SPEAKER HH4 I present the Selection Committee's report No. 31 relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private Members' business on Monday, 19 September 2011. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table. The report read as follows— Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business 1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 13 September 2011. 2. The committee determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation business and private Members' business on Monday, 19 September 2011, as follows: Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon) COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS Presentation and statements 1 Standing Committee on Regional Australia Inquiry into the use of 'fly-in, fly-out' (FIFO) workforce practices in regional Australia. The Committee determined that statements on the inquiry may be made—all statements to conclude by 10.20 am. Speech time limits — Mr Windsor—5 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins] PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Notices 1 MR KATTER: To present a Bill for an Act to require constitutional corporations that are grocery retailers to produce producer prices and for related purposes (Constitutional Corporations (Farm Gate to Plate) Bill 2011). (Notice given 12 September 2011.) Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. 2 MR KATTER: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2011 (Competition and Consumer Amendment (Horticultural Code of Conduct) Bill 2011). (Notice given 12 September 2011.) Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. 3 MR WILKIE: To present a Bill for an Act to enhance community consultation in relation to the development of certain telecommunications facilities, and for related purposes (Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Community Consultation) Bill 2011). (Notice given 13 September 2011.) Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Orders of the day 1 Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011 (Mr Bandt): Second reading (from 4 July 2011). Time allotted—20 minutes. Speech time limits — Mr Bandt—5 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 2 Wild Rivers (Environmental Management) Bill 2011 (Mr Abbott): Second reading (from 12 September 2011). Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon. Speech time limits — Mr Abbott—15 minutes. Next Member—15 minutes. Other Members—10 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 15 mins + 2 x 10 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. Items for House of Representatives Chamber (8 to 9.30 pm) COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS—continued Presentation and statements—continued 2 Joint Standing Committee on Treaties Report 119: Treaty tabled on 5 July 2011. The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 8.05 pm. Speech time limits — Ms Parke—5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 5 mins] PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS—continued Notices—continued 4 MR S. P. JONES: To move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) Australia needs a diverse economy to prosper now and into the future; (b) Australia has a strong innovation framework, and some of the best research and development and skilled workers in the world, but industry and government support is needed to turn that capacity into goods manufactured in Australia; (c) the Australian Government has an agenda for nation building, innovation and improving the productive performance of business and industry, but that more can be done in this area; (d) the Australian Manufacturing industry should continue to be assisted by government to ensure that the mining boom does not crowd-out every other area of the economy; and (e) the Government has already made a substantial contribution to the development of this agenda; (2) reaffirms its belief in a modern, cohesive and comprehensive industry policy for Australian manufacturing which links these elements of the Australian economy; (3) supports policies to spread the benefits of the mining boom to local manufacturers and the development of a skilled workforce by; (a) ensuring that the mining industry invests in apprenticeships and training to ensure Australia continues to renew and develop a high-skilled workforce; and (b) requiring: (i) all new major resource projects have an Australian Industry Participation Plan (AIPP) which provides details of the Australian manufactured materials and services to be used on all major resource developments; and (ii) open and transparent tendering arrangements which permit Australian industry to compete on an equal basis with international companies for sub-contracts associated with major resource projects; (4) supports policies that require Australian Government infrastructure and defence industry projects to produce and publish an AIPP detailing Australian manufactured materials and services; and (5) in the interests of accountability and transparency, insists that all AIPPs be published and regularly updated as projects progress. (Notice given 13 September 2011.) Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 9.30 pm. Speech time limits — Mr S. P. Jones—10 minutes. Next 5 Members—10 minutes each. Other Members—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 10 mins + 5 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. Items for Main Committee (approx 11 am to approx 1.30 pm) PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Notices 1 MR PYNE: To move: That this House: (1) notes that consumers currently have little information made available to them in choosing which fertiliser product for private and domestic use will suit their needs, and which fertiliser products may damage their plants; (2) recognises: (a) that existing voluntary standards produced by Standards Australia, such as AS 4454, do not always provide consumers with sufficient information to ensure their fertiliser product is fit for its purpose; (b) that the industry has made calls to urgently address anomalies between all compost standards, particularly contaminant levels, to ensure a high quality product that will improve soil health and productivity; and (c) the recommendation of the Senate Select Committee on Agricultural Related Industries in its Pricing and Supply Arrangements in the Australian and Global Fertiliser Market report, to implement, as a matter of priority, uniform description and labelling of fertiliser products to ensure consistency between jurisdictions; and (3) calls on the Australian Government to work with the States and Territories to establish a national standard for fertiliser products for private and domestic use that are made available for sale in Australia: (a) requiring uniform labelling; and (b) prescribing the acceptable range of ingredient levels for fertiliser products such as nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and pH. (Notice given 5 July 2011.) Time allotted—60 minutes. Speech time limits — Mr Pyne—10 minutes. Other Members—10 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 10 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 2 MR HAYES: To move: That this House: (1) recognises and acknowledges the significant contribution that officers across all Australian policing jurisdictions make to our local communities as we approach National Police Remembrance Day on 29 September 2011; (2) remembers and commemorates the ultimate sacrifices made by all police officers who have been killed in the course of their duties, in particular, that we commemorate the lives of: (a) Detective Constable William Arthur George (Bill) Crews of the NSW Police Force who was killed in Sydney on 9 September 2010; (b) Sergeant Daniel Stiller of the Queensland Police Force who was killed on 1 December 2010; and (c) Detective Sergeant Constable Damian Leeding of the Queensland Police Force who was killed on 1 June 2011; (3) honours the courage, commitment and memory of the many fine men and women who lost their lives during the execution of their official duty made in serving our community; (4) pays respect to the work of Police Legacy which undertakes vital services in looking after the families and friends of the fallen police officers; (5) supports and thanks all serving police throughout Australia for their invaluable dedication and commitment to make a difference, defend our way of life and safeguard our communities. (Notice given 16 August 2011.) Time allotted—50 minutes. Speech time limits — Mr Hayes—10 minutes. Next Member—10 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins + 4 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 3 MR C. KELLY: To move: That this House: (1) recognises that Coptic Christians in Egypt are suffering ongoing and increasing persecution; (2) condemns the recent attacks on Coptic Christians in Egypt; (3) expresses its sympathy for Coptic Christians who have been victims of recent attacks in Egypt; and (4) calls on the Government to: (a) issue a public statement condemning the ongoing attacks against the Coptic Christian minority in Egypt; (b) make immediate representations to the United Nations to end the persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt; and (c) strongly urge the Egyptian Government to provide equal rights and protection for all Egyptian citizens regardless of race or religion. (Notice given 21 June 2011.) Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm (approximately). Speech time limits — Mr C. Kelly—10 minutes. Next Member—10 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins + 4 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. Items for Main Committee (approx 6.30 to 9 pm) PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS—continued Notices—continued 4 MR NEUMANN: To move: That this House: (1) welcomes the Productivity Commission's final report into Disability Care and Support, released on 10 August 2011; (2) notes the assessment of the Productivity Commission that the current system of disability care and support is unsustainable, underfunded, unfair and does not deliver appropriate levels of care and support to Australians with disability; (3) supports the vision set out by the Productivity Commission for a national disability insurance scheme which delivers individualised care and support for Australians with significant disability over the course of their lives, and provides universal insurance for care and support for Australians in the event of significant disability; (4) commends the Australian Government's commitment to fundamental reform of disability services, and the start of work to prepare for a scheme, consistent with the recommendations of the Productivity Commission; (5) recognises the work of the Australian Government to increase funding and put reform to services to Australians with disabilities on the national agenda, including improving access to early intervention services for children with disabilities, record increases to pensions for people with disabilities and their carers and doubling funding to the States and Territories to deliver disability services; and (6) welcomes the agreement of the Council of Australian Governments to immediate action to deliver foundation reforms necessary for a national disability insurance scheme. (Notice given 12 September 2011.) Time allotted—40 minutes. Speech time limits — Mr Neumann—10 minutes. Next Member—10 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins + 4 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 5 MR COBB: To move: That this House: (1) requires the responsible Minister to: (a) immediately commission an independent study on the legitimate costs to the Government of Australian Quarantine Inspection Service (AQIS) Export Service Inspection Fees and Charges for the six affected industries (Meat, Fish, Dairy, Horticulture, Grain, and Live Export) as evidenced at the AQIS – Australian Meat Industry Council joint ministerial taskforce meeting no. 15 on 7 May 2010; (b) table in the House: (i) a document that explains how the Government will provide a reduction in annual regulatory costs to the export industries in the order of $30 million per year from 1 July 2011; and (ii) a document that outlines the completion of reforms that were to be delivered as part of the agreement to remove the AQIS Export Service rebate between the Government and the six affected industries; (2) notes that the above commitments were part of a package agreed to by the former Minster for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in return for the passage of the Government's legislation to remove the 40 per cent AQIS Export Service rebate; and (3) calls on the Government to continue the AQIS Export Service rebate until the reforms are delivered, as agreed to by the Government. (Notice given 5 July 2011.) Time allotted—80 minutes. Speech time limits — Mr Cobb—10 minutes. Next 5 Members—10 minute each. Other Members—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 10 mins + 4 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 6 MR LYONS: To move: That this House: (1) acknowledges the: (a) surf lifesavers who risked their lives to perform approximately 11 000 rescues in Australia last year; and (b) work done by surf lifesavers in northern Australia as its surf season comes to an end; (2) recognises the: (a) importance of water safety in Australia as we head into the warmer months in the southern parts of Australia; and (b) vital work of Surf Life Saving Australia and its efforts in patrolling our beaches and educating swimmers; and (3) encourages all: (a) Australians to learn to swim so that every Australian is a swimmer and every Australian swimmer a lifesaver; (b) users of aquatic environments, such as pools, rivers, lakes and the surf, to understand those environments and be safe as they swim. (Notice given 25 August 2011.) Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 9 pm Speech time limits — Mr Lyons— 5 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 3. The committee recommends that the following items of private Members' business listed on the notice paper be voted on: Orders of the Day Parliamentary Budget Office Bill 2011 (Mr Hockey) Charter of Budget Honesty Amendment Bill 2011 (Mr Hockey) DOCUMENTS 10094 DOCUMENTS Presentation 10094 Mr ALBANESE R36 Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move: That the House take note of the following documents: Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency—Quarterly report of the Chief Executive Officer for the period 1 April to 30 June 2011. Migration Act 1958—Section 486O—Assessment of detention arrangements—2011 Personal identifiers 639/11 to 642/11— Commonwealth and Immigration Ombudsman's reports. Government response to Ombudsman's reports. Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Act 2010—Review of student income support reforms, July 2011. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 10094 COMMITTEES National Broadband Network Committee 10094 Report 10094 Mr ALBANESE R36 by leave—I move: That the House take note of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network report entitled: Review of the rollout of the National Broadband Network (First report) The SPEAKER HH4 The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Report and Reference to Main Committee 10094 Mr ALBANESE R36 by leave—I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate. Question agreed to. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 10094 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Questions in Writing 10094 15:34 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield Mr Speaker, I rise to seek your assistance under standing order 105(b) concerning questions on notice to which I have not received a reply after 60 days. I ask you to write to the Assistant Treasurer about questions Nos 354, 355, 356, 359, 361, 362, 363, 424 and 425. May I also ask you to write to the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy about questions Nos 360, 389, 445 and 451. 15:35 The SPEAKER HH4 I will take the action as required under the standing order. I apologise to the member for Bradfield that I did not give him the call at the appropriate time. There was a degree to which I was trying to get out of here quickly, but he has had his opportunity. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 10094 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Carbon Pricing 10094 15:35 The SPEAKER HH4 I have received a letter from the honourable member for North Sydney proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The adverse impact of the carbon tax on the Australian economy I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:35 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney Mr Speaker, I appreciate you staying for my speech! The Westpac-Melbourne Institute Index of Consumer Sentiment came out today and indicated an unexpected rebound in consumer confidence in the month of September. I see that as good news, but it was unexpected because business confidence is down and consumer confidence generally remains extremely flat. When you look at the actual data, it reported the major news items recalled by consumers in September as it does every three months—this is a report by an investment bank. It said that the most recalled items were economic conditions, probably owing to the solid second-quarter result; taxation, reflective of ongoing concerns about the carbon tax; international conditions, given recent financial market activity and concerns about global growth outlook; and interest rates. Of those four issues only sentiment towards interest rates was less negative than in June. Of course, consumer confidence and business confidence are fingers on the same hand; one travels with the other in many ways. If consumers are confident, they engage in retail spending, they engage in commerce. So many small businesses which are unincorporated, often family businesses, take the risks of everyday life. That in turn stimulates business investment; it stimulates business confidence. But one of the fundamental principles that cut to the core of consumer and business confidence is stability and consistency from government. If we had believed everything that has been said by this Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency over the last few days, we would have thought that there really was no need for a parliamentary debate on the carbon tax because it has been going on for years, the dust has settled and all the concerns of everyday Australians have been totally allayed. I thought I might have misheard it—but I doubt I did—when the Treasurer yesterday said something along the lines of: 'On the big reforms you have to take the Australian people with you.' We love Swannie! Why doesn't he come into this place and engage in debate? He even boasted today about the Parliamentary Budget Office—how successful that was. It was so caught up in committee in this place last night with the member for Lyne casting doubt on the bill. The Treasurer was so proud of his achievement that he boasted about it today in question time. This is a man who does not create confidence in the Australian people. I do not rush out to the shop with my credit card when I see the Treasurer on TV saying everything is all right, and I do not think I am alone; I do not think that is a lonely path. I do not think Australians are imbued with confidence when they look at this government, which has had five different policies on a carbon tax and an ETS, four different versions of a mining tax, three different policies on live exports to Indonesia, two Prime Ministers in four years and one lame duck Treasurer—no confidence. I would have thought that the dust has settled, that we are all wasting our time engaging in the debate. I would have thought everything was before the parliament, everything was before us, and the Australian people could be confident that the full carbon tax package is here. But then I came across this comment today from the Leader of the House, who said: Further bills to establish the Australian Renewable Energy Agency— which is a core part of the carbon tax package— will be introduced in the coming months … I thought 19 bills at over 1,000 pages did the job, but, no, there is more—'Wait, we're tossing in some steak knives'! He goes on: … and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation will be introduced in early 2012— The Clean Energy Finance Corporation is being funded to the tune of $10 billion—more than a third of the total of the carbon tax—and it is not part of the carbon tax package, it is off budget. These guys have made an art form of taking things off budget. Most spectacularly, the $4 billion for the National Broadband Network—well in excess of $38 billion now—is not accounted for on the budget because, if it was, it would make the deficit look far worse. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation is now off budget. I looked at the terms of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. I thought to myself, 'Gee, this looks familiar,' and I consulted my colleague the member for Groom. I said, 'Doesn't this look like the Commercial Ready program that used to be a part of the budget and was abolished by the government in May 2008?' It was a program of $700 million over four years that the government had, with very similar terms of reference to those of the $10 billion Gillard bank that is now going to be off budget. Why is it off budget? Because it would be a $10 billion hole in the budget. Now the government has nearly $50 billion of expenditure off budget. And the $10 billion associated with the buyout of Senator Bob Brown to get his agreement. The $10 billion Commercial Ready clean energy program—the former Minister for Finance and Deregulation said about it that there were too many programs, too many initiatives, that were already funded by the private sector: 'Why would we fund them from government money?' No wonder old Lindsay is turning and spinning in his political grave. We miss him. He was a spine stiffener over there when it came to budget activity. The spine stiffener has gone, and, most spectacularly, the program that he thought in May 2008 was a waste of taxpayers' money is now nine times bigger and is off budget. This government does not have direct ministerial control of the money. I can understand that—gosh, with the $350 billion they have direct ministerial control over at the moment they are doing tremendous damage. Why would you give them any more money? I can understand them taking it off budget for that reason. But you know what? The lack of accountability and the lack of consistency mean the Australian people remain confused—confused about this government, its policies and its true intentions. Why wouldn't they be confused? We recall the Treasurer saying on numerous occasions that the carbon tax package would be 'roughly budget neutral'. It is $4.134 billion short. You could almost fit that into a brown paper bag—that $4.134 billion shortfall. And this Treasurer has the audacity to come to this place on a regular basis and give us a lecture about integrity. The Treasurer—the high priest of integrity—says a rounding error, or close to budget neutrality, is $4.134 billion. The government was so concerned about a $1.8 billion hole associated with the Queensland floods that they imposed a new levy. Now they have a $4.134 billion hole and are not explaining to the Australian people how they are going to pay for it. They are not telling anyone how they are going to make up that shortfall, nor are they telling the Australian people where the $10 billion for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation is going to come from: 'Oh, that can wait till next year. That's not part of the equation now. We'll find $10 billion next year.' What is this? Is this like a scene out of a bad British comedy? It is like On the Buses over there and the guy with the moustache is the Treasurer. Was that Arthur? I miss Arthur. But he is reborn and comes from Lilley—a Queenslander! Yesterday in this place the Prime Minister stood up and said the modelling on the carbon tax is settled. The Prime Minister had said before the debate that we would have the carbon tax modelling. The only problem was that the macro modelling was on $20 a tonne and the household impact was on $23 a tonne; so, in fact, it is impossible to properly analyse the impact on Australian business when the modelling is done at $20 a tonne. But thank goodness the states have done a bit of work. They have done proper assumptions about the economic modelling, and they have identified that with the government's flawed modelling there is a presumption that capital will be available to restructure Australia's energy sector and that workers will reduce wage demands and move locations in response to unemployment in ways that are not easy to achieve in reality—a rather heroic assumption from the government. The government in its modelling also ignores the implications of current economic conditions. For example, they ignore the uncertainties posed by the risks of further global downturn from a European sovereign debt crisis. The Commonwealth's modelling presumes Australia's actions against a backdrop of significant global abatement efforts and that will allow Australia to import permits at a lower cost than domestic alternatives. It presumes leakage will not occur. The government's modelling assumes the existence of a credible international permit market. The government says we should have a properly informed debate. The Prime Minister often reminds us that we have to refer to expert opinion. The Prime Minister said yesterday that updated modelling will be available next week, well before the parliament votes on the legislation. Well, I was ready to go today. They want us to have our one speech before they have actually delivered the economic modelling of at least $23 a tonne, which will significantly influence the debate. You would like to think so. But of course this government is not very good at delivering anything. Modelling by the New South Wales Treasury states that in New South Wales there will be an absolute reduction of 18½ thousand jobs in the Hunter region by 2020, 7,000 fewer jobs in the Illawarra region by 2020, 1,000 fewer jobs in the Central West of New South Wales by 2020— Mr Perrett interjecting— Mr HOCKEY DK6 and, of course, one less job in Moreton! The Victorian government recently commissioned Deloitte Access Economics to undertake the modelling. The modelling showed that the carbon tax will reduce jobs growth by more than 24,000 and reduce the state's output by more than $2.8 billion in 2015. The modelling commissioned by the Victorian government reveals that in the electorate of Melbourne Ports the Port Philip local government area will have over 1,000 fewer jobs and $113 million less output in 2013. In the electorate of Bruce the Monash local government area will have more than 1,000 fewer jobs and $122 million less economic output. But the Western Australians have also done their modelling, and what they reveal is that the carbon tax will increase the cost of essential services. For a typical Western Australian household there will be an increase in state government tariffs, fees and charges of at least $144 in 2012, and that will cover electricity, public transport, water and so on. But modelling performed by Western Australia's Treasury reveals that over 400,000—half—of Western Australia's households will not be sufficiently compensated by the federal government. Queensland—one of your own—estimated the impact on the government of $250 million, rising to $360 million. These are the facts. These are the real impacts. It is this government, through its own incompetence and inconsistency, that has shown it is not fit to run the country. (Time expired) 15:50 Dr EMERSON 83V Rankin Being lectured by the shadow Treasurer on budget discipline is like being lectured by Lord Monckton on the science of climate change. Lord Monckton does not believe in climate change, and the shadow Treasurer does not believe in budgeting. In fact, the shadow Treasurer was exposed, along with the shadow finance minister, who is still with us—they cannot stand each other—before the last election as having to go to an accounting firm because they knew that they had a very big budget black hole. They went to an accounting firm instead of chancing their arm to have their costings done by Treasury and Finance. When the Independents insisted that those costings be done, voila: an $11 billion black hole was exposed. But, in the period of one year since the ministry was sworn in, that $11 billion black hole has not been plugged; it has exploded to $70 billion. The $70 billion comes from none other than the shadow Treasurer, who told the shadow cabinet that they had a very big problem, whereupon the Leader of the Opposition said: 'This $70 billion is in fact just media talk. It's just the Labor Party.' But in a moment of candour on a Sunday program very recently the shadow finance minister indeed confirmed that there is a very big problem to the tune of $70 billion and the coalition has no idea how they are going to plug it. This points to the fact that the opposition leader is, as described by a former employer—that is, Mr John Hewson, who was also an opposition leader but is a professor of economics—'innumerate'. He has described the opposition leader as 'innumerate', and so he is. While we are talking about the impact of carbon pricing, this is a man who has estimated the weight of one tonne of carbon dioxide as zero. He has been asked, 'What does a tonne of carbon dioxide weigh?' and his answer was, 'Zero.' I can imagine him at school. When they asked, 'What does a tonne of lead weigh?' he would have said, 'A tonne.' When they asked, 'What does a tonne of feathers weigh?' he would have said, 'Well not so much, because feathers are lighter than lead.' So if they had asked, 'What does a tonne of carbon dioxide weigh?' he would have said, 'Nothing at all.' I am told that the teachers realised then that young Tony had a problem with numeracy, and since they thought he was quite a good sports person they started asking him questions such as, 'Young Tony, who won the fabulous tied test of 1960-61?' whereupon he said, 'Australia,' and they said, 'No, it was a tie.' He was then asked, 'After which famous cricketer was the Victor Richardson stand named?' and young Tony said, 'Wally Grout?' They said, 'No, no, that was Victor Richardson.' The final question was, 'Okay, young Tony, how many balls in a six-ball over?' and the reply was: 'Sir, sir, I know! Is it eight?' 'No, it's six, Tony.' Then the teacher said: 'Look, you are completely innumerate. You could be the leader of the Liberal Party.' That was the recommendation and here we are—he is the leader of the Liberal Party. This motion was put forward by the shadow Treasurer as: The adverse impact of the carbon tax on the Australian economy. Let us have a look at the impact on jobs. You would think that this would be central to the argument of the coalition. They have said virtually nothing about it but, in fact, the modelling does estimate that there will be 1.6 million extra jobs in Australia by 2020 under a carbon-pricing mechanism. That is not job losses, but 1.6 million extra jobs to build on the almost three-quarters of a million jobs that have already been created under this government during adverse economic circumstances, including the deepest global recession since the Great Depression. We could ask: what are some of the other authorities saying about this sort of thing? The IMF, in fact, gave a glowing endorsement of the carbon-pricing mechanism when they said just last month that they: … support the proposed introduction of a carbon price as part of a transition to a permits trading system to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, they are economists, and we know that the opposition leader believes that economists do not know what they are talking about. The opposition leader believes that lawyers do not know what they are talking about. He believes that scientists do not know what they are talking about. Only the opposition leader knows what he is talking about. But the opposition leader has detractors from his own side. They are getting very, very tired of this economic Hansonism that is being espoused by the opposition leader. We know that he has a DLP background—that is, he has said, 'I worship the very water that Bob Santamaria walks on'. Bob Santamaria himself was quoted as saying that capitalism is worse than communism. These were the great interventionists of the 1950s and the 1960s, but here is Mr Abbott back as the reincarnation of Bob Santamaria. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 0V5 Order! The minister will refer to the Leader of the Opposition by his title under the standing orders. Dr EMERSON 83V Yes, I will. The opposition leader is back as the reincarnation of Bob Santamaria. We now have contributions to the debate by people such as the member for Mayo, who has basically had a gutful. After the appalling CEDA speech from the opposition leader, where he effectively declared himself to be Australia's first free-trading protectionist when he said that he is in favour of free trade but he is in favour of protection as well, this first free-trading protectionist got this from the member for Mayo in an opinion piece during the week: The truth is that we can't save jobs by government protection, no matter what self-interested players promise. Well there is a self-interested player: the opposition leader! The member for Mayo went on to say: There is a role for government to assist industries to adapt to changing environments, but taxpayers funding a romantic attachment to a bygone era is not a position the Australian economy can afford or sustain. …      …   … We simply can no longer afford to be throwing good money after bad to satisfy the political posturing of a chosen few. Who were the chosen few to whom he was referring? The Leader of the Opposition! He is self-chosen. He was chosen by Bob Santamaria and he is faithfully walking in his footsteps—but not on water! The member for Mayo is joined in his frustration by the member for Higgins, the member for Moncrieff, the member for Kooyong, the member for Bradfield and the member for Casey, who have all had a gutful of this irresponsible economic policy-making from the Leader of the Opposition. We saw the apples legislation. We talk about impacts on jobs: the apples bill that was brought into this parliament was completely non-compliant with our obligations under the World Trade Organisation and would have led to retaliation against our exporters. Sixty per cent of the value of our agricultural produce is exported. It would have led to retaliation against them, but the opposition leader does not care. He has a palm oil bill that he is supporting which is the same thing—it would lead to retaliation and is completely non-compliant with our World Trade Organisation obligations. The opposition leader does not mind the idea of international trade just so long as it is not with foreigners. This is where we are. This is where his thinking is. This is economic nationalism from the opposition leader. But it gets worse. We have revealed today, through documents that were obtained in New South Wales, the conspiracy involving the opposition leader's office in respect of this very issue that we are debating. The timing of the shadow Treasurer could not have been better. In fact, I wonder if the shadow Treasurer realised exactly what he was doing in putting this matter of public importance on today, because he did mention state modelling. I think he referred to Western Australian state modelling, Queensland state modelling and Victorian state modelling, but he did not refer to New South Wales state modelling. There is a reason that he did not refer to New South Wales state modelling, because these documents reveal a conspiracy. This is an email from Peter Grimshaw of the office of the Premier. He says, 'The "Tele" is very keen to do a story for tomorrow’s paper on the impact of the carbon tax in relation to public transport versus cars. If we have any figures/modelling he thinks he can get a big run on this tomorrow, with the theme being there will be an incentive for people to use cars under Gillard’s plan because rail uses electricity, buses use diesel,' et cetera. In other words, the Daily Telegraph gets in contact with the Premier's office and says, 'Look, if you can cook up some figures for us that will be great. We will put it on the front page'. This is what happened. The Premier's office then commissioned figures, but they were warned in an email from Matthew Crocker, 'Juicy quote from the Department of Transport's brief (note there are some not so helpful quotes in the brief too, so do not ask me for a copy of the original)'. In other words, do not ask me for the original Department of Transport brief because I am going to have to tell the truth, and we really do not want to tell the truth when it comes to modelling the impact of carbon pricing on public transport. So then in comes the Leader of the Opposition's office. The fact is that he has been running around trying to scare the daylights out of every family, every steelworker and everyone working in rural areas—everyone in Australia—saying, 'We are going to have this great big monster tax'. Of course, right on cue, in comes the opposition leader's office with talking points on carbon tax, and this is what they want the Daily Telegraph to print: the carbon tax is a catastrophe for New South Wales and will affect everyday prices and hurt jobs in New South Wales. They tried to feed that in, but it is actually refreshing and encouraging that there are professional public servants in New South Wales who would not go along with this. We have from Roger Shu, financial analyst with Transport and Planning in the New South Wales Treasury an email where he says about the impact on transport prices in New South Wales that 'the real impact is miniscule'. There is an honest public servant, but he did not prevail. What actually happened is that on 15 July the Premier of New South Wales put out a press release asserting that it would put up fares by 3.6 per cent, and on song—because the Daily Telegraph wanted him to say this: It’s crazy for the Federal Labor Government to impose a tax which is a disincentive for people to use public transport. So they have bodgied up a figure of 3.6 per cent. You have Treasury saying that the real impact is miniscule and—this is also Treasury—saying, 'The model computed by the Department of Transport defies basic mathematics'. I know someone else who defies basic mathematics, and of course that is the Leader of the Opposition. I think that what actually happened then is marvellous, because subsequently the New South Wales Treasury got so squeamish about this estimate of 3.6 per cent that they produced this document: New South Wales Government, the Treasury: Carbon price impact—transport, 1 September 2011. It actually quotes the Premier of New South Wales on 15 July, saying, 'The carbon tax due to take effect from 1 July 2012 will lift the cost of public transport fares by up to 3.6 per cent.' That is in that same press release. Then they go through Treasury modelling and it says that as a result, 'This equates to an average fare price increase of 0.49 per cent'. So one-seventh of the dodgy figures that were produced by the Department of Transport were then headlined in the Daily Telegraph. Why would you believe anything that the Liberal Party ever said? They engaged in the conspiracy involving the opposition leader's office, the Premier's office in New South Wales and the Daily Telegraph to bodgie up figures so they get a front-page headline saying that fares would go up. I think the estimate was by something like $150 a year. That is 3.6 per cent, and everyone involved knew that that was untrue. So you get the opposition leader running around here saying, 'I'm gospel truth Tony. When I write it down you can trust me, it is absolutely true.' His office knew that they were engaging in a conspiracy to deceive the people of New South Wales on the important issue of the impact of the carbon price on public transport fares. That conspiracy involved the Department of Transport, the Premier's office in New South Wales and the opposition leader's office here in Canberra. Why would you believe the very figures that the shadow Treasurer produced? I would not believe a word that they ever said, with this exception: that they do have a $70 billion budget black hole. That is what they have said and I reckon that estimate is spot on. That is the problem: they have said that they are going to get rid of this carbon price. They are going to yank the whole thing out, they are going to increase taxes and to reduce the age pension if they get into office. Mr Ian Macfarlane WN6 That's rubbish! Dr EMERSON 83V That is exactly what they have said. It is not rubbish, it is exactly what the opposition leader said, 'If we get into office we will rescind the carbon price and we will increase personal income tax and reduce the age pension'. There is the choice for the Australian people: a government investing in the future and making sure we care for our environment and for our economy or an economic vandal who, according to John Hewson, is completely innumerate. The only figure they have ever got right is the $70 billion black hole that remains completely unplugged. 16:05 Mr ROBB FU4 Goldstein Could I just suggest that a friend needs to take the Minister for Trade aside and tell him that this sort of lightweight performance that we have just heard over the last 15 minutes does him no credit, nor the government. It was just pathetic. Dr Emerson 83V Oh, thanks for your moralising. Mr ROBB FU4 No, it is not moralising. It is just a fact: that was pathetic, it was absolutely pathetic, Craig. There is a serious topic here about the impact of a carbon tax on a vulnerable economy, and you stand up there and give us that absolute drivel. You are a minister of the state and you ought to behave yourself a lot better than just standing there and giving us that drivel and that mock humour. Dr Emerson interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 0V5 Order! The minister will remain silent and the member for Goldstein will direct his remarks through the chair. Mr ROBB FU4 In Australia we are very blessed. We have enormous resources and energy opportunities, we have an agricultural sector which is a great strength and we have an education sector which is a great strength. All of these three are perhaps the three biggest strengths that we have had for 200 years. These strengths happen to coincide with the Asian century. We are geographically so well placed. Also, all of the things that Asia needs in this century we have as our strengths: great resources, energy and agriculture. We feed 60 million people. If we marshalled the resources, technologies and possibilities that exist in Australia, we could feed 120 million people. We have an education system which now is poised to educate so much of the region and to forge longstanding and deeply fruitful links with the Asia region. All of these things we have going for us right at this very moment. Yet, despite that, there is a crisis of confidence in this community. It runs right throughout the community. In fact, today we saw a business confidence report released by the National Australia Bank—a survey which is used by the Reserve Bank to gauge the health of business. It shows a 10 per cent fall in confidence to a level not seen since the middle of the great financial crisis. We have seen the biggest falls in confidence in the finance sector, the manufacturing sector and the transport sector, with retail also depressed. This comes off the back of lay-offs of 10,000 identified by Merrill Lynch over the last two months, with job losses concentrated, again, in the manufacturing, consumer, government and finance sectors. It also leads to a conclusion by the chief equities analyst, Tim Rocks, who said that job losses from these sectors alone were likely to reach 100,000 over the coming quarters. The Australian community are not stupid. They have a sense of gathering clouds—storm clouds. In fact, it explains why savings rates have gone from minus one per cent 12 months ago to 11½ per cent now, the biggest jump in savings rates in this economy on record. It represents about $70 billion that Australian households have saved—money that would normally have been spent for discretionary expenditure. It is a level of saving which has meant that the retail sector is on its knees. But why have people been doing this? Why is business not investing? The reason falls largely at the feet of this government. Now we have a carbon tax which has become a symbol of chronic incompetence within this government. We have a situation where we have all of these blessings yet we have a government which has put this economy into a situation of great vulnerability if there is any further slide in world economic conditions. The fact is that the world economy is facing the likelihood of a further significant slump over the coming 12 months. There is a much greater prospect of that happening than not. The job of any government is to do its best to weatherproof an economy against forces external to this country that it has no control over. The government does not have any control over what happens in the United States or in Europe, but what this government can do is weatherproof our economy, prepare our economy and gather in the acorns to get ourselves prepared, just as the households are doing. In the absence of government, they are living within their means. They are paying off their mortgage. They are paying off the plastic. They are saving money because the government is not. They are doing the opposite of what the government is doing. Here is a government with the biggest budget deficit on record two years in a row. Here is a government that has taken a surplus and no debt and gone to nearly $200 billion in gross debt and the biggest deficits in our history. Here is a government that is borrowing as if there is no tomorrow. Here is a government that has presided over the biggest growth of government in our lives. The carbon tax is the prime example. The government has reregulated the labour market in the face of the global financial crisis. It has renationalised telecommunications. Now it is bringing in a carbon tax which is dripping with intervention and bureaucracy—hundreds of millions of dollars worth of new public servants to monitor and crawl over every company. There will be 500 companies that will have bureaucrats coming out their ears for years to come. The government gets this massive tax: $1.5 billion of the first $9 billion in the first year is the cost of abatement and the rest of it goes straight to tax for the government to churn back through the economy. The government will make the decisions and strip the balance sheets of companies so that they cannot make decisions on innovation. It will be up to the government and up to public servants. We will have the biggest line-up of lobbyists here that you have ever seen in this country because of what this government is doing. A lot of this is now being compounded by the carbon tax, because the carbon tax shows absolutely no empathy with what is happening in the real world out there. Because of this, people know and sense that there is no direction in this economy. There is no competence. We still have all the examples that go back four years. There is no sense that anyone is in charge. You can see it on their faces on the other side ever since the last election: they are looking for a story. What does all this add up to? What is this carbon tax? What does it do apart from costing jobs, imposing further taxes on people and shifting income—redistributing it from one sector to another? What does it do? It does nothing for the environment. It does nothing for our competitive position. It will lead to the loss of jobs and industries offshore. It just confirms that this carbon tax has become a great symbol. It is the thing that is reinforcing that loss of confidence both amongst households and amongst business. There is a lot of money out there. It is not being spent, because there is this sense of unease—a great sense of anxiety; a great sense of no leadership; a great sense that nobody is in charge. We have heard the drivel from the Minister for Trade in the last 15 minutes. None of these issues was addressed. What are they doing about this vulnerability? We have a situation where this government has caused a crisis of confidence in the economy. Quite rightly, increasing numbers of Australians have written this government off. It has had too many chances, but it has proven incapable of performing its fiduciary duty when it comes to managing the economy. That is at the heart of this. The Prime Minister talks about being on the right side of history, but the only way this country will get back on track is when this government is confined to the dustbin of history. 16:15 Ms O'NEILL 140651 Robertson I had to have a good laugh when I was listening to the member for North Sydney and waiting for the killer argument in this debate. What was the best thing he had to offer us? New South Wales Treasury modelling. We have heard from the Minister for Trade what a load of rubbish we have been presented with. The reporting is a problem and the misuse of the information. The member for North Sydney was using the same old chestnut that his shonky state Liberal mates have been using all this year to try to deceive the people of New South Wales. The minister has gone into this in great detail, but what we see in the chamber is a continuation of the great scare campaign. Our job is to expose that for the sham that it is. The Australian people are onto you guys. They are watching and listening because they know that you cannot continue to put mistruths in front of them. They will see through them. It is not only the member for North Sydney who is deliberately misleading us in this debate. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 0V5 Order! The member for Robertson will withdraw the imputation that the member for North Sydney is deliberately misleading. It is disorderly. Ms O'NEILL 140651 I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. I say that the member for North Sydney is trying to mislead us in this debate. He has also indicated a talent for plagiarism. I can see why the shadow Treasurer might be referred to in other contexts as 'Sloppy Joe'. If I were his teacher I would make him stay behind and write out 200 times, 'I must not mislead the people of Australia'. I hope that if he were my student he would be sitting on this side of the chamber and he might have seen the light a long time ago. The adverse impact of the carbon tax on the Australian economy is what we are supposed to be debating today. I welcome the opportunity to engage in this debate on a matter of public importance, as the Australian economy is vitally important. It is important to the public, to me, to the people of Robertson and it is of vital importance to this government. That is why I am so proud to have taken my seat in this parliament, sitting just behind the Treasurer who delivered an economy that is the envy of the world. Celebrating the economy as a mere artefact is not enough. What we in the Labor Party celebrate in our strong economy is that through the GFC we kept ordinary Australians working. That is not what would have happened if those on the opposite side had had their chance to be in charge at that time. They parrot on about the stimulus package being a failure, but the reality is that the stimulus was wise spending in the interest of the Australian people. We kept Australians working. We kept Australians earning. We kept money moving through our economy. We kept lots and lots of small businesses on the Central Coast and other regions like mine operating because the money kept flowing through the economy. Even though we are absolutely linked to the global economy—where everyone else went into recession—in Australia we used the facts and expert advice on how to act to prevent the pain of recession. We got on with leading, delivered a stimulus package and saved the Australian economy and lots of families from the pain that is still being suffered by many people in many nations. Even with that strong leadership and our strong economy, we still have this carping negativity, the whingeing of those opposite who peddle a tale of permanent woe. We heard the member for Goldstein talking about storm clouds. Dr Emerson 83V That's right—talk the economy down. Ms O'NEILL 140651 Exactly. What do they hope to gain from such negative speech? Dr Emerson 83V If the economy fails then the Liberals succeed. Ms O'NEILL 140651 The minister speaks the truth. Putting a price on carbon is what we want to do. We want to make the polluters pay. That is our plan. Those opposite want to call it a tax and that is their problem. It is really a fine on polluters who are doing the wrong thing. They will change their ways. Those on the other side shamefully continue to misrepresent it. Let us try to get some facts on board. Those on the other side talk about adversity, but I talk about the power of the Australian economy in a global context. We in the Labor Party deal with the facts, and the fact about international action in a global economy is that there are 89 countries accounting for over 80 per cent of global emissions and over 90 per cent of the global economy that have pledged to reduce or limit their carbon pollution by 2020. We cannot sit outside the global economy. We do have the capacity to control our economy and respond, and that is what Labor is committed to doing. Scores of countries have already started the transformation to a low-pollution economy. Thirty-two countries and a number of US states already have emissions trading schemes. We need to act. We need to deal with the economy in a global context. In my seat of Robertson the economy is probably most experienced at the household level. Let us talk about the household economy. Those opposite would have the households in the seat of Robertson paying $1,300. It was bad enough when it was $720 per household, but now they have said they are not going to deal with this as an international problem—they do not want to have anything to do with foreigners, they will keep it all contained in Australia. The cost is now $1,300 per family in the seat of Robertson. I know that people where I live cannot afford that. In contrast, we have our position on the household economy. The reality is that nine out of 10 households are going to receive assistance from a package that we have carefully organised to support them through this massive shift in the Australian economy, this important structural reform. The tax cuts that families will receive, the increase in family payments and the increase to pensioners, will be permanent, ongoing and linked to the CPI. That busts one of the other myths that we keep hearing from those on the opposite side. They ignore household economies. They want to cause fear and alarm. They want to tell people they are going to get one payment and they are never going to get another payment. That perception is wrong. Information of that kind going to the community is deliberately misleading. Apart from household economies, let us talk about the part of the economy that the Labor Party is always most interested in: the economy of jobs. We believe in jobs. It was the guiding principle that made us take the action that we did when the global financial crisis hit. We know that if families do not have work, children do not have opportunities and families get impacted in the most extreme ways: they can break down and they can have so many issues that arise because of the anxiety of financial hardship when people lose their jobs. So where do we put our money? We have a great story to tell. In all of those schools that I go to in my electorate I see—and I know many of those opposite go out to their schools and see it—the celebration of an investment in education. They also know of all of the people in construction in their area who went and got jobs at those schools: the people who drove the trucks, the people who put up the steel, the people who laid pipes and the people who fixed the roofs. All of those people who live in our local economy got the benefit of our stimulus package because we believe in jobs. Because we believe in jobs we are going to make sure that we make the transition to a clean energy future. With that, by 2020 we are talking about not just a couple of hundred jobs, not just a thousand jobs, but 1.6 million jobs spread right across the country and detailed in the analyses that the Treasurer put forward yesterday. But, wait, there's more. What other elements of the economy are we dealing with, and certainly not in an adverse way? Let us talk about small business. Those opposite like to think they are the only ones who understand anything about small business. How wrong could they be. Small business is very widespread on the Central Coast. There are 20,000-plus small businesses in my region alone. They need to have money moving around in the economy. We made sure when we had the response to the global financial crisis that we supported families to keep on working and be able to continue to move that money through their local economy. Right now, we have small businesses that are going to benefit as we make sure that the 0.7 per cent impact in the economy is going to be balanced out in our local households by permanent and ongoing assistance. Families, if they are smart, might make a few adjustments with products that are slightly less in terms of their carbon price loading, and they will be able to salt away some of those benefits. We also have lots of families in my area that are going to get part of the extra buffer that will help them manage this change in the economy. That money will go into local small businesses in the seat of Robertson. This is not an impost on small business; this is a careful, managed integration with small business that we know is vital to our area. On the macro scale, there is so much more to say. Investment is one of the areas that we can see clearly is happening because we are moving to a clean energy future. In closing, I want to put on the record that we on this side have a clear contrast between those on the opposite side. On their side, polluters get paid to continue to pollute. On our side, polluters pay for their pollution. On their side, the government picks the winners. On our side, the market picks the winners. We will achieve targets; they will not achieve targets. We need to get on with the job of managing the economy, and we will not be doing anything adverse to the Australian people. (Time expired) 16:25 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes The topic of this afternoon's matter of public importance is the adverse impact of the carbon tax on the Australian economy. I might just touch on the contributions we have heard from the government side. We heard the rant from the Minister for Trade, the flippant 15 minutes of diatribe that was completely unrelated to the topic of the day. I might add that the trade minister actually grew up in my electorate, in a little town called Baradine. When he moved to Queensland, the IQ of both places improved, but that is by the by. But I am looking forward to the minister coming to visit his old town, because when he does he is going to find the consequences of what happens when government dabbles in environmental matters—when government takes blind philosophy and turns it into a disaster, both ecological and financial. When the minister goes back to his old town of Baradine he will find that, instead of the 10 sawmills that were there when he left, there is now none; instead of the vibrant, living forest that sustained employment for hundreds of people, there is now a choking wilderness of cypress pine of which every couple of years another 50,000 hectares or so goes up in smoke and tortures all the wildlife within. That is what the minister will find happens when governments start to dabble in environmental policy. We heard a contribution from the member for Robertson, and she spoke about the fear campaign in this debate. She did not mention the member for Sydney visiting the Central Coast a couple of weeks ago and scaring the pants off the good folk at a retirement village about the rising sea levels, saying that the Central Coast was going to be underwater. It was totally unsubstantiated scare campaigning. The member for Robertson also spoke about being in her electorate's classrooms. I suspect that those in her classrooms will be hearing that the government is their friend, that the government controls all and to stay away from those nasty farmers who use our water to grow crops and who have those belching cows that add methane to the environment. I can just imagine being in the classrooms in the member for Robertson's electorate, but we will move on. The tone of this whole debate, from right back in 2008, on the emissions trading scheme and now the carbon tax has been one of fear from the government. We heard the member for Isaacs in his speech on the emissions trading scheme talking about his electorate going underwater. It is unsubstantiated. We heard from the member for Makin—I think it was in December at the time and it was 43 degrees in Adelaide—and he wanted that legislation passed by Christmas because he was worried about sunburn when he went to the beach. This policy was formulated in the middle of the worst drought in this country's history. We had the member for Wills talking about the dry river system of the Murray-Darling, somehow putting 10 years of drought down to the veracity of farmers, climate change and global warming, and saying that we needed to react. All of these untruths and overstated, emotional types of arguments have been used by the government to scare the pants off people. The job of the government is to give confidence to the people they serve. How can you give confidence to the people you serve when you are scaring the pants off them? At the moment I am co-chair of the Australian Parliamentary Friends of Meals on Wheels. The Meals on Wheels volunteers are telling me that this winter, when they were delivering the meals, they were finding the old folk in bed—not because they were unwell but because they were conserving energy. They are frightened. It is not that they don't have the money but that they are frightened of what is to come, because they have been told that they need to show austerity and tighten their belts because of climate change. Why are we getting this argument from the government? I will tell you why: it is because of the background of the members who have come from the union movement. The member for Robertson spoke about the small businesses in her electorate. The member for Riverina quipped that they probably used to be big businesses before this government came to power. I would like to know how many members of the government have actually run a business. How many of them have actually run an ice-cream cart or sold a dagwood dog? They have grown up on the sweat and blood of the Australian worker, sucked their way up to the size of some sort of large parasite to get to the stage where they could come into this place, but they have no idea what makes this country tick. I saw a classic example of this. It used to be in the electorate of Parkes and it is now in the electorate of Hunter—the Kandos cement plant that has been mentioned many times in this place. It is now closed. Despite the protestations from the member for Hunter, it is now closed because of the upcoming carbon tax. Cement Australia have been coming into my office for the last four years telling me, 'If we get a carbon tax the plant at Kandos will close.' I went up there the day after that announcement was made and the members of the Australian Workers Union were there. Were they in uproar? Were they going to the media talking about this terrible government policy that had closed down a plant with a 100-year tradition and was putting over 100 people out of work? Not a squeak. Where was the champion of the Australian Workers Union, the member for Maribyrnong? Where was he when he should have been standing up for the workers of the cement industry? Put him in front of a TV camera with his head down a mine shaft, he is a champion; bring him in here and have him actually stand up for the people that he supposedly represents, not a squeak. This is a disgrace. The country is suffering a crisis of confidence because of this government. In the electorate of New England we have one of the largest meat processing plants in Australia, Bindaree Beef, run by the McDonald family. It is the largest employer not only in Inverell but in the district. Off the top of my head, about a quarter of million cattle a year go through that plant. The increase in energy costs alone from this tax is going to cost that plant about $2.25 million. It is another impost. Members on the other side have never run a business. Margins on a plant like that are so small that an impost like that is unsustainable. Not only will we find 600 workers in Inverell out of a job, but the cattle producers from the four states that supply that plant will no longer have a market. Where is their local member? Where is the member for New England? Doing some sort of a cosy deal with Bob Brown and Co. Where was the member for New England when it was decided to bring in the idea that agricultural transport would be hit by this legislation? Agriculture—the backbone; the one industry that kept this country out of recession a couple of years ago—is going to get hit from all sides. Every input that we use in agriculture—whether it is fuel, fertiliser, machinery—is going to be hit. They put in a scheme called the Carbon Farming Initiative. It is basically untried claptrap that will have very little effect on the environment and offer very little income to the farmer. In closing, why are we having a carbon tax? The obvious answer is: to save the environment. When was the last time we heard anyone from the government speak about the environment and how this was going to have that effect? This is like having a high school debate—it is removed from reality. No-one is saying that this is going to improve the environment one scrap in Australia or in the world. If it is not going to have an environmental effect, why are we doing it? Are we going to subject our children and our grandchildren and future Australians to becoming a second-class nation for some grand gesture? Does the Prime Minister think that the Greens and Bob Brown will be happy with this if it gets passed? What will be the next stage? The Greens are like that cancer eating away at the side of your head: not happy until they have consumed your entire body. It is not going to stop there. It is now time for members of the government to stand up for their electorates and show a bit of backbone. It is about time for the Independents, who sit up here behind me, to show a bit of ticker, stop looking after their political futures and look after the future of the people they represent. (Time expired) 16:35 Mr SYMON HW8 Deakin It is a pleasure to contribute to this matter of public importance. After some of the things we have heard in this debate today it will be good to get back to a few facts. The first one that I would like to talk about is the fact of global warming. While both sides of parliament have actually made a commitment to do something about it, I really do wonder about the other side and where that commitment goes to. If Australia does not change its ways we will be left behind and the rest of the world will keep going. If we do not become a low-carbon-emitting and efficient economy then the 21st century will be the century that Australia missed out on. Whilst other countries in the world—89 of them representing more than 80 per cent of global emissions and 90 per cent of the global economy—have pledged to reduce or limit their carbon emissions pollution by 2020, in Australia we are still arguing about it. Really, the time for that has passed. Just about the entire world is moving to reduce its carbon intensity by adopting new technologies and efficiencies. That is great to see because it does take action from everyone, but if we do not act then why should anyone else? If that was applied to many of the things that had happened in the world in its recent history, nothing would have changed so action is essential. Australia has to be here and now, not waiting for everyone else to deal with it. It is estimated that the low-carbon goods and services sector that is already worth about $4.8 trillion today and employs around 28 million people worldwide is going to grow at four per cent a year. That growth will continue to accelerate as more countries introduce schemes to reduce their output of carbon emissions or greenhouse gases. The opposition has made all sorts of claims about the impact of the carbon price but the fact is the government will support our industries to become more efficient and help create new jobs in new industries. Treasury modelling, for instance, shows that with the carbon price jobs will continue to grow. In fact 1.6 million more jobs will be created by 2020, a huge figure when you think about it. The Clean Energy Future package will tackle Australia's carbon emissions by charging the 500 largest polluters a price for the carbon emissions that they emit, which, up till now, is something they have done for free. The rest of us have to put up with the pollution that is put into our atmosphere, so user pays is not a bad principle for this type of thing. A price on carbon will create an incentive to reduce the emission of carbon and the revenue generated from the scheme will help industries adopt new technologies and will compensate consumers. In taking this step to introduce a price on carbon, it must be understood that industry needs support to adapt to a low-carbon future because it is a big change. Recognising the importance of manufacturing and heavy industries that compete on international markets, use large amounts of energy and generate significant levels of carbon pollution is something that is accommodated in the Clean Energy Future package. Part of that package is the Jobs and Competitiveness Program to provide assistance to emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries. Over the first three years of the carbon price, the government will devote $9.2 billion of that revenue to assist those industries. There will be two categories of assistance under the Jobs and Competitiveness Program. The most emissions-intensive trade-exposed activities will initially be eligible for free permits representing 94.5 per cent of industry average carbon emission costs. Manufacturing activities like aluminium smelting, steel manufacturing, flat glass making, zinc smelting and most pulp and paper manufacturing will be covered. The steel sector has the $300 million Steel Transformation Plan which provides additional assistance to help the industry transition to a clean energy future. Activities which have lower levels of carbon pollution such as some plastics and chemical manufacturing, tissue paper manufacturing and ethanol production will be eligible for free permits to cover 66 per cent of the industry average carbon costs. Liquefied natural gas projects will also receive a supplementary allocation to ensure an effective assistance rate of 50 per cent. The Jobs and Competitiveness Program will provide support for activities that generate more than 80 per cent of emissions within the manufacturing sector. There is also the $1.2 billion Clean Technology Program to support industries to become more competitive in a clean energy future. That includes $200 million to support jobs in food processing and metal forging industries and $800 million to provide grants to manufacturers to support investments in energy efficient capital equipment and low-pollution technologies, processes and products. That is a particularly important point because if manufacturers are still using old plant that was designed, made and has been used for many years, in many instances that plant was not really thought out properly when it came to energy efficiency. Did it do the job? Yes. Did it produce what was needed? Yes. Is it the most efficient in energy use? That was not a consideration maybe a few decades ago but is most definitely a consideration these days. There is also an additional $200 million over five years for grants to support business investment in research and development in the areas of renewable energy, low-pollution technology and energy efficiency. That is also particularly important because it takes a lot of investment in R&D to come up with the ideas that we will use in the future. Australia cannot rely on the rest of the world to do all our R&D for us. It is allowing our best and brightest to go overseas when those ideas could be well catered for, at least the embryonic ideas, here and then brought to fruition here. That is another great advantage of the Clean Energy Future package. To help small business, the government will extend the small business instant asset write-off threshold to $6,500. If you think $6,500 is not that much, when you look at it across 2013-14, in one year that is worth more than $1 billion to small businesses, which is a significant amount. By boosting cash flow, it will help small businesses grow and invest in assets many of which, as I said, may be more energy efficient than what they currently are. In some ways you could compare it to buying a new car versus an old Holden you might have sitting around that is 30 years old. There is quite a difference in what you can get out of an engine in power and fuel usage but, again, that many years ago that was not really the top priority. For many years now cars have become more efficient with each model as technology has improved. That is just one example of where technology, through research and development, can create more efficiency and therefore less cost. The government will also establish a $40 million program to provide information to small businesses and community organisations on practical measures they can take to reduce energy costs. That is also very important because a lot of the time that energy is used and, because the bill comes later, it is not always realised what is being used now. Many households can tell you about that when they receive their quarterly electricity, gas or even water bills because the instant use in an hour does not seem to add up. No-one sits back when they leave their lights on and says: 'Well, in three months time I'm going to get the bill. It's going to be this much because I haven't turned off my lights.' But if you do not turn them off every night, or every day as the case may be, at the end of the quarter you are in for a nasty shock. It also applies to businesses. Not knowing what you are using and not knowing the best way to use what you have got can cost you. So having a package to provide information to save money is a win-win for everyone. The Energy Security Fund will be established as part of the Clean Energy Future package. That fund is about shutting down old generation assets. In Victoria, where I come from, most of the baseload power is generated by brown coal power stations. Some, like Hazelwood, date right back to the 1960s. They were built at a time when pollution and efficiency were not taken into account. What was taken into account was the massive amounts of very cheap brown coal upon which these power stations in the Latrobe Valley literally sit. Whilst they have been of great service to Victoria over the years, many of them should have been shut down a long time ago. After the State Electricity Commission was privatised, private entities bought these generators. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 Order! There being no further speakers, the discussion is now concluded. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 10111 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Queensland Floods 10111 16:46 Mr McCLELLAND JK6 Barton by leave—Today the government tabled its response to the Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry interim report. The Queensland floods were catastrophic on every level—but most significantly in the 34 people who lost their lives and the three people who remain missing. Obviously our thoughts remain with their families, friends and communities. These events were a tragedy not only for those families and communities and Queensland but for our nation. The floods brought enormous devastation to many communities across Queensland and caused billions of dollars of damage to property and infrastructure—damage that will inevitably take years to rebuild. Since the floods struck, the Australian government has said it will stand by the people of Queensland to help them rebuild their lives and their communities, and that is happening. Overall, we are investing $4.7 billion in Queensland to help families, businesses and the community get back on their feet. The government has committed an extra $950 million for regions affected by tropical Cyclone Yasi. The Australian government provided over $840 million in disaster recovery payments and income recovery subsidies through Centrelink to help individuals and families cope through the floods and after Yasi hit, helping more than 735,000 Queenslanders in that difficult period. We have made an advance payment of more than $2 billion to Queensland to provide an immediate boost to recovery and reconstruction efforts. The vast majority of this funding is being invested in repairing damage to essential infrastructure, such as road, bridges, schools and other public infrastructure that is so essential for life to return to normal. With the Queensland government, we have also provided more than $477 million in ‘advance’ disaster payments to 56 councils across Queensland. This has been managed through the Queensland Reconstruction Authority. Funding from both governments for road repairs and reconstruction has been allocated across the state including: $928 million to repair roads in the Fitzroy region, including Rockhampton; $463 million to repair roads across Far North Queensland; $155 million to repair roads in North Queensland; $300 million to repair roads in Mackay and the Whitsundays; $195 million to repair roads in north-west Queensland; and $470 million to repair roads in the Lockyer Valley and Ipswich regions. Already 8,482 kilometres of the 9,170 kilometres of damaged state roads in Queensland have been reopened and 4,421 kilometres of Queensland rail infrastructure have already been rebuilt or recovered. This is great progress, but no-one is under any illusions about the magnitude of the job that still lies ahead. While the government are supporting the rebuilding of communities across Queensland as quickly as possible, we are also ensuring funding is spent effectively and efficiently. We have done this by putting in place strong oversights through the Queensland Reconstruction Authority and the Australian Government Reconstruction Inspectorate. We are determined to work with the Queensland government and local communities to rebuild this great state. While this reconstruction work continues across Queensland, the next wet season is quickly approaching. This is why acting on the commission’s interim report is so important. It makes recommendations about what can and should be done now, as far as is possible, to avoid the devastation of last year's events and should Queensland be unlucky enough to suffer through another severe wet season this summer. The Commonwealth welcomes the commission’s findings and recommendations. They provide the opportunity to critically examine and improve the emergency management arrangements and capabilities not only for Queensland but for the entire nation. Of the commission’s 175 recommendations, eight are directed to the Commonwealth either in full or in part. A further 26 recommendations directed to the Queensland government and local councils also require Commonwealth involvement and assistance. The Commonwealth accepts all of the recommendations directed to it by the commission and will work closely with the Queensland government—and where necessary with other states and territories—to ensure those recommendations are implemented. Most of the recommendations of relevance to the Commonwealth focus on forecasts and warnings issued by the Bureau of Meteorology. It is clear that effective warning systems are an essential part of any emergency management framework. The Bureau of Meteorology has a critical role to play in this by providing warnings about weather conditions and the potential for flooding. As recommended by the commission, the bureau will work closely with the Queensland government and local councils to improve information sharing during flood events and to improve arrangements for flash flood warnings including providing technical support to local councils for the establishment of appropriate river height and rainfall gauges. The Australian government has separately established a review of the bureau’s capacity to provide seasonal forecasting services and to respond to extreme weather events and natural disasters. Other recommendations of relevance to the Commonwealth address the contribution of the Australian Defence Force to disaster planning and preparation as well as the Commonwealth’s involvement in community education. The Commonwealth plays an important role in helping Australian communities to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters. We will continue to support the states and territories in their disaster planning and preparedness activities and are doing that this summer in a number of ways. Firstly, Emergency Management Australia undertakes annual pre-season briefings on disaster planning and preparations with state and territory emergency management agencies and we also plan to continue the practice of pre-positioning Emergency Management Australia liaison officers with state and territory emergency response agencies. This year’s briefings are scheduled to commence in October and will include presentations from the Australian Defence Force, Bureau of Meteorology and other Commonwealth agencies that have a key role in supporting states and territories during a crisis. The Commonwealth will also ensure the Department of Health and Ageing continues to advise facilities of their responsibilities under the Aged Care Act 1997 with respect to prevention of harm and, specifically, evacuation plans for their residents. Facilities are required to have appropriate evacuation plans in place under the act. In upcoming facility visits, the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency will ensure high priority continues to be given to inspections of the arrangements that homes have in place to manage emergency events including evacuations should they be the subject of a natural disaster. On behalf of the Australian government, I would like to commend the commission for its efforts and for delivering its Interim report within such a demanding time frame. It is an impressive feat given the sheer scope of the event and the evidence put before it. The government will continue to cooperate with the commission as the next round of hearings commences and we look forward to receiving the commission’s final report in February of next year. There is no completely foolproof way to floodproof Australia. We should be preparing communities to be prepared and to be capable of dealing with natural disasters when they occur, and the Australian government will continue to work in partnership with all levels of government and communities to reduce the risk of future devastating floods as we saw in Queensland and across the country this year. I thank the House. I also present a copy of the Commonwealth response to the Interim report of the Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry and a copy of my ministerial statement. I move: That the House take note of the documents. I also ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Stirling to speak for nine minutes. Leave granted. Mr McCLELLAND JK6 I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Keenan speaking for a period not exceeding nine minutes. Question agreed to. 16:57 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling In acknowledging the government's response to the Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry Interim report, the coalition joins the government in extending the parliament's condolences and sympathies to the families and communities who endured horrific tragedy and loss last summer. Those 34 lives lost represent an unfulfilled future. Every one of those lives would have been important to many others as a father, a mother or other family member, or as a friend, and they all would have left large holes in the lives of people they left behind. The pain and loss would also be ongoing for families of the three people who remain missing, and not knowing the fate of loved ones would continue to haunt them. We acknowledge too that for many that suffering continues long after the skies have cleared and floodwaters have receded. It is appropriate too, in reflecting upon the Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry Interim report, to once again take the opportunity to recognise those who made deep sacrifices to assist others in those extraordinary days and weeks. We recognise the professionalism of those in uniform: State Emergency Service volunteers, police, fire and paramedics, the men and women of the Australian Defence Force, helicopter rescue pilots and those responsible for the countless acts of generosity, heroism, charity and kindness that did not feature on our television screens. We acknowledge too the leadership shown by the then Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Campbell Newman, and the Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh. We remember the announcement of the Prime Minister on Australia Day with flood victims in Toowoomba, that she would introduce a National Emergency Medal to recognise the heroes of that summer and those of the Victorian bushfires. This is a promise that the opposition looks forward to the Prime Minister keeping. The Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry Interim report was the product of public hearings held in Brisbane, Toowoomba, Dalby, Goondiwindi, St George, Ipswich, Rockhampton and Emerald. The commission heard testimony from 167 witnesses, and met with communities, including Murphys Creek and Grantham. The focus of the Interim report was upon matters related to preparedness for the next storm and flood season, which is nearly upon us. The commission's final report is expected in late February next year. It is understood that this report will deal with other issues, including the vexed issue of property insurance. We are now halfway through September. Communities around Australia are already preparing for the hazards of the season ahead, be they the risk of bushfire, floods, cyclone or severe storms. As communities prepare, so too must governments. The Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry Interim report was timely and presented the Queensland government with many ways it can better deal with disasters of this nature in seasons to come. At a Commonwealth level, as the Attorney has mentioned, there is important work to be done by the Bureau of Meteorology, Emergency Management Australia and the Australian Defence Force, among others. Preventing, preparing for, responding to and recovering from natural disasters has always been the collaborative responsibility of the Commonwealth, state, territory and local governments. Much has been learned, at all levels of government, from last summer. The Attorney-General was correct when he said that we cannot completely floodproof Australia. We in Australia have always been subject to the harshest elements of nature. Our harsh and unforgiving environment has done much to shape our national character and instil within us resilience as a people. The disasters of last summer were catastrophic on every level. But, as catastrophic as they were, the response of Queenslanders was courageous and inspiring and we salute them for their resilience in the face of nature's terrible fury. Debate adjourned. BILLS 10115 BILLS Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oils in the Antarctic Area) Bill 2011 10115

Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oils in the Antarctic Area) Bill 2011

Report from Main Committee 10115 Third Reading 10115 Dr EMERSON 83V by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 10115

Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2011

Report from Main Committee 10115 Third Reading 10115 Dr EMERSON 83V by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Higher Education Support Amendment (Demand Driven Funding System and Other Measures) Bill 2011 10115

Higher Education Support Amendment (Demand Driven Funding System and Other Measures) Bill 2011

Returned from Senate 10115 COMMITTEES 10115 COMMITTEES Clean Energy Future Legislation Committee 10115 Appointment 10115 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott) YT4 The Speaker has received a message from the Senate informing the House that it concurs with the resolution of appointment of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Clean Energy Future Legislation. Membership 10115 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott) YT4 The Speaker has received advice from the whips nominating members to be members of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Clean Energy Future Legislation. Dr EMERSON 83V by leave—I move: That Ms A. E. Burke, Mr Husic, Mr Ripoll, Mr Cheeseman and Mr Bandt be appointed members of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Clean Energy Future Legislation. Question agreed to. BILLS 10116 BILLS Clean Energy Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2011, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Shortfall Charge—General) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Auctions) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Fixed Charge) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (International Unit Surrender Charge) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Charges—Customs) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Bill 2011, Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011, Climate Change Authority Bill 2011, Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011 10116

Clean Energy Bill 2011

Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011

Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Bill 2011

Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011

Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011

Clean Energy (Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011

Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2011

Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011

Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2011

Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2011

Clean Energy (Unit Shortfall Charge—General) Bill 2011

Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Auctions) Bill 2011

Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Fixed Charge) Bill 2011

Clean Energy (International Unit Surrender Charge) Bill 2011

Clean Energy (Charges—Customs) Bill 2011

Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Bill 2011

Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011

Climate Change Authority Bill 2011

Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011

Second Reading 10116 17:04 Dr MIKE KELLY HRI Eden-Monaro Before concluding the contribution I began earlier today in this debate on the Clean Energy Future package of bills, can I say that some of the submissions we heard from what I would call the 'flat earth society' in the matter of public importance debate put me in mind of the old Army expression 'Lead, follow or get out of the way.' What we know is that during those 12 Howard years when the chance was there for leadership nothing was done in this space. In fact, shamefully, our renewable energy capacity in this country went backwards during those 12 years, from 10 per cent to nine per cent. So that 12 years of opportunity was lost, no ratification of Kyoto, complete abrogation of responsibility. Then this government came into power in 2007 and the very first act that Kevin Rudd did as Prime Minister was to ratify Kyoto. Before the rest of us had even been sworn into our portfolios that ink was drying. It was a fantastic step forward. So the opportunity was there then for the opposition to follow and, I must give them credit, there was a time when they did. There was a time when Malcolm Turnbull and Ian Macfarlane lined up and engaged constructively with the government to move this ball forward. Then, of course, came the coup, a coup driven by the desire of the Leader of the Opposition based purely on politics and his ambitions to become Prime Minister, so that opportunity to follow was lost. Now here we are in this parliament where there is an opportunity for this opposition to just get out of the way. Effectively they have made themselves irrelevant in this debate. They have absconded from the field when we had an opportunity to engage through the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee and they did not engage. I ask for the opposition to just get out of the way now that they have made themselves irrelevant. Go home over this weekend, have a look at your children and your grandchildren and think about their future and think about how you want to be remembered. What will be your legacy and where will your name be in relation to this vote when this debate is done? (Time expired) 17:07 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I rise to speak today in defence of Australian jobs, Australian families and Australian small businesses—especially those jobs, families and businesses in the Sutherland shire of my electorate of Cook. The Leader of the Opposition astutely concluded his remarks today by describing these clean energy bills as one of the longest political suicide notes by a government in our history. There is a reason for his observation. The government have spoken about the judgment of history. That judgment will not be kind to this government. But what they do not want to do is enable these bills to be judged by the Australian people, and they have sought to thwart and deny that judgment at every opportunity. The Prime Minister and this government misled the Australian people before the last election. The Prime Minister declared there would be no carbon tax under the government she leads. Having broken this pledge, forming her government on her deceit, she has compounded the insult by vilifying those who now seek to hold her to account. That is not just those in the opposition; it is the millions of Australians across the country she and her colleagues have demonised as an ignorant mob. Her ministers have arrogantly claimed in this place that those who sought to oppose this government were of no consequence. This government will ultimately have to keep a date with the Australian people when they will be judged for their deceit, their incompetence, their arrogance and their hypocrisy. For most Australians, that day cannot come soon enough. The solution most Australians want, whether it is on the carbon tax, illegal boat arrivals, reckless spending or Labor's simple inability to get anything right, is an election solution. The impact of this carbon tax will be far reaching. It will tax everything that moves and breathes. However, if they believe these measures will cool the globe—while mortgaging Australia's future in the process—they are simply dreaming. As Senator Joyce has remarked: … if taxes cooled the planet, the place would already be an icebox. Lincoln said: No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. His singular reference to gender was not intended to exclude our Prime Minister from this wisdom. This tax is more than a broken promise. It is another fundamental betrayal of trust by a government that simply cannot be trusted. The majority of shire families will be worse off under Labor's carbon tax. On the government's own figures, those who will be greatest hit in the shire will be Labor's forgotten families, especially those where one parent stays at home to care for their children. They are the biggest losers under this government's bad tax. The government's own figures show that single-income families earning $65,000 or more, with one child, will be worse off. For single-income families with two children, the pain begins at $80,000. For two-income families, the pain begins at $105,000 per household. The average income of a person in such a family is less than the average annual national earnings for a person—less than $10,000 than those same average earnings annually for a person in New South Wales, let alone Sydney, where the cost of living is one of the highest in the world today. These impacts will be felt more severely in Sydney than anywhere else because of our already high costs of living. Neither the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, the Assistant Treasurer nor even the minister at the table, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, understand the daily life and costs of living that Sydneysiders must already bear. We are struggling with rising rents, rising electricity prices and increased costs of living across the board. This is a government that is completely oblivious to the challenges faced by Sydneysiders on a daily basis, and this tax is a prime example of the way that this government simply does not get it in terms of what is happening in Sydney—whether it is in the plains of Western Sydney, the Blue Mountains or the Sutherland shire in my own electorate of Cook. In the shire, the 2006 census revealed that the median household income for families with children was between $104,000 and $130,000 a year. Five years on, average weekly earnings have leapt by 20 per cent. This means the majority of shire families will be beyond the reach of Labor's compensation package. But it is not only families who stand to be hurt by this tax. A constituent recently, last month, wrote to me and stated: Single people get absolutely no tax breaks or benefits. Yet our incomes are chipped away through ordinary tax increases, carbon taxes, flood and Medicare levies and insurance premium increases. I feel that single people are being discriminated against in all of these government decisions. The carbon tax comes on top of yet another broken Labor promise—their budget assault on more than 100,000 Cook residents covered by private health insurance, with Labor's plan to cut access to the private health insurance rebate. The flood tax, costing around $250, kicked in this financial year. From 1 July, residents of New South Wales are already facing an average 17 per cent leap in the price of power before this government introduces its carbon tax. This tax will increase also electricity prices by a further 10 per cent in the first year under the carbon tax, which will also see gas prices go up by nine per cent, on their own figures. This toxic tax will also cost local businesses and threaten jobs. In my electorate there are around 400 manufacturing businesses that employ one or more people. One of those businesses is shire engineering and tool-making business C A Rich Patternmakers and Toolmakers in Taren Point, run by Stephen Rich. Stephen's father, Charles, started this business in the 1950s with his wife, Gwendolin, who did the books for many years as well as raising their family. They are like so many other entrepreneurial small business people who set up businesses in the shire at that time. These businesses have driven generations of prosperity and opportunity for themselves, their employees and our shire. Their business is more than just a job; it is their passion, their obsession and their legacy. This carbon tax will put at risk generations of hard work by these families to create a viable business and generate local employment. These family businesses have already had to weather the tough financial climate and fight increasing competition from overseas. The last thing they need in the shire and elsewhere in this country is a carbon tax to add to the pressures they face. Like so many engineering and light manufacturing businesses, C A Rich are carbon rich in their production. This carbon tax will hit almost everything that moves on their factory floor, whether it is the electricity they need to keep the machines running, the heavy steel, aluminium or other metal material inputs they work with or the transport costs of shifting this around to and from their suppliers and to their clients. They will be hit from every single angle imaginable. In additional to manufacturing, the carbon tax will also strike our local transport, freight, maritime logistics, aviation, utilities and construction sector. In my electorate, there are around 11½ thousand of these businesses. Manufacturing, transportation, construction and utilities account for more than one-third of the jobs of Cook residents. Thousands of shire residents are employed in these sectors, especially in and around the airport. I particularly make the point that Caltex, Qantas and Virgin will feature in Labor's list of dangerous big polluters who they say will and should be taxed. The global aviation industry is incredibly competitive and it is not a level playing field. Any impost at all within the group structure of these airlines impedes the ability of these businesses to profit and, as a result, employ—especially locally here in Australia. Qantas estimates the carbon tax will cost it approximately $100 million to $115 million in 2012-13 and Virgin has put the cost to its operations at $45 million—and there is no compensation. Caltex directly employs 500 people at its operation in Kurnell and a further 500 contractors, though contractor numbers can increase significantly during major maintenance programs that occur at the plant. There is no doubt these bills will not assist the ongoing viability of Caltex's operations at Kurnell, which are already vulnerable. When interviewed on Lateline Business recently, Caltex CEO and MD Julian Segal noted Caltex had already initiated a review of the ongoing role of their refineries, including their operations at Kurnell and, more specifically, the two catalytic crackers. Energy analyst Mark Samter said in the same report that Caltex refineries may now be converted to import terminals. At a time when such marginal decisions are in play, the blindside hit of the carbon tax can only make operations more marginal and potentially tip the balance against local jobs. But it is not just local families, residents and businesses in the shire who will be hit. I recently attended Civic Disability Services, who for more than 50 years have provided care and a sense of purpose for those with disabilities in the shire. They do a fantastic job and have managed to do it on commercial terms, despite the pressures of an increasingly tough economic climate. Civic Disability Services employ more than 100 people, the vast majority of those with disabilities, doing meaningful work so they can better support themselves. But here is the issue: after paying to employ people with disabilities, their second biggest cost, they told me, is their power bill. The Gillard government's carbon tax means a 10 per cent hike in those bills in the first year alone, and after that the prices will only go up. Civic Disability Services are able to provide meaningful employment and purpose to the lives of people with disabilities in the shire because they can provide a commercial and competitive service to real commercial clients, who expect high standards at an affordable cost. Every time Civic flicks the switch and turns on the lights, let alone powers up a machine on the factory floor, Labor's carbon tax will make the services they provide to their customers, including international contracts, less competitive. Yet Labor is offering no compensation for not-for-profit organisations like Civic for the cost impacts of the carbon tax. There are many other not-for-profit organisations like Civic in the shire, and they will all feel the pinch. Many will be forced to pass the carbon tax costs on to the very people they serve through increased fees, reduced services or simply walking away. These businesses should be encouraged and rewarded for the continued standard of care and commitment to their community, not taxed mindlessly. Finally, there is the issue of simply how you could trust the Labor government, the most incompetent we have seen, to implement such a massive change—a $9 billion new tax. The government have not been able to deliver any major program without excessive waste, bungling or catastrophe, be it the roof batts, the NBN, the BER or, particularly, my own portfolio area, border protection, where costs have blown out from less than $100 million a year to more than $1 billion a year. This carbon tax is also an egregious intrusion of big government into our economy and our society. Australians are not whingers, but there comes a point when businesses, families and single people within our community are pushed beyond their limit. There will be repercussions for a government without a mandate trying to ram through this legislation, and it will be fatal for them. These measures are all pain and no environmental gain. Under this package, our domestic carbon emissions in 2020 will actually be higher than they are now. Two-thirds of the abatement will have to be bought offshore from foreign carbon traders at a cost of $3.5 billion, rising to $57 billion in 2050, or 1½ per cent of GDP—a scheme which the Australian Crime Commission has highlighted will involve $5 billion in fraud. And we will be out there on our own. The Productivity Commission found that there was no other country seeking to impose an economy wide carbon price. The government seems to have developed complete amnesia about the collapse of the carbon price agenda at Copenhagen. The European ETS raises only about $500 million a year, or $1 per person. Labor's carbon tax in this country will raise $9 billion, or around $400 for every Australian. In the United States, where I visited earlier this year, it was very clear based on my own inquiries with congressional members from both sides of the aisle that a cap-and-trade system is not on the agenda anytime soon, and certainly not before 2020. At least the United States have worked out that a carbon tax or even an ETS in the current economic climate is economic lunacy. In Canada, they have equally made the sensible decision, not just in economic policy but in a democratic sense as well, where the government has listened to the Canadian people and walked away from these policies. While the Labor government cites China as emissions reductions leader, the truth is that its emissions will increase by 500 per cent by 2020. The coalition have fiercely opposed this tax from day one and we will continue to fight this tax, here and everywhere we can, for Australian jobs, small businesses and families, and particularly my own community and the shire. I particularly want to commend the Leader of the Opposition for being the people's champion on this issue, ably supported by the member for Flinders and my many other colleagues, including the member for Indi, who is at table with me today. The coalition is the only force standing in the way of this toxic tax. We are energised by the support of the Australian people in this endeavour and we will not let them down. If the Prime Minister in her arrogance persists in ignoring the voice of Australians and imposes this odious tax, then let it be on her head. History will indeed judge her and it will not be kind. When the time comes for the Australian people to have the opportunity to act on this issue, an opportunity that this Prime Minister and this government have denied them time and again, their judgment will be absolutely resounding. 17:21 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Throsby Modern Australia was built on the efforts on men and women who were willing to make an investment in the future of this great country, men and women who had a vision beyond the present and men and women who thought about the future of this country and what it might look like for their children and beyond. They were led by governments who in the main believed in building a country which was the envy of the world and a place to build our hopes and dreams. The question for this generation of leaders, the people who occupy this place, is whether we have the right to claim the title of heirs to this legacy, whether we have the courage to build and to introduce policies which are in the future national interest and look beyond short-term political opportunism, because this generation does indeed have a challenge. We know that greenhouse gases are one-third higher than before the Industrial Revolution. We know that global temperatures have risen by 0.7 degrees Celsius over the past century. We know that unabated they will continue to rise. We know that the last decade was the world's hottest on record and we know that globally 2010 was the equal warmest year on record. We know 2010 was the 34th consecutive year with global temperatures above the 20th century average and we know that climate change and global warming are real. We know the consequences are real and we know that we have to change the way that we do things in Australia and around the world if we are to avoid catastrophic changes. We know that if we do not act our children will pay the price. This government has a realistic plan on how it will respond to this generational challenge. We have a target, which is shared by those on the other side of the chamber, though they sometimes deny that climate change is real. Nonetheless, we have a target which is shared by all in this place of reducing our carbon emissions by five per cent over 2020 levels. On this side of the House, we have a plan to tackle this in the most efficient and effective way. Our plan will put a price on carbon, because we believe this is the most effective way to ensure that we change gradually and do not need to put in place dramatic efforts to reduce our carbon emissions if we leave the situation to continue unabated. We will do this in a way that brings households along with us and looks after those who are in need of assistance. Under our plan nine out of 10 households will receive assistance through either tax cuts or payment increases. Almost six million households will get tax cuts or increases in payments that cover the entire average price of the introduction of carbon pricing. Over four million Australian households will get an additional buffer with the assistance that covers 120 per cent of the average price impact of the carbon price. The net effect of this is that they will have the capacity to adjust the way that they live and the way they use energy and, if they do, they will be able to pocket the difference. If they are unable to make these changes, then they will be no worse off. This presents us with an enormous opportunity to put in place some significant tax reform. As a result of our increase in the tax threshold, shifting the tax threshold from $6,000 to $18,000, over one million Australians will no longer need to lodge a tax return. On average our package will cost households around $9.90 a week, but they will get $10.10 assistance in return. This assistance will be permanent, and the government will review the adequacy of assistance each year and increase it further as necessary. It is no secret in this place and elsewhere that I have had a lot to say about the manufacturing industry and in particular the steel industry, as it is so important to my electorate of Throsby, which takes in Port Kembla and the BlueScope steelworks and many other manufacturing businesses. I am very pleased to see that, as a result of advocacy of many members on this side of the House, including me and my colleague from the Illawarra, the member for Cunningham, Sharon Bird, we have been able to see some significant assistance for manufacturing and the steel industry make the necessary transitions. I point to the Jobs and Competiveness program, which is an important part of this package of legislation. It will provide assistance to emissions-intensive and trade-exposed industries with the aim of supporting jobs and businesses make the transition. The way this assistance is provided maintains the incentive for companies to reduce their carbon pollution partly because they will compete with each other and other companies to look for cost-cutting ways to ensure that they do not lose a market edge. The initial rate of assistance will be 94.5 per cent for the most emissions-intensive and trade-exposed industries and 66 per cent for moderate emissions-intensive industries. This will provide significant shielding for many, many industries in my electorate of Throsby. In addition to providing the free permits and the free assistance for those emissions-intensive industries, two separate funds have been set up to assist businesses in the manufacturing of food and foundries and related industries to make the necessary adjustments to transform their businesses and to implement energy-saving and energy-efficiency measures, technologies and processes. I point to the $200 million Food and Foundries Investment Program, which will provide grants for manufacturers in the food-processing and metal-forging and foundry sectors to invest in energy-efficiency projects and low-emission technologies, processes and products. In addition, an $800 million clean technology investment program will provide grants for those manufacturers in a sector not eligible for other forms of assistance to invest in energy-efficiency projects and low-emissions technologies, processes and products. Separate from the CEF package of bills, but being debated at the same time, is the Steel Transformation Bill 2011. The steel industry is facing considerable pressure in Australia and right around the world at the moment. Many say it has not yet recovered from the global financial crisis. In Australia we are facing additional pressures due to the high Australian dollar and the high input costs of iron ore and coal. The Steel Transformation Bill provides the legislative framework for the establishment of a steel transformation plan, which provides a $300 million special appropriation to assist the two main steel producers, BlueScope and OneSteel, to introduce mechanisms, innovations and investments to ensure that they reduce their carbon intensity and assist them make the structural transformation necessary to ensure that they still have a viable future in this country. Indeed, the bringing forward of $100 million in this special appropriation was instrumental in assisting BlueScope, which has recently announced a significant restructuring of its operations—including those in Port Kembla in my electorate. This will have a significant impact on the local economy, and I fear that without the bringing forward of that $100 million in assistance the future for BlueScope in Port Kembla would have been very dire indeed—much worse, in fact, than the current situation. The plan for the fund contains two elements. The first will provide for a competitiveness assistance advance payment, which I have just referred to, to the value of $164 million in 2011-12. The second element will be the balance, which will be made up to $300 million over five years from 2012-13. The net effect of the free permits provided under the Jobs and Competitiveness Program and the additional $300 million in assistance under the Steel Transformation Plan mean that, effectively, the steel industry is completely shielded from the impact of the carbon price and is provided with the necessary assistance to enable it to try to restructure itself and trade its way out of a very difficult global and domestic environment for steel. This government is committed to ensuring that there is a bright future for steel in the Illawarra and throughout the country. As a local member, I will be working with other members representing manufacturing electorates to make sure that our government does everything within its power to assist steel manufacturing through this difficult environment. The countries of the world are changing. They are, in effect, in a race to transform their economies. We are not the only country which is acting to transform itself to make sure that we have the capacity to reduce our carbon emissions and to transform our industries and to ensure that, as they grow, they do so in a way which is environmentally sustainable and preserves the planet for the future of our children. If we know that we are in a race to transform our economy, it beggars belief that in this country we would want to implement policies which would hamstring our country in the race—that we would say that we know that the world is in a global race to transform itself but that we should have a handicap and not start making the transformation as soon as possible. I am pleased to say that this package of legislation has the balance right. It has the balance right between providing assistance to households and ensuring that, on the one hand, our emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries have the right degree of shielding to be able to trade and be competitive in a difficult environment and that, on the other hand, they have the incentives to reduce their carbon emissions. It has the balance right in that it will provide significant funds to assist manufacturing, food and foundry industries to transform themselves with assistance from government through co-investment schemes. It has the balance right by ensuring that households and businesses are assisted through the process of transformation. We are doing the right thing by putting a price on carbon and, instead of having a centralised, government-controlled mechanism where government makes the decisions and attempts to pick winners, we will enable individual businesses and individual households to make the millions of decisions on an hourly and daily basis that are necessary for them to be able to transform their work and consumption practices and their household arrangements and so reduce their energy use and carbon emissions. In this debate there has been some criticism of our intention to ensure that, as we move to an emissions trading scheme, we will enable ourselves to integrate with other economies around the world which also have emissions trading schemes in place. In fact, the attacks I have just heard from those opposite include an attack on the international trade and emissions permits. This attack falls awkwardly from the mouths of those who deny the fact that there is international action on climate change. On the one hand, they argue that we are so far out in front that we are acting in a way that is completely incompatible with every other economy in the world; on the other hand, they criticise us for attempting to put in place a mechanism which will enable our emissions trading scheme to be integrated with similar emissions trading schemes in Europe and other places around the world. However, what lies at the heart of these criticisms is not a serious policy confrontation but an attempt to whip up the fear that there is some conspiracy behind these arrangements. These criticisms have very little policy credibility. I commend the package of legislation to the House. This is without doubt a difficult debate, but I return to the theme that I started with: the prosperity that we now enjoy in this great country of ours was the result of the efforts of men and women who were willing to put aside their immediate interests and invest in the future. They had the courage to put the national interest and the future interests of this country ahead of immediate short-term political opportunism, and I encourage all men and women in this place who are of good will to act in that tradition, which is in the best traditions of this country and this parliament, by voting in favour of these bills. 17:36 Mrs MIRABELLA 00AMU Indi I do not think we need to dig too hard to find why that address by the member for Throsby could possibly go down as the most passionless, unconvincing address in this parliament, certainly in the almost 10 years that I have been here. As a member representing a manufacturing electorate he knows, in his heart of hearts—as do all the other members on the other side, including the member for Corangamite, and as do the senators who represent Victoria and New South Wales—that manufacturing regions are suffering. I am sure those members do their job and speak to those who run large manufacturing businesses and small manufacturing businesses and speak to the union members who work in manufacturing enterprises, so they know what everyone else in this country knows: a carbon tax is going to have a negative impact on our manufacturing sector. Why? Because it will make the cost of making things in Australia more expensive and, effectively, it will give a leg-up to imports that compete with our manufactured goods. That is one aspect of why the member for Throsby would be so downcast and passionless while perhaps doing his duty by his party. Perhaps it is time for him and others on the government benches to think about their duty to Australia and what they could do in the national interest. The Prime Minister has talked much about the national interest in the last few days. Perhaps some on the other side could think about the national interest in deliberating on how they will vote on these bills. In trying to encapsulate what is fundamentally wrong with the government's approach I was given some great insights and guidance by some of the comments that Morris Iemma, former Labor premier of New South Wales, has said. I will indulge myself and the House by reading some of his comments because I think they are very illuminating. He said: One thing is sure—it won't change the world, but it could change the government. We embraced economic growth, and the benefits of economic growth, in the Hawke-Keating era, but we're fighting this battle on the Greens' turf, not our turf. Bob Brown wants to replace the Labor Party as a major party. He went on: Yes, we should take action, but we should not get so far out in front that we injure ourselves. He said: Every day there are reports of growth and development in China, its growth in emissions will far outstrip our total emissions. And: We've adopted a policy which is part of the Greens' agenda. And the Greens' agenda is anti-growth and anti-investment. Lower growth and lower investment lead to lower incomes and fewer jobs. We should always be standing shoulder to shoulder with steelworkers and miners and factory workers before we stand shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Bob Brown and Christine Milne. I do not think it could have been said in clearer words. Those are the sorts of words one would have expected a solid Labor citizen of bygone eras to have come out with but today we hear nothing of those words from current representatives in this House. Don Argus has also made some interesting points. Sometimes the obvious points are not repeated often enough. Don Argus has said that change is not reform. That is obviously true. When governments find themselves in trouble and they want to appear as if they are acting in the national interest they rush to change something. Irrespective of whether it is good or bad they will label it as 'reform' rather than 'change' because the word 'reform' has innate positive qualities. Let us ask ourselves why this government is pursuing this change. If you believe them, and it was to save the planet—to reduce worldwide emissions—then we would have heard the Prime Minister say, before polling day: 'We need to do our bit to save the planet. That is why I promise you that the government I lead will introduce a carbon tax.' But she did not. The only reason we are having a debate on these bills is that that is the price that was extracted by the Greens to support the Prime Minister in keeping her job after the election. I am very disappointed with that because the Prime Minister is touted as a great negotiator. If, in fact, the Prime Minister was a great negotiator she should have worked out that there is no way that the Greens would ever have supported the coalition. She did not have to sell the Labor Party's soul and give them this job-destroying, economy-destroying carbon tax. We are here because the Labor Party panicked and decided to give in to the Greens' demands. So when we hear those sanctimonious words—that this is all about the environment; this is all about saving the planet—we know that they are not true. What we may find is that we may end up with an increase in worldwide emissions because when we export our manufacturing to countries that are not as efficient as us they will make the same things we make but create more emissions in doing so. We have seen in Europe that they have effectively exported some of their manufacturing. They still have a demand for goods that produce emissions but those emissions are produced in other countries. That carbon leakage will certainly occur in this nation as well. There has been a bit of misinformation. The government are trying—they still are—to convince us that we cannot be behind the rest of the world and that we have to stay in step with what the rest of the world are doing. But who are we staying in step with? Absolutely no-one. The only steps we are following are the ones carved out by the Greens in this parliament, and they are hardly the voice of mainstream Australia. We have seen disingenuous comparisons made with China. And we have seen the climate change minister embarrassed because he referred to a report that said that China had a higher effective carbon price than we did. That was found not to be correct and he embarrassingly tried to distance himself from the report. When we look at China's official policy we find that the policy is actually to reduce emissions intensity. If you look at the projected growth you find that if China reduces its emissions intensity by 17 per cent by 2015 it will work out to be an increase in total CO2 of 17 per cent on 2011 figures in absolute terms. When we look at the rest of the world, we see that no-one has introduced the sort of carbon tax the Prime Minister is proposing. That is not because no-one smarter in the world has come up with this; it is because everyone else in the world is more concerned and focused on what they can do to assist their economies and industries to survive the current difficult economic times that they face. When we look at what Europe has done we see that 95 per cent of carbon permits in the first few years of its scheme were given out for free. We found that the scheme in Europe had effectively little impact in reducing emissions. A Euro poll found that there was about $5 billion worth of fraud in the purchase of overseas permits in just under two years. This government, on its own figures, says, 'By 2020 we will reduce emissions by 160 million tonnes.' Guess what? One hundred million of those tonnes will be through the purchase of permits from overseas. The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme raises about $500 million a year, and that is how much this government's carbon tax will raise in three months. The impact of the carbon tax in this country will be something unprecedented in the rest of the world. India, which accounts for five per cent of total global emissions, and rising, has no plans for an ETS. Canada has no plans for an ETS. The US has effectively abandoned all talk of an emissions trading scheme. So the time has come to really assess what the government are trying to do and for members on the other side to look in their heart of hearts and, for just once in the term of this government, put the national interest ahead of their party's interest, because the impact on the Australian economy and the cost of living will leave its mark. It will take years of suffering and years of restructuring our economy, and it will see efficient businesses go offshore. Households are already suffering with the increase in the cost of living. We have seen the cost of housing increase, yet a carbon tax will increase the cost of a new home by $5,000. It will add $36 a month to the average mortgage of just over $340,000. The Food and Grocery Council said that the annual increase in grocery bills will be $120. Australian cars will be $400 more expensive than imported cars because of the carbon tax. Agriculture will have increased costs through the increase in the cost of fuel, fertiliser and electricity. There is even the local supermarket. I take the example of a supermarket in Wangaratta. The local IGA calculated the increase in their electricity costs. They said to me, 'Our competitive advantage is that we are 1c cheaper than the major supermarket, so we can't put up our prices. So we've already told our staff that, in order to pay for the increase in the electricity bill, we will have to reduce staff numbers.' These are real businesses out there trying to make a living and trying to employ people in their local communities. Many industries have commented on some of the government's figures. A very important part of our manufacturing base is the food and grocery sector. In fact, it is the largest manufacturing sector. Kate Carnell, the Chief Executive of the Australian Food and Grocery Council, said: For Julia Gillard to say that food companies who aren’t in the top 1000 emitters won’t be affected by carbon tax is simply wrong. Manufacturers will be impacted right across the supply chain from higher costs in transport, power, refrigeration and food and grocery manufacturing. We have seen comments right across the heavy manufacturing sector as well. Interestingly, we have not heard too much from someone who should be representing manufacturing workers. In April, Paul Howes, the National Secretary of the AWU, said: Carbon pricing could be the straw that breaks the camel's back as far as some of these industries are concerned. If one job is gone, our support is gone. I do not think I would rely too much on those words because jobs are going now in preparation for a carbon tax. The government has spoken much about compensation, but Graham Kraehe from BlueScope Steel says that compensation under this scheme would be like putting 'a bandaid on a bullet wound'. Industry compensation is supposed to last for four years. What happens after the four years when the price of electricity keeps going up and up? Does anyone honestly believe that industry planning for capital investment in five years time, after the compensation runs out, will not be starting to run down their operations now for the time when there will not be compensation? What about hospitals, nursing homes and schools, where the Victorian government has shown that electricity prices will increase by $120,000 a year? Community organisations will face increased costs. None of these have really been factored into the government's thinking on the impact this will have on local communities. This says nothing of the fact that most average Australians will be worse off under a carbon tax. The government should have a serious rethink and take this issue back to the people, because it lied about introducing a carbon tax and people should have a say. (Time expired) 17:51 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra It is with the greatest pleasure that I rise tonight to speak on Clean Energy Bill 2011 and associated bills and the need to take strong, positive and effective action to tackle climate change and drive a clean energy future—a future the next generation of Australians deserve. I have been waiting for three years for this opportunity and I am delighted that I am able to stand in this House today and add my support and the support of the many Canberrans who have phoned me, emailed me, written to me and spoken to me personally, calling for strong leadership and strong action on this issue. The science is in. It is clear. It is beyond reasonable doubt. The world is warming, the oceans are becoming more acidic and the biodiversity of our planet is at risk. This is the clear message of the research. I believe what the scientists say. I believe the Australian Academy of Science when it says that there has been widespread melting of glaciers and icecaps, when it says that the Greenland icesheet is losing more than it gains through snowfall and when it says that the Arctic sea ice has decreased significantly. I believe the scientists when they say that the average surface temperature in Australia has increased by about 0.7 degrees since 1960. This warming has caused an Australia-wide average increase in the frequency of extremely hot days and a decrease in the frequency of cold days. It is also clear that the leading cause of this rapid degradation of our climate and the broader environment is the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as a result of human activity. I say this because I have read the science and I have spoken to the scientists. The ice-core samples I saw during a visit to the University of Tasmania, with the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, clearly showed that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere has increased since the rise of the Industrial Revolution and the increase in the burning of fossil fuels that started at that time. To support this, I offer again the words of the Australian Academy of Science, which says quite clearly, 'Human activities are increasing greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere.' Anyone who has worked with a scientist or an academic will know that such clear, unambiguous declarations are rare from people who are very considered in their statements. The academy also says, 'It is very likely that most of the recent, observed global warming is caused by increasing greenhouse gas levels.' These statements—and statements by others—have convinced me completely that we must act to address the emissions of carbon. I agree that there are a number of ways we can do this and I agree that there is no one-size-fits-all approach. But the experts are clear and consistent in their agreement on the best way to reduce carbon emissions. The experts agree that the most efficient and effective way is to place a price on carbon and to move towards a carbon trading mechanism. Once again, I do not make this statement unsupported or uninformed. I am informed and swayed by the people who know best: the experts in their areas. According to Macquarie Bank Chief Economist Richard Gibbs, consumers need a price on carbon to shift economic behaviour towards lower carbon and more energy-efficient options. These experts, both the scientists and the economists, have convinced the esteemed magazine the Economist. Once again, the government has listened to the experts and has acted on their advice. The package of legislation introduced yesterday will do precisely what the economists, academics, climate scientists and even the Australian have been urging us to do for years. Our package will put a price on carbon. It will reduce carbon pollution and it will drive investment in a new cleaner economy. Our package will grab the opportunities of a clean energy future. Our package will create new jobs and ensure that Australia remains the envy of the world for decades to come. Our package will transform and modernise the Australian economy, at the same time supporting the people Labor has always supported: workers, pensioners and low- and middle-income Australians. Our package will see Australia's annual emissions reduce by at least 160 million tonnes by 2020, which will be the equivalent of taking around 45 million cars off the road. Our package will drive investment in cleaner industries through the $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the $1.2 billion Clean Technology Program, a program that will improve energy efficiency in manufacturing industries and support research and development in low-pollution technologies. Our package will ensure builders, tradies, engineers and apprentices get the specialised green skills that will be increasingly in demand in Australia through the $32 million Clean Energy Skills program. (Quorum formed) Our package will support small business and action at the local government and community level. Our package will encourage farmers to explore carbon credit options. Our package is good for every Australian, every arm of the Australian economy and the economy as a whole. The modelling done by Treasury—and I know those opposite do not like the opinions of experts who disagree with them, but nonetheless they are indeed the experts—shows that this package will see 1.6 million new jobs by 2020 and gross national income per person increasing from today's levels, which are around $56,000, by around $9,000 per person to 2019-20. By 2050, the increase is expected to be more than $30,000 per person in today's dollars. This package will also support Australians as we transition to this new cleaner economy, though CPI is only expected to rise by 0.7 per cent—less than the impact of the GST—and the assistance to the average Australian household will outweigh the costs. Nine in 10 households will receive a combination of tax cuts and increased payments to help them with the cost of living. Almost six million households will be assisted through tax cuts or increased payments to cover the average expected price impact. Over four million households will get assistance that is at least 20 per cent more than the average expected price impact. Over one million Australians will no longer need to lodge a tax return. This is a comprehensive package that is supported by evidence and experts and has been extensively modelled. Contrary to what some in this place may be saying both here and in their communities, it is a package that has been in the public domain for discussion and comment for several months now. It is also a package that has received strong support from my electorate. I quote now from some of those supporters. Tara from Isabella Plains emailed me to say: I am writing as a constituent and a strong supporter of action on climate change. The scare campaign has confused people, but I wanted you to know that I want a price on pollution and I'm talking to others in your electorate about it. I urge you to vote in support of the price on pollution and the Clean Energy Future legislation and speak out in support of taking action on climate change. Jeanette from Conder said: I would like to support the government's initiative on the carbon tax, in strong opposition to the campaign being waged against it. I do not want to see my grandchildren's future held hostage by ignorance. Gerard from Gowrie said to me: I want you to know that, as a member of your constituency, I say yes to a price on carbon pollution, and Yes to new money for clean energy. Please support this important step forward for Australia – by voting Yes. Rona from Yarralumla wrote: I believe history will applaud you, and that those who come after us will feel respect and gratitude for your stand. I believe the majority of Canberrans want this package, particularly the women—the grandmothers, the mothers, the sisters, the daughters. I was deeply moved by the audience in the public gallery yesterday who had come to witness the historic introduction of this package by the Prime Minister. What moved me most was the number of women who had taken the time out of their busy lives to be part of that significant moment—women young and old, women with toddlers and babies in slings. In fact, I understand one woman travelled from Adelaide to be part of history. Most of the people in Canberra want this package and want it for their children's future. Now is the time for leadership. Now is the time for considered action to protect our future prosperity. Now is the time to put aside the gross partisan politics that has gripped this current parliament and to act in the national interest. Now is the time to think big and long term; to be bold and innovative; to walk in the footsteps of Labor legends like Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, John Button, Peter Cook and John Dawkins; and to transform and modernise this economy so we can flourish in the future. As with the transformation and modernisation of the Australian economy in the eighties, we know reform is tough. But reform is part of the Labor DNA, and we know that this reform is right for this country today and tomorrow. Imagine what Australia would look like today if we had not undergone the reforms of the eighties. We would probably still have four banks and we would probably still be paying a premium for money if we could get it. We would still have protected industries clinging to the past with outmoded and inefficient work practices. We would probably just be entering the open and liberalised world now, as we see with some other countries throughout the world, having wasted decades of opportunities, decades of prosperity, decades of a possible future—the future that we have today. A failure to act—a failure to put in place the best policy for the future—risks not only environmental catastrophe but economic ruin, as Australia will find itself unprepared to compete in the industries and the world of the future. This country has always been a leader in adapting to changing times. We have always been able to absorb the changes to the economy, and we are more prosperous as a result. Now is not the time to allow our economy to atrophy. I would like to remind those opposite that now is not the time to look backwards. Now is not the time to say no. Now is not the time for the leader, rather than being a Leader of the Opposition, to be more the leader for opposition. Now is the time to look forward and plan to ensure our future prosperity. At the moment, what we have opposite is an opposition that has a 'plan'. I use the word lightly because it will cost Australia and Australians an extraordinary amount of money—some $1,300 per person—to pay polluters so they can kindly agree to stop polluting. In closing, I would like to say that I commend the government for introducing this bill. I intend to be able to look my nieces and nephews in the eye in 20 years time and say I showed leadership today. I intend to look them in the eye and say I was bold and innovative and wanted great leadership—that I did it for their future, their children's future and Australia's future. (Time expired) 18:06 Mr JOHN COBB 00AN1 Calare I rise to speak on what is in effect a carbon tax. Let me start by giving you an overview of my electorate. The Calare electorate is the powerhouse of New South Wales: it is built on mining, energy production, agriculture, forestry and transport—industries which will be absolutely hammered under the Gillard government carbon tax. It is also a regional electorate, and it is no secret that the regional areas of Australia are set to be the hardest hit under a Gillard government carbon tax. Recently released New South Wales Treasury figures underline that. One thousand jobs will be lost in my part of the world alone. The carbon tax is bad news for regional Australia and it is most definitely bad news for the electorate of Calare. Last month a community forum on the carbon tax was held in Bathurst. I was invited to speak along with three industry representatives of the three big industries that Calare relies on: mining, agriculture and small business. The aim of the forum was to give the public a chance to listen to industry leaders and gain a better insight as to how the carbon tax would affect our region's industries. The overwhelming response was that the carbon tax was certainly not welcome in Calare. There was no doubt that the forum was anti carbon tax, yet the question was asked, 'Why hold a one sided forum?' The taxpayers had $21 million of their money spent on advertising one side of this debate—the rubbish side—so I do not think there is too much harm. I think they have the right to have the facts and the actual cost to them as people and as businesses put to them free of having to listen to the rubbish the Prime Minister and her people have been speaking for some months. Over the past months I have been visiting businesses and residents in Calare regarding this tax. The people of Calare are not stupid. They know that reshuffling money—and that is what this is, largely, taking from someone and giving to someone else—and compensating families as Labor proposes will not in any way change people's habits. This is one of the huge hypocrisies: 'We are going to tax you to make you change what you do, but at the same time we want to give you money back so it will not hurt you.' So why the hell would you change? That is why the coalition supports a direct action plan, because we believe in practical action and common sense rather than making people do what they do not want to do and what they do not have to do at this time. New South Wales Treasury figures released last month confirm that regional Australia will be hardest hit. A total of 31,000 jobs are predicted to be lost in our state, with 1,000 of these in the central west. It is the third hardest hit area for job losses after the Hunter Valley—the member for Hunter's part of the world, and you would think he would know better—and the Illawarra. These figures alone are damning enough. A carbon tax will cost local jobs, particularly at a time when our region is still recovering from a decade of drought. It is the last thing we need. Central and western New South Wales need a carbon tax about as much as they need a hole in the head. We know that this tax will also significantly increase the cost of living for families. Figures are predicting electricity bills in New South Wales will rise by nearly $500 next financial year. It is interesting that the Prime Minister talks about a 10 per cent rise in electricity costs while the New South Wales government said, 'That is wholesale; it is 15 per cent at a retail level.' Electricity producers passing on the costs of their carbon permits is only for starters. For families that are already struggling with the cost of living this tax is the last thing they need. Families need this tax like they need a hole in the head. Mr Deputy Speaker, let me give you an overview of the business from across Calare that will suffer under this Gillard government's carbon tax. In Blayney, one of the progressive parts of my electorate, Blayney Wholesale Foods is probably one of the best examples of how severely this carbon tax will impact upon a local business. Over the past five or six years this local business has become a new, modern business. There is no way this business can have more efficient use of electricity than it currently has. This is a cutting-edge cooling and freezing and packing business. It operates two large freezer warehouses in Blayney and employs over 100 people. The company stores and packages frozen food for a number of national companies and provides food services throughout the Blue Mountains, the central west, across Australia and to exporters. Almost all foodstuff spends time in cold storage, if not in frozen storage. Cold storage businesses specialise in providing services in temperature controlled storage. George Tanos, the managing director of Blayney food products, has done the figures for his business and estimates the carbon tax will see a 20 per cent rise—not 10, not 15 but a 20 per cent rise—in electricity costs, and this is on top of what he has seen in the last five or six years, which is a 100 per cent increase in his power costs. The carbon tax is essentially a tax on electricity, and cold storage facilities such as this will have the company's ability to operate slashed. We are talking about a modern, innovative business which has already implemented every efficiency possible to keep usage of power down, yet with a carbon tax the cost must be added to food prices that are already soaring due to a tax which is also pushing up the cost of producing, transporting and processing that food. What is more, this tax will make Australian produce less competitive on the international market when it comes to trade. It really is a catch-22. It must be something to be proud of. I cannot believe that this government has worked out how to knock over Australian industry quite so efficiently. At the end of the day Calare's families will have to pay, whether they produce or whether they work for those who do. Should this tax become a reality, what benefits are there for this business? It can do nothing to avoid it. It cannot get more efficient. What is in it for this business, and what is in it for the people who are going to have to pay the extra costs that business has to absorb? Another example in my part of the world is a regional New South Wales grain processor. He buys about $50 million worth of local product and his annual power and gas bill will go up by one-quarter of a million dollars in the first 12 months. I am not talking about BHP here; I am talking about a family company that will cop another quarter of a million dollars in tax in the very first 12 months of this idiocy. And then on top of that you have Delta Electricity. Do you think they are happy? They are one of Calare's biggest energy producers and a very big employer in the eastern side of my electorate. We have Simplot Australia, a refrigeration, cold food, packaging, distribution and pet food company. Do you think they are happy? They are going to cop it too. The numerous truck owner-drivers through the transport industry will not be hit by this for a couple of years but, my heavens, they probably are the wildest of all those who have to face this tax. There would be over 10,000—something like 10½ thousand—small businesses in my part of the world in the Calare electorate. I do not know how one of them will get any off load for what it is going to cost them. Not one! A small coffee shop is going to wear about $1,500 worth of power costs in the first year. How offensive can you get? But Julia Gillard and her government want to give them hell, and they will. Power bills will continue to rise and businesses will be forced to pass costs on to the consumer because for most businesses there will be no forms of compensation—certainly not for small business. Businesses are already doing it tough, and as a carbon tax becomes a reality Australian businesses will be at a major disadvantage. And we are only talking domestically at the moment; this is before we get to the exporters. No other country in the world is going to go with anything like this. Under the current economic circumstances, why would you do this to your own people? Currently this government claims that agriculture—and this is wonderful—is excluded from the carbon tax. I have been a farmer my whole life and I can tell you that we are not excluded from this tax. Very few industries will be as belted by it as we will. Every farmer knows it. The agricultural industry alone will be one of the hardest hit. Fuel might be excluded for a couple of years but, heavens above, we are going to be belted after that. The government has ignored the major impact on the processing industries which take control of everything when it leaves the farm. We have to buy superphosphate, we have to buy diesel, we have to transport it and we have to grow it. Then the people who we sell to or work through have to process it and some of the processors for agriculture will be the biggest hit by the carbon tax—more than almost anybody—let alone the costs of processing. There are examples of that. The Murray Goulburn Co-operative will incur carbon costs of over $5,000 per farmer, and guess who will pay for that? The farmer. And that is without the fact that an average dairy—not a large one—will probably spend another 3½ thousand dollars on extra electricity prices. Then there is the fertiliser, then there is the gas, and a lot of them also have cold storage. The big meat processors are in a similar position, whether they are the beef or sheep abattoirs. The sheep blokes are going to cop an increase in costs of about 30 cents per sheep and about two or three dollars for cattle. We are talking enormous money here on industries which only survive on narrow margins through large inputs. Rice farmers are particularly unhappy and yet they are not supposed to be copping a carbon tax. Let me tell you that about $10,000 per farm is what it will cost them in on-farm costs. That is what Sunrice will have to pay as a major emitter and there is only one processor and dealer in rice in Australia. As I said, New South Wales grain processors are going to cop it. And who do you think they get their grain from? Farmers. And given that a lot of this processed grain has to be exported, do you think they are going to be able to say to their trading partner overseas: 'Look, sorry, we are going to have to put the price up. Gillard and her government have decided we have to pay more.' Likely? Not very likely. Nobody is going to be belted harder than anybody who works the land, whether it is direct or indirect. I cannot believe that any government would decide that they have to do this to their own. Whether it is small business, someone who works for them or a farmer—whoever it is—why would you want to take a set on your own people? Why would you not listen to two-thirds of the population telling you to knack off and not to do it? This is very much about politics, about pleasing the Greens and about the Prime Minister remaining the Prime Minister—not for very long. There are people in this House who represent electorates and who have the power but whose electorates not only do not want this but cannot believe that their representatives created the government that they have. There are people in this House who, if they listened to their electorates, could stop this. They could most certainly stop this happening. We are a democratic nation, and there are a couple of people who came to this House, created a government and said, 'We are doing that because we believe this will be the most democratic and open form of government if we create the Gillard government,' and yet those same people have combined with that government to guillotine the length of this debate, allowing for people to speak on average for less than one minute on each section of this bill. Ms Bird DZP You've had more than one minute! Mr JOHN COBB 00AN1 There are 19 sections to it. I cannot believe that these people would even want to go home, because let me tell those who could stop this, whose electorates are begging them to stop this idiocy: if I were you I would not go home, I would go to hell. 18:21 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh I will be going home this weekend, very proud that I have spoken on the Clean Energy Bill 2011 and related bills. I believe that we all come to this place—all of us, on all sides of politics, from whichever political party—to make our electorates a better place. I heard the previous member speak about his agricultural area. I truly believe that he does care about his electorate and about agriculture in this country. But, if we truly look at this issue, we would be saying to those farmers and to those people the member for Calare was speaking about on this particular issue of our climate changing drastically over the next few years, and the next generation, that it will mean there will be no agriculture—absolutely zilch—if we do not do something about it. I think that, as members of this place who have been elected by our constituencies to be here, all of us want to ensure that when we leave this place we have done something for the betterment of the future generations of Australia. If we do not pass this bill, it would be remiss of us to think that we are doing our jobs. Our job is about the present but also about ensuring a better place for future generations, whether it be our children, our grandchildren or our great-grandchildren. That is why I will be very proud to go back to my electorate this week. It gives me great satisfaction to speak on these bills and to support them. They go towards correcting in Australia what is arguably the greatest market failure of all time: the historic ability of people to pollute our atmosphere with greenhouse gases without limitation, and that is what we have—without fee or fine, with complete impunity, to the detriment of us all and, even more importantly, to the detriment of future generations of Australians. The consequences of this market failure, as we are increasingly seeing, are promising to be dire. (Quorum formed)As I said, the market failures we are increasingly seeing are promising dire consequences for our world—our coastlines, our rainfall patterns, our ability to feed ourselves, and the composition and dynamics of our world. This market failure has to be corrected. The volume of hot air emitted by politicians, commentators and the like on this issue over time is itself a potential health hazard, I am sure. The number of ridiculous statements, contradictory statements and misrepresentations that we are hearing is enough to make many members of the public turn off from this debate and this issue. But the reality of our situation, our recent history and what is happening around the world needs clarity of perception and lucidity in thought. We need to recognise our reality and act appropriately based on the best available advice, as each of us strives to do in our own private lives. Here are a few quick facts. Yes, the world is moving on this issue. This includes, of course, not just the UK, Europe, Canada, South Africa, South Korea and very large blocks within the United States; it includes China, and no amount of camouflage from those opposite can conceal this fact. China is moving to introduce a carbon trading scheme in its three industrial powerhouses of Beijing, Shanghai and Guangdong, from where it will be rolled out across the country, and this is a reality; this is happening. So we are not leading the world on this issue, as opponents claim—as if that would be a bad thing anyway. We are seriously at risk of being left behind, to our own detriment. The assertion by the coalition that Australia is so insignificant a nation and a people that what we do does not matter is highly flawed and more than a tad insulting. Australia is one of the 21 highest-polluting nations in the world. We also emit more per head of population than any other country; we are the highest polluters in the world per capita. Also, we are one of 14 nations that emit similar volumes of carbon pollution: we are one of the 14 countries that each emit between one and two per cent of global emissions, which add up to 20 per cent of the world's emissions. So if we expect South Korea, France, the UK, Italy, Spain, South Africa, Canada and others to act—which they are doing—then how on earth can we argue that we do not need to? If countries the size of Australia were to sit back and do nothing, the global effort would be most seriously compromised and simply would not work. So we need to be smart in doing what is in the world's best interests, which is also in our own interests. With our climate, it is even more in our interests than for most. As I have said, more and more countries are pricing carbon emissions and moving to price carbon. The suggestion that it will destroy or even damage our economy is absolute rubbish. What will destroy our economy is if we do nothing. Apart from our trading partners pursuing similar policies, our trade-exposed industries will be generously protected from adverse consequences. They are facing challenges to their profitability that are much greater than this. There is more risk in the price of the Australian dollar, for example, than anything in this collection of bills. We have heard that people will be worse off as a result of the carbon price flowing on to consumers who will receive most of the revenue raised by the carbon price's compensation. That is the scare tactic being used by those on the other side. We have also heard the other side say that people will receive too much compensation. Nine in 10 households will receive compensation. The cost will be on average $9.90 per week, 50c or less per $100 of groceries, 70c per $100 of outlay overall. Compensation will on average be $10.10 per week more than the cost passed on to the average consumer. If that represents overpayment to pensioners, as we have heard from those opposite, then I am happy for the pensioners in my area to receive that payments and be better off under this policy. If people argue against these bills for fear of pensioners getting too much money, I will argue in their favour, as will all of us on this side. I do not object to that at all. Consumers, the public, have nothing to fear from this policy. Compared to the rising cost of our health system, for example, which has threatened to overwhelm our states' budgets and compared to the future costs of Medicare, aged care and other public services systems, this is not an especially large amount of money. We need to keep it in proportion. As I said, $9.90 per week for which compensation will be $10.10 on average. There has been an increase in the recognition of our need to address, individually and collectively, the issue of pollution. Support for this policy has been widespread amongst political parties as it has been amongst the public. This is evident in our recent history. Our previous conservative government grappled with the issue and ended up signing the Kyoto protocol. They did not ratify it, but they signed it and by signing it they adopted the policy of acting on greenhouse gases. Ultimately they supported the policy of a cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme which is what we have in the bills before us. Labor came to power in 2007 promising action on climate change. Soon we were developing our cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme. This ETS, named the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, was supported by all of us on this side. Evidently it was also supported by the Australian public through most of the last parliamentary term. After being blocked by the oppositionist Greens, Liberals and Nationals in the Senate on three occasions, the CPRS was withdrawn. But its future as Labor policy, the future reintroduction of an emissions trading scheme, has never been in doubt and was never in doubt. When former Prime Minister Rudd announced that Labor recognised the Senate was hopelessly divided on the issue such that the bills would not pass in the foreseeable future, he said that the scheme would be delayed; in his words he would 'extend the implementation date', clearly not Labor's choice, but due to a hostile Senate. Labor has been the party of consistency on the issue of climate change. We have been the party of consistency on our need to deal with it meaningfully and our support for a cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme as the way to do it. This has been constant throughout Labor's two terms in office, from 2007 when Labor first formed government to now. There has been absolute consistency that we need a cap-and-trade ETS and that we will introduce a cap-and-trade ETS. Everyone has known this since at least early 2010. It has been a matter of when not if. It has been as clear as crystal. This has been the government's position and the position of all of us on this side of the House. Back in 2009, a number of constituents argued in support of the opinion expressed by a few high-ranking US officials who advocated for a flat-rate carbon tax instead of a cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme. Conservatives who do not want Labor in power argued for a flat-rate carbon tax principally because Labor opposed one. A carbon tax does not limit the volume of pollution. It has no cap on pollution. A cap-and-trade scheme does and a cap-and-trade scheme cap can be lowered over time to decrease emissions. This is a pretty fundamental and glaring difference between the two approaches. They could not be more dissimilar. We need Labor's plan, a scheme which caps emissions by use of a finite number of pollution permits which are decreased over time, to lower the cap on pollution and decrease the volume of pollution. The public's view of anthropogenic climate change has been with the government. Over the period 2006 to 2009, Morgan polled public support for action on global warming at around 60 to 70 per cent consistently and, in 2009, recognition of human contribution to global warming at 83 per cent. In 2009, a Nielsen poll showed 65 per cent support specifically for the CPRS. The 2011 Lowy Institute poll showed 81 per cent of the Australian public supported action on climate change: 40 per cent supported action at low cost and a further 41 per cent supported action even if it was at high cost. That is 81 per cent support for action. We all know the overwhelming economic advice that a cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme is the most low-cost, meaningful action that a government can take. There is 81 per cent support for the government's strategy. People may cite other numbers derived in response to other questions and other perceptions of consequence, but the fact remains that the Australian public has and continues to recognise that human induced climate change is an issue and we need to deal with it. The Australian public has supported this action. (Time expired) 18:36 Mr BILLSON 1K6 Dunkley It is an honour to stand before the parliament tonight and follow through on what I promised my electorate I would do. That was along with 148—maybe 147, if you want to argue the point—other members in this House, who all went to the last election promising that there would not be a carbon tax. I am happy to stand here tonight and honour my undertaking. I wish those opposite would do the same. In fact, my electorate and electorates right around Australia wish Labor members would actually do what they promised. They still have ringing in their ears the deceitful words of a Prime Minister who got elected by stooging the Australian public by promising, 'There will not a carbon tax under the government I lead'. The Prime Minister has rightly been attacked for making such a blatant and calculated statement so late in the election campaign and clearly motivated by the hesitation of many thousands of Australian voters who believed in their hearts that you could not quite take the Prime Minister at her word. After the backflip involving the abandonment of Kevin Rudd's climate tax arrangement and Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, people were not convinced—and we on this side of the House understood. That is why there were repeated challenges to the Gillard government, its ministers and the Prime Minister to be frank and straight with the Australian public about their intentions concerning a carbon tax. The Leader of the Opposition, I think at least a dozen times, highlighted what we understood was the secret agenda of the Labor Party and of Prime Minister Gillard and her ministers. That was to sneak in, slip-slide into office, hope that no-one really challenged them on their intentions with the carbon tax and go and do it anyway in the spirit of what Peter Garrett once outlined before the 2007 election—just get in, do what you need to do and then do whatever you feel like afterwards. That was the concern the Australian public had. So, staring down the barrel of a camera, just as I am doing now, the Prime Minister sought to reassure Australian voters that there would be no carbon tax under a government she would lead. That was designed to remove the hesitation that so many Australian voters had about what Labor was really planning, and because of that I am certain that numbers of voters in many electorates across Australia thought: 'Well, okay; that's as black-and-white as it gets. If that's what the Prime Minister of Australia, albeit one that has only just arrived, is going to say, staring down the lens of a camera, maybe we could take her at her word.' That proved not to be the case. So a government was formed, a Prime Minister was re-elected by one of the most calculated deceptions, which exercised a great democratic deficit— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 0V5 Order! The honourable member for Dunkley well knows that it is outside the standing orders—in particular standing order 90—for him to accuse the Prime Minister of a calculated deception. I require him to withdraw. Mr BILLSON 1K6 I thought 'lie' was the word, but I am not using that and I will withdraw if that language is too strong. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 0V5 It refers to imputations or improper motives. Have you withdrawn? Mr BILLSON 1K6 Yes, I have, and you are right, Mr Deputy Speaker; I was accusing the Prime Minister of improper motive. That was exactly my point, so if that offends the standing orders I do apologise, because that was precisely what I was doing. What happened after that reassurance? People voted, believing the Prime Minister. So a government was formed, and I must say that in this House of Representatives there are a number of Labor members who, on the basis of that reassurance, which has been proven not to be reliable, now sit in this place. There are elected Labor members here under false pretences, and the Australian public has not forgiven the Gillard government, the Prime Minister herself or, I would say, a number of the Labor members who went out to their electorates promising there would be no carbon tax under a government that the Prime Minister would lead. So I am here tonight speaking in support of the exact undertakings I gave my electorate prior to the election and during the campaign and I just wish the Labor members would do the same. What has happened with one of the most extraordinary, not even subtle, about-faces for political self-interest that I can remember is that it has really rattled and unsettled the Australian community, and it has really caused an enormous chill to run through the Australian small business community. This manoeuvring by the Gillard Labor government has been very poor in its creation, and I have touched on what I think was an extraordinary democratic deficit in the way in which it has been brought about. It is now being perpetrated with a conscious and intentional disregard of the impact of these actions on a very important part of the Australian community—that is, the small business community. Despite all of the carve outs and compensation arrangements that are touched upon and are a part of this bundle of bills that are before the House, the small business community has been completely ignored. More than two million small businesses and family enterprises will all face increased costs with no direct support, having been ignored by the Gillard Labor government. It is as clear as night following day and certain as to what the impact of this will be that the Gillard government is not on the side of small business, because if it were it would have factored small business's circumstances into its approach. Instead, despite a chorus of concern from the small business community about the added cost to its energy requirements and all of the inputs that will build and compound at every step and every stage of the production and supply service chain, no compensation in any direct sense has been provided to guard against the risk to jobs and small business viability that this carbon tax creates. People in my electorate, as they are right across Australia, are wondering why the government is prepared to risk their jobs just to try to secure their own—why the Prime Minister is trying to secure her position by risking the jobs of many hardworking Australians and the viability of small businesses and the livelihoods of people operating and managing them. This dismissive attitude reared its head just recently, quite remarkably, in the Hon. Greg Combet's speech to the Press Club. He sought to argue that there were a number of myths surrounding the debate about the carbon tax, and he chose particularly to say—and I think quite recklessly in the way he described it—that it was a myth that small businesses are in some kind of jeopardy from the carbon tax. He went on to describe how he thought that the cost impact on them would be modest, which I found quite a remarkable statement to make given that, while the government has done modelling on households solely for the purpose of assisting Labor MPs to sell this Labor policy in their electorates, no effort has been made to model the impact of a carbon tax on different sectors of the economy and particularly on small businesses and family enterprises. But despite that lack of any evidence, Minister Combet still sought to say to anybody who had done that work and arrived at conclusions that were unhelpful for the government that they were wrong and he was right. In fact, he went and distorted some of the material that had been provided to him by COSBOA, the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, who actually had been begging the minister to do some analysis on the impact of the carbon tax and provided some basic figures against which it hoped the government would do the work that it should have done long ago. Instead of using that material as an input to enable the government to get off its backside and actually do the work that it should have done a long time ago, Minister Combet waved that input data around as if it were the conclusion of some analysis and then said, 'Look, the impact was so minuscule, what are you worrying about?' But as if to be as insulting as he possibly could be, he went on to say: But the fundamental point is that the cost is modest— he is talking about the carbon tax, despite having no evidence to back that up— and that it can be passed on to customers as small businesses are typically not trade exposed. I found that a very fascinating statement. He is saying that it can be passed on to customers. These are very price-sensitive customers already groaning under increasing cost-of-living pressures that have been overseen by this government, but somehow those customers will be ready to soak up even more cost increases. But then he went on to make some of the most extraordinary statements I have ever heard. He said: A drycleaner is not competing against drycleaners in China. And: Drivers cannot get their cars serviced in India. What remarkable statements when, at the same time he is making those points, elsewhere in the same speech and in this place, and anywhere else where a Labor minister can get anywhere near a microphone, they talk about the power of the price signal in their carbon tax to reduce demand. The very purpose of a carbon tax is to put financial harm and hardship in the way of people hoping that they will consume less of what it is that the carbon tax will be applied to. He then basically says, 'Well, if you're in the dry-cleaning business, don't worry about it. Dry-cleaning won't be competing against drycleaners in China.' But the price signal will make sure that people think twice about taking their clothing or their household items to a drycleaner, because of the cost. Why? Because that is the design of the scheme. It is a price signal designed to reduce demand. Reduced demand means less work, less turnover, less activity for that small business drycleaner, yet the government seems to be completely indifferent or oblivious to that fact. In making his argument he is basically saying: 'Well, when it suits the government, the price signal of the carbon tax just doesn't apply, it just doesn't matter. Unless you are trade exposed, it doesn't matter.' He said: Drivers cannot get their cars serviced in India. But go and talk to any car maintenance and repair operation in Australia and they will tell you people are not getting their cars serviced. They will tell you they are not getting them converted to LPG, because they are concerned about what might come next from this government, given that when they look to the nation's capital they cannot see an adult in charge! They know that their turnover is dipping, their costs are going up, their commitments in rent and equipment continue, their inputs will be more expensive and their business viability is being placed at risk at a time of difficult economic circumstances—and yet you cannot get the government to give two hoots about those people. That is why you look at the impact of what the government is doing. You look at survey after survey where you see this incompetent government is hollowing out confidence. It is hollowing out people's expectations of future prosperity, future growth potential. And does the government care? No, because they then say, 'But look at the macroeconomic figures: we're at trend growth now.' They are happy to say that we are the envy of the rest of the world—that is the language you keep hearing—because we have got an absolutely boisterous and prosperous mining sector. Apparently the joy there wipes out any concern that might happen anywhere else in the economy. That is the government's basic defence: we have mining, therefore it doesn't matter how the rest of the economy is functioning. I will share with the government what is going on. In the retail area they are dealing with anxious consumers uncertain about what the government is on about and absolutely clear that the government is not confident about its own policies because it will not have them properly analysed. Consumers are saving money. In a country where Australian households ordinarily 'save', and I use that term in inverted commas, negative 0.5 per cent of their household income—that is, they extend their credit cards and their mortgages and their lines of finance to improve their standard of living—right now about $10.50 of every $100 a household earns is being saved. It is being saved because of the anxiety people have about this cost-of-living pressure that never seems to stop. The bills are getting bigger, the discretionary income is getting squeezed. They are cocooning against the impact of bad government policy, and we are debating a package of bills that could never be more totemic of a bad government policy. This is not about whether you want to take action on climate change; that debate has been had. Both sides of the parliament, just as they agreed there would be no carbon tax after the last election, committed to a five per cent reduction in emissions by 2020. The government's plan hurts and harms everybody, every business, every activity and every point of expenditure. Everywhere where energy is consumed or embedded in anything you might do at any time of the day, for as long as you could possibly imagine, will cost more. The hope is that it will hurt so much you will change your ways. Regardless of your capacity to change, regardless of your capacity or opportunity to adapt or to reduce your emissions, you will cop it anyway. The coalition's position is: why not work with those best placed to achieve abatements? Why not work with those able to reduce their emissions at least cost and provide some incentives for them to do so? So I say to this government: you stooged the electorate, but they are a wake-up to you guys. They know that you are not competent even at putting foil and fluff into the rooves of houses. How on earth can they have confidence in you implementing what your own side boasts will be a gargantuan change to the way we live and to our economy? And they think that you guys can get this right! I don't think so and many in the electorate don't. So I ask the government and the government members: why don't you do what you said you would do? Why don't you honour your promise to the Australian public? Why don't you make sure there is no carbon tax under the government the Prime Minister leads? (Time expired) 18:52 Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP SE4 Mackellar I am delighted to follow my colleague the shadow minister for small business who made such a strong and powerful contribution to this debate. It is disappointing that the Labor Party seems to have given up trying to defend its package of clean energy bills. Either the powers that be thought that their members were not up to the debate or they simply ran out of people who had something to say. But there is plenty to say about these bills. There is plenty to say about the carbon tax. I almost felt sorry for the Prime Minister today. She is so dejected because she knows she is for the chop. But I thought, 'No, the pity that I have must be for the Australian people because they are the ones who are to be punished by this legislation.' And punishment is what those opposite are about. The whole concept of compensation is that first you injure somebody and then you compensate them. This government says on its modelling—its wonderful modelling, which has still not been released and not been properly done on the $23 a tonne it is going to impose—it is going to injure the average family $9.90 a week. That is the extent of the damage it says the average family will suffer. So it is going to compensate for that damage $10.10 a week. Anybody who thinks that Treasury can accurately model down to the last 20c truly believes there are fairies at the bottom of the garden. Every year Treasury gets it wrong with the budget. The figures are always wrong. Six months later we bring in supplementary estimates to correct the errors that were committed in the budget. To believe that Treasury could say, 'We are going to injure you $9.90 and compensate you $10.10,' and get that right, as I said, is to believe there are fairies at the bottom of the garden. The injury that is going to be done to the country is because of the way in which Labor always goes about governing. When Paul Keating was defeated he left a debt behind of $96 billion. It took us 10 years to pay it off, but pay it off we did. We left the country in really good shape. We left a surplus of $20 billion. We had set up various trust funds. We had set up the Future Fund. Now I hear this government is even going to raid the Future Fund. Nothing is sacrosanct. Dr Mike Kelly HRI You know that's not true. Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP SE4 I know it is true. The fact of the matter is that it is in their DNA. It is usually tax and spend, but this time it is the other way round—it is spend and tax. We are now nearly $100 billion in debt again. That is net debt. It is getting close to $200 billion gross debt. When they took office the borrowing limit was $75 billion. It went up to $200 billion and it is headed for $250 billion. Instead of having a situation where we are in good shape to face what might be a second financial crisis in the world, the waste and pillage of that legacy that we left means they have left us vulnerable; hence, they want a new tax. But the problem is they cannot even get this one right. They say they are actually planning to spend $4.3 billion more than they are going to raise by the tax over the forward estimates. They going to bring $2.9 billion of that forward into this current financial year. Where are they going to find the money? They are going to borrow it. They are borrowing $135 million a day. That is why they want a great big new tax on everything—and it is a great big new tax on everything. It is a cascading and compounding tax, which will get into the nook and cranny of every individual's life. We remember with the GST when John Howard said there would never be a GST. He changed his mind. He took it to an election. He was elected and the GST replaced an abolished tax. The wholesale sales tax was abolished. The GST replaced that tax. The GST is a value added tax, which means that, although the tax is paid on every transaction between the origin of the good or service and its final consumption, it is refunded at every level so that only the final consumer actually pays the tax. But with this carbon tax, which is a tax on electricity, the tax will be paid at every transaction level and you will pay tax on the tax and a tax on the tax on the tax because it cascades and compounds so that the consumer pays a very high tax indeed. The way it works is this: the cheapest form of electricity you can have in the world bar none comes from coal fired power stations. Ninety per cent of power on the eastern seaboard comes from coal fired power stations, 80 per cent across Australia. The government is going to put a punitive levy, tariff, burden—call it what you will—on the market price of coal. The price the market has set, which is cheaper than anything else, will have an artificial impost on it to make it more expensive so that other forms of energy source can compete. That is distorting the market, not having a market price. It then means that electricity costs rise. Electricity touches everything we do, whether it is the clock ticking away leaving me a minute and a bit still to speak, whether it is the exit sign light over there, whether it is the trains that run, whether it is the sewerage system or whether it is our water system. Whatever it is, electricity drives it. That is the mark of a civilised society. This tax will be on everything that it does. Therefore the cost of food will rise because of the refrigeration costs and because of the costs of having trucks bring it. The Prime Minister has said there will be exemptions. There will not. Even the family car when you are filling up, which is supposed to not be affected, will be affected. What do they think keeps the lights on in the petrol station? How do you think you pump the fuel out of the tanks? Electricity. Everything will be touched and it impacts dramatically most on seniors. It does so because they are the people who are on fixed incomes. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 10142 ADJOURNMENT Breast Screening 10142 19:00 Mrs MARKUS E07 Macquarie I take great pleasure in advising the House of a wonderful outcome achieved for the local community in the electorate of Macquarie, an electorate that encompasses the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury. In February this year I stood in this place and introduced a petition signed by 2,274 wonderful people who wanted to raise awareness of the decision to remove access to critical health services. I speak of the removal of mobile breast-screening units in Richmond and Springwood. I was first alerted to the closure of the mobile service operating from Richmond and Springwood by a constituent who lives at Colo Heights. This constituent was unable, due to circumstances beyond her control, to make it to established clinics and as such the Richmond mobile breast unit was ideally located and easily accessible for her. I investigated why the service was removed and found that mobile services in places like Springwood and Richmond were removed in 2009 and replaced with screening units set up in select Myer department stores, with the closest units located at Blacktown, Penrith and Lithgow. All those locations require either public transport or access to a car, which seniors and carers do not always have. While that option may be suitable for some women, it certainly was unhelpful for others. Rises in the cost of living place additional pressure particularly on pensioners and women who are already fighting breast cancer. One in nine New South Wales women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in their lifetime. Many of us know someone who has been touched by cancer, whether it be a parent, a grandparent, a daughter or a friend. It is so important to make access to services such as breast screening easier rather than more difficult. The reason for removing the mobile-screening service was to cut costs. That decision clearly demonstrates how little value the then state Labor government placed on women's health. That is why I launched the petition urging the then government to return mobile breast-screening services to my local community. I would like to thank my local community in the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury for supporting that petition. Women, sons and husbands signed up and joined the fight. It was an issue that had to be fought for. Together with local women and their families we fought. I am able to say today that we did win. I am pleased to inform the House that the New South Wales Breast Cancer Institute has announced that mobile breast-screening services will be returned to Springwood and to the Hawkesbury. The announcement states that two new mobile vans with state-of-the-art digital mammography equipment have been designated to service Greater Western Sydney and the Blue Mountains. It is anticipated that the first van will be ready in November. It is scheduled to visit the Hawkesbury later this year. It will start visiting Springwood early in 2012 for an extended period. This is wonderful news for women who already have suffered from breast cancer and women of all ages who need to access this important service. This is an outstanding result and shows that the community can make a difference when it pulls together. I want to commend the decision to return the mobile breast-screening service. I thank all those who joined with me in making women's health across the Hawkesbury, the Blue Mountains and Greater Western Sydney a health priority. I also want to acknowledge the local media—namely, the Hawkesbury Gazetteand the Blue Mountains Gazette, which covered on a number of occasions the launch of the petition, the signing of the petition, my speech in parliament and the tabling of the petition. I also want to acknowledge the Penrith Star. These three local papers drew attention to this matter. They acknowledged the significance of women's health and in particular their fight to identify and gain treatment for breast cancer. I thank all the local community who signed the petition. This is truly a great result that I am able to announce tonight. Automotive Industry, Family Support Program 10143 19:05 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell Tonight I would like to speak about some very innovative manufacturing that has been developed in my electorate of Calwell. I was very pleased last Friday, 9 September, to represent the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator Kim Carr, at the announcement of a very significant funding boost to a local company based in Somerton in my electorate. Nexteer Australia has just received $63 million for its New Car Plan for a Greener Future project. Sixty-three million dollars is a significant investment in innovation and manufacturing. I am personally delighted that this project will deliver huge flow-on work opportunities. I am also very excited about what it could mean for my electorate of Calwell, especially since it is expected that this investment will result in the creation of about 670 jobs. The funding will be allocated over a three-year period and it will come from the government's Green Car Innovation Fund. Nexteer's project is geared to attract investment in new green technology and will support the creation of a new Melbourne manufacturing technical centre. The project will also be strengthened by an additional contribution from the Victorian state government. Nexteer's Managing Director, Greg Malone, told me he was very grateful to the government for affording the company the opportunity to support its innovation and growth plans. This is an excellent example of government investment and support in Australian innovation and manufacturing. During my meeting with Mr Malone he told me that Nexteer's project outline was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by developing electric power-steering systems, lightweight steering columns and driveline components that will make vehicles lighter and more fuel efficient. Nexteer has designed a sophisticated new technology in steering and driveline components which weigh about 21 per cent less than their conventional counterparts thereby saving more fuel, a feature that is very important in the development of the emerging green economy as it provides for energy efficient motor vehicles. This project also involves significant further innovation in the production of an Australian-made constant velocity joint that will be the first mass-produced product of its type in the world, and steering components made from advanced alloys. The electric power-steering system is cutting-edge technology. It is smart and practical and will improve fuel efficiency by about four per cent compared to traditional hydraulic systems. Most importantly, however, Nexteer's components will be manufactured by Australian workers here in Australia and exported to Europe, the United States, China, India and the Association of South-East Asian Nations. Mr Malone, the managing director of the company, said to me: We see the program being able to leverage manufacturing volumes to offer Australian Original Equipment Manufacturers world-competitive green products and technology through economies of scale. In short, Nexteer's project is exactly what the New Car Plan for a Greener Future is about. It is about attracting new investment in new green technology, and to date the Nexteer project is the largest investment a non-motor vehicle producer has received from the Green Car Innovation Fund. The funding is also one of the largest investments in the automotive supply chain in decades. In the bigger picture, Nexteer's project represents a $167 million co-investment and commercial vote of confidence in the local automotive supply chain. This new manufacturing capability will help Australia cement its place as a key supplier in a global network and it is estimated that about $2.1 billion will be pumped into the economy as result. This sets the future of manufacturing in Australia on a positive pathway and it is, as Minister Carr always says, 'A future worth fighting for.' The other issue I would like to talk about is the government's recent $8.7 million Family Support Program investment in my federal seat of Calwell. The funding will enable organisations to continue to provide the much-needed support programs in the electorate which positively impact the lives of residents. This funding will benefit the following organisations and service providers: Anglicare Victoria, Family Mediation Centre, MacKillop Family Services, Uniting Church Australia, Banksia Gardens Community Centre, Victorian Arabic Social Services, the Hume Council and the Brotherhood of St Laurence. (Time expired) Malta: Battle of Lepanto 10145 19:10 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson It may seem strange, but in my electorate of Dawson in North Queensland the historic European Battle of Lepanto takes a special significance 440 years after the battle itself. Six years before the battle on the island of Malta 600 Knights of St John commanding a force of 8,000 men prepared to defend Malta. The Turkish fleet was desperate to take the island of Malta, but they were repelled. The Knights of Malta would be called on again as part of the Holy League to prevent the Mediterranean becoming an uncontested highway for Ottoman forces. Had the Holy League failed at the Battle of Lepanto, the face of Europe would be very different from what it is today. At dawn on the morning of the battle, Pope Pius V and a handful of the faithful prayed the rosary and asked Our Lady to intercede for a Catholic victory. Prayers continued in Rome while the battle raged in the Gulf of Lepanto, ending in what some historians regard as the most decisive naval battle anywhere in the world since 31 BC. Pope Pius V created a feast day, Our Lady of Victories, or Our Lady of the Rosary as it is also known, to commemorate that victory. This feast enjoys a special place in the hearts of Maltese people as it is intrinsically bound up with the history of Malta. This feast, Our Lady of Victories, also enjoys a special place in the hearts of those in my electorate of Dawson. In the late 1800s, a shipload of Maltese migrants were indentured to work in the cane fields of North Queensland. As a result, the North Queensland city of Mackay has one of the largest Maltese populations in the world. Maltese families were attracted to Australia by migration campaigns urging many Europeans to try their luck in Australia. But it was not luck that was required to make it in Mackay in those early days. Clearing land and planting cane was hard work. Harvesting cane by hand was very hard work. But the Maltese people are tough, resilient and passionate. Just as they did at the Battle of Lepanto, they rolled up their sleeves and persevered with hard work until the job was done. Most laboured for sugarcane farmers, but they soon earned enough money to buy a farm and start a farm themselves, often in partnership with fellow countrymen. Such partnerships were formed in all kinds of business endeavours and the city of Mackay today is a result of the very strong Maltese influence. An active Mackay Maltese Club ensures continued celebration of the Maltese culture and influence on the region. The club has a new executive now, but I want to acknowledge the work of Carmel Baretta who was the first president of the club, someone who has served in the club for a long time. I had the very great pleasure of attending the Feast of Our Lady of Victories in Mackay on Friday, 9 September. It featured one of those spectacular processions with a statue of the Virgin Mary, of the kind you would witness somewhere in the Mediterranean, being taken through the streets in the Procession of the Rosary, followed by an open-air mass and a celebration dinner the next night. For everyday families living in Mackay there are strong reminders of our Maltese heritage. Maltese names are everywhere, from business names and street names to respected community leaders, from the Deputy Mayor of Mackay, Darryl Camilleri, to the head of the Mackay cane growers organisation, Paul Schembri. There are business names like Borg's Real Estate and Zarb Road Transport, and even sporting greats we know like the former North Queensland Cowboy Paul Galea, or 'Galare', as the commentators used to mispronounce it. We are constantly reminded of the hard work and dedication of our early pioneering families. We are also reminded of the unerring faith of the Maltese and the good works that flow from that faith with the presence of the Franciscan Sisters of the Heart of Jesus at St Francis of Assisi Aged Care Home. In closing, I would like to quote from a piece by the late Bishop of Sandhurst, the Most Reverend Joseph Grech, who had visited Mackay in years past to celebrate Our Lady of Victories. He wrote about Our Lady of Victories and the Maltese character: Our ancestors were not afraid to face any difficulty that came their way. They were always ready to adhere to their convictions even if that meant that they had to undergo much suffering and pain. Today, we might be living in another country, which has provided us with so many blessings and opportunities. However, deep inside us, there is still a heart that is formed and sustained by a history of bravery and faith. I am proud to report that that strength of character and faith is alive and well in Mackay and North Queensland is all the richer for the Maltese influence over more than a century. Holt Electorate: Citizens 10146 19:15 Mr BYRNE 008K0 Holt I rise tonight to again pay tribute to the indomitable spirit of the people of my electorate of Holt. One of the most rewarding aspects of being a member of parliament is meeting people from all walks of life and every strata of the community. One of the great things that is emphasised about the quintessential nature of that Australian spirit is when you go to a citizenship ceremony. I often attend a citizenship ceremony that is conducted by the City of Casey. In that citizenship ceremony you have people from every corner of the globe who are taking a step to becoming an Australian citizen. It is a very humbling experience to be there as a member of parliament. One thing that strikes me is that as part of the ceremony we hand out a plant which is invariably an Australian native. With that plant there is an Australian flag. On the Australian flag we have the stars of the Southern Cross. The fascinating thing about that when you hand it over to those that have taken the oath or affirmation is that regardless of where you are in Australia when you look up at the night sky and you look at the Southern Cross it does not matter who you are, where you have come from or what race, colour, creed you are, we are all equal under the stars of the Southern Cross. That is one of the defining features of the Australian spirit. I am no more important, none of us are more important than the people whom we serve in our electorates. I note that the press gallery is empty, it always is at this time of night when there is nothing controversial that we might say, but the fact is that I get more common sense and insight into where our country needs to go and what it needs to do by listening to the people who walk through my door. It does not matter where they come from or what they do. They have a right to articulate their views and their opinions. They are much more erudite and informed than many of the articles are that I read in the newspapers. I can tell you that much for a fact. We are closeted away in this place in Canberra, this place removed from the Australian people. John Button once famously said that we built this new house of parliament and in some cases pulled ourselves away from the Australian people. We should be more connected to them. I know that we have a lot of visitors that come through this place. Last week, my constituents came through my door and I sat there and I listened to them as they raised their visions, their hopes, their ambitions and their experiences. We talk about our lives and our lives get reported upon in this place. It is basically the fish and chip wrapping, if you want to use that term, for the next day's feed or whatever it is, but the key thing is that their lives are really important. Their lives so rarely get reported on. A gentleman called Ron Webb came into my office last week, a man of 74 years of age with tremendous life experience and great values. He may well be on the conservative divide of politics but I heard wisdom from Ron in the experiences that he shared with me and in the achievements of his life. He was saying: 'I have lived this life, I have done these things but there has been no-one to chronicle my existence. There has been no-one who knows what I have done and what I have achieved.' What disturbed me the most about this was that he did not feel—and he was talking about the community that he had been talking to—that we, collectively, listened enough. There is a great crisis of confidence in the body politic at the moment and in the way the Australian people view Australian politics. That is a problem for us all, believe you me. I do believe that we need to be more removed from this place, talk to people more and listen because, as I said, there is more common sense heard in talking to our electors than I dare say in reading the articles of many of those people that sit on the second level. Our electors are the people who should be heard more often in this place instead of the people we read about in the newspapers. Minister for Foreign Affairs 10147 19:20 Mr BRIGGS IYU Mayo I follow on from the contribution from the member for Holt. I think it was a worthy contribution and I congratulate him for it. One of the consistent things that I hear from my constituents is that they want us to treat the money that they work hard for, their taxpayers' money, with respect. It is our obligation to treat it with absolute and utter respect and to ensure that the very generous entitlements that we are given in this place are treated appropriately and that there is an oversight to it. Obviously, the members of the press gallery and the broader fourth estate do have a role in ensuring that that is the case. There have been many cases in recent times exposing examples where people have not been treating taxpayers' money appropriately but we have an important role here too. That is the issue that I wanted to talk about tonight. One of the roles that I have been asked to do by the Leader of the Opposition is to head up the Scrutiny of Government Committee on our side of the House. It is an important committee in opposition obviously to hold the government to account about the way that they spend their money. I think today there was a good example of where we can play an active role in ensuring that people know and are reminded that spending taxpayers' money has to be done prudently and within the rules and acceptably to the Australian general public. Obviously, in relation to travel, the use of travel entitlements and so forth are important for us to do our job but this also needs to be done in an appropriate manner. It was concerning when I got a freedom of information request back from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I think some of the travel and some of the expenses that the Minister for Foreign Affairs is racking up do raise questions about whether there would be a more prudent way to spend Australian taxpayers' money to effectively do the job. No doubt the foreign minister is well versed in foreign affairs and is doing the job as he sees fit; however, I think people would, rightly, be asking whether, in his first nine months as Australia's foreign minister, travelling more than the United States Secretary of State is appropriate and whether spending over $1 million is excessive. They might also question the priorities of the foreign minister in some of the visits that he has decided to go on. Obviously the foreign minister of Australia needs to travel. An important aspect of being the foreign minister is to engage in the world and represent Australia in the world. But, quite clearly, there are parts of the world which need, from an Australian foreign policy perspective, to be represented more than other parts of the world. I think there are reasonable questions to ask about the government's priorities when it comes to their choice of countries that the foreign minister is spending a lot of time in. Someone commented to me today, looking at the map that was outlined in the Daily Telegraph this morning, that the foreign minister seems to be spending more time in North Africa than Rommel did. There has been a lack of visits to important countries in our region. You will remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this time last year the Prime Minister announced there would be a processing centre for asylum seekers on East Timor. The East Timor government did not know anything about it but they were told they would have a processing centre; that is not now going ahead. But there has not been a visit from the foreign minister to that country. Obviously at the moment we are regularly debating a processing centre in Malaysia. I know some on the other side are very uncomfortable with the government's decision on this, and there have been some diplomatic discussions. The foreign minister has not visited Malaysia, according to the information that we have received. I would say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that, while it is important that the foreign minister travel and ensure that he is developing the links that are important for Australia's foreign affairs and trade arrangements, some of the trips in question do raise questions. He has made visits to Ethiopia, Switzerland, Turkey, Greece, Liechtenstein and Germany, rather than Malaysia and East Timor, or the South Pacific for that matter. Those are important countries in Australia's sphere of interest. The cost of this travel is also of concern. The hotels and accommodation that the foreign minister uses is of concern. The area that he is visiting is of concern. I think that the Australian people are starting to wonder whether it would be cheaper for them if the Australian Labor Party decided to make him Prime Minister once again. Jarman, Mr Robert, Building the Education Revolution Program 10148 19:25 Ms SAFFIN HVY Page I am here to talk about local issues, but I first want to make a factual correction. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has been to Timor-Leste. I had contact with him when he was there because he was with my old boss, President Jose Ramos-Horta. That is a correction—it is good to get your facts right when you come into this place. Mr Briggs IYU It's on the information that his department's released. Ms SAFFIN HVY Do some research if you want to get it right. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 0V5 Order! The honourable member for Page has the call. Ms SAFFIN HVY I could not help but hear it. Now I will go back to local issues. Mr Briggs IYU I don't think you're right, Janelle. Ms SAFFIN HVY I am right on that one. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 0V5 The honourable member for Mayo will cease interjecting. Ms SAFFIN HVY Back to local issues, I want to congratulate Bob Jarman from Kyogle, a previous dairy farmer, who has just been granted the New South Wales Landcare Australian Government Facilitator-Coordinator Award. Bob does wonderful work through Landcare and other key natural resources organisations in ways too numerous to detail. I want to put on record congratulations to Bob, who recently received his award. I want to talk about some of the good things that have been happening in my electorate, particularly with the BER and the recognition ceremonies I have been able to go to. I went to Kyogle High School. They got a science lab there, and it was just wonderful to see. The students were so excited; they got facilities they would never have otherwise got. That was through a combination of the BER science money and also the NSP program. I also went to St Brigid's Primary School in Kyogle. They got a wonderful new library, a new lift so that there is accessibility for the students, and much more. One of the things I have been finding when I have gone to these schools is that they have been able to get what the money was allocated for, but with really good builders and good design they were able to get a whole range of other things, additional benefits. I went to Lismore Heights Public School, where they got new classrooms, refurbishment and walkways. I know a lot of the schools were able to get the covered walkways to link up the classrooms around the school grounds. The Lismore Public School got new student amenities and associated works, classrooms, COLAs and refurbishment—it was just wonderful to see. St Mary's High School received a science BER project and because ag and primary industries is one of their subjects, with a strong focus on that because they are in a rural area, they have established St Mary's Earth Centre. It was lovely that I got to share in the recognition ceremony. Some of the students had just come back from the Brisbane Ekka, where they had been participating. South Grafton Public School got a wonderful new library plus a whole range of other benefits. Albert Park Public School in Lismore got a fabulous new library, and they were also able to turn a space into a real performing arts area. That was of great excitement to the students, the teachers and the principal. Just recently I was at Iluka Public School and joined the previous P&C president, the principal, the teachers, the students and some locals to participate in the opening of their library, which has a retractable door in the middle, where they can also get a new classroom, a walkway and then some. There have been comments about the BER, particularly from the other side, and yet I am still looking for the ones I hear talked about, because they are certainly not in my electorate. As I go around, principals make the comment that this has never happened and it is a wonderful thing. It did two things: it gave our schools first-class facilities and it also put money into the local economy. It made a huge difference, and we are the envy of the world for where our economy is situated. The stimulus really did the job that it was intended to do, particularly through our schools. One other thing recently: the Hon. Minister Crean joined me in Casino, and we opened the Casino Cultural Centre. (Time expired) Clean Energy Future Legislation 10150 19:30 WYATT ROY M2X Longman Yesterday the Labor government introduced 18 bills that will give effect to the introduction of the carbon tax from 1 July 2011. The introduction of the bills to this House represents a breach of trust and wilful disregard for the Australian people. The bills represent a major change in this nation—one where the Australian people have been denied their fundamental right to have a say. Since the Prime Minister announced that there would be a carbon tax in February of this year in direct contravention of her promise just days before the last election, my office has been inundated with concerns about the tax and the effect that it will have on families and local businesses. Unlike this Labor government, the coalition has been listening to the forgotten Australians about their views on the carbon tax. My friend and colleague the Leader of the Opposition joined me last week in Longman to hear the views of people in our community about the carbon tax. Over 200 people arrived to take up the opportunity to speak directly with the alternative Prime Minister. Even after all the taxpayer funded advertising and announcements this government has had, it was clear from the questions asked at the forum that the people of my community continue to be unsure about what this tax will mean for them. They simply do not trust the Labor government when it tells them they will not be worse off. They do not trust a Prime Minister who promised there would not be a carbon tax under the government she led. When the government sent out its glossy brochures with patronising words about how everything would be okay after this tax was introduced, hundreds of people in Longman simply threw them out, left them unopened or dropped them off in my office unopened. I have a mountain of them in my office. Hundreds of people have signed the anti-carbon-tax petition. But still the government will not listen. There are, however, two things that the people of Longman are clear about: that the cost of living will go up and up and up for families and that they have been denied their fundamental right to have a say on a reform that is going to have a major negative impact on Australia's economy. My community is not wealthy. It is made up of hardworking Australians who have the aspirations that Australians have shared throughout history: being rewarded for hard work, building a better future for their kids and simply trying to get ahead in life. But with the spiralling cost of living that most people in Longman are experiencing they cannot be confident they are going to be rewarded for their efforts or that they are going to be able to leave a more prosperous future for their families. A mother of five children stood up at the forum to address the Leader of the Opposition. Although she was not an avid follower of politics—she said, 'I am still in the land of babies and nappies'—she urged politicians to be mindful of the impact that their decisions had on her and her family. She said that Canberra had to understand that decisions made here had a big impact on her family. This is the basic truth that the Labor Party have forgotten. A pensioner stood up and said his life was getting harder and harder and the cost of living just kept increasing. He was concerned because he was already living week to week on his pension and was very worried about what it would mean when the carbon tax was introduced and electricity prices inevitably went up. When I ran for parliament I said I wanted to give the locals in my community a direct voice with the key decision makers in Canberra. I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for directly listening to the concerns of the locals. While the Labor Party is walking away from the people they claim to represent, we in the coalition are keen to hear the views of Australians. In my community they are telling us loud and clear that they do not want this tax. I am yet to have one business owner tell me that a carbon tax is going to inspire confidence in the marketplace, make their business thrive and prosper and make it easier for them to employ people. They are worried about what it will mean for their families and they are worried that increasing costs will drive their already struggling businesses to the wall. My community was grateful that the Leader of the Opposition took the time to listen. This Labor government should listen as well, and members opposite should be true representatives of their communities and say no to this tax. Johnston, Mr Elliott, QC 10151 19:35 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin On the night of 25 August 2011, Australia lost a lifelong activist for social justice with the death of Elliott Johnston QC. He was 93 years of age, but the remarkable part of his longevity was his unwavering commitment to the end to a just and fair society and the defence of the disadvantaged. Committed to the ideals of communism and a long-time member of the Communist Party of Australia, he only resigned as a party member to take up his appointment to the bench of the Supreme Court of South Australia in 1983. Within Australia communism was anything but a prestigious political brand, well highlighted during the controversy surrounding Elliott's long-overdue appointment as a QC by the Dunstan government in 1970. Strongly supported by prominent members of South Australia's legal fraternity at the time, Elliott became Australia's only active Communist Party member to be appointed a Queen's Council. But Elliott's intellectual rigour, practical involvement in the struggles of ordinary people and concern for humanity's future on a planet under stress left little space for fashionable politics. His adherence to socialist ideals and aspirations, with their potential for equality and fairness through the elimination of suffering, almost seemed naive in the prevailing pro-profit productive practices that still govern global political and economic decisions despite their proven social and environmental destructiveness. Elliott was no shiraz socialist. He served Australia in New Guinea during World War II, rising to the rank of lieutenant. In 1942 Elliott married his wife Elizabeth, whom he had met three years earlier at Adelaide University. Their home in Adelaide became the venue for many meetings. Elizabeth, who died in 2002, was also a prominent activist in her own right and, amongst other things, had been a lawyer, former union leader and the chair of South Australia's first Sex Discrimination Board. Elliott was troubled deeply by the continued influence of corporations whose collective wealth dwarfed that of governments. For Elliott, the current financial crisis was the latest display of how the concentration of capital was being used to further extract money from the less well off through higher living costs and speculative investments. Nor was he persuaded by the shallow politics of law and order, and he remained sensitive to the penetrating violence from increasing social and economic disparity. In 1975, Elliott was appointed as one of three commissioners on the Laverton royal commission inquiry into Aboriginal arrests following clashes with police at Laverton and Skull Creek in December 1974 and January 1975. However, it was through his work and conclusion of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody that he came to national prominence. After the resignation of Jim Muirhead, he became the inquiry's lead commissioner and delivered its report in 1991. The report's 339 recommendations remain important reference points in improving the lives of Aboriginal Australians. Elliott's brilliant legal mind and calm and courteous mannerisms won him the admiration and respect of the legal fraternity. Some may wonder at the widespread public regard for Elliott Johnston given his avowed communist values. However, they will have missed the point, for the regard and admiration was not despite those values but because of them. Elliott was generous in his pro bono work and very early in his career was recognised as a friend to workers and a steadfast supporter of Indigenous Australians, becoming the first Chairperson of the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement. His practical support and encouragement was devoid of any paternalism or superficial compassion and he was genuinely alert to the opportunity and need to learn from those he helped. It was not uncommon for this engagement to result in lasting relationships. Astute observers of his keen curiosity about the lives of others would have seen ingrained in his approach the belief that overcoming the individual's hardship was also the way to elevating the community and improving civil society. In more recent years Elliott's principles and values were further reflected in his belief in the need for urgent action on climate change. Weeks before his death, in a memo to the editorial chairman of his beloved journal, Australian Options, he urged for greater action to set up renewable energy sources, arguing that CO2 had a major effect on climate change. In 1994, Elliott was awarded the Order of Australia. Five minutes cannot do justice to the life of Elliott Johnston. However, his life was superbly documented by Penelope Dobelle in her biography of him titled Red Silk. The biography was completed and launched earlier this year. It is a personal regret that I was not able to attend his book launch or his 90th birthday because of my parliamentary commitments in this place. On Friday, 9 September hundreds of people from all walks of life filled Elder Hall at Adelaide University where a memorial service was held to farewell Elliott. It was a fitting recognition to the extraordinary life of a working-class hero, a unique individual, a legal legend and a great Australian. To his son Stewart, partner Janet and their family, I extend my sincere condolences. Economy 10152 19:40 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins This week is a week of anniversaries and sombre reflection. Tonight I speak about another event that sent shock waves around the world and changed the financial world as we know it: the collapse of Lehman Brothers on Wall Street three years ago, an event that has become synonymous with the global financial crisis. Fast forward to today. The European debt crisis is spreading like a modern-day economic plague, enveloping countries like Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain with speculation mounting about a Greek default. Global uncertainty is the only certainty. George Soros has recently warned that the European debt problem has the potential to be a lot worse than Lehman Brothers. It is timely to reflect on the lessons that we should learn from our response to the GFC here in Australia. As Sir Winston Churchill was fond of saying, 'Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.' While Treasurer Wayne Swan is quick to talk up his economic credentials, contrasting Australia's economic performance relative to that of our peers in coming through the GFC, he fails to understand why we got through the GFC as we did. In failing to understand this, our ability to deal with a potential GFC mark 2 is severely diminished. There were other, very important structural reasons why Australia came through the GFC. I believe in giving credit where credit is due. It was the Hawke-Keating government which floated the dollar, allowing our exchange rate to dive at the end of 2008 to support our export industries, and there was bipartisan support for a wholesale funding guarantee for our banking system and for retail deposits in the dark days after Lehman Brothers collapsed. But it was the hard work of the Howard-Costello government in paying off Labor's $96 billion debt and investing in the Future Fund that meant the national balance sheet was strong enough to support those contingent liabilities. It was the coalition's regulatory reform agenda that struck the right balance between regulation and flexible markets. We introduced a dedicated prudential regulator, in APRA, which conducted regular stress tests on the banks. We reformed the Corporations Act to facilitate faster and more efficient capital raisings. Our FSR reforms, while not perfect, stood in the way of a US style subprime mortgage market emerging. A long history of stable coalition government and mature policy making gave international investors confidence and reduced foreign capital outflows. Our tax reforms improved budgetary stability during a volatile period. We left the country with a $20 billion surplus. It was the Howard-Costello government that enshrined the independence of the Reserve Bank of Australia, with the RBA ensuring that our economy did not overheat pre-GFC. What is more, our RBA was able to deliver a huge stimulus directly into the economy because most Australian mortgages are floating rate. Finally, the coalition ensured that we maintained and nurtured diversified trading relationships, including with China, whose massive stimulus spending underpinned the Australian budget. In contrast, Treasurer Swan would have the Australian people believe that we saw off the GFC with an indiscriminate spend on pink batts, BER blowouts and $900 cheques. If only it were that easy. That is what is so worrying. This government thinks it can spend its way out of trouble. If only it were about borrowing and spending. Perhaps that is why we read reports this week that the government has plans to raid the Future Fund, to rob future generations of Australians through a smash-and-grab raid today to try and paper over its incompetent economic management during a time when we are experiencing historically high terms of trade. To deliver a surplus by stealing from the Future Fund would be another broken promise and set a terribly dangerous precedent. The size, scale and spend of this government's stimulus package was wrong, and you do not need to take my word for it; you can listen to the advice of the Australian National University economic historian, Selwyn Cornish, who was quoted in the Australian: As it turns out, there was too much fiscal stimulus—there's even too much fiscal stimulus now. I think (the RBA) did what it had to do extremely well and the problem at the present time is not with monetary policy, it's with fiscal policy. University of Melbourne economist John Freebairn was quoted: … the fiscal stimulus was more than was needed and went on for too long. We have an opportunity in Australia to grow the economic pie; we should be doing much better than we are. We have the capacity to be a world-beating financial services hub, but to do that we need a government that can set aside the spin and understand Australian exceptionalism compared to the rest of the world during the GFC. (Time expired) Vibe Alive Festival 10154 19:46 Mr MELHAM 4T4 Banks I rise to commend the government for its ongoing support for the Vibe Alive Festival. Funding this year was provided from the Community Festivals for Education Engagement program for regional, rural and remote locations. The aim of community festivals is to promote a greater understanding of the value of education and to encourage students, particularly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, to stay in school, to complete year 12 and to live healthy, positive lifestyles. In 2011 Vibe Australia has produced a Vibe Alive two-day festival event in Moree for young Australians of all backgrounds to promote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures and to encourage tolerance and teamwork. Two more events were held in Port Augusta and Kalgoorlie. Vibe Alive incorporates music, sport, dance and art in a high-energy, youth-friendly setting. Participants also have the opportunity to meet inspiring role models, to learn about healthy living and career options and to boost English literacy and numeracy skills. All of Vibe's products promote a healthy lifestyle free from drug abuse and alcohol misuse. All Vibe events are smoke-free and all Vibe products encourage the completion of a full secondary education. Vibe Australia is also committed to increasing training and employment opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and to encouraging all young Australians to reach their full potential. Vibe Alive gives our young people the opportunity to demonstrate what they are good at, whether it is singing, dancing, sport or to display another hidden talent hitherto undemonstrated. In Moree over 30 schools registered for the event, and an estimated 1,500 people attended. The festival showcases major Indigenous talents and role models for the students. This year Australian singer-songwriter Nathan Foley cohosted the event, along with actor Luke Carroll. Mr Foley said that Vibe Alive is all about getting active. He said: It’s about getting kids up and out of the house and away from the TV and video games. It is about movement and getting the blood pumping through sports and other activities. It's also a great way to meet new mates. This year saw Little Vibe, which is a special program to give young people in early primary school the full festival experience. It was hosted by performer and choreographer Gail Mabo, and Courtney Walter. This year, Moree Vibe Alive included students from the Schools Spectacular Aboriginal Dance Ensemble, which fosters the development of talented Aboriginal students in dance and provides performance opportunities to encourage the pursuit of excellence in this art form. The ensemble operates in partnership with the Bangarra Dance Theatre, Australia's premier Indigenous performing arts company. A student from Sir Joseph Banks High School in Revesby in my electorate, Chris Bond, was one of the participants in the ensemble this year. Chris is just 14 years old and I am advised that he is the youngest to participate in the ensemble. Selection to the ensemble is no mean feat, and Chris is remarkably talented to succeed in performing with them. This week he is dancing at the New South Wales State Dance Festival, and it is worth quoting from their website: The culmination of hours and hours of technical training, stamina, creativity, confidence, cooperation and respect for one another, fostered by their dedicated and talented teachers … …      …   … Each performance unveils the determination of students and teachers to explore the art of choreography and to achieve performances of the highest quality. Later in the year Chris will be performing in the Schools Spectacular. I sincerely congratulate Chris for his success to date and for his future. There is no doubt he is incredibly talented. This is what we should be doing as a nation: encouraging these young people, particularly Indigenous people, and giving them every opportunity on the way through. It creates a positive environment for them, and they in turn become role models for successive young people as they come through. It is about working with Indigenous people. It is not a missionary approach; it is about letting them build on their talents and the creation of that opportunity. I commend the Vibe Alive Festival to the parliament. I think it has produced some good results, and it is worthy of ongoing support. Youth Allowance 10155 19:51 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I rise tonight to congratulate the students of south-west Victoria and western Victoria for the campaign they have led to get the unfair changes that were made to the independent youth allowance in 2009 overturned. It is a fantastic day today for those students because Minister Evans has finally taken the action which Prime Minister Gillard would not do, admitted that the government got this wrong, and has gone back to the old policy. I still remember clearly attending a function in 2009 which had been organised by the South West Local Learning and Employment Network in Warrnambool in my electorate to oppose the changes which Prime Minister Gillard, as the then education minister, was putting through the House. Everyone who spoke that day at that meeting knew what was happening: the government was making budget savings at the expense of regional students. And oh, how this proved to be true; sadly, it proved to be true. Based on the figures that we have today, it would seem that, sadly, of the 2009 and 2010 cohorts, who missed out on being able to access independent youth allowance in regional areas, there are some 3,000 students who have been disadvantaged, who have been left in limbo and who have not been given the opportunity to afford a tertiary education. I would like to say to Senator Evans: congratulations on doing what the Prime Minister was not able to do, which is to admit that there was an injustice, admit that young country students were suffering as a result of the changes and go back to the system as it was in 2009. Senator Evans is to be applauded for having done that. I hope also that the government in time will recognise the damage that has been done to over 3,000 students in that period and recognise that something needs to be done to help those students access a tertiary education, because they were not able to afford to do it in 2009 and 2010. I would now also like to lay down a challenge for the government and for all of us in this House, because we have wasted two years in having to debate and get overturned a policy decision which was made and which was palpably wrong. But we now have some real work to do, because in country areas, for students accessing tertiary education, the gap between them and their city cousins is still continuing to grow, and we collectively need to do something about it. This is a problem that we all need to put our heads together on to come up with some policies which will not only reverse the trend but take some action and work to see the gap decrease. What we should have is a number of people from regional and country areas accessing tertiary education similar to the number in the city areas. If we can achieve that, we will have achieved something. The changes which were made by Prime Minister Gillard as Minister for Education in 2009 did not do that, and the announcement made today by Senator Evans acknowledges that. He has come in and cleaned up the mess that was made in 2009. With that behind us, I am hoping that we can all now put our heads together and work to have policies which will in a meaningful way start to address the gap. I applaud Toni Jenkins from the South West Local Learning and Employment Network, who has been fighting to see this happen. I hope that the coalition will be able to take a policy to the next election which will see this happen, and I hope that everyone on the other side of the chamber will be able to do the same. We have taken one small step to reverse a wrong. Let us now make sure that we go ahead and address the real problem. (Time expired) Electricity Prices 10156 19:56 Mr OAKESHOTT IYS Lyne Mr Speaker, before I begin I congratulate you for your role in the chair today. It was an important statement that you made. On 29 March this year, Professor Ross Garnaut identified some issues in his Transforming the electricity sector through the process of pricing carbon. He said: The recent electricity price increases have mainly been driven by increases in the costs of transmission and distribution. There is a prima facie case that weaknesses in the regulatory framework have led to overinvestment in networks and unnecessarily high prices for consumers. The upcoming review of regulatory arrangements by the Australian Energy Regulator presents an opportunity to correct distortions in current regulations. Attached to that work was a startling graph that every Australian concerned about electricity price rises should see. It identifies that 68 per cent of that electricity bill is from increased investment in electricity networks—the poles and wires—to replace ageing assets and meet rising demand and, as has also been identified, to promote a failing market and the super profits of state based monopolies. State based monopolies with fixed rates of return on pole and wire infrastructure are continuing to lead to record prices on local electricity bills. Electricity bills on the mid North Coast of New South Wales are increasing again this year, by 18.1 per cent, even with a change of government in New South Wales. The increase was approved by the Liberal and National parties. This brings the cumulative price rises since 2007 to a staggering 76 per cent in this one utility alone. This is on the back of the new New South Wales government's approval of IPART recommendations for what I consider to be a ridiculous price rise. This latest rise again highlights the failures in the existing regulatory system, as identified by Professor Garnaut, and is delivering to New South Wales consumers the steepest electricity price rise in New South Wales history. Those who attended public forums at Port Macquarie and Taree were given an insight by Professor Garnaut into these market failures in state controlled monopolies. The truth is that failing regulation of the network and transmission infrastructure, the so-called poles and wires, has been the standout offender, particularly in New South Wales. The electricity network infrastructure spend was about $9 billion a year nationally, or $25 million a day, which is 2½ times the spend on the so-called infrastructure project of our time, the National Broadband Network. A monopoly with a fixed rate of return has no risk and will lead to unnecessary spending at taxpayers' expense, and what we are now seeing is exactly this: a record investment boom in poles and wires that is more focused on making money for state governments than on distributing electricity. Both major parties are complicit in this rip-off of taxpayers, and both need to start to explain their contributions to these cost-of-living pressures. This inappropriate network infrastructure spending of recent years has placed mid North Coast households and small businesses under tremendous pressure. The time has come to do things differently, and a change to the regulatory environment of the electricity sector—such as a better appeals process on rate of return decisions—is essential. Successive state governments have endorsed recent IPART decisions heavily impacting on households and small businesses, and I would urge the state government of New South Wales, the ACCC and the Australian Energy Regulator to win this fight. The SPEAKER HH4 Order! It being approximately 8 pm, the debate is interrupted. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 10157 NOTICES

Wednesday, 14 September 2011

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper) took the chair at 09:30.

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 10158 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Sansom, Mr Gary, AM 10158 09:30 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright This morning I rise to extend my congratulations and sincerest gratitude for the work that Gary Sansom, a member of my electorate, has put into the Queensland Farmers' Federation over the last two decades. Gary was at the table for the formation of the Queensland Farmers' Federation in 1992. The Queensland Farmers' Federation unites 16 of Queensland's peak rural industry organisations who collectively represent more than 13,000 primary industry producers across the state. Queensland Farmers' Federation is a federation of the major rural commodities organisations and value-adders working on behalf of all primary producers and rural communities. A humble man, Gary has received many accolades for his achievements. Some of those are: President of the Queensland Chicken Growers Association 1992 to 2010, and prior to that he was the vice-president from 1985-1992. He is currently also the co-vice-president. He was president of the Australian Chicken Growers Council, president of the Australian Chicken Meat Federation. He was a member of the Chicken Meat Industry Committee and Chairman of Farmsafe Queensland since 2004. He was also awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia for his contribution to the development of sustainable agriculture practices and promoting environmental and biosecurity management systems within the chicken industry. He has been awarded the prestigious Noel Milne Queensland Poultry Award, which recognises persons who have made significant contributions to the poultry industry. In addition to these outstanding achievements and being the recipient of many awards of notoriety, Gary has played an incredible role in making the Queensland Farmers' Federation the well-respected and functional organisation that it is. He has made an outstanding contribution to the organisation, its people and to the rural policy of Queensland. Gary is standing down from that organisation but will be staying on as a director. I spoke to Gary this morning and I asked him about his outstanding achievements in the last couple of decades. He alluded to his contributions to food policy and agricultural policy in Queensland and Australia, and he was still robust and upbeat about the positive outlook for the future of the industry. Whilst he is standing down as president, he will still remain as a working director concentrating on biosecurity issues. I would also like to acknowledge his wife Julie Sansom, who has been a pillar of strength to Gary while he pursued rigorously the interests of the state's farming communities. As mentioned, Julie has continued to maintain the family operations and deserves praise for her contribution to Gary's achievements. Having visited their family operations this time last year, I can say that they run a first-class facility. Deakin Electorate: Ringwood Heights Primary School 10158 09:33 Mr SYMON HW8 Deakin I recently had the great pleasure of attending the opening of the new P21 buildings that have been put up at Ringwood Heights Primary School in my electorate and I would like to say few words about that today. The project that was undertaken by Ringwood Heights is what is known locally as a Maroondah template, and it broke away from the state government templates that are used in so many schools in Victoria. By doing that, many schools in Maroondah were able to upsize and get a larger building that actually suited the school. In the case of Ringwood Heights, as is the case with many schools in my electorate, the school was built about 50 years ago and had no indoor assembly area. I have been to many assemblies at that school outside or half-assemblies in a crammed room with just a couple of grades. It just simply does not work. The school now has a brand-new building and a full-size basketball court that already has an arrangement with the local basketball club to use after hours. It is a great facility for the school not only, as I say, for after hours but especially during hours. Nearly 270 children attend Ringwood Heights, and it is a school that needs a lot more work done on it. Again, that is very common to schools in my part of Melbourne. They are great schools, especially on the inside, but a lot of them need more work on the outside. With a facility such as it has now, of course, it tends to attract more investment. I certainly encourage the state government to put more money into Ringwood Heights. I know they are putting a little bit in, but it certainly needs a lot more. I would like to say a special thanks to the principal of Ringwood Heights, Mr Randall Vague. Without his input, I do not think the schools project would have got off the ground and nor would the Maroondah template itself. He was one of a group of principals who worked with me and the eastern metropolitan region and the Victorian Department of Education and Early Childhood Development to achieve this. The result certainly speaks for itself. There are buildings that look the same elsewhere because they are from the Maroondah template. It is only one of 10 in the entire state. Eight of those are in or around the electorate of Deakin. It does reflect so well, as I said, on the school. I would also like to say thanks to the architect involved, Mr Andrew Costa, and the building firm, W P Contractors, who did just about all the template buildings under the Maroondah template. I would also like to recognise Mr Geoff Flett, the regional network leader for Maroondah, for his contribution to getting that Maroondah template up and working for our local community. Mental Health 10159 09:36 Mr BRIGGS IYU Mayo I wanted to talk this morning briefly about an initiative, run very much for the needs of the community, by the Victor Harbor High School and the Victor Harbor medical centre. They are working in conjunction on what I think is a tremendous project to assist young people with their mental health issues on the south coast of South Australia in my electorate of Mayo. It is called the 'DOC on campus' model and it was initiated by a local general practitioner, Dr Anke Doley, in conjunction with the local school and in particular with Mr Colin Sibley. They got together because of what they perceived as a genuine need for support for young adolescents going through their later years of high school in regional areas. We know that regional people and particularly regional young people are overrepresented in suicide statistics and in having mental health issues. This was somewhere where they saw a problem and they created an early intervention program for mental health issues identified by school counsellors at the schools to manage a caseload of needy students who were confronted with complex emotional health and wellbeing issues—depression, anxiety, self-harm and suicidal tendencies, drug and alcohol issues, anger, grief and eating disorders—which required an additional level of support. I think it is a great example where the school community itself in conjunction with the broader community is driving a response to a genuine need. It shows the importance of investing in communities. The government does not always have the answers. What government should do is support these community programs when they are developed. It is working very successfully. Since the program was first initiated in 2004, there have been over 200 secondary school students who have accessed the adolescent mental health program at the Victor Harbor High School. According to the school, the program has provided a student-friendly service for early detection and intervention which has contributed to student health and wellbeing and a decrease in the incidence of mental health issues in early adulthood after students leave school. Again I say that in my area, a regional part of South Australia, there is an overrepresentation in the statistics of young people suffering from mental health issues. I have visited this program on a couple of occasions. I pay tribute to Colin Sibley, Peter Crawford, the principal at Victor Harbor high school, and Dr Anke Doley because they are driving this program. It is having a genuine benefit for people and it is something that we should look to support in this place. Caroline Chisholm Awards 10160 09:39 Ms BURKE 83S Chisholm On Saturday I had the privilege of hosting the 10th anniversary of the Caroline Chisholm Awards. The Caroline Chisholm Awards are an initiative I initiated—10 years ago, obviously!— to recognise the volunteers in my electorate. It was the International Year of Volunteers back then and I thought this would be a terrific way of recognising Caroline Chisholm. Obviously a phenomenal volunteer of her time, she was the 'immigrants' friend'. As I like to say at the ceremonies, the woman was remarkable. The work she did for so many was the actual birth of our nation. She worked predominantly to help women who had arrived in the country to find either husband or a job, because both would lead to financial stability. She also had nine children, which was a remarkable effort. She died in abject poverty, and we do not really recognise her any more. I use the awards to recognise both her contribution and the contributions of those in my community. After 10 years we thought we might not get nominations again; we were flooded with them. I have a committee that chooses the recipients, so it is not just down to me. I thank, as always, Norm Gibbs, who is the backbone of this event. He organises it, chooses the recipients and acts as MC for me on the day. I thank also Joy Banerji and Keyur Kelkar, who go through all the awards. On the day, we recognised many people. I can name only a few: Brenda Gabe was one of them. Unfortunately, Brenda died earlier this year. She suffered from MS and had done so much from our community. When she got MS she decided she could be ill or she could do something with it—she did an amazing amount with it. Her husband said on the day: 'It gave her many more years of life by being active in the community.' George Haitidis, who said to me he was mortified about being recognised publicly, is the backbone of the SES locally. Although we are a metro area, the amazing effort of the Waverley unit of the VICSES—George is the unit controller—last year contributed 9,666 volunteering hours to my community. A lot of that was during floods during the year. David McMurdie is another amazing character. We have now put David up twice for an Australia Day award, and twice he has been knocked back. David has for 40 years volunteered in the service of social justice through Community Aid Abroad and Oxfam Australia. He runs the local Oxfam group, raising literally thousands of dollars each year. He has spent many years travelling at his own expense to Africa to assist in Community Aid Abroad activities and he has also supported an enormous range of Sudanese people coming to Australia. John Robinson has been the backbone of his local St Vincent de Paul, as well as having seven children, 27 grandchildren and 15 great-grandchildren, many of whom came on Saturday to see Pop get his award. Ronald Sanday is an amazing person. We have never had so many people write to nominate one individual for an award. He was nominated because he is such an amazing good neighbour. He mows peoples' lawns, he cooks meals and he takes people shopping. He is 82 years of age, and he has been doing this for centuries. People say community is dead; I say it is alive and well, and the Caroline Chisholm Awards demonstrate this. Melbourne Electorate: Employment 10161 09:42 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I rise to talk about the significant issues of unemployment and underemployment in parts of my electorate. At the same time that we hear regular talk about a skills shortage and a need to bring people in from overseas to work on projects—often for a very short period of time, after which they will leave and take their skills with them—we have in this country a significant wealth of talent that goes continually unrecognised and underutilised. I am talking about the people and their families who have come here on various forms of humanitarian visas or family reunion programs who want to work and who want to contribute to Australian society, but who are far too often denied that opportunity. At the same time a year or so ago that the unemployment rate officially across the country was around 4.9 per cent, Department of Immigration and Citizenship research suggested that amongst the people I am talking about, those who have come here in the refugee streams and their families, the official unemployment rate was around 12 per cent—more than twice as much. The reality is, I think, that it is much higher. I was at a public housing estate in my electorate last week where the coordinator of the neighbourhood house told me that the unemployment rate on that estate was 88 per cent; 12 per cent was not the unemployment rate it was the employment rate. This is an estate where there are many people who have come here from other countries. It is not just unemployment; it is underemployment. The research also shows that if you come here from a non-English-speaking background and have a tertiary degree you are more than twice as likely than an English-speaking counterpart to find yourself in a low-skilled job. What does that mean in human terms? According to the Somali Association of Victoria, which I met with recently, there are in Melbourne nine doctors and one jumbo jet pilot from Somalia who are driving taxis because they are unable to find employment that recognises the level of their skills. If you get in a taxi in Melbourne you might be driven around by someone who could be piloting a jumbo jet. This work is not necessarily meaningful and, as the African Think Tank has shown, it has a flow-on effect for kids. If kids look at their parents and say, 'You did all this study and you can't find a meaningful job. Why should I bother?' it encourages a cycle of unemployment. We are also finding in the electorate of Melbourne that some of these kids who have grown up here, have gone on to university and then seek employment, when an employer sees an African name on the application, or sees them turn up in a hijab, they find themselves not progressed for an interview. This does need to stop. Government needs to take action. I am looking forward to holding a roundtable in November in my electorate and bringing together community groups and service providers to see what we can do to tackle this problem at a local level. Paterson Electorate: Digital Television 10162 09:45 Mr BALDWIN LL6 Paterson I rise to speak yet again on the matter of poor digital television reception in many parts of my electorate of Paterson. I have continually called on the government to deal with this problem and, despite numerous attempts to convey the urgency of this matter to the minister, the government has been asleep at the wheel and has failed to respond to this serious matter. In recent weeks as the warmer weather has arrived, the level of complaints regarding digital television reception in my electorate has risen in conjunction with the temperature and, as summer approaches, the experience of those constituents who are fortunate enough to receive any digital television signal is that their reception will go from bad to worse. We are fast approaching a potential 'winter of discontent' for my constituents. The proposed date for switching on digital television in my electorate is sometime between 1 July 2012 and 31 December 2012. Naturally, many of my constituents are becoming increasingly worried about whether they will have any television reception at all after the switch-off of analog. The people of Paterson are concerned that they will be left in the dark when analog is switched off, and that is because the government was telling my constituents back in 2009, three years before the transition from analog to digital was due to take place, to 'get digital ready' when, for many, no such signal exists. When the Labor government began its multimillion dollar advertising blitz encouraging viewers to 'get digital ready', many of my constituents who had little or no television reception took its advice and invested hundreds if not thousands of dollars on new digital television sets. This campaign was not only a highly irresponsible waste of taxpayers' funds; it also has resulted in many of my constituents spending considerable sums of money on set-top boxes and new digital televisions only to find that no digital television reception exists at their location. All my constituents have ever asked for is adequate digital television. They do not want all the spin and slick advertising campaigns. My constituents need decent services now. Despite repeated calls to Senator Conroy to upgrade self-help sites throughout my electorate, the Gillard government continues to sit on its hands. The only other alternative for Paterson residents—which comes at a far higher cost—is the Viewer Access Satellite Television, or VAST. At present, this subsidised satellite system is available only in areas where analog reception has already been switched off. Under these arrangements, my constituents will be unable to access subsidised satellite services until late 2012 when analog is switched off in the greater Hunter region. Although my preferred option is to upgrade the existing analog towers, a rollout of the VAST system will provide much-needed digital television signal to black spots throughout my electorate. I accept that for some viewers VAST will be the only option to receive digital television reception. That is why, late last year, I called on Senator Conroy to make VAST available immediately. Once again, the government has ignored this request. My constituents deserve much better services from their government. This government has failed them desperately. Page Electorate: Gas Pipeline 10163 09:48 Ms SAFFIN HVY Page I wish to table a petition that has been given to me by 1,449 people in my electorate of Page. I have a letter from the Petitions Committee stating that it is in accordance with procedures. In speaking to the petition, I will paraphrase what it says. It is from residents of the Northern Rivers region of New South Wales and it draws to the attention of the House a proposal for a Casino-to-Ipswich gas pipeline in north-east New South Wales which is currently being assessed under both state environmental planning legislation and the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The petitioners request that the House reject this proposal, as they feel it is an inappropriate development for the region and will have a range of negative impacts on our World Heritage areas, farmlands, waterways and local communities. Additionally, they sent me a letter with some expert advice that they had had on this area in seeking to have the EPBC Act assessment include that World Heritage assessment, which is a point of debate in this issue. The issue that we agree with is coal seam gas. It is a big issue in my area, it is a big issue right across New South Wales and it is a big issue in many other places. It is primarily a state responsibility because of mining legislation in New South Wales—there are about three primary acts and seven other acts that are applicable in this area. There is also some limited applicability at federal level under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. I have looked at the reach of that to see what can be done in this area and I have taken advice on whether the Water Act 2007 could apply. That primarily applies to areas affecting the Murray-Darling Basin, but I am looking at that as well. My primary concern is about water. Everybody is concerned about water and what impact coal seam gas could have on it. Farmers are concerned as well about the impact on the land. I note that the New South Wales parliament is conducting an inquiry into coal seam gas which is receiving a lot of attention. I also note and look forward to reading the New South Wales Farmers Association submission, with 26 recommendations on this very issue. Some of those are quite sensible recommendations about how we proceed with coal seam gas. I note that often people want the federal government, whoever they are, to fix everything that the states do not do. That is not always possible, but this is an issue we need to tackle. (Time expired) Illawarra Local Government Elections 10163 09:51 Mrs GASH AK6 Gilmore Last night history was made in the Shellharbour council area. The first Liberal mayor was elected to council. Not only that; the first female mayor and the first female deputy mayor were elected. I congratulate Kellie Marsh on her election as mayor. It certainly signals the transition from traditional working class to a more cosmopolitan mix and it certainly allows people to have a change from the disastrous Labor council that was removed, and an administrator appointed, some years ago. I welcome Kellie's appointment, which signals the beginning of a new era for the community of Shellharbour. Kellie has worked hard in a challenging environment, and I know she will continue to work hard and collaboratively with her colleagues from both sides of the political fence. I want to thank the people who stood for council. We had some from the Labor Party, we had some from the Liberal Party and we had two Independents. I want to thank both the Independents for being true to their word, particularly Helen Stewart, who was re-elected as the only councillor from the previous council, which was dismissed. Congratulations to her as well. As I said, Kellie Marsh has worked hard in a challenging environment. There is no doubt that she is taking on a tough role and there will be expectations that she will find, I am sure, difficult to meet. However, she is a very personable lady who has done a lot of good things in the community and gets on well with everyone. She is certainly a natural leader. She is a mother of three children, she works in the youth area with St Vinnies and she has been a volunteer right throughout her community. More important than her political affiliation, or that of any community leader, is the fact that she has promised to get on with both sides of politics. I think the people of Shellharbour will not be disappointed with this first-time Liberal mayor. I also want to thank the administrator, David Jesson, who guided the council to the strong position it is in now. It has allowed democracy to be returned to the community of Shoalhaven. I also want to thank, as I said, those who stood as candidates. It takes guts to stand for any election and I congratulate them all. In the little bit of time I have left I want to emphasise the fact that the Shoalhaven now has 10 per cent unemployment—that is, twice the national average. I am very concerned to see that Regional Development Australia, RDA, came to the electorate yet absolutely nothing has been given to the Shoalhaven or the Gilmore electorate. I think it is an absolute shame and that this government should be ashamed to talk about regional Australia yet give nothing to an area that is as much in need as the electorate of Gilmore. Penrith Valley Sports Hub 10164 09:54 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay On Sunday, 4 September 2011, I joined with the Deputy Mayor of Penrith City Council, Councillor Jim Aitken OAM, to officially open the new facilities and refurbishments undertaken at Howell Oval and Penrith Stadium in my electorate. At the 2007 election I committed the federal Labor government to providing $5 million towards the development of a Penrith Valley sports hub. I am delighted to be part of a federal Labor government that has delivered on this commitment and ensured that our local residents now have access to some of the most impressive sporting and recreational facilities in our region. While the original proposal involved a double-sided grandstand, the project had to be reshaped after rising sewer mains were discovered under the proposed site. I thank the members of the Penrith Stadium redevelopment working party for their efforts in working together to overcome this significant obstacle and for ensuring the successful delivery of this project. Howell Oval now features a new cricket pavilion, clubhouse and training facilities, including new change rooms, additional seating, indoor nets, scorer's box and function room. Penrith Stadium has also received a new entrance, new spectator facilities, new toilets and amenities, and new food and beverage facilities at the southern end. I wish to acknowledge and thank those who contributed to the success of these projects. Firstly, I thank Penrith City Council for their management of the projects, in particular the general manager, Alan Stoneham, and Mr Andrew Robinson. I thank the Penrith Cricket Club, especially the president, Mr Greg Gavin, and the secretary, Mr Ross Graham, for their patience and flexibility during the construction process. I look forward to seeing the Penrith Cricket Club benefiting from these new facilities. I also acknowledge and thank chairman, Don Feltis, and the board of directors of the Penrith Panthers for their commitment to ensuring the success of the Penrith Stadium redevelopments and their ongoing service to rugby league in our local community. I acknowledge local sporting icon Mr Trevor Wholohan, after whom the new function room at Howell Oval has been named. I commend Trevor Wholohan for his 60 years of outstanding service to cricket as a player, volunteer and administrator. At the opening it was a pleasure to meet a number of the descendants of William Howell and Norman Hunter, after whom the oval and pavilion were named. These gentlemen have left a strong sporting legacy in our local community of which their families can be very proud. The recent opening of the Penrith Valley Sports Hub was complemented by a fantastic win by the Penrith XI over the New South Wales SpeedBlitz Blues in a Twenty20 match, showcasing some of the exceptional sporting talent in our region. The fact that Penrith was able to attract such a high-profile fixture, with the New South Wales cricket selectors attending, is a testament to the quality of these new facilities. I am extremely proud to see the vision of a Penrith Valley Sports Hub become a reality. I offer my sincere thanks to all of those who have contributed to the success of these projects and I look forward to seeing many generations of players and spectators in our local community benefiting from these fantastic new facilities. Kooyong Electorate: Schools 10165 09:57 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong It was Thomas Jefferson, a founding father of the United States and its third president, who said that 'education is the defence of the nation'. Nowhere do we see this more graphically than in my electorate of Kooyong, for Kooyong is an educational metropolis. There are over 35,000 school students in the electorate and over 50 schools. It has a very strong government school sector, Catholic school sector and independent school sector, with co-ed schools and single-sex schools, secondary schools and primary schools. I find it one of the most rewarding aspects of my role in the parliament to visit my local schools and spend time with teachers and students. More recently I visited Kew East Primary School where I addressed a whole school assembly and celebrated Australian National Flag Day. At Auburn Primary School I joined students and their families for Grandparents Day. At Xavier College I chatted with year 10 students who undertook research at the Australian War Memorial and the National Archives as part of their advanced writing project. At Bialik College, my old school, I attended the launch of the National Year of Reading 2012. At St Bridget's Primary School I joined students and parents for a Father's Day breakfast, as I also did at All Hallows Primary School. I was at Camberwell High School for its 70th birthday celebrations where I listened to their fantastic orchestra and I joined the students and the principal for a healthy lunch at Erasmus College. These schools are all a hub of activity, but today it is my great pleasure to congratulate the winners of the Australian Student Prize who live in my electorate. The Australian Student Prize is a national prize awarded to senior secondary students for academic excellence in English, mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology and informatics. It was first awarded in 1991 and it is a $1 million government program where there are 500 recipients. Prize winners receive a cheque for $2,000. There are 11 winners from 10 schools who live in my electorate: Miranda Gaze and Isabelle Xavier from Methodist Ladies College; Marisa Lai from Carey Baptist Grammar School; Joshua Monester from Bialik College; Ashley Sorrenti from Xavier College; Jackson Sweeney from Balwyn High School; Laura Toscano from Genazzano FCJ College; Ian Wang from Scotch College; and Magnus Zethoven from Trinity Grammar School. Stuart Ferrie from Melbourne High School lives in my electorate, although the school is outside it, and so too with Sam Scott who is at Melbourne Grammar School but lives in my electorate. I congratulate each of these students for their commitment to their studies and for this incredible achievement. I also congratulate their parents and their teachers for giving them support and encouraging academic excellence. It is a worthy prize for a worthy achievement and I congratulate all those involved. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 0V5 In accordance with standing order 193 the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 10166 BILLS Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oils in the Antarctic Area) Bill 2011 10166

Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oils in the Antarctic Area) Bill 2011

Second Reading 10166 10:01 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I rise to speak in relation to the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oils in the Antarctic Area) Bill 2011. This bill amends the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 to implement the amendments to annex I of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships—or, as it is known, MARPOL—to implement special requirements for the use and carriage of heavy-grade oils in the Antarctic. Australia has been a member of the International Maritime Organisation since its establishment in 1948 and, as such, has played an active role in the development of the conventions and treaties over many years. MARPOL has six annexes which deal with different aspects of marine pollution, and all six have been implemented by Labor and coalition governments over time. Relevant to this bill, annex I relates to the prevention of pollution by oil and entered into force internationally on 2 October 1983 and in Australia on 14 January 1988. Its introduction received bipartisan support. In 2004, the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the IMO adopted a revised version of annex I which entered into force in Australia and internationally in 2007. In 2005, a meeting of the Antarctic treaty consultative committee, which Australia attended as a country having an interest in Antarctica, requested that the IMO examine ways to restrict the use of heavy-grade oils in Antarctic waters. As a result of this request, the current amendments to annex I were adopted by the MEPC of the IMO on 26 March 2010, and came into force internationally on 1 August this year. Amendments to other annexes of MARPOL have consistently received bipartisan support, and this is not the first bill implementing MARPOL convention amendments this year. As with legislation earlier this year, the coalition will support this bill. The rationale behind the annex I amendments is that a potential spill of heavy-grade oils would have a devastating impact on the Antarctic environment which would persist for many years. Heavy-grade oils are more environmentally hazardous than other marine oils because of the lengthy time they take to break down, particularly in the harsh polar environment. A spill, if it occurred, would have a long and damaging impact on wildlife, particularly on seabirds and penguins, and would be very difficult to address because of the remoteness of the Antarctic and the very long travel times from population centres and rescue organisations. This bill makes a number of amendments. Firstly, the bill inserts section 10A, which prohibits the use or carriage of heavy-grade oil as fuel and the carriage of it in bulk as cargo on Australian ships in the Antarctic area. This section creates two different but very similar offences. Under subsection (1), it provides that the master and the owner of an Australian ship will each be guilty of an ordinary offence with a maximum penalty of 2,000 penalty units if they use or carry heavy-grade oils as fuel or bulk cargo. This equates to a maximum penalty of $220,000. The other offence under subsection (2) provides that the master and the owner of an Australian ship will each be guilty of a strict liability offence with a maximum penalty of 500 penalty units if they use or carry heavy-grade oil as fuel or bulk cargo. Strict liability makes a person legally responsible for damage caused by their actions or omissions regardless of culpability and strict liability means there is no requirement of fault for any of the physical elements of the offence. Shared liability by the master and owner of the ship is consistent with offence provisions in other parts of the PPS act. Additionally, the penalties for the two offences are also consistent with other parts of the PPS act as well as the Navigation Act 1912. Generally, I do not like strict liability offences, as the defendant bears the evidential burden in relation to the offences; however, in this instance, it is hard to conceive of circumstances where a master or a shipowner would not be aware that their vessel was breaching these laws. It is important to note that there is no requirement to clean or flush residues of heavy-grade oil from a tank or pipeline of a ship to comply with the legislation as small amounts of oil would pose a minimum risk to the environment. I am also assured that heavy oil in ship gearboxes or other small-volume applications will be permitted under this legislation. This flexibility prevents technical breaches of divisions through residue or small quantities of heavy-grade oils being present, which would in reality pose little risk to the environment. Additionally, an offence will not be committed if the Australian vessel is in the Antarctic area to save a life at sea or secure the safety of a ship, which in all circumstances, I think members on both sides would acknowledge, is a very reasonable provision. The legislation also seeks to insert proposed section 10B, which prohibits the carriage of heavy-grade oil in bulk as cargo and its use or carriage in the Australian Antarctic Territory. As with section 10A, this section creates two different but similar offences: a strict liability offence and an ordinary liability offence. The penalties for breach of the offences are the same as with section 10A. Again, shared liability by the master and owner of the ship is stipulated, the defendant bears the evidential burden and there is no requirement to clean or flush residues of heavy-grade oil from a tank or pipeline to comply with the legislation. Additionally, as with section 10A, rescue voyages are excluded. There are also some minor technical amendments in the legislation, and the bill removes the old definition of 'engage in conduct' and inserts a new definition, which is the same as that set out in the Criminal Code with subsection 4.1(2) of the code defining 'engage in conduct' to mean: (a)   Do an act; or (b)   Omit to perform an act. This bill also inserts a MARPOL Annex I definition of heavy-grade oil into the PPS Act. The consultation, which I understand has been undertaken, has been extensive and both Shipping Australia and the Australian Shipowners Association have been consulted and support the bill. Additionally, I have been advised that the Australian Fisheries Management Authority has contacted southern ocean fishing operators who advised that the proposed changes will not impede current or future Antarctic fishing operations. In conclusion, the coalition is proud of its record and will always support sensible measures designed to protect our unique marine environment, whether that be the Great Barrier Reef off the Queensland Coast or our Antarctic Territory. I am pleased to support the bill. 10:07 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra I am a very strong and proud supporter of the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oils in the Antarctic Area) Bill 2011. Although I may represent an electorate that is hundreds of kilometres from the ocean and thousands of kilometres from the Australian Antarctic Territory, I represent an electorate very concerned about ensuring that the Antarctic and its maritime environments are protected. I also share the concerns of other Canberrans. I have a keen interest in the maritime environment, an interest that started many years ago when spending time with my father. My dad is a very keen snorkeler, skindiver and sailor. He is now aged over 70 and he is still out there hitting the waves. As a result, my sisters and I were brought up swimming from an early age and strongly appreciating the ocean—both its dangers and joys, its wealth of life and its fragility. From a very young age, I have been extremely conscious of the need to protect Australia's marine environment. This need was made even clearer when I recently visited the Antarctic Division in Tasmanian as a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories. On this trip, I spoke both to scientists from the division and to some from the University of Tasmania. These scientists were undertaking some very interesting and important research into the krill of the Antarctic waters, which I understand has attracted great attention from overseas. Krill are a vitally important part of the marine environment. They are the foundation of the marine food chain, and many species large and small directly depend on this vital food source for survival. Beyond this many, many more, including us, are indirectly linked to the survival of these tiny creatures. I know there are some in this place who do not listen to experts and scientists, who would rather deride their work and question their conclusions. I am not one of these people and I was convinced by the research at the University of Tasmania and the Antarctic Division and found it incredibly compelling. My trip to Tasmania both underscored the need to protect our precious marine environment from all sorts of threats, including the potential of oil spills, and it settled in my mind the need for this parliament to take immediate action on climate change through a carbon price. I would like to congratulate the government on introducing this legislation, which will do much to ensure that the fragile Antarctic environment is better protected from impacts that shipping has on that very, very precious and fragile environment. Shipping in the Antarctic poses a significant threat to this area. As the minister said in his second reading speech: Ships navigating in these waters face a number of risks including icebergs, sea ice and uncharted waters. Further to this, the extreme isolation of these waters and the harshness of the environment make any attempt to mitigate the environmental damage incredibly costly, and it is incredibly difficult if not impossible to actually do. It should also be noted that the extreme environment of the Antarctic, and its particularly cold temperature, means that it takes a significantly longer period of time for any spill to dissipate, especially the heavier oil specific to this bill, which is carried by the ships mentioned in this bill. Previously I have spoken about the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment Bill 2011. In that speech I noted the effects of oil spillage in the maritime environment, especially the long-term effects of oil spillages. Oil in the marine environment can irritate the eyes of wildlife that encounter it. It also contaminates food sources, can damage or disrupt the fins of fish and clogs fur and feathers. We have all seen the dreadful images from Louisiana and elsewhere that underscore this point. Longer term exposure has other dire consequences, such as organ failure of these creatures. Even a small spill can have devastating impacts. I have also spoken in the past about the 1976 oil tanker spill, when, after the tanker had unloaded its cargo, it sought to wash its tanks out with seawater. Although only an estimated five tonnes of oil were released, it had the effect of calming the waves and attracting a migrating flock of ducks. Some 60,000 ducks died as a result of this spill. While this is perhaps an isolated incident, it does serve to highlight the effects of oil spills. While they may be rare, the effects can never be truly predicted and are highly damaging. Research has suggested that some of the microbes that are so crucial to the breakdown of a spill in more temperate areas may not work in the Antarctic. Well apart from the potential for oil spills in this vulnerable area, which may in fact be one of the last truly wild and untouched places on the earth, there is also the issue of the emissions of sulfur oxides into the atmosphere around the Antarctic. Sulfur oxides released through the combustion of fuels poses a significant environmental concern, not least of which is due to their key role in the formation of acid rain. There are a number of sources for the release of sulfur oxides into the atmosphere around the continent, including the presence of scientific missions and Antarctica's volcano Mount Erebus. However, the research I looked into shows that shipping to Antarctica is clearly the leading cause of emissions for this very damaging compound. A 2010 report by Graf et al showed this clearly. This is a problem, and it is growing, as there has been a significant increase in the number of scientific expeditions to the Antarctic. But what is more concerning has been the explosion in Antarctic tourism. In fact, in 2004-05 some 65 per cent of shipping to the Antarctic was tourism related. This is a major concern of mine because, while it is beautiful and I do want people to go and see it, I do worry about heavy tourism there. As you know from my visit to the Antarctic Division, my concern is about the cruise ships that go there with thousands or so of people. Some of them get stranded and then rely on the Aurora Australis and other missions to get them out of there. I also worry about the impact in that area of a thousand tourists, even though they land on a very limited spot. Mr Robert HWT What have you got against tourism? Ms BRODTMANN 30540 I do not have anything against tourism; I am just concerned about heavy tourism. Mr Robert interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 0V5 Order! The member for Fadden will direct his remarks through the chair. There is a procedure for interventions if he wishes to exercise it. The honourable member for Canberra has the call. Ms BRODTMANN 30540 While tourism to the region—which I am not opposed to; I am just concerned about its being too heavy—started in the 1950s, it has grown almost exponentially. In the 2001-02 season, the International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators reported some 12,248 visitors. This has grown, to an estimated 46,000 visitors in 2007-08. Some 98 per cent of these tourists are ship borne. Many of these ships, which are based out of South America, use the heavy oils that this bill will eliminate. Many of these ships are not adequately equipped to deal with the harshness of this environment and lack the level of ice protection needed to operate in these areas, as I highlighted before. They then get stranded and the scientists who are down there on important missions have to go and save these people. I understand why so many people want to see the Antarctic. It is one of the last great wilderness areas, but it is a wilderness that is diminishing. It is under threat from the impacts of climate change and the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is under threat from ocean acidity— Mr Robert HWT Acidification— Ms BRODTMANN 30540 acidification, thank you very much—caused by carbon dioxide, but it is also, sadly, under threat from the very people who wish to see this wilderness before it disappears. This legislation is important to ensure this unique environment is protected so that future generations can enjoy it and that scientists can benefit from it. I commend the bill to the chamber and commend the government for coming up with this bill. 10:16 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank members for their contributions to this important bill, the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oils in the Antarctic Area) Bill 2011. One of the greatest threats to the marine environment is a major oil spill. This is particularly true when we consider the nature of the Antarctic region. The number of vessels, particularly cruise liners, operating in the Antarctic region has steadily increased. Ships navigating these waters face a number of risks, including icebergs, sea ice and uncharted waters. Consequently, the possibility of an oil spill in the Antarctic area is relatively high. Given its location and its challenging environment, it is unlikely that response equipment and trained personnel would be readily available or totally effective in the event of an oil spill in the Antarctic area. In most cases, an effective response to an oil spill in the Antarctic area is impractical, and the oil would be left to break down naturally. However, heavy grade oils are slow to break down in the marine environment, particularly in cold polar waters. It is likely that a spill of heavy grade oils in Antarctic waters would persist for many years and could have a major impact on wildlife populations in the vicinity, particularly on penguins and other seabirds. This bill bans the carriage in bulk as cargo and the use and carriage as fuel of heavy grade oils on ships travelling in the Antarctic area. The ban will not, however, apply to vessels engaged in securing the safety of ships or saving life at sea. This is a practical and commonsense provision. The bill ensures that Australia adopts the ban on the use and carriage of heavy grade oils in the Antarctic area that was agreed to by the International Maritime Organisation in March 2010, and which came into force on 1 August this year. I commend the bill to the chamber. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 10171

Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2011

Second Reading 10171 10:19 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden Defence delivers youth development in a military setting for young Australians aged between 12½ and 20 years through the Australian Navy Cadets, the Australian Army Cadets and the Australian Air Force Cadets. The ADF Cadets organisation operates in partnership with Defence and the community. In June 2008 there were approximately 22,000 cadets and 2,287 cadet staff in 455 units across Australia. The cadets organisation provides a fun, challenging and safe youth development program conducted in a contemporary ADF environment and based on defence customs, traditions and values. Cadets provide leadership, team building and life skills and foster an interest in the wider Australian Defence Force. The coalition supports the Australian Defence Force Cadets as a youth development organisation in a military environment. We believe the most important people in the cadet construct are the cadets themselves. For the ADF, sponsorship of cadets is a superb way of giving young people an opportunity to gain an understanding of the Defence Force, its place within society and service career options available. Cadets comprise less than one per cent of the general population age cohort but about 17 per cent of ADF enlistments. Unsurprisingly, I was both a cadet and someone who enlisted in the Defence Force. Cadets contribute 35 to 40 per cent of the intake of the Australian Defence Force Academy. Unsurprisingly, I was one of those in the academy. More than half of our one-stars—that is, brigadiers, commodores, air commodore equivalents and above—are previous cadets. Although the ADFC does not exist as a recruiting tool for defence, it is impossible to ignore the significant contribution the cadet program makes to ADF enlistment, both in quantity and quality. An increase in ADFC recruiting would undeniably result in increased ADF enlistment. The Australian Defence Force Cadets program is run by three separate organisations administered by their respective service chiefs under a range of acts—the Defence Act, the Naval Defence Act and the Air Force Act—and the Cadet Force Regulations 1977. Each organisation has a headquarters structure in Canberra, regional headquarters around the country and many cadet units and parade locations. Administrative staff include full-time and part-time members of the APS, the ADF and Defence Reserve personnel. Cadet staff are adult members of the community appointed under Cadet Force Regulations as officers or instructors of cadets. They are generally paid an allowance. Recent changes have seen various of these officers employed in newly created APS positions, effectively seeing the emergence of a full-time cadet staff. That is certainly supported. School based cadet units are generally restricted to drawing their cadet membership from the students of the parent or affiliated schools. There are 46 school based units: 42 in the Army, two in the Navy and two in the Air Force. Unsurprisingly, I came from a school based cadet unit at the Rockhampton Grammar School. In the majority of these units the cadet program is conducted as an integral component of the school's curricular activities. School based units draw most of their adult staff from the school staff. These units generally receive support from the school, as well as logistical support including the provision of some equipment and stores. In my own experience at the Rockhampton Grammar School, we had a school sergeant who was also the lieutenant in the cadet unit—a man called Jim Giedricht, who had fought in every combat operation since World War II, from the Malayan Emergency through to confrontation in Korea with the 3rd Battalion Royal Australian Regiment, and then with the Australian Army training team and then wider combat operations in Vietnam. He was at the time one of the most heavily decorated Australians currently serving, either in the permanent reserve or in the cadet force. In community based units, cadet membership is open to any eligible member of the local community, and the parade location may be in a range of facilities including defence facilities, community halls or local schools. The adult staff are parents of cadets, interested members of the local community and current or former ADF members. Most of these units receive some type of support or sponsorship from their local community, from parent support groups or committees or indeed from the ADF. In recognising the benefits of youth development in partnership with the community and pathways to ADF recruitment, the coalition remains absolutely and utterly 100 per cent committed to maintaining vibrant cadet organisations. Cadet programs will continue to be strongly aligned with their sponsoring service, and the coalition will further strengthen and fund this relationship. In terms of policy history, the Australian Defence Force Cadets have a long and proud history in Australia and can trace their origins back to pre-Federation Australia. From its beginnings at St Mark's Collegiate School in 1866, the cadet movement continued to grow and evolve through the years, until hitting its infamous low point in the early 1970s—surprise, surprise—under a Labor government. During this time, the government was under increasing pressure to withdraw Australian troops from Vietnam. There was a growing feeling of hostility towards defence, especially from the Labor government. The newly elected Whitlam government promised to review the defence forces, including the Cadet Corps. The subsequent report prepared by Dr TB Millar on the Australian Cadet Corps recommended the retention of cadets with some modifications, noting that the scheme attracted broad community support. However, in typical Labor Whitlamesque fashion as we continue to see today, the government decided to abolish school cadets. That is the government's historical view of the value of cadet based work in youth development. The government's general scaling back of the Defence Force as a whole included the withdrawal of their support for cadet units. All Army, Navy and Air Force cadet units either were disbanded or continued without support from the Commonwealth. This decision generated a fair degree of angry unrest in large sections of the cadet and wider communities, but the abolition was appealed without success. In 1976, cadets were re-established under the new coalition government under Fraser after the disaster of the Whitlamesque years, and the Australian Services Cadet Scheme continued on a different basis. Community based rather than school based units were encouraged, together with a downscaling of military-like training. The community based emphasis was crystallised in 1983 when the Hawke Labor government announced that school based units would no longer receive direct support from the Army with many of these units subsequently becoming limited support units—another Labor administration, another disaster for the military. On its election in 1996, the Howard government initiated the cadets in schools program and, in mid-1998, moved to re-establish full support status to units which had previously suffered neglectful indifference from multiple Labor administrations. I say simply to the members opposite: may this be the last dreadful Labor administration that cuts funding to school based cadets. In the 2007-08 budget, the coalition provided an additional $100 million across 10 years to enhance and expand the cadet program. The government in typical Labor style, not content with over 140 reviews, commissions, inquiries and investigations, instigated an investigation into the cadet scheme, the Hickling report. It was the 27th review, study or project into the ADFC scheme since the early years—another review from a Labor government. This begs the question: whatever happened to the review by the 1,000 best and brightest that descended upon Canberra? Whatever happened to those recommendations and the outcomes? All that butchers paper across the room, all of those pens, all those great ideas—did we ever see any of those ideas? Did any of them ever come to fruition? I wonder what actually happened to the greatest minds that Labor had assembled as they gave a standing ovation to then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. That is right: you sacked him, didn't you? Here we have the Hickling review, and that has led of course to the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. This bill is non-controversial as it relates to administration of the school cadet program, which means this is the first Labor administration since Curtin that has not sought to destroy the cadet units as soon as it came to power. So congratulations, Labor. For the first time in 50 years you have not gone and buggered up something that was particularly good, as this bill only makes administrative changes. You actually listened to advice for once when it came to cadets because your history through previous Labor administrations has been deplorable, moribund and disgraceful, to be polite. These administrative changes will change a range of acts to provide that the service chiefs' day-to-day administrative responsibility for their respective service cadets is subject to the direction of the minister or the CDF. These will provide the CDF with a delegation making power, ostensibly down to the VCDF, in relation to cadet responsibility and direction. The bill amends three existing pieces of legislation—the Air Force Act, Defence Act and Naval Defence Act—that currently provide the framework for the administration of the school cadet program. The bill is non-contentious. It has no financial impact in terms of expenditure or direction. Thankfully and wondrously, after 50 years a Labor administration, for the first time ever, has finally decided not to harm the defence cadets or seek to destroy them, remove their funding, take away community support or take them away from schools. Finally, you have learnt the lesson after 50 years when it comes to the Defence Force cadets: do no harm. May I suggest you take that lesson to the disgraceful series of bills relating to your carbon tax that you put into the parliament yesterday and adopt that process once more of doing no harm, because right now the harm you are seeking to do will exact vengeance at the ballot box, I guarantee you. 10:30 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra I would like to know what the member for Fadden had for breakfast this morning— An honourable member: He had Red Bull! Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Are you right now? Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a great pleasure to be able to speak today on the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. In my previous life, before becoming the member for Canberra, I spent four years consulting with the Australian Defence Force Cadets. It was a job I greatly enjoyed. I really loved it. For the benefit of the House, cadets is a youth development program similar to scouts or guides. There are some misconceptions in the community that cadets is a training ground for the soldiers of the future, but that is complete nonsense. Yes, many cadets do decide to serve their country—they have 20 to 30 per cent sign-up rates for ADFA—but the program is not some kind of junior paramilitary force. It is, however, a community based youth development program that gives young Australians, boys and girls of all abilities and from all backgrounds, the opportunity to learn about the customs, traditions and values of the Defence Force. They learn leadership, team building and survival skills. They learn resilience and discipline. They learn self-respect and how to build their self-esteem. They get to train at barracks and eat at messes. They get to climb all over defence equipment, learn about communications, first aid and orienteering, and, depending on which service they join—be it Navy, Army or Air Force Cadets—they learn how to fly, glide or sail or learn bush craft. And they learn to apply these skills through camps and challenges, both within their own service and across services. They learn these skills from committed volunteer cadet officers or, in the case of schools, their teachers, who are often former or current members of the ADF. Any young person can join the cadets, including those who have health concerns or disabilities, as it is a team effort and it is as inclusive as possible. Currently the program boasts a membership of close to 22,000 cadets and 2,500 staff in 500 school based or barracks based units throughout the country. Many of these units are in regional Australia, and some of them are in very remote areas. I want to focus on those today, because in my four years of consulting with cadets I had the chance to visit many of the sites throughout Australia. It was a wonderful opportunity and it underscored to me the value of this program for young Australians, particularly in remote and regional areas. When I was with the cadets, we decided to do a survey on the cadets and also on the staff, to get a sense of what they thought could be improved—where the strengths were and where the weaknesses were. The survey was nationwide and, as part of that, we did a quantitative survey but we also went out and did focus groups with some of the cadets. On one weekend we went down to HMAS Albatross at Nowra to conduct a focus group with some of the kids there. The stories of the kids were quite extraordinary. It was a mixed group of kids. Some of the kids were from defence backgrounds, but others were from the broader community and some were from very disadvantaged backgrounds. When we went to have lunch in the mess, which they all love doing every Saturday, one of the staff who manages the unit was telling me that for some of the kids that lunch at the mess was the only hot meal that they had for the week. That underscores to me the range of people who attend cadets and get some benefit out of it. It was not just the hot meal; those children from disadvantaged backgrounds were getting the friendship of joining with their mates in the activities and also the other opportunities and benefits that you get from cadets, including the discipline, the self-esteem and the self-management. It is a very good program for instilling those skills. During a focus group we asked one of the kids, a bit of rugged nugget, 'What is it you really love about cadets?' He said to me, 'Look, before I started cadets, I got Ds at school and now I'm getting As.' He had seen a huge benefit in his academic achievement, but I imagine there was a huge knock-on effect and benefit for that young man in his personal growth as well as his self-discipline and resilience. I also got the chance to join in the opening of a new facility out at Cowra. These units are very strong and powerful in schools and in metropolitan areas but they have a huge role in regional and rural areas. This unit was the major youth development hub in Cowra. As was mentioned before by the member for Fadden, the program is designed for kids between 12 and 20. There were little kids there going right up to young adults of 18 or so. There were probably 50 young kids who were part of this Army unit. They were all parading for the first time and were very excited about the opening of this beautiful new unit just off the main street of Cowra. It was really interesting to see them having to stand still for so long for the parliamentary secretary who went down there to visit them. Some of poor little kids—you still see it now when you go to ADFA parades—not being able to move for so long were falling down like dominoes throughout the night. There were parents and others trying to catch these little kids. They did a commendable job in trying to stand up straight for a very long time. The member for Fadden may know this—the member for Eden-Monaro there will definitely know this: you have to move your toes in your boots to stay up straight and not faint. These kids were taught that trick but apparently for some it did not work. I also got the chance to go to Thursday Island for the opening of TS Carpentaria, a Navy unit up there. The unit has a lot of Torres Strait Islander kids as well as kids whose parents are on postings with the Navy there. Again, I saw very vividly the benefit for youth development for that remote community. The beauty about that training ship was the fact that they capitalised on the skills and the strengths of the culture in that area. It was of course a Navy unit, they were on an island, but they also adapted the program to fit in with Torres Strait Islander culture, because they are great at fishing. So they went out and did a lot of fishing programs, which is not traditionally in the cadets program. So they do adapt programs to whatever remote or regional area they are in. Again it was a very popular unit, very well attended by young kids from Thursday Island and also one with a strongly committed staff. One of the more interesting units was in an incredibly isolated part of Australia in Bamaga. You can only get there by charter flight. Some members may recall a number of years ago some doctors and nurses being involved in a tragic air crash on Bamaga's tiny airfield. There was a huge memorial there. It was a very touching to land there knowing how dangerous and perilous it could be. Two mothers in the Bamaga community had decided they needed to have a youth development group set up in the community for fear that their youth would run a bit wild. They set this unit up next to a Defence Force facility there. It was pretty basic and we were there to look at how we could make improvements to it. Two Indigenous women set this unit up, got funding for it and got it running as a unit designed for Indigenous cadets. What touched and heartened me in visiting that unit was that, again, it underscores the community nature of cadets and how it was a grassroots-up thing. It had been grown organically by these women, who wanted to ensure that the kids were not running wild, that they were getting life skills, self-esteem skills, resilience skills and discipline skills—and they were doing it through this Army cadet unit. Another unit I visited on that trip, which was also in Nhulunbuy, was TS Melville Bay, another traineeship, again with a mixture of Indigenous kids and kids who were up there with the Army. Located in a very remote part of the world, this is a unique youth development program linked into something that is nationwide. The kids could have their adapted, tailored program where they lived, and it is managed and guided by broader Defence Force programs on resilience, self-esteem, first-aid and orienteering. They could capitalise at the local level on the local nature of the program but also at the more national and macro level of the program. So it was a win-win everywhere. My experience with the Australian Defence Force Cadets, as you can probably tell, was something that I absolutely loved. I cannot speak highly enough about the program. It is a great program that builds confidence and provides a constructive activity for young people in the community, particularly in remote and regional Australia. As the member for Fadden has said, many great Australians have started their careers in cadets and many of them have gone into the Defence Force. One of Australia's heroes from World War I, General Sir John Monash, and our only field marshal, Thomas Blamey, both started their distinguished careers in cadets. As I said, it is not just a training ground for future soldiers. Yes, about a third go into the Defence Force, but the other 66 per cent go into life with a great set of skills, high self-esteem, great resilience and a strong sense of discipline. For that we can thank cadets. The legislation that we are talking about today makes some minor amendments to provide the Chief of the Defence Force with the authority to issue direction to the service chiefs on the administration of cadets. I know from the four years I spent working with cadets that we were faced with a number of governance issues. As a result of having the three services in cadets, there are three different single service cultures. When I was there it was transitioning to a more streamlined approach but there were essentially three different ways of doing things and three different sets of policies. So there were enormous amounts of duplication and siloing, and there was an enormous amount of resistance when it came to streamlining or harmonising some of those policies. When I saw this bill come up, I thought, 'Hallelujah—after all this time!' because there has been an ongoing process in harmonising a range of elements in cadets to improve the governance of cadets, improve financial management and improve accountability. This bill is just another improvement in the effectiveness and efficiency of cadets. It is a welcome improvement for a great program. It is long overdue. It results from a recommendation of the 2008 Hickling review and it will make changes and improvements to the governance of cadets as did a number of other measures that have been introduced over recent years. The program is great and can only get better through harmonised and streamlined policy and management. I do commend this bill and I do commend the government for finally getting around to introducing this bill to the House. 10:44 WYATT ROY M2X Longman I rise to speak to the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. This bill seeks to provide that the service chiefs' day-to-day administrative responsibility for their respective service cadets is subject to the direction of the Minister for Defence or the Chief of the Defence Force. The amendments will provide the CDF with delegation-making power to the vice chiefs of the Defence Force in relation to cadet responsibility and direction. While this might not be the most controversial legislation to come through this place, I think it is a good opportunity to raise in this place the importance of the cadets in our community and the contribution that they make to our nation and to their local communities. The defence community is not what we always think it is. It extends far beyond service men and women in full-time operational roles. It extends much further into our local communities and into our very own backyards, be it the significant returned service community out there or the Defence Force Cadets program. It is interesting that in your role as a federal member of parliament you get out into the community and you see very different experiences and very different facets of people's lives throughout the community. One of the things that I have noticed in the last 12 months as the federal member is that almost everywhere I go I keep seeing the local cadets from TS Cooper. Be it at—as it was recently—Korean Veterans Day, Long Tan remembrance day, Anzac Day, Remembrance Day or even one of the 37 local schools that I have, I keep seeing cadets from TS Cooper. I think that shows the significant contribution that cadets make not only to their own development, their own leadership ambitions and potentially their own career paths into the military but also to the wider community. Cadets are an organisation that is not self-serving; it is an organisation that is about giving back to the community. I myself had a short experience with the cadets with 223 Squadron at Caloundra. There again it was not about self; it was about contribution to the community. The cadet program provides a significant stepping stone to take a career path into the Defence Force. While I might not have found myself in the defence forces—although I might like to have—many of the mates I was with at that time have found themselves in the Defence Force currently, some of them at the Australian Defence Force Academy. Early next year I will be giving the Petro Fedorczenko memorial lecture to the Australian Defence Force Academy, and I can tell you that at the Australian Defence Force Academy and within the cadet organisation there are countless proud young Australians who are serving our country with dignity and with pride. Recently I returned from a trip to Afghanistan. There on the battlefield I met many people who were younger than I am who had found themselves in the Defence Force after taking that path through the cadets. Be it on the battlefield or in the cadet organisation, there were young Australians who were rejecting the assumptions that are all too often levelled at my generation. I acknowledge the member for Mitchell, who just might make generation Y—I am not sure. But there on the battlefield and there in the cadets they reject the assumptions that are all too often levelled at our generation. There is a perception out there in the community far too often that our generation are apathetic, that our generation are lazy and that our generation are uninterested, but in the cadet organisation you can see that our generation are interested, our generation are engaged and our generation are committed, determined and willing to serve their country and their communities and to make a positive contribution to our communities and to the future of this country. As legislators in this place, it is appropriate that we do all that we can to support the Australian Defence Force Cadets program and all service men and women in whatever role they might take. 10:48 Dr MIKE KELLY HRI Eden-Monaro I am long past generation Y, although I still ask a lot of questions why! I commend the member for Longman for his comments in relation to generation Y, who are much maligned. I have seen some outstanding products in my previous role as the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support at the parade grounds of ADFA and RMC and making their way through our fantastic defence organisation. This is occasion for a little bit of pride, in that often in life you do not get to see the end result of some of the things you initiate, but here we see coming full circle something that was very close to my heart as the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support, as I was given responsibility in that role for our cadet scheme. Certainly I was very unhappy with many of the aspects of what was going on in relation to the management of cadets in our system. It has had a very chequered history. Over the years there have been something like 27 reviews and studies of the cadets. All of those wonderful reviews, with all of their good suggestions and recommendations—all that hard work—just ended up gathering dust on the shelves in the system. So we were determined to do something about this—to finally get something done to rationalise and improve this organisation. What gave added impetus to that was the terrible tragedy of the loss of young Nathan Francis in a terrible incident in Victoria. There were proceedings that followed that in relation to the actions of Comcare, which highlighted, illustrated and brought home some of the responsibilities that Defence have and which were not being properly administered or where there were impediments to their administration. That gave us added impetus to try and bring together all of the strands of those 27 dust-gathering inquiries. I was very proud to have established the Hickling review, under Lieutenant General Frank Hickling, a fine Australian soldier who I had had many dealings with in the service. He really took to this task with a will. Notwithstanding the injuries that he had suffered in an accident on a boat, he really got out there and got into it with his team. They did a great job. They gathered something like 200 written submissions from members of the public, consulted widely with cadet units and parents and produced quite an extensive range of recommendations, bringing things together and up to date for circumstances arising from the Nathan Francis matter. I send out my warmest considerations to Nathan Francis' parents, who should be happy today that, from these experiences, we are moving forward to address the reforms that are necessary. One of the problems was an incredible anachronism that within the Defence organisation the cadet scheme was administered separately by the service chiefs but bizarrely the CDF had no ultimate command responsibility for the cadets. The CDF had authority to give directions to the service chiefs as to how cadets should be administered. Obviously that was a parlous situation. We had been through the Defence organisation and reformed it and created jointery across the board in every other area but here was this anachronism of the cadet scheme hanging out there. If you wanted to improve the system and wanted to address the problems that were highlighted in the Nathan Francis matter, it was all about accountability, command and control. This legislation, the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2011, finally having made it to our agenda in this House, will address the key aspect of bringing the organisation within the responsibility of the CDF. Administratively, to make sure that that happens from a practical point of view, we then moved forward to connect the cadets with the reserve command structure. The cadets were sort of hanging out there loose within the organisation, finding it very difficult to get their agendas progressed within the system. We tacked them into the reserve command structure, now known as CRESD—Cadet, Reserve and Employer Support Division—so now they have a home. It was very apt that it happened that way because out there in the community quite often you will find that cadet units depend on the support of and are closely associated with a lot of our reserve units and organisations that are spread so broadly throughout our great land and form such a wonderful part of the communities they serve. The member for Longman is quite right that we see these cadet organisations providing terrific support on all of our important commemoration days and during many other activities. It is wonderful to see how the kids respond to their experience in the cadets. It introduces into their lives the concept that the state is not here just to support you; you owe something to the state as well. I think that is something that we really need to work at in this day and age. It was one of the beauties of the old National Service system that it brought people together from many different backgrounds and people grew up understanding that they did have an obligation to their country as well as their country being there for them. One of the unfortunate things about the loss of that scheme is that we do not have a pervasive way of making sure that that is something that is imbued in generations as they grow up. Through the cadet scheme we see their understanding of commitment to service. The cadet scheme also introduces to them to concepts of leadership and teamwork, which are so important in just about every aspect of life. When we see cadets moving through that experience and going out in the community, they take that through all walks of life that they may enter into. The member for Longman is quite correct, too, that we do see a good flow-on of members of the cadets into the Defence Force in general—quite a significant flow-on rate. As an example, I know that something around 57 per cent of the officer corps in the Air Force come from the cadet experience. It is highly significant in terms of the overall capability that then evolves through the Defence Force, so I am delighted to see this first step. General Hickling made a number of recommendations in his review and I know that the organisation is continuing to work through those. There were various problems with how the money that was allocated to the scheme by the previous Howard government—which was an initiative that I commend—was being administered, the oversight of it and the visibility of it in relation to its application to the cadet scheme. We have been working through that, working through concepts of the age limits, the experiences the cadets get while they are in the scheme, the standards that are applied to people being in a position of dealing with children—which is of course, an important concern—and putting better frameworks around that, and of course making it possible for a broader number of communities to establish cadet units was something that was very close to my heart as well. There were financial issues there but we were looking towards working arrangements whereby if organisations could band together and come up with financial solutions we could perhaps move forward. It is also important that some of the schools that are involved in this scheme allow greater Defence oversight of their activities, and this was one of the issues that emerged from the Nathan Francis episode. Quite often there is some reluctance by some schools to allow Defence oversight, and we were trying to move to a situation where if schools were going to have Defence support for activities then they needed to accept that Defence had responsibility, emerging from what Comcare processes around the Nathan Francis matter revealed, and we had to work for a better mode of cooperation. It is good to see this legislation moving us to a better place on cadets, finally. This government, I am very proud to say, has acted after 27 reviews that went nowhere. It is terrific to see. Associated with that was the work that was begun on the reserves—noting that the cadet scheme is now tied with the reserves—and we are very pleased to see the progress that is now being made on setting up the civilian skills database. It became apparent to me, as part of my responsibility for administering the reserves, that nowhere in Defence did we have on our database the civilian skills of our reservists recorded. It amazed me to think that, in an age when we have a high premium on being able to bring to the operating space a broad range of skills, particularly in counterinsurgency, we would not know if we had those skills out there or where to find them. In high-threat environments it is often not possible to deploy civilians. Building this database will enable us to reach out to those people who have the military skills and the organisational framework to facilitate deployment and who can bring to the table things like civilian engineering, administrative, legal and a whole range of skills that might be important in those post-conflict stabilisation environments. Some people say to me, 'You join the reserves to avoid your day job' and that is very true. In fact, I am still in the reserves myself and I would love to be able to get out of this building to go and do some reserve work, but I do occasionally do my fitness test and weapons test just to feel better. Certainly that is true, but if you offer a reservist the opportunity to deploy, to put those skills to use in a highly challenging environment, then they will jump at that opportunity. It is wonderful to see that that work is continuing and I am really grateful, pleased and proud that Senator Feeney and the team are continuing with that agenda that we established in that last term and that they are pursuing that objective vigorously. I am also pleased to have been a part of establishing, in this context, the Asia Pacific Civil-Military Centre of Excellence in Queanbeyan. It was a major gap in our capability that we had not brought these issues together—tying together a whole-of-government approach to these complex, multidimensional operations—and we were going nowhere, effectively, in achieving the end state we were looking for in places like Afghanistan. You cannot kill your way to success in an environment like that. Let us be clear, of course, that there are certain people in these environments where there is nothing for it but to kill them. You have to be frank and open about that. But to win involves coming up with that other 80 per cent of the puzzle, which are the social, economic and political aspects. Having just recently spent a week on the ground in Afghanistan with our men and women, many of them good friends, I am very proud of the strategy that we as a government have managed to re-craft in terms of moving to that end state to create the indigenous capacity that will finally deliver us the opportunity to hand off to the Afghan people themselves. Across the board, we are seeing the key issues of education and infrastructure capacity being developed there, and all of them have that interrelated aspect of creating a virtuous circle, which you need in those counterinsurgency environments. So that strategy has changed and we were responsible for doing that. We were also responsible for setting that strategy of building the security capacity—the security sector reconstruction and capacity building—that is now moving us forward to a point when we can bring our troops home from that environment. I am extremely proud of that. One of the reasons why I got into politics in the first place was to address a security policy that I felt was drifting by not addressing the sophistication that we needed to get to in that whole-of-government approach. The centre in Queanbeyan is now doing a fantastic job in addressing the training, and the doctrinal and strategic concept aspects of developing the planning—and building the international networking that has to happen, because we are in places like Afghanistan in a coalition context and we all need to be singing from the same songbook. There have been many attempts internationally to come to grips with this whole-of-government strategising, and many of them have failed because they have not been able to operationalise it properly. But the concept with our centre in Queanbeyan was to bring together components of all the relevant agencies and aggressively pursue the harnessing of that, if you like, whole-of-government campaign plan type approach, and that is working very well. They have done a great deal of good work, producing products like how to re-establish the rule of law in Afghanistan, the book that was recently launched in which David Kilcullen participated. And it is great to see that the centre is building networks with expertise all around the world in that respect. So the government have a great deal to be proud of in how we have advanced the security policy and capability of this country to meet the complex challenges of a complex world, the new world that we faced after 9-11. We are now seeing the ISAF coalition working towards that outcome that is so necessary to deny the ungoverned spaces within which terrorist organisations operate. Obviously, this is not just my view; it is also borne out by the comments of Regional Command South in Afghanistan, who point to what the Australians and Americans are doing together in Oruzgan as the model for the rest of Afghanistan. They say, 'Go to Oruzgan if you want to see what success looks like.' That is not to say that there are not great challenges and that we will not have ups and downs, and setbacks, as we go along. But there is universal recognition in Afghanistan that we are on the right track, and so I am proud that we have been able to do that and proud that this effort in reforming the cadet scheme is just part of the overall success story that we have. 11:03 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I rise to support the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. I want to commend the Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry for his remarks in relation to the reserves. I think they were wise words about the government and the Defence Force's ability to have a list and register of civilian interests in our reserve forces, and I want to commend his experience and knowledge in that regard. It is a shame, of course, that he is hamstrung by the government that he is a part of in relation to defence matters, because we have seen such a chequered history with cadets. I want to endorse the comments of the member for Fadden on cadet units and the history of the way they have been treated by successive federal governments over the years. In raising matters particularly related to this bill, I refer to the James Ruse Agricultural High School Cadet Unit, which is just outside my electorate in Mitchell. Indeed, it is one of the high schools where I had the fortune of growing up. This unit has been in operation since 1961, with a proud history of service. It has a strength of usually about 60 to 90 cadets, all members of the school, and it has functioned for decades very successfully. All of the things that you would find in a cadet unit go on here: discipline, leadership, military training, first aid, rifle drill, parades, all kinds of mountaineering and orienteering and, of course, weapons training. In the history of the unit I think it is quite important to understand what has occurred in cadets over the years in Australia, because it is relevant to policy today. What we saw was a unit that had been well-functioning and viable since 1961. It notes on its website that in the 1970s there was no slowing in enthusiasm for cadets at James Ruse, despite the fact that in 1975 the federal government withdrew financial support for school cadet units. This funding was eventually restored. It was the Whitlam government that decided school cadets were not for the federal government at the time and it withdrew the funding for them around the country, which was a retrograde step for school cadets. Something which is seen as being so obviously beneficial today by people like the Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, who just spoke, or others here who are endorsing their school cadet units, was very controversial in 1975. In 1984, the Hawke government disconnected the vital link between local military units and the local cadet unit—another retrograde step in the progress of cadets in Australia. I want to endorse the role of the local military unit, having served as a reserve member myself as an officer with the 1st/15th Royal New South Wales Lancers. The 1st/15th Royal New South Wales Lancers, which is a combination of the 1st Armoured Regiment and the 15th Armoured Regiment, has the highest amount of battle honours as a combined regiment of any unit and regiment in the Australian Army. That, of course, is the parent unit today of James Ruse Agricultural High School Cadet Unit, and served in that function for many years until it was disconnected from it by policy decision of the Labor government in 1984. This goes to the heart of the matter that we are discussing today. The administrative arrangements in this bill are appropriate and necessary and they are seen as improvements—they are non-controversial. In some senses we wonder why these arrangements need legislation to be enacted, but they do, and we support that. But policy in relation to cadets has been controversial. This is yet another example of how Labor has adopted basically all the features and improvements of the Howard era—we see it in every area. The Howard government brought cadets back into being in 1998 by restoring those vital links between the local military unit and the local cadet unit. A cadet unit is a precursor for military training. It allows those individuals who are interested at a young age to get involved in some military experience, try it out and benefit from it. It is a valuable resource and a valuable thing to have in schools, recognising that the best way to defend our country is to have a vibrant and active citizen military. All free societies have been dominated by a citizen military force, not by a standing military force. That is a difficult concept to grasp sometimes but it is the concept of the ADF Reserves: individuals interested in the defence of our nation do the job by participating in reserve service and citizen military service. Most of Australia's military achievements, and all of the ones that we laud, whether it be Gallipoli in World War I, or World War II, were achieved by citizen military forces, not our standing forces. They were people prepared to volunteer, sign up and fight for our country. That is why cadets are a component of that great concept that has produced such a great and vibrant history in our nation's military history. Cadets are a vital component. Reserve service is a vital component. It was encouraging to hear the parliamentary secretary endorse reserve service, because it is under a certain threat today from policy of both the Army and, to a lesser extent, within the government. Having a strong and vibrant reserve culture based on local recruiting, local regiments and local units is a vital part of our nation's defence future, and local cadets are an important component of that. This bill is important to ensure that we do enshrine that connection between young people getting experience at cadet level and young people then deciding to go and serve in our nation's military or serve in reserve forces, as appropriate, recognising that with our small population we can never maintain a standing army that would be sufficient to defend our country if a conflict ever emerged. What we require is a large and vibrant voluntary military force who are trained in an ongoing fashion which can sustain us in years to come. In terms of policy I am glad to see that Labor is adopting all of the best features of the Howard era, including our endorsement of cadets. The cadet program came into full swing under the Howard government, and I fully endorse Prime Minister Howard and the record of the defence ministers in doing that. It has come back to strength now. We should not regress again or endorse any move to weaken the connection between school cadets and our military. That connection between local cadet unit and local military unit is so important for recruiting purposes, for maintaining interest and for generating a sense of local community. Those sorts of items really contribute to the social fabric of our country and have been very important parts. When you go to any single country town around this country or any single local community and you look at their town square or town centre, you find a memorial, usually for local people from those communities. This concept has formed such an important part of Australia's social fabric. We should not allow it to be weakened. I also want to endorse the role of the Baulkham Hills High School Army Cadet Unit, which was formed in 2000. It is a much more recent one, formed during the rebirth of cadets under the Howard government, and it parades every Thursday afternoon. The Commonwealth government, the Department of Defence, the department of education and the principal undertake to train members of the unit in military custom, navigation, communication, drill, bushcraft and all aspects of Army life. It is open to males and females today and we have an equal amount participating. This concept at local high schools and schools around our nation allows those young men and women who want to get experience with military service at an early age to find out what it is like and also make some great improvements in their leadership and training skills. It gives them that opportunity and it works so well. It is also available down in Dundas, the headquarters of 8th Brigade at the Timor Barracks. That is where I had my first experience of cadets when I was younger person, visiting there and looking at what they did. I did not actually get to join, but I joined the Army Reserve a few years later. I endorse the work that they do at headquarters 8th Brigade in Dundas. This is non-controversial legislation. I simply wanted to take a moment to endorse the record of all our local cadet units and the progress of the Labor Party in coming to the realisation that cadet units are very, very important. I know the member for Chifley feels that way about cadets. Indeed, I know that he in particular finds the Howard government a very worthwhile journey from point to point in this regard and that progress has been made. 11:13 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin I take the opportunity to also speak on the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. Before I do so, I caught most of the speech by the parliamentary secretary and member for Eden-Monaro and commend him not only for his speech but also for his personal role in respect of this legislation. He truly does have a good understanding of the defence forces in this country. It is a very genuine understanding. I thought his remarks earlier on today were very appropriate. As I say, I have no doubt that he also was instrumental in not only having this review undertaken but implementing the findings of it. The bill updates defence administered legislation—specifically, the Defence Act 1903, the Naval Defence Act 1910 and the Air Force Act 1923—to ensure that the service chiefs' day-to-day administrative responsibility for their respective service cadets is subject to the direction of the minister or the Chief of the Defence Force. The amendments will also provide the Chief of the Defence Force with a delegation-making power in relation to cadet responsibility and direction. The bill also addresses inconsistencies in the three different cadet provisions by bringing the Air Force and Navy provisions into line with the Army provisions. The Australian Defence Force Cadets is a youth development program for children and is similar to scouts or guides. Cadets are not Australian Defence Force personnel. This bill has no relation to legislation governing ADF officer cadets studying at the Australian Defence Force Academy or other defence training institutions. Labor's 2010 election policy document committed to these changes to the cadet programs' legislation. The reforms will create more organisational accountability and consistency. The bill will provide the Chief of the Defence Force with authority to issue direction to service chiefs in relation to the administration of cadets and to delegate this authority to the Vice Chief of the Defence Force. Direction from the Chief of the Defence Force is subject to any direction issued by the minister in relation to cadets. Currently service chiefs have administrative responsibility for the cadet programs in their respective services, subject to direction from the minister. Cadet programs have in the past had problems with organisational accountability, particularly with duty of care and occupational health and safety issues. The Review of the Australian Defence Force Cadets Scheme released in 2008, commonly referred to as the Hickling review because it was led by Lieutenant General Frank Hickling AO, was commissioned by the Chief of Defence Force and announced on 6 June 2008 by the then Minister for Defence, Joel Fitzgibbon. The Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support, Mike Kelly, whom I referred to earlier, announced the review team members on 20 August 2008. The review panel submitted their report to the parliamentary secretary on 24 November 2008. The report was passed to Defence for their response to the recommendations. The review was required: …to review the general accountability, probity and the transparency of the management of the Australian Defence Force Cadets (ADFC) to determine clear lines of responsibility to ensure that the ADFC is achieving its specific objectives in an efficient and effective manner. The Hickling report noted that, under existing legislation, the service chiefs are individually responsible for administering their respective cadet organisations. They are also held accountable under the law for the safety of cadet activities. The Australian Defence Force Cadets is a voluntary, uniformed youth development organisation established within the Australian Defence Organisation, comprising cadets, community based staff and volunteers. Cadets are organised on the basis of Australian Navy Cadets, Australian Army Cadets and Australian Air Force Cadets. Although the prime focus of the Australian Defence Force Cadets is on youth development, it also seeks to encourage young people interested in the Australian Defence Force to pursue careers in the Australian Defence Force, the Australian Defence Organisation or Defence industry and engender a positive attitude towards the Australian Defence Force. Young people can join the Navy and Army Cadets when they reach 12½ years of age and the RAAF Cadets when they are 13 years old. Over the years I have developed and maintained a close association with many cadet groups and similar youth organisations in my area. The Royal Australian Air Force base in Edinburgh is home to a number of cadet units, and in fact, not surprisingly, we have all three codes represented there, if not within the base adjacent to it. We have the 613th Air Cadet Unit located at the RAAF base at Edinburgh, the TS Stuart naval cadet base just outside the RAAF base and the 49th Army Cadet Unit at Smithfield. In addition, we have the Legion of Frontiersmen Army Cadet Unit at Ridgehaven and a parallel type of organisation, the Australian Air League, based in the region also. There are a couple of other organisations based at the Parafield Airport which are associated with similar activities. I will take this opportunity to speak very briefly about those organisations because they are of course impacted by this legislation; more importantly, they are examples of what can be achieved through these organisations. Through my association with them over the years, I have observed both the young people who are involved in them and the people who are leading those organisations. Firstly, I will speak about the people who are leading these organisations. Most of them originate from the Defence Force. Most of them are people who have spent some time in one of the three different codes within the Defence Force and have had personal experience in Defence matters. As volunteers, they then become engaged with the cadet units. Most of them I could say I know personally, and they show a terrific example of community leadership in every sense of the word. They genuinely care for the future of these young people and they also understand what these young people will need as they progress through life. What they endeavour to do is impart to young people those life skills which regrettably are lacking in too many of our young people today. They do that not only through what you might call the formal training provided, whether it is in the cadet units of the Navy, the Army or the Air Force, but they also do it by making sure that these young people get actively involved in community affairs. It is not surprising to see them at all the memorial services, whether it is Anzac Day, Remembrance Day services or Long Tan Day services that we have throughout the city, or other similar events, but they are also actively involved in a number of what I call civic events that occur throughout the year in the local council areas of that region. Again, their participation and their involvement in our services add to the dignity of the service on the day. What most impresses me—and I have spoken to many of these young people at the services after the event and during the course of them—is the level of responsibility that they take by participating in the service. They are not only proud of what they are doing on the day and of the uniform in which they are dressed but they are proud to be involved in the activity and they take it absolutely seriously and do it absolute justice by their participation on the day. I recall that, when I was mayor of the city of Salisbury, before each citizenship ceremony the air cadets would lead us into the room. They would fly the Australian flag and parade into the room ahead of me and all the other dignitaries. Equally, when the ceremony was completed, they would lead us out of the room. To those new Australians who came in and were becoming new citizens on the day it just added to the ceremonial occasion. For them it was a big and an important event and it added to the ceremonial occasion. Those young people, because the air cadets are allowed to join that particular group at a very young age, were in some cases five- and six-year-old kids and led right up to the 17- and 18-year-olds. They all stood at attention and did it absolutely brilliantly. Importantly, what these cadet units do is teach our kids life skills which, as I said a moment ago, are sadly lacking. Because young people today in most cases live in urban areas, they have lost touch with the opportunities that we might have had in years gone by to develop life skills which you never know when you may need. In the event of an emergency situation, which can occur and arise at any time and at any place, it is nice to think that you have some ability to respond to that situation. That is what I saw happening when I visited the different groups on their display and open days and they showed the skills that they were being taught as part of their training. It is not just about the Army, Navy or Air Force discipline—it is also about teaching them all of those skills. The Naval TS Stuart cadets are a good example. Every year when I go to their presentation evening they go through the drills that they have been taught over the last 12 months and you see them using the skills that they have learned in preparation for perhaps joining the Navy and doing all the different activities that would be required of them on a boat. These are skills that will become invaluable to them as they go through their lives. In addition I believe it teaches them to become responsible community citizens, and that is something that is invaluable for whatever career they pursue, even if it is outside of the defence forces. For all of those reasons I commend the program itself and I commend those young people and their leaders for the cadets programs we have throughout this country. I notice that of the 48 recommendations most of them were adopted by the government. I also had a quick look through the report and noticed that many of the submissions that were made came from existing cadet units, in particular the National Servicemen's Association. I have also had a close association over the years with the National Servicemen's Association in South Australia. That is an organisation that strongly believes in giving our young people an opportunity to get involved in some kind of national service type of program. I do not mean 'national service' in the military sense, necessarily; it can be national service in any other kind of civic force. It is interesting to see that that organisation took an interest in this program because many of the people who are acting as leaders in many of the cadet units that I am associated with were originally in the National Servicemen's Association. Ultimately, this program will have two major beneficial effects. On the one hand it is a youth development program, and one that has a great deal of merit. In fact, it is almost with regret that I see fewer and fewer young people getting involved in cadet training throughout Australia. On the other hand, the second important outcome—it might not be the primary purpose of the program—is that it provides those young people who have an eye to joining the defence forces with the preparation they need in order to make the decision that they will finally have to make if that is where they want to go. It gives them a taste of what they are in for if they decide to join the Defence Force. I think that is incredibly important, because I have no doubt that a career in the defence forces quite often turns out to be very different to what a young person thought it would be. Being able to go through the cadet program would give them an insight into what to expect if that is where they want to go. In turn, it enables them to make the right decision when they come to it. I know of young people who, having left high school, decided that they would join the defence forces, only to find out in a year or two that that is not what they were cut out for, not what they are suited for, and to have to drop out. You learn, and that is fine, but this is an opportunity for them to learn without having wasted—I should not say 'wasted' because it is not necessarily wasted—their time. They could have made a different decision. In closing I again commend the parliamentary secretary and the Minister for Defence for this initiative. I spoke about some organisations in my area but I commend all of the organisations throughout Australia who provide a cadet service in their areas. 11:27 Mr EWEN JONES 96430 Herbert I firstly acknowledge the comments made by the member for Makin in relation to the kids of today and the benefits of cadets. The member for Makin speaks with passion on the subject. The exercise that kids do in our communities is fantastic. I also recognise the member for Mitchell and thank the government for recommitting to the Howard re-establishment of the cadets in 1998. In a mild form of rebuke to the member for Longman, I saw him on the internal television really giving it to the gen Y in his speech. I thought he was very tough. Gen Y may get a bum rap for being very self-centred but I find that kids today—and gen Y in particular—come through when the chips are down. Those of us who make presentations at high schools find that they are so much better organised, so much more responsible than we were. There is so much more expected of gen Y than there was of us at that age. My own history in cadets is negligible. It was the seventies, man, and it was all about trying to keep your hair as long as possible. So it just was not for me. But the best stories of my mates from school are about cadet camps and about things that happened at cadets. Most important were the stories of the pipe band and the things they used to get up to. Those stories have absolutely nothing to do with training; they were more about getting into mischief. Similarly, the member for Makin mentioned the National Servicemen. We just had the 60th anniversary get-together in Townsville recognising 60 years of National Service in Townsville. Standing around having a beer with those blokes I heard stories of National Service in the fifties and sixties. I also heard stories of National Service from my dad. Those stories were never about what happened at training; it was all about what happened in your own time. The mischief those guys got up to! The lies that they told and the fun that they had! Their performing national service is to be commended. The son of the member for Ryan, sitting beside me here, was a very strong advocate of cadets and was very heavily involved in cadets. I think she would like it put on the record that, whilst her son had his problems—he and was a problem child from time to time—he thrived on the cadet scheme. This bill amends the Defence Act 1903, the Naval Defence Act 1910 and the Air Force Act 1923 so that the service chief's' day-to-day responsibilities for their cadets will be directed by either the minister or the Chief of the Defence Force. It also provides the Chief of the Defence Force with the power to delegate the program's administration responsibilities to the Vice Chief of Defence Force. This essentially formalises an arrangement that already exists and I think it is good that we have done that. Finally, the bill makes minor amendments across the three acts to ensure that references made to cadets are all gender neutral. Once again, it is a stickler for red tape and it is probably a good thing that we do it. It is an important acknowledgement of the fact that cadets programs today are no longer male dominated but are increasingly popular with our young women. I support this amending legislation as it reflects the expectations held by the voters that the Chief of the Defence Force is responsible for cadet programs as a part of the Defence Force, despite having had no legal control over them prior to this bill. The cadets programs provide a great opportunity for young people in Townsville to get involved with the defence community that is so important to my city. Townsville is, of course, the home of Australia's largest defence base at Lavarack Barracks. We are also a proud Air Force city, including 5 Aviation Regiment as well as Navy. Townsville is home to an exceptionally large cadet contingent including the Australian Naval Cadets TS Coral Sea; the Australian Naval Cadets TS Coral Sea, which used to be with Jim Davis, on Magnetic Island; the Australian Army Cadets at 15 ACU; the Australian Army Cadets at 130 ACU; the Australian Army Cadets at 18 Battalion HQ; the Australian Army Cadets North Queensland Brigade HQ; Australian Air Force Cadets 101 Squadron; Australian Air Force Cadets 102 Squadron; and the Australian Air Force Cadets 1 Wing HQ. In no way is that to be any indication that Navy comes first or that the Air Force comes last. As long as the Army comes first, that is all we care about—or all that I care about. I do like my green boys and girls! These programs encourage young people to stay active, learn new skills and take part in outdoor activities. It passes on the strong values of the Defence Force and creates an environment that fosters leadership skills and respect. It also gives students a better understanding of the Defence Force at a time when they are considering future career paths. It does let you know what you are in for if you do decide to go into the Defence Force. In a place like Townsville—where it is generational, where people retire and come from all over Australia to be part of Townsville and join in our community—it is only natural that we have a large contingent of people joining the Defence Force from here. Cadets programs are a very important thing. The thing I like most about the cadets programs is that, through the discipline and the training, they teach children today to have pride, to stand tall, to be part of a team, to learn to follow and execute a plan, to accept that you can do better as a team and, most importantly, they are told that it is okay to have fun and to have fun in a work situation. I support this legislation and I would also like to take the opportunity to recognise the great cadet staff and volunteers for their tireless dedication for this wonderful youth organisation. The work they do on mentoring, supporting and developing Australia's youth is very important and I commend them on their efforts. I spent a bit of time down at TS Coral Sea and the guys down there have such tremendous pride in their charges and the kids that are doing the cadetship respond in kind. They show great discipline but they have a smile on their faces as they are doing it. The parents are very proud of their children. The cadets programs have proven to be a great opportunity to foster young people's interest in the three arms of the defence forces and they have created an important part of the Townsville community. This bill creates minor amendments to the administration of this popular program and I, along with the coalition, support them. 11:34 Ms O'NEILL 140651 Robertson I rise to speak in support of the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. As a former teacher and now a member of parliament, I understand that young men and women embark on a variety of enabling extracurricular activities that are important to their physical and personal development. Defence Force Cadets has throughout our history been a very popular activity for adolescents, enabling them to be part of our proud and famous Defence Force in a very particular way. It is, however, important to ensure that the Defence Force Cadets are governed properly. This bill provides the Chief of the Defence Force with the authority to issue direction to service chiefs in relation to the administration of the cadets. It also provides for this authority to be delegated to the Vice Chief of the Defence Force. The legislation before us is necessary because Defence Force Cadets have identified issues that need to be resolved with regard to organisational accountability, particularly in relation to duty of care and occupational health and safety issues. Direction from the Chief of the Defence Force is subject to any direction issued by the Minister for Defence in relation to cadets. This policy is necessary to ensure that the issues that may arise in relation to Defence Force Cadets can be dealt with in an appropriate manner. As a member of this parliament, I see the enormous potential and I acknowledge the role of current and former members of the Defence Force in serving as role models for our youth through the Defence Force Cadets. This reality demands that the highest standards and the best administrative practice are applied. The cadets program is separate from the Australian Defence Force, and members of the cadets are not themselves members of the ADF; therefore, issues relating to the governance of the ADF are quite separate from those concerning the cadets. Last week I attended the commemoration ceremony of the Battle of Australia at the Gosford Cenotaph. It was well attended by the Gosford national servicemen, who have kindly conferred on me the honour of being their patron. As at all commemoration and remembrance ceremonies I have the honour of attending as an MP representing the federal government. I was, once again, inspired by stories of courage, mateship and sacrifice. I was very proud to stand alongside representatives of the local RSL clubs and Legatees. I also saw in the cadets who provided the catafalque party the pride that they had in their service that day and their regard for the flag under which we unite in honour of our belief in democracy and the freedom that it confers on us. You can see how these values are shared by the vast majority of our younger generation in increasingly large attendances at the Anzac and remembrance ceremonies by younger people. I know that the presence of young people is very heartening to older members of our community, particularly those members who served. It is a sign that we are handing on the stories that give shape to our beliefs and that we are telling the history that reveals our capacity to act on those beliefs in the national and international interest. I have long believed that the primary means of improving the outcomes of our youth is to ensure that they have opportunities to engage in ways that are meaningful for them in our local community. This is manifest in various ways—through engagement at school, employment after school, sport and religious and other community organisations. As stated in the House by members last night, we see with the Scouts and Guides particularly organisations that, like the cadets, have played a constructive role in engaging younger people in their local communities. The Australian Defence Force Cadets represent a very particular way in which younger people are very proud to be engaged with their community and to take on roles of leadership at critical times of commemoration for us. The cadets also have the reputation of being very successful in engaging younger citizens who then progress to full membership of the Australian Defence Force community. I witnessed firsthand the type of community the Australian Defence Force is when I participated in the parliamentary program earlier this year. When I visited the Navy personnel on HMAS Stuart, under commanding officer Brett Sonter, in the Red Sea, I witnessed firsthand the fine quality of our Defence Force personnel. I am pleased to say that nearly a dozen of these fine young men and women on board HMAS Stuart originated from or now live on the Central Coast. Apart from hailing from such a beautiful part of the country, these men and women, like their colleagues, demonstrated admirable personal quantities by choosing a career in the service of the nation. I would not be at all surprised to see the very same people come back and become very active in our community with our young cadets. The Australian Defence Force Cadets has always been a means by which the values that underpin service can be revealed and embedded in the younger generation. These values, for me, are personal respect, resilience, professionalism, loyalty, courage, integrity, teamwork and initiative, about which other members in this place have spoken today in giving their accolades for the cadets. I will always respect an organisation that succeeds in teaching these values to our younger generation. I thoroughly believe that Defence Force cadets play a vital role in our local communities and, through them, in Australian society more broadly. I strongly support this bill because it will ensure the continued successful operation of the Australian Defence Force Cadets in a shifting administrative climate. Younger generations have always been a target for a free kick by the Australian media and even, on the odd occasion, dare I say it, by members of this parliament. But in my role as the member for Robertson I continue to be inspired by the role that many young people play in our local community. This is demonstrated by their involvement in youth leadership programs and policy development in addition to their extensive community involvement. Of course, we on both sides of the House encounter many young people who are members of political parties, seeking to make a difference in the country they love—not quite in the same way as the cadets, but still with that interest in participating in a healthy and vibrant democracy and bringing to it the gifts and talents they possess. The Defence Force Cadets is an important avenue through which younger people become connected with their local communities. In enabling the Defence Force cadets to continue to play their vital and constructive role in the community, it is critical that issues regarding organisational accountability are addressed. That is what this bill will achieve. These issues were identified in Labor's 2010 election policy document and this bill is intended to address specific duty of care and occupational health and safety issues that arise. The building of strong communities supported by well-regarded institutions such as the defence cadets has always been a Labor ideal that is consistent with Labor values. It is something I am always working to help facilitate as the member of parliament for the seat of Robertson and it is something that involves young people, about whom I am constantly passionate. I commend this bill to the Main Committee and hope that it promptly passes through parliament. 11:42 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan I rise to speak briefly on the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 and, in doing so, endorse many of the comments made earlier by my colleagues in support of the Australian Defence Force Cadets program. It is an outstanding program, and I know that many of the children in our communities benefit from the outstanding work that it does. My own son, as the member for Herbert indicated, was an active member of the air cadets. The flight of which he was a member benefited from the support of the Sherwood-Indooroopilly RSL subbranch. I know that many of the cadet groups around the country also enjoy the benefit and support of returned servicemen. In contrast to the member for Herbert, I suggest that, because of his involvement in the air cadets and scouts, my son was never a problem child. Indeed, as the member for Robertson just said, the attributes that are learnt through these programs play a vital role. Qualities like leadership, responsibility, good citizenship and teamwork are all great qualities that can be instilled at an early age and can be carried through to their future careers. I think that the Australian Defence Force Cadets program is quite outstanding in this way. I wholeheartedly support this legislation and, indeed, anything that improves the existing program. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 10191 COMMITTEES Infrastructure and Communications Committee 10191 Report 10191 11:44 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan I rise to speak on the inquiry into the role and potential of the National Broadband Network conducted by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications. In doing so, I speak in support of the dissenting report. As the coalition members of the committee stated: To be meaningful, this inquiry should have been conducted before the decision to spend $43 billion on the NBN, and it should have been structured as a cost-benefit analysis, rather than a shopping list of benefits without any consideration of cost. There can be no denying that the terms of reference for the inquiry were designed to provide a feelgood, supportive report for the already-in-progress rollout of a national broadband network. Indeed, to criticise the NBN is akin to criticising the construction of a new road: even if you are not going to use it yourself, you are prepared to support it as you aware that, in the long term, it will be of benefit to the wider community. The coalition support a national broadband network. However, we have major concerns about how NBN Co. is delivering the project. Needless to say, that was not one of the criteria we were asked to consider. While all presenters supported the NBN rollout, several were unable to provide evidence as to what applications would require fibre to the home, FTTH, as opposed to fibre to the node, FTTN. It is worth noting that many applications are already being delivered by existing service providers. Indeed, one submitter proposed that all he really wanted was a telephone line that did not drop out, so perhaps a 100 megabits per second national broadband network in this case is a little bit of overkill. There has never been any dispute that the rollout of the NBN will deliver benefits in many sectors, particularly health and education. Indeed, the committee was presented with many outstanding examples of future opportunities, although the thought of having your bank manager meeting with you in your living room as an avatar may not be embraced by everyone. What stood out was the lack of preparation and planning, due largely to the short notice provided by NBN Co., resulting in embarrassingly low take-up rates. Many submitters were critical of the way NBN Co. had selected the trial sites and had failed to give adequate advance notification of the selection of sites to ensure optimal opportunities. They were also critical that NBN Co. had failed to arrange for the provision of education on and promotion of the benefits of a national broadband network. No-one disputes the fact that Australia will benefit from the provision of high-speed broadband across the nation. However, the coalition does not support the outdated, last-century monopoly telco model being delivered at an exorbitant cost by NBN Co. To genuinely foster innovation we need a competitive, open-access model going forward. This inquiry has highlighted that going forward, even with the NBN Co. model, there must be better advance promotion and engagement with the community. It is not good enough that NBN Co. absolve themselves of all responsibility with the glib line that their role is just to build it. For $43 billion plus, they must also be responsible for take-up by the communities. 'Build it and they will come' is not an acceptable approach. I record my appreciation to all those organisations and individuals who went to the effort of making a submission to the inquiry, particularly those who welcomed us on our many site inspections. I also place on record my appreciation to the dedicated and hardworking members of the secretariat—in particular, Julia Morris, Andrew McGowan and James Nelson—and, finally, to my parliamentary colleagues, whose company I enjoyed on our interstate fact-finding missions. While we are in furious agreement as to the potential benefits of the NBN, we will stay divided on how it should be delivered. 11:48 Mr OAKESHOTT IYS Lyne I start where the previous speaker finished and thank the secretariat and fellow members of this committee for their work. I was probably the recalcitrant member of this committee. But I thought it was important to be a link to the NBN committee, the joint committee I chair, and make sure that there was as seamless a transition from this report—a very good report entitled Broadening the debate—to the ongoing work that will take place through the Joint Committee on the National Broadband Network. The work done in this report—both the main substance of the report and the dissenting report—is important and deserves to be read by as many people as possible. There are some really good considerations for the parliament in dealing with the need for speed in improved information communication technology in Australia today. There is a broad consensus in this parliament and the community on the importance of better ICT. A recent report by Deloitte-Access Economics titled The connected continent—how the internet is transforming the Australian economy found: The direct contribution of the internet to the Australian economy is set to increase by $20 billion over the next five years, from $50 billion to roughly $70 billion. The report estimates that approximately 80,000 more Australian jobs will be available in areas directly related to the internet as a result. It is a sector developing on its own, not just a tool for other sectors to use. The three basic documents concerning the performance of the NBN are, in my view, the government commissioned NBN implementation study dated 6 May, the NBN Co. corporate plan for 2010 to 2013 and the government's statement of expectations for NBN Co. from 17 December 2010 issued by the two stakeholder ministers. All of those are publicly available. This report, alongside the first report of the Joint Committee on the National Broadband Network, released this week, are, I think, the foundation documents. They are all public for anyone who is interested to get a greater understanding of what exactly the government is trying to achieve. In my view, many Australians are under the misconception that NBN Co. is building a government owned monopoly. I just heard it again from a previous speaker—'to own and run the wholesale platform at taxpayers' expense indefinitely, with no return to the government on its very large initial capital expenditure'. In my view, this is an incorrect assessment of what the final product will look like and what the true return to the taxpayer really is. The end product will, more than likely, be a privately owned and operated wholesale platform with a return on revenue through engagement with retail providers as the platform is built, with the opportunity for a significant return once the NBN is complete. As a consequence, in my view, a really important question to be pursued by the parliament is when and how private equity and finance will be engaged in the wholesale platform and at what financial return to government and, ultimately, the taxpayer. The political debate of the moment is obscuring the fact that what is being built will be an asset on the financial books of the taxpayer. As with all assets, everything from a house to business investment, if it is built efficiently and effectively and if private equity is engaged in the right way at the right time, an initial spend can lead to a much larger return in the future. With that in mind, I flag to many of my colleagues and to the parliament that I will be exploring further the parliament's view of where the points of entry are for private investment alongside this initial public investment, to make sure maximum return on the parliament's investment is secured on behalf of Australian taxpayers. This Broadening the debate report importantly, in my view, raises a question that was also brought up in much evidence received by the National Broadband Network committee. That is the question of just how NBN-ready government itself is. I think there is some very good education and promotion work being done by government to try to get community and business as NBN-ready as possible. Many, however, in the evidence gathered for the two reports, wanted to turn that question in on itself and ask government itself just how NBN-ready it is. I think it is a fair question and an important one for the government to reflect upon. Tax collection is just one example. In South Korea, for instance, where there is already 100 megabits per second to the home, 80 per cent of tax collection is now done online. Hallelujah! Compare that to our complex tax system in Australia. The internet is a faster and more reliable tool for communication with the tax office. At the moment, about 20 per cent of tax lodgements are done online in Australia. There is a huge opportunity for some simple but important administrative work on behalf of the community and businesses that government could lead on via the tax office to improve community life and business life in Australia. There are issues around content and copyright. There are discussions going on with attorneys-general and many other players, but it has not been nailed yet. There is some urgency in that work. We are moving to a much more online environment. People can easily have products stolen online or be abused online, and if copyright laws are breached or are unclear we have a real problem with the nature of business in Australia as we transition to greater use of the internet in a whole range of applications. Evidence was gathered of a third example. It is really practical and fulfils the nature of future use of the internet in order to value-add on services of the past. This evidence was from the Post Office Agents Association. They want to engage with the technology and applications available. They made the point that there are over 400 post offices and, yes, they are franchises of a government business enterprise, but they still do not have really good access to online services connected to their post offices. If we are fair dinkum about the post office being a community hub, particularly for many rural and remote communities, for not a lot of money in government terms—it is around $7 million to $9 million—we could deliver much improved communications opportunities to over 400 communities through their post offices. It would make the post offices of the past the community hubs of the future. That evidence is a practical example and I hope the government reflects on that in its desire to be NBN-ready as much as the broader community wants to be NBN-ready. The only other point I would like to make that is loud and clear concerns the issue of education. Partly because of the nature of the adversarial political debate and partly because we are venturing into new areas of thinking and technology, a large number of people in the Australian community and in the business community are in need of greater understanding of the product that is being built. Much more work needs to be done by government to educate communities in applications that are possible via the internet. I would hope an organised education campaign that sits alongside the nine- to 10-year rollout is very much part of the government's agenda. I will finish with a story. A few of us made a trip to Broken Hill on a related committee. The shadow minister was part of that trip to Broken Hill. There was a lovely story about a small town called Packsaddle. That very small remote community has, via the use of old car antennas and a bit of duct tape, essentially managed to build their own communications system so that they can communicate with the Royal Flying Doctor Service that operates out of Broken Hill. It would be wrong to assume too much about communications in Australia today when you hear that communities such as Packsaddle have to build their own communications system via car antennas and some duct tape. I would hope that everything we do runs past the Packsaddle test. We want to engage every member of the Australian community in this bill and it has to be applicable to all communities, including those such as Packsaddle. There are many others like it that are working off a low base when it comes to communications technology. The role of this parliament at the moment should be to engage the many communities such as Packsaddle much better than has been done in the past. 12:00 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I want to commence by congratulating the committee on its work in producing this report and in particular the coalition members, whose dissenting report, written by the members for Hinkler, Ryan and Bradfield, is an outstanding analysis pointing to the defects in the arguments given in favour of the NBN. It goes to the very heart of the problem here—that we have a gigantic infrastructure project being undertaken by the federal government with inadequate planning, inadequate preparation and, above all, no cost-benefit analysis. At no point did the federal government, the Gillard government or the predecessor Rudd government, address this question, which is surely the core question: what is the fastest and most cost-effective way to ensure that all Australians can have access to very fast broadband? How do we do that in a way that ensures it is affordable, recognising that the biggest barrier to internet access is not technology, nor indeed is it geography, but lack of household income? Households with incomes of $40,000 a year or less are eight times more likely not to have access to broadband, to the internet indeed, than higher income households. Yet with the way the NBN is being undertaken we see a heavily capitalised, overcapitalised government monopoly which by reason of it being a monopoly will have both the incentive and the means to charge higher prices. We know from the OECD that over the last five years or so broadband prices in Australia have declined by 69 per cent. Why was that? It was because of competition. There is no other reason. Businesses do not reduce their prices out of a caring generosity towards their customers; they reduce their prices to respond to competition, because somebody else is trying to get their business by offering a better deal. So they cut their prices in response. That is what has driven lower prices. And yet we see with the NBN an end to competition because the NBN will be, as conceived by this government, the only fixed-line connection for voice and broadband to households. So the HFC cable which currently passes 30 per cent of households will not be able to be used by Optus or Telstra, the owners of the two HFC networks, to offer broadband, let alone voice services, in competition with the NBN. There is no reason to do that other than to protect the already dodgy economics of the NBN. In every other country in the world, governments, wherever they can, promote facilities based competition, and around the world the industry and governments and regulators alike are absolutely aghast that Australia not only is spending an extraordinary amount of government money on this broadband initiative but is actually setting out to eliminate competition. The Korean Communications Commission emphasised this to me most emphatically when I was visiting them in Seoul not so long ago. They said, 'Our policy is to promote facilities based competition.' If you want to have a rather bitter laugh, Mr Deputy Speaker, when I was in Shenzhen in the People's Republic of China speaking to telecommunications executives about broadband in Australia and broadband in China, I explained what was going on here. They listened carefully and respectfully and then said, 'We couldn't do that. We're actually committed to competitive markets here in China.' Really! The Gillard government is taking effectively a Cuban or North Korean approach to telecommunications; it is rolling back generations of reform. Going back to the report, and the coalition's response to it, one of the points that the minority make, and it is a very powerful one, is that there has not been a case made for the need for, or the desire for or the readiness to pay for very-high-speed broadband of 100 megabits and higher to residential premises. Indeed, around the world telecoms firms have been unable to secure any sort of meaningful premium, if any premium, for people to upgrade to those higher speeds. The reason for that is pretty straightforward: geeks and internet aficionados love to talk about so many megabits per second, but for the vast majority of the population that is an abstraction. What they want to know is: what can I do with it? 'Don't tell me how many bits per second I'm getting. I want to know what I can download and what services are available to me.' The difficulty that telecoms firms face is not the difficulty that advocates of this project face; it is that you cannot identify the applications that are available at 100 megabits per second but are not available at lower speeds—20, 25 or 40 megabits per second—that can be achieved with a much smaller investment. Remember, the most recent research out of Europe by Analysys Mason is that fibre to the home—that is to say, taking the fibre right into people's homes, as is proposed here for 93 per cent of the population—is in the European experience 3.4 times more expensive than a fibre-to-the-node deployment, where the fibre is brought into the field to such a point that the copper loop is sufficiently short—it might be 500 or 800 metres or less—that very high speeds in the order of 40 megabits per second and indeed much higher, as BT is finding in the UK, can be achieved. So the cost argument is pretty basic. It is to say: if, for a third or less of the cost of fibre to the home, you can achieve speeds and connectivity that is well in excess of what people need today and are prepared to pay for, why would you not do that and, then, if there is a market for fibre to the home at a later date, spend the money there. In other words, pay regard to the time value of money. But the advocates for fibre to the home—and Senator Conroy is a good example of this—will often say things like, 'We are building this to enable us to use in 25 years time the applications that we are not able to dream about today.' I do not know whether Senator Conroy and I are on the same planet, but it is really incredible that a minister of the crown would be talking about spending $50-plus billion for an objective as absolutely ethereal as that. Senator Ludlam, the Greens' media and communications spokesman, was at an ACAM conference in Sydney recently, at which I was also present, where he made the case for the NBN and the provision of this very high-speed bandwidth. It is important to repeat it here, because it really sums up the recklessness in a lot of the advocacy here. Everybody in the business—and the NBN is included in this—argues that the application this very-high-speed bandwidth will use is in fact lots and lots and lots of video, because high-definition streaming video involves the big files. It is the only application that one could conceivably imagine, other than some very special cases, would occupy very large amounts of bandwidth like this. That has been the experience elsewhere. Those telecoms companies, whether they are in Korea or Japan, that have tried to promote very-high-speed products have sought to bundle them with lots of video. You may well ask whether the taxpayers of Australia should be subsidising this channel to provide more video, but that is what those advocates have said is the killer. Mr Husic interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 Senator Ludlam said that he did not think that the killer app for broadband was video. He said: 'It is something that will be new—Google-augmented reality, cyberspace bleeding across into the real world, a merging of worlds. That is the basis upon which the Greens apparently have supported this project. It is extraordinary, and at the time it made me think about the great lines from the opening number in the Rocky Horror Show where the cigarette girl comes out and says: "But when worlds collide," said George Pal to his bride, "I'm going to give you some terrible thrills." So we have worlds colliding and worlds merging. Of course, the chorus to that song was 'science fiction', and I fear that that is what the good senator was talking about. The member opposite who was so angrily interjecting a little while ago was talking about Western Sydney, which he represents. There are many areas in our cities—and, indeed, in our regions—where there are inadequate broadband services. The need to upgrade those services to a very fast speed is undoubted, but a government which was responsible and members of parliament who were careful and thoughtful about taxpayers' money and recognised that their constituents have infrastructure needs over and above better broadband would surely argue for a technological solution that not only delivered the upgrade more quickly but also delivered it at the lowest cost. The answer for Western Sydney is, to the areas that have been poorly served— Government members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The members to my right will cease interjecting. I can see your names on the list of the next speakers. You will get ample opportunity to respond in your contributions to this Main Committee. Mr TURNBULL 885 In many markets around the world where this issue of enhancing broadband services has been taken on, the more active trend is not to continue fibre-to-the-home rollouts in brownfield areas, other than in areas which are very affluent where there is a sense that you can generate adequate revenues—and that is essentially what Verizon did in the United States—but increasingly to deploy fibre-to-the-node. The reason for that is that it is so much cheaper because there are far fewer civil works involved, and we have talked about this many times. The other point is that it is much faster. Some people have poor broadband services because they are on a RIM or because, while they might only be a kilometre away from the exchange as the crow flies, for reasons of topography—a river, a harbour, cliffs or something else—the loop of copper that connects their house to the exchange is very long, perhaps several kilometres. It might be four kilometres—who knows? In those situations, to say to those people, 'You will get a great fibre-to-the-home broadband, but it could take 10 years' is not much of a solution. Inevitably, as the next-generation 4G LTE wireless comes along—and it is being deployed now—it will so rapidly overtake fixed broadband connectivity that by the time fibre-to-the-home broadband comes along it may well be too late. That, of course, is why the NBN is trying to stop Telstra from promoting wireless as an alternative. In other countries, where a more rational approach is taken, incumbents are using a fibre-to-the-node deployment because they want to get in before LTE can seize their customers. Here, while that may not be the prime motivation, the key motivation should be building the solution quickly so that the honourable member's constituents get the broadband they need and get it in a timely way. 12:15 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Throsby I was a member of the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications, which conducted this inquiry, together with my colleague the member for Chifley, who is in the chamber today. Can I start by expressing my thanks to my fellow committee members; the chair, the member for Cunningham; and secretariat staff, who not only did an excellent job in arranging the inquiry hearings and extensive field work that we did, providing us with excellent briefing documents, but also assisted in the compilation of this fantastic report. I am sure that I would speak on behalf of every committee member, even those who submitted a dissenting report, in saying that the support provided by the secretariat was nothing short of first-class. One of the defining features of the first 90 years of this Federation was the willingness of those earlier generations of Australians to make sacrifices for the future generations in aid of nation building. It is because they were willing to make these sacrifices that today we enjoy the benefits of a national railway system, the great railway links between the east coast and the west coast and the north-south rail links. We enjoy, by international standards at least—and by regional standards—good systems of roads and highways and some of the best ports in the South-East Asia region. We have a telegraph and a telephone system which, at least for the first 60 years of Federation, stood out in the region and in this part of the world as one of the icons of development. These things did not happen for any reason; they happened because earlier generations of Australians and their leaders in government had foresight and the willingness to make sacrifices for future generations. Against this background it is quite disappointing that, when we look at recent ABS data, we see that governments today—and this is governments at local, state and federal level—are now spending $25 billion a year less, in 2010 terms, than they were during the 1960s and 1970s on public works. That is right: we are now spending $25 billion less. This at a time when the income that we are receiving from the resources boom is at record highs. Some estimate that our national income is growing by somewhere in the vicinity of $190 billion per annum. It really is a cause of great shame that this generation of Australians, for a significant part of the last decade, have not shown the same degree of foresight as our earlier generations in investing in infrastructure and public works for future generations. The NBN, the National Broadband Network, is perhaps a standout example, which runs against the trend of the last 15 years. It has been backed by the Australian people: let us not forget that this went to no fewer than two federal elections. They have backed the government's visionary plan to reverse that trend, that failure to invest in infrastructure, and to build a National Broadband Network, at a cost of $35.9 billion to the Commonwealth, as an investment in our future. The previous speaker, the opposition spokesperson for communications and broadband, the member for Wentworth, made great fun—great personal amusement, at least—of this investment. He has been carrying on at great length about the fact that what we are doing with this National Broadband Network is effectively building beyond the capacity or need of the current nation. We take a different view. We take the view that what are building by rolling out fibre to the home through the National Broadband Network is actually future-proofing this infrastructure in the same way as those who built railway networks in the early 1900s and telegraph networks in the second decade of the last century ensured that they were future-proofing that technology. I think of my grandfather when he moved into his first house after he got married. He had two electrical devices: a standard lamp and a wireless radio. They did not have a fridge. They used an icebox back in those days. You can imagine the limitations and the cost to future generations if every house that was built from 1915 to 1930 had only two power points in it. Why would you need more than two power points in a house? Because people only had a wireless radio and standard lamp. Electric refrigerators had not been invented back then. Televisions had not been invented back then. Electric washing machines and dryers had not been invented back then, so why would we need to put more than two power points or design an electricity distribution system when people had no more than two low-voltage electrical appliances in a house? It is absolute nonsense, of course, from what we saw because houses were designed with future-proofing—for example, the capacity to deploy more electrical devices over the next 60 to 70 years. The growth in the electronics industry and in electronic devices in this country is such that they are a feature of every modern home. It is the same with fibre to the home. What we are doing by delivering a fibre-optic cable into just about every home in the country is ensuring that every Australian has the capacity to benefit from this technology—not just now but well into the future—so that they have access to the new platforms of service delivery and entertainment into the future. The opposition raises lots of arguments about competition. This is after 11 years in government and, by my count—and the member for Chifley might correct me on this—19 failed broadband plans. We had no more competition in the broadband space and no improvement in the delivery of broadband services to electorates like my own in the Illawarra—the electorate of Throsby—and the electorate now occupied by my colleague the member for Chifley. Broadband services were not significantly advanced over that 11-year period. What the National Broadband Network will deliver, quite contrary to the contributions of the member for Wentworth, is competition—competition in the delivery of broadband services. No longer will every broadband supplier have to at some point in the connection access the Telstra monopoly network; they will have access to a ubiquitous network with which to deliver their broadband services to end users. We are delivering real competition and a ubiquitous service. I have to say—and this goes directly to the terms of reference of the committee—this is something that is well understood in the regions that we visited. It would be true to say that, after hearings throughout regional Australia and in most capital cities, we could not find a voice in opposition to what we were proposing to do. We could not find a voice that said what the government was trying to do in providing ubiquitous broadband services throughout Australia is going to be bad for the country. In fact, they were all excited about the proposition. They could see that broadband was going to lead to a revolution in the delivery of e-health services. We heard evidence from people about being able to deliver internet based monitoring for elderly Australians in their living rooms, delivered by doctors who might not even live in the same state—literally thousands of miles away—providing services that would not otherwise be delivered to those people. Simple consultations are able to be done through video facilities for people who have suffered stroke and need simple diagnostic or therapeutic assistance with their condition. Previously those patients would have had to engage in three- or four-hour round trips from their remote locations to major centres where they could consult with a physician perhaps for five minutes—half a day's trip to have a five-minute consultation and great cost and inconvenience to the individual. That could now be delivered to a person's living room via a doctor who is delivering the consultation from their normal place of practice. When those opposite mock the fact that the greatest use of this new broadband service is going to be through the delivery of video they miss the real point. Yes, the provision of ubiquitous broadband services will lead to an absolute ballooning in the use of, and the capacity to deliver, video services. But this is not just about home videos and entertainment; this is about a revolution in the way everything from education services to health delivery services and executive board meetings can be delivered down the track. Those on the other side are probably very familiar with ASX listed companies which quite routinely conduct their board meetings or management meetings by videoconference. They are able to do that because they have the capital and the equipment to do it. What the NBN will deliver is the capacity for small businesses to have meetings with clients throughout Australia and throughout the world and for ordinary Australians to have access to those video-linked services from their very living room. The evidence that we heard—it is well documented in the majority report—is that the delivery of the NBN is not only going to be a boon for delivery of e-health services but also going to provide great opportunities for the delivery of online training and education services. We heard some fantastic evidence from universities and other training providers about how the NBN would enable the universities to provide services to students who live in remote Australia and give them the access to quality education, lectures and online tutorials that would currently require somebody to live in a capital city or to reside in the vicinity of a university. So it will literally expand the access to those education services to people who currently do not have access to those services. The NBN closes the gap; it removes the tyranny of distance. My electorate covers the Illawarra, where over 20,000 people daily make the journey from Wollongong or the southern suburbs of the Illawarra to Sydney, Campbelltown or Liverpool for work—giving up four hours a day, almost half as much time as they spend at work, travelling on a train. The National Broadband Network will make the possibility of bringing those jobs into the region—or ensuring that people do not have to stand on that train platform at 5 am every morning to make that trip to Sydney—all the more tangible, all the more possible, all the more real. This is a region that has recently been rocked by the announcement by BlueScope Steel that it is halving its steel capacity and laying off in excess of 1,000 workers. There is a hope—it is a very real prospect—that the National Broadband Network will be spread from the current trial site in Kiama up to my electorate of Throsby and into my colleague's electorate of Cunningham. The one thing that stands against the National Broadband Network providing new opportunities to the citizens of the Illawarra and the South Coast, and to the small businesses and the future small businesses of the Illawarra, is those who sit on the opposite side of the chamber and do nothing but bag this, probably because they did not think of it first and probably because they cannot see the benefits. I am sure that if I resided in the leafy inner-city suburbs of Paddington, Vaucluse or any of the suburbs that have excellent broadband service—whether they are delivered by fibre optic cable or wireless—then I would not see the need for a national broadband network. But when I visit towns like Albion Park, one of the fastest-growing suburbs in my electorate, which cannot even get wireless broadband services let alone broadband services by a fixed line then it is a very different story. It is an excellent report and I commend it to the House. (Time expired) Debate adjourned. BILLS 10201 BILLS Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 10201

Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2011

Second Reading 10201 12:30 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari I thank the committee for its forbearance. Unfortunately, I was out at a peacekeepers' memorial service. My apologies to my colleagues and to the committee. I thank those members—the members for Fadden, Mitchell, Longman, Herbert and Ryan for the opposition and the members for Canberra, Eden-Monaro, Robertson and Makin for the government—who made a contribution to this discussion. I was a bit disappointed by some of the contributions made by members opposite. They were trying to misrepresent history—or rewrite it, more to the point—or, as some historians might say, give us a revisionist's view of history, which was not that helpful. Suggestions that Labor governments have not been supportive of ADF Cadets are simply untrue. I commend the coalition government for, when it was in power, providing funding boosts to cadets. But that funding has been continued under the current government. It is worthwhile noting that the coalition government imposed 27 reviews, studies or project reports on the cadet organisations during the period 1996 to 2006 and that it was left to us, the Labor government, to do something meaningful and conduct a practical and comprehensive review: the Hickling review. It was left up to this government to make practical, commonsense reforms through this legislation and in doing so to deliver on our election commitment. The legislation which is being debated today is another example of how we are following through on our reforms to develop a common and concerted youth development engagement framework for defence. The bill implements part of the government's response to the recommendations of the Hickling review into the cadet programs. This reform, as I said earlier, has been a long time coming. It will provide the Chief of the Defence Force—and this is a very important reform—with the power of direction over the service chiefs regarding cadet matters. This was first raised in Cadets: the future review, a 1999 report known also as the Topley review. It has been a feature of all external and internal reviews in the ADF Cadets since. This could have been done by the coalition when it was in government, but it was not; so we, through this legislation, will be making that change today. The Australian Defence Force Cadets is a nationwide youth development scheme delivered in partnership by defence and the community. There are approximately 22,000 Australian Defence Force Cadets and 2,500 cadet staff and some 500 cadet units and headquarters across Australia. I pay my respects to the over 160 ADF Cadets and staff in my own electorate, who are based in the following units: Training Ship Melville Bay, 73 Army Cadet Unit Tenant Creek, 74 Army Cadet Unit Alice Springs, 75 Army Cadet Unit Daly River, 76 Army Cadet Unit Tiwi Islands, 77 Army Cadet Unit Wadeye, 803 Squadron RAAF Tindal and 804 Squadron Alice Springs. Currently, the Chief of Army, the Chief of Navy and the Chief of Air Force are responsible for the administration of their respective cadet organisations, subject to the direction of the minister. The Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 amends the Defence Act 1903, the Naval Defence Act 1910 and the Air Force Act 1923 to provide the Chief of the Defence Force, the CDF, with the authority to issue directions to the service chiefs in relation to the administration of their respective cadet schemes. The bill will therefore ensure that coherent tri-service policy can be consistently developed and implemented by each cadet organisation and will assist with the consolidation and reduction of duplicated efforts across the defence programs. I commend the bill to the House and again thank the Main Committee for its forbearance. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. COMMITTEES 10202 COMMITTEES Infrastructure and Communications Committee 10202 Report 10202 12:36 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I am very pleased to be able to speak on this report: Broadening the debate—inquiry into the role and potential of the National Broadband Network. The report was prepared following an inquiry held by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications, chaired by the member for Cunningham and helped enormously by an enthusiastic, very sharp secretariat. I thank them for their terrific assistance through the inquiry and I note the presence in the chamber of my colleague the member for Throsby, whom I enjoyed working with on this inquiry, because we believe very passionately in the role of this network in transforming the country's economic and social future. Members, regardless of their politics, largely worked cooperatively on this inquiry—though I have to say I was surprised that a minority report was prepared, but I will talk more about that later. As someone with a deep interest in the positive impact that technology can have on improving our society, I was an enthusiastic supporter of this inquiry. Because the demand for improved internet access is not disputed, albeit except by elements of a politically motivated and policy challenged opposition, there is a need to help harness and coordinate the demand and provide an improved platform for that demand for internet services. Building the NBN is one step, but levering off that platform to improve economic, health, education and government service delivery is the next important challenge, which is why this report is particularly timely. The report covers two crucial areas. In the first part it outlines the impact of the NBN on delivering government services, achieving health outcomes, improving the delivery of education and, importantly, the impact it will have on regional economic outcomes and employment opportunities. The report then charts out the work needed to optimise the capacity and technological requirements of the network to deliver the outcomes. Close to 20 separate recommendations were drawn up as a result of the inquiry hearings and the submissions received. From my perspective, some of the key recommendations included, firstly, the need for government to keep implementing broadband enabled technologies into its own services and operations to help improve the way it works and help boost NBN uptake; secondly, the development of a comprehensive engagement strategy incorporating a range of approaches to promote the uptake of broadband and digital technologies during the rollout; and, thirdly, strong support for increased levels of research and innovation in the private sector, recognising the NBN's crucial importance in driving innovation within our nation. There were two other recommendations I was particularly supportive of: finding ways to assist those who are jammed within the digital divide by improving their access to high-speed internet facilities, and promoting the development of relevant skills. I have previously spoken in the House and in this place about the great work being done by some community groups, for example, in helping people 45 years and older to learn about how to use computers and navigate their way through the net and various software programs that we take for granted in this place. The exceptionally useful program rolled out by this government, the Broadband for Seniors kiosks, is a great idea. We need to keep building on this model—and this is one of the recommendations put forward by this report. Another important recommendation that stood out to me was recommendation No. 7, which recognised the important roles of public libraries and community centres and which acknowledged that, with some work by government, we can transform these centres as public access points, enabling people to not only take their first steps onto the internet but also benefit from the improvements that come from using the net to improve government service delivery. Developing public access points will, hopefully, provide people with an opportunity to vault over those barriers. It will, potentially, open up people's eyes to a new path in their life, holding out the prospect that they may be able to take up a role in the IT sector through the use of IT and the NBN, develop a new service or start a business of their own. These are opportunities that open up with access to high-speed internet. It is important to note that, despite the fact that the cost of technology has started to come down, getting access to IT hardware and software is still a barrier to engaging with technology. On this point of barriers to access, I have been very critical about the cost of IT hardware and software in this country. It is enormously relevant to this issue, where we are poised to have a new broadband network rolled out across the country. I have been vocal about the price differentials that exist for Australian consumers of hardware and software and about how they have been seriously disadvantaged, compared to consumers in the US and UK, who get access to these products sometimes at 80 per cent less cost. The value of the net to Australia was recently spelt out by a phenomenally useful report entitled The connected continent, prepared by Deloitte Access Economics for Google. I was stunned to see that the opposition communications spokesperson, the member for Wentworth, deride the findings of this report. That is no surprise. The coalition criticise climate change scientists, they hector economists and now, apparently, Google is also a target for championing the internet by a political party that is more interested in transforming themselves into policy Neanderthals. But this report spelt out the economic value of the internet to the economy and it argued that the direct economic value of the internet to the Australian economy is currently worth approximately $50 billion, or 3.6 per cent of GDP. As much as there is a focus on two-speed economies that exist in this country, we need to celebrate and champion the value of the IT sector to this nation and our future. It provides jobs to almost 200,000 Australians—for instance, through software firms, internet service providers and companies providing e-commerce and online advertising services. To put that into context, the generation of 190,000 jobs as a result of occupations directly related to the internet compares pretty favourably to the mining sector, which, by May this year, employed 217,000 people. The wider benefits of the internet are especially important. The Deloitte report argues that approximately $27 billion is generated in productivity increases alone to business and government in the form of improvements in the way they work and provide services. I was also interested to read that Deloitte put a dollar value on the benefits of the internet to households, arguing that, for example, households get about $53 billion in benefits in the form of added convenience through things such as online banking, bill paying and accessing goods and services. Households and consumers are moving to seize on these benefits. For example, just look at how the Woolworths app shot up to be the most popular app on Apple's app store on the first day of its release. The reason I mention that is that I feel strongly that IT pricing is an anchor on business and households, holding back export focused businesses, especially small businesses, that are competing with counterparts in other countries that are getting access to software and hardware at prices that are seriously lower than those charged here. Some small businesses have contacted me fuming that some software that is essential to them may cost them $10,000 more than what it costs their competitors in the US. I am happy to say that I have had very productive discussions with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, the member for Lindsay, and his advisers about this issue. If we are to maximise the benefits of the NBN, as outlined in this report, and if we are to ensure our businesses are competitive on the world stage and that households are not needlessly burdened by artificially high costs, then we do need to ask major firms, such as Microsoft, Apple, Lenovo or Adobe why they charge Australian consumers and businesses in a way that they would never dream of doing in their home markets. Mr Stephen Jones A9B Good question. Mr HUSIC 91219 It is a big issue, Member for Throsby. Thank you for your support. I am looking forward to seeing further progress on this matter in the coming weeks. I wanted to take the time to reflect on another development that stems from the improved access to broadband. As much as the emergence of the digital economy is opening up commercial and employment opportunities, other industries will confront issues as a result of access to broadband. The committee heard evidence that flagged the impact on Australia's postal sector. The spread of the internet off a platform with access to super-fast broadband is impacting on postal operations worldwide. Businesses, especially those who have traditionally been large users of postal services, are actively replacing physical forms of communication with electronic ones. The subsequent contraction in letter volumes is the single biggest challenge confronting the business model of traditional postal operations, forcing many to restructure. Conversely, as much as the internet is leading to fewer letters, it is also leading to a growth in parcel delivery off the back of consumer purchases via the net. In Australia, our postal service experienced volume growth for most of the last decade until 2008, when the GFC fully hit. Over the last two years, the trends that have been evident for some time in overseas markets have emerged here, with mail volumes falling in both 2009 and 2010. Domestic letter volumes fell by 4.1 per cent and 4.2 per cent, respectively, over those periods and revenues grew only slightly. These factors have led to postal operators exploring new ways of diversifying their operations. For example, in the UK the government and the postal service are working to reposition that service over four years via modernisation of the network. However, while the UK has a large population and a smaller land mass than Australia, Australia's population growth is spread over a very large area. Considering the demand for postal services in regional Australia, along with the employment it requires, this will be an issue for policymakers here. While Australia Post has embarked on organisational restructuring, committing $20 million over three years to prepare its 40,000 employees, there is a need to retrain the workforce and to help them deal with the industry transformation that will be occurring. I believe strongly that we do need greater structural assistance for Australia Post to help it to deal with the issues it faces. Finally, I want to reflect on the minority report that bookends this report—minority by logic, evidence and support. While there were three opposition MPs on the committee, it appears that one member—the member for Bradfield—has really driven this minority report. You only need to see the number of times he has inserted himself into Hansard in the report to get a sense of that. Some of the arguments were pleading for evidence or reality to support them. We had the same tired arguments about cost-benefit analysis. I mentioned that the Deloitte report says $50 billion of economic worth is generated by the internet in this country, but that was then derided by the opposition because it did not fit a convenient argument that they are peddling. They ran the same old argument that no-one supports fibre to the premises, even though the ACCC reckons that this is the best competitive model and it provides greater benefit than fibre to the node. They also had some astounding claims. Here is one standout quote from the minority report: 'There is no overwhelming demand for high-speed fibre-to-the-home broadband. On the contrary, demand is weak and interest is low.' In this day and age, they think that there is no demand for high-speed internet in Australian homes. And, they reckon, we should have inquired about the benefit of the NBN before we announced it. We should have inquired about whether or not we should have an NBN, but they tried 19 times to improve broadband in this country and were unable to get their act together. They reckon that we do not need 100 megabits per second, so do they think that relying on copper will deliver higher speeds than we have now? Really, it comes down to a choice between whether you continue to roll out copper or you go to fibre, which will inherently allow for higher speeds. They reckon that because people do not know the full potential of the NBN we should not invest in broadband. They also argue that hospitals and businesses have access to high-speed broadband and that should be enough to satisfy the public—an insane argument. Then there is the worn-out argument that claims the net cannot be accessed because of high prices, and they reckon that people cannot spend money on broadband, as evidenced by the member for Wentworth today. Absurd. I represent electorate that has a broad range of households of varying levels of wealth. To demonstrate how weak that argument was from the member for Wentworth, which claimed that people do not or cannot use the net because of costs, let me contrast this with the take-up of subscription TV. Depending on the package you take with subscription TV, the cost roughly compares to the prices that exist out there for broadband packages. In Chifley, I am told that access to subscription TV is up to nearly 50 per cent of households. There is not a cost barrier preventing people taking up subscription TV or broadband, because a lot of those households are already there. In fact, the uptake of subscription TV is actually lower than that of broadband. Cost is not the barrier but access to the network is. I have spoken in this place of suburbs like Woodcroft and Doonside that are screaming to get internet access and cannot do so because they cannot get access to ADSL, and wireless is too slow and weighed down by consumer numbers. They would love hearing the coalition's claim there is no overwhelming demand for high-speed, fibre-to-the-home broadband. I commend the report and congratulate the opposition on their consistency. They were unable to deliver broadband in their time and are now absolutely determined to wreck the chance of others to get access to technology that their constituents enjoy. We had today this elitist argument from the member for Wentworth whose constituents enjoy high-speed broadband access. He worked so hard to stop people on the Central Coast, on the South Coast, in the Illawarra and in Western Sydney to gain access to high-speed broadband because he thought they should not get access to broadband, while his constituents currently enjoy it. I commend the report to the House. 12:51 Ms O'NEILL 140651 Robertson I rise to speak in support of the findings and recommendations of the report Broadening the debate: Inquiry into the role and potential of the National Broadband Network. I am very proud to be standing here supporting this government that has decided to invest in Australians, to invest in our potential, by investing in the NBN, which is absolutely aligned with our long-term economic prosperity. The NBN represents, in our time, the most significant nationbuilding initiative that will set us on the right path at the start of the 21st century. I make note of point 1.115 in the dissenting report which emphasised a quote by the CSIRO: The future transformative impact of broadband communications, including internet access, is, to some extent, unknown. That they see this as a negative is, I find, a little incredible, because the enablement of quality infrastructure is exactly about a belief in the future generations that follow us and a belief in the innovative capacity of Australians. And we are absolutely innovative. I was thinking this morning, before I left my accommodation, that I am very lucky to have my husband and son visiting me this week. My son has taken two days off school to come and see how the parliament works. As I left him this morning he was watching a movie on a very small iPod. Apparently he was doing the same in the car on the way down, and my husband was quite incredulous that such a thing could be happening in the car on a small device. It was not so long ago that the big television set in the middle of a lounge room, which was an immovable object and in black and white, was something that we thought was a wonderful new piece of technology. It has continued to develop. As our understanding of the potential of technology develops, we have come to have a completely different belief in and understanding of the possibility of NBN—that is, if you have an enlightened view of the future and you are not wanting to revert to some Abbottville of the 1950s. We need to make sure that we give the young people that I have had the pleasure of teaching for nearly three decades the opportunity to advance to the future. We need to give them the vehicles to get there. The NBN is a critical vehicle. I have got absolutely no concern that they will not know what to do with it when they get their hands on it. I am absolutely confident that they will envision incredible things, and they will make them happen not only in their self-interest or in the economic interest of the nation but for the benefit of so many people in the community. I want to address a few points: infrastructure, health, business, education and social, and the local impacts of this for my particular area. For any nationbuilding investment that this country has undertaken there have always been benefits that would have been unknown when that infrastructure was built. I am mindful that at the time I was born my father was driving a D9 bulldozer and making way for the Warringah freeway coming off the Sydney Harbour Bridge. I can remember his delight and engagement with infrastructure everywhere around the state. I remember driving up to the Central Coast for the first time and seeing the roadworks. The celebration of our vision for a future and of what infrastructure has enabled is absolutely in my DNA. Irish families digging trenches—it is kind of the way a lot of Australian-Irish people made their way. I believe in the vision we saw with the Sydney Harbour Bridge; when we look at it today it brings national pride. It is an icon because it was a vision of a bright and positive future. It was an investment in infrastructure that gave people work and it was an investment in infrastructure that gave a city possibilities in a completely new and different way. That is exactly the sort of thing that the NBN is going to offer. In terms of health, we have been fortunate this week in the parliament to have a display about e-health applications. What an amazing display that was for anybody who got to go and see it. There is the capacity to have e-health records, the capacity for me to be on holidays up on the Gold Coast and to give permission to a doctor who might be seeing me to open a file and check if I have had a chest X-ray or a heart test recently, to find out what my medication is, to make sure that I get it. This is technology that is available to some in some places, and I am very mindful of the criticism that has been put here by the member for Chifley of this sense that we seem to have from many in the Liberal Party: 'It is okay in my city and I am quite happy with my Bentley, thanks very much, but the rest of you have to put up with your Commodore and I really don't care about it.' There could not be a better definition of the difference between the Labor Party and the Liberal Party than that sort of expression. We believe in access to the best opportunities for all Australians, not just some Australians. And when it comes to our health I believe Australians absolutely believe in total equity of access, equity of service and the capacity for equity of outcomes. In terms of the massive change that this offers the health professionals, who want to do their very best, this is the best chance they have had in a long time to get on board with their city counterparts, to continue their own professional development and to give their patients the best advice, best access and best guidance. That is without going anywhere near the applications for health benefits for, particularly in a region like mine, aged people who want to stay in their own home. Monitoring of health can happen when we have high-quality, stable internet access that the NBN will provide tapped right into their home and applications that they can carry around in their iPod as they go for a golfing session, for example, away from home and still stay connected back to the security at home. These are visionary applications for NBN technology. They are things that enable hope and they are things that enable freedom for people in the community. But those opposite would have us lower our sights, diminish our capacity and lose our hope for the great things for the future that the NBN can offer. With regard to business, obviously there have been some very powerful points made by the member for Throsby and the member for Chifley in terms of the application of this to our economic outlook, our economic capacity, our job-building capacity. But I want to talk on a small-business scale. I want to particularly commend some local business men and women who have a great vision for what is possible with the business applications the NBN offers on the Central Coast. I particularly want to name Paul Budde, a man who is a leader in his field internationally who we were very lucky to have at a forum that was held at Kariong at the Youth Connection site. It was hosted by Dave Abrahams, who has been a long-term champion of great things that the internet can offer us—not in an uncritical way; in a way that is very mindful and socially aware of what the NBN can offer but also in the sense of what it offers businesses and young entrepreneurs who can see a path to the future that is only available to them once we get this to their homes where they live. Then they can start their business at the kitchen table on their laptop rather than having to go through all the sorts of barriers that are currently there, including incredible dropout rates, degrading copper network and incapacity to lift their visions to reality and to make happen their dreams of businesses that link them into a greater world. In our push for the NBN for our region, which deeply understands the benefits which come to regions such as mine, I want to commend Peter Wilson and Michael Whittaker as the CEOs of their two councils, the Wyong Council and the Gosford Council. I also want to acknowledge the leadership in recent times of Councillor Doug Eaton, from Wyong, who is the mayor there, and also Councillor Laurie Maher, the Mayor of Gosford. They get what this opportunity is to regional Australia. When all of us see people getting on trains at five o'clock in the morning to get to Sydney to a job, we yearn for the NBN to come to our electorates to allow businesses and creative people with a bit of ingenuity and endeavour to get on and make the businesses that they know they can make on the coast and employ the people that they want to employ on the coast. I spoke recently with an architect who has changed the type of work he is doing. He wants to do high-end private developments overseas. He cannot employ the three or four people he would like to employ because he cannot get a fast enough speed to be able to upload his plans and engineering to move it into an international environment. A global economy awaits his initiative and endeavour. He cannot get there without the NBN. I could go on forever and ever about education and what the possibilities of the NBN are, but I just want to tell one brief story. Last week, I was very happy to have the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government come to my electorate. One of the great educational institutions that we have on the coast is NAISDA, which is the national institute for Torres Strait Islander and Aboriginal dance. It is a great cultural learning centre as well as a great dance enabler. Many of the graduates have gone on to perform in the Sydney Dance Company and Bangarra and also to develop confidence in themselves and their culture to take back to their communities. One of the things that happens is an exchange. Recently the whole school went up to the Torres Strait Islands and they learned a dance up there. They connected to that community. Now, back on the Central Coast, they are able in some way to have some communication with that community that they went to visit. With the NBN, with its capacity for constant interaction, the educational outcomes and the connectivity across barriers is something we can only possibly imagine at this point in time. But I know that those two communities would be far better enhanced by regular, stable conversations that were able to be offered through the NBN. My own daughter has an opportunity to study at a fine institution, the University of Newcastle—one of the top 10 universities in the country. Sadly, for her to get there and back is a three-hour round trip. Great things have happened in being able to get things online and to watch videos online, but she cannot participate because we have not got the kind of internet access that would enable her to upload and have a conversation. That is where the future of education becomes real, where we can actually engage connectively with other people in other spaces at other times. For too long, people in remote and rural Australia have been marginalised. They have had to leave their families, their jobs and their emotional support and move away. There are so many adult women and men who want to re-engage in education. They are connected into their communities. They have kids in schools. They cannot up and move. They want to stay living where they live. The NBN will give them the possibility to do that and to further their education and develop their skills. In terms of social matters, I want to turn particularly to a couple of experts who gave some advice to the committee. This is about Australians in rural and remote areas. I do not live in a remote area and part of my seat is rural. It really should be those opposite who are making these points but for reasons of mindless, small political point scoring they have decided to dissent from the findings of the NBN and continue to have their litany of whingeing and negativity about what is really is a nation-building project. We have Mr Mark Needham from the Regional Telecommunications Independent Review telling us that the inadequacy of stopgap, second-rate, second-class services is really impacting on the psyche of Australians in remote Australia. His point is that, from a social inclusion perspective, people feel isolated. People feel they are not part of the whole. They cannot do the things that they see some people doing on television or that they hear about. The effect of not having equitable service is that they do not feel part of the whole. What a shame for this country that we have allowed such a divide to continue when this technology really was available. Those opposite had 19 goes at redressing this. They must have known it was a problem, but they were incapable of delivering. That is unlike this government, which is getting on with the job—and not just in this area. What do the National Farmers Federation, a friend of the National Party, have to say about it? Let us put it on the record, because those opposite will not do it: The NBN is also likely to provide opportunities to link groups within the community across regional Australia and provide social services and support. Opportunities range from— listen to this list— connecting industry members (for example Dairy Australia's web forum); to providing mental health support to individuals (for example the e-headspace counselling service)— which is well supported and encouraged by this Labor government— to forums which connect and support individuals who may be isolated by circumstance or geography. There is more from Robert Walker, Chief Executive Officer of AgForce Queensland, and the McKinlay Shire Council. Time is running out, so I am going to come to a close with comments from the McKinlay Shire Council, because I think they sum it up. The McKinlay Shire Council said: … the NBN will supply faster connections for residents wishing to communicate visually— Who with? They went on: … family and friends, through media sources such as Skype. Although McKinley Shire's physical location may place large distances between loved ones, the NBN will assist in eliminating this void. Irrespective of our remote location, residents of McKinley Shire deserve equity of service. It is not only the people in the McKinlay shire who deserve equity of service; all Australians deserve equity of service. It is not okay for some to have a Bentley and some to have a Commodore. Mr Stephen Jones A9B It could be a Datsun. Ms O'NEILL 140651 I do not care—I am not really into cars—whether it is a Commodore or a Bentley. I just want what everybody else wants. It could be a Datsun. It could be a Toyota; my brothers tell me they are very good. The reality is that we all deserve the same vehicle to move to the future that the NBN is going to offer us, and that is what the Labor Party will endeavour to deliver very, very soon for all Australians. Sitting suspended from 13:06 to 16 : 02 16:02 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson As a member representing a regional area, I have a keen interest in communication technology and how it can level the playing field for the regions. Regional Australia and the bush have always been at a disadvantage due to reduced access to services and facilities or, indeed, in some cases no access at all. Communication technology has managed to bridge some of these gaps, and an upgrade to Australia's broadband infrastructure could bring services and the bush closer. However, the Liberal-National coalition believe Labor's NBN will fall well short of the mark. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications inquiry and report, Broadening the debate: inquiry into the role and potential of the National Broadband Network, should have been a warning that the planned NBN would fall short of the mark. Had this inquiry been conducted at the appropriate time—that is, before the rollout of a $43 billion NBN, and I am expecting that to be even higher at somewhere over $50 billion—it might have gathered the information required to make an informed, unbiased report. That might have resulted in an upgrade to our broadband infrastructure that truly closed the gap for regional and rural areas. Instead, this report is clearly a politically motivated exercise to provide a manufactured support for the government's poor policy decision. The inquiry set out to find information that it could use to support the Gillard government's NBN program—which is already being rolled out. What we have seen with the rollout of the NBN to date is nothing more than a political campaign. There was not enough planning and research prior to the policy announcement of the NBN in 2009. You cannot conduct an inquiry halfway through the process, because the government is hardly going to produce a report that tells the truth, and that is that the NBN that you have already rolled out is not a good idea. Key elements of the rollout have been determined by political advantage, and it has still been a disaster. The rollout has been a case of shoot first and ask questions later—'Don't worry about consulting with the industry; just start rolling it out,' 'Don't worry about the planning and how it works; just start rolling it out,' and 'Don't worry about the benefits it will provide or, more importantly, will not provide; just start rolling it out.' The government has shot first and then asked the question later. Believing in the mantra 'Build it and they will come', this government thought that, if they just threw a billion dollars around and built something, the people would come. So they built something. They started to roll out an NBN, and guess what: people did not come. Wait a second—yes, they did. Some did. When the Prime Minister and the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, along with the member for New England, pushed that big red novelty button to apparently turn on the NBN in New England, how many people were hooked up to the service? How many people do you think were hooked up to this NBN? Seven people. One of those seven, infamously, admitted he hooked up to the service just so he could play World of Warcraft online faster. So the Gillard government rolled out what will probably end up being a $50-plus billion taxpayer funded piece of infrastructure so that a sword-wielding virtual elf warrior can slay orcs and trolls a little more quickly and realistically. If this report had been done at the start, it might have warned why people would not come. The people did not come because they do not want fibre to the home, unless they want to be an elven warrior. The demand simply is not there. The report covers examples of some of the great things that high-speed communication technology can do. But there are a few problems with those examples. Firstly, there are very few examples of applications that require the 100 megabits that fibre would provide. The high-speed real-life videoconferencing that links, perhaps, a specialist in the city with a patient in the bush is done with a speed of 20 megabits. I note that among the examples cited in the report is a trial of aged-care technology in the Hunter region. The technology provided video and voice communications with the elderly and, according to the report, was a successful application of the NBN. What the report does not mention is the fact that this technology required a speed of just 512 kilobits per second. That is only half of one per cent of the NBN's 100 megabit capability. This is an issue that is noted by Dr Michael Williams, the Director of the Child and Adolescent Health Service at the Mackay Base Hospital in my electorate of Dawson. He said: Good telehealth services are and can be provided using current technology and facilities. It is not necessary— I repeat: not necessary— to have the NBN to deliver much more effective telehealth. I should also note that Dr Williams did not make this comment as a Liberal-National party stooge or as a supporter of the Liberal-National party. On the contrary, Dr Williams is the president of the Mackay Conservation Group and an avid supporter of the Greens, the very same party that is in bed with Labor on the rollout of the NBN. The second problem with examples of this nature is the constant bleating about linking remote and rural communities with specialists in the city. The NBN will not be in truly remote and rural communities. Remote communities and much of rural Australia access broadband through wireless and satellite technology right now. Under the NBN, they will continue to do so but, worse still, at much lower speeds than their capital city counterparts and in fact regional city counterparts and quite possibly at much higher costs than they currently pay. I want to turn now to the little rural parish of Kelsey Creek, a small, rural, cane-growing area next to Proserpine in my electorate of Dawson. Kelsey Creek is probably like many other smaller rural parishes in my electorate like St Helens Beach, Mcewens Beach, Dunnrock, Strathdickie or Cungella. Possibly all of these places or most of these places, just like Kelsey Creek, will receive a satellite service under the NBN. I am reliably informed by Kelsey Creek residents Mr Lloyd Fox, who some might kindly refer to as very IT literate, and his son Justin that the NBN will actually be detrimental to their particular situation when it comes to internet access. Currently the access that the Fox family have is to satellite internet through the internet provider SkyMesh. They have a monthly download limit of six gigabytes of peak data and 12 gigabytes of off-peak data at a cost to their family of $89.95 per month. That is what they currently get—not the NBN. Under the NBN proposal, the only service they will get is satellite—they have to go through a satellite service because wireless and optic fibre will not go to this rural and remote community—and that service costs $99.95 per month. That is an additional $10 a month, or $120 a year, that the NBN will cost compared to existing internet services. Most importantly, it is putting upward price pressures across the ISP sector. Perhaps, if young Justin Fox and his dad were not so internet literate and the Fox family just used it for email, they might be on a simple, one-gig data plan, costing them a very affordable and reasonable $19.95 per month through their current satellite provider. The NBN satellite alternative for the same one-gigabyte service comes with a price tag of $44.95 per month. That is $25 a month dearer and $300 a year extra. This will, without doubt, see ISPs providing satellite broadband and putting up their prices across the board. The biggest impediment that we have to broadband access in this country is cost, particularly for people in rural areas, who, I am very reliably informed by the good people at the ABS, are much poorer in income than their city counterparts. This cost pressure that the NBN will put on the provision of satellite internet services to places in my electorate like Kelsey Creek, McEwens Beach, Giru or Cungulla is only going to further erode the ability of many families to be connected to the internet and the digital economy. This government is actually denying rural people access to broadband through this NBN package. One aspect of this report that should have been considered prior to any rollout is the evidence that points to a better approach, an approach that bridges the gap and secures a better deal for rural and remote areas. I would like to talk briefly about communication black spots, because the NBN that is being rolled out at the moment does not address communication black spots at all. To highlight the significance of black spots in our communications network, I want to bring to the attention of the House one particular tragedy in a black spot in my electorate of Dawson. In December last year, a teenage girl drowned at a popular swimming hole near Alligator Creek. Che-Nezce Perrie Shepherd was 17 when her foot became wedged between rocks in the creek, and a freak surge of water resulting from an exceptionally heavy downpour rapidly rose. Her friends, unable to free her, tried to call for help on mobile phones. Because this popular swimming hole is a black spot, they were unable to raise the alarm in time and Che-Nezce drowned in her friends' arms. I have raised this specific issue in this place before to point out what has not been done with existing communications, but I am pleased to say that, since then, the community support has prompted Telstra to address this particular issue—but no thanks to the government. The government can roll out billions of dollars on the NBN, but that NBN will do nothing for telecommunications that will prevent tragedies like this occurring in the future. Every day—fortunately, in less tragic ways—black spots in our communications network hinder businesses and the lifestyles of everyday people in regional and remote areas. Businesses in Mackay or Townsville do not need the NBN; they need their current communications to work. They need their mobile phones to work and the black spots cleaned up. This is one of the issues that should have been covered by a report before any alleged solution was rolled out. My final point about the NBN is this. For the benefit of Hansard, I am holding up a Blackberry mobile phone. It could be an iPhone or an iPad or an EPC with wireless broadband capability. As one of the younger members in this place, at 33 years of age—still a long way in front of the member for Longman!—I can say that the trend in technology for our generation is mobility. It is mobility, it is wireless, yet here we are spending tens of billions of dollars on the wired network that is the NBN. It simply does not make sense. Debate adjourned. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 10213 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS United States of America: Terrorist Attacks 10213 16:15 Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P Curtin People across the globe have clear memories of precisely where they were on September 11 2001 when they first heard the news that a commercial aeroplane had flown into one of the two towers of the World Trade Center in New York. At first most people probably thought, understandably, that it was a terrible accident and were shocked at how something like that could possibly happen. Then they may have contemplated that it was a terrorist attack, but that would have seemed too horrifying to contemplate. When the second jet crashed into the second tower, all doubts were dispelled. News then came in that another plane had struck the Pentagon in Washington and yet another had crashed in Pennsylvania. Watching the collapse of the Twin Towers is as clear in my memory today as the moment that I saw it on a TV screen 10 years ago. We cannot begin to imagine the horror of those trapped inside the buildings and on board the aeroplanes. The statistics of that day can never reveal the devastating loss, the emotion or the heartbreak, but they put into perspective the enormity of these despicable acts. The 9-11 attack caused the single greatest loss of life on United States soil since the civil war of the 1860s. According to the New York Times, the total number of people killed in the attacks was 2,819. The number of firefighters and paramedics killed was 343; the number of New York police department officers killed was 23; and the number of port authority police officers killed was 37. The number of nations whose citizens were killed in the attacks was 115. The number of people who lost a spouse or partner in the attacks was 1,609, and the estimated number of children who lost a parent was 3,051. The number of families who are yet to receive the remains of their loved ones is 1,717. The tonnes of debris removed from the site were 1,506,124. The number of days that fires continued to burn after the attacks was 99. The economic loss to New York alone in the month following the attacks was $105 billion. The estimated cost of the clean-up in New York was $600 million. We still mourn the loss of life and still grieve with the families of 9-11. These attacks were not simply an attack on the people and the infrastructure of the United States; they were an attack on its ideals—ideals that we share as a nation. Terrorism does not aspire to defeat other nations militarily; it seeks to destroy their very foundations. The strength of the United States and other democracies is that our citizens live their lives in freedom. That is an anathema to those inspired by the twisted rhetoric of Osama bin Laden and his demented followers. They seek to impose their values and beliefs on others through brute force as they are unable to win people to their view through the appeal of their ideas. It is now 10 years since those attacks. There has been enormous global change in that time, some of which is directly attributable to those attacks and the response. The invasion of Afghanistan was to destroy the basis from which al-Qaeda was operating under the umbrella of protection provided by the Taliban so as to prevent any further attacks on the United States. Those bases were quickly destroyed, but it was to the great frustration of the United States and its allies that bin Laden escaped and evaded capture or death for a decade. During those years he continued to make threats and to taunt the United States and its allies. It is to the great credit of the United States government and its security establishment that no major terror attack has been perpetrated on United States soil since September 11, not because the terrorists did not intend it but because the United States and its allies disrupted the command and control structure of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. It has not meant the end of al-Qaeda, for its affiliates have attacked civilian populations in Bali, London, Mumbai, Madrid and elsewhere. It remains an organisation under great pressure but it is not yet defunct. If there were another attack on US interests there would be the potential for it to be reinvigorated, although the death of Osama bin Laden makes that a more distant reality. After a decade, it is prudent to ask whether the response to the September 11 attacks was effective, proportionate and achieved the initial goals. The task of stabilising Afghanistan has proven more difficult and costly than first planned or envisaged by those who planned the original intervention. Afghanistan no longer harbours al-Qaeda training camps but it remains a haven for the Taliban, who continue to harass the security forces of the Afghan government and the soldiers of the countries that make up NATO's International Security Assistance Force. A recent report by the respected RAND Corporation in the United States, entitled The long shadow of 9/11, is critical of the United States and its allies for taking so long to adapt to the tactics of the insurgency that regrouped in Afghanistan and continues to challenge the allied forces to this day. The House will be aware that an attack has taken place in Kabul in recent hours, targeting the United States embassy, NATO headquarters and other key buildings. The RAND report suggests that greater success may have been achieved by establishing stronger regional forces rather than focusing on a central security force, as that would have been closer to the country's traditions. Arguably, its strongest criticism is that the United States and its allies had been far too focused on destroying the physical capability of al-Qaeda and the Taliban and had put less effort into rebutting its ideology. However, the uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East, although not directly related to 9-11, do give us heart. While the civilian uprisings calling for freedom and democracy may not have had the United States directly in mind, the values, ideals and freedoms that the United States has been fighting for since September 11 may well have cultivated the Arab Spring. There is little doubt that United States communication technologies have enabled it. Dictators have been challenged after decades of rule with an iron fist, subjugating their populations through the threat or use of violence. The people of Libya have not lived under a democratic government, yet they have been prepared to march, die and fight for that ideal. We are seeing a struggle unfold in Syria, on the brink of civil war, as people continue to take to the streets in defiance of tyranny and in defiance of the guns of the increasingly brutal Assad regime. This is proof that guns and threats can subdue the inherent human desire for greater freedom but it cannot crush it forever. The reaction of Australians to the threat of terror attacks post September 11 has been one of defiance. The two bombing attacks in Bali in which so many Australians died have not prevented our citizens from travelling to Bali as they have done for decades. Australians have, by and large, refused to cower in the face of the terrorist threat. We have continued to live our lives at home in much the same way as before the attacks. It is a similar story in London, Madrid, Mumbai, New York and Washington. This reflects the fundamental strength of the ideals that underpin our societies and the fact that we refuse to surrender our freedom to the hatred espoused by bin Laden and his ilk. There have been many sacrifices made in the past in defence of our nations and our values. There will be more sacrifices in the future. As is often said, for evil to flourish it only requires good men to do nothing. Our defence forces, particularly those who have lost their lives in Afghanistan, are those good men who have refused to stand by and allow evil to flourish. We must never forget those terrible events on September 11. We must continue to learn from them and we must strive to ensure that they are never allowed to happen again. 16:24 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler I too rise to speak on the 10th anniversary of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center in the United States. It is very hard to grasp. It has been 10 years now since the events of September 11, the events that have changed our world forever. I remember this event very well. My son was an apprentice electrician at the time. He got up as he did every day and was having a cup of coffee before going to work at a bit after five in the morning. He came down and woke me up and told me that a plane had crashed. That was the extent of the report at that stage. We got up and as we watched we saw the second plane come in. I recall that that day I probably spent hours watching the events over there. It numbed not only the people of the United States but anyone who loved freedom to see what was occurring. As I said, it was a day I will never, ever forget. We saw two of the best recognised buildings in the world attacked. We saw those buildings brought down. We made assumptions there and then about what the loss of life would be. It was extraordinarily high. We then saw the Pentagon, which is the heart of the world's greatest military, under attack and on fire. What we saw was a product of the real face of evil. Subsequent to that we also saw the resolve of people—all of those who support freedom, tolerance, inclusion and the democratic principles—to come together to fight such evil. The commemorative ceremonies in New York last week were incredibly moving. Ten years on they are still inspirational. The way in which citizens of the United States have supported each other over that whole period—people were tragically killed and families were separated too early—is an example of what a strong society can do. That is something that should be admired. The commemorative events, as we could see, allowed for loved ones or victims to tell their stories and ensured that children, some of whom never got a chance to meet their parents, understand what really happened. It is really inspirational to see members of the community, 10 years on, continuing to support one another emotionally, physically and spiritually, ensuring that the memory of such a catastrophic event has actually served to strengthen the resolve of a society and the bonds that keep it together. Rather than break it, we have seen that the events have strengthened the resolve. Even out of a tragedy as great as this there have arisen stories of the great spirit and heroism of men and women. In circumstances of disaster, particularly this tragedy, people give us great hope and faith in the resilience and spirit of mankind who face moral and physical danger and challenge. In the case of 9-11 there was an abundance of stories, particularly from firefighters and police officers. I had the opportunity, when I visited the United States 18 months ago, to visit the memorial to those who had lost their lives there. I spent time with the firefighters as well as the police. When I visited the World Trade Center commemorative office—I am not sure of the actual title—the guide who took us through had lost his son Jonathon. Unlike many others, this guide was fortunate enough to recover the body of his son. He knew that his son had died a hero. That story in particular stuck with me because my wife Bernadette was with me at the time and our youngest boy is called Jonathon. Those of us who witnessed that September 11 attack on our televisions screens will never forget the horror of it. I can only imagine what it would have been like for those New Yorkers who were there. They got up to go to work on a day which was no different to any other day and then had this impact on their lives in such an extraordinary way. Hitherto it would have been seen as unbelievable that that could occur in the United States. For many of us, let's face it, America is not a country that is foreign. It is a country that many of us travel to. New York is one of my favourite cities around the globe. It is certainly a city, as the song says, that never sleeps. I think that applies to people right around the globe. The extent of this horror, the indiscriminate killing, did not affect only citizens of the United States; most people saw this as an attack on our way of life. There were 10 Australians amongst the thousands who died. That is something that we also have regard to. Our thoughts should go to the families of those 10 Australians who lost their lives. Among them was Yvonne Kennedy, a widow with two sons, from Westmead, in the electorate next to mine. She had retired from the Red Cross after 25 years of service and was on her retirement holiday. Those of us in the Labor Party certainly remember Andrew Knox, an industrial officer who worked for my former union, the Australian Workers Union, in Adelaide. He was working on the 103rd floor of the North Tower of the World Trade Center. For Leanne Whiteside of Melbourne, it was her second day on the job working for an insurance company. Alberto Dominguez was a retired Qantas baggage handler. He had worked for Qantas for 21 years and was a very prominent member of the Spanish community. Leslie Thomas from the New South Wales Central Coast was working in New York as an options trader for Cantor Fitzgerald, a company that, unbelievably, lost 700 people that day. They sound like figures now, but, putting that in context of humanity, that is probably one of the worst assaults on freedom-loving people around the globe. As I said, whilst the attack may have occurred in the United States, it vibrated significantly amongst all people who hold freedom true to their hearts. It reminds us of how interconnected we all are. As I said, New York is a very vibrant city. It is one of the most multicultural cities in the world and it is certainly one of the most generous when it comes to welcoming people. As has been reiterated many times over the past few days—in fact, over the last 10 years since 9-11—it really changed the course of our history. That is the case not only for the United States but for all its allies and all countries who believe in freedom, tolerance and inclusion and adhere to democratic principles. Clearly, we are one of those. Since then, our police and intelligence services have been far better equipped, informed and prepared to go about their task in preventing our community from the prospect of terrorist attack. Our communications and cooperation with intelligence agencies of all allied nations have been strengthened significantly over this period. A number of pieces of legislation, both in this government and in the former government, have been passed unanimously to ensure that our national security forces and underpinning laws are such that they equip the people that we rely upon to protect our nation with the necessary tools and regulatory support to do their business—that is, protect our communities. We need to ensure that we are in step with all the technological advancements, particularly in the areas of communication and transport, so that we can guard against the potential of more violence in our communities. Returning to the anniversary of September 11, 10 years has passed and the sense of loss and grief certainly still remains in the hearts of all those who lost loved ones. We should continue to express our condolences and offer our support to our great ally, our great friend, the United States. This reinforces our commitment to our mutual aims and mutual objectives. 16:34 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I was very moved by my colleague's speech just now and I would also like to add my words of condolence. Over the weekend we commemorated one of the most historic and terrible events in the modern era. On 11 September 2001 the world lost its innocence when 2,977 men, women and children lost their lives in the single most repugnant terrorist attack in living memory. We all remember, even 10 years on, where we were on that day. I was visiting my parents for a family meal. They went off to bed but I stayed up to speak with my siblings and watch the news with them. I will never forget the horror that I felt when our program was interrupted by live coverage of the second plane plunging into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City. I walked into my parents' bedroom, turned on the light and told them the terrible news that terrorists had hijacked two planes, American Airlines flight 11 and United Airlines flight 175, with the direct purpose of killing all those on board along with the people in the buildings that they struck. We learnt later that another plane, American Airlines flight 77, was deliberately flown into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, and a fourth plane—United Airlines flight 93—was heading for Washington DC before it crashed in a field in Pennsylvania due to the heroism of those who tried to wrest back control from the hijackers on the plane on that day. It was a calculated and cowardly attack. We remember all those who lost their lives and we mourn for all of them. As the member for Higgins, it is my very solemn duty here today to remember one person in particular, a constituent of mine in Higgins, one of the 10 Australians who perished on that dark day. Leanne Whiteside, a lawyer from Prahran, died in the South Tower of the World Trade Center. Leanne committed no crime. She was not a member of any armed forces. She was simply at her place of work. She was 31. There can be no justification, no rationale, for the events of that day, because no god, no matter what faith, would condone the kind of cold-blooded murder that occurred. These thousands of murders were conceived of and carried out by the militant terrorist group al-Qaeda, pursuing an agenda of hate, fear and ignorance. In response to that terrible, terrible day, President George Bush in his address to the nation said: A great people has been moved to defend a great nation. Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shattered steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve. America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining. Today, our nation saw evil, the very worst of human nature. And we responded with the best of America—with the daring of our rescue workers, with the caring for strangers and neighbors who came to give blood and help in any way they could. As we remember this terrible day in the world's history, we stand side by side with our American brothers and sisters. We take comfort and support from the close bonds that our two nations take so much pride in. The relationship between Australia and the United States is so much deeper than a signature on a treaty; it is a relationship based on a deep and entrenched understanding and united belief in our common humanity and dignity and in the freedoms that we hold so dear. It is a relationship based on common values, culture and principles—defending freedom, repudiating fear and ignorance. Former Prime Minister John Howard was there on that day and the day that followed. He said it best when he said: … terrorists oppose nations such as the United States and Australia not because of what we have done but because of who we are and because of the values that we hold in common … On Sunday I attended the 9-11 memorial service with the US Consul General in Melbourne, Frank Urbancic; Victorian Premier Ted Baillieu; Lord Mayor Robert Doyle; my good friend and colleague Josh Frydenberg; and a number of other community leaders from many denominations and faiths. It was an opportunity to reflect on all those who have lost their lives in this shocking act of violence and on those who have lost their lives defending democracy and freedom. Our thoughts and prayers are with their families and with those—police, ambulance and firefighters—who were first on the scene and came to their aid. Our thoughts and prayers are also with the soldiers and their families who have lost so much in the fight to defend freedom and democracy. We think, too, of the political leaders and community leaders who needed so much courage on that day and on the days that followed. Make no mistake—there are those in this world who oppose and resent our way of life. They have a core view that they would destroy our way of life, the values that we hold dear and all that we believe in. We can take solace in the knowledge that these people represent the fringe elements of our society and do not represent the masses. However, we must never be complacent in our resolve to eradicate from the world the hate and violence that these people represent. Now more than ever we must continue our struggle to espouse the values of democracy and freedom. We will never forget the heroism of the people who came to the aid of those who were struck on that day, we will never forget those who lost their lives, and we will never forget those who are currently fighting in other lands to defend our freedom and democracy. We will never forget. 16:41 Dr MIKE KELLY HRI Eden-Monaro The motion that we are speaking on here is very poignant. It is about one of the great tragedies of our times, from which so many consequences have flowed. In fact, I would not be standing here today as the member for Eden-Monaro had these events not taken place. For many people, 9-11 began a chain of events that led to many things. A lot of suffering and a loss of life began with the well-recorded events of that day, with its tragedy and poignancy, when the planes crashed into the World Trade Center. We all remember the phone calls that were later replayed and the messages and heartrending comments and scenes that took place on that day, as well as the incredible and inspiring bravery of those on United Airlines flight 93 who prevented the plane from being flown to Washington to cause further damage. Their memory in particular will live on as an example to all of us. There was a great deal on this anniversary of 9-11 to remember and to commemorate, and a great deal about which to condole the families who still remain. So much suffering was caused by this attack not only to those who lost their lives or were injured but also to the families who had to deal with the consequences. The futility and the pointlessness of it really strikes us. These people, who were living their lives innocently and not wishing anyone ill, were made the subject of this assault, which is one of the most horrendous acts we have witnessed in our time. That day I was serving at the UN headquarters in Dili, and I knew that our lives in the military would be changed forever and that there would have to be an answer—and certainly a great deal followed. We all rallied behind the effort in Afghanistan. There was no question that denying the opportunities that the entire state of Afghanistan offered to al-Qaeda and like-minded organisations to deploy their assets and abilities was a just sacrifice of the treasure and the blood of the international community. So much evil had emanated from Afghanistan over so many years that it was just and meet that we should attempt to deal with the situation in Afghanistan and deny it to al-Qaeda and like-minded organisations as a base of operations. They had the ability to raise funds and even the ability to create regular formations, they were doing research into chemical and biological weapons in order to cause even more heartrending scenes of devastation around the world, and we knew that Australia too was in the crosshairs of these people. We should regret the lost opportunities of Afghanistan. If the blood and treasure that was diverted from our effort in Afghanistan into Iraq had been deployed in Afghanistan, we would not be discussing Afghanistan today. We went into Iraq on a tangent from our main mission and pursued the lie of weapons of mass destruction. We went in there in defence of a sanctions regime that, little did we know, was being broken behind our backs in our own country by the Australian Wheat Board—with the knowledge, it later transpired, of those in the administration of this country. We sent our soldiers to war to fight a dictator into whose war chest $300 million was being placed through those actions. It was a shameful experience and a shameful waste of lives and money—$1 trillion from the US alone over that period of time. As I said, we would not be discussing Afghanistan now if we had not been diverted. I certainly had no problems with dealing with the issue of Saddam Hussein. Having once deployed into Iraq and having spent a year there, I certainly came to appreciate the full horror of what he was inflecting on his population. I visited mass graves including one gravesite alone that contained the bodies of 10,000 people. There were also the vile tortures that were taking place in institutions like Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. But it was a mission that came too early. We needed to get done what we had to do in Afghanistan. It was not only that we went into Iraq based on a false premise; it was also so badly planned and handled in the execution. In that effort in Iraq, I lost a lot of friends and colleagues whose spirit I carry with me today and who motivated me to work in their honour, on their behalf, to improve our approach to security policy. And of course it was what led me to stand for Eden-Monaro. In honour of their memory, we have improved our approach to the challenges we face in this world of complex counterinsurgency and multidimensional operations, and in particular the challenge of Islamist extremism. I think that one of the great victims of this terrible tragedy, the day of 9-11, was the religion of Islam itself. This is a time when Islam is going through a period of struggle with where it wants to go, and the vast majority of Muslims in this world are peaceful, peace-loving people. There are a small minority, a small cadre, that would like to hijack that religion and turn it into something much more vile. It is similar to the struggle that went on during the Reformation within Christianity. We are engaged in a battle for the soul of Islam, and we need to do all we can to help in that struggle to promote interfaith dialogue and to promote understanding. One of the things we need to understand in this country is that our greatest defence against the threat of terrorism is our own Muslim community. Our own Muslim community will be our first line of defence, because in order for these organisations to operate and to succeed, they have to have a base from which to operate. Certainly we have seen home-grown versions of this sort of terrorism occurring, for example in the UK. In order for us to avoid these sorts of consequences and to succeed in our effort against Islamist extremism, we need to make sure that we are inclusive, that we work with our Muslim community in this country and that we continue to draw on their strengths, as supporters of this country and as decent citizens, to make sure that there is no base for operations by these sorts of terrorists. I do not want to get political in a motion like this, but there are voices in our own parliament that are not assisting with that effort. I will not name names here, but I would encourage those people who are driving an agenda that alienates the Muslim community in this country to think about that very carefully and to think about the sorts of people they engage with internationally who are also not assisting in that agenda. I would ask those who are in a leadership position and who deal with those members to pull those members aside and have a good long, hard talk to them and understand how security is achieved internationally and in this country. I would like to finish by paying tribute not only to the victims of 9-11 but to all those who have suffered and lost their lives since that time. In particular, at a time like this and on a day like 9-11, I think of my friends and colleagues who died in the subsequent struggles, who gave their lives faithfully for their country in this effort. Sometimes their effort was not set upon the proper path, but they gave their lives in good faith. I carry their memory with me every day and I continue to serve in their honour. 16:50 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong Last Sunday I joined federal and state parliamentary colleagues, the US Consul-General and religious leaders from Jewish, Christian and Islamic faiths at the 10th anniversary of the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001. It was a sombre occasion and an appropriate time to reflect on the impact the events of 9-11 had on the world and on our subsequent efforts to minimise the risk of it ever happening again. I have vivid memories of that night, now more than a decade ago. I had been attending a local electorate function in the Adelaide Hills with my then boss, the then member for Mayo, Alexander Downer. I had just returned to my accommodation, a small bed and breakfast run by a lovely couple, Nan and Ted, when I received a phone call asking me to turn on my television. As soon as I did I saw the horrific image of the first tower burning. I quickly rang Alexander to alert him to what was taking place. As he turned on his own television I heard his wife, Nicky, scream out in the background as she, too, was shocked by what she saw. I quickly drove around to the Downer home, where we all sat glued to the screen as we watched a tragedy unfolding before our eyes. With then Prime Minister John Howard in Washington, Alexander, as foreign minister, had an even more critical role that night. I remember his phone calls with Acting Prime Minister John Anderson as they talked about convening a meeting of the government's National Security Committee and canvassed the ramifications of this terrorist attack. That night details were sketchy—the who, the how and the why were still to be answered. But one thing was certain: the world was never to be the same again. The events of 9-11, which saw nearly 3,000 people, including 10 Australians, lose their lives, has ushered in a new period of strategic uncertainty. No longer living in fear of another country's tanks rolling over their borders, as they did during the Cold War, Western nations are now more alert to the challenges posed by asymmetric warfare. A powerful army is no deterrent to the terrorist hijacking a plane or carrying a dirty bomb. They know they can bring a city to its knees with their limited means. Australia is not immune to this global threat. Indeed, in many ways the Bali bombings and the subsequent death of 88 innocent Australians was our own 9-11. Any sense of innocence was lost that day. As the world picked up the pieces after 9-11 Australia has been at the pointy end of the global response. The ANZUS treaty was invoked for the first time, seeing our troops deployed to Afghanistan to take on al-Qaeda and their conspirators in the Taliban. We also rapidly mobilised resources for our partners in the region as they built their intelligence and operational capacity to counter the extremists who had caused so much damage. Terrorist groups, Jemaah Islamiyah, Abu Sayyaf and Lashkar-e-Tayyiba were now all on notice that there were no safe havens to be found. Domestically we responded by dramatically increasing our counter-terrorism capability, particularly in the two key organisations, ASIO and the Australian Federal Police, the AFP. The then Director-General of ASIO, Dennis Richardson, and then AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty showed great leadership transforming Australia's security architecture to meet this serious threat. The government's own white paper on counter-terrorism, which was released last year, details how Australia has had 35 people prosecuted for terrorism offences pursuant to the Criminal Code, 20 of whom have been convicted, and, 'More than 40 Australians have had their passports revoked or applications denied for reasons related to terrorism.' It is a powerful reminder that the threat from home-grown extremists is real. I have little doubt we are winning the war on terror. The death of bin Laden was significant; however, there is no room for complacency as circumstances can change overnight. We must continue to work closely with our closest friend and ally, the United States, whose global reach is unrivalled and whose values are most consistent with our own. We must also continue to strengthen our regional ties, including with Indonesia, the natural leader of ASEAN, our largest immediate neighbour and the world's most populous Muslim nation. Further abroad, we must see through our important contribution in Afghanistan as we assist their national army and police to develop the skills and resources to assume control. We cannot afford failed states in Afghanistan, in nuclear armed Pakistan or in our region. This will require a significant long-term investment from all countries, including Australia, which must play its part. As we look back, a decade on from the events of 9-11, we mourn those who lost their lives but at the same time we take comfort from the substantial progress we are making to ensure that such a tragedy never happens again. 16:55 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fraser Last Sunday, Peter Negron once again stood before a crowd gathered in Lower Manhattan to remember and pay tribute to the victims of the September 11 tragedy. Two years after losing his father in the attacks, Peter, then a slight 13-year-old barely able to reach the microphone, had read the children's poem Stars, including the lines: I felt them watching over me, each one And let me cry and cry till I was done. The enduring acuteness of the loss and sorrow felt by the nation was captured by the boy's shaking voice. At the time of the attacks, I was living in Boston. On the morning of 11 September 2001, standing in the atrium of the Littauer Building at the Harvard Kennedy School, I looked up at the television screen and saw smoke pouring out of the Twin Towers. Around me were students from all over the globe, including many Americans. Some had friends who had boarded flights leaving Boston at eight that morning—friends they would never see again. That morning we were supposed to choose our classes. To help us decide, Harvard had each professor give a short overview of the course they were offering. By chance, I entered the room where Michael Ignatieff was presenting his overview. After a minute's silence to remember those who had died that morning, Ignatieff spoke eloquently about international law and the challenges of deciding when to intervene in another nation for humanitarian reasons. He balanced the head and the heart: the need to honour those we have lost while thoughtfully considering the circumstances to justify sending our military overseas. When I left his classroom, one of the Twin Towers had fallen. The second would fall minutes afterwards. This week, Peter Negron spoke of how he has tried to be a father figure to his younger brother, and his plans for the future. Ten years have passed since Peter's father's death and, while the depth of his heartache was still visible, it was heartening to see the young man's fortitude. Nearly 3,000 families lost a son, daughter, sister, brother, father or mother on September 11. Ten Australians are known to have died. From New South Wales, Alberto Dominguez, from Lidcombe, age 66, was a Qantas baggage handler; Yvonne Kennedy, 62, was on American Airlines flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon; Craig Gibson, 37, from Randwick, was working in the World Trade Center's north tower, in the offices of insurers Marsh & McLennan; Steve Tompsett, 39, from Merrylands, was in the north tower; Elisa Ferraina, 27, from Sydney, who had just taken out UK citizenship, having been born in Australia, was in the north tower; and Lesley Thomas, 41, was also in the north tower. From Victoria, Leanne Whiteside, 31, a lawyer from Melbourne, was in the south tower; and Peter Gyulavary, 44, born in Geelong, was in the south tower. From South Australia, Andrew Knox, 29, from Adelaide, was in the north tower. I remember Andrew's friend Kirsten Andrews coming to stay with me in Boston shortly afterwards as she worked through the experience of losing such a close friend. From Queensland, Kevin Dennis, 43, from the Gold Coast, was a US based stockbroker with Cantor Fitzgerald, a firm which lost two-thirds of its employees on that fateful day. In the 10 years after the September 11 attacks there has been something of a trend among academics and commentators to focus on where to place blame—blame for the initial attacks, blame for the subsequent fighting. Christopher Hitchens, while describing Osama bin Laden as 'the proud beneficiary of the export of violence', highlights the indecency of trying to act as a mouthpiece of terrorists and engaging in apologist rhetoric. As Hitchens notes, there are legitimate grievances held by the Palestinian people. United States foreign policy is sometimes imperfect. But to link these with al-Qaeda's primeval, totalitarianism, misogynist, anti-modern ideology is deeply wrong. Hitchens points out that after Salvador Allende was murdered on 11 September 1973, the Chilean opposition had legitimate grievances against the United States. But the Chilean opposition never dreamed of pursuing their goals by committing atrocities against civilians on United States soil. Nothing justifies the mass murder of civilians. Hitchens emphasises the duty we owe to others who continue to suffer, such as 'Afghanistan's people, whose lives were rendered impossible by the Taliban long before we felt any pain'. Australia has a proud history of upholding this responsibility by serving around the world as peacekeepers. Since 1947, more than 30,000 Australians have worked for the cause of international peace and security. Today marks the 64th anniversary of our involvement in international peacekeeping. I pay tribute to one of my predecessors as the member for Fraser, John Langmore, who has been a strong advocate for the global role played by Australian peacekeepers. Our peacekeeping efforts were recently recognised by United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who acknowledged the work of Australians in Africa, Europe, Central America, the Middle East and the Asia Pacific region. Australian peacekeepers saved lives, helped communities and worked to rebuild nations. Those efforts are continuing today in Afghanistan—about which I spoke in much more detail in parliament last October. To say that September 11 changed the world is no exaggeration, but it also reinforced some absolutes. Australia continues to share the United States' vehement opposition to terrorism. Together we remember the lives that have been lost and together we will work to ensure that such a tragedy does not occur again, be it in our own country or elsewhere. It is our responsibility to ourselves and to the world to work towards a peaceful future. 17:02 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest September 11, 2001 is a date that is etched into the collective memory of the world. On that day, as we know, four flights were scheduled to travel from the east coast of the US to California, and we know that none would complete that journey. At 8.46 am—a time that we do remember—five hijackers crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Center's north tower and at 9.03 am another five hijackers crashed United Airlines flight 175 into the south tower. Yet another five hijackers flew American Airlines flight 77 into the Pentagon at 9.37 am. There were another four hijackers on United Airlines flight 93 who were taking that plane to Washington DC, perhaps to attempt to crash it into the Capitol Building that houses America's congress. However, the passengers and crew on United flight 93 fought back and the flight recorder records show that they may have been on the verge of retaking the plane. But, in response, the hijackers crashed the plane into a field in Pennsylvania. The south tower of the World Trade Center collapsed at 9.59 am—you see the sequence of events—and the north tower followed suit at 10.28 am. I do not think there is any person in this place or anyone out in the community who will ever forget where they were when that was happening. How many of us—like me—when watching this happening on television first thought, 'I must be watching a movie'? I just thought, 'I must be watching a movie.' I just could not believe what I was seeing. The dreadful horror of that being real is with me today, and I am sure that is echoed by every peace-loving person who values human life in this world. Anybody who watched that unfold and watched the horror of that aircraft hitting that building could not fail to be impacted by that forever, knowing the terror felt by the people in that building and those in the plane—the passengers; what was going through their minds? We fly from all around Australia to come to Canberra every week. You just have to imagine yourself being on that flight to know what would be in your head during that particular flight. We have heard stories of what people have said. There is so much information out there about the experiences people had, about the desperation but also the courage: the courage of people in the towers—the emergency services people, the people who were running up the stairs while others were having to run out. These people knew what was most likely the outcome for them, but they still did this. And that is one reason why all of us, no matter where we are, have an incredible respect for our emergency services and law enforcement officials. We saw that on that day in the way that we see that frequently here and overseas. We were all praying that more people would get out of those buildings. We had no idea, from where we were watching, how many people were actually getting out, making their way out from the bottom of those towers, before they collapsed and as they were collapsing. But everybody was praying, because we had been told that there were possibly 20,000 or more people in those two places. And the horror of that was with all of us. So, as those towers collapsed, the horror was indescribable. I can only imagine what the families who had people there in those towers were going through themselves, and I would suggest that many of the emotional scars remain today—not just from the fact that they may have lost their loved ones but also from the impact of what they had to go through themselves in watching that evolve. Those are the sorts of scars that do not leave you. Two thousand, nine hundred and seventy-seven innocent people died, and the hijackers. Two hundred and forty-six passengers and crew on those four aircraft were also sacrificed. The numbers are just mind-boggling. At the Pentagon, 125 lives were lost, of whom 55 were military personnel. At the World Trade Center, 2,606 people were killed, including 411 very brave emergency services workers from the New York police department, the police fire department, firefighters and paramedics, the New York port authority police department and eight private company paramedics. Among those who were at the World Trade Center, at least 200 people fell or jumped to their deaths to avoid the flames and smoke. I suspect that everybody in this House who saw that footage will remember that sight and how we felt seeing what was happening to those people and the desperate decisions they were forced to make. But then there were those who planned and instigated this crime against all of the world's humanity—and this was not just a crime against people in the US; this was a crime against us all. For everybody who values human life and who values a peaceful existence, this was a crime against us all. The 9/11 Commission Report alleges that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the principal architect of the 9-11 attacks. He is also alleged to have played a significant role in many of the most significant terrorist plots of recent decades, including the World Trade Center bombing of 1993, and the 2002 Bali nightclub bombing that killed 202 people including 88 incredible Australians. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was captured on 1 March 2003 in Pakistan and transferred to US custody. In March 2007, he confessed to masterminding the September 11 attacks, the Bali nightclub bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and various other attacks. The horror of the September attack lives not just in America but, as I said, all around the world. For the 10 Australian people who had their lives cut short, we mourn them as their families do, and I am sure their families mourn them every day. It does not go away for these people. It is not just that you remember them one day of the year. And we should note that those responsible for these atrocities are responsible often for similar atrocities against their own people, because they do not value human life. We see that in other nations. We see it in Afghanistan. And while we see such evil in these people, the response of strength and the response of resolve from the rest of the world and world leaders is part of what we need to do to counter this threat. In looking at the DFAT site I note that they also said that we need to be constantly aware of the need for security and for the development of strategic and sustained national responses, and that transnational terrorism presents Australia with a challenge previously unknown. We do know that the cyber world presents a level of terrorism that we have not experienced before, and we do know that globalisation has put Australia within the reach of transnational terrorists. As we know, we are international traders, and part of that reach is international trading. We travel extensively, and we also engage internationally as peacekeepers and peacemakers, as we see in the community-building that is happening in Afghanistan. It is critical that Australia and Australians acknowledge that we are part of the transnational threat and that the need for vigilance is constant. This is the world as we know it now, and so counter-terrorism efforts in this nation and around the world are an area of great focus for this nation and need to be ongoing. In closing, let me say that we do need to stay the course. We need to maintain our focus on counter-terrorism activities, and we need to maintain a relationship, a very strong activity, with the US and our alliance—those who, on the day, John Howard grieved with and supported and about whom he made a very strong statement on behalf of Australia and Australians. As a nation we cannot afford to drop our guard on this, and I urge all members to recognise the responsibility we bear in that in this place. 17:12 Mr RIPOLL 83E Oxley This year is the 10th anniversary of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in the United States. These events have probably done more to reshape the future of the free world as we know it than almost any other event, certainly in recent history. I want to speak on this motion and on these events because I want to be on the record as having supported the comments by members and senators. I also want to support the United States of America, the American people and the Australians who lost their lives and their families. As well, I want to support the comments of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and all those who have said things about what this anniversary means to the United States, to Australia and to the world. It is important that we pause to remember and reflect because of the significance of what took place. Ten years ago here in Australia we woke and turned on our TVs to be confronted with scenes that we could not believe—planes flying into buildings and destroying those buildings and eventually killing more than 3,000 people, including the Australians who lost their lives that day. They were people from all walks of life, from all backgrounds, from all faiths and from all parts of the world. While it may have been an act that was directed at the United States, in the end it was an act against all decent human beings. No-one who saw those scenes that day could possibly in any way forget them. It was truly a tragic day. They were almost impossible scenes. I think we all remember what we were doing and where we were. I remember looking at the news on the TV and not actually believing what I saw. I thought it was a hoax. I just could not believe that it was possible. They were impossible images; they were impossible thoughts. It was something that I thought just could not happen. But it did, and we realised our own frailty in a whole range of different ways. We saw all those images of the tragedy of death: the people on the plane, having lost control of their ability to do anything about their fate; the people in the buildings, having lost control of the ability to do anything about their fate and, as we heard from the previous speaker and others, people going to incredible lengths to either try to save themselves or decide it was better to perish by leaping from a building than to be consumed by fire or overcome by smoke; and, those that could not be rescued, finding their fate in the end by being trapped in a building that collapsed. It did change all of our lives. It did change a whole range of things about us, including the way we look at the world and the way we look at ourselves. September 11 also changed ordinary people's lives. It certainly changed nations and it has changed the way we approach a range of things. But I think an even more profound impact has been the way it is has changed ordinary people's lives. It has changed the way we travel to and from certain places, such as domestic airports and international airports, in the way travel documents are inspected and the way that we are screened at particular airports. It has changed the way that we visit government buildings, with no better example than Parliament House itself. The amount of change that has taken place here, while all for the better in terms of our security, means we have lost a little piece of innocence from our lives as ordinary people. It has also had an impact on going into any metropolitan city or even regional cities; just getting into significant buildings and places, tourism places, has changed. There has been a profound impact. In the end, that is what terrorism does. I do not think we can walk away from that. Terrorism does have an enormous impact. But it has also created a resolve amongst the free world, the Western world. For Australia, it meant we invoked article 4 of the ANZUS treaty to stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies the United States. We decided that we would face terrorism, that we would not be driven into a dark, deep hole and cower in the face of terrorism, but that we would face it—and we would face it wherever it was, whether it was in Bali, in South-East Asia, on home soil, in the United States or any other country. US Ambassador Bleich put it succinctly at the commemoration here in Canberra when he said: Confronted with hate, we choose not to hate. Confronted with death, we choose to live. Confronted with fear, we choose to hope. Australia has played a significant part in choosing to do those things. Part of our response was that we sent Australian troops overseas to fight terrorism in all its forms and in all its places, in Iraq and in Afghanistan in particular. To date, 29 Australian soldiers have given their lives in Afghanistan. But our commitment to ensuring that Afghanistan does not fall into the grip of the Taliban or terrorists continues to this day. As we have heard from other members in this place, we will stick to our mission and we will continue to do what is required of us. Terrorism is not a problem that is faced by any one country, any one nation, any one people at any one particular time. It is something that faces all of us all of the time. The attack on American soil was also an attack on us. I believe that, while we do have choices, we do not have a choice in these matters. We do not step away from what has been presented to us. We need to respond. If the goal of al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden—and, I imagine, of other people who organise terrorist attacks—was to weaken us through such attacks, they were wrong. If their thought and their strategy was that killing Americans on American soil in an act of terrorism that was almost unimaginable would weaken us, frighten us and eventually defeat us, they were wrong. If they thought that this would cease the progress of free, democratic nations in the world, then they were wrong—and they failed, because it did the complete reverse. It has been a long road—it has been 10 years since that terrorist attack—but we have not weakened. We have not lost our resolve. We have not lost our belief and our faith in democracy or our belief and faith in freedom—freedom of expression, of religion, of speech and of people to choose a government. If their goal and their strategy was to end the freedom of people by attacking the United States on home soil with a great act of terrorism, then they failed; in fact, I think they failed miserably because, in the end, it has done the complete opposite. We will make mistakes along the way. Anything that we have done in the past 10 years has not been a perfect response to what took place, but I do not think anything could be. This is new ground, new territory, and nothing that we do is a perfect answer or a solution. But we must continue to respond. We must continue in the face of what is presented to us and do something that is just and right. We must protect our people and also people in all parts of the world who deserve the protection and the freedom that we all enjoy—not freedom according to our own definition but in the way that it is defined by different people in different countries according to their own beliefs and their own cultures. I wanted to take the time to place on the record the fact that those events have reshaped our nation, they have reshaped the world, and I believe that this government and the previous government took the right course of action. We will continue to do that and we will continue to support our allies the United States. We will always be united in our resolve against terrorism. 17:21 Mr BRIGGS IYU Mayo I followed the member for Oxley's contribution and agree largely with what he had to say. Sitting here and listening to the last few speakers, there has been a consistent theme that members have pursued, from different perspectives, of course. The member for Forrest gave her usual heartfelt contribution to this debate, and prior to that the member for Kooyong gave a genuinely decent assessment of the strategic challenges post-September 11, including his feelings from the day. I think that is what this motion is about: giving members an opportunity to express how 11 September, 2001 impacted on their lives, because it was, I think, the defining moment of our generation. It changed our lives quite considerably in multiple ways, and it made a huge impact on the psyche of those of us who live in developed countries, in democratic nations, in free lands, who look to the United States of America as the leader of the free world and as a fundamentally good nation that leads our freedom, that defends the freedom that we all enjoy and that has played a significant part in ensuring that people can live their lives as they wish to. The people who conducted those attacks on the United States in September 2001 do not believe in freedom, and the disgraceful and disgusting sect of Islam that they follow is not about freedom; it is about control. It is about making people live in the way that they believe people should live. Reflecting on the last week or so, I thought that John Howard, who was there on the occasion of the September 11 attacks—I think it was his first visit to the United States after the election of President Bush—summed up brilliantly the feelings of the Australian people in a letter he wrote on that day to the United States on behalf of the Australian government. He said: Dear Mr President, The Australian Government and people share the sense of horror experienced by your nation at today's catastrophic events and the appalling loss of life. I feel the tragedy even more keenly being here in Washington at the moment. In the face of an attack of this magnitude, words are always inadequate in conveying sympathy and support. You can however be assured of Australia's resolute solidarity with the American people at this most tragic time. My personal thoughts and prayers are very much with those left bereaved by these despicable attacks upon the American people and the American nation. Of course, they were attacks also upon the democratic societies which make up our Western world, and they also impacted on people who follow the same faith as those attackers, who claimed to follow the Islamic faith. It was a horrific day and I think those words reflected the feelings at the time. The point that John Howard made when he said, 'You can … be assured of Australia's resolute solidarity,' was brought home just a couple of days ago in a letter from the President of the United States, President Obama, who confirmed in his letter that, for the 10 years since those attacks, Australia has been the best friend it could be to the United States of America. We have stood by our friend and partner, and we have done the right thing in doing so, in following and hunting down those who undertook the attacks—the al-Qaeda organisation and its affiliates. You would have to say, 10 years on, that that organisation is now an extremely diminished organisation with far less capacity to undertake attacks on the Western world than it had, obviously, in September 2001. But it has been a difficult journey and there has been much pain along the way. We again remember the attacks on Madrid, the attacks on London and, of course, the attacks closest to Australia—the attacks on Bali, which undoubtedly were targeted at Australians and, unfortunately, successfully, killing 88 of our citizens. So there has been much pain since September 11, but there has also been much ground made in the battle against these extremists, the battle against those who would do us ill. Only a few months ago now—and I pay tribute to President Obama for the courageous decision that he made in ensuring it—Osama bin Laden was brought to justice for all the evil that he spread throughout the world. It was a courageous decision of President Obama's and he did dedicate resources from the moment he was elected President. I think that was a truly good thing that President Obama was able to do. We have also had—and I think the member for Oxley was right to reflect on this—a substantial change in the way that we live our lives because of the attacks of September 11. No doubt before September 11 security was important, but now security is paramount. You only have to look around this building to see the impact on security and the impact on the risk management decisions that now have to be made by organisations. The impact on airports was, of course, quite significant, though, as we all know if we have travelled to the United States, the impact here was nothing like the impact in the United States—but, still, an inconvenience for travellers and an additional cost for people. These things do cost a lot of money and they have a lot of impact in terms of both time and money, but, again, there is the risk management element: people are not willing to risk the threat of attack. But we do have to balance those security measures—the extraordinary laws and powers that we have given our law enforcement agencies—with our right to live our lives in the freedom that we enjoy. We do not want to allow those extremists who we fight against to win by controlling our lives to such an extent through overt or covert powers being handed to people who are designated to protect. That is a loss of our liberty and it is a loss that we should make sure that we do not hand to those who seek to do us harm. So there is a balance there, and I think that, after 10 years, we need to continually reflect upon that balance—the human rights element of our liberty versus the importance of ensuring the laws are strong enough to protect us. It was, as everyone has reflected in this debate, one of those moments in time that we will not forget. I was sitting at home by myself watching the old Channel 7 Talking Footy program when the news cut in. I remember turning to Channel 10 and seeing Sandra Sully. I do not think many people could forget the distressed look on her face as the second plane ploughed into second tower in New York. It was frightening, and I think it frightened most people. People woke up the next morning to it. It was an attack which caused the biggest loss of life in United States history on the mainland. It was brought home to us and it changed the way we look at our lives. In that respect, it will continue to be a very significant anniversary. As I began my remarks, the United States of America is a force for good in our world and long may it reign as the leader of the free world. We want and need the United States of America to be the primary force of good in our world. They need our support to maintain that, and we should stand here and support them in that desire, that aim and that goal. They have proved to be a very good friend of Australia; we have proved to be a very good friend of the United States. It is sad that it took an occasion like that to bring our friendship even closer but it did. We stand today together as close as we have ever been. People use a religion for very evil purposes and, on this occasion of the 10th anniversary, it is right for us to reflect upon those matters. We think about the people who gave their life on that day, whether they be Australian, American or otherwise. We reflect on those people who have given their life since that time, whether in terrorist attacks across the globe or our servicemen who are fighting against these people. We reflect on the great freedom that the United States represents, that Western democracies represent, and we reflect upon how important it is to maintain that freedom that we so enjoy. 17:32 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell I wish to associate myself with the comments made by the member for Mayo and other members in the House. I also want to make my contribution to the Prime Minister's motion on the 10th anniversary of September 11. In doing so, I would also like to offer my condolences to Ambassador Geoffrey Bleich. I was unable to attend the memorial service in Canberra on Sunday because I had another commitment in my electorate but I thank the ambassador for his invitation to be there. There is no question that the events of September 11, 10 years ago, left the world a very different place. As the member for Mayo indicated in his closing remarks, I also, like many Australians, was at home when the initial footage of the first aeroplane was shown and the subsequent one hit the Twin Towers in New York City. I think initially, it is fair to say, a lot of Australians would have thought there was something very unreal about what we were seeing and it was very difficult to believe that it was actually happening. Sadly, it was a very real event. The fact that we were able to view live pictures brought home the impossibility of such an event taking place in such a novel way of bringing destruction and loss of life on home soil in the United States. I think that image is an iconic one of a major catastrophe in the 21st century. As many speakers have said before me, the events of September 11 changed our lives dramatically. First and foremost, there was the loss of life of thousands of innocent people. Australians were lost on that day. They died in the towers and, subsequently, it was the beginning of a whole series of events in the past decade that have been referred to: the London bombings, the Bali bombings—all are acts of terror perpetrated against innocent civilians in the name of, in this case, Islam. It was a time that focused our concentration on what the Islamic faith actually stood for, what it represented, and I want to go on the record as saying that people involved in terrorist acts, such as those of 10 years ago, who say it is in the name of Islam are in fact doing the Islamic faith not only a great disservice but also, as many of my own constituents of the Muslim faith constantly tell me, not acting according to the principles of Islam. Islam is a peaceful religion and it abhors acts of terrorism. I go directly to my constituency, because I have spoken many times in this House about the very large Muslim constituency that resides in the federal seat of Calwell; it is the second largest in Australia and the largest in Victoria. I feel that it is important that, on their behalf—and I have done this many times in this place over the last 10 years—I have spoken of the impact that the events of September 11 had on their lives. That impact may not have been as dramatic and as definitive as the loss of life of those who were in the Twin Towers in New York on that day, but there has been an impact on Muslims across the world, including the Muslim community here in Australia. The best way to characterise the impact that those horrible events had on our local community is to say that, the day after September 11, Australians of Muslim faith woke to realise that, from being seen as migrants with a migrant experience and generally part of the broader community, they had suddenly become identified immediately as Muslims and cast in a terrible light as a result of those horrible events that took place before our very eyes. Unfortunately for the community, they were very much framed within the context of a national security risk to Australia and to the broader global community. That was the immediate negative impact on Muslim communities here in Australia, let alone internationally. The positive side of this is that we live in a very successful multicultural community that was able to come together very quickly, recognising the possibilities for great division between us all. At the forefront of that coming together was not only acknowledging their solidarity with the people who had lost their lives and expressing their anger over what had happened but also assisting the Muslim community in Australia to deal with this issue—because the truth is that they were the 'it' community at that time, under the scrutiny of the international community, not to mention the media, particularly here in Australia. Their faith leaders came together in interfaith dialogues. We were all able to establish relationships to basically help manage the pressure that this community was under. As I said on Saturday night in my electorate, at an Eid festival—which is the festival marking the end of the holy month of Ramadan—we are able to reflect on where the community here in Australia has got to 10 years later. And it is a good story; it is actually a positive story. The Muslim community has emerged much stronger, it has developed significant relationships with other members of the wider community and our interfaith networks are very strong. So I can say that, 10 years on, our community here in Australia is much stronger and our awareness of each other is much stronger. I think that is very important because Australia has stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States. We participated in the Iraq war that resulted from September 11 and we are still engaged in active duties in Afghanistan, so we are fulfilling our responsibilities on that level; but on another level Australia is also a great example to the rest of the world of how communities, not just of different ethnicities but also of different faiths, can live together and essentially maintain their cultural and linguistic inheritance and their faith in the context of being Australian. I have heard many times in the last 10 years, in my travels overseas and from people who come here, references to Australia's society and our multiculturalism. They view us as a wonderful example of harmoniously and coherently managing diversity. In the many dialogues on the clash of civilisations that have taken place throughout the world in the last 10 years, Australia is always singled out as the country that has been able to manage differences of religion and diversity in an exemplary way. Today I had the opportunity to speak to Peter Marshall, the National and Victorian State Secretary of the United Firefighters Union of Australia. He was here in Canberra on another matter, but we had a discussion in which I told Peter that I was going to be making some comments today on the anniversary of September 11. He brought to my attention—and we all know this—that the firefighters played a very significant role on that day and in the days following. In fact, a considerable number of firefighters lost their lives. That illustrates the kinds of danger which people who serve our community face—our soldiers, of course, and also our emergency services personnel. When they are at the forefront of such events, they do risk their lives. I would like to read the letter of solidarity that Peter Marshall sent to his counterpart, Harold Schaitberger, who is the General President of the International Association of Fire Fighters. It reads: Dear General President Schaitberger, On behalf of the United Firefighters Union of Australia and its members across Australia, please convey our solidarity and commitment to the families and colleagues of IAFF members who perished in the line of duty, 10 years ago in the September 11 attacks. We will always remember the ultimate sacrifice that was made by IAFF members on that fateful day. Our hearts and our thoughts are with you. In solidarity Peter Marshall National and Vic State Secretary UFUA In addition, the Australian firefighters have joined with thousands of others at this moment in Colorado Springs to commemorate a memorial for the fallen firefighters and to remember all 347 who perished in the 9-11 attacks 10 years ago. It is very important to acknowledge that September 11 changed our thinking about our own sense of security and safety. Many speakers have made reference to the incredible impact that it had on our sense of security here at Parliament House. Needless to say, we all undergo the very stringent security measures that have to be taken at airports in Australia and everywhere else we travel. It was a moment in history that has caused us to be a lot more wary and vigilant and it certainly opened up an incredible debate about the Islamic faith. As I said in my opening remarks, it is important on these occasions to reflect on the impact that such an iconic catastrophe has on all aspects of life and I wanted to concentrate on the impact that it has had on my own community. I want to say to the House that 10 years later we as a nation have grown from this and it is very important to keep that in perspective. We still have to maintain our vigilance and our wariness, but I think we have come to understand things that perhaps we did not understand prior to that. I am very proud to say that it could have been to our detriment socially here in Australia but it was not. We have emerged a much stronger community, and certainly my community is very happy to be left to get on with its day-to-day business of living in mainstream Australia. This is very important to acknowledge. I am not going to name the people who have been involved in bringing communities together—there are too many of them. There have been many, many people. It has certainly been a great honour for me personally to work with some wonderful people and, again, I would like to close by offering my condolences to all who lost family and loved ones on that day, 11 September 2001. 17:46 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong I rise today to speak on the 10th anniversary of this sad occasion as someone who was based in the United States for one-quarter of his life. During these formative years throughout my 20s and 30s I was exposed to and embraced the American way of life, the enduring commitment to personal liberty and unrestrained opportunity. During this time a song was released, a lament by the name of American Pie, by Don McLean. The song that many of us of a certain age may be familiar with was the poetic retelling of the 1959 crash of a light plane in Iowa that killed four people: Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens, the Big Bopper and the pilot, Roger Peterson. This incident is recounted in the song as 'the day the music died'. Just like this tragedy, 11 September 2001 is about much more than a terrorist attack. It is about much more than 3,000 civilian lives that were lost that day. It is about much more than an aircraft now being considered a potential missile instead of just a mode of transport. Last Sunday the US Ambassador to Australia, Mr Jeffrey Bleich, delivered a most moving speech at a ceremony on the 10th anniversary of September 11 here in Canberra. In his remarks Ambassador Bleich noted: 'The simple question on people's lips immediately after the terrorist attacks was: what do we do now?' This eloquently highlighted the way in which the world permanently changed on that fateful day. Ten years may seem like a long time, especially when so much has happened over the past decade, yet when the tragedies of 9-11 were recently revisited the shock was brought back to our collective minds as if it were yesterday. In the fullness of time there has been reflection and the words of Ambassador Bleich deserve repetition in this place: In the 10 years since September 11, survivors of terrorism around the world have struggled … to understand what happened and why and how to stop it from happening again. Free people have come together from New York to Nairobi, from Bali to Belfast, from Mumbai to Manila, from Lahore to London and many other places and nations afflicted by terrorism. We have all been more careful at our borders, we have been more aware in our intelligence, we have been more aggressive in our response to terror. But we have been more than that. We have looked inward; and we have looked outward. We have been more inclusive of religions—learning each others traditions, hosting Iftars together, celebrating Ramadan and renewing our commitment to religious tolerance. We shared our thoughts and hopes and beliefs even more freely through our political processes. We innovated and built new ways to communicate—social media—that connected us to more people around the world than ever before in human history. We made more friends. And we invested more than ever in our alliances and in our communities around the world. We gave more aid. We supported more charities. We welcomed new countries like South Sudan. And we celebrated the spirit of democracy among the people of Tunisia and other nations in this Arab Spring. Then as now when our staunchest ally is attacked, our bond is tightened. Our Prime Minister, who was in Washington DC at that time, declared Australia's immediate willingness to partner with the United States, just as they would have responded had we been the direct target of such an attack. Yet the events of the past decade have taught us so much more about our shared values and common approach to our existence in this new world. America has shown the capacity, and we have joined with them, to engage with our former enemies in a beneficial and mutually prosperous manner. We can look back through the pages of history from Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima to the bombing of Dresden and the fall of Saigon. We can identify any number of wartime incidents that we have since been able to move on from, patch wounds and mend fences. There was no obligation on the part of the US to help rebuild Japan, implement the Marshall Plan and provide aid to a devastated postwar Europe, but it is this capacity to engage with their former enemies that lifts up the United States as truly beholden to its values. We too have been a beneficiary of that engagement, as have our former enemies that we now call trading partners and trusted friends. As strong and forthright as America's belief is as the leader of the free world, their strength has been demonstrated by their capacity to pursue a course of action that restates what has made both our nations great: in welcoming all people to their shores, especially in the city where the Statue of Liberty stands as a beacon, welcoming the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. Australia shares this legacy and, like the United States, we have benefited greatly from this investment of people's lives in our future. Similarly, like Australia, the United States has recognised errors of the past and continued genuine efforts to remedy those mistakes and come to terms with the people who occupied and cared for the land before our arrival. Many of those wounds remain exposed as only a relatively small amount of time has passed since the government policies that led to our own domestic tragedies like the stolen generations. Yet I am also so very proud to say that this speech today was greatly assisted by the research performed by Kaitlan Forbes, an Indigenous high school student from Adelaide, who volunteered in my office and requested to contribute to this issue. I met Kaitlan as I was catching up with one of my oldest friends, Evonne Goolagong Cawley, who I observed firsthand as she broke racial barriers and rose to the top of her sport. Kaitlan was only seven years old when the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were attacked. In her research she showed great sympathy for the victims and their families but also chose to focus on the conflicts that have occurred since and her confusion as to how this would lead to a better outcome. She wrote this message on the notes she provided to me: From my point of view it's like watching two children in a sand pit. One flicks sand into the others face and so the kid with sand in his face fills a bucket and dumps it on the others head. I do not fully understand the entire situation and I believe I will not but I do see that it is incorrect to attack because you have been attacked and kill innocent people in the cross fire. These reasons are the very things that Ambassador Bleich talked about—charity, religious freedom, recognition and rights. These form the path to the peaceful resolution of any differences that may still exist. These positive actions and energies will be a constant in their effort to overcome the remaining challenges that face both our nations. This transition from war to a peaceful and prosperous time must provide the inspiration that leads us to a global pursuit of those values that make both our nations great. I conclude with the final remarks offered by Ambassador Bleich: Around the world, we resisted the natural instinct of people when attacked to withdraw and close off; our response has been to reach out and embrace. Confronted with hate, we choose not to hate. Confronted with death, we choose to live. Confronted with fear, we choose to hope. The currency of the United States is inscribed with the words, 'In God we trust.' God bless the home of the brave and the land of the free. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY I thank the member. I am sure all members would like to pass on their congratulations to Kaitlan for her contribution to that very good speech. 17:56 Mr DANBY WF6 Melbourne Ports Just last week I stood in New York, in the empty space where the Twin Towers once dominated Lower Manhattan. Just as an observer, I cannot describe how the yawning, empty space—even a decade later—really strikes to the core of your soul. As with the assassination of President Kennedy, everyone remembers where they were on that fateful day. It was evening here in Australia and I, with a lot of the leadership of the Victorian Labor Party, was with Kim Beazley at a fundraiser. All I remember was that the event broke up into total chaos as people found out what was happening. It was surreal; almost like a movie. In the early hours of the morning here in Australia many of us were glued to the TV watching the events in New York. Three thousand people were murdered that morning by al-Qaeda, including 10 Australians: Yvonne Kennedy, Andrew Knox, Leanne Whiteside, Alberto Dominguez, Leslie Thomas, Kevin Dennis, Elisa Ferraina, Craig Gibson, Peter Gyulavary and Steve Tompsett. We remember the American firefighters, police officers and emergency personnel who sacrificed their own lives to save those trapped. We remember those brave passengers on flight 93, about whom that incredible film was made. If anyone in this House has not seen it I urge them to. Those passengers sacrificed their own lives in order to stop other senseless deaths. We remember and honour, in particular, those who have sacrificed their lives in the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, including 29 Australian soldiers killed in action to prevent September 11 ever happening again. We are not in Afghanistan to preserve in office a crook like Mr Karzai, the President, but we are there in a judicious military effort in Australia's interests in close alliance with the United States. As our recent VC, Corporal Roberts-Smith, memorably described it on AM: I believe that we— that is, the soldiers fighting in Afghanistan on Australia’s behalf— are making a difference in stemming the flow of terrorism into Australia, and I want my children to be able to live as everyone does now without fear of getting onto a bus and having it blow up. We also remember those lives that were lost in the subsequent, and linked, attacks in Bali, London, Madrid and Mumbai by jihadist terrorists—either members or affiliates of al-Qaeda. Since 2001, more than 110 Australians have been killed in these terrorist attacks, including 88 of our countrymen murdered in Bali in 2002 by al-Qaeda's local franchise Jemaah Islamiah. Remember, the finances for that attack came from Hambali of al-Qaeda and were filtered through to Jemaah Islamiah. So al-Qaeda was directly involved in the murder of those Australians in Bali. Professor Greg Barton has argued: The sort of threat that we face with groups like al-Qaeda and those inspired by al-Qaeda is not a traditional insurgency … it is not about territorial war. The extremists who committed these attacks do not distinguish between creed, religion or colour. That day in New York, al-Qaeda killed thousands of people of many faiths and nationalities—Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists. People everywhere around the world felt that our modernity and modern, democratic and pluralist society, not just in the United States but everywhere, was being assailed. Immediately after the attacks, Australia invoked article IV of the ANZUS Treaty, standing with our ally the United States of America. Le Monde expressed the essence of our visceral reaction all around the world with its headline, 'We are all American'. We stood then, as we do now, side by side with the United States. President Obama recently wrote to the Prime Minister in one of only three letters sent to international leaders. He said: In the decade since the attacks, we have had no more steadfast partner than Australia in our effort to defeat terrorists in Afghanistan, in Bali, in the Middle East, and in Southeast Asia. In the 10 years since the attacks, Australia has been at the forefront of counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan and our region. We pay tribute to those men and women serving in Afghanistan who are making a difference in suppressing the Taliban. The Taliban, we remember, hosted al-Qaeda, which orchestrated many attacks on Australians. At home we developed non-partisan ways of protecting the homeland. The bipartisan Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security, which I am honoured to serve on, made recommendations on terrorist organisations that have led the Australian government, under Prime Minister John Howard, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and now Prime Minister Julia Gillard, to proscribe the following 19 organisations: Abu Sayyaf, al-Qaeda, Tanzim Qa'idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn, Asbat al-Ansar, Ansar al-Sunna, the Armed Islamic Group, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Hizballah External Security Organisation, Islamic Army of Aden, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Jamiat ul-Ansar, Jemaah Islamiyah, Lashkar-i-Jhangvi, Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, Jammu and Kashmir, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Salafist Group for Call and Combat and the Kurdistan Workers Party. Together with the counterterrorist legislation that we have in this country and the courts, the security agencies, the Australian Federal Police, ASIO, ASIS and Australia's intelligence agencies have all worked to ensure that there have been no attacks on mainland Australia. The Australian anti-terrorism legislation of 2004, the Australian Anti-Terrorism Act 2005 and the subsequent changes made to the national security legislation ensure that our law enforcement and security agencies have the tools they need to fight terrorism, as in September 11. On Monday in his speech on the anniversary of the attacks, Attorney-General Robert McClelland, the member for Barton, spoke of Australia's investment in national security, which has increased from $18 billion in 2001 to $33 billion in 2011. The member for Barton explained that 38 individuals have been prosecuted as a result of counterterrorism operations and 22 have been convicted. Because of our determination to prevent other September 11s, to prevent mass casualty attacks within the framework of our democratic system, we have seen six series of trials and convictions of terrorist suspects in this country. First of all was Jack Roche, who trained in Pakistan with Jemaah Islamiah and who was convicted of conspiring to bomb the Israeli embassy here in Canberra in 2000. Faheem Khalid, who trained in Pakistan, was convicted of terrorism related offences in 2006 by the New South Wales Supreme Court for plotting to attack the national electricity supply at the Holsworthy Barracks and HMAS Penguin naval base. Willie Brigitte, trained in Pakistan with another al-Qaeda affiliate, was deported in 2003 and is currently in custody as a terrorism suspect in France. Another trial to put away people who would have caused September 11s to happen in Australia were five men in Sydney: Khaled Cheikho, Moustafa Cheikho, Mohamed All Elomar, Abdul Rakib Hasan and Mohammed Omar Jamal, who were arrested, charged and found guilty under Australian law on 15 February 2010 of conspiring to commit terrorist acts. The group in Melbourne led by Abdul Nacer Benbrika were convicted in September 2008 for planning mass casualty attacks at the 2005 AFL Grand Final and at Crown Casino. The Holsworthy Barracks terror attack was planned by Saney Edow Aweys, Nayef El Sayed, Yacqub Khayre, Abdirahman Ahmed, Wissam Mahmoud Fattal. All were convicted on 4 August 2009. Finally, there was a case only mentioned today in the Australian where Omar Baladjam pleaded guilty to four counts of terrorism, acquiring ammunition, acquiring chemicals for the preparation of a terrorist attack, possessing guns, chemicals and phones connected with the preparation of a terrorist attack. This is typical of a judgment of one of our learned judges, Justice Whealey, who told the New South Wales Supreme Court: The offender intended that the terrorist act or acts to which his conduct was related would involve action that, at the very least, would cause serious risk to the health and safety of the public … In blunt terms, the collective thrust of the material [in Baladjam's possession] embraces a view that Muslims are obligated to pursue a violent form of jihad to undermine and overturn liberal democratic societies and to replace them with Islamic rule and sharia law … it advocates the use of violence, the killing of people and the wholesale destruction of buildings, as the means by which [Western] governments will be persuaded to make these political changes. Of course, this shows that we have the laws, the police agencies, the intelligent services, all working in concert, and the wonderful work that they have done has prevented anything like September the 11th happening in Australia. But it just shows you how comprehensive the work has been over the last decade. As the member for Calwell said, of course the vast majority of people involved as members of the Islamic religion only want a peaceful and productive life here in Australia and have to be treated with great sensitivity, as Ambassador Bleich argued in his wonderful speech which I was present at with the Prime Minister just the other night. But at the same time we have the laws, the police and the intelligence services to see that people cannot get away with these kinds of bastardries in Australia as they were able to get away with on those days in New York. President Bush said in a memorial service for those who lost their lives in flight 93, 'Whatever challenges we face today and the future, we must never lose faith with our ability to meet them together. We must never allow our differences to harden into divisions.' However, most important is the intellectual framework to understand these events of September 11. They are not just examples of criminality. They are a war launched against our way of life. The Professor of Law at the University of California and former Justice Department official, John Yoo, explained that the decision to treat the 9-11 attacks as an act of war rather than criminality was crucial. He argued convincingly: Looking back over the decade, the first clear lesson is the critical importance of the decision to consider the struggle with Al Qaida a war. We do not see Al Qaida as some middle eastern version of the mafia, if on a grander scale. The 9-11 attacks were an act of war. They were a decapitation strike aimed at effectively eliminating the US leadership in a single blow. If the Soviet Union had carried out the same attacks no-one would have doubted that the United States was at war. Al Qaida's independence from any national state should not shield it from our military, relegating it to just police agencies and the courts. Choosing this intellectual framework, Yoo argued, opened the arsenal that has decimated Al Qaida's leadership and blunted its plans of attacks, its plans to do more September 11s, not just in the United States but here in Australia and other Western countries. A nation at war does not need to wait for suicide bombers to arrest the suspects who remain. Instead it can fire missiles or send in covert teams to pre-emptively capture and kill the enemy. Our government does not need a judge's permission before tapping an al-Qaeda phone, intercepting his emails or arresting him. I think that the fact that the Prime Minister here in Australia congratulated the President of the United States on the killing of bin Laden is an example of the framework which we all now accept. Obviously, we do not need to ask the SAS to provide Miranda warnings for terrorists on the battlefield. The events of that September morning were an act of war, a direct attack on our leaders and the citizens of the free world. In the aftermath of these attacks the ability of the intelligence agencies across the globe to work against al-Qaeda was crucial in the counter-terrorism effort. Critical knowledge collected by Australia's agencies, analysed and exploited, allowed the government of Australia, in cooperation with the United States and like the United States, to counter and convict those people who would plot further attacks on our country, including the seven cases I mentioned. On that morning in September, those who attacked the World Trade Center sought to destroy the very foundations of our democracies. We have shown in the last 10 years that our belief in decency, in freedom of speech and freedom of religion, in the rule of law and in humanity does not waver. The individual freedoms we uphold have emerged even stronger since 9-11. As Professor Yoo concluded: But individual freedom emerged from the decade stronger than before. The government did not censor the media, sabotage political opposition or mobilize the economy. No dictatorship arose. His comments equally apply to Australia: … the executive, legislative and judicial branches freely used … their powers to struggle for influence over national security policy. Five bitterly contested national elections— in the United States; there have been an equal number here in Australia— … switched control of the presidency once, the Senate once, and the House of Representatives twice. Meanwhile, new technologies and social networking have created an expanding space for political activity and organization unlike anything in our history. Civil liberties would certainly have suffered far worse had al Qaeda succeeded in landing a second blow on a par with 9-11. The fact that we are able to secure Australia, as the United States has been able to secure the United States, has been a great victory—the most important victory that has come out of the terrible events of 9-11. To those who state that we have wasted billions of dollars on counterterrorism in the aftermath of 9-11, I ask them: if that money had not been spent but invested elsewhere, how many of those with September 11 in their hearts would have been able to get away with similar events in Australia? You simply have to look at the record of the seven widespread attempts by groups of people to perpetrate those kinds of deeds in Australia. I think it is a great tribute to this country that we have kept our way of life. We have acted circumspectly, with our courts, intelligence agencies and police cooperating to preserve the Australian way of life to see that September 11 never happens here. 18:12 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes It is now a decade since 11 September, 2001, when terrorists with the deluded intention of advancing an evil and fanatical cause perpetrated an act of mass murder with the aim of sending freedom and democracy into retreat. I think everyone can remember what they were doing on that day. I can recall watching the television at home and remembering the many trips I had made to New York and the visits I had made to the World Trade Center. I remembered reading a plaque at the front of those buildings which said that 10,000 people visited each day. I thought of the massive loss of life that would occur. A decade on, the terrorists' aim of sending freedom and democracy into retreat has failed. The planners of the attacks are either dead or behind bars. Not only do freedom and democracy remain strong but, with the recent popular revolts in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya and the ongoing revolt in Syria, there is a clear desire for democracy and freedom to continue to grow throughout the world. One of the greatest lessons from September 11 is that our freedom and democracy can never be taken for granted. It is a lesson whereby ordinary citizens who enjoy the benefits of freedom and democracy must, at a single moment's notice, be ready to stand to fight to protect those very same rights. That lesson is evidenced by the efforts of the passengers that boarded United Airlines flight 93 on that fateful day. Flight 93 was United's scheduled morning flight on September 11 departing from Newark and bound for San Francisco. Although the plane had the capacity to carry 182 passengers, the September 11 flight carried just 37 passengers, four of them terrorists. But what the terrorists did not count on was how 33 ordinary citizens, passengers on that flight, and the flight crew were prepared to fight back to protect freedom and democracy. I am sure many of us here today have made that early-morning trip from downtown Manhattan to Newark airport, travelling through the Lincoln Tunnel or on the George Washington Bridge, just like many of those 33 passengers had on that day. They would have walked down the concourse of terminal A, breezed through a security gate and walked the 100 yards to the long, circular hallway, waiting for the boarding call, just like the other 100,000 people who pass daily through Newark airport. Those 33 passengers included: a 33-year-old account manager who had travelled from California for a business meeting and who had planned to return home on a red-eye flight that night to be with his two children; a 41-year-old computer engineer who had a wife and two daughters and was heading to a business meeting in San Francisco; a 73-year-old retired bank officer who was travelling to San Francisco on a vacation; a 20-year-old Japanese student who was heading back to Japan for his second year of college; a 60-year-old ironworker heading off on a vacation; a 37-year-old husband and father from Germany who was flying to San Francisco on business; a 38-year-old advertising sales consultant returning home from her grandmother's funeral in New Jersey; a 20-year-old university student who was returning home from a visit with friends; and a 31-year-old small businessman, a former rugby player who stood at six feet, four inches and was an automatic selection at No. 8 and who also happened to be a gay man. And there was a 51-year-old lobbyist for the disabled who was the vice-chairwoman of the New Jersey Developmental Disabilities Council and who was born with an inherited bone disorder that kept her height at four feet six inches. She was on her way to a grant-writing seminar. The people on the flight that day were a typical cross-section of people from a free and democratic society. We will never know for sure all the details of what happened on that flight. But we do know that the passengers, through communicating with mobile phones to family on the ground, decided that they must make a stand and they must attempt to overpower the terrorists and storm the cockpit. And we know the final words of passenger Todd Beamer: 'Are you guys ready? Let's roll!'—a phrase which has come to symbolise self-sacrifice, heroism and initiative in a tough situation. And we do know that that plane never made it to its intended target, which was most likely either the Capitol building or the White House. Flight 93 crashed just after 10 am on 11 September 2001, in a rural Pennsylvania field just outside the tiny town of Shanksville. All 40 people on board died, but hundreds and possibly thousands of lives were saved thanks to the passengers of flight 93, who, at a moment's notice, were ready to stand and fight to protect freedom and democracy. The permanent Flight 93 National Memorial was opened just a few days ago, on 10 September 2011. At the official dedication ceremony it was noted: A common field one day; a field of honor forever. May all who visit this place remember the collective acts of courage of the passengers and crew, revere this hallowed ground as the final resting place of those heroes, and reflect on the power of individuals who choose to make a difference. A decade on from 9-11, we must continue to remember that the threat of terrorism remains real even here in Australia. We have the Australian Federal Police, the Victorian and New South Wales police forces, the New South Wales Crime Commission and ASIO, whose tireless work with little recognition we have to thank for preventing several planned terror attacks on Australian soil. In 2008, five men, including a Muslim cleric, were convicted of planning a terrorist attack. During the trial, the jury heard evidence of plans to bomb the 2005 AFL Grand Final, the 2006 Australian Grand Prix and the Crown Casino. And only last year a Victorian Supreme Court jury found three men guilty of plotting a shooting rampage with automatic weapons at the Holsworthy army base in my electorate of Hughes. These perpetrators had planned on infiltrating the base and shooting as many people as possible with high-powered weapons until they were either killed or captured. Thankfully, they were arrested before their plans could be enacted. Their hatred of our country and our lifestyle was evidenced by comments recorded straight after their convictions, when one terrorist said in reference to the Black Saturday firestorm that killed 173 people in Victoria and injured another 414: 'Fires broke out around the country and we were all happy.' In the second decade after 9-11 we must assist nations in the Middle East in their transition to democracy and freedom because that is the best antidote to terrorism. But we must continue to be vigilant against those who threaten us. We must continue to remember that our freedom and democracy can never be taken for granted and must be defended, often with the point of a gun. And we must always remember that those who enjoy the benefits of freedom and democracy must be ready at a moment's notice, as those were on flight 93 that day, to stand up and fight to protect these very same rights. (Page) (18:20): Ms SAFFIN HVY A lot of eloquent words have already been spoken in this place by many members of parliament on all sides and they are words that I, like other members, wish to associate myself with. I know there is a collective feeling of what people feel and what we share about September 11 in 2001. It has been said that that day changed our world, and it certainly did in many ways. I always hope, as everybody does, that when we do change we can change for the better and come out of catastrophic, terrible, tragic experiences for the better. Terrorism is an ever-present threat but it is across societies and it is an ever-present threat across the ages; it is not new. Sometimes we have to look back through history to know that it has existed throughout time and manifests itself in different ways at different times in our history, with different people targeted. As a society and as people who are parliamentarians and part of government and opposition and make laws, we have to be mindful that we can be as ready as we can be to avert terrorist threats and also to respond if a terrorist act takes place, but not to be in a situation where that guides all of our actions, because that can take away the freedoms that we sometimes take for granted. We have to be as mindful and as vigilant in guarding our freedoms as we do in guarding against terrorist threats. There has been a lot of talk about where we were when this dreadful event took place. I was asked and said I was in Sydney. I had come home from work. I was then in the state parliament, in the Legislative Council, and got home late at night. My housemate sang out to me and she said, 'A plane has crashed into the Twin Towers.' We both said, 'Oh my God,' thinking how terrible it was. Then, sometime later—it felt like only a short time later—she called out that another plane had hit the Twin Towers. I said, 'Oh my God, a terrorist attack.' That is what we both immediately thought. For the first plane we did not; we just thought it was a terrible accident. For the second one, that was our response to it. Like everybody, we could not take ourselves away from the TV. We were glued to it for most of the night and were ringing people. I rang friends of mine who live in New York City to see how they were. I could make contact with some of them and for others it took me quite some time. They were scared, and they were heartened that we knew and cared. That was important. I also remember hearing a fellow talking on the radio about Americans being on planes and going to land at Sydney airport and that they did not know that this had taken place. They were going to walk out of the plane into finding out what had taken place in their country. I rang my friend Mick Reid, who was then the Director-General of New South Wales Health. He had already actioned it, but I said I hoped we had people at the airport to meet the American folk coming off the planes, and they did. I was able to communicate that to some of my friends. In 2004-05, I lived in New York City for a few months, while attending the UN General Assembly for Timor-Leste, and I saw the daily human and physical impact, even several years after 2001. There have been a whole lot of effects. People talked about the hole in the sky, because that is how it came to be seen by New Yorkers—the hole in the sky where the Twin Towers had been. After a while I too came to see that hole in the sky in the way the locals did. It was somewhere that I frequently walked—I would walk around the financial district, because I am a walker, so I go out walking a lot—and I would see the hole. One of the things that also happened was that when planes would come through the airspace above New York City, people would react. I can understand, in only the smallest way, how locals feel about that, because after a while you do start to react; you look up with a bit of a start because a plane is coming. All major catastrophic events change us; they cannot but do so. I hope that the victims, the survivors, their families and friends and all of the helping agencies, including the firefighters, who were the heroes, can find some peace in their lives, in ways we may not comprehend. I hope that, at a societal level, we can use this experience to make decisions more intelligently, that we can learn not to give up freedoms to terrorism and that we can think and reflect upon the reasons we go to war and upon some of the issues that have followed, including the practices that have developed. When I say practices, I mean that there is a body of counterterrorism conventions—quite a lot of them—and we implement them. We are obligated to by the UN Security Council—all member countries of the UN, including Australia, do that. But there is also a body of jurisprudence on human rights, and that accompanies those counterterrorism conventions, but sometimes it is overlooked. I would hope that all countries that are implementing those counterterrorism conventions are mindful of that body of human rights jurisprudence that accompanies the implementation of those conventions. There is also a Security Council resolution on that issue, so I hope that we can look at that. Locally, the question was: what were you doing on the day of the attacks? It is true: we all remember exactly where we were and what we were doing. Some of my local people have said in the Northern Star newspaper: We woke up early to hear it on the radio and couldn't believe what we were listening to. It was unimaginable. That was Marlene Farell, from Casino. I think it sums up how most people who heard it felt when it happened. Warwick Herbert, from Lismore, was at home when it happened. He said: We saw the second plane hit on TV and thought 'this can't be happening'. That, again, is a feeling that we all had. In conclusion, I would like to say that it is to the victims, their families and friends and to all those people who helped that I think our thoughts are best directed at this time. 18:29 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I pass on my appreciation for the thoughts and views on this 10-year anniversary that I have been able to sit and listen to as the members for Bennelong, Hughes, Page and Melbourne Ports have spoken. This is an event that has left a lasting legacy for us all—every member of the House, every member of the Senate and every member of the Australian community, including all the members of my electorate of Wannon. On this 10th anniversary of what were four coordinated acts of suicide it is worth remembering what actually happened. There were two planes which flew into the Twin Towers, one which flew into the Pentagon and another which crashed into a field near Shanksville. Nearly 3,000 people died in the attacks. The footage of the attacks will live with us forever and the imprint it has made on our collective psyche will, I am sure, be with those who watched what happened until the day they die. I take this opportunity to pass on my condolences to all the families, relatives and friends of those who died in the attacks. I would also like to note that if there was one theme that came out of the attacks it was that of bravery—the bravery of those who tried to help people who were caught up in the middle of the attacks and especially the bravery of those who were on the plane that crashed into Shanksville. They gave their lives so that others did not lose theirs, and I do not think you can have a greater act of bravery than that. There has been bravery in the response, and Australia has been a part of that bravery. Our soldiers have sacrificed their lives in Afghanistan to ensure that the war on terror has been successful. We have played our part. For all those soldiers and their families, relatives and friends, it is also worth us remembering what they have done in response to what happened on September 11 to ensure all members of our community are safe. On the morning of the attacks I was the acting ambassador at our embassy in Mexico City. I will never forget watching what had happened and trying to deal with it. Our ambassador at the time was in the United States. I could not make contact with him. He could not return to the embassy for four days because, of course, all flights were grounded as a result of what happened. We had locally engaged staff working at the embassy who had relatives in New York. They did not know what might or might not have happened to those relatives. There was a sense of fear. There was a deep sense of concern and worry. We had Australians who were travelling in Mexico at the time coming into the embassy to inquire what was happening—whether they were safe, whether their planned trips further north would be going ahead or not. There was a sense of bewilderment and disbelief at what had happened. I also remember being fortunate enough to visit New York not long after the attacks. I went up there as a tourist and I will never forget the way that New Yorkers welcomed me on that trip. They were so pleased to see that people were prepared once again to travel to New York, because the city is heavily reliant on its tourism industry. I remember going down and seeing the cordoned off Twin Towers, which were only rubble, and, as other speakers have mentioned, the huge gap that had appeared in the skyline. Everywhere you went, all the New Yorkers you ran into and discussed it with wanted to point to where the gap in the skyline was. It was like a piece of them had been removed and they did not quite know how to deal with it or what to do about it. It is interesting that it has taken so long for them to agree on what the memorial should be where the Twin Towers stood. I think it is very good that New York has agreed on how that day should be remembered. It gives the sense that they have come together to realise that part of them was taken away, but they now know how to replace it. I also think it is worth mentioning that the Australian response was swift and decisive. Our Prime Minister at the time, John Howard, deserves to be commended for immediately invoking article IV of the ANZUS Treaty and showing the solidarity of the alliance between the US and Australia. The response and the way we have stood with the United States in that response in fighting the war on terrorism is to be commended. I will also touch on the topic of bravery one more time, and that is the bravery that was shown in the capturing or trying to capture and in the end killing Osama bin Laden, the perpetrator of these attacks. It took Osama bin Laden three years to admit that it was al-Qaeda with him as the head of that organisation who had orchestrated and masterminded these attacks. The bravery which the US soldiers showed in bringing him to justice is to be commended, just as the bravery of all those who have given their lives in fighting the war on terror is to be commended. It is a great privilege to be here in this House to speak on the 10-year anniversary of the September 11 attacks. We as a country and the rest of the world have shown great bravery in the way that we have dealt with it. We have not succumbed in the way I think that al-Qaeda would have liked us to and resorted to the same sort of hatred that they showed. Instead, the globe has responded in a very positive manner and that is also to be commended. I will leave it there and I once again commend all those who have spoken previously on this matter. It is a privilege to stand here on behalf of my electorate of Wannon and remember all those who perished in those atrocious attacks. 18:37 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Throsby I rise here today to remember the atrocity when four planes were used in a terrible terrorist attack in several cities in the United States and to pay tribute to the victims. Collectively, we know these events as S11 or September 11 and they are forever etched in the consciousness of all Australians. The terrible atrocity involved four planes, including two which flew into the Twin Towers, the World Trade Center in New York, a separate plane which hit the Pentagon and a further plane which crashed into a field near Shanksville in Pennsylvania. Collectively, these attacks led directly to the deaths of 2,996 people—this included the 19 hijackers. Of the 2,753 victims who died in the World Trade Center, tragically 343 of them were firefighters who were called to work that day to try and rescue people trapped in the building. Another 60 police officers and eight private emergency medical workers were killed, and a further 184 people were killed in the attack on the Pentagon. The south tower of the World Trade Center burned for 56 minutes—nearly an hour—before collapsing on itself while the north tower burned for a little over 100 minutes before collapsing. We are told that fires in the buildings are estimated to have reached a temperature of over 2,300 degrees Fahrenheit. The site itself is now known as Ground Zero for good reason—it continued burning for over 99 days. Over 1½ million tonnes of debris needed to be removed from Ground Zero as a consequence of the attacks, and it took over nine months for the air quality around the Twin Towers to return to pre-9-11 levels. Over 2½ thousand contaminants, including carcinogens, were released in the debris from the collapsing and burning buildings. Many of the rescue workers who were involved survived but—and this is often forgotten—now suffer debilitating illnesses in the aftermath of that terrible attack, and 75 of the rescue workers have since been diagnosed with blood cell cancers which are thought by experts to have been caused by exposure to the toxic air around the crash site. Over 422,000 New Yorkers are estimated to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder as a direct result of the 9-11 attacks. Ten Australians are known to have died as a result of the attacks. From New South Wales were Alberto Dominguez, 66, from Lidcombe; Yvonne Kennedy, 62, from Sydney; Craig Neil Gibson, 37, from Randwick; Steve Tompsett, 39, from Merrylands; Elisa Ferraina, 27, from Sydney; and Lesley Anne Thomas, 41. From Victoria were Leanne Whiteside, 31, from Melbourne and Peter Gyulavary, 44, from Geelong. From Queensland was Kevin Dennis, 43, from the Gold Coast. There was also Andrew Knox from Adelaide, a man known to me, who died tragically at the age of 29. I was talking to my colleague, the member for Kingston, before I rose to speak, as Mr Knox—'Knoxie', as we knew him—was also known to the member for Kingston. I first met Knoxie in around 1994 in Brisbane, where he had moved for work. He was the sort of guy who blokes like me at that time hated to run into at a party, because he was tall, handsome, very funny and incredibly intelligent—in fact, he had it all. Whenever Knoxie walked into a room, all the good-looking women immediately gravitated towards him, and he would charm them with his great sense of humour, his wonderful wit and his intelligence for the duration of the party. He has a tremendous bloke with a great sense of social justice. He spent several years working for the Australian Workers Union. He had taken leave from the Australian Workers Union to work in the United States and was employed as a building worker when he was trapped in the World Trade Center and killed on 11 September 2001. He is survived by family and many friends. I knew him dearly though not well, and I use this opportunity to pay tribute to the life of Andrew 'Knoxie' Knox, who died too young. As other speakers have said in this debate, we will always remember hereafter where we were when we found out that the planes had hit those towers. I was in the Czech Republic with my wife of only a few months, and we received an SMS message from my sister-in-law in London, who I had left just the previous day. The reason she called us was that we were due to fly into JFK airport that day. Of course, the flight never departed, but our sacrifice was completely insignificant compared to the sacrifices of the victims to whom we pay tribute today. Like every Australian who watched in horror as that act unfolded, I will have the image burned in my memory forever. I hope that we are able to hold onto that memory so that the hate, the fanaticism and the diabolical distortion of religion that led to that terrible attack on that terrible day 10 years ago may remain repellent to us for evermore. I pay tribute to the victims. 18:44 Mr TONY SMITH 00APG Casey Ten years and three days ago I was sitting in the living room of my home at the time in Box Hill North. My wife, Pam, had just gone to sleep. I sat on the couch watching the Channel 10 late news. And then the world as we knew it came to a sudden, shocking and brutal end. I vividly remember the newsreader sounding perplexed as she talked through and tried to make sense of the breaking news. I woke Pam and, like untold millions of others, we sat transfixed by the sight of Manhattan burning on our TV screens. In New York, Washington and the Pennsylvania countryside, as we know, thousands of innocent people were dying, felled by the evil hand of an evil terrorist movement. So both Pam and I were awake when, at about 1.30 in the morning, I received a call from a very good friend—a former work colleague who was working with the National Australia Bank at the time. At this very time I was on the staff of the Federal Treasurer and, with the Wall Street district under lockdown, the bank was naturally concerned about what this all meant and about the impact of the atrocity on the world financial markets and the Australian Stock Exchange. So, like those of countless other institutions in the market, NAB senior management had been called in and were burning the midnight oil. Even in times of profound trauma, habit does not desert us as humans, and Richard politely began the conversation by inquiring, 'I hope I didn't wake you?' But, as soon as the words had left his mouth, he realised how ridiculous they were given what was unfolding as the world was careening into war. That night, sleep, for all of us and all our fellow Australians, was not possible. It would also have been disrespectful. It would have been profoundly dishonourable simply to go about our normal lives while so many innocents were losing theirs. That terrible night it was soon apparent that not just America was under fire; as former Prime Minister John Howard so rightly said, the attack on the United States was an attack on us as well. Of course, in some obvious ways, our American cousins are different from us. They play baseball; we play cricket. They drive on what we consider to be the wrong side of the road. They have a representative republican form of government and we have a Westminster parliamentary system. But, of course, in the larger scheme of things, these are just nuances—minor distinctions that contrast with the far greater commonalities that unite our two nations. Australians and Americans share a common devotion to democratic values and individual rights. We share a common provenance in the traditions of Judeo-Christian culture and the English common law. Government of, by and for the people are the political watchwords in Washington and here in Canberra. America was targeted on 11 September 2001 because it exemplifies the principles of liberty and freedom that we hold dear but which are anathema to the dark, medieval mindset of radical Islam. Just because the United States is at the top of the jihadi target list, we all know it does not mean that nations that share their values, like ours, are off the hook. Osama bin Laden's 1998 declaration of holy war against the Jews and crusaders contained a fatwa that commanded the killing of the Americans and their allies, civilian and military. There is no need to remind the House that Australian diggers have been proudly fighting for these values and for freedom alongside American sailors, soldiers, airmen and marines in every conflict since World War I, so it was pretty obvious that when al-Qaeda was declaring war on America's allies they had us in mind as well. In the first post September 11 manifesto, bin Laden upped the ante and made mention of Australia. He was enraged by the fact that so-called crusader Australian forces had taken part in the liberation of East Timor. Less than a year later the threats came to fruition when 88 Australians were killed in October 2002 in the suicide bombing attack in Bali. So, as we all know, we are part of this war, whether we want to be or not. Putting our heads in the sand and magically wishing that the enemies would disappear will make us not safer but more vulnerable, and that is why we must stay the course in Afghanistan and wherever else required. The words of Edmund Burke seem particularly relevant in this debate. In his Letters on a Regicide Peace, Burke wrote: We are in a war of a peculiar nature. It is not with an ordinary community, which is hostile or friendly as passion or as interest may veer about: not with a state which makes war through wantonness, and abandons it through lassitude. We are at war with a system, which by its essence, is inimical to all other governments, and which makes peace or war, as peace and war may best contribute to their subversion. It is with an armed doctrine that we are at war. What was true for Britain's 18th-century conflict with the guillotine-mad Jacobin in France is doubly true for our 21st-century fight with the suicide-bomb-mad jihadi Islam. Then, as now, as has been said so often in this parliament, steadfastness is the order of the day. As we reflect on the 10th anniversary of September 11, we should resolve in the spirit of Lincoln that the innocent dead shall not have died in vain, and we should resolve to defend our values, our freedoms and our way of life from those who seek their destruction. 18:53 Mr SIMPKINS HWE Cowan I welcome the opportunity tonight, as others have welcomed it, to speak on the events of 10 years ago, on September 11. As other members have mentioned, we all know where we were on the night of September 11. In my case, I guess I had the slight advantage of being in Perth, at my desk at the headquarters of 13 Brigade, the Army Reserve brigade in Western Australia. Being the brigade major, the full-time army officer that did management tasks for the brigade, I was at my desk when a very interesting thing happened: one of the soldiers came into my office and said, 'Sir, a plane has struck one of the Twin Towers in New York.' I immediately thought that a light plane had accidentally flown into the tower. You would have thought that was most likely. So I got up from my desk and I went into another room, where a TV was on. I stood there trying to comprehend what was going on, and a number of other headquarters staff were there as well. As I was watching, I asked what sort of plane it was, and it was as if it were in slow motion—the vision of a huge hole in the side of the building, black smoke pluming out of it. And then the plane appeared to the side of the picture and flew straight into the second tower. From that point on, there was no doubt anymore what the world was facing. There was no doubt at all that this was a premeditated attack and that terrorism was behind it. But we were watching on a TV screen from the safe distance of Perth, sitting in its secure and safe environs—a big difference from being one of the commanders of emergency services or US defence on the ground in New York. The fog of war most certainly applied. The differences in perception between the moment when we actually saw that second plane hit the other tower and what we knew an hour later, two hours later and 24 hours later were extremely substantial. It would been exceedingly difficult at the time to know what was going on. The vulnerability of the buildings was not well known at all. When those aircraft flew into the towers, taking out those lateral beams, they terminally weakened the buildings—but that was not something that was known at the time. Again, at our defence base, Irwin Barracks, Karrakatta, on the night of September 11, it was very easy for us to take precautions, to lock down the base and worry about the security arrangements. In the days and weeks that followed, the security arrangements for all government buildings and all our bases around the country and indeed around the world were seriously upgraded. There is a huge difference between the security arrangements we had before September 11 and those we had after September 11. As has been said by so many speakers in this debate, it is clear that there was a substantial change in the world that night. From the timing of the attacks—a Tuesday morning just before nine o'clock and, for the second plane, around nine o'clock, then the Pentagon and flight 93, suspected to be heading towards the Capitol building in Washington—there was no doubt that it was not just a demonstration of al-Qaeda's capacity to conduct an attack on the mainland United States but, very clearly, an intention to kill as many innocent people as possible. And, if that was their intention, then they most certainly achieved it: almost 3,000 people died in the towers, beneath the towers, in the Pentagon and on flight 93. And isn't that really the hallmark of terrorism around the world? Never do terrorists seek to take the fight to their alleged enemies, to take up arms on a field of battle against their opponents. It is never like that; it is always about finding the weakest, most defenceless, most vulnerable and most unsuspecting people possible. It is always the case that these cowards, these subhuman people, will look for opportunities that will cause the most terror and that involve attacking those who cannot fight back. That has always been the way and it will always be the way. We know that these are not the sorts of people that you can turn the other cheek to. These are not people to whom you can offer the hand of friendship. Osama bin Laden—may he rest in hell—described afterwards the motivations, the reasons why September 11 was justified: the US presence in Saudi Arabia, the holy land; the abuse of Muslim people in the Middle East by the US; the support of the Western world for Israel; all those reasons. But if it was not those reasons, if none of those reasons existed, there would have been some other reason, because we know that, apart from the cowardice and the subhuman brutality of people like al-Qaeda, what really motivates them is hatred of the Western democracies and liberalism—anything that does not conform with their very negative, destructive view of the religion of Islam. These people are not good advocates for Islam. As I said, they are subhuman, they are barbaric people, they are cowardly people. As I said before, you cannot offer negotiation to these people, you cannot offer the hand of friendship or take a step back with these people. There is only one way to deal with these sorts of people, and that is to fight. It is a sad reality that it will always come down to that. We must fight. We must be prepared to take up arms. It is in the national interest. It was in the national interest to do what needed to be done to take away the home bases, the safe havens, of al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, to take the fight to them so that terrorism cannot operate with impunity across the world. We will always have these examples of terrorist attacks. But if we think that we could have just apologised after September 11 for our Western values or whatever and all would have been forgiven or that the Americans could have pulled out of Saudi Arabia and all would have been forgiven then we are sadly mistaken. We would have had far worse terrorism issues on our shores than we currently have. Some people cast a very negative view of Afghanistan and of its future. I think the reality is that if all the Taliban can do is persuade the weak and feeble minded to conduct suicide bomb attacks, it really suggests that it has no capacity to conduct any form of military operations against NATO, the forces of liberation and the Afghan national government. If that is all it has got then it really does not have much to hold on to, and the fight, in my view, has certainly been won. In any case, what we get down to is that we must always be prepared to fight and take it to these people, because that, in the end, is the only way to deal with them. You take a step back, they will take a step forward; you offer the hand of friendship, they will cut it off. I have ranged widely tonight. I would like to finish by extending my condolences to the families of those who died on the day of September 11 and of those who died afterwards through injuries, and to those who suffered as a result of their proximity to the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and that Pennsylvanian field. Flight 93 is held out as an example of great courage; it most certainly is an example of great courage. Realising in the end that there was no hope, that there was going to be no mercy from these people, the passengers on that flight did what they needed to do. They knew that their survival chances were extremely remote but they knew that either they took control of the plane or they would be dead and others on the ground would be dead. So they sacrificed, they fought and they died with honour and dignity, as did all those who died on that day who were not terrorists. The terrorists involved there and the terrorists who continue to fight, the al-Qaeda leadership around the world, are not people of honour. They are not people with integrity, they are not people with courage; they are merely cowards. They are a disgrace to the world. They are subhuman. In the end there is only one way to deal with such people. 19:05 Mr NEVILLE KV5 Hinkler We all recall where we were at the time of significant international events like the assassination of John F Kennedy. I remember being in Brisbane. I was just having my shave and was going out early in the morning to put up posters, the forerunners of core flutes, for the election. I was going to hang them up on the poles out at Nanala of all places, which is very strong Labor territory. I remember driving back to my electorate from Gladstone the day Princess Diana was killed. I actually represented Warren Truss in the courtyard of St Mary's Cathedral for the canonisation of Mary MacKillop, and to see that TV link back to Rome and to be part of that very thing happening on that day in Sydney was marvellous. We all remember, with mixed emotions I am sure, the dismissal of the Whitlam government. I was with an ALP mate of mine in his printing works; he was just beside himself. I never saw a guy so upset as he was that day. So we remember these things with vivid colour and memory and we remember our reactions at that time. I remember being woken by my wife, Margaret, who is a light sleeper, in the early hours of 12 September, as it was in Australia. M y wife said, 'Something dreadful has happened. Better get up and have a look at the TV,' which I did. My reaction on seeing the first plane going into that building was very similar to that of the member for Cowan. I remember being glued to the television set for the next five or six hours. It had a hellish magnetism: you wanted to walk away from it but you could not leave it alone. You just had to watch what was happening. I remember trying to comprehend the enormity of that outrage and what it might mean for the world as we knew it. It was interesting this week to listen to some of the journalists and television presenters who were on duty that night. I remember listening to Sandra Sully. She happened to be on duty at that time doing the late news and went on into the night broadcasting the crosses from America. I am not sure if it was she or another journalist who was interviewed and said that she had this dreadful feeling of apprehension that she was watching the start of the third world war. I think we all felt something like that. All of us had that same sense of great apprehension. John Howard, who was the only visiting head of state in Washington on that day, invoked the ANZUS Treaty. We all knew that this was going to be full on, whatever followed. The ANZUS Treaty, of course, pledges all three nations—Australia, the US and New Zealand—to assist one another in the event of an attack. The scale of the attacks and the devastation and grief visited on the families of those killed and injured in the United States on 11 September, made it a turning point for the world. It was not just the United States that was ravished that day; more than 90 countries lost citizens in the attack on the World Trade Center. The shock and outrage of the attacks was not restricted to the United States; as you all know we lost 10 Australians that day as well. People around the planet watched in horror as the events unfolded, and I think everyone understood that such an audacious and atrocious attack on innocent civilians and landmark sites changed the rules of the game forever. The member for Cowan made a very good analogy: these sorts of people do not conform to the rules. They do not take up arms and fight in a man-to-man contest; they pick on the most vulnerable, the unarmed, women, children and ordinary people going about their daily work. At 8.46, flight 11 crashed at roughly 790 kilometres an hour into the north face of the North Tower of the World Trade Center. It obliterated floors 93 to 99. Then, a bit over a quarter of an hour after that, at 9.03, flight 175 crashed into the south face of the South Tower, between floors 77 and 85. We saw those gaping holes and the black smoke and then experienced the absolute horror of the collapse of the buildings, knowing how many people would be engulfed in that event. Then, about a half an hour later, at 9:37, flight 77 crashed into the western side of the Pentagon, starting a violent fire. Just short of half an hour later again, at 10:03, United Airlines 93, on its way to somewhere in Washington, was put into the ground, either by the hijackers or by the passengers, 130 kilometres south-east of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania. The terrorist attack on September 11 by al-Qaeda resulted in 2,996 immediate deaths, including the 19 hijackers and 2,977 victims. Two hundred and forty-six people died on the planes, 2,606 died in the towers and on the ground in New York and another 125 people died in the Pentagon. All the deaths in those attacks were civilians, bar 55 military personnel at the Pentagon. As the member for Cowan said, it was a gutless attack, in the main on civilians. Tonight is not the time to conduct a debate on the rights and wrongs of the military actions that have followed since, but, inevitably, the act inspired an unmistakable resolve that this would never happen again and that those who perpetrated this vile act would suffer its consequences. I am a great student of the Second World War, and one quote I really like is that of Admiral Yamamoto, who commanded the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. After the attack, when his pilots and naval officers were patting each other on the back, he cautioned them by saying: 'I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve.' Ten years on, as we reflect on those awful events and recognise the scars that horrific day has left on thousands of people, including those families who lost loved ones, we remember that it filled us all with a terrible resolve. Yes, some of the resolve was military in nature; some of it was antiterrorist in nature; some of it involved caring for the families of people who were killed; some of it involved examining our own lives to see how we could change the circumstances that bring these things about. Last Sunday, most of us would have watched the commemorative ceremonies in the US and here in Australia and thought back to that awful day 10 years ago. I watched as former US President Bill Clinton spoke at the Pennsylvania memorial ceremony and he remarked that the people on flight 93 showed uncommon courage in storming the cockpit to stop the hijackers from crashing the plane into the heart of Washington, DC even though they knew they faced certain death. The former President likened the passengers and crew of flight 93 to the Texans at the Alamo and the Spartans of ancient Greece at Thermopylae who went into battle knowing that they would die but did it willingly to save others. The difference, Clinton said, was that the Spartans and the Texans were soldiers while the heroes of flight 93 just happened to be on the plane. He said—and I thought this was the greatest quote of the day and it is worth putting it on the record: With almost no time to decide, they gave the entire country an incalculable gift. They saved the Capitol from attack, they saved God knows how many lives, and they spared the terrorists from claiming the symbolic victory of smashing the centre of American government. And they did it all as citizens. He went on to say: They allowed us to survive as a country that could fight terror and still maintain liberty and still welcome people from all over the world from every religion and race and culture as long as they shared our values, because ordinary people given no time at all to decide did the right thing. And 2,500 years from now, I hope and pray to God that people will still remember this. That was the great and frightening event, and we must not overlook the human dimension of this, the terror of those people trapped on the roof of the Twin Towers as they were collapsing; the people who chose to jump rather than to die in an inferno; the firefighters—and this must be one of the great heroic stories of our time—who went in to save others, many times, at their own peril; the ambulance men; the police; the chaplain; the priest who went in and was giving the last rites as he himself was struck down by falling debris; the little kids in the child-minding centre; and the kids who will not have fathers and mothers. I think we were all touched to see them moving around the two reflective pools and seeing the names of the 2,900-odd people who lost their lives. Lest we forget. 19:18 Mr BRUCE SCOTT YT4 Maranoa I rise this evening to put on the public record a few comments in relation to the commemoration of the 10th anniversary of 9-11, which has left an indelible mark on my mind. The images of that day will be with me for as long as I live—that terrible day when we saw terrorists attack the very heart of the free world, symbols of the free world in the United States of America in New York, in Pennsylvania and also Washington, DC. My memories of that horrible day in 2001 are very vivid, because at that time our defence minister, Peter Reith, was overseas and I was veterans affairs minister and defence personnel minister. In fact, I was acting as the defence minister. I was in my own electorate and had just addressed a veterans dinner in the town of Goondiwindi. I returned to my motel with my adviser, my wife, and switched on the TV. I thought we might be watching some sort of a movie. The reports that were being shown on television around the world in those first few minutes were saying that a plane had flown into one of the Twin Towers in New York. The defence department obviously had that advice immediately. My defence adviser came to me and said, 'We don't know what is happening in New York but they will talk to you in the morning. They'll talk to us in the morning. We don't know what's happening there, but there's something terrible happening.' It was about that time they said, 'Turn the TV on.' I said, 'We've got the TV on.' But it was at that moment we saw the second plane flying into the second tower. That is an image I will never forget. I thought, 'Hang on. One's just flown in. Is this a repeat? Are they just running the story again?' It was just impossible to comprehend that this could be happening at the very heart of the free world and the great symbol of the free world. The other thing I will not forget about that night is that our eldest son, was in banking and finance, was often in New York at an office adjacent to the Twin Towers, and I wondered where he was that night. He was always, as bankers are, in London, New York or Sydney. Next morning I found out that he was not in New York; he was in fact in London. That came from our second son. Our two other children were concerned that night for their elder brother, their big brother. It all comes back to you. What it really brought home to me was the importance of family and your loved ones. Each of my other two children rang my eldest son to see where he was because they were concerned about him. I heard their voicemails on my mobile the next morning. They said, 'He's not in New York; he's in London.' It was a tremendous relief in those moments and hours overnight wondering where he was. A year later I was the representative of this parliament at the United Nations General Assembly and we were in New York for the first anniversary of 9-11. Obviously, there were commemorations all over New York and I will never forget the night before when they were coming in from the Bronx and Queens and all the boroughs around New York to 9-11. They were the firemen, the emergency service people, the ambulance drivers, the police. They were marching. They were walking. For them, it did not matter how long it took but they were going to be at Ground Zero next morning. Some started off at seven and eight o'clock at night, and there was saturation television coverage of where they were coming from and going to. They were going to Ground Zero. I felt: this was not a place for me; this is a place for those who have lost loved ones and those who were there at the time. I went down to Fifth Avenue and thought: where can I be? At that moment, 8.46 am, the huge, wonderful city of New York, as you looked down towards Ground Zero, seemed to slowly come to a halt. Motor vehicles, buses, taxis—you could just see red lights, a foot on the brake and people around you becoming motionless at that moment as the bells rang out from the churches and cathedrals. That is another moment I will not forget as this huge, wonderful city, home to so many people of different ethnic backgrounds, religious backgrounds, seemed to be trying to comprehend yet again what had happened 12 months earlier. I was privileged to be there and experience that moment. A few minutes later, like winding up an old record player, that the whole city started to move again. It was just one of those moments in my life, not only 9-11 but also that year later when I was representing the Australian parliament at the General Assembly of the United Nations. The September 11 event shocked the world. The other thing it did was unite like-minded countries around the world to say that we were not going to be defeated by an act of terrorism so ghastly and so horrific—that we would join together to make sure that the arm of terrorism was not going to defeat us nor defeat the free world. I was part of the government, and I know we had the support of members of the other side of the House when we said we would be part of a group of like-minded countries to take on the Taliban in Afghanistan, which was one of the headquarters of the Taliban, Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. We also went into Iraq to make a difference. I have visited Iraq since the occupying of the country and have seen democracy start to flourish and the beginnings of a better way forward for the people of Iraq. We have already experienced the loss of so many lives in Afghanistan since we and like-minded countries went in to make sure that the cells of terrorism there can never be regenerated or are at least quelled and to play our part as a nation to make sure that terrorism is stamped out and can never make such an attack on the free world in the future. But it was not just New York; it was the Pentagon in Washington and Pennsylvania. Whilst I was in New York a year later there were 88 Australians killed because of a terrorist attack in Bali. It shocked the world. Cells linked to the original terrorist cell that attacked New York were responsible for the attack in Bali. There were 202 people killed in Bali when three bombs went off that day. At that moment in my life I thought, 'Will we ever really get on top of this?' These were attacks on our way of life—on the free world. Strangely enough, my second son was in Bali at that time. Our children travel so much and so freely. They are so different, I guess, to the youth of our time. Then, in 2005, 52 people from all walks of life were killed and around 700 people were injured when suicide bombers linked to al-Qaeda detonated bombs in London—another example of how these people will strike the free world and kill innocent people of all faiths and all nationalities. They do not consider who they are going to affect. Since 2001, more than 110 Australians have died as a result of terrorist attacks. So last Sunday was a time for me to think not only of the events of 9-11 2001 but also of the events since that time. We as a nation have played our part with like-minded countries to do our bit to make sure events such as those we have seen in Bali, London, New York, Washington and Pennsylvania can never happen again. I often think of things said about the Second World War when Hitler was on the rise in Germany and when he invaded Poland. There were people at that time who thought that Hitler would not invade Poland and would never be a force for evil. There is a saying: 'If good men do nothing, evil will persist.' Good people—women and men—of like minds have joined together and done so many good things to make sure that we play our part as Australians in helping other countries ensure that their country is free of the tyranny of terrorists. Tonight I honour all those who have lost their lives. I refer to all those people who played such a significant part and also of course those who lost loved ones. We remember you and we always will. We need to learn from the cowardly attacks that caused those untimely deaths in 9-11 and in other terrorist attacks since. We have to do everything we can to further reduce the risk of terrorist attacks not only here in Australia but also around the world. We remember all who have been involved and all who have lost loved ones. I will never forget that day in my life and the subsequent events, and I admire those who have come together to make sure that the tyranny of terrorism can never get a foothold in the free world again. Main Committee adjourned at 19:30