2012-02-15 43 1 5 House of Reps 0 0

Wednesday, 15 February 2012

The SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper) took the chair at 9:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 1327 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Closing the Gap 1327 09:01 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor by leave—In the long story of relations among the peoples of our nation—the story of our struggles with each other and of our struggles to reconcile—there have been some good days which we will not forget. Days when a glimpse of a better time came briefly into view. We have cherished them. We cherished 27 May 1967, when Australians voted 'yes' to empower the Commonwealth to bring the resources of the whole nation to bear to address Indigenous disadvantage. Perhaps the greatest was here, four years ago, 13 February 2008, when Kevin Rudd said 'sorry'. Sorry on behalf of all of us, for the 'grief, suffering and loss', for the 'pain, suffering and hurt', for the 'indignity and degradation'. A day we cherished, when we saw our nation as we wish it could always be. Now we look forward to another such day—to the day when Australia’s Indigenous peoples are recognised in the act which constitutes the Australian Commonwealth. And we look forward to the work that we will do together on all the days that lie between. Every day, our conscience demands we work to Close the Gap. That work, every day, is what this government has done. By embracing the targets of the Closing the Gap campaign, this government deliberately leaves itself nowhere to hide. Closing the Gap is a practical and empirical project and it is a project that should move us deeply, work which will make such a difference in so many individual lives. We aim to halve the gap in mortality rates for Indigenous children under five by 2018, so more Indigenous babies live; to ensure access to early childhood education for all Indigenous four-year-olds in remote communities by 2013, so more Indigenous children are ready on their first day of school; to halve the gap in literacy and numeracy achievements for children by 2018, so more Indigenous children know the love of books; to halve the gap for Indigenous students in year 12 or equivalent attainment rates by 2020, so more Indigenous young people are ready for life and a job; to halve the gap in employment outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians by 2018, so more Indigenous adults know the dignity and benefits of work; and we aim to close the life-expectancy gap within a generation—that is, by 2031—so every Indigenous Australian has the chance to grow old. Measurement Has Improved Measurement is central to this project of Closing the Gap. Because the Closing the Gap targets are not meant just to challenge us to do more—they are designed to hold us accountable to our ambitions. It is through the annual assessment of the independent COAG Reform Council that is published in June each year and through the annual Closing the Gap report, which the government releases today, that we are brought to book. The targets we have set are specific and measurable tests of our improvement. Last year I reported that measurement of progress towards these targets, including by the states and territories, also needs to improve. However we can already track progress in reducing under-five-year-old mortality each year. We have effective measures of access to early childhood education and our measurement of achievements in reading, writing and numeracy is sound. Direct measurement of life expectancy and year 12 attainment relies on the Australian census data, which is only available every five years. So we track overall mortality on an annual basis—and this forms a reliable proxy from which we can track improvement in life expectancy. And we track trends in apparent school retention each year, which acts as a guide to year 12 attainment. Our employment target is measured using the respected National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey and the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey, direct measures of progress which are available every three years—supplemented by the five-yearly census. But when we began the work of closing the gap, we knew that we needed better information about Indigenous health, education and employment. This is why the 2009-10 budget invested almost $50 million extra over four years, funding new work by national data agencies and the states and territories, to give us data which is more detailed and reliable, more comprehensive and easier to compare—particularly between census years. This year I can report that measurement has improved. Central to the effort to measure progress is the census—and last year’s was better than any before. Twenty million dollars of that extra funding was allocated to improve census data collection methods. Local engagement managers and mobile teams built early rapport with Indigenous communities. They organised the delivery and collection of census books differently and they developed new ways for people who aren’t literate in English to answer census questions. They worked especially hard in the most remote areas and among the most disadvantaged. Indigenous communities themselves already tell us the 2011 census was an important improvement on the past. We have improved other measurement besides the census. To improve data on access to early childhood education, the Australian Bureau of Statistics has led the development of the new National Early Childhood Education and Care data collection. Importantly, this collection includes data on early childhood education in early childhood centres. We now have nationally consistent data on smoking during pregnancy and we have agreed data to track the timing of the first antenatal visit—so we will be able to say how many Indigenous women get advice from a health professional at the right times during their pregnancy. New key performance indicators will help us better understand the contribution of Indigenous specific primary health care services. All this is thankless, detailed, time-consuming work—performed by dedicated professionals in statistical collection and analysis. But because of it, I am confident we can say that we are better placed than ever before to measure effectively our progress to close the gap. Progress against the Closing the Gap t argets Today’s Closing the Gap report shows that the foundations for overcoming Indigenous disadvantage are in place. The report shows that we are seeing progress—we are making gradual gains. The Australian government remains most confident of meeting two of the six targets. The target of halving the infant mortality rates for Indigenous children under five by 2018 is on track. We are also confident we can ensure access to early childhood education for all Indigenous four-year-olds in remote communities by 2013. For the third, we are also now generally on track to meet the target to halve the gap in reading, writing and numeracy achievement for Indigenous children by 2018. This assessment is based on results from the annual National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy, which most people know as NAPLAN. We can see measurable improvement in the 2011 NAPLAN results. Significant gains occurred between 2010 and 2011 in the percentage of Indigenous students at or above the national minimum standards. For example, year 3 numeracy was up by 7.0 percentage points and year 9 reading was up by 7.7 percentage points. In fact in seven of the eight areas in which we can assess progress in reading and numeracy since 2008 the gap has narrowed. And in six of these eight, the improvement over four years is fast enough that if it continues we will meet the target by 2018. In year 7 and year 9 numeracy progress still needs to accelerate. We continue to see improvement in two more of the six targets, and with faster improvement over time we believe these can be reached. The report shows that apparent retention rates to year 12 are improving for Indigenous students—up from barely 30 per cent in 1995 to just over 47 per cent in 2010. Faster improvement will be required to halve the gap in year 12 or equivalent attainment rates by 2020. We will need to keep expanding post-school training and education—we need more places. We will need to keep working with Indigenous young people to ensure they find the opportunities which exist in the education and training system. Faster improvement will also be required to halve the gap in employment outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians by 2018. Indigenous employment has increased sharply in Australia in recent decades, reflecting a long period of almost uninterrupted economic growth—and an active and engaged approach from corporate Australia. Never before in our nation’s history has business been more prepared to play its part. Just under 90,000 additional jobs were won by Indigenous Australians from 1994 to 2008. The Indigenous unemployment rate fell from 31 per cent in 1994 to 23 per cent in 2002 and to 16.6 per cent in 2008. In urban areas, the majority of Indigenous Australians of working age are employed—this was not the case 20 years ago. Closing the gap on life expectancy by 2031 remains the most challenging target of all. Progress towards the other health, education and employment targets all provide strong foundations to help us lift life expectancy. And the life expectancy target is the longest term of the six—it is a twenty-five-year target. While the challenge is very large we do know that some progress is being made. In Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory the Indigenous mortality rate declined by 36 per cent from 1991 to 2010—and there was a significant narrowing of the gap in mortality rates with non-Indigenous Australians. We know what the main causes of Indigenous mortality are—chronic disease and accident and injury, so we are working to limit their incidence and reduce the harm they do. Hundreds of extra Indigenous health workers are working to attack scourges like cancer, diabetes, heart disease and mental illness, as well as targeting risk factors for chronic disease such as smoking, poor nutrition and lack of exercise. Four years into a 25-year project, this much is true: health outcomes, employment outcomes, education outcomes are improving; they need to keep improving and to improve more quickly. This much is also true: foundations are in place, work is underway, we can measure encouraging improvement right now. This is our progress towards Closing the Gap. The work goes on One of the great myths of Indigenous disadvantage is that it persists despite decades of expensive public responses. The reality is quite the reverse. Report after report has shown that decades of under-investment in services and infrastructure are unquestionably a major cause of disadvantage, especially for the very young. No Australian family, however hard-working, self-respecting or self-reliant, is expected to fix broken sewerage pipes at the end of their street or repair street lighting outside their house. These are things governments are responsible for—the basic, universal services all Australians are entitled to expect. So the Australian government has heard the call to change. We have delivered billions of dollars of additional investment in the 'building blocks' of better lives. In early childhood and in schools, in health and healthy homes, in economic participation, in safe communities, in leadership and governance. I have seen the difference this is making even in places where problems seem as intractable as they have been in the town camps of Alice Springs. And so many Indigenous people have heard the call to change too. They have taken on new responsibilities, not only to improve their own circumstances, but also to share the example with their young. I have met the people who are making these changes in their own lives. They know that no Australian government, however active or ambitious, can get any child out of bed for school in the morning or make any parent ask visitors to leave at a reasonable hour so the children in a small house can sleep. These things are the responsibilities of every Australian family. Another great myth of Indigenous disadvantage is that the nation must choose between 'two reconciliations'—symbolic and practical. That we must choose between a reconciliation which respects the rights and responsibilities of culture and land and a reconciliation which respects the rights and responsibilities to education, health and jobs. This is also quite false. It runs against what we all know to be true in our own lives—that the things of the spirit are inextricably linked with the things of day-to-day life. A life of plenty without respect and acceptance is still a life half-lived—as is a life of poverty with respect and acceptance. Human beings need to nourish and sustain both body and soul. The reconciliation we seek between us is not something which can be sorted or classified like a list of policy priorities. We seek precisely the kind of harmony and concord—a national unity—which can never be whole or complete under conditions of poverty and unfairness. And we seek precisely the kind of practical benefits in people’s lives: better education, employment and health, which can never ultimately work without sharing responsibility and self-respect. I think of my visit to the Northern Territory during the dry season last year. There, in the spectacularly beautiful Alice Springs Desert Park, I handed back to traditional owners the title to their land under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. I saw people overwhelmed and emotional about the handover and what it represented. I remember Alice Ngalkin signing the deeds while her friends and family took photos to mark the event. A moment of great symbolic power which I shared with deep respect and which on that day brought me so much closer to the Indigenous people there. And in the atmosphere of respect which we had built between us, the local Aboriginal elders and I then sat down to talk. And they told me as frankly as anyone could, with both sentiment and deep conviction, what they believed I need to know about the practical problems they face. They spoke about the need to listen and to trust. And they said that the education system had failed Aboriginal people and it is critical to addressing disadvantage. They said that the way the emergency response started in 2007 caused shame and hurt and they wanted to stay with us on the new journey. And they spoke about alcohol and its harms—the need to be tougher. They did not pick sides in some dialectic or debate, but because of the trust we had shared that day, we could speak together in respect about what they knew was wrong and what they knew would work. And that week, on the Gove Peninsula, I saw the traditional owners of the land and the representatives of a mining giant sign an agreement. Signed before a gathering of thousands of people from all over Arnhem Land and from all around Australia. We all met there for a striking ceremony performed on what was long contested country, where those most potent of all symbols of the struggle for land—the Yirrkala bark petitions—were inscribed in 1963. And we met to celebrate an agreement which secures the future operations of the bauxite mine, alumina refinery and Nhulunbuy township, which delivers Indigenous people real economic benefits from the mining investment boom, with economic development, jobs, better housing and community facilities. In the Desert Park and on the peninsula—among Australians who treasure progress and respect—I have seen and felt the presence of the reconciled nation we can become. Where secure title to the big tracts of traditional land gives traditional owners a long-term economic future and a share in the jobs and opportunities the land can create. And where secure title to a home in a town or community gives parents the security to raise and educate their children in a safe environment. Where, by saying sorry for the wrongs of the past and by recognising Indigenous people in our Constitution, we build respect between all Australians. And where that respect allows us to speak honestly with each other as we decide, together, what works where. Not to the detriment of basic local service delivery—never accepting the 'soft bigotry of low expectations' or attempting to 'explain away' violence against women. But yes, bound together as individuals and as a nation by shared symbols of respect and practical action—listening to each other properly, about what the best evidence tells us about what will make the greatest difference. Whether the conversation is between a minister of my cabinet and the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples, or between a departmental official and a parent who works part time as a local teacher’s aide, we listen to each other—and then we get on with the job. This is the relationship between our people that I seek. Constitutional r ecognition Perhaps the ultimate manifestation of respect is constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians. The proposal before the country now has been many years in the making. Over decades, many ways to recognise Indigenous Australians as our first peoples, to affirm their full and equal citizenship and to remove remaining traces of racial discrimination from our law have been proposed. In August 1937, William Cooper sent a petition with 1,814 signatures to Prime Minister Joseph Lyons requesting that he forward it to King George VI, seeking direct representation in parliament. In June 1988, the chairs of the northern and central land councils presented the Barunga Statement to Prime Minister Bob Hawke. It called upon the Australian government and people to recognise key Indigenous rights and 'to negotiate a treaty recognising our prior ownership, continued occupation and sovereignty and affirming our human rights and freedoms'. And my party’s national platform has pledged its support to constitutional recognition since 1998. Then, in October 2007, Prime Minister John Howard raised the hopes of a nation, pledging that: If re-elected, I will put to the Australian people within 18 months a referendum to formally recognise Indigenous Australians in our Constitution—their history as the first inhabitants of our country, their unique heritage of culture and languages, and their special (though not separate) place within a reconciled, indivisible nation. It was a gracious and deliberate statement which effectively began the contemporary process that leads to today. And four years on, the movement for constitutional recognition is strong and growing. It grew through 2008, when the cabinet met in East Arnhem Land and was solemnly petitioned to continue with this process. And in 2010 I announced the appointment of an Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians to do the hands-on work of developing options for constitutional change. I didn’t send the panel on an easy journey—and they performed mightily. Last month, the co-chairs, Patrick Dodson and Mark Leibler, delivered the panel’s report on Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution to the government. I have thanked them publicly already and I do so again here today. For constitutional change, Australians have to understand and be persuaded of the case for change. This does require all-embracing political bipartisanship. But it requires more. Political bipartisanship, while necessary, is not sufficient. We need more than the consent of the governed to an agreement between parliamentarians—we need a genuine community desire for change. Our Constitution is our nation’s founding contract—our people rightly guard it with care. Support for constitutional recognition must genuinely have the people’s support. This is what happened in 1967. Yes, bipartisanship—but more. A deep feeling in the Australian community leading to millions of Australian people deciding to say yes to change. Today, the minister for Indigenous affairs and I are announcing funding for a community conversation, to be sponsored by Reconciliation Australia. To build support for what is already the subject of bipartisan agreement: the principle of constitutional recognition. And to build understanding of the ways in which constitutional recognition might be achieved. The expert panel’s report provides a firm foundation for this discussion. This is an opportunity for the Australian people to get involved. To get on the You Me Unity website, to learn about what’s in the panel’s report, and what happens next. To find practical information and solid ideas and to discuss them—in their homes and with their neighbours, in their community meetings and in their workplaces, in their trade unions and in their churches. The government is committed to this change—we are committed to building public support for this change—and in the many conversations which follow in the Australian community, we will take a leading part. It is through the sum of that myriad of conversations, of people listening and speaking with respect, that we will truly know that our people are ready to say yes to this change. Small v ictories The day we said sorry was a great day in this nation’s history. The day of constitutional recognition will be another. Closing the gap is an accumulation of all the small victories on all the many days that lie between. The young man, first in his family to learn a trade, with skilled work on his traditional lands. The young woman, first in her family to earn a degree, holding a job in the city. The basic public services that surround them, delivered at the standard every Australian expects. The keys to a couple’s first home—and the life of dignity and pride they live within it, raising children who are ready to take their place in a reconciled nation. The respect shown to them by people in the community where they live. The detailed measurements which tell us this is so. When more Indigenous children are ready to learn on their first day of school, we will know we are closing the gap. When brilliant Indigenous school leavers are as sought after by the big firms as brilliant Indigenous footballers are sought after by the big clubs, we will know we are closing the gap. When fewer Indigenous men between 35 and 45 die of disease, we will know we are closing the gap. Today, we know we have a long way to go. But we also know we are closing the gap. I present a copy of the Closing the gap: Prime Minister's report 2012. 09:30 Mr STEPHEN SMITH 5V5 Perth Mr Speaker, I seek leave to move a motion to enable the honourable Leader of the Opposition to speak for 30 minutes. Leave granted. Mr STEPHEN SMITH 5V5 I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Abbott (Leader of the Opposition) speaking for a period not exceeding 30 minutes. Question agreed to. 09:31 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I rise with pride to follow the Prime Minister on this occasion. I do congratulate her on a fine speech. May I say that it is on occasions such as this that our parliament is at its best because we are discussing a noble objective on which we are all agreed. So I congratulate the Prime Minister. I congratulate the former Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, for his role and his work. The historic apology was a very significant milestone in our national life and it is appropriate that we remember that on a day such as this. It was gracious of the Prime Minister to also acknowledge her predecessor but one, Prime Minister Howard, and his commitment to the cause of constitutional recognition of Indigenous people. Prime Minister Howard had a long personal journey when it came to Indigenous issues. It was a difficult journey in some ways for him. One of the best speeches he ever gave was to the Sydney Institute in October of 2007, where he spoke of his personal journey on Indigenous issues. We are all on a personal journey when it comes to this subject, but I think I can say this: for quite some time now there has been a new spirit of appreciation and engagement of Aboriginal people on the part of the leaders of our country. When we are dealing with Indigenous issues, we do not think of ourselves anymore as solving problems; we think of ourselves as building a nation. That is what we do today when we consider how we can better and further close the gap. I want to thank all of the people who have helped me on my personal journey to better understanding and appreciation of Aboriginal issues and Aboriginal people. I particularly want to thank my friend Noel Pearson for the miles that he has walked with me, literally as well as metaphorically, towards this great goal. I thank Warren Mundine. I do not agree with all of Warren Mundine's positions; nevertheless, he is a great Australian who has been very gracious. He has been very appreciative of work that we have done as well as work that his own party has done towards this great goal. I also want to thank people like Mick Gooda and Sue Gordon. I want to particularly thank those two for the support they gave me just a couple of weeks ago when we had a difficult situation that involved both me and the Prime Minister. I remind the House of what I think was perhaps the most lapidary remark of the former Prime Minister in his apology: … unless the great symbolism of reconciliation is accompanied by an even greater substance, it is little more than a clanging gong. It should be a resonant statement, evocative as it is not just of the great issue before us but of our great heritage of love and of reaching out to people. We must always remember that, unless the great symbolism of reconciliation is accompanied by an even greater substance, it is little more than a clanging gong. The Prime Minister has given us some very encouraging statistics today. There is much to be grateful for. There is much to take satisfaction in. There is much to be proud of in what the Prime Minister has told us today. I do not want to quibble because I know that, were I in her position, I would be recounting similar statistics to the House. They are important, yet so often when we look at the statistics and we hear the statistics there is a nagging sense that they can obscure as much as they reveal. So often the statistics are a record of what government is doing, rather than a record of how people are living. It is excellent and I congratulate the Prime Minister and the government that we are moving towards halving the gap in so many of these areas, but a gap which has been halved is not a gap which has been closed. In the end, it is not good enough merely to halve the gap—we have to close the gap. It was very encouraging to hear the Prime Minister tell us that access to preschool for all four-year-olds living in remote communities would be achieved next year. Remarkable—wonderful, praiseworthy. But it is one thing for people living in these communities to have access to preschool for their four-year-olds; it is another thing to ensure that all the youngsters are attending preschool. This is the big challenge and it is the real test of whether we are building civil society in the remote Indigenous communities of our country. So often when we see the reports we know the effort that officials are making. We feel a palpable sense of the goodwill behind these reports and yet we do not get a sense that individual lives are improving and that communities are flourishing. We know there are better resourced schools in remote Aboriginal communities but we cannot be sure that Aboriginal children are really better-reading, better-counting; are really more familiar with what they need to know in order to be first-class Australians in the modern world. We know that much money is being spent, that much effort has been expended, on providing better housing in remote Indigenous communities. But can we be sure that these houses are more cherished by their current occupants than the poorer houses of a generation ago were cherished then? We know that much good work is being done in the area of Indigenous employment. I thank and acknowledge people such as Andrew 'Twiggy' Forrest and Dick Estens for the work they have done in this area. But still there is not nearly enough Indigenous employment in the real economy as opposed to Indigenous employment in Aboriginal organisations and in the governmental sector. All of us—every Australian, every human being—wants to be able to think that his or her life has been at least as good as the lives of his or her parents and that the lives of his or her children will be better than the life that he or she has led. How many Aboriginal people can honestly say today that their life has been better than that of their parents? How many Aboriginal people can honestly say, as they look at their kids, that they are confident that they will have a better life—a life of more self-respect, a life of more fulfilment—than they themselves have had? These are the challenges before us. Again I commend the Prime Minister and all members of this House for the diligence and goodwill that they bring to these issues. But I do think there is still a long journey for all of us to make. The statistics are important and it is good that the statistics are more sophisticated than they were; that ever more effort is being put into their accurate collation. But sometimes I think that the official statistics can overcomplicate things. I have said to this House on previous occasions—it is worth repeating, and I will repeat it whenever I get the opportunity—that there are simpler, easier to collect statistics than those which the Australian Statistician labours over which I think would give us a truer picture of the real state of Indigenous society, particularly in remote communities. How many children are attending school every day? It should be 100 per cent, or near enough to it, and yet we know that it is not. There is no reason why the roll could not be called a couple of times during the school day, and we know there is no reason why, in each Indigenous school right around the country, those statistics could not be published on a month by month basis so that we know exactly what is happening in each school. Exactly what is happening in each school is a microcosm of what is happening in each community. We know, despite all the good intentions, despite all the declarations, that very many Indigenous people do not attend employment programs. We know this because members of parliament go to Indigenous communities and we see the number of youngsters and adults who plainly are not engaged in school or work in the middle of the day. Why could we not publish on a week by week basis the statistics on precisely how many people have been attending work programs in remote Indigenous communities? Again, that would give us a truer snapshot of the real life of these communities than the more elaborate statistics with which the Statistician busies himself. Finally, we all know that in happy communities the trauma that presents to the clinic is normally the result of something that might have happened in a football match or something that might have happened while mustering stock. We also know that much of the trauma that presents to clinics in remote areas is the result of various forms of domestic violence. This statistic, too, should be collated on a week by week and month by month basis, and it should be published. These are the statistics that would tell us what is really happening in these communities. I would very much commend to the government this proposal of mine that in addition to the statistics that the Prime Minister referred to these simple, easy to gather statistics on school attendance, on work attendance and on trauma presentation be collected community by community and published on a regular basis. I know what these communities are like—I have not lived in them, I have not stayed in them as much as I would have liked; nevertheless I have spent enough time in the remote areas of our country to know about them. I know that if there is an all-night party, as there often is, the adults do not get up to go to work and if the adults do not get up to go to work the children do not get up to go to school. If the adults do not work and the children do not learn, we will never close the gap. That is why there is much more that can be done. We know that by dint of vast efforts by government and superhuman efforts by individuals, better services are being delivered to the Aboriginal communities of our country, but we cannot be sure, as yet, that a better life is being enjoyed by Aboriginal Australians. Real change does not happen in this parliament, although sometimes it might start here and sometimes it might be reflected here. Real change begins in the places where people live. I say again to the parliament what I said this time last year: we should try as far as we can, within the limitations of our official lives, to be more engaged with the real lives of Aboriginal people. I have had the privilege of spending some longer periods of time in some of the remote communities of Cape York, in Coen and in Aurukun, and last year Noel Pearson took me to some of his sacred country and I then spent a couple of days helping with a building project not far from Hopevale. All of us are different. All of us have different demands on our time but the more this kind of thing can be done, the better it is for policy making and for the quality of government when it comes to Aboriginal people. I say to the parliament that should I become Prime Minister, it is my firm intention, my commitment, to spend at least one week every year in a remote Indigenous community and to do this with officials because it is not enough for the politicians to become more familiar with the real life of these places. The officials, upon whom so much depends, also need to become more familiar with the real life of these places. If it is good enough for the Aboriginal people of Australia to live in these remote communities, it ought to be good enough for the Prime Minister and other members of the government to stay there. We can never forget the importance of good governance in remote Australia. Some people, such as my friend and distinguished former colleague Fred Chaney, go so far as to say that remote Australia is a local version of a failed state because of the problems of governance in these places. Not only do we have the usual not-always-well-coordinated efforts of state and federal government, but we have extra issues with governance and with land councils, and then we have all of the non-government organisations. They are doing good work, but so often they are falling over themselves when attempting to deal with problems. The result is that in remote areas we often have the most governed but least efficient communities in the country. This is a very serious issue and it does need to be tackled. At the risk of straying into partisanship, I need to raise today the issue of the wild rivers legislation, which has now been before this House, one way or another, for the best part of three years. The wild rivers bill is a modest bill and I have now put it several times before this parliament. All the wild rivers bill seeks to do is ensure that Queensland wild rivers declarations can only apply with the consent of the traditional Aboriginal owners. I am not against wild rivers declarations. I accept that where the traditional owners want them, they should apply. But if Indigenous people are really to be in control of their own land, if they are to enjoy genuine land rights, then surely this is not too much to ask. Yet this modest bill of mine, which has but a couple of operative clauses and which runs to less than nine pages, has now been subject to no fewer than five inquiries by committees of this House or the other place. This modest bill is so inquired into that you cannot help but conclude that those who control this parliament are not trying to analyse it, they are trying to bury it. I fear that it will be up to a new government in Queensland to rectify the pusillanimity of this House when it comes to restoring Indigenous rights in this important way. Finally, let me turn to the proposal for constitutional recognition of Indigenous people, which is a bipartisan objective. The coalition has a good history here. Whatever faults we may have in this area, whatever mistakes we may have made in the past, the coalition has a proud history when it comes to efforts to recognise Indigenous people in the Constitution, starting with the proposed preamble that was put to the people back in 1999 and continuing with the former Prime Minister's efforts, which the Prime Minister mentioned earlier today. I devoutly hope that we can bring this to pass, but it does have to be a unifying moment for our country. What we have to try to do is recreate the fervour and the sense of unity that were captured in the 1967 constitutional change. To succeed, any constitutional change in this area has to be completing our Constitution rather than changing it. People have to sense that it is unfinished business that is being addressed rather than a new constitution that is being created. I applaud the work of the expert committee, with which I have had much discussion, but I do think their recommendations are the first word rather than the last word in what should ultimately be put to the people. Whatever differences the Prime Minister and I might have, whatever differences other members of her front bench and I might have, I will work as constructively as I humanly can, and I know members of the coalition will work as constructively as we humanly can, to try to get a proposal that can bring us together. We will not be taking a lowest-common-denominator approach to this. We will not be asking what is the least that people will accept. We will be trying to adopt a highest-common-factor approach to this. What is the best that can be achieved at this time? What can we achieved that future generations can look back on with pride and say of us: 'This generation has genuinely advanced our country?' In conclusion, what we need are more meaningful statistics about the real life of the Aboriginal people in this country, more meaningful engagement between Aboriginal people and all levels of government and meaningful action in this parliament to match the marvellous and uplifting words which are so often spoken in this place. That is what will lead to real reconciliation. That is what we need in order to make our country whole. If we do all that, maybe the time will come when we no longer need Closing the Gap statements, because the gap will indeed have been closed and this country will be everything of which it is capable. 09:54 Mr STEPHEN SMITH 5V5 Perth To enable further debate to take place in the Main Committee on Closing the Gap: Prime Minister's Report 2012, I move: That the House take note of the document. Debate adjourned MOTIONS 1337 MOTIONS Ministerial Statement: Closing the Gap 1337 Reference to Main Committee 1337 09:56 Mr STEPHEN SMITH 5V5 Perth by leave—I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate. Question agreed to. BILLS 1338 BILLS Higher Education Support Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012 1338

Higher Education Support Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012

First Reading 1338 Second Reading 1338 09:57 Mr COMBET YW6 Charlton I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Higher Education Support Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012 clarifies the application and operation of indexation arrangements in the Higher Education Support Act 2003. It updates the definitions for ‘course of study in dentistry’ and ‘course of study in veterinary science’, and updates the Melbourne College of Divinity’s name in light of its approval to operate under the title MCD University of Divinity. The bill also allows for technical amendments to the calculation of the voluntary repayment bonus to resolve resounding issues. There is ambiguity in the act about the application of the indexation provisions to amounts in the act on 1 January 2011. The government is making it clear that indexation should have been applied to amounts in the act on 1 January 2011, and that the amounts that are indexed on 1 January 2012 are the 2011 indexed amounts. The terms ‘course of study in dentistry’ and ‘course of study in veterinary science’ are used to determine which students are eligible for the higher FEE-HELP limit of $112,132 in 2012. The bill would amend the definitions for ‘course of study in dentistry’ and ‘course of study in veterinary science’ to clarify that only students undertaking courses of study in dentistry or veterinary science that satisfy the minimum academic requirements for registration as a dentist, veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner are eligible for the higher FEE-HELP limit. The Melbourne College of Divinity has been approved by the Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority to operate under the name MCD University of Divinity until 31 December 2016. Students can make a voluntary repayment towards their HELP debt to the tax office at any time. Voluntary repayments of $500 or more currently attract a five per cent bonus on the payment amount. When calculating the effect of a person making a voluntary repayment of his or her HELP debt, the act provides for a person to obtain a five per cent bonus and includes rounding rules in calculating whether a person has repaid their debt and the amount of debt repaid if it is only a partial repayment. Currently, the effect of the rounding rules is that: (a) when making a full repayment, the person benefits from the rounding because the amount of payment required to pay off their debt in full is reduced because the cents are rounded down; and (b) when making a partial repayment, the person is disadvantaged because the value of the reduction to the outstanding debt due to a payment is rounded down. The bill amends the act to provide that, when calculating the effect of a person making a partial repayment towards his or her HELP debt, the amount would be rounded up to nearest dollar. The cents would continue to be rounded down to determine the amount required for the full repayment of a person’s HELP debt amount. Effectively, the rounding rules will now always benefit a person making a voluntary repayment. The bill reflects the government’s continued commitment to improving Australia’s higher education sector and expanding opportunities for Australians to obtain a high-quality higher education. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (R 18+ Computer Games) Bill 2012 1339

Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (R 18+ Computer Games) Bill 2012

First Reading 1339 Second Reading 1339 10:01 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I am pleased to present to the House this bill, which will introduce an R 18+ category for computer games. This will bring the classification categories for computer games into line with existing categories used to classify films and make the Australian classification regime more consistent with international standards. The bill amends the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 and makes a consequential amendment to schedule 7 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. This reform has been a long time coming. Agreement to introduce an R 18+ category has been reached after 10 years of negotiations with the states and territories. Over these ten years the Australian computer game industry has grown—along with the number of Australian computer gamers. Research that has been conducted by Bond University suggests that nine in every 10 Australian homes now has a device for playing computer games. The average age of Australian computer gamers is 32—with Australian women making up 47 per cent of computer game players. The Australian gaming industry is forecast to grow at a rate of about 10 per cent a year—with forecasts predicting it will reach $2.5 billion annually by 2015. A lot of Australians are passionate about this reform. When the Attorney-General's Department released a discussion paper on the introduction of an R 18+ classification category for computer games in 2009 they received 58,437 submissions in response. Ninety-eight per cent of these supported the introduction of an R 18+ category. My predecessor in this portfolio, Minister O'Connor, pursued this issue throughout his time as Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Justice. Last year he led the discussion of this issue with state and territory attorneys-general at the Standing Council on Law and Justice. At their July meeting the ministers decided to support this reform. This bill will implement the Commonwealth's obligations as part of this agreement—and state and territory jurisdictions will follow with their own legislation later this year. It is anticipated that the act provided for in this bill will come into effect on 1 January next year. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Protecting Elector Participation) Bill 2012 1340

Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Protecting Elector Participation) Bill 2012

First Reading 1340 Second Reading 1340 10:05 Mr GRAY 8W5 Brand I move: That this bill be now read a second time. It is just over 100 years since the Australian parliament voted to introduce a scheme of compulsory enrolment. Since the scheme commenced in 1912, it has served Australia well. As late as 2001, the Australian National Audit Office commented that the electoral roll was likely to be 95 per cent complete—not a bad achievement. Things have changed. The Australian Electoral Commission now estimates that only 90 per cent of eligible Australian citizens are actually enrolled to vote. That is 1½ million Australian citizens who cannot choose their representatives in parliament. That is 1½ million Australians who cannot have their say when proposals to change Australia's Constitution are put to the people. That is 1½ million Australians excluded from exercising one of the most important rights—and responsibilities—of their citizenship. This bill will protect the participation of eligible Australian citizens in the electoral process by establishing a safety net for enrolment and voting. It is just that—a safety net. The bill will not change the grounds on which a person becomes entitled to enrol and vote. This amendment will enhance the integrity of the Australian electoral roll. The bill will protect elector participation in two key ways. Firstly, the bill will ensure the accuracy and completeness of the roll by allowing the Electoral Commissioner to directly enrol a person if the Electoral Commissioner is satisfied that the person: is entitled to enrolment; has lived at an address for at least one month; and is not currently enrolled. If the Electoral Commissioner is satisfied that a person meets these criteria, the bill allows the Electoral Commissioner to give the person notice in writing that the Electoral Commissioner proposes to enter that person's name and address on the electoral roll. This notice will advise the recipient that they have 28 days to inform the Electoral Commissioner that they do not live at that address or are not entitled to enrolment. The bill provides the opportunity for a person to seek a review of a decision, including by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It is expected that the Electoral Commissioner will use data from sources external to the Electoral Commission to identify people who are entitled to be on the electoral roll but are not. This is similar to the successful processes currently used in New South Wales and Victoria. Information from reliable sources is already used by the Australian Electoral Commission to monitor the accuracy of the roll and to remove a person from the roll through objection action. The Electoral Act does not currently permit the Electoral Commission to use this information to enrol a person. Rather than use the information to object a person off the electoral roll, it is expected that the Electoral Commission will analyse the most reliable and current data available to facilitate a person's enrolment. It is not an automatic process. Every potential elector will be given an opportunity to dispute the information before any action occurs. In its report on the March 2011 election, the New South Wales Electoral Commission advised that their SmartRoll process had a 93 per cent success rate for all enrolment transaction types. There is no reason to think that a similar high success rate could not be replicated at the federal level for new enrolments. The second way in which the bill will protect elector participation is by ensuring that certain people who have been removed from the electoral roll by objection action will have their votes admitted to further scrutiny. This will take place after the Electoral Commission has verified the elector's entitlement to enrolment and voting. The existing law provides that where electors have been removed from the electoral roll due to an administrative error or a mistake of fact, their votes can be admitted to further scrutiny after the Electoral Commission has verified the elector's enrolment and voting entitlement. However, being removed from the roll through objection action does not currently constitute an administrative error or mistake of fact. The bill removes this limitation to ensure that an administrative error or mistake of fact does not hinder an otherwise eligible elector from exercising their right to vote at an election. The bill further provides that the Electoral Commissioner may enrol a person who casts a declaration vote if they meet certain criteria. These are that: the person has made a declaration vote; the declaration envelope satisfies the requirements of schedule 3 to the Commonwealth Electoral Act; the person is entitled to be enrolled for the division; and the person was omitted from the electoral roll for the division due to an administrative error by an officer or a mistake of fact. The bill leaves unchanged the rule that if a redistribution or more than one election has occurred between the removal from the roll and the current election, the new provisions do not apply. The process undertaken by a citizen to enrol to vote has remained largely unchanged for a century. One hundred years is a long time to keep a process, even one that has served Australia well. With the trend in declining enrolment participation, it is no longer possible to keep doing the same things in the same way, particularly as superior processes have been successfully implemented in New South Wales and Victoria. The bill provides the Electoral Commissioner with the ability to use modern processes to protect the participation of eligible Australian citizens in the electoral process. This is fundamental to maintaining the strength and resilience of our democratic system of government. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Corporations Amendment (Phoenixing and Other Measures) Bill 2012 1342

Corporations Amendment (Phoenixing and Other Measures) Bill 2012

First Reading 1342 Second Reading 1342 10:12 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Today I introduce a bill to amend the Corporations Act 2001. The Corporations Amendment (Phoenixing and Other Measures) Bill 2012 contains two key sets of measures. Administrative winding up of abandoned companies The first set of measures contained in this bill strengthens the powers of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to place companies into liquidation when they have been abandoned by their directors. This bill delivers part of the Gillard government’s Protecting Workers’ Entitlements package election commitments. When a company fails, employees can often end up missing out on some or all of their entitlements—such as unpaid wages and certain other accrued benefits. The government’s employee assistance scheme, the General Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme, or GEERS, aims to protect workers’ entitlements in these situations, so that employees of failed companies can recoup many of their unpaid entitlements as quickly as possible. Under GEERS, employees of a failed company are only able to access the scheme where the company that has employed them fails and is placed into liquidation. However, sometimes the directors of a failed company simply abandon the company, rather than go through the appropriate processes to wind up the company. At present where this occurs, employees are not able to access their unpaid entitlements under GEERS. If a company has been abandoned but has not yet been deregistered, employees (or ASIC on their behalf) currently have to apply to the courts and incur legal costs in order to place the abandoned company into liquidation before they can access GEERS. This is further complicated by the fact that where the abandoned company has been deregistered by ASIC or by its members, ASIC or the company’s employees have to apply to the courts to reinstate the company and only once the company is reinstated so that it can be placed into liquidation could any potential employee eligibility for GEERS be triggered. To address this impediment and safeguard the rights of employees of failed companies to access GEERS, today I introduce legislation that will provide ASIC with the following discretionary powers: the power to place a company into liquidation in circumstances where ASIC currently has a power to deregister the company; the power to reinstate any deregistered company and immediately place it into liquidation; and the power to place a company into liquidation where ASIC has reason to believe that the company is no longer carrying on business; where ASIC gives notice to the company and its directors of its intention to place the company into liquidation; and where neither the company nor its directors oppose the placement of the company into liquidation. I anticipate that ASIC will issue guidance to industry on the circumstances in which this power will be used. Publication of corporate insolvency notices The second set of measures in the bill will facilitate the future requirement of public notices in corporate external administrations to be published on a single publicly available website. There are a range of notices that, in the course of external administrations, must be published in the print media or the ASIC Gazette. These public disclosure obligations are in addition to obligations for petitioning creditors and for external administrators to communicate directly with known creditors to inform them of certain events. There are significant costs to external administrations in complying with these obligations. These costs are ultimately borne by creditors through reduced returns. There are also costs to creditors in monitoring numerous newspapers for relevant notifications—particularly as there is no set newspaper or day of the week on which notices must be published. The bill will amend the Corporations Act to remove the requirement for these notices to be published in newspapers or the ASIC Gazette. Instead, the bill requires these notices to be published in a 'prescribed manner' and provides a power for regulations to be made that will prescribe that manner. These amendments will facilitate the future provision of corporate external administration notices via a single website. As part of the reform package to modernise and harmonise Australia's insolvency industry, which I released together with the Attorney-General on 14 December 2011, the government announced that ASIC would establish a corporate external administration notices website by 1 July 2012. Online publication of notices will replace approximately 53,000 newspaper advertisements over the next four years, saving external administrations around $15 million over that same period. The reforms will apply to both advertisement requirements and gazettal requirements. Removing the requirement for these notices to be published in newspapers, and instead enabling them to be published in a prescribed manner, facilitates the publication of these notices on a single website. Requiring all public notices to be lodged on a single website ensures that these notices are publicly accessible at one location and able to be searched and accessed by stakeholders quickly and easily. Miscellaneous amendments In addition to the two key reforms I have outlined, the bill also contains some miscellaneous amendments in relation to paid parental leave and the powers of the court in relation to company reinstatements. MINCO approval The Ministerial Council for Corporations has been consulted and has approved the amendments contained in this bill. Summing up This bill delivers part of the Gillard government’s Protecting Workers' Entitlements package election commitments. It strengthens ASIC’s powers to place companies into liquidation when they have been abandoned by their directors. This bill will benefit the employees of these abandoned companies, by enabling quicker access to their unpaid entitlements through the government's employee assistance scheme. The bill also paves the way for a more streamlined and cost-effective process involving the publication of insolvency notices via a single, publicly available website. This will benefit creditors of companies in external administration, by reducing the costs of complying with these regulatory obligations. Debate adjourned. Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 1344

Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012

First Reading 1344 Second Reading 1344 0:19 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill implements the government's changes to family payments announced in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, as well as improved support for carers outlined in the government's National Carer Strategy. These changes to family payments strengthen incentives for childhood immunisation and help ensure that family payments are sustainable for the long term. This Labor government is a very strong supporter of the family payments system. We have delivered Australia's first national Paid Parental Leave scheme, increased the childcare rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent, and increased family payments for teenagers in secondary school or training. We also support a targeted family payments system that will be sustainable for generations to come. The first measure in this bill delivers stronger incentives for parents to have their children immunised, by linking the family tax benefit part A end-of-year supplement with immunisation. Immunisation is fundamental to a child's lifelong health and the health of other children. The government wants to make sure that children have the best start in life and are immunised at the right time. From 1 July 2012, the end-of-year supplement, currently worth $726 per child each year, will only be paid once a child is fully immunised for the financial year a child turns one, two and five years of age. These new requirements for the family tax benefit part A supplement will be implemented at a new immunisation check point at one year of age, along with the existing check points at two and five years of age. This means that, over the three immunisation check points of one, two and five years old, families will now have an incentive of more than $2,100 to ensure their children are fully immunised. The new arrangements for the family tax benefit part A supplement will replace the maternity immunisation allowance, which will cease from 1 July 2012. Families are already required to have their child fully immunised to receive childcare benefit and childcare rebate. Existing exemptions will continue to apply. These reforms aim to improve immunisation coverage rates over time, giving greater protection to Australian children. They build on the government's previous reforms to use family payments to help drive better outcomes for families and children, including: new requirements for families on income support to make sure children get a pre-school health check; new 'earn or learn' requirements; and increasing family payments for teenagers if they stay in school or training. The second measure in this bill will help make sure that the baby bonus is sustainable for the long term. From 1 July 2012, the indexation of the baby bonus will be paused for three years. The payment rate will also be reset to $5,000 per child from 1 September 2012. The baby bonus has increased by 67 per cent since it was introduced in 2004, and this measure will provide a saving to the budget of $358 million over four years. To improve the targeting of family tax benefit and reduce the risk of debts, a further measure in this bill will end fortnightly payments of family tax benefit instalments to recipients who claim family tax benefit but are found to have no actual entitlement for two consecutive years following the end-of-year reconciliation with their income tax return. This change will make sure that families do not receive benefits they are not entitled to, and do not subsequently have debts raised against them. Families no longer receiving family tax benefit part A or part B instalments would still be able to make a lump sum claim at the end of the financial year, and exceptions will apply to ensure that families are not put at risk of hardship. This bill also includes two amendments to support the Australian government's National Carer Strategy, announced on 3 August 2011. Under this strategy, the government is committed to improving carers' opportunity to take part in all aspects of society, including the chance to participate in work, community and family life. One amendment acknowledges that carers sometimes combine paid employment with their caring responsibilities. Currently, a carer cannot receive the annual carer supplement of $600 for each person they care for if, due to the income test, their or their partner's income has reduced their rate of payment to nil during that period. This situation may disadvantage carers or their partners who may participate in casual or irregular work in addition to their caring commitments, and who are offered extra employment in the period that includes 1 July. These carers may be faced with the difficult decision of accepting the offer of extra employment, knowing that they may then lose their annual carer supplement because the employment income they receive in that period may, solely or partly, cause their instalment of carer payment, wife pension, carer service pension or partner service pension to be reduced to nil. These amendments remedy this situation by making sure that, if a carer is qualified for carer payment, wife pension, partner service pension or carer service pension, for the period that includes 1 July, they will receive the supplement, even if their payment rate is set to nil due to employment income. The other amendment will make sure that a low-income carer, receiving an income support payment as well as carer allowance for care of an adult, will be paid a bereavement payment on the death of the person they care for. Carer payment recipients and carer allowance recipients for care of a child already have access to bereavement payments, and this amendment provides equitable support for those carers caring for an adult. Lastly, the bill makes several minor amendments to clarify provisions in the family assistance law in line with existing policy. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Disability Support Pension Participation Reforms) Bill 2012 1346

Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Disability Support Pension Participation Reforms) Bill 2012

First Reading 1346 Second Reading 1346 10:27 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill introduces two key reforms to the disability support pension announced in the 2011-12 federal budget as part of the Building Australia's Future Workforce package of measures. These are significant reforms—reforms that will, for the first time, introduce new participation requirements for certain disability support pensioners, and allow disability support pensioners to work more hours without having their payment suspended or cancelled. Other amendments made by this bill include more generous rules for overseas travel for people with severe disability, and some minor amendments. The government is improving support for Australians with disability, to help them into work where possible, while ensuring we continue to provide an essential safety net for those who are unable to support themselves fully through work. I do believe that we can do better than a lifetime spent on income support for Australians who have some capacity to work. Many people with disability are great contributors in the workforce, and many want to be able to do more. This government recognises that working benefits people in many different ways. It helps boost people's self-esteem, improves social contact, provides more income, and leads to improved health and financial security. The government is committed to ensuring that people with disability can access these opportunities wherever they are able to do so. These reforms introduce new participation requirements for certain disability support pension recipients with some capacity to work and more generous rules for existing disability support pensioners to encourage them to work more hours. These measures will be combined with extra support for people with disability, including more employment services, and support for employers to take on more people with disability through new financial incentives. Many people with disability want to work if they can, but they may need extra support. In the first of three disability support pension measures in this bill, all effective from 1 July 2012, more generous rules are introduced to allow all disability support pensioners to work up to 30 hours a week without having their payment suspended or cancelled. These people will be able to receive a part pension, subject to usual means testing arrangements. Currently, disability support pension recipients granted on or after the previous government's introduction of the Welfare to Work changes on 11 May 2005 can only work up to 15 hours a week before their payment is suspended or cancelled. Recipients granted before this date were 'grandfathered' under the Welfare to Work changes and can work up to 30 hours a week before their pension is suspended or cancelled. Disability support pension recipients subject to 'the 15-hour rule' can find it difficult to find work limited to less than 15 hours a week. Many want to test whether they can work more hours but are worried about losing qualification. This change will remove the disincentive for disability support pension recipients to take up work or increase their hours if they are able to do so, and will help address the low workforce participation rate of people with disability. We estimate that this change will encourage around 4,000 disability support pension recipients to take up work, and 3,900 recipients who are already employed to work extra hours. The bill's second measure will introduce new participation requirements to encourage the workforce engagement of certain disability support pensioners who have some capacity to work. Disability support pension recipients under age 35 with a work capacity of at least eight hours a week will be required for the first time to attend regular participation interviews—engaging with Centrelink to develop participation plans, tailored to their individual circumstances, to help build their capacity. Participation plans could involve working with employment services to improve job readiness, searching for employment, or undertaking training, volunteering or rehabilitation. The participation interviews will also help make sure Disability Support Pension recipients are connected to other services and supports they need to overcome barriers to participation, such as drug and alcohol rehabilitation, mental health services and other community services. While attendance at Centrelink interviews will be compulsory, participation in activities identified in the plan will be on a voluntary basis. There will also be exceptions to the new participation requirements for pensioners who are manifestly disabled or have a work capacity of zero to seven hours a week, or while a pensioner is working in an Australian disability enterprise or the supported wage system. In the third measure, the government recognises that the disability support pension is an essential safety net for those who cannot work. New, more generous, rules will allow people receiving disability support pension who have a permanent disability and no future work capacity to travel overseas for more than 13 weeks, while retaining access to their pension. In addition, a disability support pension recipient who has a severe disability and is required to accompany a family member who has been posted overseas by their Australian employer will retain their pension for the period of the family member's posting. These pensioners will not be eligible for add-on payments such as the pension supplement or rent assistance while they are overseas. Existing portability rules will continue to apply to disability support pension recipients who may have some ability to work. Other working age payments will not be affected by these changes to portability arrangements. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 1347 COMMITTEES Public Accounts and Audit Committee 1347 10:35 Mr OAKESHOTT IYS Lyne by leave—I present executive minutes received by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, and related documents, which constitute government responses to Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit reports. BILLS 1348 BILLS Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2011, Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2011, Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Bill 2011 1348

Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2011

Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2011

Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Bill 2011

Cognate debate.

Debate resumed on the motion:

That this bill be now read a second time.

to which the following amendment was moved:

That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'this bill, and the related bills, not be proceeded with until after the Parliament has met in the 44th Parliament.'

The House divided. [11:05]
(The Speaker—Hon. Peter Slipper)

 69 AYES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Baldwin, RC Billson, BF Bishop, BK Bishop, JI Briggs, JE Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Cobb, JK Coulton, M (teller) Crook, AJ Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Fletcher, PW Forrest, JA Frydenberg, JA Gambaro, T Gash, J Griggs, NL Haase, BW Hartsuyker, L Hawke, AG Hockey, JB Hunt, GA Jensen, DG Jones, ET Katter, RC Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Ley, SP Macfarlane, IE Marino, NB Markus, LE Matheson, RG McCormack, MF Mirabella, S Morrison, SJ Neville, PC O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Prentice, J Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE Randall, DJ Robb, AJ Roy, WB Ruddock, PM Schultz, AJ Scott, BC Secker, PD (teller) Simpkins, LXL Smith, ADH Somlyay, AM Southcott, AJ Stone, SN Tehan, DT Truss, WE Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wyatt, KG 72 NOES Adams, DGH Albanese, AN Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Bradbury, DJ Brodtmann, G Burke, AE Burke, AS Butler, MC Byrne, AM Champion, ND Cheeseman, DL Clare, JD Collins, JM Combet, GI Crean, SF Danby, M D'Ath, YM Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Emerson, CA Ferguson, LDT Ferguson, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Garrett, PR Georganas, S Gibbons, SW Gillard, JE Gray, G Grierson, SJ Griffin, AP Hall, JG (teller) Hayes, CP Husic, EN (teller) Jenkins, HA Jones, SP Kelly, MJ Leigh, AK Livermore, KF Lyons, GR Macklin, JL Marles, RD McClelland, RB Mitchell, RG Murphy, JP Neumann, SK Oakeshott, RJM O'Connor, BPJ O'Neill, DM Owens, J Parke, M Perrett, GD Plibersek, TJ Ripoll, BF Rishworth, AL Roxon, NL Rudd, KM Saffin, JA Shorten, WR Sidebottom, PS Smith, SF Smyth, L Swan, WM Symon, MS Thomson, CR Thomson, KJ Vamvakinou, M Wilkie, AD Windsor, AHC Zappia, A 4 PAIRS Irons, SJ Rowland, MA Moylan, JE Melham, D Robert, SR Snowdon, WE Washer, MJ King, C

Question negatived.

The House divided. [11.12]
(The Speaker—Hon. Peter Slipper)

 71 AYES Adams, DGH Albanese, AN Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Bradbury, DJ Brodtmann, G Burke, AE Burke, AS Butler, MC Byrne, AM Champion, ND Cheeseman, DL Clare, JD Collins, JM Combet, GI Crean, SF Danby, M D'Ath, YM Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Emerson, CA Ferguson, LDT Ferguson, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Garrett, PR Georganas, S Gibbons, SW Gillard, JE Gray, G Grierson, SJ Griffin, AP Hall, JG (teller) Hayes, CP Husic, EN (teller) Jenkins, HA Jones, SP Kelly, MJ Leigh, AK Livermore, KF Lyons, GR Macklin, JL Marles, RD McClelland, RB Mitchell, RG Murphy, JP Neumann, SK Oakeshott, RJM O'Connor, BPJ O'Neill, DM Owens, J Parke, M Perrett, GD Plibersek, TJ Ripoll, BF Rishworth, AL Roxon, NL Rudd, KM Saffin, JA Shorten, WR Sidebottom, PS Smith, SF Smyth, L Swan, WM Symon, MS Thomson, CR Thomson, KJ Vamvakinou, M Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 70 NOES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Baldwin, RC Billson, BF Bishop, BK Bishop, JI Briggs, JE Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Cobb, JK Coulton, M (teller) Crook, AJ Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Fletcher, PW Forrest, JA Frydenberg, JA Gambaro, T Gash, J Griggs, NL Haase, BW Hartsuyker, L Hawke, AG Hockey, JB Hunt, GA Jensen, DG Jones, ET Katter, RC Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Ley, SP Macfarlane, IE Marino, NB Markus, LE Matheson, RG McCormack, MF Mirabella, S Morrison, SJ Neville, PC O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Prentice, J Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE Randall, DJ Robb, AJ Roy, WB Ruddock, PM Schultz, AJ Scott, BC Secker, PD (teller) Simpkins, LXL Smith, ADH Somlyay, AM Southcott, AJ Stone, SN Tehan, DT Truss, WE Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Windsor, AHC Wyatt, KG 4 PAIRS King, CF Washer, MJ Melham, D Moylan, JE Rowland, MA Irons, SJ Snowdon, WE Robert, S

Question agreed to

 Consideration in Detail 1355 11:18 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum and correction to the explanatory memorandum to the bill and to the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2011 and the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Bill 2011. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (4) together. Leave granted. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M I move: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2, column 2), omit "1 January 2012", substitute "1 July 2012". (2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 19), omit "2011 12", substitute "2012 13". (3) Schedule 1, item 48, page 24 (line 22), omit "1 January 2012", substitute "1 July 2012". (4) Schedule 1, item 48, page 24 (line 26), omit "1 January 2012", substitute "1 July 2012". The SPEAKER 0V5 The minister has moved government amendments (1) to (4) together. Next week I intend to make a statement on relevance. I draw to the attention of honourable members that the debate on these amendments must be confined to the substance of the amendments and not to the general issue which has been more broadly debated. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M These amendments simply amend the commencement date for the measures in these bills from their previous start date of 1 January 2012 to 1 July 2012. Question agreed to The SPEAKER 0V5 The question now is that this bill as amended be agreed to.

The House divided. [11:24]
(The Speaker—Hon. Peter Slipper)

 71 AYES Adams, DGH Albanese, AN Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Bradbury, DJ Brodtmann, G Burke, AE Burke, AS Butler, MC Byrne, AM Champion, ND Cheeseman, DL Clare, JD Collins, JM Combet, GI Crean, SF Danby, M D'Ath, YM Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Emerson, CA Ferguson, LDT Ferguson, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Garrett, PR Georganas, S Gibbons, SW Gillard, JE Gray, G Grierson, SJ Griffin, AP Hall, JG (teller) Hayes, CP Husic, EN (teller) Jenkins, HA Jones, SP Kelly, MJ Leigh, AK Livermore, KF Lyons, GR Macklin, JL Marles, RD McClelland, RB Mitchell, RG Murphy, JP Neumann, SK Oakeshott, RJM O'Connor, BPJ O'Neill, DM Owens, J Parke, M Perrett, GD Plibersek, TJ Ripoll, BF Rishworth, AL Roxon, NL Rudd, KM Saffin, JA Shorten, WR Sidebottom, PS Smith, SF Smyth, L Swan, WM Symon, MS Thomson, CR Thomson, KJ Vamvakinou, M Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 70 NOES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Baldwin, RC Billson, BF Bishop, BK Bishop, JI Briggs, JE Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Cobb, JK Coulton, M (teller) Crook, AJ Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Fletcher, PW Forrest, JA Frydenberg, JA Gambaro, T Gash, J Griggs, NL Haase, BW Hartsuyker, L Hawke, AG Hockey, JB Hunt, GA Jensen, DG Jones, ET Katter, RC Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Ley, SP Macfarlane, IE Marino, NB Markus, LE Matheson, RG McCormack, MF Mirabella, S Morrison, SJ Neville, PC O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Prentice, J Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE Randall, DJ Robb, AJ Roy, WB Ruddock, PM Schultz, AJ Scott, BC Secker, PD (teller) Simpkins, LXL Smith, ADH Somlyay, AM Southcott, AJ Stone, SN Tehan, DT Truss, WE Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Windsor, AHC Wyatt, KG 4 PAIRS King, CF Washer, MJ Melham, D Moylan, JE Rowland, MA Irons, SJ Snowdon, WE Robert, S

Question agreed to.

 Third Reading 1356 11:26 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. The SPEAKER 0V5 The question before the chair is that this bill be now read a third time. Bill read a third time.

The House divided. [11:28]
(The Speaker—Hon. Peter Slipper)

 71 AYES Adams, DGH Albanese, AN Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Bradbury, DJ Brodtmann, G Burke, AE Burke, AS Butler, MC Byrne, AM Champion, ND Cheeseman, DL Clare, JD Collins, JM Combet, GI Crean, SF Danby, M D'Ath, YM Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Emerson, CA Ferguson, LDT Ferguson, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Garrett, PR Georganas, S Gibbons, SW Gillard, JE Gray, G Grierson, SJ Griffin, AP Hall, JG (teller) Hayes, CP Husic, EN (teller) Jenkins, HA Jones, SP Kelly, MJ Leigh, AK Livermore, KF Lyons, GR Macklin, JL Marles, RD McClelland, RB Mitchell, RG Murphy, JP Neumann, SK Oakeshott, RJM O'Connor, BPJ O'Neill, DM Owens, J Parke, M Perrett, GD Plibersek, TJ Ripoll, BF Rishworth, AL Roxon, NL Rudd, KM Saffin, JA Shorten, WR Sidebottom, PS Smith, SF Smyth, L Swan, WM Symon, MS Thomson, CR Thomson, KJ Vamvakinou, M Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 70 NOES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Baldwin, RC Billson, BF Bishop, BK Bishop, JI Briggs, JE Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Cobb, JK Coulton, M (teller) Crook, AJ Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Fletcher, PW Forrest, JA Frydenberg, JA Gambaro, T Gash, J Griggs, NL Haase, BW Hartsuyker, L Hawke, AG Hockey, JB Hunt, GA Jensen, DG Jones, ET Katter, RC Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Ley, SP Macfarlane, IE Marino, NB Markus, LE Matheson, RG McCormack, MF Mirabella, S Morrison, SJ Neville, PC O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Prentice, J Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE Randall, DJ Robb, AJ Roy, WB Ruddock, PM Schultz, AJ Scott, BC Secker, PD (teller) Simpkins, LXL Smith, ADH Somlyay, AM Southcott, AJ Stone, SN Tehan, DT Truss, WE Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Windsor, AHC Wyatt, KG 4 PAIRS King, CF Washer, MJ Melham, D Moylan, JE Rowland, MA Irons, SJ Snowdon, WE Robert, S

Question agreed to.

 Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2011 1357

Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2011

Second Reading 1357 Consideration in Detail 1357 11:32 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney by leave—I move government amendments (1) and (2): (1) Schedule 1, item 23, page 6 (line 29), omit "2011 12", substitute "2012 13". (2) Schedule 1, item 24, page 7 (lines 1 to 34), omit the item. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading 1357 11:33 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Bill 2011 1358

Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Bill 2011

Second Reading 1358 Consideration in Detail 1358 11:34 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney by leave—I move government amendments (1) and (2): (1) Schedule 1, item 17, page 6 (line 2), omit "2011 12", substitute "2012 13". (2) Schedule 1, item 18, page 6 (lines 4 to 21), omit the item. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading 1358 11:36 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011 1358

Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011

Second Reading 1358 11:37 Mr EWEN JONES 96430 Herbert In continuing my remarks on the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011, I want to reiterate my opposition to the bill and my concern for the construction industry. The Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner, the ABCC, has allowed productivity in the construction industry to improve dramatically since its introduction. In considering the impacts of its abolition, I spoke to Martin Locke, a local quality home builder in Townsville, in relation to the industry in general. Martin is reasonably confident. He runs a small team and has a good business model. He wants to provide a quality housing product to quality people in a quality subdivision. His business has only ever operated under the umbrella of the ABCC; therefore, he does not have firsthand knowledge of what the changes in this bill will mean. Martin would like to see the government get out of the way and let him get on with building. He sees that this proposed change is not a major concern to the industry. The system works and he is vitally worried that it appears that it is being changed for no good reason. He says that the industry is facing genuine concerns. The cost of basic materials such as steel, concrete, timber and fuel are impacting the industry's ability to produce a quality product at a reasonable price. Other builders tell me they are worried about the costs of these things as well. They are also telling me that, if they are expensive now, the world's most expensive carbon tax will only make them more expensive. The cost of concrete and bitumen is rising at the start of a development, and we will see the cost of land and housing rise further as we all have to pay this carbon tax. We will be making it harder and harder for Australians chasing their first home to make that purchase. This government goes on and on about working Australians, but at every turn this government is putting up roadblocks to the success of every other Australian. The abolition of the ABCC will only play into that. Governments cannot control prices directly, but they can support the construction industry by cutting out the unnecessary bureaucracy that interferes with business and creates inefficiencies. The ABCC has helped to do this. It has ensured fairness exists in industrial relations, without letting either side have the kind of power that creates one-sided industrial disputes with consequences for productivity and costs. As a supporter of the ABCC, I strongly oppose this bill. We should be working with the construction industry to keep fairness in the workplace. Allowing unions the power to use whatever tactics they can to run their agenda serves only to hurt the industry, and no-one can support that. It takes a strong policeman to maintain the balance in industrial relations and that is what we have now, but this bill seeks to strip it away in favour of a toothless tiger replacement. 11:41 Mrs D'ATH HVN Petrie I rise to speak in support of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011. I am not surprised to hear those on the opposition side opposing this bill, but I do believe that the speakers on the other side go too far when they talk about the Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner providing fairness and ensuring fairness in industrial relations. That is not what the ABCC did. It is not the reason that it was established by the Howard government. The Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner was set up by the Howard government to attack unions and to target workers who were outspoken in their workplaces. It was not a balanced office about making sure that both sides abided by the laws and regulations. I have no objection to ensuring that all parties—employers, employees, unions—are complying with the laws and doing the right thing by the industry. I have no problem with laws being in place to do that. However, you cannot say that the Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner, the ABCC, as it existed was set up to ensure fairness or that it in fact provided fairness. The harshest part of this law has been the ABCC's coercive information gathering powers. We have just heard the member for Herbert saying that it was a strong policeman and that we need a strong policeman. In fact it was more than that. The powers given to the inspectors under the ABCC were stronger than the powers any of our police officers have in this country. They had powers the police do not have in relation to compulsorily requiring persons to come before them and provide information. The ABCC did not allow those people to have representation. Under the ABCC, people were threatened with imprisonment if they did not come along and sit down in a closed room without representation, and say what was happening in their workplace. This is not fair law. I was elected to ensure that we provided fairness in the workplace, not just by getting rid of Work Choices but by ensuring fairness in the building industry as well. I believe that there should be equal laws for all workers. Having said that, I do support the bill that is before the House and I do so for very good reason. The bill makes changes to the current ABCC and regulations that make real headway towards providing that fairness. It will ensure that, when it comes to those coercive information gathering powers, no longer can an inspector decide for themselves to mandatorily require someone to come before them. Under this bill, they will be required to go and get an examination notice through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to actually be allowed to use those powers. So there are now checks and balances in place and a mechanism which ensures that individuals are treated fairly and reasonably in the way they are brought before the tribunal and required to answer questions. It ensures that people required to attend an interview may be represented by a lawyer of their choice and that their right to claim legal privilege and public interest immunity will be recognised. These are not rights which workers had under the Howard government's laws. Persons required to attend an interview will be reimbursed for the reasonable expenses and all interviews are to be videotaped and undertaken by the director or an SES employee. The Commonwealth Ombudsman will monitor and review all interviews and provide reports to the parliament on the exercise of this power. Importantly, these coercive information gathering powers have a sunset clause. Under section 46 of the bill, those powers will cease three years from the commencement of this legislation. We owe this to workers across the country. I said at the beginning I have no problem with ensuring that the laws are complied with by all people in the building and construction industry but we must make sure that those people enjoy the same basic rights as any other person before any court in this nation. Previously, a person accused of a criminal act had more rights than a worker under the ABCC. We will correct this imbalance to ensure that only in cases considered by a presidential member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal should powers be used in such a way that people understand that their basic rights to representation, legal privilege and public interest immunity will be honoured, and that they will be reimbursed for costs. Many people have already spoken on this bill and the minister has gone through it in detail in the explanatory memorandum. It is my intention simply to put on the record what I consider were the harshest parts of the laws in relation to the Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner. I believe this Labor government has done a lot on changing the guidelines and definition of 'construction' because it was not just about coercive powers. When we talked about building and construction under the Howard government, the definition was so wide that it applied to many industries, well outside what we would consider to be the building and construction industry. In making sure that the definition more accurately reflects the industry, this legislation will apply to many fewer people than previously and to fewer workplaces. That is fair as well. People are still required to comply with laws. They are still required to comply with the Fair Work Act. They are still required to comply with workplace health and safety legislation but they are placed where they should be—on an equal footing with other workers across the country. True to say that those in the building and construction industry will still be set up under a separate set of laws and there will be a new agency to oversee them but at least that agency will fall under the auspices of Fair Work Australia. I believe that is where it should sit because that is where all other workers rights' are respected and implemented. What I hope to see out of these changes is a much more balanced approach to looking at this industry. We need to make sure that everyone is complying with the law. That also means that we need to be holding building and construction companies to account where their practices are such that people's lives are at risk. Too many people are permanently injured, or killed, in this industry each year. Through this agency and these laws we will hold to account all people who may be responsible. There is nothing more important than the safety of workers at the workplace. They deserve to go home to their families each night. The Safe Rates campaign by the transport industry is a fantastic campaign which I fully support. It is important we make sure that not just those on the roads are being looked after but that also those in the building and construction industry, like every other worker, are being looked after. It is my pleasure to support this bill and the changes it seeks to introduce. I believe it goes a long way to creating more fairness and ensuring there is a balanced approach in compliance with laws and safety regulations in the building and construction industry. 11:50 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell Following the member for Petrie's rather confused contribution to the debate on the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011, it is incumbent on me to say, firstly, that it is not a workplace safety issue; it is properly the jurisdiction of occupational and health and safety legislation. This is really about the ABCC, commissioned in 2005, which came out of a royal commission which found that there were over 100 types of unlawful or inappropriate conduct in the building and construction industry. The member for Petrie carried on about workplace safety. But what about the unlawful conduct which was found by a very thorough royal commission, and their recommendation that, without somebody with the power to do something about entrenched unlawful behaviour in the building and construction industry, we would continue to see declines in productivity and obstacles in the place of properly conducted economic activity? The corporations the member for Petrie refers to must comply with occupational health and safety regulations or their employees go to jail. What about the people in Australia found by the Cole royal commission to be engaging in unlawful activity hindering our economic progress? We know that the ABCC has been a tough cop on the beat and, yes, was given wide-ranging powers by the Howard government. Why? Because the ABCC, which works quite successfully, has helped the building and construction industry to increase productivity by 10 per cent since it was set up. The biggest challenge in Australian economic industrial relations today is how to lift productivity. We have seen a well-functioning body lift productivity in this sector by 10 per cent; yet the government of the day is proposing to weaken and undermine the role of this body in the building and construction sector. Why would it be doing that? Why would the government of the day undermine an institution that is lifting the productivity rates in a critical sector of our economy like building and construction? We know why the Labor government is undermining this body. Indeed, if you do not think that adding 33 additional procedures into the ABCC is undermining the effectiveness of this body, then I think you are absolutely crazy— The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP The member will not cast aspersions on the chair. Mr HAWKE HWO Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, I certainly was not doing that. I should have said that about the member for Petrie and the others who have made contributions in this place about this matter along the lines of, 'All we want to do is streamline this body,' and, 'We need to make sure that people's rights are being considered.' The Cole royal commission found that unlawful behaviour was occurring and recommended that a strong regulator be put in place. The Howard government responded by doing so, thereby lifting productivity, reducing the number of working days lost annually per thousand employees from 224 in 2004 to 24 in 2006 and lowering building costs by 20 to 25 per cent—it worked a wonder. How the introduction of 33 additional procedures that are diverting attention away from ensuring lawfulness is maintained in this sector is a better thing is beyond me. This is part of an ongoing theme that we see in this Gillard Labor government of Orwellian titled bills: Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition To Fair Work) Bill. The government says it is improving the system through this bill when everybody knows, whether it be people on the Labor side of this chamber or people on this side of the chamber, that there is no such improvement to the role of the regulator here—33 additional processes, extra bureaucracy and procedure. All of the provisions of this bill will slow down, hold back and constrain the role of the regulator in this important sector of our economy—a regulator which has already lifted productivity, improved economic outcomes for ordinary Australians and improved the ability for us to get things done in this country. Why would we do that? We know why the government is proposing to do that. It is purely a ploy by the Prime Minister to bring the unions and the Labor Left onto her side and save her leadership. It does not matter which group in Australian society you ask. The Australian Industry Group, who have made a series of submissions about this and who have to deal with the construction and building industry all the time, say that behaviour has significantly changed for the better since the ABCC was introduced—that means less unlawful behaviour. There are many indications that the industrial environment in the industry is deteriorating. Watering down protections for the industry and for the community at this time would send entirely the wrong message to those who engage in unlawful or inappropriate behaviour. We are not talking about any facet of industrial relations here. We are not talking about occupational health and safety, as the member for Petrie tried to divert us onto. We are talking about unlawful behaviour in the building and construction industry. We are talking about things that have held this country back for so long, things that have slowed down our productivity and our ability to get ahead and have made us less competitive internationally. This is very serious economic territory. It is true that the industrial laws arising from the royal commission treat employers and employees in the construction industry differently from those in other sectors. But why is that? It is because of the profound nature of the unlawful behaviour that was going on in this vital sector of the economy. It was appropriate that we had a profound response and it has worked well. Nobody is disadvantaged by this legislation. Who is the government standing up for—people acting unlawfully? What is the government saying—that there are these shrinking violets out there, union members and union activists, who are being persecuted by police unfairly? Is it seriously the contention of the government that it will weaken this legislation and change the regulation of this industry? I do not think there is a strong case for that. All of the evidence points to the fact that this system is working well, that the current legislation is delivering the results that it was intended to and that any watering down will lead to more industrial disputation. This government wants to take us back to that level we saw in 2004—hundreds of days lost per employee every single year, a drop in productivity and a decline in economic activity—and back to that system where, as the royal commission found, the CFMEU were getting up to $1.5 million per year in casual ticket money. Burdens were placed on business where to get around the old system you had to basically pay additional allowances to get your building and construction work done. This was weakening the strength of our economy. Why should that continue to be the case? Companies have to pay tax and they have to go through huge regulatory hurdles to get construction and building going in Australia today. Why would we encumber them further with unlegislated procedures through unions or other groups that seek to use their power to threaten industry and construction in this country? Industry and the community at large think there should be strong oversight and regulation of this sector so that we can get on with the business of construction and building. We saw under previous Labor administrations the difficulties of getting things done in this country. Productivity on the waterfront was so low that something had to be done to lift the productivity rate—and things were done. It used to be the case, and I have heard colloquially from people who worked in the industry at that time, that if you wanted to get goods moved off the waterfront the best thing you could do was to go down to the waterfront and offer a few slabs of beer to the workers. That was the best way to get your goods actually moved on time. We know that in the building and construction industry it is not as nostalgic as that. It was not a nice laid-back Australian approach; it was unlawful activity. The royal commission found hundreds of examples of serious unlawful behaviour that was preventing proper economic activity. Let us look through the provisions. It does not matter whether we are talking about the increased bureaucracy in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, with the presidential member being required to be satisfied that a case has been made before an interview may proceed. It does not matter whether we are talking about the so-called sunset clause, which is in a very short time, just three years, when what business and building and construction really need is a longer period for certainty of investment and the certainty of economic climate. It does not matter about involving the Commonwealth Ombudsman—if you want to bog something down, you bring in the Commonwealth Ombudsman to have a good look at it. It does not matter what provision you go to. Each of these provisions is designed to slow down, impede and reduce effectiveness and to blow out the time that it will take for an effective regulator to make sure unlawful behaviour is not happening. How is that a benefit to anybody? The only people who will benefit from these changes are the unions. We know that the unions are heavy donors to the Labor Party. We know that the Labor Party is the party of the unions. It is important to ask why, when we are desperate to lift productivity in any way, we would do something to damage productivity in such a vital sector as the construction sector. We do not want to go back to the old days of unlawful behaviour in our construction sector. That would have massive cost implications for our country and it would slow down our economic recovery just when we are coming out of the GFC. It is the wrong time to be doing this—if there is ever a right time. I could understand all of that if the government were saying, 'Well, we've got into a situation where there is no unlawful behaviour in the construction and building industry. We have reached a point where things are now on a more even keel and we do not need these extraordinary powers.' They are extraordinary powers, I grant you, but it was an extraordinary situation that the royal commission found. There was extraordinary commission of systematic, unlawful behaviour completely crippling and adding a massive burden on a major sector of our economy. If that nirvana has been reached then let the government say so. If it has not then let us not impede the right actions of the tough cop on the beat that have produced such stunning improvements in economic activity, in days lost to strike activity and in productivity, the key challenge of our economy at the moment. Let us not reduce the powers or the scope of effectiveness of the regulator. I warn the Labor Party that, while they might be wearing fake smiles, glibly enjoying these bills, knowing that there will be a bureaucratic bogdown in procedure in the ABCC and that it will be tougher to enforce the law of this country, the laws in Australia are there for good reason. They are there so that the proper economic activity of the building and construction sector cannot be impeded by unions or other members behaving unlawfully. That is why we have these laws. That is why we have regulation in this sector. The ABCC has done a great job in delivering these improvements. It is very important in my view for the economy, while we are moving out of the GFC, to ensure that we have a tough cop on the beat, a good-quality regulator that is producing results. We have one in the ABCC and we should not allow a politically driven campaign that will stop that. It is a campaign on behalf of unions, who want to see a resurgence in industrial disputation as a legitimate method. We have seen that in Qantas and in BHP, where there is a week-long strike this week. There is nothing wrong with legitimate industrial disputation—nothing at all. Workers have the right to engage in it. But what we are talking about in the building and construction industry was systematic unlawful behaviour. That is why these bills should be strongly opposed and why we should retain the ABCC as the tough cop on the beat. 12:03 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fraser We in the Labor Party believe in fairness. We believe in giving people a fair chance, a fair go. We believe in a fair industrial relations system; a system that balances the needs and interests of both employees and employers. We on this side of the House know that fairness does not come at the expense of productivity. We know productivity measures can be achieved by people cooperating together in the workplace and working towards a common aim—employers and employees alike. Rising productivity means boosting our standard of living. It means more Australians get to share in the enormous benefits this country has to offer. Fairness is a key feature of the Labor Party's approach to industrial relations, which is why we are introducing these amendments to abolish the unfair Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner. The ABCC, especially in its ability to use coercive powers, is an unfair body that is a hangover from Howard era industrial relations. It pits employees against employers, union members against non-union members and worker against worker. It was used to undermine trust and confidence in the construction industry. The ABCC unfairly targeted union officials and the actions of unions. It went after the people who dedicate their lives to protecting the rights and entitlements of others. Employees and unionists in the construction industry faced very different penalties and very different laws from others in the community. That goes against the core of what we in the Labor Party believe in: fairness and inclusion. It is for these reasons that we have always been committed to abolishing the ABCC and replacing it with something fairer. We want to put checks and balances on the powers exercised. We want to make sure there is more consistent treatment of workers in the construction industry, commensurate with what people would expect in the community. We have long stood by this commitment and have faced challenges in ensuring it becomes law. We are going to keep trying, because it is the right thing to do. We want to work towards a cooperative and productive workplace relations system. We cannot do that if we keep the ABCC in the form that it is in today. The current ABCC is fundamentally against the principles of fairness. Getting the balance right means balancing the rights of employers and employees. That has always been our aim, right across our workplace relations system, and it should not be any different for workers who happen to be in the construction industry. Labor has always understood that the construction industry is a unique industry. The working environment can be dangerous. Many building workers are men, so it is a pretty robust place to work. It is a transient industry, an industry that is tightly connected with economic booms and economic busts. Construction is normally one of the main indicators of economic growth or decline, and we need to remember that we are talking not just about abstract economic concepts but about people's lives and jobs. We know the industry can be difficult. Because of the unique challenges faced by the industry, it is important to make sure everyone applies the right conduct and continues to be lawful. As is so often the case in industrial relations, that is a tough balancing act—but this is a decision we are not afraid to make. We wanted to make sure workers in the construction industry could be assured they had the same rights as other workers yet also make sure we met the challenges of the industry. We think this legislation gets that balance right. We have ensured safeguards for the protection of employees, and we have also established a specialist inspectorate who knows about the industry. We have made sure that what we are looking at here is a regulator, not an enforcer, who helps the entire industry without pitting people against one another. We wanted to help the industry to work cooperatively and productively, so we have set up a system that will ensure people can work together better. It will help the industry to reach community standards of fairness and it will provide information, advice and assistance to all in the industry. Many members and employees of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union live and work in my electorate of Fraser. I want to spend a moment here just briefly outlining the important work done by the CFMEU in our local community. The role played by unions in supporting and promoting local community activities is something that is far too easy to overlook. I want to single out Dean Hall, Jason Jennings and Jason O'Mara—three community minded blokes who lead the CFMEU locally and provide invaluable community support. All three are active in our local community. They have all been active for a long time in local rugby league competitions—helping to run them, coaching and playing. Other members and officials are involved with local cricket and soccer competitions. Dean's background in teaching and social work means he is an invaluable asset to the union, providing support for local union members by putting them in touch with services available to them. Even today, as the secretary of the local CFMEU branch, he keeps an eye out for his members and makes sure they are getting the assistance they need. We know that men's health, particularly men's mental health, has been something we have needed to work hard on. It is too easy for men to neglect their health. In a tough industry like the construction industry, with a premium placed on robust and macho behaviour, this can be even more so. The CFMEU work with the community on men's health issues. They have been extremely active in the area of mental health and have helped set up organisations addressing these needs. The CFMEU provide a barbeque once a week for local workers where people can find out about the various community services available to them. The CFMEU set up a drug and alcohol rehabilitation service. They provide access to financial counselling and superannuation services. They provide access to psychologists. They have set up health and safety training companies and they assist workers and employers to understand their rights and responsibilities. The CFMEU is one of the major financial contributors to the Canberra community, supporting sport, charities and cultural activities. Some of the groups they support include: the W-League champions Canberra United, who were undefeated in their most recent season; women's basketball— Mr Morrison E3L Does it include you? The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP Order! The member will pause for a moment. I ask members not to cast aspersions on each other's motives across the chamber. Dr LEIGH BU8 AFL in Canberra; the Special Olympics; and cerebral palsy groups. They are a major supporter of the Maori cultural festival and support various programs in schools. They have helped me out with my annual Welcoming the Babies event, which will next be held on 4 March. Anyone listening is invited along to Stage 88 at 10.30 on Sunday morning. The CFMEU will be providing their fantastic barbeque trailer to enable us to have a mobile barbeque at the event. On top of all of this, they are continuing to do the basics of protecting the rights and entitlements of local workers and, most importantly, staying on top of local health and safety matters. I have always been impressed with the ability of the CFMEU to know exactly what is the safety record at pretty much every construction site across Canberra. We have spent too long listening to those opposite denigrate the CFMEU, its members and its officials as unrestrained thugs wanting to intimidate people and throw their weight around. But, in my experience through my personal contact with this union, the people they are attacking are some of the most dedicated, community minded people I have had the honour of working with. The approach the Liberals took to the union movement, particularly to the CFMEU, would have threatened most of those local activities and many local sporting groups. Without the support shown by the CFMEU—whether it is financial, providing administrative support or encouraging their members to participate in local activities—lots of local institutions would have struggled. The current legislation is not a return to the old days of endless industrial disputes. The CFMEU, its members and employers all know that those days are over and there is no desire to threaten the productivity of the industry. When we speak about productivity there are two fundamentally different views in this House. Those opposite hear the word 'productivity' and they think about slashing workers' wages and cutting their conditions. The member for Bennelong wants to cut back on penalty rates. Not only would that hurt workers; there is no evidence it would raise productivity. If you look at a graph of the rate of productivity growth, you will see that it continued to fall in the period in which Work Choices was in effect. There is no evidence that the Work Choices system of industrial relations raised the rate of Australian productivity growth. We on this side of the House believe that productivity is about investing in people and infrastructure. We believe that raising productivity is about raising the quantity and quality of education. We believe it is about having more infrastructure—building more roads, rails and ports—and investing in infrastructure such as the National Broadband Network. When it comes to industrial relations, we believe that treating employees with dignity and respect means they will work more effectively, and there is plenty of evidence to support that viewpoint in management literature. We on this side of the House know that cooperative workplaces lead to better outcomes. Pitting people against their employers and workmates is not the way to achieve good workplace outcomes and it is not the way to high productivity and high living standards in Australia. Cutting trust in the workplace is bad for workers' morale and bad for their mental health, but it is also bad for the bottom line. It is bad for Australia's long-term living standards. So we on this side of the House support this legislation. We support a long-term agenda of raising productivity by investing in people, skills and infrastructure and not a short-term agenda of cutting conditions and wages. I commend the bill to the House. 12:15 Mr RANDALL PK6 Canning I am very pleased to speak on the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011. 'Improvement' is a bit of an Orwellian title. It is not actually improving anything; it is making it go backwards. Let me point out why we are here today. We are here today because the Labor Party want to water down the ability of the cop on the beat in the construction industry to do its job properly. Let us have a look at why there had to be an Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner, or ABCC, in the first place. The Cole Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry, as many speakers have mentioned, was initiated in 2003, and Justice Cole came down with a report which found widespread inappropriate conduct and disregard of the rule of law. If you listened to the member for Fraser, you would think that the CFMEU were a benevolent fund, a league of gentlemen having afternoon picnics with people in parks. That is not the case at all. Let us go back to why this militant union and its militant behaviour on worksites first had to be looked at. Who remembers Norm Gallagher from the BLF? They had to outlaw the BLF because of its illegal activities. Then it morphed into the CFMEU. In my state, Western Australia, you only have to mention the names Kevin Reynolds and Joe McDonald to understand that they are not a league of gentlemen but are a bunch of rampant thugs and spivs on the worksite. If they were the mafia, they would be done for extortion. They should be brought into line with the rule of law, as Justice Cole found. Let us have a look at some of the inappropriate behaviour. I refer to the case of the Woodman Point Wastewater Treatment Plant, on page 237 of volume 21 of the Cole royal commission report. The commission again found abuse on a worksite in this case, including: (a) disregard of the Workplace Relations Act … and the common law by a union and its officers and organisers; (b) abuse of right of entry provisions by officers and organisers of a union; (c) disregard of occupational health and safety considerations when exercising rights of entry by officers and organisers of a union; (d) the preparedness of officers and organisers of a union to make threats of unlawful conduct to attempt to achieve industrial objectives; (e) disregard of directions of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission by a union and its officers and organisers; It goes on and on. Basically the union were willing to break or thwart the law in any way they could to get their own way. You will hear the Labor Party members in this chamber saying: 'This was a terrible finding by the royal commission. It was a disgraceful finding because it was set up by the previous government.' Can I say that the work of the Cole royal commission and the ABCC was remarkable in bringing peace and productivity to the building sites of Australia. It helped the building and construction industry increase its productivity by 10 per cent. It provided an economic gain of $5.5 billion per annum. It reduced inflation by 1.2 per cent. It increased GDP by 1.5 per cent. In 2004, before the royal commission, the number of working days lost annually was 224 per thousand employees. In 2006, after the commission began its work, it was 24. So it was reduced to 10 per cent of what it was before. That just shows that the commission worked. Some people have a problem with a cop on the beat, in any jurisdiction, whether you are walking down the street or whatever. The only people who have to worry about the law enforcement of this country are people who are breaking the law, dare I say. If you are defrauding someone, if you are engaging in criminal activity, if you are speeding, of course you are going to worry about the law. But, if you are not doing anything wrong, you will not have to worry about the law. We heard extraordinary claims in this place that people were being taken off the streets by the ABCC, as though it were some sort of Stasi group from Romania. That is absolute garbage. Of course you get picked up and arrested if you have been breaking the law. I get pulled over by the police if I have been breaking the law. I have people in my electorate who have been subject to burglaries et cetera, and when the police find the perpetrators they pick them up and they arrest them and they deal with them because they have broken the law. Of course in the case where the ABCC was doing its job it had to go and apprehend people. It is just a ludicrous claim, an overstretched claim. Why do we have this position in this House? Because the members on the other side are joined at the hip to the union movement. They are the product of the union movement. They have to come in here and show their hairy-chested behaviour to the union movement because, firstly, they get preselected by them and, secondly, they get funded by them. The CFMEU, for example, has put millions of dollars into Labor Party campaigns. It is well documented that, before the 2007 election, something like $30 million was put into the Australian Labor Party's campaign by the unions, and the CFMEU was a major contributor. Let us look at why. On the front bench of the Labor Party, the member for Batman is a former ACTU president. Sitting next to him is the member for Hotham, a former ACTU president. We move along. The member for Rankin was a union organiser. We know the former role of the member for Charlton very well: ACTU secretary. The member for Gorton is ACTU born and bred. The member for Maribyrnong is the dog in the manger in this whole arrangement. He is the former head of the Australian Workers Union, and now he has been put in charge as the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. That is like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank. You have got the ACTU all along the front bench. Their mates in the union movement are saying: 'We don't want the cop on the beat anymore. We're worried about what they're going to do to us in terms of making us comply with the rule of law and industrial law. So you've either got to change the laws or you've got to get them off our backs. So defund them, put sunset clauses on them, but we don't want them anymore as part of the people that are going to keep an eye on us. We want to stay militant. We want to stay outside of the rule of law. If the cop on the beat has got any say, we can't do that. So you've got to help us.' So dutifully those on the other side, the Labor Party members, are falling in line and helping them. One of the great things that came out of the Cole royal commission was about the bogus safety issues being used as the reason to enter worksites to intimidate people to get them to join up and belong to the union. In fact, I had an occasion when from a site in Forrestdale one of my constituents, an electrician, rang me and said, 'Don, you've got to help us. We've just had Joe McDonald come into our workplace and crash through our crib room. He didn't seek any permission to be here. He's come in here and threatened us all and said that if we didn't comply he was coming back tomorrow to deal with us all.' You would have seen all that footage on the TV where Joe McDonald was abusing people and threatening people. This is not Fantasyland stuff, this is as plain as the day is and I intend to read out his conviction sheet shortly just to show you that he is still currently getting up to it. So it is about bogus safety issues. I will quote from page 281 of volume 12 of the Cole report: … in an industry where the risk of injury is significant the misuse of occupational health and safety issues as an industrial tool is common. Those union officials who so abuse occupational health and safety directly undermine the pre-eminence that such issues ought to have. Safety issues are exploited to provide a justification for the employment of persons named on lists maintained by the union. Safety is exploited as an industrial tool to bring pressure to bear on head contractors, subcontractors and others to achieve desired, non-safety related outcomes or simply to reinforce the power of the union. Safety issues are often raised by union officials in attempts to coerce subcontractors to sign EBAs and to pressure subcontractors not to engage non-union workers at a site. It says they are abandoned when an EBA is signed or an amount is paid on the account of casual tickets and specialised training. On that point, remember the 'no ticket, no start' signs all over the building sites in Perth. In this democracy with freedom of association there we had, while this union was running its lawless actions, 'no ticket, no start'. How un-Australian is that! You cannot have a job unless you get a ticket off the union. It is not the boss you go to see to join the worksite and it is not the person employing you; it is the union, which wants to control the worksite. We saw this on the Perth to Mandurah line that was being built and the federal government came to the rescue of the then Labor state government by putting a ban on strikes, so that they could finally build the line because it was all blowing out unbelievably because the union had been abusing the situation. In fact, there was some guy, a union official, who had declared it, of all things, 'holy ground' and said that they were going to strike on a daily basis and also when they felt like it. This law is proposed to bring greater harmony. It was so under us. But now, as I have said—watered down with 30 amendments and a defunding mechanism and a lack of authority for those running it—it is going to see the cop on the beat emasculated. I know the other side hate John Lloyd, the former head of the ABCC, but I note that, in a speech that he made, he made a few observations: that the conduct of the industry had improved since the ABCC was established, that the incidence of unlawful conduct had been reduced and that industrial disputation had fallen to historically low levels—although we do know now that they are increasing under this government because the unions are being giving a wink and nod by this government that they can do what they like and it would not make sure that they did their job—but, however, that culture of exploiting any complacency in regulation was still intact. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry—remember that they are the terrible people who actually employ people—praised the ABCC in a submission to the Senate committee. This submission stated that the only effective response had come from the establishment of the ABCC and it went on to say: Whilst the industry is still in some areas a tough and demanding one to operate in, it is also one that is now characterised by a much greater sense of predictability and certainty than was the case prior to the establishment of the ABCC. The ACCI is very concerned about any changes that would put its hard-won position at risk and create the potential for a return to the past. While I have been sitting in here and listening to contributions I have heard—and I am sure we will all hear them again in a moment—that the words 'flexibility' and 'productivity' are dirty words on the other side of the House because they say—and if you read the Hansard you will see they have been saying this—that 'flexibility' and 'productivity' are about another way of reducing working conditions and terms for workers. They are not. In fact, for us to keep in any way competitive with countries off our northern shores that have cheap labour, we have to remain productive and competitive because that is about our competitive edge in terms of pricing et cetera. There is nothing wrong with what productivity and flexibility lead to, as I have said. Senator Sinodinos, in a recent piece, says: The Review of the Fair Work Act should be revamped to include an assessment by the Productivity Commission of the implications of the act for productivity, flexibility and nurturing direct employer-employee workplace relations. Flexibility is not code for cutting wages; it is code for encouraging work practices that stimulate innovation, and win-win productivity deals that are tailored to the preferences of workers on such matters as work-life balance. In coming to a conclusion, I note that in last weekend's Australian Financial Review an editorial belled the cat on this issue. I will read as much of it as I can before we finish: As former vice-president of the ACTU, Anna Booth says, Australia's industrial relations system is outdated and adversarial, and aims to institutionalise conflicts between workers and their bosses, rather than build productive workplaces. When a former stalwart of the union movement describes our industrial relations system in such scathing terms, the Labor government and the union movement should pay attention. … We need a more modern, simpler system which emphasises flexibility, where workers can strike individual bargains with their employers over wages, working hours and other conditions. Fairfax newspapers are no friend of those on this side of the House, yet this is the Australian Financial Review of last weekend saying that a former union boss, a former ACTU vice-president—Anna Booth—has said you have got to do something about the industrial relations climate in this country because it is getting out of hand. Of course, those on the other side of the House laugh, as that is their way of dismissing it. So they laugh when one of their own finally comes to see the light! It says that while Prime Minister Gillard 'speaks of the New Economy' she has got to deal with the rigidities— (Time expired) 12:30 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield I am sorry that the gallery has had to endure such a speech by the member for Canning. I would recommend the speech by the member for Kennedy if they want to hear a more balanced and thoughtful contribution. The member for Kennedy talked a lot about his younger days working in very dangerous environments in Mount Isa. He talked about the difficulties of raising safety issues at work and what actually happens to workers if they do so. What we are talking about in this debate on the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011 is the abolition of the remnants of the Work Choices regime—the last remnants of a regime that was born of malice, not facts. It was born of a vindictiveness that coloured the entire Howard government and colours to this day the approach of members opposite. It was all about cutting wages, all about cutting overtime, all about abolishing people's rights. You do not hear much about people's rights in the speeches and contributions of those opposite; it is all about the abolition of those rights, the abolition of dignity at work. That is what their approach was all about under Work Choices. And that has always been their approach. I remember watching a documentary about 'Red Ted' Theodore, a stalwart of the union movement. He said that the conservatives have only ever had two ideas: feed the donkey less and whip him harder. That is pretty much the approach of those opposite. They are not actually interested in things like the right to be in a union, the right to have a safe workplace and the right to bargain for your wages and conditions in good-faith negotiations. They are interested in taking away your wages, taking away your overtime and abolishing people's rights at work—and it has been ever thus. The ABCC is just a leftover from that era. It is time this body was reformed. It is time it was sent off into the never-never. It is not a perfect institution. Those opposite would have you believe it is an angelic institution that never put a foot wrong and that always did the right thing, and that its extraordinary powers were never abused. But I have had constituents—such as Mr Ark Tribe, who lived in Thompson Beach in my electorate and is somewhat famous in South Australia and around the country—who have come to the attention of these laws. Ark Tribe was an ordinary building worker, an ordinary man trying to get on and do the right thing by his mates. We know how his case wound up. We know that the use of the coercive powers has been both oppressive and ridiculous. It is working Australians who have been targeted. It is not union officials, not employers, not the big end of town. They have hardly ever been prosecuted by the ABCC. It has a very poor record of employer prosecutions—less than five per cent of all prosecutions. It defies belief that the prosecution rate would be so small, given the well publicised problems with illegal labour, phoenix companies and safety breaches in this industry. I can cite the headlines in the Adelaide Advertiser, as I have before. An article called 'Dodgy builders "out of control"', on 9 March 2001, was about underpaid workers, many of them foreign, working here illegally and flooding into the South Australian building industry. The most critical thing in all of this is that they were underpaid, so it is not as though they benefited terribly well. They were underpaid by between $11,000 and $18,000 apiece. Underpayments and breaches of our immigration law are hardly ever prosecuted by the ABCC. It has been a pretty hopeless regulator, and it has been that way because it was born of malice towards working people and a see-no-evil myopia with regard to business. The government's bill, which is a good bill, is a result of the independent inquiry by Murray Wilcox QC. The bill simply takes the recommendations given by Wilcox and puts them into law. There is to be a strong regulator for the building industry. Nobody is arguing that there should not be a cop on the beat, only that it should be within the fair work system. It will be a regulator that operates within community expectations of fairness and justice. We heard the member for Kennedy talk about habeas corpus and a few other ancient rights that were won by our forebears—and they are important rights. Importantly, this bill has a sunset clause on the compulsory information gathering powers. Before that there will be a review of how those powers are used. These are extraordinary powers. They are not held widely; they are held by very few federal investigative bodies, and they need to be reviewed so that people's rights are not trampled upon. It is important to have safeguards—and safeguards on the use of those coercive powers are introduced in this bill. Most importantly, there will be an independent assessor who, if a stakeholder seeks to exempt a project from the application of these powers, may decide that the powers do not apply. Where people are doing the right thing there is no need for such extraordinary powers to apply. The bill also removes the regime of punitive penalties. These were, again, a manifestation of that institutional bias against workers—very high fines designed to scare working people from exercising their rights under Australian law. These fines were held out as a mechanism to prevent workers from acting to protect their dignity at their workplace. In short, this bill fixes the problems with the conduct of the ABCC through its abolition and replacement with a fair and independent regulator. It is a terribly important thing, because I have talked to building workers and I have received their correspondence outlining their deep worry about the operation of the ABCC and their deep concern about being caught up in very tough laws. This bill comes into this House with a mandate that was delivered at the 2007 election. Most Australians would ask this parliament to respect that mandate. It has been to an election and I think the instinctive will of the Australian people is towards fairness and justice. This legislation represents the abolition of the last obscene edifices of Work Choices. Much has been said by those opposite about the ABCC. Of late we have seen some headlines in the papers. There was recently an article in the Australian Financial Review entitled 'Inquiry into failed case against unionists', covering a particular case. The Sydney Morning Herald of Monday, 13 February 2012 contained an article headlined 'Building industry watchdog staff to face inquiry'. The Australian, which is always keen to talk about credit card misuse, noted that there were five instances of credit card misuse at the ABCC. This shows that all regulators need oversight to make sure that their conduct is appropriate, that they exercise their powers appropriately and that they serve the interests and the will of the Australian people through this government. I think this bill does represent justice to building workers, which has been somewhat delayed. It is profoundly unfair to single out one group of workers and place on them such a heavy burden in terms of the law. It is wrong and it is absolutely unlike this country to do so. We do want people to respect the rule of law and we do want people to behave appropriately at building sites, but we do not want an institutional bias against workers and we do not want selective laws in this country. I commend the bill to the House. 12:39 Mr MATHESON M2V Macarthur I rise today to speak on the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011. The building and construction industry is one of the most important industries in our economy. The Master Builders Association has estimated the value of construction work required over the next decade at $2.4 trillion. The residential building industry in particular is a key driver in our economy. According to a submission from the Housing Industry Association, Australia's housing industries directly contributed approximately $72.4 billion to Australia's economy in 2009-10. This accounted for 5.6 per cent of Australia's gross domestic product. If we combine this with the primary and secondary businesses that indirectly supply to the construction industry, we are looking at much stronger figures in terms of employment and output. The building and construction industry also employs over a million people, representing approximately nine per cent of the Australian workforce. As you can see, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a very important industry for our country and one that is vital to our economy. Today, those opposite are trying to introduce a bill that compromises the success of this industry and of those who work in it. They are breaking another election promise by trying to abolish the Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner, which was established by the coalition in 2005 following the 2002 Cole Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry. The Cole commission found that the building and construction industry was characterised by a widespread disregard for the law. It catalogued over 100 types of unlawful and inappropriate conduct. This included illegal strikes, pattern bargaining, right of entry infringements and the coercion of non-unionised subcontractors. The Cole commission also found that existing regulatory bodies had insufficient powers and resources to enforce the law. This is why one of its recommendations was to establish a specialist and permanent regulatory body to look into this conduct. It was the Howard government that established the ABCC in 2005 and the commission has since been instrumental in curbing illegal industrial action and lawlessness in the construction industry. It has also taken a strong stand against union thuggery in the industry—yes, union thuggery—and, by keeping disputes to a minimum, the ABCC has helped to increase productivity and lower construction costs all around Australia. Since its inception in 2005 it has helped the industry to increase productivity by 10 per cent, provide an annual economic welfare gain of $5.5 billion per year, reduce inflation by 1.2 per cent and increase GDP by 1.5 per cent. So it is doing its job. The number of working days lost annually per 1,000 employees in the construction industry has fallen from 224 in 2004 to 24 in 2006. At the same time, building costs have fallen by 20 to 25 per cent and long project delays have been dramatically reduced. According to the Housing Industry Association, the commission has: … been doing a sound and effective job of law enforcement, clamping down on unions and others for illegal industrial behaviour and right of entry breaches. This is keeping the unions in check. It goes on to say: However its work is far from finished. Aggressive and unlawful industrial action persists as an area of concern for the industry. It is clear that work still needs to be done and that the ABCC is doing this work independently and effectively. The type of conduct that Cole identified cannot be easily reversed. It is the type of conduct that needs targeted resources to effect lasting cultural change. Whilst the ABCC has succeeded in improving conduct, the culture of lawlessness identified in the Cole report has only been suppressed—and, yes, it still exists. This bill will abolish the ABCC and replace it with an inferior inspectorate division of the Fair Work Ombudsman. The new body that has been established within Fair Work Australia to replace the Office of the ABCC is not an independent body. It is controlled by the minister. It will become so bogged down in paperwork and bureaucracy that it will not have the time and resources to do its job properly. It is not a simpler model; it is a more complicated model that makes it more difficult to enforce law and order in the building and construction industry. A softened approach is far from what the industry needs right now. This bill will cut the maximum penalties for illegal misbehaviour from $110,000 to $33,000, reducing the disincentives to engage in unlawful behaviour. According to the HIA, the procedural requirements for this bill are 'overly bureaucratic, costly, prescriptive and impractical'. With this bill we see the ALP cowering to the demands of its union paymasters, sacrificing the independence of small business subcontractors and subjecting the building and construction industry to a new era of industrial administration and uncertainty. This bill is another broken promise and a ploy to bring the unions and the Labor Left on side to save the Prime Minister's leadership. The bill allows for the powers of the ABCC to be switched off for individual worksites that have a good history of industrial relations. This means that the unions can seek to have the law not apply until such times as problems occur. The unions used to protect workers, now they persecute them and suffocate the industries that seek to employ them. The government has already introduced measures that make it tough for the building and construction industry. This will only make things worse. Increasing productivity and flexibility should be the primary focus of our industrial relations policy. In Macarthur we have many new housing developments and suburbs being built, which will accommodate an extra 200,000 new residents in the area over the next 25 years. That is a population increase of more than 300 per cent. The building and construction work taking place in my electorate employs hundreds of workers from Macarthur and south-western Sydney. It is a major part of the industry that is stimulating our economy and keeping locals employed. We also have the Macarthur Building Industry Skills Centre right on our doorstep. This state-of-the-art training centre, located in the Ingleburn industrial precinct, was established to meet the needs of industry growth in south-western Sydney. It offers a comprehensive range of pre-vocational, trade and licensing programs. The centre delivers trade training using an integrated project based approach to skills development. This means students can gain experience on real building projects and have access to plant, equipment and resources of current industry standards. We have some very talented young men and women attending this training centre, working hard towards a fulfilling career in the building industry. The future of these workers and the risk to the Australian economy is why we cannot afford for the building industry to return to its unlawful practices of the past. This is why the coalition strongly opposes the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011. We believe that every Australian deserves to be able to go work and operate in an environment where basic law and order is enforced. Employers and employees alike wanted to get rid of the illegality that plagued the building and construction industry. The only people who will benefit from the government's move are of course the unions. The bill will strip away the protections for workers to work in a safe and lawful environment. It abolishes the body that ensures that law and order is enforced in the building and construction industry. Why would we support this bill when the ABCC has delivered real results for Australia? To put a stop to its good work would roll out the red carpet to union thuggery, coercion and disputation. I ask those opposite to reconsider their responsibility to this country, Australian workers and our economy before voting on this bill. All we need to do is look back at the recommendation from the Cole royal commission. It stated that we need: … free of the pressures on the participants in the industry, which will ensure that participants comply with industrial, civil and criminal laws applicable to all Australians … In its submission, HIA told us that it does not believe the proposed legislation will continue to deliver the strong, independent and robust enforcement body that the building industry requires. It also said that 'a watering down' of the existing powers will result in a return to the industrial lawlessness identified by the Cole royal commission. How could we even consider passing this bill when we know that the Australian building industry needs a strong, independent enforcer to maintain lawful practice and stop the bad behaviours of the past? We simply cannot afford to replace the ABCC, which has helped to increase productivity and lower construction costs around Australia. In its submission the HIA states that it does not support this bill and that the legislative and institutional framework established as a result of the Cole royal commission must be retained in its current form. We cannot pretend that the findings of the Cole royal commission do not exist. I believe that we must oppose this bill so that we do not subject the building and construction industry to a new era of industrial administration and uncertainty. We must oppose this bill for the sake of our economy and Australian jobs. We must oppose this bill to ensure the protection and safety of our workers. And we must oppose this bill to avoid the industry's unlawful practices of the past and to ensure its strength and prosperity for the future. 12:49 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I am very pleased to speak on the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011. It was interesting that the previous speaker talked about how this bill would make it overly bureaucratic in terms of fairness in the workplace. To the previous speaker I say that I do not see it as bureaucratic to put in some checks and balances and oversight to ensure that individual's rights are being properly protected. I see it as fundamental in a democracy that we do not have an authoritarian group with no transparency enforcing very big impingements on personal rights. There is a need for oversight and checks and balances. That is what it means to live in a democracy. I disagree strongly with the previous speaker's suggestion that this is just a bit of over-bureaucratic paperwork. It is an important bill for providing important oversight and checks and balances to the impingement of rights of workers, which the Howard government was so proud of. Fairness in the workplace is a core value of the Australian Labor Party, and this Labor government has always strived to ensure that workplace relations is built on a system of fairness. This is in very stark contrast to the previous Liberal government, which made it very clear to working Australians that fairness in the workplace was not high on its priority list. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the previous Liberal government showed contempt for working people and their right to fairness in the workplace. We all know that former Liberal Prime Minister John Howard ripped away the wages and stripped back the conditions of ordinary Australians in both his first and second waves of industrial relations reforms. Mr Howard really showed contempt for the rights of working people through the establishment of the Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner. The previous Liberal government's Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner has not functioned in a fair way. It has taken this Labor government to act to replace it to ensure that a new body is part of the mainstream fair work system and incorporates new safeguards to protect the rights of workers. While I recognise the legislation before the House today does not go as far as perhaps some would like, I believe it strikes an important balance between the rights of workers and those of employers. The operation of the previous Liberal government's industrial regulator has been criticised by many people, including me and many other stakeholders, for a long time. I am pleased that this bill will inject some fairness and some checks and balances into this area. The purpose of the ABCC is allegedly to monitor and promote standards of contact in the building and construction industry and involves investigating suspected contraventions and bringing legal proceedings when required. As a statutory body, the ABCC should have been play the role of an umpire within the building and construction industry. But, as we know, that was not the case. The ABCC was extremely unbalanced in the way it did its job. In reality, the ABCC's role has been an application of a system that unfairly targets employees without affording them the appropriate safeguards and protections, and it has consistently failed to enforce the responsibilities of employers. It is clear from the number of prosecutions of employee organisations when compared with employer groups that this regulator has unfairly targeted unions. More importantly, it has unfairly targeted ordinary Australians. The opposition may try and argue that that is because more employees do the wrong thing, but I can tell you that I have been out on worksites where there have been employers doing the wrong thing and it would be very hard to imagine that every building and construction employer in this country always did the right thing. We know from a lot of health and safety reports in a whole range of areas that this is not the case. Instead, the ABCC was focused on just targeting employees and employers. The ABCC has created a culture of intimidation for workers, who have at times felt unable to voice legitimate concerns for fear of compulsory interrogation, which failed to afford workers appropriate protections and safeguards, including their right to full legal representation. We have often heard of the effectiveness of the ABCC. One test I am sure many Australians would like to apply to the ABCC is whether it stopped dangerous occurrences in the construction industry. In 2004-05 there were 18 fatalities recorded in the building and construction industry, in 2005-06 there were 25, in 2006-07 there were 28 and in 2007-08 there were 36. You can see that with the ABCC coming into effect in 2005, it has not decreased the number of fatalities in the building and construction area but has been correlated with an increase. Rather than holding both employees and employers to account it would seem that the ABCC has operated in a way that has unfairly targeted employees and their unions while paying little attention to whether or not employers are paying their workers correctly. One particular case is the case that the member for Wakefield mentioned, and that is the case of Ark Tribe. During the time in which he was being pursued by the ABCC there were reports of migrant Korean workers being worked to death by unscrupulous employers. But where was the ABCC on this issue? It was not heard. It has come to this Labor government to fix this system and ensure that there is balance and fairness. The bill before the House does seek to abolish the ABCC and is in line with the recommendations outlined in the Transition to Fair Work Australia for the building and construction industry report by the Office of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate, released in 2009 by Justice Murray Wilcox QC. Justice Wilcox engaged in extensive consultation with all stakeholders in the building and construction industry. The government consulted with industries and state and territory governments as part of developing this legislation. One of the important points that was raised was that the ABCC did need to be replaced, and replaced with a fair work building industry inspectorate. This was part of the recommendations of the report. The building inspectorate created by this bill will be headed by an independent director appointed by the minister. Importantly, the director managing the operations of the building inspectorate will have full operational autonomy and will receive recommendations on a whole range of issues, including from a newly established advisory board. The creation of the inspectorate will significantly improve the rights and safety of construction workers by ensuring that they are treated equal to employers. The bill will also make a number of other changes to improve the rights of workers. For example, if a person is summonsed, which will only occur if the information cannot be retrieved in any other way, they can choose to be represented by a lawyer and their right not to disclose legally sensitive information will be recognised. I find it interesting that the opposition has decided that this is not an appropriate change. This is about the rights of people and their right to have representation. I am surprised that some of the members opposite who are have regularly stood up in this place and talked about how representation is important and how people have the right to be legally represented should decide that they could not support this for construction workers. Why shouldn't they be able to have legal representation? Why should they be different from other workers in this country? Is it because the coalition just does not like workers in the building and construction industry? It is hard to know why they would deny them these rights. Workers may also be reimbursed for reasonable expenses and have their examinations videotaped and reviewed by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Once again, something that the previous speaker said was 'too much bureaucracy'. Well, I would say that this is an important check and balance to ensure that any particular powers that are used by the inspectorate are monitored and able to be looked at properly. Furthermore, any person who has been interviewed will no longer be prevented from telling others what happened. This allows for transparency to ensure that there is no secrecy. The bill also includes a sunset clause which will mean that coercive powers will cease to exist after three years so that a review can be conducted to assess compliance in the building and construction industry following the implementation of this legislation. These are very important recommendations. This is very important legislation to ensure we return fairness to the workplace—fairness where both employers and employees are treated equally—so that employees are not unfairly targeted where employers who do the wrong thing get away with it. We know where the coalition stands on this. They refuse to recognise the rights of ordinary working Australians. They have done it once, they will do it again. However, it has been left to this government to restore fairness, to restore balance. We are going ahead with an inspectorate that will focus on the building and construction industry, but with that we will have some oversight, we will have some checks and balances and we will restore fairness for both employees and employers with a truly independent umpire. 13:00 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I rise to speak on the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011. This will see the abolition of the Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commission and with it the role of the commissioner and the high penalties that applied to the industry for breaches to industrial law. This bill is another ideologically driven, economically damaging, decision by this government. At a time when we are seeing heightened levels of industrial disputes, falling productivity and increasing unemployment there could not be a worse moment for such legislative change. To understand the seriousness of this decision, we need to retell the story of the birth of the ABCC, the rationale for its existence, its record of achievement and the impact of its abolition. The ABCC was established by the Howard government in 2005 following the findings of the Cole royal commission, which reported in March 2003. Commissioner Cole, who had a broad mandate to look into coercive, violent and unlawful practices in the building and construction industry, detailed over 100 different types of unlawful conduct, painting a disturbing picture of lawlessness in this most important sector. The inadequacies of existing regulatory bodies were also highlighted, paving the way for the independent ABCC. In the words of Cole, the building and construction industry 'departs from the standards of commercial and industrial conduct exhibited in the rest of the Australian economy' and that to date: … there has been an insufficient determination on the part of government to establish structures which will enable the industry to operate fairly and productively and in a manner respecting the rights of individuals. There has been an inadequate structure to enforce the law and usual standards applicable in other industries. One of the cases that Cole focused on was in my home state of Victoria, involving the well-known Japanese food processor, Saizeriya. Saizeriya had planned a major investment of over $200 million in Victoria, which would have created hundreds of jobs directly and up to 3,000 jobs indirectly. Unfortunately, this company became the target of disruptive union behaviour—strikes, boycotts, work bans, restrictions on contractors. As a consequence, the first plant was opened more than a year after schedule in 2003 and the parent company became so disillusioned with the experience that they withdrew all their further investment, dealing a significant blow to the state of Victoria. In the words of the royal commission: Saizeriya Australia's experience starkly calls into question the effect upon foreign investment requiring building and construction work of any magnitude in Victoria when such work may be subject to unlawful and inappropriate conduct and actions by unions. Regrettably, in my state of Victoria, Saizeriya has not been the only such experience. The Wonthaggi desalination plant is another recent case in point with 193 days lost to industrial action as a result of unruly union behaviour. With the building and construction industry contributing billions of dollars each year to our economy—in fact making up a remarkable 7.7 per cent of GDP—we cannot afford anything but a most efficient and effective sector. It is in that context that one can see what a negative impact the abolition of the ABCC will have. Under the ABCC, productivity increased by 10 per cent providing a windfall economic gain of $5.5 billion, GDP rose by 1.5 per cent, inflation fell by 1.2 per cent and the number of working days per 1,000 employees in the construction industry decreased from 224 in 2004 to 24 in 2006 and building costs were slashed by between 20 and 25 per cent. This is the report card of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. In fact, over the past year its investigations have uncovered more than 900 breaches of workplace relations laws and the imposition of $2.5 million in penalties. During its operation, the ABCC has prosecuted more than 70 cases. Unfortunately, these dramatic improvements to these key indicators are now under threat from Labor's new legislative regime. There will be, under this legislation, no equivalent substitute for the ABCC. In its place will sit a new body that is within the confines of Fair Work Australia, the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate, which is responsible up the line to the minister, a stark contrast to the independent body, the ABCC, capable of a frank and fearless approach and not beholden to a political directive. The minister will not be passive, nor is it envisaged that he or she will be. They will have the express authority to give the regulator written directions about its programs and priorities, which could forseeably see less focus on the unlawfulness of union conduct. The perceived conflict of interest here is real. A Labor Party, whose campaigns are funded to a significant degree by the union movement, is going to be reluctant to display an even hand when it comes to regulating their behaviour in the workplace. What is more, the government's legislation will also lessen the penalties for unlawful conduct and reduce the deterrent for such behaviour. Under the legislation penalties will be reduced by a third, with maximum sanctions being $33,000 for a body corporate and $6,600 for a person. Significantly, as John Lloyd, former ABCC commissioner and now Director of the Work Reform and Productivity Unit at the prestigious Institute of Public Affairs, has pointed out, this comes at a time when the courts are responding 'to repeat offences by a number of unions and their officials' with higher penalties. In fact, he said, '12 cases have resulted in penalties in excess of the Fair Work Act maxima', the majority of which have been made since 2009. Other worrying changes in this legislation include the watering down of the coercive powers, the switch-off provisions and additional red tape through new administrative processes. It is no wonder, then, that industry stakeholders, respected economic commentators and state governments are lining up to condemn the government's legislative changes. Heather Ridout, outgoing head of the Australia Industry Group, has said, 'The ABCC is carrying out a vital role and is needed today as much as ever.' The National Electrical and Communications Association has said: … the ABCC has been effective in removing the worst instances. Removing the ABCC or emasculating its powers will see increased inappropriate behaviour and this will lead to the costs of projects blowing out and delays in construction. The Australian Mine and Metals Association is concerned the changes 'can only lead to more unlawful behaviour and economic vandalism'. Master Builders Australia has said that the 'parliament cannot ignore such court findings and convictions and should not agree to any watering down of the current powers'. And the government of Victoria, where the building and construction industry employs 9.2 per cent of the workforce, contributing 6.6 per cent of the gross state product, said in its submission that the bill 'would hamper the ability of the industry regulator to deal with unlawful industrial action quickly and effectively'. There it is: universal and unanimous condemnation of the government's actions, yet they refuse to listen. But it should not be any surprise to us. We have seen this government's record when it comes to the workplace and industrial relations reform. The Gillard government have overseen an economy that is now characterised by declining productivity, rising unemployment, worsening industrial action and now a weakening in the accountability mechanisms which protect both workers and their employers. On their watch they have seen unions emboldened, penalty rates smash small business and investors take their money offshore. This cannot continue, but unfortunately it will with this Labor government at the helm. The minister, Bill Shorten, tells us he has 'always supported, and continues to support, a strong regulator in the building and construction industry'. But, again, these are just cheap words, betrayed by a completely different intent. In my short time in this place I have quickly learnt: do not judge Labor by what they say but by what they do. The abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission is another perfect example. This government do not believe in lawful industrial relations practices, this government do not believe in accountability, transparency and rising productivity—and, most of all, this government do not believe in putting a cop on the beat to police their union mates. This is bad legislation, and I join with my colleagues from the coalition in opposing it. 13:14 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne There is a problem with the rule of law in this country: it does not emanate from workers and their unions but, far too often, from this parliament. The rot really set in under the Howard government. When it came to immigration we saw the beginning of defining places within Australia as not really Australia, and the defining of people as having two tiers of rights. We saw terrorism laws that removed longstanding rights to silence. With Work Choices we saw the introduction of laws that gave ministers in this place the right to remove people's legitimate rights to bargain, without any say and without a hearing, and to the Labor government's shame they have kept those laws. But we also saw the enshrining of a principle in the building industry that undermines one fundamental tenet of the rule of law. The rule of law says that you have one set of laws that applies equally to all people and that they will be judged according to an equal standard, regardless of where they come from and regardless of their status. These laws in the building industry removed the right to silence that people had, simply because they worked in a particular industry and because they turned up to work in boots and a hard hat instead of a suit and tie. That fundamental offenceagainst one of the most basic principles of the rule of law rightly drew opprobrium not just from those people who were affected but from people right across the spectrum who were concerned about civil liberties and from observers internationally who looked at these labour laws and said they did not meet basic civil rights standards. But more than that, the legislation, which was established under the former Howard government, set up a juggernaut that had significant resources and that turned its direction and its fire on one particular group. If you look at the statistics you will see that, between October 2005 and June 2011, the ABCC commenced 91 prosecutions. Eighty-six of them were against workers, their representatives and their unions and only five were against employers. To this government's shame it became no better with the change of government. From 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010, 29 proceedings were commenced against workers and their unions and none against employers. That is what this institution that was created was designed to do. It was not a neutral policing agency within the industry; it had a specific target. You just have to look at how it conducted its activities to see what it did. Throughout all of this the Greens have been steadfast in their defence of the rule of law. In 2005 we opposed the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act in the Senate. In 2004 we moved to disallow the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Regulations and used the opportunity to highlight the harsh impact the laws were having. We took an explicit policy to repeal the act and to abolish the ABCC to both the 2007 and the 2010 elections. In 2008 we introduced a private senator's bill to repeal the act in its entirety. In 2008-09 we reiterated our strong position in Senate committee inquiries and, in 2010, we moved a motion in the Senate noting the recent ILO report, which I will have more to say about in a moment, on the ABCC and calling on the government to abolish the ABCC. We have voluntarily signed up to International Labour Organisation conventions that apply internationally, that preserve the right to organise, freedom of assembly and the right to bargain. On no less than eight separate occasions the International Labour Organisation has said to our government that the specific building industry legislation contravenes those international standards that they have signed up to. That is why, as I have alluded to before, we have had not only international law groups but civil liberties groups including, amongst others, Liberty Victoria—which is not necessarily well known for saying that it is on the side of workers but is a staunch defender of the basic principles of the rule of law, including the right to silence—come out and condemn this law, joining the likes of the ILO. There was a time when the Labor Party agreed with all of that, when they voted against the ABCC in the Senate. In 2007, in their Forward with Fairness policy, they said: Labor does not believe in separate industrial rules and regulations for different industries. Under Labor all employers, employees and unions across all industries will be required to comply with the rules … They went on to talk about having specialist divisions in Fair Work Australia. It seems, though, that when it comes to Labor and its factions it does not take that long to shift on fundamental principles. If you accept everything that the coalition has said you would believe that the ABCC was being abolished tomorrow. If only that were the case. Instead, this bill before parliament retains some of the worst excesses of the Howard government. People in the building industry remain singled out for special treatment by virtue of no other fact than they work in that industry. We still have an inspectorate that remains, for all intents and purposes, an autonomous entity—a continuation of that prosecuting juggernaut, established by the coalition, which will continue to pursue workers and their representatives with unfair proportionality. But, most distressingly, the coercive powers still remain in the legislation. After passing this legislation, Labor members would do well to remember one thing: the same worker whom they will stand next to one day, wearing a hard hat and fluoro vest, for a photo opportunity could on the next day be taken in for questioning and forced to name their workmates. That remains a fact under this bill. Workers in such an industry will continue to enjoy less liberty than workers in other industries and this kind of McCarthyism that was begun under the Howard government will continue. Perhaps the most distressing thing about that is that we have in this parliament an opportunity to fix it. We have enough support on the crossbench to remove these coercive powers and go back to something that the Labor Party only a few short years ago said it believed in. The fact that Labor are choosing not to do that is something that they themselves will have to explain to the public. I heard a number of times during this debate a reference to the former Cole royal commission as if it were some authoritative basis for the laws that were established here. I had the privilege of representing people during that royal commission and let me give you, Madam Deputy Speaker, a couple of anecdotes about how that worked. First of all the commission was not a court. The commission was not an entity where everyone had the right to equally defend everything that was put against them in a way that you might expect in a court. So what happened? I remember one day when I was representing some people in Western Australia waking up to read in the newspaper, 'Worker locked in shipping container by unionist'. That apparently is what the royal commission was going to hear about over the next couple of days. We turned up, we heard an opening from counsel assisting about this newspaper report about a shipping container and we sat there for two days listening to the evidence. Not once did they mention a shipping container. They could not find one witness to come and corroborate it and give evidence to the royal commission. They moved on, but of course the damage was done, because this was not a fair proceeding like a court and instead was trial by media and trial by royal commission. I remember another instance where it was said that at a site at a university employees and their union had taken unlawful industrial action and attempted to coerce a small subcontractor by walking off the job. We got halfway through that when it was found out that the reason they walked off the job was that the employer was directing them to work on a rostered day off against the enterprise agreement. So we made an application to call the employer before the royal commission to investigate the employer's breach of the enterprise agreement. No sooner had we made that application than that whole case study was shut down and we moved on to something else. That royal commission was not about looking at the real issues in the industry, the issues that arise around sham contracting which defraud the revenue of the Commonwealth potentially of up to $10 billion. It was not about looking at the exploitation of overseas labour and not paying them at local rates but rather underpaying them, which threatens them and threatens locals. It was not about looking at any of that; it was about coming up with an outcome that would enable the legislation that preceded this legislation to set up the Australian Building and Construction Commission. If you want to know how this entity has been behaving lately, this entity that is there supposedly to neutrally police activity in the building sector, just a week or so ago in the Federal Court one case was dismissed when the judge described as sloppy the investigative practices of the ABCC. But then, more spectacularly, a criminal case that was going on a week or so ago in Victoria that relied on ABCC evidence has now resulted in the ABCC commissioner investigating his own inspectors because they destroyed evidence. Such was their zeal to see prosecutions against workers and their unions proceed that they were prepared to destroy evidence. It is no wonder it is being investigated. But it explains exactly what this organisation was really set up to do and what it is on about. That is why it is so disappointing that Labor is choosing to retain a version of it. Now, I am not saying there are no problems in the industry. I would be the last one to say construction workers are all angels. But if we were serious about tackling problems in the industry then we would turn our attention to sham contracting, we would turn our attention to the fact that often workers are told, 'Yes, you can come and work on this job but we need you to incorporate and give us a Pty Ltd letterhead.' We would turn our attention to the underpayment and exploitation of overseas workers. And we would give the ABCC or its replacement coercive powers to investigate those things. But we don't do that—no, we continue along the path set by the Howard government. It is a basic matter of principle. I think there should be one principle that should guide how we deal with this issue. You do not make things better by removing people's rights. You succeed in politics and in lawmaking by standing for something, by believing in one law for all and then being prepared to stand up for it and implement it when you are elected. If someone could walk into an office or a shop and drag someone away for questioning and force them to name names and force them to give details, there would be an outcry, and rightly so. People in this country do not deserve fewer rights simply because they turn up to work in boots and a hard hat compared with a suit and tie. It is my strong hope that the government will consider the amendments that we will be putting forward later so that we can get rid of these inequitable laws once and for all. 13:29 Mr TONY SMITH 00APG Casey I rise to briefly contribute to this important debate. In doing so I follow a number of speakers on my side of the House who have made the key points about how damaging this legislation is. It is always an interesting thing to follow the member for Melbourne, and it is no exception in this debate. It does transport us to another galaxy, which he inhabits. It is not a galaxy in the future, it is a place in the past. When you cut through everything the member for Melbourne just said in this debate, it is quite clear that he wants to transport us back to a place of lawlessness in the construction industry. The member for Melbourne is disappointed that the government's broken promise is not good enough. Whilst he very fleetingly made reference to the possibility that there might have been bad behaviour in the building industry, as some kind of cover, there is no doubt that he saw no problem with the way things were a decade and a half ago. The member for Melbourne saw no problem with the sort of conduct we saw in our construction industry. As the member for Mayo pointed out in this debate last week, the building commission that this legislation seeks to abolish was not something the former Howard government simply dreamt up. If you listen to the member for Melbourne, you would think that was the case, that there was no problem that needed solving, and that the legislation of the former Howard government was simply brought into this place for no necessary reason. As the member for Mayo rightly pointed out in this House a little under a week ago, the Cole royal commission spoke volumes about the state of our building industry. The commission's findings were that it was an industry plagued, as the member for Mayo said, by 'unacceptable behaviour, violence, corruption, threats and standover tactics' and, as he eloquently put it, it was 'the law of the jungle'. It was directly as a result of that royal commission that the legislation by the Howard government was introduced. Once it was introduced, its effect was there for all to see. Productivity improved and the savings to the national economy improved. It was not just the lawlessness—the member for Melbourne talks about the rule of law—there was the law of the jungle, as the member for Mayo said, prior to the introduction of the Howard government legislation. This legislation, which is designed to neuter that, to abolish it, is something that Labor always had in mind because unfortunately, in a choice between the national good with this policy and their demanding friends in the union movement, there is no choice for those opposite—the national interest runs a poor second. We have before us today another example of what those opposite view as their absolute priority, namely, the value of their word before an election. Unfortunately, what we are witnessing in this House is a situation where, if this legislation is passed, we can look into the future and know what will occur because it will be a repeat of the past, the past failure that was dealt with effectively and which those opposite will be happy to see a re-run of. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out last Friday in a keynote address to the Master Builders Association, we need to be very clear what we will see a return of and the sort of work that will not be done in the future. I have mentioned the member for Mayo's contribution and his detailing of the Cole royal commission. As the Leader of the Opposition outlined, the productivity improvement was of the order of $6 billion a year as a result of getting the industry under control and out of the jungle, and removing, limiting and reducing, where possible, the sort of conduct that everyday Australians find unacceptable and, more to the point, do not want to pay for. It is not just a question of those involved in the industry and the law of the jungle. This affects every single Australian. It cascades through the price and cost chain. It affects businesses and their capacity to be profitable and to employ people. All of those points have been very adequately made by speakers on our side of the House. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, an example is the Epping Markets dispute, just 18 months ago, which resulted in locks being superglued, entrances being blocked and fires being lit. This was a dispute out of control. The watchdog took action over the illegalities at the Epping markets and fines and costs of over half a million dollars were imposed on the people involved. In the past, all those activities would have occurred without the adequate capacity to stop it or to take remedial action. Those opposite know exactly what they are doing with the legislation that they have brought before the House today. They know they are turning the clock back and opening the way to the sorts of abuses that the royal commission uncovered. They know exactly what they are doing. This is not a question of naivety on behalf of those opposite. The Australian public ought to know it. They will certainly know it by the time of the next election. As the Leader of the Opposition said, we will fight this legislation and if we fail in both houses we will restore the Australian Building and Construction Commission at the first available opportunity. We will, as he said, restore it with new vigour, because of the necessity for it. This legislation is bad legislation. The government knows it is so, but it is legislating at the behest of the union movement to the cost of the wider Australian community. 13:38 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I spoke on this building and construction industry legislation in the last parliament on 13 August 2009. I said then, and I say now, that I believe there should be one law for all. Whether you live in Perth, Palm Beach, the Torres Strait or Tasmania, the law should apply to everyone equally. I believe that should apply to public servants. I believe that should happen in the classrooms, on the construction sites and even in the parliament. Those opposite have form on this issue, and this body, with its draconian laws, is a pet project of those opposite. They persecuted the unions and prosecuted workers. The truth is that those opposite would restore the ABCC if they got into office and they would give power to the ABCC or its new creation. Guess what that new creation would do? I want all those in the gallery to listen to this. This is the power that the ABCC has. It has the power to compel people to attend interviews and answer questions and to compel them to provide documents and information as to that investigation. Those interrogations are conducted in private and interviewers are not allowed to disclose to anyone what happens during that investigation. The penalty for not complying with this notice is six months imprisonment. There is no right to silence under the laws of the ABCC. In other words, people can be compelled under those laws to dob in their mates on industrial matters. The ABCC and the legislation that covers it were never meant to deal with criminal conduct. It is concerned with the regulation of industrial behaviour. On this side of politics, we believe that if anyone engages in criminal or unlawful activity on a construction site they should be prosecuted with the full force of the law and that the criminal laws in this country, in the states and territories, are adequate. I have not heard anyone opposite say that there is some deficiency in the criminal law of the state, territory and Commonwealth governments of this country which means that we need to criminalise the capacity of a body like the ABCC to persecute and prosecute workers, including friends of mine such as Bradley O'Carroll, the head of the Plumbers Union in Queensland, who was wrongly charged. I have heard people opposite wax lyrical about what the Howard government did on Work Choices. I have heard them talk about perceived lawlessness and what the Cole Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry found. Let us look at what the Cole commission really found. The Cole commission was a partisan, politicised body from the start. The Howard government tried to bring in the ABCC, but they could not because they did not have a majority in the Senate. When they got a majority in the Senate, they brought the ABCC in. Of the 392 incidences of so-called unlawful behaviour in the final report of the Cole commission, only one was ever pursued and it was ultimately dropped without being prosecuted to its finality. Those opposite spent millions of dollars when they were on this side of the place alleging that there was unlawful conduct everywhere, yet no-one was charged and no-one was found guilty. As I have said, the Howard government established the ABCC. The ABCC is simply geared towards a one-sided approach in industrial relations. In the 2009-10 year, the annual report of the ABCC disclosed that 55 per cent of its investigations were directed at trade unions. Only seven per cent of its investigations in 2009-10 were directed at employers. Unions or employees were the subject of, on average, 76.5 per cent, or more than three-quarters, of all ABCC investigations between 1 July 2006 and 30 June 2009. The overwhelming majority of the activities of the ABCC were geared towards one purpose: to make sure that the unions and their workers on construction sites were both prosecuted and persecuted. That is the reality of what went on. The ABCC carried out secret investigations where legal professional privilege, the right to silence and the right to reimbursement of reasonable expenses were not provided. There was effectively no independent oversight, and we know the person in charge has gone on to work for a right-wing think tank. This body was politicised from the word go. The truth is that the powers given to this body were extraordinary. Section 52 of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 talks about requirements in relation to excuses. Section 53(1) of the legislation says: A person is not excused from giving information, producing a document, or answering a question … Section 52(7) overrides the secrecy provisions in other laws. In other words, these sections override any laws in relation to any other body, including ASIO, and these laws include coercive powers, the protection of journalists' sources, privacy laws and cabinet confidentiality. That is according to Professor George Williams. And that is what has happened. This government is about bringing in safeguards and oversight. We are about making sure that workers get a fair go in the workplace and that the ABCC is expunged or eradicated from the industrial landscape of this country. The legislation before this House goes a long way towards equalising the balance in this field—a fair, simple and equal balance. Just as Work Choices needed to be expunged, the ABCC needs to go. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 1386 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Blue Mountains Legacy 1386 13:45 Mrs MARKUS E07 Macquarie Blue Mountains Legacy is a vitally important organisation providing welfare, pension, advocacy and compassionate assistance to ex-service personnel and their families in the electorate of Macquarie. The Legacy premises at Springwood are used to facilitate meetings and functions and as a hub to provide advice to its members concerning welfare and pension matters. A number of other veterans and ex-service organisations use the premises. Additionally, the DVA uses the premises for information sessions and has previously invested funds for the upgrade of key amenities—specifically, $30,000 for an upgrade of the kitchen. However, Blue Mountains Legacy is facing the significant challenges of being unable to cover an urgent bill of $40,000 for rental expenses and being unable to ensure that it can secure the lease for its Springwood premises until 2020. Blue Mountains Legacy has applied for rental allocation funding under the BEST grants scheme. While it is technically eligible for the funding, the grandfathering approach the minister and department have taken in only continuing rental allocation funding for current recipients of the program—not for new ones—poses a challenge. I am extremely dissatisfied with the minister's response to this dire and urgent matter. Without Blue Mountains Legacy obtaining the necessary funding for their rental commitment and to provide security of tenure, vital services for veterans and their families—there are more than 2,500 veterans in the Blue Mountains—will be lost. I implore the minister to reconsider Blue Mountains Legacy's request for rental allocation funding so that the vital services the organisation provides— (Time expired) Victorian Government 1387 13:46 Mr KELVIN THOMSON UK6 Wills Property developers in Victoria have too much power. They had too much power under the former Victorian Labor government and they have too much power under the Victorian Liberal government. This was stunningly revealed by the Age today in its report that, before planning minister Matthew Guy rezoned farmland on Phillip Island to allow it to become housing, his office was contacted twice by a former Liberal minister, Rob Maclellan, on behalf of property developer and Liberal Party member Jim Hopkins. Mr Maclellan rang Matthew Guy's chief of staff, Meg Bartel, about this issue—which was not hard for him seeing that Ms Bartel was a former staffer of his. Shortly afterwards, Matthew Guy overrode the Bass Coast Shire Council and the recommendations of two independent planning panels and approved a housing development on the farmland. While the decision was reversed following a public outcry, it is a stark illustration of how much access to government property developers in Victoria have. Ordinary residents cannot just pick up the phone to ministers and their chiefs of staff. The Victorian Liberal government must listen to residents, not property developers, when it comes to planning issues. It must not use the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, the VCAT, or dodgy ministerial interventions like this one to deprive local communities of their rightful say in the character of the neighbourhood in which they have chosen to live. Schools 1387 13:48 Mr OAKESHOTT IYS Lyne I rise today to talk about small school closures in New South Wales. It is a concern, less than 12 months since the New South Wales state election, that P6 schools such as the Byabarra Public School and now the Bobin Public School are under threat of closure. In the case of Byabarra, the school has actually been closed. It was promised that Byabarra would remain open throughout 2012, with decisions to be made at the end of this year. Unfortunately, it was closed with two weeks' notice before the end of the school year last year. Now Bobin Public School has been given until August, when it may face closure. This is being done by a government—a coalition which includes the National Party—which promised to defend small schools in New South Wales. The National Party and the government told the electorate that they understood the importance of small schools to their communities. There is a point for Commonwealth consideration as well. It relates to money spent under the Building the Education Revolution and other Commonwealth programs. That money goes to waste when these P6 decisions are made. Under the Education Act in New South Wales, a government can decide to close these schools whenever they want. Federal money is therefore being lost. The Gonski review, expected to be released next week, must consider the place of small schools and disadvantaged communities as we look for a better funding model for the future. The New South Wales government and state governments generally must come to the table to get— (Time expired) Chaldean Australian Academic Society 1388 13:49 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler Last Saturday I had the pleasure of attending the graduation ceremony of the Chaldean Australian Academic Society. The event was attended by His Grace Mar Jabriel Kassab, Archbishop of the Chaldean Catholic Diocese of Australia and New Zealand. The federal government sees completing Year 12, getting a university degree or vocational qualifications as a life-changing opportunity. It is about providing more Australians, particularly in the south-west of Sydney, with the skills they need to acquire the jobs of the future. To all the HSC students and university graduates who attended from across the Fowler electorate, I would like to offer my congratulations on your academic achievement. The honour you have received is a great personal achievement and also a source of great pride and inspiration for our whole community. Among the many community groups and leaders who attended, I thank President Bassam Frety and the founder of the society, Adris Frety, for the work they have done in promoting academic achievement within the Chaldean academic community. The ceremony was also an opportunity for us to share knowledge and ideas across all the professions that attended and to encourage Chaldean culture and traditions across the broader community. I wish to thank all those involved in helping our students to this great achievement. Mental Illness Fellowship of Queensland 1388 13:51 Ms GAMBARO 9K6 Brisbane I am pleased to rise and express my support for an application by the Mental Illness Fellowship of Queensland, MIFQ, for a grant from the Regional Development Australia Fund to assist in the development of a new facility at Herston in Brisbane. A local organisation, the MIFQ has been in operation since 1981. Since then it has provided a very valuable and important service to people around the state, from the Gold Coast to Gladstone. During this time, the fellowship has helped thousands of Queenslanders living with mental illness and provided vital support and advice to their families. Almost half of all Australians will experience a mental disorder at some point during their lifetime and I am fully committed to helping organisations such as MIFQ to raise awareness of the funding that is still required to help those living with mental illness. The project involves restoring and developing the historic Victoria Park clubhouse at Herston into Fellowship House. This building will become the home of MIFQ, will provide a support base for people with mental illnesses, will be a venue for information, will provide support and education services for families and carers of people with mental illness, will be a base for a range of community services and will provide support for all regional MIFQ services. Given the critical nature of this issue and owing to the very valuable and important work that the Mental Illness Fellowship of Queensland does for the local community, I urge the government to approve this application. (Time expired) GM Holden Ltd 1389 13:52 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield I rise to defend Holden's workers. There has been a lot of careless, uninformed talk by those opposite, by journalists and by pointy-headed economists, who have basically never made anything in their lives. Between them, they have never exported anything, never constructed anything and never made anything. Yet, in this House and outside, and in the broadsheets, they are getting stuck into workers, who have only just done the decent thing to strike a wage deal that gives them three per cent per annum—no more than any of those on the other side would award themselves; a catch-up payment for sacrificing up to 60 per cent of their pay during the GFC to protect jobs; and payments linked to quality production and performance—productivity payments. What a shock! It is about time those opposite stopped laying into the national icon, Holden, and its workforce. It is about time they stopped undermining their excellent performance both in the Australian market and in the international marketplace. This is a great company. It deserves our respect and its workforce deserves our support. 150th Anniversary of Coopers Brewery 1389 13:52 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt This year marks the 150th anniversary of the founding of Coopers Brewery. This milestone is especially significant because with the recent takeover of Foster's Group by the South African brewer SABMiller, Coopers has become the largest Australian owned brewery. According to figures recently published in Beer and Brewer, the only beer manufactured by an Australian owned company in the 15 highest selling Australian beers was Coopers Pale Ale, the only Australian beer in the top 10 premium beers was Coopers Sparkling Ale, and Coopers Mild Ale was one of two Australian beers in the top 10 midstrength beers. Coopers now occupies a proud position as the leading Australian owned brewery. Coopers is a very large and successful Australian owned and family business. It remains owned by the Cooper family. In fact, Glenn Cooper is its chairman and Tim Cooper is its managing director—both of whom are sixth generation descendants of Thomas Cooper, the brewery's founder. The brewery was originally located in Norwood, but for most of its existence it was based in my electorate in Leabrook. It has now moved to Regency Park. Its operations incorporate a number of green initiatives, including using saline groundwater instead of mains water, extensive water and energy recycling and its own gas fired cogeneration plant. The company is also active in the South Australian community and has donated more than $1.3 million to worthy causes since it was founded. (Time expired) Parramatta Electorate: Our Lady of Lebanon College 1390 13:55 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta Last week, I had the pleasure of attending of Our Lady of Lebanon College in Harris Park to open a new hall and eight new learning centres that were funded by the federal government—through funding of just over $3 million. The college was founded by the Maronite Sisters of the Holy Family back in 1973 and since then it has been instilling in its students the values of education and hard work, which the sisters brought with them to Australia. The college is more than an educational institution; it is a community which promotes a sense of family among the sisters, staff, students, parents and friends. Under the guidance of principal Marlene Chedid, it emphasises the values of treating all with dignity, service, forgiveness and justice. The college has traditionally served the Maronite Catholic Lebanese Community; however its 1,200-strong student body also reflects the diversity of the broader Lebanese Australian community. It was a great launch and included a blessing from His Excellency Bishop Ad Abikaram of the Sydney Maronite diocese. It was very well MC-ed by the college captain, Daniel Azzi. There were also representatives from the architecture firm ThomsonAdsett and the building company Dyldam. The college is making a real difference by improving the learning environment of many students in my electorate. I wish them the best for the future. Graham, Mrs Elizabeth Mary 1390 13:56 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong I rise with sadness to inform the House of the passing of Elizabeth Mary Graham, known to all as Betsy, a former mayoress of Ryde council and legend of our local Liberal Party. Betsy was a registered general nurse and qualified in intensive care. She was a gifted clinical nurse, who demonstrated an absolute commitment to her profession and the development of those around her. More recently, Betsy undertook a Doctor of Nursing and I understand she is to be awarded this certificate posthumously. She certainly knew all the questions to ask her doctor as she battled cancer in the last few years. Betsy was fiercely proud of her Scottish heritage and her allegiance to the Monroe clan. She was passionate about music and led the choir at her local church each week. As an example of her passion, she even left them instructions for next Sunday's service! Betsy was an active grassroots political campaigner, often seen pushing her stroller full of leaflets around Eastwood, promoting Liberal candidates and values. She was a graceful lady who calmly and strongly accepted the difficulties of her last few years. Betsy Graham leaves behind Peter, her devoted husband and the former president of my Bennelong conference, their children Kate, John and Lizzie, and a party room full of grandchildren. Betsy, you may have passed; however, you will live in our memories with only good feelings. Flannery, Mr Denis James 1390 13:58 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair Ipswich has lost one its favourite sons and Queensland's finest rugby league player, Denis Flannery. Denis James Flannery was an Australian rugby league footballer in the 1940s and fifties. Sadly, Denis passed away on Sunday at the age of 83. He was renowned for his sweet sidestep and swerve, and played on the right wing because he could step off the right foot. He attended school in Ipswich. Denis married Norma Dempsey, the daughter of the former great Kangaroo and Ipswich legend, Dan Dempsey. Denis and Norma own the famous Ulster Hotel in my electorate of Blair. Starting in 1948, Denis played 27 matches for Queensland and represented Australia in 13 test matches, two World Cup matches and 30 tour matches. On the 1952-53 Kangaroo tour, he scored 23 tries in 14 games, including hat-tricks against Featherstone Rovers, Doncaster and Hull Kingston Rovers. He continued to represent Queensland and Australia, retiring from representative football after the 1956-57 Kangaroo tour. In 2008, Denis was chosen as a winger when the Queensland team of the century was named—a tremendous honour for a Queensland rugby league great. My thoughts and prayers are with Norma and her family, and the whole Ipswich community. He was beloved by Ipswich. The SPEAKER 0V5 Order! It being almost 2 pm, in accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 1391 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Carbon Pricing 1391 14:00 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah My question is to the Prime Minister. Given that Alcoa warned the government last year that the carbon tax would impact on its economic viability, given that Alcoa has today shelved a $3 billion investment because of the carbon tax and given that the government's own modelling says that the carbon tax will reduce aluminium production by 61.7 per cent, why is the Prime Minister still in denial about the carbon tax destroying jobs in manufacturing industry? 14:00 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor To the Leader of the Opposition's question I say that every assertion he has made in that question is wrong, wrong and wrong. First of all, let us go to the announcement by Alcoa that its Wagerup investment is to be delayed. Let us see what Alcoa says and let us get the facts on the table, rather than the Leader of the Opposition's consistent misrepresentations. Let us be very clear about this. Back in 2008, Alcoa delayed this investment due to the impact of the global financial crisis. Alcoa has said that, since a peak in 2011, aluminium prices have fallen by over 27 per cent worldwide. This morning an Alcoa spokesperson said that the Wagerup expansion would not be back on the agenda until the company secured a long-term competitive gas supply. The statement on the Alcoa website—the words of Alcoa, not the Leader of the Opposition's misrepresentation—says: Alcoa’s Wagerup Refinery (Wagerup Unit 3) expansion plans are currently on hold because of the challenging economic environment and the need to secure energy supplies. So the misrepresentation engaged in by the Leader of the Opposition is once again calculated to spread false information to the Australian people. Not only is he content to come into this place and use workers as a football to kick around the chamber in pursuit of the opposition's political interests but now today he is making a misrepresentation to the whole nation about this investment. On the rest of the Leader of the Opposition's assertions, the question of the modelling I have answered before and no amount of re-asking it will change the Leader of the Opposition's misrepresentations as to the truth. Then there is Alcoa and Point Henry. I have dealt with this before in parliament. Once again, repeating a misrepresentation does not make it true. Alcoa has said very clearly that their current review: … has not been prompted by a future price on carbon. The present situation is the result of low metal prices, a high Australian dollar, and import costs. During the course of this week and every day the Leader of the Opposition has come into this place and misrepresented the situation of Alcoa. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that that is a shame. It is a shame he is treating workers with that calculated disrespect and today he is spreading that calculated disrespect to the rest of Australia. Private Health Insurance 1392 14:03 Ms SMYTH 172770 La Trobe My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the government's private health insurance rebate changes will help build a stronger and fairer health system for all Australians? 14:04 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I thank the member for La Trobe for her question. Earlier today the House of Representatives passed the government's changes to the private health insurance rebate and there is every reason to believe that these changes will pass through the Senate. These changes were first brought to the parliament in 2009. We sought to secure these changes then and took this plan to the 2010 election and said, as the government, that we wanted to work to change the private health insurance rebate in the interest of fairness and in the interest of sustainability. Today the House of Representatives has given a tick to fairness and a tick to sustainability. It is clearly unfair to ask low-income Australians who cannot afford private health insurance themselves to subsidise the private health insurance of people who are many times better off than they are—clearly unfair. Mr Christensen interjecting— The SPEAKER 0V5 The honourable member for Dawson will remain silent for the balance of the Prime Minister's answer. Ms GILLARD 83L It is the proposition of the opposition that Australians who own so little that they cannot afford private health insurance for themselves should be subsidising the private health insurance of millionaires or billionaires. There is no surprise in that because the opposition have never seen a tax dollar they did not want to give to a billionaire if they possibly could. This is also about sustainability. We all know that health costs are growing. We are investing more and more in health and that is appropriate because Australians want to see more doctors, more nurses and more investment in public hospitals. They want to see better cancer treatment. They understand that with innovation and with the ageing— The SPEAKER 0V5 The Prime Minister will return to the question under consideration. Ms GILLARD 83L Thank you very much. I am talking about sustainability in the private health insurance rebate. They understand that with those health demands we have to wisely invest every health dollar, which is why engaging in this means-testing of the private health insurance rebate is appropriate and without these changes it is estimated that it will cost $100 billion over the next 40 years. I note today that the Leader of the Opposition has committed himself to reversing these changes, adding to his $70 billion black hole—$70 billion now and counting. Well it is not right by sustainability and it is not right by fairness. The one thing we know is that the Leader of the Opposition cannot possibly make that budget add up. Private Health Insurance 1392 14:07 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister indicate where in the Prime Minister's election Press Club speech, where in the leaders debate, where in the campaign launch speech, where in the Prime Minister's election announcement or where in the ALP's official health policy documents from the 2010 election the government's plans for cutting the private health insurance rebate are outlined? 14:07 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I remind the member who asked the question that this parliament was dealing with these matters before the 2010 election campaign. There would not have been anyone aware of that parliamentary debate, which of course got a lot of publicity, who would not have known that it was the intention of the government to have a means test on private health insurance. The Leader of the Opposition is saying, 'Well, it did not get through the parliament.' That is true: it did not get through the Senate as it was then configured. This government brought its policy intention to the House of Representatives and to the Senate and made it very, very clear that that was the policy of the government. I would say to the member opposite that during the election campaign— Mr Abbott EZ5 Mr Speaker, on a point of order: it was a very simple question. Where in the election campaign was the Prime Minister up-front with the Australian people about her intention to break a promise? The SPEAKER 0V5 The Prime Minister will address the substance of the question. Ms GILLARD 83L To the Leader of the Opposition's point of order: during the election campaign this government did something that the opposition did not. We filed our costings. Opposition members interjecting— Ms GILLARD 83L The opposition did not do that because they had at that stage an $11 billion black hole. They knew their figures could not add up, so they took their figures to an accountancy firm and they tried to say that that made it all add up. That accountancy firm has now been implicated in professional breaches. The one thing that they did not do is submit their costings to the Treasury, because they knew that they were engaged in the height of recklessness when it came to spending taxpayers' dollars. As a result— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 0V5 Order! The Prime Minister will resume her seat. Private Health Insurance 1393 14:10 Mrs D'ATH HVN Petrie My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister update the House on the latest information about the state of the private health insurance industry? What does this mean for the government's reform of the health system to make it fairer for ordinary working Australians? (Sydney—Minister for Health) (14:10): Ms PLIBERSEK 83M I thank the member for Petrie for her question. She is a member who is passionately committed to seeing better health services for people in her electorate. She knows every taxpayers' dollar we raise has to be spent in the best and most effective way. I welcome the passing through the House of Representatives of the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill and cognate bills this morning. The passing of this legislation comes as new figures released by the Private Health Insurance Administration Council show that more Australians are covered by private health insurance now than at any other time in the past 36 years. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 0V5 Order! Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Since this government came to office, more than a million people— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 0V5 Order! Minister, please pause. The House will return to order and the minister will be heard in silence. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Thank you, Mr Speaker. More than a million people have joined private health insurance since this government came to office. These new figures for last year show that the industry recorded a record profit of $461 million before tax for the December quarter and that the year's profit from December 2010 to December 2011 was a record $1.27 billion. The industry is strong and the industry is healthy and the industry will stay strong despite the scare campaign of those opposite. You would remember that the member for North Sydney said in 2008 that hundreds of thousands of people would drop out of private health insurance, when Labor took a decision that low-income earners should not be penalised for not having private health insurance. He said that hundreds of thousands would drop out. And what happened? 800,000 extra people have joined private health insurance since that time. He was wrong then and he is wrong now. This is a win for low- and middle-income earners. Mr Christensen interjecting— Ms PLIBERSEK 83M It means that the bank teller on $50,000 a year will no longer subsidise the private health insurance— The SPEAKER 0V5 The minister will pause. I have asked all honourable members to hear the minister in silence. The honourable member for Dawson will remove himself from the chamber under the provisions of standing order 94(a) for one hour. The member for Dawson then left the chamber. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M It means that the bank teller on $50,000 a year will no longer subsidise the private health insurance of the bank executive on $500,000 and the bank's CEO on $5 million— Mr Laming E0H What a load of rubbish! The SPEAKER 0V5 Order! The minister will pause. The honourable member for Bowman will also leave the chamber under the provisions of standing order 94(a). He is fortunate that I have not named him for defying the chair. The member for Bowman then left the chamber. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M This government is investing record amounts into our health system. That record investment needs to be targeted in a way that makes the biggest difference. The private health insurance rebate would have sucked up $100 billion over the next 40 years. The Leader of the Opposition says that he is going to restore that, when he can, as an article of faith of the opposition. Is it really an article of faith to spend the hard-earned tax dollars of ordinary Australians subsidising his private health insurance and mine, or is it an aspiration? (Time expired) Carbon Pricing 1394 14:14 Mr TRUSS GT4 Wide Bay My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to Qantas's statement that the carbon tax will cost it more than $110 million next financial year alone, more than doubling Qantas's tax bill. Given that both the United States and China have opposed carbon pricing on their national airlines, isn't the government's carbon tax only going to further disadvantage our national airline and put greater pressure on Australian jobs? 14:15 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor In answer to the Leader of the National Party, let us just go through the facts, because whenever you go through the facts the opposition's scare campaign falls apart. Fact No. 1: Qantas will not face any carbon price on their international operations in Australia. They will face a carbon price on their domestic operations, that is true. The carbon price will have a very moderate impact on ticket prices. Both Qantas and Virgin put it at around $3 to $3.50 per seat per sector. That is what Qantas and Virgin actually have said. Of course, those price effects have been modelled into the anticipated increase of 0.7 per cent in CPI and, of course, Australians are receiving assistance: tax cuts, family payment increases and pension increases. There are tax cuts for people earning less than $80,000, with many of them to receive a tax cut of around $300. There will be family payment increases for many families caring for children. There will be pension increases that will more than compensate people for the anticipated price effect. This means that there will be households around Australia that come out better off. The fear for those households is twofold: the Leader of the Opposition's plan to rip out of their hands the tax cuts, family payments and pension increases— The SPEAKER 0V5 Order! The Prime Minister will return to the substance of the question, which related to Qantas. Ms GILLARD 83L Yes, Mr Speaker, I will deal with that. But, number one, I do think it is important to talk about the rip-off that will happen for working families. Then, on price effects for things like Qantas, let us not forget that the opposition is committed to a costly, shambolic plan that will cost Australians far more. So, to the Leader of the National Party's question, once again what the opposition is trying to do is mislead the Australian people. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 1395 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:17 The SPEAKER 0V5 I welcome to the gallery a parliamentary delegation from the German-Australian Parliamentary Friendship Group—an all-party delegation—led by representative Herr Jurgen Herrmann. I welcome you to the parliament on behalf of all honourable members and I hope that you enjoy this visit to our country. Honourable members: Hear, Hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 1395 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Pacific Highway 1395 14:17 Mr OAKESHOTT IYS Lyne My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Will you release a full schedule of works for the completion of the Pacific Highway now that your party has promised at two elections to complete the highway by 2016 and it will now appear in the four-year forward estimates in this year's May budget? 14:18 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Lyne for his question and for his commitment to his constituents, and other constituents, who use the Pacific Highway. We already have committed some $4.1 billion to the Pacific Highway. More than 1,600 workers are today working on site building the Pacific Highway. This is vital for productivity. It has been identified by Infrastructure Australia as a priority, but it is also vital for safety. Over the last 20 years some 809 people have lost their lives on the Pacific Highway, which is 809 too many. That is why we on this side of the House are absolutely committed to fulfilling the duplication by 2016, which was first promised by the Howard government in 2004. They promised it but did not put any dollars into it. They contributed $1.3 billion over 12 years and during that time the state government committed $2.5 billion. At that time—when they were in government—they said the Pacific Highway was a state road. They called upon the New South Wales Labor government to do more. The member for Cowper, for example, said in this place: 'It is a state road. New South Wales refused to commit one extra dollar of state government funding to a road they are responsible for.' The state member for Coffs Harbour, Andrew Fraser, who has had a bit to say—inaccurately—in recent months about funding on the Pacific Highway, said this when he was part of the opposition: The Pacific Highway is a state road. I pay credit to the federal government for increasing the funding arrangement. I damn and condemn this state government. The state government should pour the money in. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 0V5 The member for Riverina will be more restrained. Mr ALBANESE R36 But now, when in government, only yesterday Mr Fraser was saying in the New South Wales parliament that they cannot afford to pay their share. We on this side of the House say: let's end the politics with this issue. Let's have 50-50 funding to deliver on the Pacific Highway. Let's see the member for Cowper and the Leader of the National Party talk to their National Party colleagues in New South Wales and get them to deliver on what they say is their joint commitment to fully duplicate the highway by 2016. That is what is required. We need to do more. We accept that that is the case. But it can only be done in partnership with the New South Wales government. That is the way forward and it is the way to ensure that the full duplication can be completed. The SPEAKER 0V5 The honourable member for Lyne wishes to ask a supplementary question, which I think is the maiden supplementary question from the cross bench. I will listen to the supplementary and consider it. 14:21 Mr OAKESHOTT IYS Lyne In light of your answer, Minister, and in light of articles in today's paper that an extra $7 billion is needed to fix the highway, and your reluctance in your answer to release a full works schedule, can you guarantee to the House, again, that 2016 remains the completion date, as agreed between the Commonwealth and the state. The SPEAKER 0V5 I call the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. 14:21 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Lyne for his question, which goes to the heart of what is required. I wrote to the New South Wales roads minister last month and outlined a full schedule of works that makes it possible for the Pacific Highway to be fully duplicated by 2016. It included a plan for preconstruction and a plan for construction by 2016 of all of the remaining sections which are not duplicated. It is achievable. The New South Wales government say they are committed to it, we say we are committed to it and the opposition say they are committed to it in spite of their interjections. What we need to do is go about this in a bipartisan way, in a way that involves both tiers of government, in a way that does not say funding should be taken off one section of the road and put onto another, and in a way that ensures that the road is fully duplicated. I have written to the New South Wales government. They have the schedule. We are prepared to release the schedule, if you like, but I am waiting for the New South Wales government to get back to us to fulfil their obligations that they committed to prior to their election to Macquarie Street government. Certainly, this government is prepared to work very closely with all members up and down the highway. We have had constructive relationships with the New South Wales Deputy Premier, with the New South Wales roads minister and with you— (Time expired) Economy 1397 14:23 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham My question is to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer outline for the House the importance of sound fiscal management to support jobs and to return the budget to surplus? 14:23 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley I thank the member for Cunningham for that question because sound fiscal management is more important than ever, particularly given the global uncertainty that we are seeing. We on this side of the House have got the big economic decisions right, because in the face of global uncertainty and a global recession we supported jobs, we supported small business and we avoided a recession in this country. While we have had some recent job losses, we should never lose sight of the fact that over 700,000 jobs have been created in this country over the past four years. But we are certainly not immune because we have seen something like $140 billion worth of revenue stripped from the budget. Those opposite pretend that somehow the global financial crisis and global recession were a hiccup. Well, it stripped $140 billion from our budget bottom line—a massive hit to the budget. The level of tax to GDP in the last year of the Howard government was 23.7 per cent of GDP—2½ percentage points higher than it is now. If we still had the same level of GDP as those opposite had in their last year of office our revenues at the moment would be $20 billion higher in 2012-13 alone. So it has been a massive hit to our budget. That is why we are out there, coming back to surplus and conducting one of the most significant fiscal consolidations—that is, return to surplus—seen in our history, because we understand with global uncertainty you have to be serious about your fiscal policy and send a message to international markets. That is not attainable by those opposite. We have seen the Three Stooges type farce of the last week from those opposite— The SPEAKER 0V5 Order! The Treasurer was referring to three members of the opposition in an inappropriate way. He will withdraw. Mr SWAN 2V5 I withdraw, Mr Speaker. They have been running around promising spending but they have been saying no to structural savings. They support spending on the one hand, but when we put up sensible proposals—ones which can build the strength of our financial system and direct more dollars to the health system—they say no. They have claimed in this House today that we did not put it before the Australian people. It was there for everyone to see in the pre-election fiscal outlook, which they did spend a lot of time studying until the Treasury discovered there was an $11 billion black hole in their estimates. Those opposite do not care about coming back to surplus because they are not up to running a $1.4 trillion economy. A $70 billion hole—but the only thing that Larry over there was concerned about was that Curly was going to leak the $70 billion figure. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 0V5 Order! The Treasurer has used a term which a colleague opposite found offensive. The Treasurer would immensely assist the House if he were to withdraw that term. Mr SWAN 2V5 I withdraw, Mr Speaker. Member for Dobell 1398 14:27 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I refer the Prime Minister to the statement by Senator Evans in October last year that the only contact between the government and Fair Work Australia regarding the investigation into the member for Dobell was by email in August 2011. Given that it has been revealed in estimates today that other phone contact occurred between Fair Work Australia and the former minister's office, has she satisfied herself that this is the only contradiction between the statements of her ministers and the truth? 14:28 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I understand that in Senate estimates today some additional information has been provided by Fair Work Australia. I also understand that a statement has been provided by Fair Work Australia, which I think is very important. It comes from the General Manager, who directly deals with the opposition's oft repeated claims about political interference. It says very clearly that she sees absolutely no reason to conclude that there has been any such interference in the investigations. Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the question was not about political interference, it was about the contradictions and the statements of her ministers and the evidence that was adduced in estimates today. The SPEAKER 0V5 The Prime Minister has barely commenced answering the question. I am sure the Prime Minister is determined to be directly relevant. Ms GILLARD 83L I am determined to be directly relevant, Mr Speaker. I have been asked about contacts between the government and Fair Work Australia. I have been asked about those contacts before as part of the opposition's campaign to suggest that there has been political interference in the Fair Work Australia investigation. Consequently, I think it is directly relevant to point out that this opposition campaign came to a crashing halt today, when the General Manager of Fair Work Australia directly repudiated any suggestions of political interference in the Fair Work Australia investigation. From today it is clear, and should be clear to the opposition and all, that Fair Work Australia is doing what it is supposed to do—inquiring independently—and that there is no need in the world for continued imputations and muckraking by the opposition. Economy 1398 (Bass) (14:30): Mr LYONS M38 My question is to the Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, representing the Minister for Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy. How are the government's legislative reforms modernising the economy and delivering a fairer deal for ordinary Australians and how has the passage of these major reforms through the parliament been received? 14:31 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Bass for his question. I am very proud of the work this government has achieved. I am particularly proud to have the honour of being the Leader of the House of Representatives. It is a challenge from time to time. We started off with what used to be 71 votes but is now, Mr Speaker, 72 votes in order to get legislation through the parliament. This morning we saw yet another seminal reform—the private health insurance reform to make the system fairer—blocked by those opposite since 2009. It has been in our budget papers since 2009; we have had two attempts to get it through the parliament previously. This morning we got it through the parliament, in spite of the absurd amendment put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, which was resoundingly defeated. The biggest vote this morning was against his amendment that it be put off until the next parliament. It is not surprising: 266 bills have passed this parliament compared with 108 in the first year of the Howard government where they had a clear majority. This parliament is functioning well; this parliament is able to engage with the crossbenches to ensure outcomes have occurred in the national interest. These reforms join the carbon price, the minerals resource rent tax, the structural separation of Telstra and the National Broadband Network. This legislation joins our budget, which went through faster than ever last year. These reforms together will transform the economy for the benefit of average Australians. In particular, I have presented more than a dozen bills relating to the National Broadband Network, which will transform the way that our economy is able to compete with our neighbours in the region. The NBN, which we expect will create some 18,000 jobs in construction alone, will transform the great tyranny of distance that has disadvantaged those people living regionally. Those opposite play a hypocritical double game. Member after member writes to Senator Conroy, or sometimes it is forwarded on to me as the minister representing him in this place, asking for the NBN in their electorate. Yet last week they were in here arguing against community service obligations for regional Australia. Those opposite just say no to everything that comes before this House. This government is determined to continue to push on with our positive agenda. Member for Dobell 1399 14:34 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt My question is to the Prime Minister. Given that the Prime Minister indicated in her previous answer that it is proper to contact Fair Work Australia when previously she has said it was improper to do so, what is preventing her from contacting Fair Work Australia to ask them to resolve the unacceptable delay in the investigation of the member for Dobell, which is now in its fourth year? Mr Albanese R36 On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is certainly not in order for the Manager of Opposition Business to ask a question such as that which attempts to put words in the Prime Minister's mouth. That is clearly disorderly. The SPEAKER 0V5 I call the Prime Minister. 14:35 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor To the member who asked the question, I say: I did not say that. The reason the member is probably confused is that day after day the opposition has been pursuing two completely logically inconsistent lines of attack in relation to this Fair Work matter. That is not surprising because when you are the kind of people who always say no and are negative about anything, why would you worry about consistency? Some days they come into this parliament, and they are in the media too, asserting: 'The government has made contact with Fair Work Australia. This is a conspiracy. We need to know all about this. This is about improper influence.' Some days they say that, but that line of attack came to a shuddering halt today, repudiated in Senate estimates. The General Manager of Fair Work Australia, having properly looked at the matter, stated clearly on the record that there has been no interference. So whenever the opposition says that in the future, people will know that they are trying deliberately to mislead. Mr Abbott EZ5 Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The question was: what is preventing the Prime Minister from calling Fair Work Australia to ask why this investigation— The SPEAKER 0V5 Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. When the Prime Minister's colleagues behind her are silent, I will say to the Prime Minister that she has the call. However, the Prime Minister should take note of the specifics of the question. Ms GILLARD 83L Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I will do that. The reason the general manager of Fair Work Australia is in a position to say there has been no interference is that contacts between the government and Fair Work Australia have been about fact finding, as is now on the public record for all to see in Senate estimates. The opposition, in its completely logically inconsistent other line of attack, has invited me to ring up Fair Work Australia and direct them to do something. That is wrong. Every day the opposition says that it should be done they are out there saying something that would be wrong in our democracy—the wrong thing to do, the result of shoddy thinking by and the shoddy standards of people who are obviously used to standing over others and bullying them to get their way. This government is behaving entirely properly in relation to this matter. I refer the parliament to the statement of the general manager of Fair Work Australia today, and I say to the member opposite: what pathetic muckraking this is. 14:38 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt Mr Speaker, I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister now reveal the nature and the content of all the communications between the former Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, the current Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and the Prime Minister and her office in relation to the investigation into the member for Dobell? The SPEAKER 0V5 The supplementary question is out of order. Economy 1400 14:38 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline for the House the importance of a strong and competitive— Mr Abbott EZ5 Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The SPEAKER 0V5 Are you taking a point of order on the member for Hindmarsh? Mr Abbott EZ5 I am making a point of order on your ruling just a moment ago. It is surely legitimate, under the standing orders, for the Prime Minister to be questioned about statements she has made to the House. Given the statements she has just made to the House about contacts between her office and ministers' offices and Fair Work Australia, I put it to you that it is contrary to all precedent for that question to be ruled out of order. The SPEAKER 0V5 One could take the view that as I have given the member for Hindmarsh the call we have moved on. But I will do the leader the courtesy of, firstly, pointing out that it is not a ruling, because supplementary questions are at the discretion of the Speaker, and, secondly, that supplementary questions are to arise out of the answer. It is my view that the supplementary question sought to be asked by the honourable Manager of Opposition Business did not sufficiently arise out of the answer the Prime Minister gave. The honourable member for Hindmarsh has the call. Mr GEORGANAS DZY Will the Treasurer outline for the House the importance of a strong and competitive banking sector? 14:40 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley I thank the member for Hindmarsh for what is a very important question. This government has worked every single day for a very strong and stable banking sector in this country. It is why we took decisive action at the height of the global financial crisis. We did it for the country. We did it to secure the supply of credit. It is why we have introduced covered bonds into this House—to assist the banks with their long-term funding profile. My belief as Treasurer, and the belief of the government, is that the banking system should work for all Australians—for every customer, for every worker, for the shareholders, for the broader community and for the whole economy. We have heard the half-yearly profit of the Commonwealth Bank today: $3.7 billion. They have made that profit despite global volatility in financial markets. It shows that they are hugely profitable. That is why we on this side of the House are so committed to competition reforms, so that people who are unhappy with their bank can walk down the road and get a better deal. That is why we have put in place a range of comprehensive measures. One of those measures was to abolish mortgage exit fees. Mr Hockey interjecting— The SPEAKER 0V5 The member for North Sydney will contain himself. Mr SWAN 2V5 That was ruled out by the shadow Treasurer. It was ruled out even quicker than Moe over here could say no. Their instant response to important competition reforms was to oppose them—and oppose them they did, in this House. Mr Randall PK6 Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Treasurer is a serial offender in not referring to members by their seats. I would ask you to get him to do so. The SPEAKER 0V5 The Treasurer will in future refer to honourable members by their seat or by their title and not by their name. The Treasurer continues to have the call. Mr SWAN 2V5 The Leader of the Opposition ruled it out very quickly, as did the shadow Treasurer. But we put in place a whole range of competition reforms, and they are delivering results. By the end of this year there will be one million households with mortgages that do not have mortgage exit fees—something that was opposed by those on the other side of the House, by their frontbench team. There are over 180,000 homeowners who have refinanced, more than $46 billion worth of home loans through 2011. That is something like 20 per cent. We have already seen the ME Bank, Credit Union of Australia and the Bank of Queensland out there offering competitive rates. We on this side of the House are absolutely determined to see greater competition in the banking system so that people who are unhappy with their financial institution can walk down the road and get a better deal. And when it comes to interest rates, those opposite and everyone else in this House should well remember that when they promised to keep interest rates at record lows they went up 10 times in a row. The cash rate is at 4.25. When they left office it was 6.75. Today, if you have a $300,000 mortgage it costs you $3,000 a year less than it did under the Liberals. Prime Minister 1401 14:44 Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P Curtin My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to revelations on the ABC's The 7.30 Reportlast night that a series of text messages and phone calls occurred between Mr Hodges from her office and Ms Kim Sattler of Unions ACT in relation to the comments by the Leader of the Opposition on Australia Day. Has the Prime Minister viewed the text message exchanges between Mr Hodges and Ms Sattler? Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I have dealt with the matter involving Ms Sattler and Mr Hodges before and I stand by those statements. 14:44 Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P Curtin My supplementary question is to the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister has not viewed the text messages, how has she satisfied herself that the statement she made in relation to this matter on 28 January—namely, that the Leader of the Opposition's comments were relayed accurately—was true? 14:44 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I have dealt with this matter before. I have nothing to add. Economy 1402 14:45 Mr MITCHELL M3E McEwen My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, and the Minister for Industry and Innovation. Why is it important to maintain confidence in the economy and support Australian jobs across Australian industry? And are there any threats to this? 14:45 Mr COMBET YW6 I would like to thank the member for McEwen for his question. The fundamentals of our economy are very strong. It is important to maintain confidence in the face of the pressures from global forces. That is why it is very important that the increase in business confidence, reported in the latest NAB business survey, is very welcome. That confidence is based upon the fact that we have low unemployment, solid economic growth, a moderate inflationary environment and low public debt. Importantly, that confidence is reflected in massive business investment that will be coming into our economy this year and in years to come. According to ABS data, almost $150 billion of private investment this year is expected, with over $450 billion in the pipeline from the resources sector alone in coming years. All of this is very good news for jobs. One aspect of our economy that is perhaps less well understood is that performance of the economy in areas other than resources is also supporting jobs. For example, exports of services to China have grown at an annual rate of about 20 per cent over the last decade. In fact, China is Australia's biggest export market for services and it became so in 2009-10. Despite the big increases in coal exports and their prices over recent years, Australia in fact earned more from providing tourism, education and other services to China last year than it did from selling coal. That is something not well understood. It is evidence of the flexibility of the economy and the strength of the policymaking that has set the parameters right. But on the other side of politics we see constant talking down of the economy and an undermining of confidence. The opposition looks for any opportunity to undermine confidence and create uncertainty. We saw it here again in question time and we saw it earlier this morning, with the opposition claiming Alcoa's decision to delay a $3 billion expansion of their Western Australian alumina refinery was due to the carbon price. That is wrong. This dishonest claim was in tatters within hours. Alcoa have made it very clear that securing a gas supply was the principal driver of the delay in that project. Dishonest fear campaigns harm our economy and harm jobs. On this side we are building the foundations for a strong economic future, meeting the challenges and creating the opportunities for people, because that is what Labor does. Prime Minister 1403 14:49 Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P Curtin I refer the Prime Minister to Ms Kim Sattler's actual comments on Australia Day at the tent embassy protest, as revealed on the ABC's 7.30 Report last night, and I quote: They're both in at reception at the Lobby Restaurant, which is just up the corner, and Abbott's just made a statement to the press that the Tent Embassy should be pulled down. Given that the transcript of Ms Sattler's statement contradicts previous accounts upon which the Prime Minister has relied on in this House, will the Prime Minister now correct the record? Mr Albanese interjecting— 14:50 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor Whilst it was by way of interjection, I think the Leader of the House made a very good point. It is not for me to correct the record of something said by someone else when I was not there. I have dealt with this matter in the House. I have dealt with this matter outside the House and I refer the member asking the question and all members to those statements. I would also say— The SPEAKER 0V5 Order! I am not keeping a tally on the number of points of order that the Manager of Opposition Business asks; he is entitled to make this point of order and I am listening. Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister misrepresented the question. The question related to the fact that the Prime Minister has relied on Kim Sattler's statements in the past for her own alibi and therefore she has to correct the record as the amended statements contradict it. Mr Randall interjecting— Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker, on the point of order: apart from that highly disorderly point of order, I would ask the member for Canning to withdraw the interjection that he made across the chamber. Mr McCormack interjecting— The SPEAKER 0V5 Order! The member for Riverina will remove himself from the chamber under the provisions of standing order 94(a). The member for Riverina then left the chamber. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 0V5 Order! I am hoping for increased civility in the chamber. Objection has been taken to a remark made by the honourable member for Canning. Will he assist the chair by withdrawing? Mr Randall PK6 Mr Speaker, I did not know 'Juliar' was unparliamentary. But in this case I will withdraw. The SPEAKER 0V5 The member has withdrawn. Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker, standing orders provide for action to be taken when members conduct themselves in a highly disorderly fashion. That was highly disorderly and the member should withdraw unconditionally, as I did yesterday and as members on this side of the House have done. The SPEAKER 0V5 The Leader of the House has the advantage over me in so far as I did not hear the interjection. What I said to the member for Canning was that he would assist the chair and he would assist the standards of civility if he would withdraw. Mr Randall PK6 I will again withdraw. The SPEAKER 0V5 There has been some objection taken to a comment made by the honourable Minister for Trade— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 0V5 If it was yesterday— Mr Perrett interjecting— The SPEAKER 0V5 The member for Moreton will also leave the chamber under the provisions of standing order 94(a). The member for Moreton then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 0V5 I thought the member for Canning was referring to a comment made today by the Minister for Trade, but if it was yesterday we have moved on. The Prime Minister has the call. Ms GILLARD 83L Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I think we can tell from the display we have just witnessed what mode the opposition is in today: muckraking mode, ugly mode. The Manager of Opposition Business has just come to the dispatch box and in what I think was supposed to be a supplementary question used the word 'alibi'. I say to the opposition: if you have got an allegation about my conduct, put it; if you do not have an allegation about my conduct, get out of the gutter, because your conduct today is disgusting. The SPEAKER 0V5 Is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition seeking a supplementary question? Ms Julie Bishop 83P No, sir, I am seeking the call to seek leave to table the transcript that the Prime Minister relied upon that is directly contradicted by a statement of Ms Sattler last night. Leave not granted. Indigenous Employment 1404 14:55 Ms GRIERSON 00AMP Newcastle My question is to the Minister for Community Services, Indigenous Employment, Economic Development and the Status of Women. In light of the Prime Minister's release this morning of the Closing the Gap report, what progress is the government making in meeting its target of halving the employment gap for Indigenous Australians by 2018? 14:55 Ms COLLINS HWM I thank the member for Newcastle for her question. I know that she, like everybody in this place, is committed to closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. We want more Indigenous Australians to know the dignity and the benefits of work. That is why we are managing the economy to support jobs and that is why we are working to close the gap on Indigenous employment. Halving the gap on Indigenous employment means an additional 100,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in jobs by 2018. Despite the challenges, the current trends indicate we are making gains. In the last 2½ years over 100,000 placements were made by Job Services Australia for Indigenous jobseekers into work and training. We have committed over $650 million in four years to the reformed Indigenous Employment Program. In 2½ years this program has achieved 71,000 placements, 33,000 into employment and 38,000 into training. We are seeing businesses stepping up to the plate more than ever with unprecedented demand for Indigenous employees. We are working with employers to translate this into real and sustainable jobs. The government is also working with the corporate sector through the Australian Employment Covenant. Already the covenant has secured over 60,000 commitments from employers and this has seen more than 7,000 Indigenous jobseekers start in these jobs. Through the Indigenous Employment Program the government has also provided significant funding to the covenant and to employers with their own programs. The Indigenous Employment Program is flexible and responsive to the needs of employers, to Indigenous Australians and also their communities. Opposition members: Boring. Ms COLLINS HWM We are also providing support to Indigenous businesses to support economic development. We are providing $3.7 million in funding for the Australian Indigenous Minority Supplier Council. The council seeks out contracts from the private and government sectors and matches them to Indigenous businesses to supply. Also this government has kicked off the Indigenous Youth Career Pathways Program—$50 million over four years to deliver 6,400 school-based traineeships, to provide flexible one-on-one support for students to help them finish school while completing their traineeship. Our job as a government is to make sure we give all Australians the opportunities they need to do well in life. No-one should be left behind because of their gender, their background or even where they live. As the Prime Minister said in her speech earlier today, Indigenous employment has increased sharply in recent decades but we are continuing to work to ensure that we close the gap. Prime Minister 1405 14:58 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I have a question to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her revelation on the Four Corners program that she was unaware that her staff were drafting an acceptance speech two weeks before she ousted the former prime minister, to her insistence that she was unaware that a member of her staff have helped initiate a riot on Australia Day and to her apparent ignorance of the multiple contacts between her government and Fair Work Australia over the investigation into the member for Dobell. If the Prime Minister has been left in the dark about these matters, how can the Australian people have any confidence that she should hold the office of Prime Minister? 14:59 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I think it really does say everything about the mode of the opposition today that there was a chant of 'boring' from the opposition backbench when Minister Collins was speaking about closing the gap and employment prospects for Indigenous Australians. Mr Pyne interjecting— Ms GILLARD 83L They are the kinds of achievements for our nation that the government is focused on while the opposition trawls through the gutter making things up, pursuing a logically inconsistent line of argument— Mr Pyne interjecting— The SPEAKER 0V5 The Manager of Opposition Business will absent himself from the chamber under the provisions of standing order 94(a) for one hour. I have asked the member to remain silent. The member continued to interject. The Prime Minister has the call. The member for Sturt then left the chamber. Ms GILLARD 83L Despite the relentless negativity of the opposition, I and the government are focussed on the job of keeping the economy strong, of building a stronger economy for the future and of looking after working families. No amount of muckraking or trawling or irrelevancies will distract us from that path. The muckraking— Mrs Bronwyn Bishop SE4 Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As we have all been made aware, the new paradigm requiring direct relevance— The SPEAKER 0V5 The member will come to her point of order. Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP SE4 is that 'directly answering' it directly means addressing the substance of the question. The Prime Minister is refusing to answer by talking about muckraking— The SPEAKER 0V5 The member will resume her seat. I ask the Prime Minister— Mr Albanese R36 I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. Although the microphone had been, quite rightly, turned off, the member for Mackellar continued, in her vitriol, to make a statement that was quite clearly unparliamentary. She should withdraw. The SPEAKER 0V5 The member for Mackellar. Mrs Bronwyn Bishop SE4 I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker. If it is unacceptable to describe 'muck' as being relevant to the government of the day, why then is it all right for the Prime Minister to keep referring to 'muckraking'. I merely said, 'She is standing in that muck.' The SPEAKER 0V5 It all depends on the context. To use the word 'muck' in one way can be quite different from using it as part of the word 'muckraking'. Quite often the chair must consider the context in which terms are used. The honourable member for Mackellar would assist the processes of the House if she would withdraw that term. Mrs Bronwyn Bishop SE4 Mr Speaker, I will withdraw but I am interested in the term 'muckraking' as distinct from 'standing in muck to rake it'. Would you also define that? The SPEAKER 0V5 The member has withdrawn and the Prime Minister has the call. Ms GILLARD 83L As to what very little substance the member's question had: first, there is a Fair Work Australia investigation in progress. That investigation is proceeding—as verified by the General Manager of Fair Work Australia today—independently and without political interference. End of that campaign by the opposition. Second, the opposition through their legal spokesperson wrote to the Australian Federal Police about matters associated with Australia Day, which they have raised in this parliament today. They wrote to the Australian Federal Police and as recently as last night, in Senate estimates, the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police said that they were responding to that correspondence. What the opposition wanted is actually occurring. In those two circumstances, they have what they wanted—the Australian Federal Police and a Fair Work Australia independent investigation, verified today as proceeding without political interference. I ask the opposition: what is all of this about except the cheapest of political point scoring from an opposition that day after day is unable to come into this House and spell out an economic plan. It cannot come into this House and spell out plans for working families and it cannot come into this House and spell out a budget that would have the vaguest hope of ever adding up. Mr Randall interjecting— The SPEAKER 0V5 The member for Canning is skating on extremely thin ice. Families 1407 15:04 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair My question is to the Minister for Families, Community Services, Indigenous Affairs and Disability Reform. Will the minister outline to the House how the government is managing the economy to deliver for Australian families? 15:04 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga I thank the member for Blair for his question and all the work he does for the families and pensioners in his electorate. It is the case that this Labor government is doing everything we possibly can to make sure that jobs are created. We are managing the economy in the interests of jobs. On this side of the House we know that the most important thing for any child is to see mum or dad, or both, going out to work every day and bringing home a pay packet every week. Those 700,000 extra jobs that have been created by this Labor government have meant so much to those families and to the children in them. We also recognise that there are many pensioners who want to work and it is this Labor government that has introduced a new work bonus to support those pensioners on the age pension who want to work. Just today, we have introduced changes that will encourage people who are on the disability support pension to take on work or do more hours. It is this Labor government that has made sure that we do everything we can to help those households make ends meet, whether it is with the cost of child care by increasing the childcare rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent to help with out-of-pocket costs. It is this Labor government that has helped with the cost of teenagers. Those on the other side of the House seem to think that the cost of teenagers goes down when they hit 16. Of course, those on the other side are totally out of touch with the real life of working families and it is this government that has made sure that we have provided additional assistance to families of teenagers, increasing family tax benefits by up to $4,200 a year per child, to help those families with the cost of children and to make sure that those children are encouraged to stay on at school. What a contrast we see from those opposite. What is it that we know that this Leader of the Opposition can absolutely be guaranteed to do? We know there is one thing he can be guaranteed to do, and that is to give a tax cut to some of the wealthiest people in Australia. The other thing he can be guaranteed to do is to claw back money from the pockets of pensioners and the pockets of families. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 0V5 Order! The minister will return to the question and be directly relevant. Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the conduct of the opposition today has been disorderly from two o'clock through to 10 past three. There are only a couple of minutes to go. Is it possible that they could behave? The SPEAKER 0V5 The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The minister will return to the despatch box and will be directly relevant to the specifics of the question. Ms MACKLIN PG6 Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, I certainly will. I will once again go to one of the other big Labor reforms that we have introduced and that is benefiting so many families around Australia, and that is the introduction of our first national Paid Parental Leave scheme. We have 130,000 families that are now benefiting as a result of this Labor government's commitment. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 0V5 The honourable member for Blair was on his feet first. Mr Neumann HVO A supplementary, Mr Speaker. Ms Julie Bishop 83P Mr Speaker! The SPEAKER 0V5 I will listen to what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is putting to me. Ms Julie Bishop 83P Mr Speaker, the minister was still on her feet answering when I stood up, and I am now seeking your call. It is the custom that the coalition have the next question. I have been on my feet. The SPEAKER 0V5 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. She does not have the call. The member for Blair is seeking to ask a supplementary to the question he asked, and I am going to listen to the member for Blair to see if his supplementary is allowable. 15:09 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair Thank you, Mr Speaker. Will the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs advise the House on the impact of the changes she is making to families with people with disabilities and the impact on my electorate of Blair in particular? The SPEAKER 0V5 The supplementary question is in order. 15:09 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga I thank the member for Blair for his supplementary question, particularly in relation to people with disabilities in Blair. One of the things that we do want to encourage is the support of those people with disabilities who have some capacity to work in their ambition. As a result of the legislation we have put into the parliament today, we expect around 4,000 disability support pensioners to take up work and nearly 4,000 others to increase their hours of work. We also know how important it has been for around 23,000 pensioners in Blair to get the additional benefits that this government has provided. We know that this Liberal opposition will take money out of the pockets of 23,000 pensioners in Blair. Up to $300 a year will come out of their pockets. The SPEAKER 0V5 The minister is not relevant and will resume her seat. Ms Gillard 83L Mr Speaker, under the new arrangements that is full time, so I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. MOTIONS 1408 MOTIONS Prime Minister 1408 15:12 Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P Curtin I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Curtin from moving the following motion forthwith: That the Prime Minister explain to the House and to the Australian people why she should continue to hold the office of Prime Minister, an office she has debased in the manner in which she came to it, in her handling of the Craig Thomson affair, in the contradictions that riddle her explanation of the role her staff played in the Australia Day riot and in her deception of the Australian people before the 2010 election over the introduction of the carbon tax, gambling reform, means testing the private health insurance rebate and operating an open and transparent government. The office of Prime Minister comes with great responsibility, and the person who holds that office must have integrity, honesty, competence and good judgment. Standing orders must be suspended because this Prime Minister has so debased the highest office in the land, and her government is in such turmoil as a result, this motion must be debated. The Prime Minister lacks the fundamental qualities that a Prime Minister, the pinnacle of government, demands, and without integrity, without honesty, without competence and without good judgment in the Prime Minister this government cannot function. Standing orders must be suspended to debate this motion. Cabinet ministers are spending their evenings with Labor backbenchers counting numbers, tallying up the columns of names and not running the country. One of the great burdens that falls upon the shoulders of any Prime Minister is to be the custodian of our parliamentary system and to ensure that the bonds of trust between the parliament and the voting public are not broken. I can assure the member for Griffith that he has the vote of the Chief Government Whip. The Prime Minister has monumentally failed in that task, and that is why standing orders must be suspended. The Prime Minister betrayed the trust of the former Prime Minister when she was his deputy. The Prime Minister betrayed the trust of the member for Denison. But, most grievously, the Prime Minister has betrayed the trust of the Australian people. The conduct of this Prime Minister makes it clear that she has little regard for the truth and thus that she holds the Australian public in contempt. That is why standing orders must be suspended. There have been new revelations overnight about this Prime Minister's conduct which require standing orders to be suspended so we can debate my substantive motion. The Prime Minister cannot on the one hand express noble sentiments, such as those in her fine Closing the Gap address this morning, while presiding over a culture within her office so squalid that they saw fit to incite the Aboriginal tent embassy protesters on Australia Day, to attempt to use Aboriginal people in a tawdry, deceitful fashion. Mr Albanese R36 On a point of order, Mr Speaker: you made a ruling the other day that people actually had to speak to the suspension. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is speaking to the substance of the motion—a motion she has no chance of getting the numbers for. The SPEAKER 0V5 I have been listening very carefully to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. While at times she almost seems to be leaving the substance of the motion, she does come back to why standing and sessional orders should be suspended. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will continue to address the motion before the chair. Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P Standing orders must be suspended because of the revelations overnight about the squalid culture in the Prime Minister's office, about how they sought to use Aboriginal people for tawdry, deceitful purposes. That sort of culture has no place in any public office, let alone the office of the Prime Minister. That is why standing orders must be suspended. To compound the error, this wretched series of events surrounding Australia Day, the Prime Minister gave a press conference—and that is the subject of the motion we propose to debate—to explain how and why this Aboriginal tent embassy protest came about. That public explanation by the Prime Minister now appears to be false. The Prime Minister was given the opportunity in question time today to correct the public record. The Prime Minister has relied in this House on the transcript of Ms Kim Sattler, but there is a contradiction between the transcript the Prime Minister relied upon and the actual words spoken by Ms Sattler. And the Prime Minister has refused to correct the record. That is why standing orders must be suspended—because this Prime Minister must explain to the House and to the Australian people why she has conducted herself in this way, so debasing the high office of Prime Minister. Take, for example, the fantasy the Prime Minister has invented about her conduct during the overthrow of the former Prime Minister. Standing orders should be suspended to debate the new revelations about that matter. This Prime Minister would have us believe that she was the reluctant candidate, drafted against her will into the challenge that she did not want to mount. This is important and it is why standing orders must be suspended—because the Australian people were deeply unsettled by the unprecedented removal of the former Prime Minister and they have been given no plausible explanation except naked, ruthless ambition. The problem for this Prime Minister is that her own colleagues and ministers are contradicting her version of events—a version of events invented by the Prime Minister and given to the public but which is the opposite of what actually happened. That is why cabinet ministers have been doing the numbers overnight. Standing orders must be suspended as there are fresh revelations reflecting on the Prime Minister which must be debated. Her office was drafting an acceptance speech for when she became Prime Minister at least two weeks prior to the challenge, yet the Prime Minister wants the public to believe that she knew nothing about the plot or the challenge that she was about to make. The US Secretary of State knew about the challenge two weeks before it occurred. The Australian ambassador in Washington was called in to give assurances to the United States that there would be no destabilisation of the relationship when there was a change of leader. Mr Slipper 0V5 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will return to the substance of the motion. Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P This is a very serious allegation and that is why standing orders must be suspended—so that this issue of national security can be debated and so the Prime Minister can explain to the House how it is that she did not know her office was in fact drafting her acceptance speech. I wonder if they are now in there drafting her concession speech. The Prime Minister also said that she did not know that there was polling showing that she was the preferred Prime Minister over the then Prime Minister. Yet we now find from revelations overnight that the very person who was seeking to replace the former Prime Minister was personally campaigning and lobbying other members of her frontbench and backbench with that very same polling which was so damaging to the then Prime Minister and supportive of her campaign for the job. But the Australian people have been told that she did not have any recollection of these momentous events— The SPEAKER 0V5 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will return to the substance of the motion. Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P and that is why standing orders must be suspended—because the truth is slowly and painfully being revealed by the Prime Minister's own colleagues. It is becoming obvious to all that the Prime Minister was up to her eyeballs in the coup to remove the former Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister should simply come into this House and tell the truth. What was her role in the removal of the Prime Minister? Did she know about the polling? She was handing it around. Did she know about the speech? The ambassador in Washington knew and the US Secretary of State knew. We know that the member for Denison holds in his hands a signed contract with the Prime Minister, the contract which supported the formation of this minority government and allowed this Prime Minister to remain in office. That contract turned to dust with no apology for the monumental deception played upon the member for Denison—and that is why standing orders must be suspended. The Prime Minister led the member for Denison on for months. And then there was the most blatant betrayal of the Australian people—the promise that there would be no carbon tax under a government she led. These events are themselves serious enough to warrant a suspension of standing orders, a condemnation and censure, but of equal or greater concern is that the Prime Minister believes it is proper conduct to seek to mislead the Australian people with her improbable, implausible, disingenuous, unbelievable explanations and excuses. The devious conduct and personal behaviour of this Prime Minister calls into question her fitness to hold office. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 0V5 Is the motion seconded? 15:22 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies I second the motion. Standing orders should be suspended here and now because there is a death stench hanging over the Prime Minister of this nation. The standing orders should be suspended here and now because we have a Prime Minister who is evading question after question when she ought to have the courage to come into this place and face up and answer questions which are in the public interest and about the good government of this nation. That is why standing orders ought to be suspended. We have seen a progressive pattern of denial from this Prime Minister. For example, take the denial on Four Corners on Monday night, when she was asked whether she knew that a speech was being written by people in her office. A clear enough question: did she know that a speech was being written by people in her office. What was the answer? The answer from the Prime Minister on Four Corners on Monday night was: … I did not ask for a speech to be prepared … This is perfection of the non-denial denial. That is what we have from this Prime Minister. She got a direct question, 'Did she know something?' and she said: … I did not ask for a speech to be prepared … When she was pressed by the interviewer, Andrew Fowler, she said, 'That's the best answer I can give.' Anybody in Australia who has been following this debate knows that the reality is that we have the most evasive Prime Minister who has ever occupied that chair in this parliament. It is a disgrace to the office of Prime Minister that we have such a cowardly person in it and that is why standing orders need to be suspended. This is such a cowardly person that she will not come into this chamber and face up to the questions that are being legitimately asked about the administration of her office and therefore the good government of this country. When it comes to these issues about what actually occurred, there are only two possible explanations—and remember, this was the most important issue that was running that day. The first explanation is that before all this occurred it was totally hidden from the Prime Minister. It was the most important issue of the day. She was going to the Lobby restaurant, something that would occupy not only her advisers but her chief of staff and her communications director—her media advisers—and somehow all of those people in her office hid this from the Prime Minister. We know from what has been slowly forced out over the days since then is that these people knew about what was happening. Standing orders should be suspended because either all the senior people in the Prime Minister's office were out on a frolic of their own, totally unknown by the Prime Minister, or the Prime Minister actually knew what was going on. These are legitimate questions and that is why standing orders should be suspended. These are legitimate questions that should be answered in this parliament. They should be answered in front of the people of Australia who watch and listen to these proceedings in question time each day. Yet what do we have? Day after day, we see total evasion by the Prime Minister. Mr Albanese interjecting— Mr ANDREWS HK5 The Leader of the House complains about another move to suspend standing orders. We would not have to do this if we had a government who had the courage to come in here and answer the questions. So do not give us this nonsense, leader of the opposition—Leader of the House, I mean. He maybe leader of the opposition one day, but we do not know about that. But what we do know is that this total evasion, which is going on day after day, is demeaning the office of Prime Minister. In this country we now have a Prime Minister whose credibility has been totally shredded not only over this issue but over the abandonment of the promise that she made to the member for Denison and a whole series of other issues. That is why standing orders should be suspended on this occasion: so that this Prime Minister can answer the questions that are being asked. If the government think that by running away from this, by evading it, the questions are not going to continue to be asked then they are sadly mistaken. These are legitimate questions that demand legitimate answers, rather than the cowardly behaviour and performance that we continue to have from this Prime Minister. 15:27 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler There is some irony in the Deputy Leader of the Opposition contributing to this debate given the content of her speech. She gave a speech about loyalty. She knows; she has been loyal to all three leaders she has been deputy to—Brendan Nelson, Malcolm Turnbull and Tony Abbott, and I am sure there will be more to come. We also heard about loyalty from the Leader of the Opposition. Ask Peter Reith about loyalty from the Leader of the Opposition, who put in him in a ballot, asked him to run and then ratted on him in the ballot—on TV. And he has the hide to come in here and run lectures about loyalty. This suspension of standing orders is the 39th attempted suspension of standing orders from those opposite. That in itself tells you why we should not suspend standing orders. The suspension of standing orders or a censure resolution is a mechanism available under parliamentary procedures for serious issues on serious occasions, not to be used every single day, as those opposite do, because, quite frankly, they cannot get their act together to get a decent question time pack out of their tactics committee. We know that that is the case because their tactics committee is bigger than their frontbench, and we know that they have 32 on their frontbench because two of them are currently scrambling around hoping they will make the top 30, given the legislation put forward to provide salaries for 30 shadow ministers not the 32 under the Howard government legislation. What we have seen here today is a bid by the member for Menzies to make the top 30. What we have seen from the member for Mackellar is the raising of points of order to see if she can make the top 30. We know that those opposite have got an ambitious backbench. We know that the member for Higgins and the member for Mayo and all of the others are scrambling to get into that top 30—they are hanging on. It is extraordinary that we have had from those opposite a suggestion to suspend standing orders on matters that are erroneous. What we see from those opposite, day after day in debates on legislation, is an attempt to scare workers and their families. We know what the CEO of Alcoa has said about Point Henry and about the future of that plant. But there is no factory and there is no work site—particularly in Queanbeyan, for the member for Eden-Monaro—that the Leader of the Opposition is not prepared to go to and run a scare campaign. This parliament should be about serious issues. We had it this morning with the private health insurance legislation, this afternoon we will be debating the ABCC legislation and we have question time available to people. The most serious thing that has happened today was about righting a historic wrong: the Closing the Gap statement by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Both of them are sincerely committed to making a difference when it comes to Indigenous Australians, as is the parliament as a whole. But what we saw today after the Closing the Gap statement, when the member for Franklin was on her feet answering a question about Indigenous employment, was an ongoing chant from a senior member of the opposition of 'Boring!' The SPEAKER 0V5 The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The honourable member for Menzies, presumably on a point of order— Mr Andrews HK5 Mr Speaker, I rise to draw your attention to the motion. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will direct himself to the motion before the chair. Mr ALBANESE R36 I am directing my remarks to the sorts of issues that we should be discussing in this parliament rather than moving these daily suspensions of standing orders. Question time is continually interrupted by those opposite to move suspensions of standing orders. We heard a question about the Maldives yesterday from the shadow minister for foreign affairs, who has moved this motion, attempting to make a joke of what is a very serious international issue. This is from the party that a few weeks ago were making jokes about the Costa Concordia disaster—they thought that was an appropriate comment to make on radio in Adelaide. That is the sort of moral standard that we get from those opposite. The SPEAKER 0V5 The Leader of the House will resume his seat. I call on the honourable member for Cowper on a point of order. Mr Hartsuyker 00AMM Mr Speaker, this is a motion for the suspension of standing orders and I would ask you to draw the speaker back to the topic. The SPEAKER 0V5 The Leader of the House is referring to the motion. I think what he is talking about are the issues that the parliament should be talking about and which it could talk about if the motion for suspension of standing orders is not carried. The leader has the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 There is a little green book called the House of Representatives Standing and Sessional Orders and there is a big book called the House of Representatives Practice. I suggest that just once some of their senior people have a look at them because I am perfectly relevant in talking about what this parliament should be discussing. Those opposite want to have a discussion about honesty and issues relating to the concerns they have which are all just about politics. You never hear from those opposite a concern about the economy, a genuine concern about jobs and employment, a genuine concern about fairness and equity, a genuine concern about the policy debates before the parliament. We saw it today with the passing of the private health insurance legislation. Those opposite now have to declare whether they will repeal that legislation and therefore add to their $70 billion black hole. My attention is drawn to an op-ed piece by the now Leader of the Opposition, who had this to say in the Australian on 24 July 2009: Opposition, by contrast, tends to be a permanent debating society because even the most final decisions can sometimes be revisited in office. There you have their principle in writing—you know you cannot trust him unless it is in writing—'Don't worry about anything that is said.' The SPEAKER 0V5 The Leader of the House will return to the substance of the motion. Mr ALBANESE R36 I certainly will, Mr Speaker, because these are the sorts of issues that we could be discussing in alternate circumstances. So far today, those opposite have made three attempts to shut me down in the debate. They had 10 minutes and they had five minutes but they cannot cop 10 minutes in reply. When it comes to a one-on-one debate, anyone on this side versus anyone on that side, they lose. In any debate there is simply no substance from those opposite. We know that they choose to oppose no matter what issue is before us. They come in here and try to assassinate the Prime Minister's character. Their only policy position is to talk down the economy and to talk down Australia, except when they are overseas and then the Leader of the Opposition acknowledges that Australia is the envy of the world. We are not going to cop lectures from someone who is prepared to make jokes about the Italian cruise liner or from someone who was prepared to bag Bernie Banton, the asbestos campaigner, when he was on his death bed. Mr Hartsuyker 00AMM Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This speech is irrelevant to the subject of the motion before the House. The SPEAKER 0V5 The Leader of the House has the call and will be completely relevant in the 35 seconds he has left. Mr ALBANESE R36 Then there was the great comment about John Brogden when the Leader of the Opposition said, 'If we did that, we'd be as dead as the former Liberal leader's political prospects.' We are not going to cop lectures from those opposite, who have no morals, no political strategy and no economic policy for the nation. What we see in here— The SPEAKER 0V5 Order! The Leader of the House will withdraw the statement that members opposite have no morals. Mr ALBANESE R36 I withdraw, Mr Speaker. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 0V5 The question before the chair is that the motion for suspension of standing and sessional orders moved by the Hon. the Deputy Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.  

The House divided. [15:42]
(The Speaker—Hon. Peter Slipper)

68 AYES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Baldwin, RC Billson, BF Bishop, BK Bishop, JI Briggs, JE Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Cobb, JK Coulton, M (teller) Crook, AJ Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Fletcher, PW Forrest, JA Frydenberg, JA Gambaro, T Gash, J Griggs, NL Haase, BW Hartsuyker, L Hawke, AG Hockey, JB Hunt, GA Jensen, DG Jones, ET Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Ley, SP Macfarlane, IE Marino, NB Markus, LE Matheson, RG Mirabella, S Morrison, SJ Moylan, JE Neville, PC O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Prentice, J Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE Randall, DJ Robb, AJ Roy, WB Ruddock, PM Schultz, AJ Scott, BC Secker, PD (teller) Simpkins, LXL Smith, ADH Southcott, AJ Stone, SN Tehan, DT Truss, WE Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Washer, MJ Wyatt, KG 71 NOES Adams, DGH Albanese, AN Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Bradbury, DJ Brodtmann, G Burke, AE Burke, AS Butler, MC Byrne, AM Champion, ND Cheeseman, DL Clare, JD Collins, JM Combet, GI Crean, SF Danby, M D'Ath, YM Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Emerson, CA Ferguson, LDT Ferguson, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Garrett, PR Georganas, S Gibbons, SW Gillard, JE Gray, G Grierson, SJ Griffin, AP Hall, JG (teller) Hayes, CP Husic, EN (teller) Jenkins, HA Jones, SP Kelly, MJ King, CF Leigh, AK Livermore, KF Lyons, GR Macklin, JL Marles, RD McClelland, RB Mitchell, RG Murphy, JP Neumann, SK Oakeshott, RJM O'Connor, BPJ O'Neill, DM Owens, J Parke, M Plibersek, TJ Ripoll, BF Rishworth, AL Roxon, NL Rudd, KM Saffin, JA Shorten, WR Sidebottom, PS Smith, SF Smyth, L Swan, WM Symon, MS Thomson, CR Thomson, KJ Vamvakinou, M Windsor, AHC Zappia, A 3 PAIRS Irons, SJ Rowland, MA Robert, SR Snowdon, WE Somlyay, AM Melham,

Question negatived

 COMMITTEES 1415 COMMITTEES Selection Committee 1415 Report 1415 15:46 The SPEAKER 0V5 I present the Selection Committee's report No. 42 relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday, 27 February 2012. The report will be printed in the Hansard today and the determination of the committee will appear in the Notice Paper tomorrow. 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, 14 February 2012. 2. The committee determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business on Monday, 27 February 2012, 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 Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry Advisory report on the Wild Rivers (Environmental Management) Bill 2011 The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made — all statements to conclude by 10:15 a.m. Speech time limits — Mr Adams— 5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 5 mins] 2 Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Mining, Petroleum and Water Resources) Bill 2011 — Inquiry The Committee determined that statements on the inquiry may be made — all statements to conclude by 10:25 a.m. Speech time limits — Mr Adams— 5 minutes. Next Member speaking — 5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins] 3 Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity Report on the 2010-11 Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity Annual Report The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made — all statements to conclude by 10:30 a.m. Speech time limits — Ms Parke— 5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 5 mins] 4 Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Review of the Defence Annual Report 2009-2010 — Report The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made — all statements to conclude by 10:40 a.m. Speech time limits — Mr Danby— 5 minutes. Next Member speaking — 5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins] 5 Standing Committee on Health and Ageing Report on the inquiry into the registration processes and support for overseas trained doctors The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made — all statements to conclude by 10:50 a.m. Speech time limits — Mr Georganas— 5 minutes. Next Member speaking — 5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins] 6 Delegation report Report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 57th annual session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made — all statements to conclude by 11:00 a.m. Speech time limits — Mr Champion— 5 minutes. Next Member speaking — 5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins] PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Notices 1 MR BANDT: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Fair Work Act 2009, and for related purposes (Fair Work (Job Security and Fairer Bargaining) Amendment Bill2012)(Notice given 23 November 2011). Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41. 2 MR ABBOTT: To move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) the Fair Work Australia investigation into the Health Services Union and Member for Dobell commenced in 2009; (b) the investigation started with the Industrial Registrar in January 2009 and was taken over by Fair Work Australia when it commenced operation in June 2009; (c) Fair Work Australia representatives said the investigation would be completed by the end of 2011, with Fair Work Australia Director Terry Nassios telling a Senate Estimates committee in May 2011 that the investigation should be completed by 'the latter half of this year' and Bernadette O'Neill, the Acting General Manager, saying in October 2011 that 'Mr Nassios has advised me that he still expects to complete his investigations by the end of this year'; (d) the investigation remains ongoing despite an employee of the Australian Government Solicitor, Craig Rawson, being provided with a letter containing 'proposed findings' in December 2010; and (e) the investigation into the Health Services Union and the Member for Dobell has taken more than three years and is yet to be completed; and (2) calls on the Government to provide an assurance that there has been no political interference in the Fair Work Australia investigation into the Health Services Union and the Member for Dobell. (Notice given 14 February 2012). Time allotted — remaining private Members ' business time prior to 12 noon Speech time limits — Mr Abbott— 10 minutes. Next 3Members speaking — 10 minutes each. Other Members — 5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 10 mins + 2 x 5 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) PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Notices—continued 3 MR SECKER: To move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) Australia currently permits the import of orange juice concentrate from Brazil; (b) the United States has moved to ban imports of Brazilian orange juice concentrate due to traces of the fungicide Carbendazim being found in some juice concentrates from Brazil; (c) in January 2010, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) suspended some agricultural production uses of Carbendazim, including use on all citrus fruits; (d) in 2011 the APVMA completed its preliminary review finding of Carbendazim which has proposed removing many uses of this chemical; and (e) the APVMA has proposed a change to remove the Maximum Residue Limits in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code that permits Carbendazim residues in some foods, including citrus products; and (2) calls on the Government to instruct the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service to increase the testing on imported juice concentrate to ensure Carbendazim is not present at levels which risk public health. (Notice given 14February 2012). Time allotted — 50 minutes Speech time limits — Mr Secker— 10 minutes. Next Member speaking — 10 minutes. Other Members — 5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins + 6 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 4 MR RUDDOCK: To move: That this House: (1) express its deep regret at the death on 28 January 2012 of the late Most Venerable Thich Phuoc Hue OAM, the Spiritual Leader of the Phuoc Hue Buddhist Monastery and leader of the Vietnamese Buddhist community in Australia; (2) places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service; and (3) tenders its profound sympathy to the Vietnamese Buddhist community in its bereavement. (Notice given 8 February 2012). Time allotted — remaining private Members ' business time prior to 9.30 pm Speech time limits — Mr Ruddock— 10 minutes. Next Member speaking — 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 11 am to approx 1.30 pm) PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Notices 1 DR WASHER: To move: That the following standing order be added after standing order 31: 31A Automatic adjournment at 11 pm (a) Notwithstanding standing order 31, at 11 pm, unless otherwise ordered, the Speaker shall interrupt proceedings and adjourn the House until the time of its next meeting. (b) If there is a division in progress when proceedings are interrupted in accordance with paragraph that division, and any consequent division, shall be completed. (c) If business being debated is not disposed of when proceedings are interrupted in accordance with paragraph (a), the business shall be listed on the Notice Paper for the next sitting. (Notice given 7February 2012). Time allotted — 40 minutes Speech time limits — Dr Washer— 10 minutes. Next Member speaking — 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. Orders of the day 1 MARRIAGE AMENDMENT BILL 2012 (Mr S. P. Jones): Second reading (from 13February 2012) Time allotted — 60 minutes Speech time limits — Mr S. P. Jones— 10 minutes. Next 5 Members speaking — 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. Notices—continued 2 MR BANDT: To move: That this House: (1) resolves that a new Australian sovereign wealth fund should be established; and (2) requires the Treasurer to present to the House no later than 26 October 2012, a report from the Productivity Commission detailing options as to: (a) how the fund should be established; (b) the fund's revenue and expenditure; (c) the fund's objects and governance structures; and (d) any other relevant matters. (Notice given 7 February 2012). Time allotted — 30 minutes Speech time limits — Mr Bandt— 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 MS HALL: To move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) 29 February 2012 marks Teal Ribbon Day, which: (i) is part of the month long national campaign throughout February to raise awareness of the symptoms of ovarian cancer; or (ii) aims to raise awareness among Australian women of the symptoms of ovarian cancer; (b) more than 1200 Australian women will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer this year, and one in 77 will develop ovarian cancer in their lifetime; (2) notes with concern that: (a) the prognosis for women diagnosed with ovarian cancer is generally poor due to the advanced stage of most ovarian cancers at the time of diagnosis; and (b) over 800 women will lose their battle with ovarian cancer each year, equivalent to one woman every 11 hours; (3) acknowledges that there is no screening program or detection test for ovarian cancer, and that the Pap smear will not detect the disease; (4) recognises that: (a) ovarian cancer is not a silent disease and that all women experience symptoms, even in the early stages of the cancer; and (b) the four most common symptoms are: (i) abdominal or pelvic pain; (ii) increased abdominal size or persistent abdominal bloating; (iii) needing to urinate often or urgently; and (iv) difficulty eating or feeling full quickly; (5) understands that every Australian woman needs to know the symptoms of ovarian cancer; and (6) asks all Members to show their support by wearing a teal ribbon on Teal Ribbon Day. (Notice given 7February 2012). Time allotted — remaining private Members ' business time prior to approximately 1.30 pm Speech time limits — Ms Hall— 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. Items for Main Committee (approx 6.30 to 9 pm) PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Notices—continued 4 MR SCOTT: To move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) the Australian Year of the Farmer 2012 provides an opportunity to celebrate such achievements and to further strengthen the connections between rural and urban Australia; (b) Australian farming families play a vital role in our society and it is important that we all recognise how much farming affects our lives; (c) Australian farmers have a central role in delivering domestic and global food security; (d) Australian farming families and the associated agricultural industries are involved in producing, processing, handling and selling products from 136,000 farms across the country; and (e) Australian farms and the industries that support them generate more than $405 billion each year; and (2) calls on members of the House to recognise: (a) the Australian Year of the Farmer and the vital role that Australian farming families and their associated agricultural industries play in keeping our nation fed, clothed and sheltered; and (b) the significant contribution that Australian agriculture makes to the nation's economy. (Notice given 14 February 2012). Time allotted — 60 minutes Speech time limits — Mr Scott— 10 minutes. Next 3 Members speaking — 10 minutes each. Other Members — 5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 10 mins + 4 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 5 Ms Saffin: To move: That this House: (1) recognises, on 13 February 2012, the fourth anniversary of the apology to the Stolen Generations; (2) affirms the sentiment expressed by this House on 13 February 2008, as a significant step to build a new relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians and recognise the suffering caused by past injustices; (3) expresses its support for members of the Stolen Generations and for the activities happening across Australia on 13 February to mark the anniversary of the apology; (4) recognises the significant efforts of groups including the National Stolen Generations Alliance and the National Sorry Day Committee to support and work for the interests of members of the Stolen Generations; (5) notes the new special collection that will be established in the Parliamentary Library of historical documents presented by the National Sorry Day Committee, which documents our nation's shared journey toward reconciliation and the ongoing process of healing and justice for members of the Stolen Generations. (Notice given 9 February 2012). Time allotted — 20 minutes Speech time limits — Ms Saffin— 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. 6 MR OAKESHOTT: To move: That this House (1) supports the unanimous recommendations contained in the report of January 2012, titled 'Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution: Report of the Expert Panel' and (2) calls on the Prime Minister to hold a referendum on Saturday 24 November 2012 that will: (a) repeal section 25 of the Constitution; (b) repeal section 51 (xxvi) of the Constitution; and (c) contain a new section, 'section 51A' along the following lines: Section 51A Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples Recognising that the continent and its islands now known as Australia were first occupied by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; Acknowledging the continuing relationship of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with their traditional lands and waters; Respecting the continuing cultures, languages and heritage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; and Acknowledging the need to secure the advancement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; (3) proposes together, the repeal of section 51 (xxvi) and insertion of section 51A; (4) inserts a new section, 'section 116A', along the following lines: Section 116A Prohibition of racial discrimination (1) The Commonwealth, a State or a Territory shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, colour or ethnic or national origin. (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude the making of laws or measures for the purpose of overcoming disadvantage, ameliorating the effects of past discrimination, or protecting the cultures, languages or heritage of any group. (5) inserts a new section, 'section 127A', along the following lines: Section 127A Recognition of languages (1) The national language of the Commonwealth of Australia is English. (2) The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages are the original Australian languages, a part of our national heritage. (Notice given 8February 2012). Time allotted — 20 minutes Speech time limits — Mr Oakeshott— 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. 7 MR ZAPPIA : To move: That this House: (1) notes that the General Motors Holden plant in Elizabeth is an iconic South Australian industry directly employing around 2,500 people; (2) acknowledges the important contribution the General Motors Holden Elizabeth plant makes to the South Australian economy and to the broader Australian manufacturing industry; (3) recognises the importance of the visit to Detroit in January 2012 by the Minister for Manufacturing, Senator the Hon. Kim Carr, and South Australian Premier, the Hon. Jay Weatherill, in securing the long term future of the General Motors Holden Elizabeth plant, and commends both of them for their efforts in support of the jobs of thousands of South Australians; and (4) condemns the Coalition for the uncertainty being created by its policy to cut $500 million from the auto industry. (Notice given 8 February 2012). Time allotted — Remaining private Members ' business time prior to 9pm. Speech time limits — Mr Zappia— 10 minutes. Next Member speaking — 10 minutes. Other Members — 5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins + 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 – Wild Rivers (Environmental Management) Bill 2011 (Mr Abbott) Migration Legislation Amendment (The Bali Process) Bill 2012 (Mr Oakeshott) Gambling reform (Mr Oakeshott) Microbrewery refunds (Mr Oakeshott) Payment of GST revenues to local government (Mr Oakeshott). QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 1421 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Parliamentary Behaviour 1421 15:47 The SPEAKER 0V5 Would the member for Petrie resume her seat just for the moment. I ask the minister who is jacketless to leave the chamber—the minister will remain unnamed in Hansard. I ask honourable members to sit down or leave the chamber so that the due courtesies can be extended to the honourable member for Petrie, who has a question to me. 15:48 Mrs D'ATH HVN Petrie Mr Speaker, my question to you relates to the appropriate use of iPads in this chamber. I should say that I have no objection with iPads being available in this chamber—they assist members in fulfilling their various duties as elected members. However, this morning when the Prime Minister was making a statement on the Closing The Gap report I was in the gallery with one of my schools. The school students asked me why a member was playing solitaire on their iPad in the chamber. I believe that type of contact and use of iPads is disorderly in this chamber. 15:49 The SPEAKER 0V5 I advise the member for Petrie that while the playing of solitaire might not be a good use of time in the chamber, although some might say it is, it might not necessarily be a good thing for members to have people see them play solitaire. I do commend to the honourable member the contents of page 158 of House of Representatives Practice as it refers to the use of computers. Essentially, text messaging is permitted and notebook computers may be used for emails. I probably do not think that playing solitaire is beyond the standing orders, but I do not think it is necessarily a good use of technology in the House of Representatives of the Australian parliament. People who do play solitaire are obviously judged by those who can see them playing it. I imagine also that the result of the game would be obvious to those watching. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 1422 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Carbon Pricing 1422 15:00 The SPEAKER 0V5 I have received letters from the honourable member for Dunkley and the honourable member for Fraser proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46, I have selected the matter which, in my opinion, is the more urgent and important; that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Dunkley, namely: The adverse impact of the carbon tax on the business sector 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— 15:51 Mr BILLSON 1K6 Dunkley The adverse impact of a carbon tax on the business sector is undoubtedly the most compelling issue facing employers and those who are worrying about their financial security and the broader health and wellbeing of the Australian economy. It was not enough for the Australian public's confidence in the democratic process to be assaulted by the Prime Minister with her promise that 'there will be no carbon tax under a government' followed by her introduction of the very tax she had promised not to introduce. In addition to the damage to the public's confidence in the democratic process we are now seeing damage to the confidence of Australian consumers and damage to the Australian economy. I am sure we will hear from members opposite, who will say, 'Oh, there are the Libs and the Nats again talking about the business sector.' Mr Ian Macfarlane WN6 And the LNP. Mr BILLSON 1K6 And the LNP. It is an interesting point to emphasise that the business sector is the one that is providing the bulk of the jobs in the Australian economy. If we are not interested in the health and welfare of the business sector, we are not interested in the livelihoods of Australian families and the security and prospects of Australian businesses. But that is why the carbon tax is such a crucial issue for that important part of our community. We are talking about the mums and dads who run small businesses and family enterprises. We are talking about the employees who give of their skills and talents day in and day out in a workplace where those organisations have the spectre of the world's largest carbon tax hanging over their heads, threatening their survival. It is interesting to remind those who are listening that this carbon tax is like no other carbon tax that any other economy is facing. This carbon tax will generate revenue some 18 times the amount that is raised in Europe. Eighteen times the amount of financial burden on our economy is being imposed by this Gillard Labor government's carbon tax. It is worth remembering that the population of Europe is some 22 times the size of the Australian population. Here we have a tax 18 times the size in terms of its burden, impact and harm on the Australian economy compared to Europe, and yet Europe has 22 times the number of people. Put simply, the Australian carbon tax amounts to $400 per capita—$400 for everyone in the Australian continent—whereas the European carbon tax amounts to $1 each. We have a 400 times greater impact on the Australian economy through this carbon tax than is faced over in Europe, and the government is trying to tell the Australian public, 'Don't worry. It's happening in Europe. Everything will be okay.' But we know the Australian public have no confidence in what the government says. There is much evidence to justify their suspicions about these kinds of assurances. Let us look at what people are actually doing. At the present time Australian households are saving 13 per cent of their disposable household income, where just 18 months ago it was negative one per cent. People were actually adding to their personal debt. Thirteen per cent of household income is being saved. It is being saved because people are concerned and anxious. They are not convinced by what the government says and there is evidence, argument, insight and concern being raised day after day by those who create wealth and opportunity in this country that this government just continues to ignore. While you see the coalition go on about hope, reward and opportunity, this government is about hardship, risk, redistribution of wealth and obfuscation on the impact of its actions. That is the contrast that the Australian public is seeing. You do not have to go back too far to see the research. Interestingly, in the lead-up to the Queensland election the Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry surveyed 1,000 businesses in Queensland. Yesterday the Prime Minister tried to accuse the opposition of somehow creating and nurturing concern and anxiety. The message for the Prime Minister is that she has done plenty of that without any help from the opposition. Her government has created a great degree of uncertainty and concern about one particular issue, and that is the carbon tax. Have a look at the data: 94.6 per cent of businesses surveyed in Queensland are concerned about the carbon tax. That is an enormous proportion of those in the business community, not prompted or cajoled by the coalition but who of their own volition identified the carbon tax as a leading concern about their economic future, the vitality and viability of their businesses and the opportunity for them to succeed, to get ahead and to create job opportunities for those in their workforce. But that is not all. In fact, this polling calls on whoever is the next Queensland government to do all they can to take the fight to Canberra to see that this carbon tax is not introduced. They call it a 'tax trap'. They recognise that it will have an enormous detrimental impact on the Australian economy and also particularly on Queensland. It does not matter what region those survey results come from; it has carbon tax or higher energy costs as the biggest issue. It does not matter what sector of the economy those businesses come from. Again, their biggest concern is the carbon tax and increasing energy prices. The size of the business does not matter. This is still the biggest concern. This is why this survey report is calling on the government to scrap the implementation of the carbon tax, so that Queensland businesses have half a chance of finding their way through the murk, mist and smokescreen that is this government to try to forge a better future for themselves and their communities and to get ahead in this country. Also in that survey, 84.3 per cent of those surveyed are calling on whoever is the next state government in Queensland to urge the federal government to dump this dodgy tax. There is only one way that will happen and that is if there is an LNP result in Queensland because, as sure as night follows day, the state Labor Party will be in a headlock controlled by Canberra to make sure everyone is singing from the same hymn book. That singing ignores any of the messages coming from those people having to make big decisions about the future of our economy. We have seen it day after day and we all have felt the pain and the uncertainty about job losses in major employers, particularly in the energy intensive manufacturing area of our economy. We see that every day. Every day that is highly visible and we know the concerns of those people. I want to put on the table tonight something that is also happening every day but that is far less visible though still very raw in the Australian economy—and that is what is happening in the small business space. Small businesses and family enterprises are having to look at an employee who has been on their team or staff for years, knowing they have family and obligations—and they know this because they are a small business with a very personal relationship with and interest in the wellbeing of that person—and tell them that they do not have any more work for them, that they have to reduce their hours or that they have to wind back the opportunities for extra income from extra work. That is happening and it does not get attention. It does not get the attention that it deserves but it is happening right across the Australian continent. This is a very difficult environment that does not hit the headlines. The government come in with their own stories about what is happening with big employers with major layoffs. They do not even try to turn their minds to what is happening in terms of the atrophy in the economy of the small business and family enterprise sector—the 300,000 jobs that have been lost since this government was elected and the 14,500 fewer employees of small businesses we now have under Labor. The constant message is that the carbon tax is going to make the difficult economic situation even worse. There is a reason why the government does not want to talk about that—and that is because the government has airbrushed the experience and the impact of small business out of its policy-making process. This carbon tax is designed to offer no direct compensation to small business—none whatsoever. While you have got all these carve-outs and compensation arrangements that will see this carbon tax actually cost the budget more than it is going to bring in, there is nothing in there for the small business community. They are told to suck it up. They are told to just absorb it or pass it on to their consumers. Does anyone know a consumer that is just itching for a price rise? Has everyone ignored the fact that there are cost-of-living pressures in every Australian household? Cost-of-living pressures in business are cost-of-input pressures, and the small business community are being told by this tawdry government: 'Suck up the impact or pass it on.' When there is an opportunity for Minister Combet to address this issue directly, he ridicules the concern. I have pointed out that 19 out of 20 businesses in Queensland are horrified about this carbon tax, but apparently it is 'She'll be right; don't worry.' It is like the political equivalent of a flesh wound—when all of these businesses are terrified about the impact. When Minister Combet spoke at the Press Club, he ridiculed the concerns of the small business community. He said: 'Oh, it's all overstated. There's nothing to be worried about.' He went on to say that the electricity costs will only be a microscopic increase. But no-one believes him, and there has been no modelling done on the impact on individual small businesses in terms of their type, their supply chain, the energy that they use, the energy that is embedded in their inputs and the ability of the business to absorb that additional cost. No analysis has been done on that whatsoever. Yet Minister Combet stood up before the Australian National Press Club and said to the small business community: 'Hey, you've got no reason to be worried.' He said: A dry cleaner is not competing against dry cleaners in China. What a genius contribution that is! He went on to say: Drivers cannot get their cars serviced in India. He was trying to make the clumsy point that, whilst the countries with which we compete in many markets might not have a carbon tax, you cannot take your car over to them. Mr Tony Smith 00APG People won't get them serviced! Mr BILLSON 1K6 I thank my friend and colleague. What people will do is they will delay activity in those areas. You go and talk to any mechanic around Australia. Those scheduled services are not being done in quite the same way they were in the past. People are waiting till their car needs a repair before they go to the mechanic. You go and ask anybody who installs LPG, an investment that has a long-run benefit. But there is no need to do it right now—and people are simply not doing it. This government has created a hibernation climate for these small businesses, because the consumers they rely upon are anxious about their future, uncertain about the impact of a carbon tax and absolutely clear that you cannot trust the government about what they are saying the impact will be. So what does the dry-cleaner do? He does not get to see the customer quite so often. If people can put off that extra visit to the dry-cleaner, they will. If there is some other way—a hand wash perhaps, for a cardigan or a vest—they will use that, but they will not go to the dry-cleaners. This is happening right across our economy. This is why the small business community need a government that partners with them rather than punishes them. This is why we need the small business minister and ministers with responsibility for policies that have a profound impact on the viability and the future of small businesses to give a damn about what is happening in the small business community. They are copping it every which way from this government, and this is undermining employment in small businesses and it is undermining the very viability of those small businesses. You might hear the government say: 'We're going to give this little bit of help to this particular big industry.' Why? It is a big industry, it has got the ear of the big government, and the big unions are in there cheering for it. Well, we are here to reaffirm our support for the small businesses that are not organised into unions, that do not have the ear of this government. They can count on the coalition to partner with them in terms of their prosperity and their opportunities into the future. Let us have a look at what is actually playing out here. You will probably hear from those opposite: 'We've got all these compensation plans. It will all be just fine. It will all be peachy. Just ignore everything that is said by anybody who runs a business. Just ignore all of the analysis that's done. Ignore all the research and ignore all the impact work that's been done'—the research the government should have done but could not be bothered getting off its backside to do. You stand condemned for your indifference to the impact of your policies on the men and women in small business who are the backbone of our economy. They know what you know. They know that you do not care. They are not looking for you to do anything for them, because that would be the first time. What they are hoping for is a chance at their future, a chance not to get this dagger in their heart of a carbon tax that is a ridiculously implemented proposition that is nothing like anything else that is going on in the world and that will have a very profound impact on small businesses and family enterprises. They cannot rock up to their suppliers and say: 'Hey, I'm a big business. If you want to keep working with me, you just go and absorb that cost.' They do not have that market power. They cannot go to their energy company and say: 'You want to put your prices up by 10 per cent? No, no. I don't think we'll cop that, because we're a big business.' They cannot do that. So often, small business are price takers. So often, what they can afford to charge depends on what the import alternative might be. So often, they are at the pointy end of that difficult conversation between a consumer and someone providing the goods and services who has to say: 'This will cost this much.' They have to look in the eyes of those anxious consumers, who are uncertain about the competence of this government and wary about having confidence in the economy when the government cannot seem to manage its own affairs, let alone those of the nation. They have to be there when the decision is made: 'Maybe I'll just put that off.' They cannot run off to somebody and say, 'Gee, business is a bit grim. Oh, well, we'll just work a little bit slower. There's always scope that the boss will throw in more money.' They are the boss. They are the last person to be paid. They are the ones who come in on the weekend, looking for those opportunities. They are the ones who turn up for this nation. They drive innovation in this country. They create wealth and opportunity, and this Gillard government does not give a hoot about them. I am interested to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency has got to say. He was at a business conference in the Isaacs electorate with SEMMA. He visited them and tried to explain the carbon tax. When someone explained the punishing impact of the carbon tax on their energy-intensive business, he just dismissed it: 'Oh, that's not much money. It might make you broke, but that's tough. That's a bad choice for the business.' This is a bad government. (Time expired) 16:06 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I am always happy to speak on a matter of public importance that raises the government's plan for a clean energy future, because it is such a good plan. It is important to talk about the opportunities that will become available to Australian business as the economy transforms. I know that the member for Dunkley is interested, which is why he is staying to hear some details of the government's clean energy future plan— An opposition member: He's got nothing! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S The member for Dunkley was heard in silence! Mr DREYFUS HWG None of that would be apparent to anyone who was listening to the speech that we have just heard from the member for Dunkley because he did not actually go to any of the aspects of pricing carbon, any of the aspects of the actual Clean Energy Future plan. We have a plan which will cut pollution. It will drive investment in clean energy technologies and it will drive investment in infrastructure like solar, gas or wind. It will help build the clean energy future that future generations deserve. It will help our children and it will help our grandchildren. It is, of course, disappointing to have this important debate raised in the way that it has been, as—so we have heard from the member for Dunkley—a risk to the economy or as a risk to business. It is astounding to see the degree to which those on the other side of this chamber have wilfully perpetuated their own ignorance. They have deliberately ignored the benefits of the Clean Energy Future plan for what can only be described as reasons of base political expediency. It is shameful to see them engage in what can only be described as an all-out scare campaign for months and months and months, claiming that our policy will have a negative impact on the economy. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let me make this clear: our policy will help Australia take part in the global economy of the future. It will reduce our emissions and position Australia business for the development of the global low-carbon economy. It is not our policy that represents a grave risk to the Australian economy. Rather, it is the opportunistic, false and deliberately misleading campaign by those opposite—indeed, what I would describe as the grubbiest opposition in the history of Federation—that represents a risk to Australian business. It is a risk because it reduces business and consumer confidence. It is a risk because it undercuts certainty. It is what we have come to expect from this opposition: the talking down of the Australian economy. It is no wonder that some Australians at least are concerned about the pricing of carbon because of the way this opposition has misrepresented the government's plan, the way in which this opposition has represented the effects of pricing carbon and, indeed, the way this opposition continues to talk down the Australian economy. And, worse than this, it is the ongoing economic ineptitude of this opposition that, should they ever be elected to govern—and I hope that day never comes—which actually represents the biggest risk to the Australian economy and the biggest risk to Australian business. I say 'ongoing' because it has been for many, many months, going right back to the last election, that we have seen the economic ineptitude of this opposition demonstrated. I would go right back to an observation made by one of Australia's most respected journalists just after the last election. Writing in the Australian Financial Review on 3 September 2010, Laura Tingle said this: There are two possible explanations for how an opposition presenting itself as an alternative government could end up with an $11 billion hole in the cost of its election commitments. One is that they are liars, the other is that they are clunkheads. Actually, there is a third explanation: they are liars and clunkheads. But whatever the combination, they are not fit to govern. Nothing has changed since 3 September 2010. Nothing has changed since the opposition were caught out over the costings that they took to the Australian people at the time of the last election. They were caught out over an $11 billion hole in their costings produced by accountants who were later found to be guilty of professional misconduct. Nothing has changed except that they are now looking for cuts of $70 billion, not for cuts of $11 billion, and there is no explanation to the Australian people as to how they are going to produce those. Labor governments represent working families. We know that the best way to look after those working families is to manage the economy for jobs and growth. As a result of our stimulus during the global financial crisis—which those opposite opposed—Australia stands out around the industrialised world. We have low unemployment, we have solid growth, we have moderate inflation and we have massive business investment and low public debt. Our policy to move towards a clean energy future will not hurt the economy. Rather, it has been designed to ensure that we can continue to manage the economy in the interests of working families. Let me recap on what is at stake here and why the government must act on climate change and why we have put a price on carbon. There is clear consensus among climate scientists that climate change is real and will have significant future impacts if no action is taken to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. It is clearly in Australia's national interest to continue to work towards the international goal of limiting warming to below two degrees. To do this, it is imperative that we play a responsible role in international action and that we do so by taking strong action at home—which is something those opposite continually forget. That means we must actually reduce our emissions of carbon pollution into the atmosphere. Labor has a plan which is in line with expert opinion: a broadly based carbon price which directly creates incentives for businesses throughout the economy to reduce emissions and for all consumers to use energy more wisely. We are putting a price on carbon because we know this is the cheapest and most effective way to transition to a clean energy future. A low-carbon global economy is coming and it is up to us to decide whether we help Australian businesses to take advantage of this or simply bury our heads in the sand. The Clean Energy Future Plan is one of the most significant industry and innovation policies that this nation has ever seen. Over $15 billion will be invested in creating the jobs of tomorrow, most notably in manufacturing. Those opposite would have our industries stand still as our overseas competitors reduce their pollution intensity and get a head start in competing in the low-carbon global economy. And because we are the Labor Party, a party that represents working people, we are making sure that low- and middle-income earners receive assistance as we make these changes. Our tax cuts and increased payments through benefits and pensions are targeted at those who need them most. Labor will make sure that pensioners, low- and middle-income earners and families doing it tough are looked after. The rest of the world is acting, and if one needs any demonstration of that one has only to look at the agreement reached to go forward that was made at Durban last year. So the rest of the world is acting and our economy and our environment will be badly damaged unless Australia acts too. You would have to say that all of those opposite in the Liberal Party are in some kind of alternative universe, where they have wilfully divorced themselves from reality. We know that many of those opposite like to pretend that climate change is not happening. It is a bit like how they like to pretend when they talk about the economy that the global financial crisis did not happen. Back to climate change, they ignore the facts and the overwhelming weight of evidence from the scientific community that climate change is happening. Those opposite have cobbled together a policy—their so-called direct action policy—which they have no intention of ever pursuing, if they ever hold office. No-one should be fooled by this. This policy is not designed to reduce emissions; it is a policy that is only designed to give an appearance of action—just a fig-leaf appearance that the opposition do actually care about taking action on climate change. This so-called direct action plan—if you can call it a plan at all—involves the purchase of abatement of emissions at taxpayers' expense. It has been tried before and it has been found to be ineffective and very expensive. In fact, what the member for Dunkley should have faced up to when he spoke earlier was the analysis of the opposition's policies and its direct action plan by the department of climate change, which was provided in response to a question raised at Senate additional estimates, in February 2010. The analysis found that the plan would be unlikely to achieve more than 40 million tonnes of abatement in 2020, that it could not achieve the level of abatement at the costs claimed by the coalition and that an average cost of carbon of $50 per tonne in 2020 would be the minimum realistic average cost for such a program. That of course is well above the cost of the carbon price that the government has brought in. Families would be worse off under the plan that has been advanced by the opposition. You would have to pay $1,300 more in taxes and that money would be given by a coalition government straight to the big polluters. We have been debating this matter for years and it is time that the opposition put aside the mindless negativity that we have become accustomed to and let the rest of the country get on with it. I have very briefly advanced reasons regarding the hopelessness of the opposition's direct action plan. That was why John Howard—the leading light of the conservative political class in this country—thought that a direct action response was inadequate and why he went to the election in 2007 with an emissions trading plan. We need an explanation as to why it is that those opposite have abandoned the policies that their former Prime Minister, John Howard, took to the 2007 election. I just want to talk a little bit more about the absolutely shameful scare campaign that we are seeing from the opposition. We have had another instalment here today from the member for Dunkley. Australian consumers are already cautious in the wake of economic turmoil overseas. The last thing they need is the relentless, baseless and totally unprincipled scare campaign that is being run by those opposite at a time when global economic uncertainty is impacting on the savings of all Australians and when we have the Leader of the Opposition running around the country making patently false statements about the impact of the government's carbon price. We heard that the coal industry is doomed, only to read of record takeovers in the next day's newspapers. We note that there is investment of $80 billion in the coal industry in the pipeline, with 87 new mines either under construction or awaiting approval. We heard from the opposition that the steel industry will be wiped out, only to hear that the industry is comfortable with the government's Clean Energy Plan. We heard endless statements about 'unimaginable price impacts'—that is the sort of language that those opposite use—on businesses and consumers when, in reality, these impacts will be modest and when nine out of 10 households will receive assistance in the form of tax cuts or increased payments in pensions and benefits. Throughout this unprecedented scare campaign, the Leader of the Opposition has made it perfectly clear that he values his career over and above the wellbeing of those very Australians whom he claims to be fighting for. He has made it clear that he will say and do anything to get a headline. It is not possible that he is so economically illiterate that he believes what he is saying. Perhaps it is. Just last week a report by the Australian National Audit Office was tabled in parliament. The complete lack of concern by the opposition about facts when it comes to climate change and the carbon price now stands exposed. Last July Mr Abbott wrote to the Auditor-General asserting—and then immediately told the newspapers about his assertions—that there were factual inaccuracies in the government's campaign. That assertion was accompanied by banner headlines, which asserted these supposed inaccuracies in the government's advertising campaign. Last week, the report tabled by the Australian National Audit Office, found that all of the factual statements in the government's 'clean energy future' advertising campaign were supported by the evidence. That means that the opposition leader has, once again, been caught out misleading the public, as we have grown accustomed to in this campaign on the carbon price. The report showed, in direct terms, with a line-by-line analysis of the advertising, that the opposition leader's complaints had no substance. It showed that the opposition leader stands totally discredited in relation to just about everything that he has said about the carbon price, because it showed that the facts are that the carbon price will apply to around 500 of the largest polluters, that more than half of the revenue will be used to provide households with tax cuts, increases in family payments and higher pensions and benefits and that nine out of 10 households will receive assistance. Those were the things that the Leader of the Opposition attacked, and they have been endorsed and verified by the Auditor-General in the report tabled last week. (Time expired) 16:21 Mrs MIRABELLA 00AMU Indi It does not please me to follow such a disappointingly woeful and sleep-inducing performance from a particularly unconvincing parliamentary secretary. He did talk about being divorced from reality. Let me inform the House of an example of what it means to be divorced from reality when we talk about the carbon tax. The member for Isaacs occasionally speaks to some of the manufacturers in his electorate—and he has got a lot of them. He attended a meeting last year where he was asked a question by an entrepreneur, a businessperson who invests in manufacturing and who at the moment is experiencing wafer-thin profit margins, if any at all. The member for Isaacs, who is at the table, turns his back, of course, like he turns his back on those hardworking businesses and the people they employ in his own electorate. This businessperson said to the member for Isaacs, 'A carbon tax will increase my electricity bill and a carbon tax will make it very difficult for my business to be viable,' and he went on and explained that. What did the member for Isaacs—that great entrepreneur, with experience in running a business and putting all his money at risk to have a go in the free market—say? He said words to the effect of, 'Well, maybe you're in the wrong business.' So we have got a parliamentary secretary in the area of climate change and now industry—which is quite irrational—saying, 'We are going to impose all these additional government taxes and charges on you, including the carbon tax, and if you cannot be competitive because of those additional costs we have imposed upon you, well, you run a bad business model.' It is pathetic. That, my friend from Isaacs, is— Mr Dreyfus HWG Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, this is a patently false account of what I said at a meeting not attended by the member for Indi, patently false— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S The parliamentary secretary will resume his seat. He has other opportunities for this in the House. I will caution the member for Indi to not continue to reflect upon another member. Mrs Mirabella 00AMU To assist any member interested in this particular matter, I do have the video available; I am getting it converted to be available on YouTube for everyone to see an accurate and correct reflection of events. The government espouses all these benefits of the carbon tax. It is such a ridiculous proposition. If the carbon tax is so good for the jobs of tomorrow, then why don't you double it? Then we will have even more jobs! That is how illogical this actually is. The government talks about compensation for industry. Well, you only provide compensation when you injure someone. This carbon tax is intended to injure business, is intended to injure industry. It is particularly heinous because what we have done in this parliament is pass a tax before the rest of the world has done so. It is insane, absolutely insane, to penalise Australian businesses, to put extra lead in their saddlebags when they try to export overseas, competing against businesses that do not have the costs of a carbon tax imposed upon them. It is insane to penalise our businesses that compete with imported products, because those products are not exposed to a carbon tax. There is no other country that has a carbon tax of this nature, one that is intended to increase, to go up and up and up. This is why, fundamentally, the carbon tax is bad; it is disastrous for business, particularly in the manufacturing sphere, particularly for energy intensive businesses, because it goes to the heart of the competitiveness of those businesses. And there is no answer. As Graham Kraehe from BlueScope said, any compensation is 'like putting a bandaid on a bullet wound'. This is affecting all sorts of industries. The food and grocery manufacturers, who employ over 300,000 Australians, are labouring under extraordinary pressure. They have said that a carbon tax will be bad for Australian manufacturers. Kate Carnell, the recent 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. Further, she said: Products requiring the most energy to manufacture would see the biggest cost increases such as baked goods, dairy sugar and paper products like nappies. The Labor Party bleat and try to label us on this side as scaremongers because we merely oppose the carbon tax. Do they say the same thing about a whole list of industries and businesses who have condemned the carbon tax? Let us look at other trade exposed industries. We saw economic modelling showing that there would be a forced closure of eight coalmines and that $22 billion of exports would be forgone. We have seen Treasury's own modelling of the carbon tax show that the aluminium industry would be cut by more than a half by 2050. We have seen the shelved expansion of the refinery in Western Australia and we have seen the situation in Geelong, where the car industry is also affected. We saw independent modelling regarding the impact of the carbon tax on the car industry—an extra $460 million over 10 years. If this carbon tax is so great, why are all these industries saying, in one way or another, that a carbon tax is going to make them less competitive and that a carbon tax will make a difficult situation much, much worse? There are some further words of wisdom from Graham Kraehe, a great Australian with over 40 years experience in manufacturing. I hear some members on the other side laughing. Well, colleagues on the other side of the House, you actually do need business people to run businesses, to employ people and to increase the living standards and the economy of this nation. He has asked a very simple question: why is the government prepared to sacrifice a key sector of the Australian economy by introducing a carbon tax on Australian manufacturers, with little impact on world CO2 generation? What is being proposed is a system that will tax Australian made goods but will give importers of those same goods a competitive advantage, with no comparable tax payable. It could not have been said more eloquently and concisely. We see this right across the board. We see the pressure on the furniture, cabinet and joinery makers, who employ 137,000 people. They say that a carbon tax will further erode our competitive position, with no real effect on climate change. We see an impact on the tourism industry of $731 million. The government claims, bleats, that the carbon tax is good for Australian businesses and is setting us up for the future, but it is setting us up for failure. It is setting us up for more job losses, and they know it. That is why they are sneaking behind closed doors trying to keep certain businesses and industries sweet by saying, 'Look here, we'll throw you a bit more compensation money to make up for the injury we are causing you.' That is no way to run a government or an economy and it is no way to plan for the difficult economic months and years we have ahead. This government should stop listening to those lunatic greens and start listening to the people who make this country great: those businesses that employ great Australians. 16:31 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter I think those last few words from the member for Indi said it all about her contribution—all bluster, filling us all with complete falsehoods. When you have no argument the typical approach is to start telling those fibs. It was a shocking speech. I have just come from a meeting—it is a busy time of the afternoon for the Chief Government Whip, but I wanted to speak on this matter of public importance for some very good reasons. One of those reasons concerns the nature of my electorate, which is well known to have a substantial coal mining industry, a substantial power generation industry and a substantial aluminium industry. This gives me the opportunity to correct some of the falsehoods being promoted largely by the member for Indi, but no doubt as well by the member for Dunkley. The amazing thing about this debate is the total absence of any capacity at all on the part of the opposition to deal with some of the realities. We heard lots about the carbon price mechanism. We heard lots about alleged impacts on businesses. But we heard nothing about climate change and the need for governments to act. It is worth reminding ourselves that both the government and the opposition in this place have the same climate change policy. We are both committed to acting on climate change. Indeed, the opposition's carbon reduction targets are the same as those of the government. Yet I did not hear the member for Dunkley—I will stand corrected if needed—mention the opposition's policy at all. I certainly did not hear the member for Indi mention the opposition's policy. She blustered about the alleged impact on business but did not say anything about her own policy to reduce carbon emissions and the impact that might have on businesses. Direct Action will of course have an impact, just as our policy has impacts. But there are big differences. Their policy is to tax Australian families—more money—and use that money to fund carbon reduction programs within business, which will transfer wealth from families to big business to let them off the hook in terms of the efforts they must make to address climate change. I am challenging those on the other side who have not yet spoken but will make a contribution to this debate to start talking about their own policy, how it is gong to work and what impact it is going to have on Australian families. I will take it that, if none of them gets up and talks about their policy this evening, they no longer have one. We will be able to have a real debate in this place about climate change and carbon reduction and whether they are not opposed to doing anything at all. We welcome that debate, because we believe the scientific evidence is in and that it is overwhelming. We are concerned about a whole range of issues in environmental terms, including the Pacific islands that will no longer exist once sea levels rise to certain levels. Let us have that debate. If they are still committed to reducing carbon pollution let them get up in this place and explain how they intend to achieve it. At least the member for Dunkley devoted some time to business, and small business in particular, and I welcome that because we have been combatants on these issues in the past. It surprised me, though, that he did not go to the core issue—that is, the environmental issues—because he has a history in this. I have a speech here from right back in 1999 in which he devoted quite a bit of time in this place to talking about the need to make small businesses more efficient and reduce their environmental impact. He also spoke about the initiatives his government was taking. He referred to dry cleaners in particular. I was reminded of his speech when he used it in his own address just this afternoon. I am disappointed that the member for Dunkley was previously so dedicated to helping businesses to reduce their pollution footprint, yet he has now thrown that out of the window. I think the dry cleaning industry would be very disappointed indeed. But let us think about these alleged impacts on business. Take two of the government's biggest policies and achievements in this place—the mining tax and the carbon price. It delivers small business tax breaks—immediate write-offs of up to $5,000. They must be against this. It gives us infrastructure funding in the regions, where small businesses operate. You come to my region and you will know that one of the big issues for small business is basic community physical infrastructure, including road networks. It gives a company tax rate reduction. Is that not going to help big business? What about personal tax rates. What about the raising of the tax-free threshold. Is that not going to help people in unincorporated businesses, sole traders and partnerships? Are they not going to get a tax break? The estimated power price rise for a small business is about $5 a week. These same small businesses are getting multiple tax breaks. The member for Dunkley does not acknowledge any of this. They talk about the downside, as they see it, of this policy but they cannot be taken seriously if they are not prepared to talk about the upside, including the exemption of petrol from the scheme. We all know how important fuel costs are to both small and large businesses. You hear none of that from them. The big challenge for business in my electorate is the skills shortage. That is why we are investing literally billions of dollars in addressing that issue, through productivity, placement programs, trades training centres, increased TAFE funding and the Education Investment Fund. These are all things they oppose over on that side of the chamber. When I was representing the small business constituency I used to have a little phrase that I would use on almost every occasion when addressing them. It was, 'The best three things a government can do for business, and small business in particular, is to grow the economy, keep interest rates low and get out of the way.' That is exactly what this government has been doing. We have been growing the economy in the face of a global recession. We are the envy of the world. What more would you want to do for business than that? Wouldn't they just love to have our economy in Europe? Interest rates are still at historical lows, and we are reducing red tape on small business in this country. The member for Indi again repeated these claims that we are losing jobs in the coalmining industry. If you came to my electorate and said that—and I would love to see the member for Indi do it—they would laugh at her. They know it is simply not true. We do know that there was some coal industry modelling which suggested that under the carbon price the industry might not grow in job terms as fast over the next decade as it might have otherwise. The opposition have misused that data and turned it into a job losses proposition. But before they say, 'Jobs will not grow as fast,' that is a good thing in mining regions because the businesses that the member for Dunkley and the member for Indi were talking about cannot get people to work in their businesses. So this is a rebalancing of the model. They would be laughed at if they came to the Hunter electorate and made that statement. I will quickly finish on something local and close to my heart, and that is the aluminium industry. The aluminium industry is in trouble globally. Smelters right around the world are closing or are planning to close. Why is this happening? It is happening because aluminium prices are at record lows, particularly here in Australia because the Australian dollar is so high and input costs are rising. They would have you believe on the other side that they have got a solution to those problems. Of course they have not. And they would have you believe that it has something to do with the carbon price. Well we would be having a conversation about Hydro Aluminium in my electorate with or without a carbon price. Those on the other side understand that but they want to perpetrate this lie on the Australian community, including my own community, because they think there are votes in it. They would be better placed talking to the New South Wales government—their mates; and the member for Dunkley talked about state elections—about finally giving Hydro a decent electricity supply contract and the certainty that goes with it. (Time expired) 16:41 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson As much as the government would have us believe otherwise, the carbon tax will have an impact on business—it absolutely will. While it will be a negative impact on most, for others it will absolutely devastate them. There was a time when, despite all the noise that they make, the government actually accepted that there would be impacts. They once accepted that fact. I could go back to the grand architect, when the Labor Party paid Professor Ross Garnaut to do a report for them, and this was the forerunner of it. He said in that report: … imposing a carbon price in Australia ahead of similar carbon constraints in our trade competitors— Mr Champion interjecting— Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 If you will be quiet mate you will learn something. He said that it could result: … could result in some movement of emissions intensive, trade-exposed industries from Australia to other countries that impose less of a carbon constraint. That is from the guy who came up with the policy for this government. But look, your Prime Minister actually admitted it—that is, your current one; she might not be that next week. She said, 'It has price impacts.' It is meant to have price impacts, that is the whole point. Remember that one—'price impacts'? There was a reason why she admitted that there would be impacts. The government had put out so much spin that the carbon tax would not hurt anyone that people were starting to ask the question: 'What is the point of it. Why are we having this thing if there is no impact?' You know, 'If you put a price on something, then people will use less of it'—another quote from the Prime Minister. This Prime Minister, this Labor Party—this Labor-Greens alliance, I should say, and the motley crew of Independents—think that by increasing the cost of electricity that is going to solve everything. Let us go through some of the impacts on jobs and the impacts on businesses that this carbon tax will have. We have had a lot of talk about Alcoa and the government is desperate to say that there are going to be no impacts on Alcoa. It is a shame that the last member who spoke, who has aluminium in his electorate, is not here to listen to this. Alcoa has shelved a $3 billion expansion of a refinery in WA. An Alcoa spokesman said that the company would not return to the project until it understood the full impact of the $23 a tonne carbon tax. I quote further from Alan Cransberg of Alcoa, who said: I don't think there's anybody in the world who's going to put billions of dollars into the ground without understanding what are the rules for an ETS or a carbon tax. You want to look further at Alcoa's statements. Its director of government relations, Tim McAuliffe, spells it out for the government: Smelters use an enormous amount of power and the way the carbon pricing mechanism is structured, it assumes you will get carbon pass-through effectively at one tonne of carbon for every megawatt hour. You can't get power in Victoria at that intensity. I could go on to quote Deutsche Bank analyst Tim Jordan, who did an analysis of the Point Henry plant. He assumed that Point Henry operated at the average carbon intensity for Australian industry and he said the carbon price would add about $4 million to the smelter's costs in 2013. For all of the government's bleating and saying that they are going to help the workers at Alcoa and they are going to help the aluminium industry, they are not going to do anything of the sort. This was the plan all along. It is because of one thing: they are in bed with Bob Brown. Here was Bob Brown the other day saying: … this is an industry which I don't think has been investing wisely and the market does come into play, as indeed it is doing with the logging industry in Tasmania at the moment. This guy wants the aluminium industry shut down. The Greens have got a written agreement, a written alliance. He helped draft this carbon tax, the one that they have all signed up to. Let us go on to other parts of the aluminium industry. The Chairman of Rusal Australia, John Hannagan, said: Whatever anyone says about the carbon tax, it does have an impact. It does have a significant impact. The system being put in place for the carbon tax is really based on, I think, a very flawed assumption that our competitors are going to have similar or more aggressive carbon or energy policies attached to them. I could talk about Norsk Hydro with their plant at Kurri Kurri and reports that 2,000 of their jobs could disappear. That is in the member for Hunter's electorate, and he stood up here saying there would be no impact. The Chief Executive of the Federation of Automotive Products Manufacturers, Richard Reilly, said that continuing government help would be needed. But then he went on to say, 'We are going to be impacted by a carbon tax and our competitors overseas won't.' It is a bit of a case of Julia giveth but the carbon tax taketh away. There are jobs that are going to go in abattoirs around the region, and all of this was known from the start. I go back to what Professor Garnaut said: … imposing a carbon price in Australia ahead of similar constraints in our trade competitors … could result in some movement of emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries from Australia to other countries that impose less of a carbon constraint. Let us have a look at what other countries are doing. The Labor and Greens government are proposing $23 a tonne. The member for Herbert wants to see comparable schemes. In New Zealand the spot permits under its emissions-trading scheme actually rose by two per cent in the last fortnight to about A$6.38 a tonne. In Europe they are hoping for help this year because the prices have slumped to record lows. Guess how much—to $8.45 a tonne. The government was spruiking that China is now on board with carbon taxing, but it is putting in $1.59 a tonne. That is $1.59 compared with $23 a tonne. You guys have got to be kidding. Ross Garnaut, the government's own advisor, said that Australian industries would be destroyed if there was not comparable carbon pricing around the world. The chickens are coming home to roost. I could also talk about what small businesses are saying about this. Here is a document that over 70 chambers of commerce from Queensland have signed and sent to Julia Gillard on 21 June. It said: A carbon tax will flow through the economy affecting the price of all goods and services and increasing costs for all businesses including those without a direct carbon price liability. Trade exposed and small and medium-sized businesses have limited liability to pass these costs onto their customers and as such are at even greater risk of reduced business competiveness and viability. They begged the Prime Minister not to bring this in. I am particularly concerned, because Mackay is ground zero for the carbon tax. I have the mining industry in my electorate. I have the tourism industry in my electorate. I have agriculture, particularly sugar, in my electorate. All these industries will suffer under the carbon tax. Deloitte said that Mackay was going to be the hardest hit region in the hardest hit state. The last speaker wanted to know what we were going to do. I will give the members opposite a tip, a titbit, a heads up. When the election is finally called the Leader of the Opposition is going to stand up and is going to say, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead,' and the Australian people will believe him because we will mean it. We will remove the carbon tax that you introduced, that the Australian people are going to have to pay, that small business is going to have to suffer and that people are going to lose their jobs over. I say: shame, shame, shame to the government for bending over to the Greens and forcing this tax on the Australian people. 16:51 Mr RIPOLL 83E Oxley Can I say: hooray for the opposition! After nearly 12 years of debate in this House, 35 parliamentary inquiries and countless, almost infinite, number of words spoken on climate change, I have changed my mind—I am convinced! I have just heard the convincing words that we do not need to change. In fact, not only am I convinced, but climate change has ceased—that is it! It is all done; it is all said. Methinks climate change is fixed! The reality is that this MPI is just like every other MPI, every other bit of political claptrap that we have heard from the opposition. They come in here actually misleading people on what the facts are, on what they will do and on the impact of what we are trying to do, shirking their responsibilities in terms of the national interest and what is happening globally. Instead, they are interested in one thing, and we see it in here repeatedly, day after day: the political game, the political advantage. But, unfortunately for the opposition, you can play that game—you just have to introduce some facts. That has to be the bottom line for any debate: there at least has to be some facts you can underpin your argument with. You cannot come in here and not even make an argument but just read out other people's comments. There are plenty of other people's comments, but unfortunately they do not underpin the science, the facts or what this government is actually trying to do after more than 10 years of debate in this House, under consecutive governments, and 35 different parliamentary inquiries. I think the debate has been had, and I think we have actually passed the legislation. It is actually going to happen. Finally, there is a government with the courage to stand up and make it happen. And guess what? It is going to happen: we will take action, we will do something about climate change and about our competitive position in the world. Because if we do not do something, let me assure you there are 30 other countries doing something right now. You have a choice. You can either get with the program, get on board with what the rest of the world is doing, or end up in the ludicrous position that, for example, China find themselves in right now, where they refuse to pay the carbon price for flying their aircraft into Europe or the United States because they are going to be slugged with a penalty as they do not have a carbon price system. So they are now in this ludicrous position of having to make a decision: do they no longer fly their aircraft into Europe or the United States because they do not want to pay the penalty? Do we really believe in Australia that we are going to do the same thing? I do not think so. What we are doing is really clear; it is really simple. The 500 largest companies in this country have for more than 100 years been allowed to pollute the environment, the air and our rivers. If anyone does not believe me, have a think about it: where would big industry always set up their factories? Next to a river. Why was that? Because that was the natural sewer; that was where you dumped all the chemicals, the rubbish—the whole lot. But then we woke up one day and we said: there is actually a cost to doing that—a cost to society, to the environment and to us individually. So smart governments over the years introduced laws that said you cannot just dump all of your pollutants and rubbish into the river. And guess what? Then we woke up to air pollution. We said, 'You can't just dump it all into the air, you can't just dump it all into the environment; you have to do something.' And the same principle applies here. The 500 biggest polluters are now going to have to do one of two things: either clean up what they are spewing into the environment or pay a penalty for doing so where maybe they cannot do that as effectively. So what we are going to do is put an incentive in place so that these polluters do not do that any longer. From the revenue that is raised from the carbon tax we are going to do two things, which are very simple again. First, we are going to compensate average families and households—nine out of 10 households in Australia will get some compensation—because we understand that there is a cost and we are honest about it: because there is a cost, certain things will go up in price. But, let me tell you, it is a very small price. There have been a lot of issues made about, for example, how much a kilo of meat, say rump steak, will be under a carbon price. There has been some really good work done on this. It equates to just 1or 2 cents. When we take into account the normal fluctuations in given prices between different shops and outlets, and inflation, it is not a big burden to pay. But we will compensate families. The other part of the revenue that comes from the carbon price will go to something that I think is just as important, if not more important—as it is going to be the job creator, the future generator of jobs in this country—because it is about productivity, it is about innovation, it is about competitiveness. And that is because we are going to invest in R&D. We are going to invest in the future. We are going to make sure that, unlike the last 30 years, the next 30 years are going to be about future industries. And you can do that at the same time that you support existing jobs. I think that is a bit lost on the opposition. For them it is black and white, all or nothing. On this side we can actually walk and chew gum at the same time. We can be in a position where we are planning for the future and also supporting existing jobs. If we are going to talk about existing jobs in the aluminium industry, let us be honest about what is happening in the aluminium industry. We may live on an island but we are not in isolation from the rest of the world. What happens in Australia is not just linked to domestic markets; it is linked to global markets. There is a curious fact. Countries that have already introduced carbon pricing, carbon taxes, on the most polluting industries—of which we all accept aluminium is one—for example, Germany, have seen their aluminium industry grow. It has grown in size, in profitability—it has grown across the board. Why is that? Because the Germans understood that, if their economy was going to thrive and grow into the future, they needed to make the change, they needed to make the investments. There is one other little thing that really sets this off, and that is demand. There is a high demand for aluminium right across the planet. Unfortunately, Australia has two things working against us right now. First there is a high Australian dollar, at around 106/107 US cents, which is unfortunate for our exporters and for the aluminium industry. It is also unfortunate, as a matter of fact, that the price of aluminium has reduced sharply in recent years, which is putting a lot of pressure on our industry. So we have accepted all of those things and we are actually working with the industry. But, while I say all of that, you have to remember: this is before a carbon price comes in, this is before there is a carbon tax, this is before anything that the opposition is talking about has taken place. So we have already accepted the fact that there is some pain and some change—we have called them 'growing pains' in different sectors—but we are going to help and we are going to assist and we are going to do it through a number of packages. We are going to make sure we do not lose our manufacturing sector; that we do not lose our aluminium smelting sector; and that we support, underpin and invest in those jobs. And we have actually done something concrete about it—not just drafted a plan. We have actually put money on the table; we have passed legislation. What is curious, though, is that the other side talk about supporting jobs but they come in here and vote against jobs. They vote against the support packages. They vote against those workers, whom they are trying to frighten and scare—those families who are looking at their own industries and sectors and are unsure about where the future may take them. I would be unsure, too, if I continually heard on the radio members of the opposition, the shadow Treasurer and others, basically pooh-poohing their sector, carrying on like it is the end of the world and there will not be an aluminium smelting sector in Australia or any other manufacturing, when that is just not the case. This MPI is completely meaningless, except for the fact that it is a cheap political point-scoring exercise, because we have already passed all the legislation that needs to be passed. The opposition should now get on with the reality of life—start supporting industry, start supporting the legislation that we bring into this House that will actually support jobs, make sure that we have a strong and growth focused manufacturing sector by supporting the proposals that we are putting forward and make sure that they do not go out there and frighten industry and frighten workers. The opposition has made all sorts of baseless claims about jobs. I say baseless because there are no facts attached. They talk about jobs going because of the carbon price, but it has not come in yet. What is the cause of what is happening out in industry? I think it is pretty clear to everybody what it is. The coalition say they have a plan. I will be brief when listing their plan because it is not very complicated and it does very little. They call it the Direct Action Plan. It is really simple: they will directly charge consumers and every taxpayer $1,300 on average per household. That is the exact amount under the opposition's plan, which will cost around $13 billion in 2020. We are doing the opposite. We are saying that those who pollute ought to pay the price and those who will be impacted by it should be compensated. That is our plan. That is what we are going to do. That is what has been passed by the parliament and that is what will happen. People will be compensated for any extra costs they incur and it will mean that Australia will move on to a clean energy future, to jobs for the future and to industries for the future, industries that will survive under our plan. 17:01 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Let me at the outset take issue with the member for Oxley, who talked about compensation for the carbon tax. Why start talking about compensation if the carbon tax is such a good thing? The carbon tax is not going to do one thing for the environment. It is not going to decrease sea levels. It is not going to reduce global temperatures. If the carbon tax is such a good thing, why isn't every other country in the Western world doing it? The President of the United States of America, Barack Obama, did not make a commitment to a carbon tax when he came here. Why would he? America is in financial uncertainty at the moment. Europe is in meltdown. Carbon taxes are not on the radars or the agendas of those countries. The member for Oxley talked about the 500 biggest polluters that are going to be hit with a carbon tax. Labor denigrates the biggest polluters but they should be praising them because these so-called biggest polluters are in fact our biggest companies. They are producing things. They are making things. They are mining companies. They are abattoirs. They are doing a great job by making and producing things and moreover employing Australians, including many Australians in regional areas. It was only last week that we had the representatives from the abattoir industry here talking with members of parliament. They are deeply concerned about a carbon tax that they know is going to cost jobs and production. If the abattoirs go over 25,000 tonnes of emissions, they are going to have to reduce that so that they come in under that level and do not have to pay a carbon tax. They can do that either by stopping work or by reducing their throughput. Why would an abattoir want to close its doors and lay people off? Why would an abattoir want to put less stock through when people are hungry? That is what is going to happen under a carbon tax. I know the carbon tax is going to hit Regional Express airlines, based at Wagga Wagga, very severely. The airline industry is already squeezed by low return rates and low profits and the carbon tax is going to be a big hit on Regional Express. Regional Express is a linkage for people in metropolitan areas to come to regional Australia. It is also a vital link for people in regional Australia to go to metropolitan areas for all sorts of things, many of which are related to business and also health issues. Unfortunately, we do not always have the health services and the specialists available in regional areas. These people need to be able to get on aeroplanes to go to Sydney, Melbourne and other areas to consult specialists and this is going to have a big impact on them through the additional price that they are going to have to pay on their tickets. Perhaps less viable routes might even be looked at by Regional Express and other airlines. This is all due to the carbon tax or is certainly not helped by it at the very least. The next election will be a referendum on the carbon tax. The last one should have been. It could have been if the Prime Minister, five days out from the election, had not said, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' Had the Prime Minister been truthful and said, 'Yes, I will contemplate putting in a carbon tax' or 'Yes, unequivocally there will be a carbon tax under a government I lead' then maybe the vote would have been different. But the Labor Party was elected with the help of the regional Independents, the sell-out Independents, and the one Green member of the House of Representatives and on 24 February last year the Prime Minister announced that her government would introduce a carbon tax. As she announced it the Greens leader, the quasi Prime Minister, Senator Bob Brown, stood there front and centre, taking all the glory and the kudos for the fact that a carbon tax would be introduced. Let me tell you that the Greens are no friends of business. Certainly the Greens are no friends of regional Australia. They have shown that time and again. The next election will be a vote on the carbon tax. The 72 members of parliament who betrayed their communities by voting for the carbon tax will be condemned at the next election. Earlier in this matter of public importance discussion the member for Hunter said that people in his electorate, the coalminers and aluminium smelter workers, would laugh at the member for Indi for the comments that she made and the fact that she said that there would be job losses as a result of the carbon tax. He said they would laugh. Certainly no-one is laughing who has a job at the moment but perhaps will not have a job under the carbon tax. They certainly will not be laughing at the member for Hunter. In fact, they will be angry, just as people right across Australia are angry, that the Prime Minister went back on her word. They are angry that the Prime Minister's Labor people and the sell-out Independents and the Green voted in favour of a carbon tax that they were promised would not occur. The Prime Minister and the Labor government had no mandate for this legislation. Now it is in; unfortunately it is coming like a steam train, like a train wreck, on 1 July. The coalition will continue to fight this carbon tax. If elected, the coalition will repeal this carbon tax as the first order of business in the 44th Parliament. The opposition leader has said that. We have said time and again that we will repeal it, and we will. We will continue to fight the good fight against the carbon tax because we know in our heart of hearts that it is bad policy. Indeed, the member for Makin knows in his heart of hearts, and other members opposite know in their heart of hearts, that it is bad policy too. But to form government the Prime Minister has gone back on her word, as she has done in relation to the carbon tax and so many other things, including this morning the private health insurance rebate. She has gone back on her word and introduced things that she said unequivocally she would not introduce. If Labor attempts to block the scrapping of the carbon tax, we will go to a double dissolution election. That is on the record. Australians are already facing substantial cost-of-living pressures and the carbon tax will only have a very disadvantageous impact there. I know that in my own electorate of Riverina small businesses are very worried at the moment, not just because of the carbon tax but also because of the fact that water security is not there anymore. Fly over Griffith at the moment and, in contrast to a few short years ago, you see lush fields of green everywhere as the farmers are actively engaged in what they do best: food production. For the benefit of the House, farmers are people who till the soil to grow the food we eat. This year is the Australian Year of the Farmer. Farmers did not need a carbon tax to be foisted upon them in this their special year. It is an important year. Soon, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority will announce its plan. This follows previous ill-informed and misguided attempts in the authority's guide and then in its draft. A farmer at Griffith has made sure anyone flying overhead sees what he thinks of the authority's efforts to date. Hanwood's Steve Graham has ploughed 'Jam the Plan' into his paddock in letters large enough to see from the air. He said it is important to remind people that Griffith is not going to back down and that a united front is needed to ensure that this vibrant regional community not only survives but thrives into the future. That is the case with all communities in regional Australia, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott. I know that in your seat of Maranoa people do not want to just survive, they do not want to just hang on. They want to thrive. They deserve to thrive. They grow the food to feed this nation and to feed other nations as well. Mr Graham summed up the crux of the water issue when he said that people have a right to sell their water but that the third-party impact has locals worried. They are also worried about a carbon tax. And, as he added, the more water that is sold out of the area—out of any irrigation area—the higher the user fees faced by irrigators. The water issue is about food security, home-grown food availability, reasonable grocery costs and the sustaining of regional Australia. Grocery costs are going to go up and up under a carbon tax. Small businesses which are operating at the moment but which cannot compete with the big duopoly will see their costs go up and up. Their power costs are going to go up. Unfortunately, these days people are fighting cost-of-living pressures. They are extremely worried about the fact that they may not be able to fill their car as often as they used to. When those sorts of things happen parents stop taking their kids to sport and they stop taking their kids to the movies, and it has an impact upon the whole community. This carbon tax is not only going to have an impact on small business; it extends throughout the community and is going to have a huge impact on families. A bad water plan is not going to benefit the environment, and I and my Nationals colleagues will not in any way support any plan which will harm the people we represent. We certainly do not support a bad carbon tax. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 Order! The discussion has concluded. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 1442 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Syria and Iran 1442 17:12 Mr RUDD 83T Griffith by leave—I last updated this House on the situation in Syria one week ago. I regret to inform the House that what is happening in Syria is a crisis that continues to worsen, but international action is in fact strengthening. Latest developments The regime has been emboldened by lack of action by the United Nations Security Council. The attacks in Homs are ongoing. And a humanitarian crisis of tragic proportions is unfolding. On 12 February, at a session of the UN General Assembly convened to discuss the humanitarian situation in Syria, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said that tens of thousands had been arrested and 18,000 people are estimated to be held in arbitrary detention. The crisis has generated some 25,000 refugees, and 70,000 internally displaced persons, as I advised the House most recently. The HRC also went on to say: The failure of the Security Council to agree on firm collective action appears to have emboldened the Syrian government to plan an all-out assault in an effort to crush resistance with overwhelming force. Furthermore, the HRC stated through its commissioner: I am particularly appalled by the ongoing violence in Homs. The High Commissioner for Refugees confirmed that deaths and injuries are rising but that keeping track of the numbers of fatalities had become 'almost impossible'. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said: It is deplorable that the regime has escalated violence in cities across the country, including using artillery and tank fire against innocent civilians. We stand with the Syrian people and we are looking for a peaceful resolution. It is impossible for the international community to stand by and watch this violence continue to unfold without appropriate action. Here in Australia, last week I called in the Syrian Charge, Mr Jawdat Ali, to underline the Australian government's grave concerns about the worsening crisis in Syria and the ongoing bloodshed. I underlined that the Assad regime had lost its legitimacy fundamentally when it started deploying arms against its own people and that it was time for Assad to leave. I said this view was now virtually universal—as demonstrated not only by the UN Security Council vote, where 13 of the council's 15 members voted in support of the proposed resolution, but more importantly by the collective position of the Arab League itself. Evidence of violence, including the recent loss of life in Homs, is indisputable. It constitutes a growing tragedy. I told the chargé that the growing evidence of human rights abuses, possible war crimes and crimes against humanity, and torture and arbitrary detention was unacceptable to the international community. I told him that the message of the Australian government and people to the government of Syria was clear—Assad must find an exit strategy before the situation in Syria degenerates further and more lives are lost. The bloodshed must come to an end and there must be a peaceful, Syrian led political solution to this crisis. I also asked that the views of the government of Australia be conveyed directly to the Syrian government in Damascus, including to the foreign minister and to President Assad. Arab League The Arab League has been actively pursuing efforts to bring peace to Syria and to end the bloodshed—despite the lack of support on the part of some members of the UN Security Council. Members of the Arab League most recently met on 12 February in Cairo to discuss next steps. A resolution was adopted at this meeting: calling for the UNSC to create a joint peacekeeping force for Syria; calling for the UNSC to adopt a resolution providing for an immediate cease-fire in Syria, protection of civilians and overseeing a humanitarian effort for victims of the violence; demanding that regime forces lift the siege on neighbourhoods and villages and pull troops and their heavy weapons back to their barracks; calling for a halt to all diplomatic contact with Syria and for referring officials responsible for crimes against the Syrian people to international criminal tribunals; agreeing to step up economic sanctions; and agreeing to provide the Syrian opposition with financial and political support. I have signalled in the past, including in this place, Australia's strong support for the efforts of the Arab League. It has shown resolve and leadership to end the appalling bloodshed in Syria and to help lift the hand of oppression currently being held over the Syrian people by the Syrian regime. We owe it to the people of Syria and, through an act of solidarity with the Arab League, to likewise maintain our resolve and support as responsible members of the international community. Friends of Syria Last week I informed the House of Australia's prospective support for a possible international grouping of like-minded countries to gather in support of Syria. Since that time there has been progress. Australian embassies and high commissions around the world have been in contact with other countries conveying Australia's support for this important initiative. I am pleased to update the House that Tunisia now plans to host a Friends of Syria meeting on Friday, 24 February in its capital, Tunis. Australia plans to attend. The goals of this meeting are important: galvanise and coordinate international support for the people of Syria; encourage the provision of humanitarian assistance to the people of Syria; provide diplomatic support to the members of the Arab League; increase pressure on certain members of the UN Security Council to take action; and strengthen the voice of the international community for an end to this bloodshed. This I argue is fundamentally important given the failure of the UNSC to pass the most recent resolution before it. United Nations It remains to be seen how the UNSC decides to respond to the Arab League's call for help. The full membership of the UNSC must accept its responsibility to the people of Syria by listening to the unified voice of the world's Arab leaders. Russia and China need to reconsider their commitment to the Syrian people. Australia fully supports the UN General Assembly's efforts to bring forward a resolution on Syria this week. A General Assembly resolution has just been tabled by the government of Egypt, with the vote expected this week. Australia will co-sponsor this resolution with the government of Egypt. It reflects the resolution rejected by the UNSC calling for the Syrian government to end violence and to abide by the Arab League peace plan. Further action in the UNSC remains a possibility. The Arab League secretary general, with whom I have spoken within the last week or so, has maintained the view that despite the pressure on Syria, such as through sanctions, a parallel political track must continue. But the time for Assad to act and to take his opportunity to seek a peaceful, political resolution is now. Australia was one of the first countries to call for the situation in Syria to be referred to the International Criminal Court. Assad has the chance now to take the initiative himself to stand aside to allow an orderly process of reform and to initiate a process of inclusive dialogue; otherwise, the implications for Assad personally are dire. Consular Throughout this crisis, since protests began in March 2011, the Australian government has been closely monitoring impacts for our consular obligations. Our travel advice has been simply 'Do no travel', our highest level since April 2001. We urge Australians in Syria to depart now by commercial means while it is still possible to do so. There are 110 Australians registered as being in Syria, although there could be up to 300 actually in the country at any one time. We have been in repeated contact with registered Australians to remind them of the travel advice, and to confirm their safety. Iran Elsewhere in the Middle East, a different emerging crisis is attracting the increasing attention and concern of the international community. Here I refer to Iran's nuclear ambitions and the grave threat that it poses to regional and international stability. This threat is unacceptable for the peace and stability of the international community. The Iranian regime has continued to defy both its IAEA obligations and numerous UNSC resolutions. The conclusions of the International Atomic Energy Agency in its November 2011 report are absolutely clear. We are deeply concerned by Iran's decision to begin enrichment to near 20 per cent at its underground facility at Fordow near Qom. This is contrary to Iran's obligations under multiple UNSC and IAEA resolutions—and it takes Iran closer to having the capacity to produce weapons-grade uranium. So this clearly adds to our concern, and that of the region, that Iran is undertaking nuclear weapons related activities. Australia stands side by side with our partners in Europe and the US in strengthening our sanctions to underline to Tehran the need to comply with its international obligations and return to the negotiating table. Iran must immediately address international concerns regarding its nuclear program, take steps required by UNSC and IAEA and engage constructively with the international community. These are concerns that we have directly and repeatedly outlined to the government of Iran. The ball is in Iran's court to demonstrate that its nuclear program is purely for peaceful purposes. Let us have a look at some examples of where Iran has not met its international obligations. Both the IAEA and UNSC require Iran to suspend enrichment activities. But Iran continues to enrich uranium at Natanz and has recently commenced enrichment at a new underground facility at Qom. The UNSC requires Iran to suspend heavy-water related activities. But Iran continues to build the Arak heavy-water reactor, which is ideally suited to produce plutonium. Both the IAEA and UNSC require Iran to ratify and implement fully a safeguards additional protocol within the IAEA. Iran has failed to do so. On 11 February President Ahmadinejad announced Iran would soon unveil new nuclear achievements, and insisted Iran would never give up its uranium enrichment process. We are deeply concerned about the risk of escalation and miscalculation through actions and rhetoric such as Iran's threats to close the Straits of Hormuz, and its conduct of military exercises. The IAEA requires Iran to fully cooperate with the IAEA in resolving issues associated with nuclear weapons related activities. But Iran continues to claim there are no such activities and to argue that activities not involving actual nuclear material are outside the mandate of the IAEA. International diplomatic efforts The international community, with strong support from the government of Australia, has been doing what it can to encourage Iran to return to the negotiating table, to comply with international obligations and to be fully transparent about its nuclear program. Talks with the P5+1 in Istanbul in January last year collapsed after Iran refused to discuss confidence-building measures unless, from their perspective, preconditions were met which the international community deemed to be unacceptable. The P5+1 said afterwards that the door to dialogue remained open. The choice remained in Iran's hands. Later, in July 2011, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, who was recently in Australia, put forward a step-by-step approach under which Iran could address questions about its nuclear program, and the international community could, as a result, ease sanctions. In October 2011, EU foreign policy head Catherine Ashton sent a letter to Iran, requesting a resumption of talks. Iran, so far, has not responded formally. Most recently, the press reported that, on 18 January 2012, Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi said Iran was ready to restart talks in Turkey with the P5+1; that is, the UN Security Council five nuclear weapon states plus Germany. These talks have not yet begun. Australian Government's response There has been a substantial strengthening of EU, US, Canadian and Australian targeted financial sanctions and sanctions on the energy and petrochemical sectors to increase pressure on Iran to comply with its international obligations. Australia has robust sanctions in place to underline to Iran the need to comply with relevant UNSC and IAEA resolutions. Australia's trade with Iran has declined steeply in recent years as a result of the sanctions that we have imposed. As I said in January, Australia will implement additional sanctions parallel to those announced by the EU on 23 January, including the oil embargo. The international community must give Iran a consistent message that its current refusal to comply with UNSC resolutions, and refusal to cooperate with the IAEA, is unacceptable. Australia remains committed to seeking a resolution of the Iran nuclear issue through diplomatic negotiation, and we urge Iran to follow through on its announced readiness to restart talks with the P5+1. While Iran continues to state it is prepared to participate in fresh talks, we are yet to see this lead to any meaningful substantive negotiations. The peace, security and stability of the region, and more broadly, depend on such negotiations being conducted and being concluded successfully. I will be conveying this message to Tehran through Australia's Ambassador to Iran. I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Curtin to speak for 13½ minutes. Leave granted. Mr RUDD 83T I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Ms J I Bishop (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) speaking in reply to the ministerial statement for a period not exceeding 13½ minutes. Question agreed to. 17:26 Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P Curtin I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs for facilitating, via this ministerial statement, this opportunity to speak again to the House on the issue of Syria and also Iran. Since speaking on this issue previously I have had the opportunity to meet with the Syrian charge in my office and to express to him directly the views of the coalition, as articulated in my response to the ministerial statement last week. The world is rightly aghast at the ongoing violence in Syria. Ongoing reports of indiscriminate killing of unarmed civilians, including women and children, are abhorrent. There is a solution to this crisis. President Assad can order his troops to stop shooting and shelling the Syrian people. He does not need a United Nations Security Council resolution or, indeed, a General Assembly resolution to end the violence. He can step aside and allow a civilian government to form. However, the situation may have approached or gone beyond the point where a negotiated settlement is possible, due to the ongoing brutality of the Assad regime as it seeks to cling to power. There has been a serious escalation of the conflict in recent days, with the bombing of security compounds in the city of Aleppo and reports of 28 people killed. In the fog of this war the Assad regime has claimed the blasts were the work of so-called opposition terrorists, while opposition groups blame the regime itself. There have been further reports suggesting that al-Qaeda played a role in the attacks, although the truth may never be known. In addition, a senior military officer within the regime were shot dead outside his Damascus residence over the weekend, in a major breakdown of security within the regime's stronghold. This must have sent shock waves through an already volatile regime. Given the dire situation facing Syria, it is deeply troubling that Syria's al-Assad regime has 'categorically rejected' a resolution of the Arab League which would have allowed for the deployment of a peacekeeping mission to end the cycle of violence in the country. After voting with China to veto a United Nations Security Council resolution on Syria, Russia has once again undermined international efforts to put pressure on the regime. The European Union nations supported the Arab League plan, while Russia is reportedly of the view that peacekeepers should only be deployed after the violence has stopped. The Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sergei Lavrov, has reportedly made the claim that the main stumbling blocks to a ceasefire are the opposition groups in Syria, which he claims are out of control. While peacekeepers would generally only be deployed after a ceasefire has been brokered, this would arguably be much easier to achieve if there were a united effort to isolate the regime. This would require Russia and, in particular, Iran to halt all forms of support and supplies of arms. The Arab League has continued to show commendable leadership on this issue with its decision to suspend economic links with the Syrian regime. The fact that the regime fears a ceasefire appears to be indicative of its weakness, in that it fears any lessening of pressure on the Syrian people. This could confirm the assessment of Syrian military defector General Mustafa Ahmad al-Sheikh, who has claimed that the regime is close to collapse and has said: The situation is now very dangerous and threatens to explode across the whole region, like a nuclear reaction. China has continued to take a conciliatory line, with foreign ministry representative Liu Weimin reportedly saying: China hopes all relevant parties can keep dialogue and communication to play a positive and constructive role in politically resolving the Syrian issue and easing the country's tension. United Kingdom Foreign Secretary William Hague has also expressed concern about the deployment of Western forces to Syria, but did not rule out supporting a peacekeeping mission involving Arab League nations. He said: I don't see the way forward in Syria as being Western boots on the ground, in any form, including in peacekeeping form, but of course if such a concept could be made viable we will be supporting it in all the usual ways. While Russia has played the highly questionable role of spoiler in many efforts to achieve peace, the actions of Iran are more disturbing, with reports that hundreds of elite troops are on the ground in Syria. There is no way to know precisely whether these forces are directly involved in the crackdown on civilians, however it is safe to assume that they are providing logistical support at the very least. One thing is certain and that is that these forces are not working to bring peace to the nation and are acting in support of a regime that has lost all legitimacy to rule. These Iranian forces must be immediately withdrawn from Syria. Similarly, Russia must halt all arms sales and any other forms of economic cooperation with the regime. One complicating factor in recent days has been the attempted intervention of al-Qaeda, whose leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has released a video message in support of the uprising. The motivation of al-Qaeda is not clear, but we can safely assume it is not in support of the eventual formation of a democratic civilian government. It may be that al-Qaeda merely sees the opportunity to sow the seeds of chaos in the hope that it spreads beyond the borders of Syria and leads to an environment of greater lawlessness within which al-Qaeda can flourish. The solution to this violence is in the bloodied hands of President Assad, who must call a halt to the attacks and allow for the formation of a civilian government. In recent days, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, has described the situation in Syria as 'deplorable' and said the government had failed in one of its primary obligations, which is to protect its own people. The commissioner said: I am very distressed that the continued ruthless repression and deliberate stirring of sectarian tensions might soon plunge Syria into civil war. The longer the international community fails to take action, the more the civilian population will suffer from countless atrocities. While the situation in Syria adds to regional instability, Iran has been accused overnight of being behind attempted killings of Israeli diplomats in the Indian city of New Delhi and the capital of Georgia, Tbilisi. If true, this represents a serious escalation of the tensions between Iran and Israel. Israel has publicly accused Iran of orchestrating the attacks either through its proxy Hezbollah or directly through its own agents. Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is reportedly of the view: Iran is behind these attacks. It is the biggest exporter of terror in the world. Minister of Foreign Affairs Lieberman said overnight that Israel will not tolerate such attacks on its diplomats. While US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has condemned the attacks, the United States has not yet, at the time of speaking, identified Iran as the suspected culprit. Iran has denied any involvement. The attack in New Delhi has left a 42-year-old female diplomat in a critical condition and reportedly involved the attachment of a magnetic bomb to the outside of her vehicle. The attack in Georgia failed when the bomb was detected on the car before it detonated and was defused. The use of a magnetic bomb appears to be direct payback for the reported use of similar devices to assassinate Iranian scientists working on Iran's nuclear program. Tensions are rising rapidly in response to Iran's nuclear program as well as suspicions that it will lead to the development of a nuclear weapon. United States Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta recently said that he believed Israel would attack Iran, possibly within a couple of months. For Israelis, this is a question of their very survival, with the Iranian leadership regularly talking about wiping Israel off the map and worse. Iran's defence strategy has been to try and convince the United States and Israel that an attack would cost more than either nation is prepared to pay. The key issue at present is the threat that Iran will close the Strait of Hormuz to traffic for oil tankers, which would have serious implications for the global economy, with about one-third of seaborne traded oil passing through the strait. There are questions about Iran's ability to close the strait for any significant length of time, particularly with the United States Fifth Fleet based in the Persian Gulf at Bahrain. However, Iran claims to have large stockpiles of shipping mines and has developed a range of missiles that could be used against shipping traffic. Iran has conducted extensive naval exercises in the Persian Gulf to showcase its fleet of smaller fast boats equipped with torpedoes that could be used to threaten the larger US warships. While Iran would lack the ability to sustain open conflict against the United States for any length of time, there are fears that it has the capability to severely disrupt global oil supplies at a time when the world economy is particularly fragile. During recent discussions I have had with a number of international experts on strategic issues, concern was raised with me about the potential for an Israeli air strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. The concern was described as 'stepping onto the ladder of escalation' that could yield unpredictable results. The solution to these growing tensions lies with the government of Iran. It must comply with all requests of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which last November called for a progress report on compliance by next month. The IAEA board of governors also agreed to a resolution titled 'Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of the UN Security Council Resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran'. This resolution called on Iran to comply with all its obligations to the IAEA and to the conditions imposed by United Nations Security Council resolutions. While the IAEA board of governors continues to support a diplomatic solution to the problem of Iran's noncompliance, it is clear from the statements of Secretary Panetta that the United States believes the time is fast approaching when Israel may decide to launch a strike against Iran. The situation has not been helped by Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who said this week that he would be announcing further nuclear developments in coming days and weeks. That makes the issue of Iran's compliance critical to not only Iran and Israel but also the rest of the world. The coalition joins with the government in urging the Iranian leadership to meet all its obligations. It is imperative that Iran prove that its nuclear activities are only for peaceful and civilian purposes. That will require it to be open and transparent with IAEA inspectors to ensure it can adequately explain all its nuclear activities. Australia has continued to play its role with the international community to bring pressure to bear on the Iranian regime. A range of sanctions have been imposed since 2006, consistent with the requirements of the United Nations Security Council, but a range of autonomous sanctions have also been imposed. A comprehensive range of sanctions relate to arms sales, financial transactions, dealings with certain Iranian companies, travel bans and more. Iran's typical response has been belligerence, with threats to close the Strait of Hormuz and threats against Israel. The international community is motivated by the urgent need to find a peaceful resolution to this brewing crisis. The implications of military conflict are too terrible to contemplate and it is important that the international community continues to be united in its condemnation of Iran's provocative behaviour and united in efforts to ensure that Iran complies with their international obligations. BILLS 1449 BILLS Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011 1449

Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011

Second Reading 1449 17:38 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest I rise to speak on the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011. In spite of its title, this bill is not aimed at achieving sound reform, jobs growth or productivity improvements in an industry that is extremely important not only in my electorate of Forrest but right around the nation. The coalition are proud to support Australians who have a go, who take a risk, who invest and who employ people in small, medium and larger businesses. We believe that every Australian, whether an employer or an employee, deserves to be able go to their workplace and operate in a safe and lawful environment. However, in direct contrast, the Labor government, as indicated by this bill, does not believe that Australian business owners should have the right to run their own businesses. I suppose that is not really surprising. One only has to examine the power structure of the Labor Party to see who pulls the strings. When the current Prime Minister arbitrarily axed the previous Prime Minister, current union leaders boasted about their role in that axing. This is a very long way, unfortunately, from the historical union representation that has a long and originally proud history in this country of raising the standards for Australian workers. But this proud history has been corrupted by the politics of union leaders and Labor Party ambition. What started as a great push for workers' rights two centuries ago has become a fight for left-wing factional power and a platform for political rather than social ambition. That is the sad inheritance of the modern Labor Party and one of the main reasons that the union membership has plummeted in recent times. According to figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the proportion of employees who were trade union members in their main job decreased from 20 per cent in August 2009 to 18 per cent in August 2010. This represents a fall of 47,300. For the majority of the 20th century, however, at least 40 per cent of workers were covered by unions and some 20 years ago the figure was one in every two workers. However, instead of looking after the interests of those workers, a number of unions have been looking after an elitist left-wing level of union leaders and their political ambitions. Of course, not all unions have gone down this path and a number remain that genuinely have the interests of their members at heart. An example is the police union in my home state of Western Australia, which has a long history of member advocacy as its primary goal. Sadly, for some unions, this is no longer the case. As we look into history, the building industry specifically deserves very careful attention. I refer to the BLF, the Builders Labourers Federation. It took a royal commission to expose what this front-line union had become. The Winneke royal commission identified major problems with the actions of the BLF and as a result it was deregistered by the Hawke Labor government in 1986—this was a Labor government and a Labor leader deregistering the BLF. Members might think that, following the Winneke royal commission and the deregistration of the BLF in 1986, the construction sector unions would have altered their practices and the union would return to the role of looking after building workers in an open, honest and accountable manner. But how wrong those members would be. The 2003 building industry royal commission, conducted by the Hon. THR Cole, found that despite a corrupt history no lessons had been learned and no change was in evidence. The Cole Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry, 2001-03, was established by the Australian government to inquire into and report upon alleged misconduct in the building and construction industry in Australia. The commission articulated a case that the industry was characterised by lawlessness in the conduct of industrial relations. Our Parliamentary Library report on the Cole commission stated that: The industry was described by the Royal Commission as being characterised by widespread disregard for the rule of law. It found widespread use of inappropriate industrial pressure, disregard for enterprise bargaining and the freedom of association laws leading to unlawful strikes, as well as widespread use of 'inappropriate' payments. Thus: 31 individuals were referred for possible criminal prosecution 392 instances of unlawful conduct committed by individuals, unions and employers, which include 30 findings of unlawful conduct by employers mainly for strike pay breaches and freedom of association breaches, (i.e. that the employer agreed to a 'no ticket no start' policy operating at a site), and 25 different types of unlawful conduct and 90 types of inappropriate conduct. The construction industry in Western Australia specifically was described by the royal commission as being 'marred by unlawful and inappropriate conduct' with 'a culture of fear, intimidation, coercion and industrial unrest'. The royal commission made 230 findings of unlawful conduct in WA, the majority of which were against CFMEU officials and organisers for intimidation and threats of violence, breaches of FOA, secondary boycott and right-of-entry provisions, trespass and interference. CFMEU officials Kevin Reynolds and Joe McDonald are cited as repeat offenders. Sadly the BLF is not the only example of union focus shifting from looking after employees to seeking political power. However, it is probably only the most obvious. Here we are again debating industrial relations in the building industry. The bill before us is cloaked in Labor spin as one that targets the protection of workers. But we know the reality—that this bill is about union power over business owners and managers. We know that the Labor government does not believe that Australian business owners should have the right or freedom to run their own businesses. This is the real reason we are here and the real reason that Labor members are vocal in their support—not because they are looking after the interests of workers but because they are looking after, or appear to be looking after, the political interests of union leaders. After all, preselections are on the line. BLF secretary David Hanna was quoted in the Australian on 16 December 2011: Workers will continue to take whatever action, be it legal or illegal, to get their message across. No wonder members of the building and construction industry are concerned about the consequences of what is contained in this bill and what effect this will have on their ability to run their businesses and do the jobs they are there to do. This industry is important right across Australia. It employs one million Australians and contributes 10 per cent to our GDP. So any impacts will be felt right across our economy. What we saw in that statement may well be what is ahead, as a result of measures contained in this bill. As I said when I started this speech, every Australian, whether they are an employer or an employee, deserves to be able to go to their workplace and operate in a safe and lawful environment. I fear that members opposite do not support this. The Labor government is repeatedly punishing the people who have a go, who invest their own money, who borrow against their homes and who employ millions of Australians and are helping others to get ahead. There is now a widespread belief that this Labor government is anti-business. I am concerned that they will sacrifice hardworking business owners through policies like the ones in this bill, for the express purpose of enhancing the power of union leaders and definitely not with the aim of achieving sound reform, jobs growth, productivity improvements and economic growth. 17:49 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly on the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011. I have just listened to the member for Forrest. It is very easy to paint a one-sided view of a situation, as she has just done. I am sure workers in the construction industry around Australia would willingly come into this place and tell a story different from the one we have just heard from the member for Forrest. I am well aware that, in the Cole royal commission, their view was that their voice had not been properly heard. I am not in a position to judge that one way or the other but I am in a position to make the comment on their behalf that they felt they did not get a fair hearing. From the transcripts which are available, I believe the record will show that they are probably correct. I come back to some of the very issues related to this bill, to that commission and to the new legislation, which touch upon the very reasons this legislation is good legislation and the reasons this government believes in fairness for workers and industry across this country. I make this comment with respect to the comments by the member for Forrest and others when they talk about the influence of some of the unions, making allegations as to corruption or similar by people involved in them. It takes two parties to get involved in corrupt activity. It is not simply a one-sided affair. Yet when you look at the record, it appears that the focus is always towards one group only and that is the workers. I believe the extraordinary attack on workers' rights by the Howard government was a key factor in the ultimate downfall of the Howard government and in Prime Minister Howard's loss of his own seat. Like Prime Minister Stanley Bruce before him, who lost his seat in 1929, Prime Minister Howard had turned his back on Australian workers. Peter Reith's waterfront debacle of the late 1990s, the Work Choices legislation and the establishment of the Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commission were part of a warped ideology to turn back the clock on fair working conditions that had been hard won over decades of struggles and to destroy unions. It is as simple as that. Those attacks were un-Australian and Australians knew it. The members opposite know that as well. That is why they will not mention the term Work Choices any more. Their leader wants the term 'dead, buried and cremated', at least in name; I do not believe in substance. Australians are pretty easygoing people, but they believe in a fair go. The ABCC legislation was everything but that. It was legislation that was not only an assault on workers' conditions but an assault on human rights—human rights which Australia has agreed to as a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Australians have fought and died for the freedoms and fairness that Work Choices, the ABCC and the waterfront events sought to take away from them. When the ABCC was established in 2005, following the Cole royal commission, it was intended to intimidate and break organised labour in Australia. The Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011 creates the Office of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate to regulate the building and construction industry. This new agency will replace the Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner. It renames the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 as the Fair Work (Building Industry) Act 2011 and either repeals or amends many of the BCII Act's provisions. The bill implements key recommendations of the Transition to Fair Work Australia for the building and construction industry report by the Hon. Murray Wilcox QC. It is interesting that the member for Forrest referred to the Cole royal commission but made no reference to the report by the Hon. Murray Wilcox, who also makes some very pertinent comments regarding the ABCC legislation. Conveniently, they were left out. With the exception of minor non-policy changes such as the inclusion of changes resulting from amendments to the Acts Interpretation Act, the bill is the same as that introduced during the previous parliament. The bill removes existing higher penalties for building industry participants for breaches of industrial law and introduces safeguards in relation to the power to compulsorily obtain information and documents. The bill creates the office of Independent Assessor, who may, on application by stakeholders, determine that compulsory information-gathering powers will not apply to a project. The new regulator will also provide information, advice and assistance to all building industry participants regarding their rights and obligations under law, as well as seek to improve the standard of occupational health and safety in the building and construction industry. The bill includes a three-year sunset provision for the compulsory information-gathering powers. A review will occur prior to the sunset of compulsory information-gathering powers. I note that the bill does not impact on the provisions that establish the Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner and the Occupational Health And Safety Accreditation Scheme. Criticism of the former Howard government's ABCC has not just come from the labour movement in Australia and the wider Australian community. There has also been international condemnation of the coercive powers of the ABCC and its targeting of building unions. The International Labour Organisation, the United Nations body charged with looking after workers' rights, has raised its concerns on a number of occasions. The ILO's Committee of Experts is an eminent body of labour jurists. Early last year, this committee circulated the following statement: … the manner in which the ABCC carries out its activities seems to have led to the exclusion of workers in the building and construction industry from the protection that the labour inspection system ought to secure for these workers under the applicable laws … The ILO's concerns were very well illustrated by the Ark Tribe case in South Australia. I am reasonably familiar with that case because I followed it from day one. The Ark Tribe trial was pivotal in further raising community awareness of the ABCC's potential to encroach on the industrial and human rights of Australian workers. In 2008, Ark Tribe attended a safety meeting at a construction site in Adelaide. At that meeting, ongoing safety concerns at the site were discussed by workers and a union investigation into conditions was carried out before workers returned to their work. The ABCC then summoned Ark Tribe to a meeting in order to determine the legality of workers' actions. When Ark Tribe refused to attend, prosecutors for the ABCC commenced legal proceedings against him. Ark Tribe was not a union official or a union delegate. A large protest was held when court proceedings took place. Several hundred people were present for the first day of the trial on 15 June 2010, including prominent international civil rights campaigners Gerry Conlon and Paddy Hill. Industrial rights are, after all, civil rights—that is, human rights. On 24 November 2010, Ark Tribe was cleared of the charges against him—charges which should never have been laid. Ark Tribe should never have been subjected to the intimidation and injustice which he had been put through. I am pleased to see that the courts came to the same conclusion and cleared him of those charges. In 2007, the government made a commitment that, if elected, it would replace the ABCC with a new body to provide a balanced framework for cooperative and productive workplace relations in the building and construction industry. The construction industry contains unique challenges for both employers and employees. Nobody denies that. Too many Australians die on building and construction sites each and every year and hundreds more are injured, and that has been the case for decades and decades. Building workers have been exposed workplace dangers associated with unsafe work practices, unsafe worksites and unsafe building materials. Poor scaffolding, working from heights, the danger of structural collapse, exposure to dust, asbestos, hazardous chemicals and even extreme weather conditions have taken their toll on the lives of construction workers and on their families for decades and decades. Indeed, much of Australia has literally been built on the blood, sweat and tears of construction workers. Labor supports a strong building industry regulator to ensure lawful conduct by all parties. But it does not support laws that deny workers basic rights, like being represented by a lawyer of their choice. The context for changes was further developed late last year when Qantas Airways grounded its fleet. In the future we may well reflect on this incident as an important moment for industrial relations in Australia. Currently, if Qantas's action is held to be illegal industrial action under the Fair Work Act, the maximum fine it would face would be one-third of the maximum fine the CFMEU could face for taking illegal industrial action on building sites. Where is the fairness in that? The widespread public criticism of Qantas's action suggests that our industrial relations body should be designed to achieve greater conciliation instead of having coercive or litigious functions. In conclusion, I have tried to summarise the importance of this bill, and I know that there is still some concern with it in respect of the coercive powers. I also know that those powers have been limited to the extent that there have to be certain processes before they can be applied. I believe that a reasonable balance has been struck in respect to them. However, I believe that this bill corrects an injustice that currently exists in Australian industrial laws, whereby some people are treated as lesser than other people—in other words, there is currently discrimination in the laws that apply to workers in this country, and this bill seeks to rectify that. I commend the bill to the House. 18:01 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I rise to oppose the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011, and I take issue with the previous speaker. The bill is not about trying to outlaw organised labour in this country. It is about trying to deal with illegal activity by organised labour in this country, and in particular in the building industry. The bill will do three things: it is going to hurt Australia's productivity; it is going to set up a new body that, sadly, will be a toothless tiger; and, it will give more power to the new workplace relations minister, which is like putting a kid in charge of the candy store, or, to put it another way, like putting a factional boss in charge of determining the Labor leadership—it will be a debacle. Let us turn to the issue of productivity. The ABCC has been a tough cop on the beat, but it has required a tough cop on the beat to deal with the issues identified by a royal commission. The inquiry that led to the formation of the ABCC was not a normal one—it was a royal commission. Since the ABCC was set up we have seen building and construction industry productivity increase by 10 per cent; it has provided an annual economic welfare gain of $5.5 billion per year; it has reduced inflation by 1.2 per cent and increased GDP by 1.5 per cent; and the number of working days lost annually per 1,000 employees in the construction industry has fallen from 224 in 2004 to 24 in 2006. At the same time, building costs have fallen by 20 to 25 per cent and long project delays have been dramatically reduced. At a time when the Australian economy is struggling, due to the incompetence of this Labor government, the last thing we need is another step in the direction of lessening Australia's productivity. That is what this bill will do. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry summed it up quite nicely in the letter they wrote to the secretary of the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Committee when this bill was being looked at. They took the opportunity to thank the committee for having the inquiry and noted: The outcome of the Bill is a matter of particular significance, not just for the building and construction sector, but for the broader Australian economy. Approximately one million Australians work in the building and construction industry. Their output contributes around 10% of Australia's GDP. This issue is dealing with 10 per cent of Australia's GDP. You want to harm the productivity in 10 per cent of Australia's GDP. This decision will lead to long-term consequences for the Australian community. You should think again about having kowtowed to the Greens and having agreed to go down this path. This was emphasised by the minister in his second reading speech on 3 November 2011 when he indicated: The building and construction industry remains a critical sector of our economy, with immediate and direct impact on jobs, growth and productivity. This was particularly so during the global economic recession, during which the government's Nation Building and Jobs Plan ensured that the Australian economy remained one of the strongest in the developed world. The minister continued: The government understands that the industry contains unique challenges for both employers and employees, and as a result we have always supported a strong building industry regulator to ensure lawful conduct by all parties. The minister then went on for a few more paragraphs detailing why the industry is so important. However, the only effective response has come from the establishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. This concerns dealing with the illegal activities that have existed in this industry. It has had a dramatic impact on the industry and on the sorts of behaviour and attitudes we have referred to. The impact has been quantified in a range of different ways, in particular by significant reductions in lost time in the industry and big improvements in productivity and efficiency, estimated at more than $5.5 billion per annum. The decision taken by the Howard government to set up the ABCC was not a liked one. To have a royal commission look into an industry requires a lot of evidence that something drastic needs to occur. That is exactly what the Cole royal commission found. What has been the result of the Cole royal commission? We have seen the ABCC set up and we have seen huge productivity increases come out of the sector. But we should not now say to ourselves, 'Okay, the job is done,' because the evidence is still there that it is not. There have been productivity increases, but all the alarm bells are there. If we reduce the amount of regulation in the industry at the moment then the illegal activity will grow once again, and, sadly, we are seeing examples of that in Victoria, and we have seen it in the last few years. Just when we are getting on top of this issue, what does this Labor government want to do? It wants to step in and put at risk all the gains that we have made. Getting to the second point, what they are replacing the ABCC with is a toothless tiger. I will turn to what the Australian Industry Group had to say about this. A government member: Who have you got? Mr TEHAN 210911 We have got ACCI; we have got the Australia Industry Group. What I am trying to do here is give a balanced perspective. Government members interjecting— Mr TEHAN 210911 All right, so we should not have business in Australia, should we? The DEPUTY SPEAKER UK6 Order! Members on my right will cease interjecting. The member for Wannon has the call. Mr TEHAN 210911 I am happy to listen to those interjecting from the other side that we should just have the union bosses ruling the country. They have done a great job with their factional people here in this parliament, haven't they! Look at the unholy mess they have got us in at the moment. We have got a Prime Minister who cannot be trusted, we have got the Minister for Foreign Affairs trying to seek her job and we have got a factional impasse because no-one knows who should lead the country. Government members interjecting— Mr TEHAN 210911 That is right. We should just let the big union bosses rule everything! What we are trying to do here is make sure that illegal activity by organised labour does not get out of control, especially in the building and construction industry. What are you going to replace the ABCC with? Sadly, a toothless tiger. The AiG says: The compulsory examination powers are needed at the present time as much as ever. While the reforms introduced after the Royal Commission addressed the unlawful and inappropriate conduct that permeated the industry, industrial unrest and disputation has been steadily increasing in the industry and damaging and unproductive industrial relations practices have been creeping back onto building and construction sites across Australia. They go on to quote the foreword to the annual report of the ABCC for the financial year ending 30 June 2011, in which the ABC Commissioner, Leigh Johns, identified that: During 2010-11, unlawful industrial disputes, the traditional ‘bread-and-butter’ work of the ABCC, continued to occur at levels that underscored the need for strong enforcement of workplace laws. The pernicious effects of unlawful industrial action are unacceptable, particularly so on projects of social and national significance like the Monash Freeway, the Melbourne Markets relocation, Gold Coast University Hospital or the Wonthaggi Desalination Plant. One only has to look at the record days lost on the desalinisation plant in Victoria to see why the ABCC needs to remain and needs to continue to do its job. The new body that has been established within Fair Work Australia to replace the incredibly successful Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner is not an independent body. So not only will it be toothless but it is not an independent body. It is controlled by the minister. And who is our new minister? Where does he come from? How independent will he be? How objective will he be? We have got the kid back in control of the candy store. That is what this bill will do. What we will see is a complete imbalance in the way these issues are dealt with. The sad fact is that ultimately that will lead to a productivity decline in this country. That is the last thing that we need at the moment. Our manufacturing sector is about to get hit by one of the biggest hits to their productivity that you could imagine—the carbon tax. This is especially so in the state of Victoria because it is going to impact on power, which is the competitive advantage that our industries and especially our manufacturers in Victoria have over our international competitors. Combine that now with this bill. Those opposite, and I have been listening to their speeches as they have gone on, have said that all this will do is redress an imbalance. Yet no-one has been through and systematically examined what the Cole royal commission found—the intimidation and the thuggery, and the fact that if there was not some sort of body set up with powers to deal directly with it that none of this would stop. Even though we have had the ABCC there, we have still seen examples of this occurring. So why won't the government allow it to finish its job? Why don't they make sure that it has all been stamped out? It is illegal activity that we are trying to get rid of here. It is not, as those opposite say, designed to get rid of organised labour in this country. It is designed to get rid of the illegal activity. Those on the other side should be supporting the work that the ABCC is doing, because the more we can do to stamp out this type of activity the better it will be across the nation for organised labour in general. The coalition strongly opposes the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011. In many ways the title of the bill is a complete misnomer. Sadly, at a time when we should be looking to do everything we can to increase the productivity of this nation, it will do the exact opposite. It will set up a body which they have deliberately given no teeth to. Basically, it will become an irrelevant bureaucracy—another one created by the government. Not only that; it gives power not to an independent body but back to the minister and, as we know, the new minister is going to find it very difficult to be independent and objective. He will be dealing with his union mates and he will be conflicted in trying to continue to stamp out illegal activity. I would hope the starting point that we can all agree on when it comes to this bill would be that there is no place for illegal activity anywhere in the Australian economy and in particular the building and construction industry. 18:16 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Throsby My contribution to this debate on the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011 will be brief. I have to observe that the contributions from those on the other side have been really revealing about what lies in their hearts and their obsessions when it comes to industrial relations. The bill has a long history, dating back to at least 2001, when in the lead-up to an election the then Prime Minister, John Howard, established the Cole Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry, whose singular purpose was to demonise the union movement in general and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union in particular. The government never really made any secret that this was its singular objective in commissioning the Cole royal commission. Unfortunately, the government's real objective was to ensure that the evidence would be horrifying and that it would assist it in moving through its next raft of industrial relations changes after the 2001 election. Unfortunately for the government, the evidence before the commission was at times unhelpful to that cause. The evidence before the commission found that by world standards we have a very efficient construction industry, and in some respects we are leading by way of world's best practice. Ms O'Dwyer interjecting— Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B My friend in the chamber makes the observation that there were no convictions arising out of the royal commission. It did find that there was corruption in the industry and a significant amount of corruption by certain employers within the industry. It was a tough and rough industry and from time to time some practices went on that would be condemned by all members of this House. But to say that poor practice was solely the result of union activity is a complete furphy and a misrepresentation of any of the evidence that was put before the Cole royal commission. It also found—and this never got much attention and certainly never got any action from the Howard government—that there were systemic breaches and systemic failures in adhering to occupational health and safety standards and regulations within the building industry. If the Howard government had put as much energy into chasing that rabbit down that hole, then there would probably be a few more workers in this industry and workplaces who had not suffered the terrible injuries that occur on an all too often basis within the building and construction industry. The debate in this chamber today shows the obsession of the Liberal Party and the coalition with harsh industrial relations laws, union bashing and their love of Work Choices. Whilst they have attempted to put them in the closet from time to time, when debates like this come before the House they cannot help themselves. We have seen that from the frantic, if not hysterical, debate from the member for Wannon. What is absolutely astounding is that the loudest voices and the most ill-informed comments, I wager, have come most often from those members of the House who have never been anywhere near a building site and who do not know what it is like to work in the building and construction industry—which, as I have said, is a tough industry. I am pleased to be speaking in favour of the legislation before this House, but I will make one qualification to that. The legislation abolishes the Australian Building and Construction Commission and absorbs those functions into the functions of Fair Work Australia. It ensures that there will still be a tough cop on the beat. It ensures that there will still be strong regulatory arrangements in the building and construction industry, extending beyond the obsessions of those on the other side but going directly to issues of health and safety and to issues of employer breaches and scams that regularly affect subcontractors within the industry. The legislation ensures these practices are wiped out as well. If I have a reservation, it stems from my background in the law. My concern is that the bill does not yet deal with the issue of compelled evidence. I understand that this is the result of commitments that we made in the lead-up to the 2010 election and, as a member of this place and this party, I stand squarely behind the policy commitments and the provisions of this bill. But I do raise the reservation—and it stems from hundreds of years of legal practice—that courts should be very wary indeed about accepting the probity and the availability of compelled evidence. If we have learnt anything over hundreds of years of legal practice, there are deep concerns within the legal community of accepting the probative value of compelled evidence. I am hoping that some time in the future, with the experience of the new functions being absorbed within Fair Work Australia, and improved practices within the building and construction industry, we may be able to revisit this matter in this place in the interests of all. I commend the legislation to the House. 18:22 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins The Prime Minister made a number of promises to the Australian people before the 2007 and 2010 elections. She promised that she would be economically prudent, and yet her Treasurer has delivered four deficits of more than $167 billion in total and a gross debt ceiling of $250 billion. She promised not to introduce a carbon tax only days before the election and then broke that promise. She promised that that no Australian worker would be worse off as a result of her industrial relations laws and that her reforms would not have a negative impact on productivity or our nation's economy—another broken promise. The government's changes have wound back the industrial relations clock, not just to a time before Work Choices but to a time before Hawke and Keating. The Prime Minister also promised that she would have a 'tough cop on the beat' in the building and construction industry. Today, I rise to speak on the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011 that is before this House. This bill breaks that last promise, the latest broken promise in a long list of the Prime Minister's broken promises. When the Prime Minister brought in her Fair Work Act she said it would 'increase productivity'. We hear from the Prime Minister and Treasurer on a repeated basis that productivity is the key to this nation's prosperity and that we must increase our productivity to ensure that our nation grows. We on this side of the chamber agree with this. Productivity-enhancing reform is, as the Chairman of the Productivity Commission has so rightly stated, 'the mainstay of economic progress'. No doubt we will hear again from the other side of the chamber that this legislation is also supposedly 'productivity enhancing'. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. In the September quarter we saw that that GDP per hour worked was lower than in the last quarter of the coalition government. This is a decline, not simply a slowing in the rate of growth. The coalition government delivered an increase of more than 25 per cent in GDP per hours worked in our 11 years. The Labor-Greens government has seen a fall in GDP per hours worked in less than four years. Annual productivity growth has gone from on average 1.2 per cent during our time in government to -0.9 per cent during the Labor-Greens government. A tough cop on the beat is critical in the construction and building industry. The Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner is that tough cop on the beat. It was born out of the Cole royal commission which, 10 years ago, investigated the lawlessness, thuggery, intimidation and corruption that existed as part of the entrenched culture on construction sites—a culture that saw itself as above the law and, in the words of the commission 'flagrantly' breached the law without any thought of consequence. Examples brought before the commission ranged from unlawful entry of sites by union officials to violence, obstruction of building sites and payments by builders to the unions for industrial peace. One such example in WA saw a builder pay more than $1.5 million for so-called casual tickets to WA's CFMEU. When the Cole commission followed the money trail it could only trace $500,000—the rest of the money to the CFMEU simply disappeared. These examples were commonplace and have more in common with organised crime than a 21st century construction industry. This culture significantly increases the cost of building and the flow-on economic effects are enormous. In the time that the ABCC has been operating the benefits of a strong watchdog for the construction industry are clear. According to research undertaken by KPMG Econtech, since the inception of the ABCC productivity in the sector has risen by 10 per cent, there has been an economic welfare gain of $5.5 billion per year, inflation has been reduced by 1.2 per cent, GDP has increased by 1.5 per cent and it has helped facilitate significant reductions in days lost through industrial action. Significantly, the powers of the ABCC have led to successful court action, with more than $2.5 in penalties imposed by the courts in the last financial year. Most recently, two unions and a number of union officials have been fined more than $1.3 million by the courts for obstruction, violence and intimidation on the Westgate Bridge project. Yet this Labor-Greens government plans to unwind these economic and workplace reforms by shifting power away from the independent umpire back to the unions. The legislation before this House will make a eunuch of the ABCC and will guarantee three things: a decrease in productivity; that the unions dictate the terms on which the construction industry operates; and a return of the old school practices of delay, intimidation and union payoffs for industrial peace and increased costs. Like everyone in this chamber I meet regularly with people from different industries. At a recent meeting I was told by several builders that they had been coerced into 'advertising' in a union magazine. They told me this was standard practice so as to avoid their sites being shut down through guerrilla tactics or equipment failing to turn up. This, they considered, was a cost of doing business. The abolition of the ABCC in its current form will ensure that some of the more nefarious activities will return in force. I wish to highlight five key ways in which this legislation will damage the construction industry. Firstly, the bill strips power from the ABCC's replacement body, the Building Industry Inspectorate, by enshrining in law that the minister has the power to issue directions as to how, where and when it should go about performing its functions. Given the serious unanswered questions about potential government interference in the Craig Thomson saga, this is a retrograde step. Secondly, by lifting the test for what is a 'lawful' strike we will start to see an increase in trivial strikes action, the kind of strikes that were rampant at the Wonthaggi desalination plant. Thirdly, reducing the penalty for unlawful strikes will remove the disincentive for unlawful industrial action. We can see through the Westgate Bridge case that there is a need for tough penalties for those who do not comply with the law, with over $1.3 million of fines being ordered by the ABCC. In that case, workers needed to be moved by an ex-army troop carrier in and out of the site to ensure their safety. We should never forget employers are also entitled to their rights, including their right to conduct business without the threat of intimidation or reprisal. Employees are also entitled to their rights—the right to a safe workplace free from threats and intimidation. The unions would have us believe that the right of unions to go about their business should be paramount, but it is not. Rights are not a one-way street. The increase in red tape for compulsory information-gathering powers and a sunset clause after five years will see these powers used rarely, if at all, and a return to retribution actions taken against anyone who speaks out about the culture on construction sites. The fact that the sunset clause will not even be reviewed before being removed indicates that the real motivations behind these changes are to silence critics of union thuggery, violence and intimidation. Reduction of building inspectorate powers to investigate by allowing such powers to be switched off means that the building inspectorate will not have the freedom and independence to investigate all complaints. Make no mistake; this legislation is simply to allow the Prime Minister to pander to the union leaders that installed her and nothing to do with making Australia a better or more prosperous nation. The union campaign in support of the election of this Labor government in 2007 amounted to more than $36,430,588 in direct donations and political expenditure. In 2010 it amounted to $24,578,719. The Greens member for Melbourne, Adam Bandt, received more than $360,000 across both elections as a direct donation from the CFMEU, ETU and AMWU. Labor and the Greens are not interested in maintaining law and order on work sites and improving the economic welfare of the nation but are instead keen, through this legislation, to pay back their union masters. While I do not doubt that Labor will continue to receive the hard earned money of union members, such as those from the Health Services Union, the Greens pretend that they are on a higher moral plane. If the member for Melbourne and the Greens leader, Bob Brown, were true to their high-minded rhetoric and so-called high standards regarding political donations, they ought to hand this money back. But I bet they will not. The Greens simply set standards for others, never for themselves. Mr Bandt M3C Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: it cannot be parliamentary conduct in this place to allege someone has received sums of money that they have not received. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 I must admit I have only just arrived in the chair. I will just say to the member for Higgins that, if she is going to make an allegation about someone, she should do it by a substantive motion. Ms O'DWYER LKU The member for Melbourne can correct the record after question time if he feels that he has been misrepresented. I will continue. The Greens simply set standards for others, never for themselves. The leader of the Greens and the member for Melbourne talk about rights, but will not ensure the rights of workers to be free from thuggery and intimidation on building and construction sites. The coalition has a proud record of increasing the productivity of the nation whilst maintaining world's-best-practice working conditions. I stand by our record of productivity gains on the waterfront. I stand by the productivity gains that the ABCC was making in the construction industry. The unions and their political wing, the Labor Party, will consistently cry foul that any productivity gain equates to a reduction in labour standards. But I defy anyone in this chamber to name one other country that has working and wage conditions at the standard Australia has. We truly are the lucky country. I do not stand alone in pointing out the flaws in the government's plan to abolish the ABCC. It is not just this side of the chamber that has been sounding the warning bell on what this bill would mean for industrial disputation and increased cost in the construction industry. The government's favourite business adviser, the CEO of the Australian Industry Group, Heather Ridout, warned: Unless a strong, well-resourced regulator and strong legislation is maintained, the risks associated with industrial lawlessness will again be priced into construction contracts, at great cost to project owners, including governments, and the Australian community, Let me interpret that statement for the benefit of the House: the abolition of the ABCC will be a throwback to the old days of union militancy, industry disruption, kickbacks and intimidation in the construction industry. Construction managers are also expressing concern over the fact that the abolition of the ABCC will have a particular impact on small to medium firms that cannot defend themselves from the aggressive actions of the more militant unions. Gerry Hanssen from Perth based construction firm Hanssen Pty Ltd has warned that, should the ABCC be abolished, the corruption and standover tactics will be 'back in a flash'. As with the Treasurer's comments in relation to productivity, the government know how to talk the talk but so rarely do they walk the walk. In the time since the Prime Minister introduced the Fair Work Act, union activism and industrial disputation has increased. In the June 2011 quarter, working days lost due to disputation jumped from 19,700 in the previous quarter to 66,200. In the September quarter it increased again to a staggering 101,300 days. That is a 500 per cent increase in two quarters. This should concern all in this chamber and everyone who simply wants to contribute to building a stronger economy and a better nation. John Mullen, CEO of port operator Asciano Ltd, has cautioned that, 'In the current industrial climate, the country is going backwards.' These are all very dire predictions of where this country is heading and the abolition of the ABCC is a giant leap in that direction. The government's response to any analysis or criticism of its Fair Work Act is to mount a scare campaign, flogging again the dead horse of Work Choices. But this is wearing thin, like so much of the government's rhetoric. It is plain that the industrial relations system in this country has gone backwards and unless the government starts to address the concerns that are raised by businesses, both big and small, and their employees, there will be ever-increasing industrial action, unrest at the workplace and decreased productivity. The best way the government can start to address this issue is by abandoning this legislation and keeping the ABCC with its full powers. 18:36 Ms HALL 83N Shortland It is easy to see that the member for Higgins is a strong advocate for Work Choices. If there is any reason that we should doubt the sincerity of those on the other side of this House, it is the contribution by the member for Higgins. Firstly, she made a point of saying that there will be no review, and it is in the legislation that there will be a review. That is not being completely up-front or honest with the people of Australia or with this House. She also made a statement that the member for Melbourne received a highly inflated amount of money from unions. Not true. Is it right that a person can come into this House and make statements that really are not true? I believe this legislation is overdue. It will repeal the excesses of the Howard government's extreme industrial relations agenda. The Howard government's agenda was to crush unions and remove the right of workers, and the ABCC was the draconian body it established to do that in the construction industry. The ABCC legislation was the brainchild of Peter Reith, the industrial relations minister who used dogs and armed guards on the wharves of Australia in his government's efforts to crush the MUA. The Labor government appreciates the role unions play in protecting the rights of workers in Australia, just as we appreciate the role employers play. Both parties are important. On this side of the House we know that unions provide protection for workers just as employer bodies protect the rights of employers. It is about balance—both sides make an enormous contribution. I have listened to speakers on the other side of the House talk about increases in productivity: 10 per cent, the previous speaker said. Productivity increase is important. But over the same period of time there has been over a four per cent increase in the rate of death on construction sites. Is productivity to be gained at the price of lives? That is the question I have for the member for Higgins, who has now left the chamber. The Howard government did not recognise that there was a need for balance, and that is why it introduced its Work Choices law—which the member for Higgins is so supportive of—which attacked all workers' rights and was harsh and oppressive. It was the zealots in this parliament who sought to squash workers in the building industry and take away their basic rights. The Howard government's ABCC saw workers like Ark Tribe dragged before the courts with a strong prospect of being imprisoned, simply because he refused to attend an interview in what was nothing more than an inquisition, whilst employers were given a slap over the wrist for breaching occupational health and safety laws. So it was really a double standard that was created under the ABCC. We had an increase in unsafe practices in workplaces, an increase in deaths and injuries. Everyone in this parliament knows that the construction industry is one of the four most dangerous industries, along with agriculture, forestry and mining. When you have a dangerous industry you really need to make sure that occupational health and safety laws are adhered to. Under the ABCC, safety practices were allowed to deteriorate. More workers were injured as a consequence. We on this side of the House realise that you need a balanced approach, and the changes we have before us today are about balance. However, on the other side of the chamber they only listen to the employers. They make no mention of safety; it is all about productivity. If they do mention safety they mention it not for the workers but as a way of denigrating workers in the construction industry. On this side of the House we value safety, we value workers and we value employers. I will need to shorten my contribution to this debate to ensure that everybody has an opportunity to speak. I would like to briefly put before the House that this legislation is at the heart of the Labor Party's new workplace relations system. We understand that there are unique challenges within the construction industry and we think that this will balance those issues. The ABCC needs to be replaced. Any body that is as oppressive as the ABCC, any body that looks at only one side of the equation and any body that has led to workers ending up in court with the prospect of being jailed simply because they do not attend an interview is not a fair body. We are about fairness—we are about making sure that both employers' and workers' rights are respected. The position that has been adopted by the government and incorporated in the legislation has been examined by independent legal expert Murray Wilcox QC, and his recommendations have been taken into account in the development of the legislation. There is a sunset clause that will come into play after three years, allowing time for the legislation to take effect. The opposition are not at all interested in a fair workplace. They are not interested in a workplace that has appropriate regulations, where all parties in the building industry have rights. They are interested in work sites in an industry in which it is a one-sided equation, where only the employers—the big companies—have a say; they are the only ones who have a right to be heard. Whilst we respect and appreciate the role that builders and employers play in the construction industry, we know that the construction industry is a very important part of our economy. We want to see it thrive. In my own electorate, it is a very important industry. But we also know that workers in that industry need protection. We know that, in any industry, laws that are so draconian that they are oppressive—in the way that those introduced by the Howard government, which established the ABCC, are—are bad laws. You only have to come to this chamber and listen to members on the other side of the House distorting facts, not being totally truthful about what the legislation includes and not really portraying the true picture. To have a strong industry, a vibrant industry, you have to respect your workers. You have to have work sites that are safe. If you have an industry that knows it does not have to value its workers, if you have a construction industry where safety can be bypassed and if you have an industry in which workers are constantly in fear of retribution if they speak up, then you do not have things working properly. In saying that, I acknowledge that there are some very good employers who do not cut any corners. I will leave my contribution there. I recommend and support the legislation before the parliament today and I will be very pleased to see the end of the ABCC. 18:46 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina There was a good reason the coalition established the Australian Building and Construction Commission in 2005. As with most things the Howard government did, it was based on solid evidence, a community and industry need, as well as on facts. That was the way of the Howard administration: clear, careful and considered policies thought through and implemented in the national interest. In the past four-and-a-bit years, and certainly since the current Prime Minister took over, we have seen the complete opposite. Ill-conceived, knee-jerk decision making at the behest of minorities are anything but in the national interest. The Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011 falls into this typical Labor category. The coalition strongly opposes this bill. We believe that every Australian, whether an employer or an employee, deserves to be able to go to their workplace and operate in an atmosphere where basic law and order is enforced. That goes without saying, and I take exception to the member for Shortland having a go at the coalition, saying that we do not believe in fairness or in safety. Those issues are paramount. We do not distort facts and we do not betray people. The bill abolishes the body that ensures that law and order is enforced in the building and construction industry. We know why Labor is so keen to bring about an end to the ABCC, and that is because they are beholden to their union mates. They are beholden to the union hierarchy who use hard earned union fees to go on to work sites and into workplaces, close down productivity and put red tape and bureaucracy in front of employers. Mr Laurie Ferguson 8T4 Why would they do that? Mr McCORMACK 219646 You can yell all you like but this is a fact. I was speaking to a Wagga Wagga builder tonight and he said: 'We don't need the thuggery of unions on our work sites. Unions are fine but everything should be in moderation. We want to be able to get on with doing what we do best and that is building homes, constructing buildings and doing it with good productivity and the ability to hire apprentices.' But this bill will not enable that productivity and will not enable builders to continue to hire workers in the sorts of ways that they are with the construction commission in place as it is now. The commission was introduced in 2005 in response to the Cole royal commission, which found that the building and construction industry was rife with a complete disregard for the law. It catalogued more than 100 types of unlawful and inappropriate conduct. In today's workplaces and in this day and age we cannot have that. The member opposite might want that but the building industry cannot afford it and the national interest does not need it. The commission also found that existing regulatory bodies had insufficient powers and resources to enforce the law. That is why the Howard government introduced the Australian Building and Construction Commission. But Labor would demolish all that; the Prime Minister would demolish all that. It is so interesting that the Prime Minister wants to do that. We have heard only today how the Prime Minister, when she was the shadow minister for health, said that insurance rebates were part of the family's budget, yet today we see the private health insurance rebate thrown straight out the window. When the Prime Minister was the education minister she took away independent youth allowance. And now the Prime Minister and the Labor Party want to take away the Australian Building and Construction Commission, which is doing its job and doing a very good job. This bill will strip away the protections that enable workers to work in a safe and lawful environment. The replacement agency will, unfortunately, be a toothless tiger which will again roll out the red carpet to lawlessness, thuggery and violence. The new body that has been established within Fair Work Australia to replace the very successful office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner will not be, and is not, an independent body. It is controlled by the minister. It is not going to be what we would call a strong cop on the beat. We need to have measures in place that enable fairness and safety. That is why we have the Australian Building and Construction Commission. It is doing its job; it is doing a good job. There are examples upon examples of what happened prior to 2005, before the coalition took the tough decision to return the building and construction industry to law and order. In August 2001, the Howard government established the Cole royal commission to look into what was in fact happening in the building industry. Commissioner Cole reported in March 2003, and the report catalogued, as I said, more than 100 different types of unlawful conduct in that sector. The Cole royal commission examples included payments being made to the CFMEU in Western Australia of more than $1½ million for so-called casual tickets, which is basically money paid in return for industrial peace on sites where not all workers were members of the union. What a disgrace! The Cole commission found that, of the $1½ million that had been paid, only $500,000 could be traced. So $1 million of this money paid to the CFMEU had just disappeared. That would be of no surprise to those opposite because money that is in the budget for all sorts of things just disappears. This is a government with— Mr Laurie Ferguson 8T4 You weren't too vocal on the Wheat Board. Mr McCORMACK 219646 You mention the Wheat Board. We will not start about the Wheat Board, because let me tell you that has been an absolute disaster. You can speak to any wheat grower in my electorate of Riverina and they will tell you how bad the wheat situation is going following deregulation. I would not start on that if I were you. If you want to take a sneak peek at what is about to be unleashed, have a look at the Wonthaggi desalination plant in Victoria. I am a little bit dubious about desalination plants at the best of times, because we have more water than we need, but we tend to want to turn sea water back into fresh water so we can use it. Every time I go to Sydney it rains, but we have no policies to build new dams. Every time I go to Sydney it rains, it pours out to the ocean, and at the desalination plant put there at the behest of the Labor government they try to turn it back into useable water. Go-slows at Wonthaggi desalination plant have delayed the project by up to four months. It lost 193 days due to industrial action—this was an example that the Cole royal commission came up with. This is what happens when the cop on the beat is not doing his job or does not have the powers to be able to do his job. Imagine this replicated right across the country. Regional Australia is doing it tough enough, and builders in regional Australia are doing it tough enough, because investment is on hold. In the city of Griffith in my electorate of Riverina, since the Murray-Darling Basin Authority brought out its infamous and ill-fated guide to the Basin Plan, a company which had sold 62 homes in the 12 months leading up to the release of that report in October 2010 has not sold or built one house since. The builders of that company have had either to shift or to move town, or they are just out of a job. It is tough enough for the building industry, and this is replicated right across regional Australia, yet builders in those towns who are actually working on homes and buildings for businesses are once more going to be at the behest of unions. They are going to be at the behest of union bosses—these thugs who are going to come onto their worksites and tell them what to do and how to do it. There will be stop work meetings, and you can see it happening all over again. The CFMEU will be up to its old tricks, with a weakened regulator still in place. Just imagine what is going to happen on building sites when the construction police tie up the hands of employers and companies to the point where it will be, 'Hammers and screwdrivers down!' We are going to be seeing union thuggery at its worst in this country again. This bill is a ploy by the Prime Minister to bring the unions and the Labor Left onside to save her leadership—nothing more, nothing less. Employers right across my electorate of Riverina are worried about this. They have written letters to me. Workers are going to be worried about it, too— Mr Neumann interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 You can complain all you like, but workers are worried about it, too. Workers in regional Australia just want a job. They just want a job as an apprentice, they just want a job on a working site, and they want to be paid fairly. They want fair conditions. They want safe conditions. That is imperative, and that is possible under the current commission. What they do not want is to always be told to put down tools. They do not want some union thug telling them that they cannot do this and they cannot do that. In most places, as even the member for Shortland admitted, many employers are very good employers in very good companies. A lot of them are family owned and they treat their workers like their own. You are going to get bad workers in any environment, and bad employers too—that is just the nature of the beast—but the ABCC is doing its job. It is doing a good regulatory job and it is stopping those unions from having their way with companies, bringing down productivity and putting in place negative factors which would stop otherwise reputable companies and employers from hiring people. That is why the coalition is dead against the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011. Even the wording of the bill is a little bit like the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill this morning, with the word 'fairness' in it. Here we have the word 'improvement' and the phrase 'transition to fair work' in the name of the bill. It is almost editorialising at its worst. That bill was not about fairness in private health insurance, just like this bill is not about improvement. This is a bill which shows that the Prime Minister is beholden to the Greens. It shows that the Prime Minister is beholden to the unions, who we know pay her way and pay Labor's way to keeping their flimsy government intact. This bill is not in the national interest. If it were in the national interest, then it would have been done many years ago. It is not in the national interest; it is only in the unions' interest. That is why the coalition opposes the bill and that is why it should not be passed. 18:58 Mr LAURIE FERGUSON 8T4 Werriwa What we have seen in this debate on the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill is the facade being ripped away from the coalition's cultivated attempt to give an impression that they have changed their attitude since they lost power in this country in the area of industrial relations. We have had all the leaks from the Leader of the Opposition, all of the backgrounding that he was the most doubtful person in the cabinet, he was the one who did not want to go as far as John Howard, he was always a moderate and he knew that they might lose the blue-collar support that had been garnished during the Howard period. But what we have seen in the contributions today from all those opposite is that same attitude of class war politics in this country. The member for Higgins, while supposedly interested in the fate of the workers, said there should not have been any deficit spending, that we should have let the building industry go to the floor, that we should have not made sure that building material companies were supported and that we should have ensured that people could finish their apprenticeships, that people could have traineeships and that there could be spending on consumption by workers still in employment. We have had quotes, too, from Marius Kloppers and Toyota's management, as though they have no self-interest in this debate. We have had contributions saying that it is all right that this body, which is supposedly so perfect, has failed to gain a prosecution during the whole period it has been running—a situation where Terence Cole, not to put too fine a point on it— Debate interrupted. COMMITTEES 1467 COMMITTEES Selection Committee 1467 Report 1467 19:00 The SPEAKER 0V5 I present the report of the Selection Committee No.43 relating to consideration of committee and delegation business on Monday, 27 February 2012. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the determinations of the committee 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 1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 15 February 2012. 2. The committee decided to amend its determinations in respect of committee and delegation business on Monday, 27 February 2011, as reported to the House earlier today, by substituting: 5 Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs Report on the inquiry into the operation of the insurance industry with specific reference to extreme weather and disaster events The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made — all statements to conclude by 10:50 a.m. Speech time limits — Mr Perrett — 5 minutes. Next Member speaking — 5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins] in place of: 5 Standing Committee on Health and Ageing Report on the inquiry into the registration processes and support for overseas trained doctors The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made — all statements to conclude by 10:50 a.m. Speech time limits — Mr Georganas— 5 minutes. Next Member speaking — 5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins] 3. The committee also varied its recommendation on items of private Members' business to be voted on to read as follows: Orders of the day – Wild Rivers (Environmental Management) Bill 2011 (Mr Abbott) Gambling reform (Mr Oakeshott) Microbrewery refunds (Mr Oakeshott) Payment of GST revenues to local government (Mr Oakeshott). ADJOURNMENT 1468 ADJOURNMENT 70th Anniversary of the Fall of Singapore 1468 19:00 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Seventy years ago today, more than 15,000 Australians, predominantly from the 8th Division AIF, went to hell as Singapore fell to the Japanese and another horrific chapter began in our nation's history, as well as for our allies and the people of Singapore. The indelible scars of these horrific times remain with us to this day and serve as a reminder of what we must never forget. The Australian prisoners were taken to Thailand, Burma, Borneo, Japan, Manchuria, Indochina, Formosa and Korea. In total, 22,376 Australians were ultimately taken prisoner by the Japanese in South-East Asia during World War II—8,031 of these Australians never came home. These figures are often rounded, but I think it is important in this place that we remember and record our gratitude for the service and sacrifice of each and every one of these great Australians for the love of their country. Our POWs were starved and they fell victim to diseases such as cholera, malaria, dysentery and beriberi and died agonising deaths. They were humiliated, they were force-marched and they were press-ganged into terrible labour. They were beaten, they were beheaded and they were bayoneted. They were shot and they were murdered with a brutality that I cannot imagine, I cannot comprehend and I cannot bear to think about. But think about it today we must and remember it this day we must, especially in this place, and every day we can—because it was their captivity which was the price of our freedom. After 68 days of a Japanese onslaught along the Malaysian peninsula, the allies were trapped on Singapore Island. Beset by heavy fighting, they surrendered at the old Ford motor factory in Singapore. The unthinkable had happened; the impregnable fortress had fallen. Prime Minister Curtin told the nation: The fall of Singapore opens the battle for Australia. Last year, I had the solemn privilege to join 12 young Australians, the member for Blaxland and the member for Lyne as we visited the old Ford motor factory, the allied bunker, the Changi War Museum and the Kranji War Cemetery in Singapore. We then walked the Sandakan Death March in Borneo in the footsteps of more than 1,000 POWs who started their POW journey in Singapore 70 years ago this day. Only six returned. As our mateship trek concluded in Ranau, where the member for Lyne's grandfather was murdered, I recall only too well the eerie contrast between the peaceful greenery of the jungle gorge in which we solemnly stood and the reverberating clamour of silent voices that cried still—the voices of the victims of Australia's greatest ever military atrocity. While they took up their fight in captivity, others took up the fight on the battlefield. Whether it was the 39th Battalion 'chocos' storming into a firestorm at Kokoda, the hell of the Buna and Gona campaigns, victory at Milne Bay, the defence of Wau, the taking of Lae or our landing at Balikpapan, battles were fought and won, blood was spilt and treasure lost. Heroes rose to the occasion—Ted Kenna at Wewak, Bruce Kingsbury at Isurava, Tom 'Diver' Derrick at Sattelberg in New Guinea—but none more significant in our remembrance than 'Weary' Dunlop in those POW camps. We remember those they fought alongside on those fateful days in Singapore. We ought not forget the fierce and oppressive yoke that fell upon the people of Singapore for almost four years of Japanese occupation. Tens of thousands of lives were lost in mass executions, but the hardship did not cease with the end of the war. Singapore rose once again, however—a testimony to the leadership and strength of our friends and allies who overcame adversity to achieve self-confidence, security and prosperity. That a nation could rebound as quickly and significantly as it did is truly remarkable—to become a thriving economy, a key player and leader in our region and, importantly, a great friend of Australia. On this 70th anniversary we think of them too—of the camaraderie we shared at a time of great darkness and of the national friendships which have flourished in the 70 years which have passed since. Our shared stories of adversity in the terrible chapter which began for both our nations 70 years ago today remain an enduring reminder of the strength of the human spirit. As we remember the fall of Singapore today, as we remember those 8,031 Australians who died at the hands of their captors in the most terrible of circumstances, may we say on this solemn day, 'Lest we forget.' Burrup Peninsula 1469 19:05 Ms PARKE HWR Fremantle In November last year I had the pleasure of visiting the Burrup Peninsula— or Murujuga in the Indigenous language—in the Dampier Archipelago of the Pilbara region of Western Australia. I wish to place on the record my deep thanks to Dr Ken Mulvaney, an archaeologist and anthropologist with Rio Tinto in Dampier, who acted as guide for the day and who probably knows more about the rock art than anyone else on the planet. I have to say that his passion and care for this incredible cultural heritage was highly infectious. The Dampier rock art precinct, located in a 45 km radius, is estimated to contain more than a million Aboriginal rock art engravings, also known as petroglyphs, but only a fraction of them have been recorded. The oldest rock art on the Burrup is estimated to be up to 35,000 years old and depicts geometric designs, as well as images of humans, birds, fish and animals, including thylacines or Tasmanian tigers, which have been extinct on the mainland for over 3,000 years. The art is extensive, appearing on most rocky outcrops on the peninsula. Located near much of the art are archaeological features, including shell middens, camp sites and quarries, the total comprising a rich record reflecting the lifestyles, beliefs and ceremonial practices of Aboriginal people in the Pilbara area over millennia. As long-time advocate for the rock art, the Hon. Robin Chapple MLC, has noted: This may well be the world's largest concentration of rock art and possibly the only site that provides distinct evidence of the changes to environment, culture and society over such an extended period. The National Trust of Australia (WA) has described the rock art precinct as 'one of the world's pre-eminent sites of recorded human evolution and a prehistoric university'. In 2003, the World Monuments Fund added it to its list of most endangered places—the first time an Australian place had been included. In 2005, concerned citizens formed the Friends of Australian Rock Art, FARA, to raise awareness of the Burrup Peninsula's unique heritage and to campaign for its protection. In July 2007, the Dampier Archipelago National Heritage Place, which includes 68.4 per cent of the Burrup Peninsula, was inscribed in the National Heritage List. These wonders are unfortunately largely unknown to the wider WA and Australian community, and have been poorly protected by past and present governments. Dr Carmen Lawrence, Chair of the Australian Heritage Council and my predecessor as the federal member for Fremantle, recently published an article on the pressing need for action by state and federal governments to protect the Burrup rock art from industrial development and pollution. She eloquently explains the situation as follows: It should be obvious that such a site is a precious part of our heritage, of the world's heritage, deserving of careful study and preservation. But instead of the care and reverence which we would expect to be shown to a site with the significance of Stonehenge, the painted caves of Lascaux in France or the structures of Machu Picchu, the rock art precinct on the Burrup has taken second place to industrial and resource development for more than 40 years. Although there have been a number of partial surveys of this matchless site, many of them undertaken as part of the development approval process, it has never been the subject of a comprehensive inventory or analysis. … … … Since the decision by Malcolm Turnbull in 2007 to place the site on the National Heritage List (excluding the area set aside for the Pluto LNG expansion), the Western Australian Government has still not completed the management plan for which it is responsible. In the meantime, industrial expansion proceeds: proposals for two nitrate facilities and a desalination plant are under consideration. Vandalism is occurring and the few tourist visits are haphazard and unsupervised. This is an unacceptable situation. I note that when the Hon. Colin Barnett MLA was in state opposition, he said this in parliament: World heritage listing [of the Archipelago] is inevitable … The status of the rock art [makes it] in my opinion without doubt the most important heritage site in WA and possibly the nation … We certainly cannot use ignorance today as an excuse. If there is one part of Western Australia where this conflict between conservation and development is most apparent it is on the Burrup Peninsula. Disappointingly, those sentiments have not to my knowledge been repeated by Mr Barnett since becoming Premier and, indeed, an ammonium nitrate facility on the Burrup has been recommended by the WA EPA for approval. The federal environment minister has requested that the Australian Heritage Council conduct an emergency heritage assessment of the Burrup and that is now underway. We cannot have a situation in Australia where we proudly refer to our Indigenous heritage as representing the oldest unbroken course of human civilisation, while at the same time ignoring the need to protect the enduring examples of that culture and that extraordinary record. In the words of Dr Carmen Lawrence: Knowledge and experience of our heritage gives meaning to our lives, inspires us and contributes to our collective sense of identity. The sites, landscapes and places which we can be galvanised to protect are, in some ways, an indication of what matters to us and what we think of ourselves. Carbon Pricing 1471 19:10 Mr HAASE 84T Durack Firstly, I wish to thank the member for Fremantle for so eloquently promoting my patch and that amazing art that is on the Burrup Peninsula. I rise this evening to speak on a matter that will change the face of Australia forever, a matter that this Labor government has unashamedly lied about. It is a matter on which the leader of this country has, in a desperate attempt to retain her position as Prime Minister, cajoled, dare I say it, somewhat normally rational, thinking members of the Labor Party to rally behind her and show their supposed support. This matter is a carbon tax, a tax the people of Australia do not want. This government, led by a Prime Minister hanging on for grim death, is forcing upon our nation a carbon tax that we not only do not want; it is a carbon tax that will have no effect on the amount of carbon produced in the global economy. It will merely shift Australian production offshore. This government cares no more for a reduction in carbon tax than I care about the slow, agonising death the Labor Party is enduring under the current leadership. This revenue-raising scheme is based on a lie. We all know the famous words of the Prime Minister: 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' The people of Australia are scared. They are vulnerable. They are afraid of this government's obsession with the carbon tax and they are terrified of the ramifications this tax will have on their jobs. They have every right to be terrified. Since January more than 1,800 job are known to have been lost—600 jobs at Alcoa's Point Henry refinery and 500 jobs with builders Kell and Rigby are at risk. These statistics, together with the announcement that the ANZ Bank will be slashing its workforce by 1,000, do not give anyone a sense security. Mr Speaker, allow me to give you a brief rundown on why the people of Australia have no faith in this government. During the last laborious four years of Labor at the helm, 19 new or increased taxes have been introduced. After delivering the four biggest budget deficits in history, government borrowing is at $100 million a day. The cost of living has skyrocketed and interest rates are rising. Unemployment has increased to 5.2 per cent as at December 2011, and this is the first year in 20 years that there has been no net gain in employment. I fear that it will not be the last. In fact, it may just be the inaugural year of no net gain in employment until Australia is rid of this despicable government. Australians are already feeling the associated costs of the carbon tax and it has not yet been introduced. Taxpayers have paid more than $1 million to the consultancy firm Hall and Partners/Open Mind for campaign development and feedback. This is on top of last year's $32 million advertising campaign. I am presuming the company will be providing feedback on the budgeted further $10 million campaign ahead of the carbon tax's introduction on 1 July. This arrogant government is squandering taxpayers' money to provide them with an assessment of its taxpayer funded campaign to sell us a new tax we don't want. It beggars belief. We now know that more than $17 million has already been spent on setting up the agency that will implement the carbon tax, and $9.4 million of that has been spent on operating costs and $8.4 million in capital outlays. This offensive waste of taxpayers' money includes $500,000 for board and CEO recruitment, $535,000 on the CEO's salary package, $200,000 on agency branding, the engagement of 207 staff to date and the engagement of 35 consultants or external contractors. I find it intriguing, to say the least, that $200,000 is to be spent on the branding of an agency which has no competition. I find appalling the fact that the contract was originally set at $41,000-odd and in less than two months has blown out fivefold. I know that the time we waste in parliament with ridiculous debates such as that on same sex marriage is designed to take the heat off the government for its lack of fiscal management. We are all alarmed at the complacency this government displays in every matter other than the carbon tax. The people of Australia have every right to be concerned at the rate of knots at which this country is sailing into ruin. They have every right to fear for their jobs. Mark my words, we will all rue the day the carbon tax was introduced. Post-traumatic Stress Disorder 1472 19:15 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra I rise tonight to talk about post-traumatic stress disorder and the tremendous work being done by two organisations to raise awareness of this disorder in Australia. Post-traumatic stress disorder is a condition that occurs as a result of trauma. If a person reacts to a traumatic situation or catastrophic event with intense fear, helplessness or horror they may develop ongoing problems; that is post-traumatic stress disorder. Not everyone who experiences trauma develops this disorder, but many do. While there is a lot of research still being undertaken as to why some people develop it and some people do not, what is known is that the disorder affects Australians from all walks of life. There is a critical need to raise awareness and understanding about the condition and how it affects those who have it and their families and friends. Exactly how many Australians experience the disorder at any one time varies, but Australian Bureau of Statistics data suggests about 1.4 million people, or between three and eight per cent of the Australian population, live with this disorder. The largest group of Australians with this disorder are those who have survived car accidents. Those Australians who have put their life on the line during the course of their work face the highest risks of experiencing the disorder. They include our defence personnel, police officers, paramedics, firefighters, emergency service workers and volunteers. Also at highest risk are those subjected to domestic incidents and to violent crimes such as sexual assault. This makes the disorder one of the major health and wellbeing issues we face. The impacts are devastating. The disorder can tear families apart and destroy careers and lives. The symptoms can include recurrent nightmares about traumatic events, flashbacks, rage outbursts, anxiety, depression, insomnia and out-of-character drinking and drug use. People living with this disorder often avoid friends, family and colleagues and even their workplaces and homes as a coping mechanism to help them stop reliving traumatic memories. The disorder can also lead to physical illnesses, such as skin rashes, stomach complaints, cardiovascular problems, asthma, headaches, diabetes and dental problems. Post-traumatic stress disorder is a very complicated illness and can occur alongside or exacerbate other types of illnesses. This is partly why it is very hard to diagnose and why there is a lot of stigma and ignorance about it. Most cases can be treated with medication or psychotherapy or a combination of both. However, the symptoms can last for months, years or decades, and they can be episodic. As with many other health conditions, early diagnosis and treatment is critical, as is the support of family, friends and workmates. Although this disorder is not strictly a mental health condition, it shares a lot of similarities with mental illness, such as the stigma and misunderstanding about its causes and treatment. That is why Australia's two main post-traumatic stress disorder organisations have joined together to launch Stand Tall and establish a national awareness event to promote and educate all Australians about the disorder. Picking Up The Peaces is a national organisation, based here in Canberra, that is campaigning to raise awareness and increase understanding about post-traumatic stress disorder. It has done an amazing job of producing information and educational material, and it has created a website—pickingupthepeaces.org.au—designed to educate and assist anyone and everyone touched by the disorder. It is working with Tony Dell, a Vietnam veteran and former Australian test cricketer, who is the driving force behind the national awareness campaign Stand Tall. Tony Dell is the initiator of Stand Tall, which will be launched at Manuka Oval in my electorate of Canberra on Sunday 25 November this year. This national awareness campaign is being backed by Cricket Australia, the Australian Defence Force, the Department of Veterans' Affairs, the Mental Health Council of Australia and many prominent Australians. It is hoped that the Stand Tall launch at Manuka Oval will be similar to the promotional event at the Sydney Cricket Ground for the McGrath Foundation. Manuka Oval will be a sea of orange, which is the colour of post-traumatic stress disorder awareness. The organisers are anticipating a crowd of 10,000 to witness a day of cricket, soldiers and music. I encourage everyone in the parliament to support the success of Stand Tall and to take part in it. We need to support our defence force personnel, all police officers and the thousands of SES workers and volunteers who rescue and help Australians when they are threatened by flood, fire and other disasters. (Time expired) Mallee Electorate: Social Housing 1473 19:20 Mr FORREST NV5 Mallee I was very disturbed to discover, between Christmas and the new year, that government departments have been responsible for trampling on my constituents' town planning rights. The offending project is a transitional social housing development in Deakin Avenue, Mildura. It is funded under the federal government's stimulus package. I understand that the member for Dunkley had a similar issue in his constituency in 2010 but managed to achieve a better outcome than my constituents have endured. It is true that social housing is a much needed investment. Indeed, it is one on which I have made strong representation in the past. I stress that my objection is based not on it being 'not in my backyard' but on the simple principle that adjoining landholders' rights to be consulted have been usurped. This project is an architectural disaster in my view—I challenge anybody to look at the photographs. It has come about because the state government in Victoria has a policy of not air-conditioning public housing, so this building is completely enclosed by a steel mesh cage to shade the building. The cage is eight metres high and it goes right over the building. Conservatively, this steel structure would have cost at least half a million dollars, probably more. You could have bought and installed a lot or reverse-cycle air conditioners for that sort of money. It astounds me that a 'no air conditioning' policy exists in an arid desert climate like Mildura. The project consists of 28 accommodation units and is two storeys. Its construction is now finished. It is completely surrounded by residential housing. On the eastern side is a 30-unit motel; on the northern side are residential dwellings, acting as homes; and on the western side are two private dwellings and two separate strata title unit developments. It is completely surrounded by domestic accommodation. It is very disturbing that when my constituents went, rightly, to the Mildura Rural City Council to ask what this project was about they were rebuffed. In fact, they were told that because it was a federally funded project it did not have to comply with conventional town planning or development application procedures. This is patent nonsense. This project is now completed and these residents are confounded at the intrusive aspect of this building. The privacy of the motel swimming pool is compromised from the second storey, as is the privacy of the backyards of dwellings. There are 56 rubbish bins stacked within metres of residential bedrooms. Each unit has two rubbish bins—a recycling bin and a conventional bin. The clamour and din that collection is going to create—early in the morning, I presume—will be an incredible intrusion. A 28-space carpark is floodlit from evening to dawn with daylight intensity only metres from strata title bedrooms. I was very disturbed to be advised of all this and quickly wrote to the Hon. Robert McClelland, the Minister for Housing in this place, on 5 January 2012 to try to establish what the Commonwealth's role in this travesty was. To this date I have not received a response to that letter. This is very poor form from the Minister for Housing. I find it extraordinary that government departments can ride roughshod over people's town planning rights. Having practised as a consulting engineer for so long, I know that these are rights that are enshrined and that parliaments have protected people's next-door privacy.. The Victorian town planning procedures require adjacent landholders to be notified and be involved in the design. Privacy, amenity, noise, stench and other such matters are very relevant. It subsequently transpires that the Victorian government deliberately did this with a V6 planning amendment that made the Victorian Labor Minister for Planning the responsible authority for town-planning issues. He now relies on the defence that he relied on the Mildura Rural City Council to provide the town-planning advice. But that did not happen. This is not totalitarian Communist China, where 20 million people can be shifted to make way for the Three Gorges Dam. This is democratic Australia. My constituents are demanding an explanation. They are certainly looking for natural justice and they are certainly looking for compensation for the intrusion and loss of amenity they have suffered. Manufacturing 1475 19:25 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I rise today to raise a very important issue: the future of the manufacturing sector here in Australia. Manufacturing is a key industry for our national economy, providing jobs, skills and investment opportunities across Australia. As we know, there are currently significant challenges facing many manufacturing companies as a result of the strength of the Australian dollar, which is affecting demand for our exports overseas. However, I believe manufacturing has a future in this country, and this government is committed to ensuring that it does. This side of the House stands shoulder to shoulder with this industry and its workers to ensure that after the mining boom has come and gone we continue to have a strong manufacturing sector in this country. This is in clear contrast to the opposition, who are prepared to abandon manufacturing if they are ever elected. Like many other electorates, my electorate of Kingston has a strong manufacturing presence, with the most recent ABS statistics indicating that a sixth of my constituents are employed in that industry. Close to a million people work in this industry. It offers well-paid, high-skill jobs; encourages investment; contributes to research and development and is an important part of our national economy. Labor has a history of supporting manufacturing through tough times. In my electorate I have seen this commitment firsthand. Many people were extremely disappointed when in 2008 Mitsubishi announced it would close its doors. I was pleased at the support provided by federal and state Labor governments to retrain workers who lost their jobs and also the support for the creation of new jobs though the co-investment with industry as part of the SA Innovation and Investment Fund. As a result of the government's co-investment, many local manufacturers were able to expand and diversify, which has created jobs in our local community in the south as well as in wider Adelaide. High-tech, high-skilled innovative manufacturing is the future for Australia. This side of the House is looking at how we support our manufacturing base to move into this space. One significant example of the state government providing assistance for innovative competition is the development of the old Mitsubishi site in Tonsley. When Mitsubishi left that site, I was extremely pleased that the state government bought it. They have a plan to transform the old Mitsubishi relic into a vibrant and integrated mixed-use employment precinct that will significantly grow the industrial and economic base of southern Adelaide. The site, once completed, will provide training and also support jobs, with the state government's vision that it will become a hub for innovative companies working in environmental industries, sustainable technologies and advanced manufacturing. This will transform what would have been just a vacant and unproductive site abandoned by Mitsubishi into a productive industrial precinct in southern Adelaide. The first stage of this transformation has already begun, with the state committing $125 million to a new TAFE campus on which construction has already begun. That will support over 8,000 students. Like the South Australian government, the federal government recognises the importance of strengthening the industry to keep jobs and skills in Australia. The government has focused on helping industries adjust, through co-investment. Whether it is in the steel industry or the automotive industry, we are strengthening our industry participation plans and appointing supplier advocates to ensure that local companies are part of the supply chain, and our clean energy future initiatives provide government assistance for industries to prepare for a carbon constrained future. We have developed a comprehensive road map for innovation though our 10-year Powering Ideas: An Innovation Agenda for the 21st Century program, and we have introduced new R&D tax incentives and cooperative research centres to enhance productivity through innovation and create synergy between research and industry. This government has an extremely strong record of supporting manufacturing in this country. This is in stark contrast to the coalition, who will not support manufacturing. They want to cut support. The opposition have proposed a $500 million cut from the Automotive Transformation Scheme, and they have indicated that they will cease support for the car industry by 2015. This would be a disastrous blow for the future of the automotive industry. Over 200,000 workers' jobs would be lost, not to mention the many thousands of jobs that are indirectly linked. So I call on the coalition to support the car industry and ensure it has a bright future. (Time expired) Automotive Industry, Videoconferencing, Dunkley Student Recognition and Encouragement Awards 1476 19:31 Mr BILLSON 1K6 Dunkley Dunkley residents can be assured that I will continue to work for a supportive economic and policy environment that addresses the concerns of local manufacturers, particularly component manufacturers to the automotive industry. Recently I was pleased to visit a Seaford component manufacturer and talk with them about their experiences given the downturn in the number of locally produced cars, the high Australian dollar and the scary scheduled start of the carbon tax that they are having to contend with. Colin Guest and Co. stressed the importance of well-targeted government funding and how the Gillard Labor government's carbon tax will affect the viability of their business and the 60 people they employ. When the major car manufacturers are struggling, it puts pressure right down the supply chain, with component manufacturers like Colin Guest and Co. at the pointy end. We need to help these types of businesses not only because of the people they employ but because of the knowledge, capacity and skills that they contribute to the economy. The team at Colin Guest and Co. design and produce world-class drive-shaft support components for rear-wheel-drive vehicles that outperform competitors on performance, noise levels and durability. This is why some 60 per cent of their production is exported to General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, particularly in the United States. The clear and consistent policy that the coalition implemented during the Howard government years provided an excellent platform for the car industry to pursue success, with higher production levels servicing healthy domestic and international demand, underpinned by over $4.2 billion worth of funding for the industry in the 10-year period through to 2015. The Howard government's investment levels and settled policies were based on a strategic long-term vision and supported a sustainable, efficient and innovative industry producing higher volumes of models that met local and export demand. Toyota's local production at that time was nearly three times what it is today, and we need to return to that formula of targeted, thoughtful investment, predictability and support for world-class performance within the industry. It has worked well in the past; it will work well into the future. Those stable policies provided the car industry with the certainty that it was looking for in challenging times. The Gillard Labor government's carbon tax and $1.4 billion of broken promises have left car bosses scratching their heads and wondering why Australia is putting up barriers to production and why big announcements upon which forward plans are made are subsequently withdrawn without consultation. The chopping and changing and policy surprises by the Gillard Labor government have unsettled decision makers in Detroit and Tokyo, and this makes a difficult economic environment even more challenging. On the topic of local small business, I am concerned to learn that a world-class videoconferencing service provider in my electorate is being overlooked by the Gillard Labor government in favour of high-cost travel and overseas owned providers, according to the information that has been made available to me. It is disappointing that this world-class business, Express Virtual Meetings, located in Mount Eliza in my electorate, is earning and servicing contracts right across the economy but the Commonwealth is overlooking this quality local business in favour of companies that are listed on the US stock exchange. I am led to believe that nearly 50 per cent of all the Commonwealth teleconferencing services commissioned over the past two years have been given to businesses not approved under the Australian Government Telecommunications Arrangements. Of these businesses given Commonwealth contracts not approved under the AGTA, 100 per cent were owned by overseas countries. It is about time the Gillard government was serious about supporting local businesses when they are recognised as world-class and not simply sending that work overseas without going through due process. Finally, in the time that is available I want to acknowledge the Dunkley Student Recognition and Encouragement Award recipients for the last calendar year. Luke Pagram, Brianna Dillon, Isaac Pavlou, Elana McCormick, Chloe Baker, Britney Wilde, Pieter LeRoux, Brendon Thompson, Bree Tolley, Joel Nicholls, Harley Muscat, Rachelle Flight, Kosta Giannakopoulos, Jan Silayan, Madison Scully, Leith Bell, Taylah Roach, Josh Gardener and Lauryn Coyle were all recipients of the Dunkley Student Recognition and Encouragement Award. These awards acknowledge the students' really valuable personal qualities of being positive in their interactions with their peers and staff and their attitude to everyday school life and the challenges that they address. The awards acknowledge that they are passionate about improvements in personal achievement, in assisting others to achieve their best and in their belief in and commitment to their school and their personal goals. The awards also acknowledge that they are persistent. It is about always being willing to have a go and not giving up easily. 'Positive, passionate and persistent', colleagues would know, is my campaign slogan and the approach that I take to my work. It is important to recognise these personal qualities that support achievement for people, regardless of their background. Your postcode does not determine your potential; it is these personal qualities, and they deserve recognition. (Time expired) Page Electorate: Community Activities 1478 19:36 Ms SAFFIN HVY Page Last Wednesday I attended an event here at Parliament House along with other members of parliament. It was the Heywire event, an ABC Radio event that is done in partnership with the Australian government. It provides a platform for the ideas, aspirations and stories of regional youth. It is a wonderful initiative and it has the support of all members of this place—and you can see that by the attendance. I had the occasion to be with Brittany Armstrong, who is from Casino, in my seat of Page. Brittany is a year 12 student at Casino High and she won with her story about speedway racing—a bit unusual but something that a lot of people follow and love. She was quite surprised and delighted that she won, so it was a nice occasion for me to meet her and also meet with other people. I thank everybody associated with Heywire, particularly Mary Pemberton, the coordinator, because it takes a lot of work to organise it. I also had occasion to visit, in my electorate last Saturday, the 2nd Casino Scout Group, which is in Pratt Street, to look at the work they do and to meet some of the children who are active in Scouting. I would like to put on the record that Casino has 100 years of continuous Scouting history. That is commendable in itself. It is really commendable of the parents who keep it going, because it relies on them and volunteers. They told me that the local state member for Lismore, Thomas George, had been a member of the group and that his name was listed on the honour roll. He comes from Casino, so they were quite pleased about that. I gave them a portrait of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth. Mr Dutton 00AKI What a good monarchist you are! Ms SAFFIN HVY I am not but I am a good local member and it is what they wanted. I got it for them, had it framed and took it over and it was hung up on a wall. They had one but they needed a new one—let us put it that way—so I made sure that they got that. They were delighted with it. So it is hanging up and it looks very good. Another local issue that I am actively advocating for at the moment is Coraki's Campbell Hospital, which is in my seat of Page. It is a small 14-bed hospital. There is a committee there. It is like a standing committee—it is called the Save the Hospital Committee—because every now and then the issue raises its head whereby they feel they are under threat. They do so at the moment. They have had some bad luck with the weather and it did do some damage to the hospital and expensive repair work was carried out. I was told that that would continue over the holidays and I was also told by the health service that they were undertaking a full structural review of the hospital as that was required. I understand that has been done and that I will be advised as to that soon. But the community, without enough information and after waiting for quite a few months, started to get very anxious about it, understandably so, and there was a public meeting and a lot of people turned out—230 people, although Coraki is a small place. I was here in this place so I joined the meeting by telephone. The local state member for Clarence attended the meeting and both he and I gave support to them, as I have done ever since I have been elected as their member and said that I will always make sure that that hospital stays open. I have a petition to that effect. We are collecting signatures on it at the moment in the community. We are seeking three things: ensuring urgent attention to repairs at Campbell Hospital, reopening the hospital at the earliest possible date and the giving of a commitment to the long-term future of the Campbell Hospital, which the residents so rightly deserve. Another event that happened in my electorate recently was the opening of another part of the Ballina Bypass, something that was funded by our government and something that I lobbied for—involving $450 million, and there is state money in that as well. I was there with the local state member for Ballina and we did the honours and opened that. It was wonderful to see. We both stood there saying we never thought we would get so excited watching cars drive up a road—but it was good to see because the road was open. (Time expired) Dickson Electorate: Infrastructure 1479 19:41 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I rise today to talk about two major infrastructure concerns in my electorate of Dickson. It has now been over a year since the January 2011 floods when the North Pine River flooded, causing extensive damage to the northbound AJ Wyllie Bridge. As a result this bridge was closed and traffic was forced to use the remaining southbound bridge, causing traffic chaos and huge commuter delays. It has been devastating to local businesses and a lingering frustration to local residents. One would think that after a year this problem would have been resolved or at least be close to being resolved, especially with the announcement by the Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh, that 'all 89 flood damaged bridges and culverts had been opened'. But I am saddened to say that Anna Bligh was obviously unaware or had not been informed, by the local state members, Ms O'Neill and Ms Male, that absolutely no progress had been made and that residents, commuters and businesses were still waiting. It has been over a year since the AJ Wyllie Bridge was damaged, so over a year locals have had to bear the brunt of delay after delay waiting for it to be fixed or rebuilt. Now, at the beginning of an election campaign, it is announced that a tender has finally been approved. The construction, however, is expected to take yet another year to complete. Residents, commuters and business owners may have been ignored by the state Labor government but fortunately the LNP candidate for Kallangur, Trevor Ruthenberg, and the LNP candidate for Pine Rivers, Seath Holswich, have taken up the fight. These two hardworking locals have spent the last year fighting for action and have been successful in achieving better outcomes for traffic management during the year. They have also stood up for local businesses who are suffering at a time that is already difficult for the retail sector. They organised a promotional day to encourage locals back to businesses in the area and help them to survive until a new bridge is built and commuters return to their regular travel route. Other infrastructure concerns are constantly being brought to my attention by my constituents when I travel around the Dickson electorate in my mobile office. The lack of trains servicing the Ferny Grove line is one of these and residents of Samford and the Hills District in my electorate find the decision to use public transport more difficult when it is inefficient as well as expensive. The LNP state candidate for Ferny Grove, Dale Shuttleworth, and the LNP state candidate for Everton, Tim Mander, have been listening to locals also and are fighting for a more reliable and cost-effective train service. Dale, Tim and the LNP team will improve the Ferny Grove line on weekdays so that commuters will have no need for a timetable because they can be assured that a train will arrive regularly. At present commuters from the Ferny Grove line are currently waiting 30 minutes for a daytime off-peak train. This time will be halved when services are doubled, with a train arriving every 15 minutes. Additional trains are needed to accommodate the population growth in this area and also make public transport more affordable for regular commuters—encouraging them back to public transport, which in turn will alleviate some of the traffic problems, especially along Samford Road, a known bottleneck for this area. To date, the Bligh government has not encouraged regular train travel—it is expensive and unreliable. The introduction of free travel after 10 trips in a seven-day week beginning on Monday on a GoCard is a farce. In a five-day working week most travellers only make 10 trips and the last thing many want to do is climb back on a train on the weekend to get cheaper travel. We have read in the paper about people taking short trips in their lunch hour on buses so that the longer trip home through more zones is less expensive. People should not have to do this to try and benefit from using public transport. If you want commuters to leave their cars at home and take the bus or train then you have to make it worth their while. Paying for a service that is just as expensive as driving and parking and is at the same time inefficient is not an incentive to use public transport. Dale Shuttleworth, Tim Mander and the LNP team are genuinely committed to our local community, and in particular to providing reward and encouragement to regular GoCard commuters with the reintroduction of the weekly discount. This is something my constituents have asked for for a long time and it is something that, sadly, the state member for Ferny Grove and state health minister, Geoff Wilson, has responded to with a tin ear. Campbell Newman, Dale Shuttleworth and Tim Mander are committed to delivering a revitalised train network underpinned by better planning for the future. Commuters will be encouraged back to public transport and the rewards for all of us will be immense. Hunter Electorate: Oncology Services 1480 19:46 Ms GRIERSON 00AMP Newcastle I rise to speak on the release last week of the external review of medical oncology services at the Hunter New England Local Health District. The report was commissioned after 2011 media attention on inadequate cancer services in the Hunter region. Reports told of too many people with life-critical cancer suffering from a medical bureaucracy that moved, according to the Newcastle Herald, with glacial slowness. Story after story of personal anxiety and despair was showcased. A typical wait to see a specialist in the Hunter region was seven weeks, in comparison to the benchmark of two weeks for cancer patients awaiting medical oncology treatment in Sydney. On demographics alone, the Hunter region had half the medical oncologists it should have had. People were dying in the time between diagnosis and seeing a specialist or between diagnosis and the commencement of treatment. The public and the media raised their voices for remediation of these failings. New South Wales Health with Hunter New England Health and Calvary Mater Newcastle began an external review of oncology services across the region. In August last year it was reported that a draft report had been completed and the New South Wales government was acting on the recommendations. But the report remained secret. At my request the then federal Minister for Health, Nicola Roxon, wrote to the New South Wales health minister, Jillian Skinner, for details. Again, no report details were made available. I find it alarming that any state health minister would be happy to take federal funding but not be willing to be accountable for its expenditure. Whilst our health and hospital reforms have begun to make a difference there is still much to do to bring transparency to resourcing levels, treatment and care standards and patient outcomes. But the report has now been released and we are told that of the 24 recommendations made in the review, 21 will be supported by Hunter New England Health and Calvary Mater Newcastle. There is insufficient time in this debate to go to all the recommendations but I mention two. Recommendation No. 2 is that there be no further expansion of sites in the Hunter New England Health area until there is an appropriate increase in medical oncologists. It is a bit catch-22. It sounds sensible on the surface as long as it is constantly reviewed against actual need and actual resources and not used as an excuse to defer justified expansion or to ignore serious recruitment of medical oncologists. Recommendation No. 5 is for the reinstatement of the triage oncology nurse and that role's expansion to include coordination of chemotherapy treatments in the day oncology unit and the Inpatient Oncology Unit. The review found the current system of registrars is inefficient, contributing to longer waiting lists. Anyone who has sat in a hospital knows that in the hospital environment registrars are stretched thin and often are not available. A dedicated trained triage oncology nurse could make a real difference. Of the three recommendations not supported I highlight two that recommended structural change—recommendation No. 22 goes to achieving a consistent approach to nursing practice and recommendation No. 10 suggests a holistic approach by the many cancer related services. So apparently a unified and integrated approach is not supported. As a consumer, that is what I would really like to see. As the member for Newcastle, I think the people I represent would like that possibility explored further and I do not intend to let that ideal slip away. If patient need and care was central to any structure of cancer services then I think integration of services and the setting up of pathways that link those services to guide both patients and their medical professionals would be critical to optimising successful outcomes in patient treatment and care. I would also think they would be critical to removing any inefficiencies and duplication. I think a consistent high-level approach by most practitioners would also be something that every patient would want to see. Measures are being taken from the recommendations made but the main sticking point to implementation and achieving significant improvement is that New South Wales Health states that HNE Health and Calvary Mater Newcastle plan to work together in order to 'free-up existing dollars in order to invest in the priorities'. Everyone sitting here knows that that is code for 'they just need to squeeze those health dollars a little more and spread it around differently and all will be fixed'. That is just an insult. After years of inadequate resourcing, I acknowledge by both the previous Labor government, according to the report, and the Liberal government, any catch-up will require additional funds, and those funds need to be injected now by the current New South Wales government. The Herald reports that that could be up to $10 million a year. The review found Newcastle's services are understaffed and workers are under pressure. It reveals that people are not receiving treatment that they would otherwise receive in places like Sydney and they are dying as a result. So I call on the local state government MPs—all of them—to do the job they were elected to do and stand up for the people of Newcastle and the Hunter so that we do have the oncology services we are entitled to and need. The SPEAKER 0V5 While I can understand the enthusiasm of the member for Cowan, he should not stand while another honourable member has the call. I call the honourable member for Cowan. Surf Life Saving 1482 19:52 Mr SIMPKINS HWE Cowan This summer I completed my surf rescue certificate with the Sorrento Surf Life Saving Club in Western Australia, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank the general manager of the club, Louise Dean, for organising the training course and also the course trainer and club volunteer, Lisa Thomson. Given the beach environment that many Australians enjoy, I believe that it is important to have a good understanding of basic surf rescue, first aid and resuscitation. Australian beaches receive around 100 million visits a year and it is estimated that 80 per cent of all Australians visit the beach at some point each year—and this is not surprising given that Australia has some of the best beaches in the world. While going to the beach can be lots of fun, we must remember that the beach can also be a dangerous place. Since July last year, surf life saving clubs across Australia have executed 9,189 rescues and administered first aid on 20,381 patients. Furthermore, across Australia 315 people lost their lives through drowning on our beaches or in waterways, in homes and in floods in 2010-11. To help keep this large volume of beachgoers safe, a number of whom are tourists and often unaware of surf conditions and how quickly they can change, an estimated 158,000 volunteers patrol Australian beaches and each year these members of surf life saving clubs rescue around 12,000 people. As a member of the Sorrento Surf Life Saving Club and the Parliamentary Friends of Surf Life Saving, I am well aware of the hard work and vital roles local surf life saving play in saving and protecting people's lives on our beaches. The coalition, which as we all know is led by a committed surf life saving member and volunteer, recognises the invaluable work organisations such as Surf Life Saving Australia play in keeping our beaches safe. As a result, we have committed an additional $10 million to assist surf life saving clubs across Australia purchase much needed equipment and we will extend the Beach Drowning Black Spot Reduction Program if elected to government. This funding will provide Australian surf clubs with an additional $1.6 million per year for five years and will mean that each of our 310 surf clubs will be given around $5,000 per year to purchase rescue equipment, first aid and medical supplies. When completing my surf rescue certificate I was told that it was often difficult for the club to cover the costs of maintaining and upgrading rescue equipment and that any damage to this equipment comes at the expense of the club. Therefore I am confident that funding to assist with the purchase of an inflatable rubber boat, a jet ski or first aid supplies will be a big help to the hardworking surf rescue clubs across Australia. One of the aspects of this program that I am particularly keen on is our commitment to working with the clubs to identify what they need and trying to satisfy this. The coalition finds it valuable to listen to those who do the day-to-day work and understand how the clubs work. For this reason, the coalition will be meeting with Surf Life Saving Australia in February to discuss other ways in which we can encourage water safety across Australia and reduce government compliance costs and red tape. This approach is unlike that of the Labor government, who are completely out of touch with community organisations and volunteers and are determined to burden them with new OH&S laws. Under Labor's new national OH&S regime, volunteers will now be considered in the same way as workers when it comes to OH&S matters and will be personally liable for fines up to $300,000 and prison sentences of up to five years if they do not comply. Volunteers are often at the heart of the community and deserve our support. We should be making volunteering easier, not harder. In conclusion, surf life saving clubs across the nation are not for profit and rely on membership fees, sponsors and grants to fund their operations. As the Sorrento Life Saving Club website states, the primary role of the club is to patrol the beaches and maintain a safe environment for the public and to do this they rely on their volunteer members. Surf life saving clubs such as Sorrento and their dedicated members deserve recognition for their hard work, time and effort in creating a safe environment on Australia's beaches and coastline through patrols, education and training, public safety campaigns and the promotion of health and fitness. I believe that each of these valued volunteers should wear the iconic red and yellow uniform with pride, knowing that they are making a real difference. I congratulate all those members of not only the Sorrento Surf Life Saving Club but all the surf life saving clubs across Western Australia and across Australia for the outstanding work that they do for our local community, for the people of Australia and for visitors to Australia. The coalition's promised funding and commitment to working with Surf Life Saving Australia will provide great value and support surf life saving clubs right across Australia. Infrastructure 1483 19:57 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I rise this evening to discuss a matter of increasing importance to those living in Australia's major cities such as Melbourne, and that is the matter of planning infrastructure for growing populations. Who is responsible for planning our cities? What criteria are being applied? How can Commonwealth funding contribute to sensible and sustainable planning for Melbourne? These questions are relevant because, as I am advised, during the coming month Infrastructure Australia will recommend to the government whether funding should be provided for various infrastructure proposals, including proposals by the Victorian state government. I am concerned that funding from the Commonwealth to Victoria should best meet the needs of Victorians, and particularly the needs of those in the electorate of Melbourne. Without sensible and integrated planning we risk wasting millions of dollars on massive projects that serve only the needs of a few. The electorate of Melbourne is the heart of Victoria's economic and transport systems and is home to Australia's busiest container port. The Victorian government has applied for funding for road and rail links to connect the Melbourne electorate with its metropolitan regional limbs and branches. Included in the wish list of the Victorian government is $30 million for planning an east-west road tunnel and $130 million for part of a metro rail tunnel. I have written to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister Albanese, to urge him not to provide any funding for the proposal for an east-west road link by the Victorian government and to urge him to ask the Baillieu government to prioritise submissions consistent with national aims to transition our cities to greater efficiency and sustainability. The east-west road tunnel has been widely criticised for a number of reasons, not least that the majority of road traffic—about 60 per cent—travels into or out of the city of Melbourne and congestion would not be alleviated by the construction of a cross-city tunnel. I have consistently called for projects such as the Doncaster rail line to be given priority to improve efficiency and productivity. We also know that in excess of 60,000 vehicles travel along the Eastern Freeway in the morning peak period without a rail alternative. I have urged the minister to discuss with the Victorian government the need to prioritise public transport alternatives such as rail from my electorate to Doncaster and better rail infrastructure for moving freight from the Port of Melbourne. As the population of cities like Melbourne increases, we will require more infrastructure—schools, medical clinics, aged-care facilities, affordable housing, trains and trams, digital technology and open space. In allocating funding to priority infrastructure, we must be sure that transport proposals are synchronised with planning and other infrastructure provision. We must ensure that essential infrastructure and basic services are provided before buildings go up and people move in. Building without such planning has resulted in communities like Docklands, which is without a school, without a park and without reliable access to television. If you, Mr Speaker, were to look at buying a flat in Docklands you would be well advised to check which side of the building it is on first because, believe it or not, in the middle of Melbourne's CBD you can find yourself without TV reception. I look forward to the forthcoming national urban policy, which, according to answers given to Senator Scott Ludlam recently, has an emphasis on lower emissions and sustainability and will inform Infrastructure Australia's recommendations and the decision of the minister. We urgently need a new approach to sustainable and integrated planning. House adjourned at 20 : 00 NOTICES 1484 NOTICES

Wednesday, 15 February 2012

 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ) took the chair at 09:30.

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 1486 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Road Infrastructure 1486 09:30 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes I rise this morning to speak about the crisis that is unfolding across northern New South Wales and more widely across regional Australia at the moment. This crisis is the poor state of local and regional roads. The poor condition of the roads has probably been hidden over the period of the 10-year drought. They were passable for use during that time, even though the gravel had been denuded and they were mainly on black soil. Another reason why the poor state of the roads was hidden is that to avoid getting on the financial watch list they hid the true figures about their roads. As a result, I believe that there is about a $6 billion deficit now in the condition of local roads. Everything that we purchase on a supermarket shelf starts its life on a local road. The two major economic drivers that kept this country out of recession in the global financial crisis, mining and agriculture, rely on a local road network. That is why the councils of Gwydir and Moree have formed the Australian Rural Roads Group. They now have over 100 members, including the largest agriculture-producing councils in Australia. They firmly believe that, as well as vehicle traffic, the value and amount of produce that is delivered on these roads should be taken into account and that there should be a strategic approach in putting in local road networks so that this produce can make its way to the markets. At the moment, we have farmers in dire financial stress because they have the grain from last year's harvest in storage on farm but cannot meet contractual agreements with flour millers, feedlots and the like. We have cattle producers that have regular contracts with supermarkets and abattoirs who cannot meet those contractual agreements because they cannot travel on these roads. This is not just an issue of people getting their children to school and getting to work, as important as those basic things that most people in metropolitan areas take for granted are. This is an issue that is affecting the productivity of our country. It is having a severe effect on the bottom line and restricting our ability to earn export dollars. (Time expired) Braddon Electorate: New Funding 1486 09:33 Mr SIDEBOTTOM 849 Braddon Good morning, colleagues. It is good to be back with you again. It is especially good because I can talk about my electorate of Braddon and some of the good news that has recently been announced in the far north-west in the Circular Head region, particularly in this Year of the Farmer, which we are all going to celebrate in this parliament with zest and eagerness. On Friday last, Minister Simon Crean, the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, came into the north-west to make two important announcements regarding some of the funding allocated to the intergovernmental agreement on forestry in Tasmania. The two announcements were associated with the dairy industry in particular and agriculture in general. The first was the announcement of a $4.25 million investment in what is known as a new Agritas Trade College at Smithton. Essentially, this college will develop skills and careers in agriculture and most especially in dairying, which is expanding at an exponential rate in Tasmania, particularly on the north-west coast. It is a fantastic investment in careers. We know that wherever we go throughout Australia to talk with people from the agricultural community—and indeed in fishing and forestry—there is a need for skilled labour. These are developing into high-tech 21st century industries. This college, in conjunction with the Circular Head Christian School, the Smithton High School, the Polytechnic and the other educational services providers, along with the industry in Smithton, will make this a centrepiece of excellence for the development of careers and training in agriculture. Hopefully, this will not only remain in Tassie but be replicated throughout the rest of the country. To add to that, $1.5 million is to be invested in the upgrade of what we call the Harcus River Road and in the development of energy supplies to what is fundamentally a beef-producing area. This will help farmers upgrade to higher value, higher volume dairying and develop 27 more farms to increase the dairy output. That will augment the development of a multimillion dollar milk powder factory at Smithton, which is being developed at the same time. That is a good news story: great investment in a great industry in the Year of the Farmer. Goulburn-Murray Water Authority 1487 09:36 Dr STONE EM6 Murray We should be celebrating in northern Victoria. The drought, the worse in living memory, is over. The floods have receded. We do not have any plagues of anything currently. We have just had the second $1 billion for irrigation system renewal announced. We are assured by every expert that the global food task needs to double. We should be rejoicing. In fact, most people across northern Victoria, particularly across the irrigation system called Goulburn-Murray, are in deadly fear for their futures. Because farm debts went through the roof during the drought, every dollar counts. Every farm is on a knife's edge. Every farmer has to ensure that there is absolutely no unwarranted expenditure. Every dollar must give them good value. The trouble is, the Goulburn-Murray Water Authority is in chaos. It is the last of Australia's state owned bureaucracies running a water supply system. They are totally incompetent. They have over 700 employees where the equivalent in New South Wales, a farmer owned cooperative, has only some 150 to 200. They have debts each year that the Auditor-General in Victoria has said are unsustainable. Those debts were over $53 million last year. The Goulburn-Murray Water Authority is trying to claw back these debts by putting up irrigator costs, charges and fees at unsustainable rates. Over 90 per cent of the fees and charges now inflicted on farmers are fixed charges. Over 1,000 irrigators this year have not been able to pay their fees from last year. The system maintenance is in chaos. And then we have the so-called Food Bowl Modernisation Project. This came about as a result of a need to justify the pipeline to Melbourne, which was shut down by the coalition government as soon as it got into office. This Food Bowl Modernisation Project should be brilliant. It should be amazing. It should set us up with a world best irrigation system. In fact, it is non-strategic. It is about dividing and conquering irrigators, who are being pitted one against another. It is not backed at all by good engineering. It is about collapsing the irrigation system by at least 60 per cent in order to relieve Goulburn-Murray Water of its own management task so that somehow it might survive. This is the most dreadful situation. I am calling on the Victorian government and the minister, Peter Walsh, to look at the alternative of an irrigator owned cooperative such as we have in New South Wales and Western Australia—in fact, in every other part of Australia where we have an irrigation system. This is our only hope. It will be a good result; a good solution. Without it, we are going to lose an irrigation area which is and has been the food bowl of Australia. There is no other alternative for us. Goulburn-Murray Water's CEO has resigned. We know that the board has been sacked and replaced. That is not sufficient. (Time expired) La Trobe Electorate: Education 1488 09:39 Ms SMYTH 172770 La Trobe I am very pleased to be able to update the House on matters occurring in my electorate, particularly in the area of education. During November and December, I had the opportunity—as many members here regularly do—to visit many of my schools to talk to students about issues to do with leadership and community service. At the same time, it gave me a good opportunity to get feedback from those school communities, teachers and students about the way in which their schools are running and the way in which our education system is going. The feedback was great. I know that many schools in my electorate have benefited from this government's considerable investment in education during its term—investment in new facilities and infrastructure in particular. It is all appreciated. One of the schools recently celebrated the opening of its BER project, Emerald Primary School. That was a great occasion. I was pleased to be there to open the new library and classrooms and to see the results of the other refurbishments, which were supported by an investment of around $3 million made by this government. I was particularly pleased to learn that part of the new building is dedicated to enabling students to learn more about the environment and sustainability. Emerald, as its name might suggest, is part of the leafier area of my electorate. I know that sustainability is something that interests a great many school students. On a less happy note, I should report to the House that this government's position is certainly very different from that of the opposition. When we formed government we made a significant investment in education and honoured the commitments that we made in the lead-up to coming to office. The opposition has indicated that it would slash some $2.8 billion from school education among other things. While the Liberals in opposition very regularly talk about education and their commitment to it and all of the things that they would bring to it if they came to office, it really pays to look at what they in fact do when they take up the reins of government. We can see that in relation to Emerald Primary School. The Victorian Labor government prior to the last election committed to $6 million for new classrooms, art, music, physical education and administration areas. That commitment was announced in October 2010 and was apparently matched by the Victorian Liberals. But when you have a look at the budget papers from the Victorian government, sadly, it is not there—unsurprisingly for those of us who have been following with interest the actions of the Baillieu Liberal government. This government has funded much-needed educational infrastructure at schools such as Emerald, and that is certainly appreciated. We stumped up that funding. We voted for it. It was voted against by those opposite in this place and we know exactly what has happened in Victoria when the Liberals came to power. They have made it very clear that they have no commitment to education. Cowan Electorate: Hudson Park Primary School 1489 09:42 Mr SIMPKINS HWE Cowan Last Friday, I visited Hudson Park Primary School in the suburb of Girraween in the electorate of Cowan to wish the year 6 and year 7 students all the best for 2012. I thank Principal Paul Andrijich for the opportunity to speak with the two senior classes. I have spoken about Hudson Park Primary School in the House of Representatives and I would like to express my admiration for the great work that the leadership team has done in all of the years that I have been visiting the school. Iconic and long-term former principal Doug Grasso was a local legend and highly respected by the wider school community. Immediate past principal Anne Napolitano continued the positive nature of the school. Now the school is in the hands of a new principal, Paul Andrijich; long-term deputy Elaine Hill; and deputy principal Julie Waller. I am confident that the great work at Hudson Park will continue. The students at Hudson Park Primary School have many countries of origin. There are many Vietnamese students. There are students from Burma, Africa and many other places around the world. The school is able to bring together these different cultures and create an excellent learning environment for all the students. The school is in my view defined very well by its motto: 'Harmony, persistence and success'. The achievement of a strong education for all the students has been produced by a dedicated school community consisting of highly motivated administrators, dedicated teaching staff, supportive parents and keen students. When I visited Hudson Park Primary School, I was met by head boy, Neil Soriano, and head girl, Paris James. They are great examples of the students at the school. I mentioned before the dedicated teaching staff. I have spoken with a number of teachers there over my many visits to the school. On this visit, I also thanked the excellent teachers Melanie Chapman and Vince Cardenia, teachers of the two year 6 and year 7 split classes. The children were very well behaved and I greatly enjoyed my talk with them, the questions that they asked and the interactions that we had. I took the opportunity to speak with the year 6 and year 7 students because I wanted them to know that I have great faith in them and that I also have faith in our nation. In Australia, we have a nation that allows them great opportunities. Those opportunities exist regardless of where they came from. The point is that Australia is different to almost every one of their countries of origin in that regard. I reminded them that society does not owe them success but if they want to work hard and commit to being the best person they can then they would be certain of achieving well. Girrawheen is a suburb in Cowan that is more challenged than most. It faces lower socioeconomic circumstances than other places. But that is no reason for these young people not to believe in themselves. No-one should believe themselves unlucky and no-one should believe that their future is limited just because they live in a certain suburb. The only thing that can limit these young students at Hudson Park Primary School is a lack of belief in themselves. I have faith in them and their futures and I hope they also have faith and confidence in themselves. O'Connor Electorate: Regional Development Australia 1490 09:45 Mr CROOK M3K O'Connor I thank the member for Cowan for acknowledging Ian Napolitano, an old school friend of mine. I would like to take the opportunity to mention two key regional projects in my electorate of O'Connor that are currently requesting federal government support through the Regional Development Australia Fund. These projects are the Wagin Integrated Food and Fibre Processing Hub and the Katanning Town Hall redevelopment. Both of these projects have the potential to greatly enhance their regions. The Wagin food and fibre hub will be a major economic driver for this area of regional Western Australia. The project will include the construction of a desalination plant; a co-generation power supply capable of producing green energy from oat husks, straw, mallee and green waste; and an inland aquaculture system capable of producing 125 tonnes of barramundi in the first year of operation. Working with Western Australia's Murdoch University, the Shire of Wagin hopes to use new technology to grow barramundi in saline ground water. It is a unique and visionary proposal by the Shire of Wagin that will lead to the creation of new jobs, the generation of renewable energy, the reduction of waste water and the attraction of new industry to the region. The Wagin food and fibre hub will diversify the regional economy creating a more sustainable and regional community in regional Western Australia. The Katanning Town Hall redevelopment is another important project for O'Connor. It will have particular benefit to the Great Southern region of my electorate. Katanning is a major regional centre in the Great Southern with a direct population of more than 4½ thousand residents and servicing an additional 9,000 residents in surrounding shires. The recent construction of the Albany Entertainment Centre in my electorate has been a great drawcard for the Great Southern region. It has attracted world-calibre entertainers, musicians and performers to the region. As a major centre, Katanning is perfectly placed to host many of these act as they pass between Albany and Perth. But, due to the size and condition of the current Katanning Town Hall, the ability to attract these acts is limited. By expanding and improving the existing facility, Katanning will be able to attract performances which are rarely seen in regional Western Australia. The Katanning Town Hall redevelopment will include the installation of a retractable seating system, a new kitchen and bathroom, a temporary stage, dressing rooms and modern sound and lighting systems, and a refurbishment and redesign of the state heritage listed building. Having recently met with the shires of Wagin and Katanning to discuss these projects, I am impressed by their commitment and drive to enhance the region. Both of these are very positive and innovative projects and I commend them to the House. Hume Electorate: Wind Turbines 1490 09:48 Mr SCHULTZ 83Q Hume I rise again tonight to talk about the wind turbine industry and, more importantly, the modus operandi of the great clean energy wind turbine fraud and its closest supporters in government, including some sections of the environmental movement. In the time I have available to me I am going to talk very briefly about intimidation, unauthorised exposure of confidential submissions on wind turbine development and other matters. I have been the recipient of intimidation from Friends of the Earth, an environmental group from Victoria. They threatened legal action against me because I was making some pretty strong statements about the great turbine industry. On 19 December I took some of my constituents and a group of people from the Flyers Creek Wind Turbine Awareness Group to meet with the Director-General of Planning in New South Wales. At that meeting various discussions took place in relation to confidential documents. Confidential documents were tabled. Those confidential documents in some instances contained information which was critical to the draft policy guidelines that were coming out of the New South Wales government and, more importantly, proposed developments of wind turbines in areas centred around Bathurst. Those people, including me, were given platinum plated guarantees from the Director-General of the New South Wales Department of Planning and Infrastructure, Mr Haddad, that all of the submissions would be treated confidentially. In early January of this year, those submissions that had been tabled, and others, were exposed on the website of the department of planning of the New South Wales government, not only the detail of the submissions but the identity of the people who put those submissions in. That has created massive problems. It has destroyed the credibility of people. It has exposed people to possible violence. It has exposed people to legal action from the wind turbine industry, because a couple of the people who put them in were turbine host people. I have written to the New South Wales government asking the New South Wales government what action they are going to take against the people who exposed, without authorisation, those confidential documents on a government website. I thank the House for the opportunity to say those few words. Hindmarsh Electorate: PISA Italian Meals and Services 1491 09:51 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh Today I rise to congratulate a particular service in my electorate. I congratulate PISA Italian Meals and Services on the opening of their new meals kitchen in the suburb of Torrensville, which happened at the end of last year. PISA is an acronym for Pasti Italiani e Servizi per Anziani, which means 'Italian food service' for the Italian community in the western suburbs. PISA's vision is to be a provider of meals to many elderly people, to those who are disabled and to many others who, for whatever reason, cannot get their own meals—and also, very importantly, a point of contact for the community to enhance their lifestyle choices. The electorate of Hindmarsh has a very large Italian community, many of whom are now getting to the ages of the late 70s, 80s or 90s. Many of them came over in the 1950s or 1960s as young men and women in their late teens or early 20s, and today they are one of the fastest-ageing populations in my electorate. I think this service will be a huge success for them and is much needed. My electorate is one of the oldest, so we are having many, many ageing issues. Before the new kitchen was built, all meals for PISA were cooked in the Firle kitchen, which is on the other side of Adelaide, meaning a long drive for those many volunteers to come down to the western suburbs to deliver their meals to the houses of the clients. Logistically, it was a challenge to keep food at the right temperature et cetera. The new kitchen is located in the heart of Torrensville, in the heart of the Italian community in the western suburbs. It also doubles as a shopfront where you can pop in for a coffee or pick up a beautiful ready-made meal. I can tell you that the meals are pretty good, and so is the coffee. I was fortunate to attend the opening with some of my state parliamentary colleagues, including the Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Jennifer Rankine; Minister Grace Portolesi; and Minister Tom Koutsantonis. It was at the end of last year. It was an absolutely packed house, and no wonder, because the feedback I get back about PISA is absolutely excellent. We were all very impressed with the new kitchen and with the services that PISA will now be able to provide to the residents living in those western suburbs. As someone whose own parents are from a non-English-speaking background, I am very acutely aware of the importance of culturally appropriate aged-care services. That is why I am really pleased that we here in the Australian government helped to fund this new kitchen through our Home and Community Care package, because it will make a huge difference, especially in the quality of life of many, many constituents. I must extend special thanks and congratulations to the Executive Officer of PISA, Kelley Russo, and Grace Ciccone, the president, who worked very hard to get the kitchen up. (Time expired) National Servicemen's Day 1492 09:54 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner Yesterday many of us celebrated Valentine's Day but, perhaps more importantly, 14 February was also National Servicemen's Day—a day for Australians to pay tribute to those who served our nation in times of war and peace. Of the 287,000 young Nashos who served between 1951 and 1972, 212 made the ultimate sacrifice. Four of these servicemen were from the Bayside community in my electorate of Bonner. Yesterday, in a moving ceremony, the Manly-Lota RSL remembered Private Ken Gant, Mr Ian Kingston, Mr Ray Kermode and Mr Joseph Ramsey for their national service to our great country. I thank Peter Kinsella, President of the Manly-Lota RSL, for hosting this event and the RSL members for all the wonderful work that they continue to contribute to the Bayside community. On a similar note, I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Senator the Hon. Michael Ronaldson, the shadow minister for veterans' affairs, who kindly hosted a veterans affairs forum in Bonner in December. The forum was attended by more than 100 veterans and representatives from the sub-branches across my electorate, with the biggest topic of concern being the presently unfair indexation situation. During the forum, Senator Ronaldson restated the coalition's commitment, which I wholeheartedly support, to providing fair, just and equitable indexation to these superannuation pensions. He recommitted the coalition to giving these men and women a fair go. I would like to thank Senator Ronaldson for his honest and frank approach to some hard questions from the audience. It is obvious that he is a man who genuinely cares about our veterans and I have every faith in him that he will deliver the necessary reform when we are again in government. These community forums cannot be a success without the wonderful contributions of those community members who volunteer their time. I sincerely thank the Wynnum RSL for hosting the veterans affairs forum. In particular, special mention must be made of Jessica Walmlsey, the functions coordinator at the Wynnum RSL. I would like to also thank the President of the Wynnum RSL, Mr Reg O'Malley, and his extremely generous board, who happily donated morning tea to the attendees of our forum and hosted the function in their club. Thank you also to Robert Hardie from Senator Ronaldson's office for his professionalism and dedication to veterans affairs. Pakistan 1493 09:57 Mr DANBY WF6 Melbourne Ports Many of my constituents and I am sure many other constituents around Australia will be very alarmed at a report I read in the Financial Times on my way back to Australia. As we speak, in the streets of Pakistan Lashkar-e-Taiba is openly parading itself. The founder of this group, Hafiz Saeed, is parading in the streets of every city in Pakistan. We have to remember that this group was responsible for the murder of 166 people, including two Australians, in the 2008 massacre in Mumbai. Saeed was previously confined to his base in the eastern Punjab but now via an organisation called the Pakistan Defence Council he is out addressing crowds of 10,000. This group was officially banned by Pakistan in 2002 under pressure from countries like the United States and Australia. But, according to the Financial Times, the group's emergence suggest powerbrokers within the Pakistani security forces are reactivating contacts to protect their interests in a time of political turbulence. There is no question that powerful elements in the security establishment view the Pakistan Defence Council and Mr Hafiz Saeed's activities, rallies and rhetoric as a way to shape the political terrain in their favour. Some in the military view the halting efforts of the President of Pakistan, Mr Zardari, to forge a rapprochement with India with suspicion, and an end to the cold war between these neighbours is something that the Pakistani military would have difficulty with as it would make it difficult to justify having a half-a-million man army and a vast business empire. Mr Saeed was subjected to a UN travel ban and asset freeze after the Mumbai attacks, which were officially condemned by the Pakistani government. I am sorry to say it is another example of Pakistani government duplicity, something that Western countries of the industrialised world, Russia and China will be keenly aware of after the publication in December of Atlantic Monthly. It seems that the Pakistani military are now driving around—and I keep warning the parliament of this—their nuclear weapons in delivery trucks to avoid US satellite surveillance. Any terrorist from Waziristan can drive down to Rawalpindi, Dhaka or any of these cities. These trucks are not protected sufficiently by the Pakistani military. They are an insane attempt by a government to avoid surveillance by the United States, who they fear will seize these weapons. But at the same time they are making them available to terrorists. This is a shocking situation. Pakistan should be held to account. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for members' constituency statements has expired and the debate is concluded. BILLS 1493 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2011-2012, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2011-2012 1493

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2011-2012

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2011-2012

Second Reading 1493 10:01 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook It is Groundhog Day. It is February, appropriation bills are back before the House and once again the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has been standing before the parliament and asking for more money. The minister for immigration is indeed the Oliver Twist of Australian politics. Every year he turns up and says, 'Please, sir, can I have some more?' And this time he is asking again for more. This year the ask is $330 million. Last year, on recurrent, the ask was $295 million and with capital included it was $511 million and the year before that it was $85.7 million. Every February this government, despite revealing blow-outs in budget year after year after year—so even after those blow-outs—has to come back and ask for yet more funds time and time again. The blow-out this year in the appropriation bills is intended to deal with two principal problems. The first one is a further blow-out in the 2011-12 budget, which was already blown out at the time of the original budget to the tune of over a billion dollars a year from less than $100 million a year for asylum seeker costs when the Howard government left office. But it is also to deal with a further blow-out last year. So not only did they get this year's budget wrong yet again and have had to ask for more money; they have even had a blow-out in the expenses from last year of over $100 million. So once again this minister has come to this House and said, 'Please, sir, can I have some more?' Well, as is the practice with money bills, I suppose the government is going to get what it wants yet again and once again taxpayers are going to have to shell out hundreds of millions of dollars for this government's border protection failures. This is a government that has blown out the Department of Immigration and Citizenship's budget to record levels. This is a government that in 2011-12 will cost taxpayers, for that department, $2.73 billion. That is the bill for expenses for this year for the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. This is a billion dollars more than the $1.69 billion it cost in 2007-08. That is why the government is asking for more money today as part of the debate on these bills. Also, DIAC's annual reports show that not only has there been this increase in cost but there has been a very significant increase in the size of the department itself. As to the number of permanent staff employed by DIAC between 2007 and 30 June 2011, there were 1,192 additional staff. So that is 1,192 additional officers within DIAC since this government came to office—an increase of 15 per cent over the last four years. During the same period the number of the highest paid senior executives, so the SE Service within DIAC, had also increased by 24 per cent. The median income for these positions in 2011 was between $180,000 and $210,000. This is a department that has gone completely out of control with costs and with the size of government. There is one simple reason for this: four years ago the government abolished the proven measures of the Howard government on border protection. Let us go through what the result has been. The minister has questioned figures relating to the blow-outs in the government's costs on border protection. I am happy to inform the minister by quoting from the government's own budget papers. Three years ago, in the budget estimates of 2009-10 and the additional estimates of 2009-10, there was a $207.5 million increase—a blow-out of the estimates of 2009-10 over the original budget of 2009-10. In the following year, in the 2010-11 budget they were $793.5 million over what they had said in the previous additional estimates, and when the next additional estimates came around the blow-out from the previous statement was $472 million. But they were just getting warmed up. Strangely enough, after the election the additional estimates in 2010-11 showed a further blow-out over the budget estimates of 2010-11 of $1.5 billion. But they are still going, because in the additional estimates released last week the additional cost for asylum seeker management, netting off what they returned to the budget after the failed Malaysian people swap—so after they had put all that money back—was $866 million. That is a blow-out over the course of these last three years, from statement to statement, of $3.868 billion. That is the cost of this government's border protection failure—just under $3.9 billion. When Senate estimates convened this week there were a lot of questions asked about the government decision to abolish the Pacific solution and temporary protection visas. The departmental secretary was asked whether he had advised the government of the potential cost implications of what he later described in his evidence as a major shift in policy. Once again, the secretary declined to answer this question. The only thing we can draw from the experience of the last three years is that the cost implications of that change in policy have so far been $3.9 billion. This is a direct result of the change in government policy. In evidence, the secretary made it very clear that the reason for the blow-out in their total costs was the massive increase in costs related to the arrival of illegal boats to Australia. That is not in dispute. Under further questioning, Senator Lundy finally admitted that the increase in costs was a result of the change in policy. She coughed that up. Mr Husic interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L She was so keen to interject during Senate estimates with Senator Cash that she finally admitted what everybody in this country knows— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S Order! The member for Chifley needs to remember my hearing is in question here. The more you yell, the louder he gets. The member for Cook has the call. Mr MORRISON E3L What everyone now knows—the Labor Party and the government have finally admitted it—is that the decision to get rid of the Howard government's proven border protection policies has cost Australian taxpayers dearly. It is revealed here in the government's own figures—almost $4 billion in total. I am quite sure they are going to eclipse that $4 billion mark by the time we get to May because, as surely as night follows day, this minister for immigration always turns up asking for more money. When we left office there were just four people in detention who had arrived in Australia illegally by boat. Today that figure is more than 6,000. Back in 2007, early 2008, either the government completely ignored the advice of the secretary of the department of immigration that this significant change in policy would have these consequences or, frankly, the secretary never gave that advice. I do not know what is worse. This government is always parading itself around saying it always takes advice. Well, either the department of immigration did not advise this, and have been proved to be hopelessly wrong on the experience of these figures, or the advice was ignored by the minister at the time and by Prime Minister Rudd and Prime Minister Gillard following that. The Prime Minister has completed the job of removing every brick in the wall that John Howard built for border protection in this country. They have removed every brick in the wall. They either ignored that advice or that advice was never given. What it shows is that we have a crisis on our borders that this government is incapable of solving. The government are not upfront about these costs. At the end of November last year they said the change in the forward estimates would be $197 million. After all the changes that they talked about, when their people-swap fell over through their own incompetence—when it fell over in the High Court, when it fell over in the parliament—and when they embraced the policies of the Greens and rejected the proven policies of the coalition, they said that the net impact of all of this to the budget would be $197 million. That is what the Treasurer told the country and that is what the minister for immigration told the country. Yet in these figures today we see that the actual net cost over the forward estimates is $750 million plus. In just 2½ months this mob blew out their own budget and their own estimates by almost 300 per cent. They cannot keep up with their border blowouts. They cannot possibly keep up with them because they have no idea what is happening out there on our borders and the costs just keep mounting up and up. There are 6½ thousand more beds in our detention network today, announced by this government over the last four years, than there were four years ago. This government has spent more money on putting more beds in detention centres than they have on putting beds in public hospitals. On a day where this parliament is going to drive more people into public hospitals, this government's only record on putting beds in place in this country is in detention centres, at a cost of almost $500 million in capital over the last four years. This government has a record of deceit when it comes to this issue also, because before the last election they said they were not going to expand the detention network in Australia. When they were challenged on that they said they were not going to expand it. What does the record show? Since the last election they have announced more than 4½ thousand beds in our detention network. Their budget has blown out in this area by $2.9 billion since the last election. The government want to be trusted now that next year they are going to achieve $400 million in savings in this area, when every single time they have presented a budget and at additional estimates the costs have just gone up and up and up. Now they want the Australian people to believe it is all going to be fixed next year, despite the fact that by the end of next financial year, according to their own evidence at estimates, another 7½ thousand people will have turned up in boats and there will be just under 6,000 people in the detention network. To achieve the figures in their budget they have to do the following—and they know this: they will have to visa out of the system by the end of next year another 5,000 people with permanent protection visas. They will have to grant another 5,000 permanent protection visas. That will reduce the number of visas given to offshore humanitarian entrants and refugee entrants by that amount—by another 5,000. That is going to be the humanitarian cost of this government's border protection failures. Those who are duly awaiting their time and their place will lose that opportunity because 5,000 people who turn up in a boat over the next 18 months are going to get their visa. In addition to that, they have to issue another 1,800 bridging visas for people who they expect to be in the system. We will see how that goes. That is what their figures rely on; they will not meet them and we will be back in this place a year from now. The only plan of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, who today wants to be the Treasurer—that is his exit plan from this portfolio—is not to stop the boats; it is to make Kevin Rudd Prime Minister so he can be Treasurer. And, based on these figures, if he does to our finances what he has done to the immigration portfolio heaven help us! Our finances will be in a worse state than our borders if this minister for immigration ever becomes Treasurer, which is his ambition. This is a government that has no plan on this issue other than to blame the opposition, embrace the Greens and reject the proven policies of the coalition. That is its plan. Its plan is simply to blame the opposition for its own failures, which have delivered almost $4 billion in budget blowouts, have resulted in more than 15,000 people turning up on its watch and have seen our immigration network go from just four people in detention—you could almost put them in a phone box—to over 6,000 people, who are now costing taxpayers around $1.2 billion every single year. I think that there is no issue that says more about this government's incompetence and their denial than this issue. This is a government that has completely lost the plot on this issue. They have no plan to fix it other than simply to blame the opposition and to carp and whinge. Today this government could implement Nauru. It could be done at a fraction of the cost of what the government says. (Time expired) 10:16 Mr MURPHY 83D Reid I rise this morning to support the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2011-2012 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2011-2012, because they will provide funding over four years to establish a Clean Energy Regulator to administer the carbon-pricing mechanism. The regulatory functions under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting System, the renewable energy target and the Carbon Farming Initiative will also be brought under the Clean Energy Regulator. The responsibilities of the regulator will include assessing emissions data to determine each entity's liability; operating the Australian National Registry of Emissions Units; monitoring, facilitating and enforcing compliance with the carbon-pricing mechanism; allocating fixed-price and auction permits; applying legislative rules to determine eligibility for assistance in the form of freely allocated permits; and providing education on the carbon-pricing mechanism. And as you know, Deputy Speaker, the government will also provide further funding over four years for the Department of Finance and Deregulation to conduct gateway reviews of the establishment and operation of the regulator. The bills also provide funds to the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities to support the management of extractive industry activities, especially coal seam gas and major coalmining developments. These initiatives aim to build scientific evidence and understanding of the impacts on water resources of coal seam gas extraction and large coalmines. The New South Wales government has already taken the scientific evidence for granted on coal seam gas extraction but, like its Liberal counterpart in Victoria, seems intent on standing in the way of businesspeople who want to develop wind power to feed into the electricity grid. Despite the lack of any evidence to support any harmful effects of wind farming, the New South Wales government has given the power of veto to anyone living within two kilometres of a proposed wind farm. These governments seem to have been unduly influenced by climate change deniers and sceptics, in particular the Australian Landscape Guardians, whose stated philosophy is to safeguard the landscape from 'inappropriate development'. In an article published on the Independent Australia website on 24 July last year, investigative journalist Sandi Keane assembled some of the publicly available information on the opaque Landscape Guardians. They are modelled on the British Coastal Guardians and Country Guardians, who are associated with the nuclear power industry in the United Kingdom. In their opposition to wind farms, the Landscape Guardians do not mention the landscape but have discovered a previously unheard of medical condition that they call 'wind turbine syndrome'. They claim that wind farms cause sleep problems, headaches, dizziness, nausea, exhaustion, anxiety, anger, irritability, depression, tinnitus and concentration problems, and, astonishingly, they cause children to refuse to go to school. It's the truth! The Landscape Guardians have set up a front called the Waubra Foundation, which is not based at Waubra but opposes the Waubra wind farm. Its so-called medical director, Sarah Laurie, a non-practising, unregistered doctor living in South Australia, claims that infrasound from wind turbines causes these problems. Most of my constituents at times suffer from almost all of these symptoms, although there is no wind farm anywhere near my inner-city electorate. Simon Chapman, Professor in Public Health at the University of Sydney, says that these symptoms are experienced by millions of Australians. It is important to note that the Waubra Foundation is a powerful, well-resourced and growing anti-wind-power lobby group. Peter Mitchell, founder and Chairman of the Waubra Foundation, helped set up and fund the Australian Landscape Guardians. He is also spokesman for the Western Plains Landscape Guardians. Another director, Kathy Russell, is Vice-President of the Australian Landscape Guardians, Vice-President of the Victorian Landscape Guardians and spokesperson for the Western Plains, Mount Pollock Landscape Guardians and the Barrabool Hills Landscape Guardians. Yet another director, tycoon Tony Hodgson—as the Murdoch press calls him—helped fund the campaign against the Collector wind farm in New South Wales, just up the road from Canberra, and he is involved with the Booroowa Landscape Guardians to stop a $400 million wind farm proposed near Rugby and Booroowa in the south of the state. The Hon. Dr Michael Wooldridge, the former Howard government minister, is also a director. Sandi Keane found that the foundation has no physical address in Waubra and indeed appears to have no local Waubra residents on its board. The address is a post-office box in South Melbourne, the same address as that of the Australian Landscape Guardians and Peter Mitchell. The Landscape Guardians are well-known climate sceptics and deniers linked to the Liberal Party and the Institute of Public Affairs. They have a particularly close association with the IPA's Australian Environment Foundation, which is more interested in logging trees than conserving them. The Institute of Public Affairs has been giving its opinion on climate change for decades now on behalf of its supporters—Billiton; Western Mining; Caltex; Esso Australia, a subsidiary of Exxon; Shell; and Woodside Petroleum—and it also receives funding from Rupert Murdoch's News Ltd. While the Waubra Foundation appears unconcerned about the landscape of wind farms, its only agenda is the so-called 'infrasound problems' caused by wind turbines. Peter Mitchell successfully objected to the number of turbines proposed for the Stockyard Hill wind farm near Beaufort in Victoria. He also successfully had them removed from the ridge that he could see from his property. Sandi Keane found also that Peter Mitchell has interests in the fossil fuel industry. These include as founding chairman of the Moonie Oil Company Ltd and chairman or director of similar companies including Clyde Petroleum plc, Avalon Energy Inc., North Flinders Mines Ltd and Paringa Mining & Exploration plc, most now delisted on the Australian Stock Exchange. According to Lowell Resources Funds Management Pty Ltd, Mitchell's experience is derived from over 25 years involvement in companies that explored for, developed and financed gold, uranium, coal and base metal mines, oil and gas fields and pipeline systems in Australia and overseas. He has been chairman of Lowell Pty Ltd, the ultimate parent company of both Lowell Capital Ltd and Lowell Resources Funds Management Pty Ltd, a specialist fund investing in emerging mining and energy companies, since taken over by Future Corporation Australia Ltd. Paul Miskelly, who represents both the Australian Landscape Guardians and the Taralga Landscape Guardians, worked for the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, ANSTO, for 32 years and gives talks on nuclear power. Climate scepticism is the stock in trade of the Landscape Guardians. Randall Bell, president of the Victorian Landscape Guardians, said in the Melbourne Age on 3 July 2010 that claims the earth is warming are scientifically unreliable and that the idea of man-made climate change is headed for the Y2K dustbin. But we do not see the Landscape Guardians campaigning alongside Lock the Gate, the New South Wales Farmers Federation and the Greens to halt the destruction of some of the best agricultural land in New South Wales and Queensland by coal seam gas miners. We do not see them campaigning in Victoria against Premier Ted Baillieu's decision to reopen Victoria to brown coal mining. Farmers on the best agricultural land in Gippsland now face losing their farms to dirty, inefficient brown coal mining. Is an open-cut mine a preferable landscape to a wind farm, where food can continue to be grown? As with the Landscape Guardians, there is no information about funding or sponsorship of the Waubra Foundation. Yet money seems to be no object for its websites, campaigners, advertising, travel and media monitoring. As I said earlier, in the Boorowa area a $300 million wind farm is being proposed. At Rye Park the Epuron energy company wants to build 80 to 110 turbines, which will generate power for 90,000 homes. But, as Sandi Keane found, there is someone with a property near Yass whose influence on governments and public opinion is huge. Besieged media boss Rupert Murdoch owns Cavan, a substantial rural property in the grazing country nearby. No other media group in Australia has run a more distorted and dishonest scare campaign about wind farms than the Murdoch group. The district of Yass has in the planning stages a larger proportion of wind farms than elsewhere in Australia. These are planned at Bango, 25 km north of Yass; Birrema, 30 km west of Yass; Rye Park, 25 km north-east of Yass; and the Yass Valley itself. There are wind farms at Caroll's Ridge, Conroy's Gap, Coppabella Hills and Marilba Hills. In 2010 Family First's own climate change sceptic, Senator Steve Fielding, initiated a Senate inquiry into so-called turbine sickness. The report was released last year. The Senate inquiry found no proof of a direct link between wind farms and the so-called wind turbine syndrome. The submission of the National Health and Medical Research Council concluded that there is no published scientific evidence to support adverse effects of wind turbines on health. Professor Peter Seligman of the Melbourne Energy Institute also gave evidence to the inquiry. Professor Seligman spent most of his working life working on the cochlear implant. He has a PhD in electronic engineering. He understands infrasound better than most. He told Sandi Keane that the level of infrasound at the beach is far higher than that from wind farms. Beyond 360 metres the level of infrasound emitted from a wind farm, typically between one and 20 cycles per second, is below the ambient levels near a beach and below that in the central business district of any city. On the other hand, we are all subjected to far higher internally self-generated natural infrasound levels, which clearly are not a problem. The Victorian Department of Health indicated that it had examined both peer-reviewed and validated scientific research and concluded that 'the weight of evidence indicated that there are no direct health effects from noise.' Dr Sarah Laurie's evidence included evidence from Nina Pierpont, an American general practitioner who claims to be an authority on wind turbine syndrome. Pierpont is the author of a self-published book containing descriptions of the health problems of merely 10 families—that is, 38 people—in five different countries who once lived near wind turbines and who are convinced that turbines made them sick. Medical experts in Australia have said that, given that there are about 100,000 turbines around the world, her sample is too small to have any scientific value. There were no scientific controls, and the symptoms described were common in any community. Dr Laurie also tried to appeal against a proposed wind farm at Allandale East in South Australia. Her appeal failed on the basis of the same evidence from the medical community. Gary Wittert, a professor of medicine at the University of Adelaide, said there was no credible evidence that wind turbines have adverse effects on health. A recent parliamentary inquiry into wind farms in New South Wales dismissed Pierpoint's study, particularly since her findings were not published in a peer reviewed journal. In its submission to the Senate inquiry the group Doctors for the Environment also agreed 'there is no convincing evidence in the scientific literature of direct physiological effects occurring at sound levels commonly associated with modern wind turbines'. The building of the Waubra wind farm provided an injection of $58.4 million to the local economy through the economic activity associated with 160 local jobs. Ongoing employment from those jobs at Waubra adds a further $7.79 million each year to the local economy. These figures have been generated by the City of Ballarat using REMPLAN modelling. Kate Redwood, a director of Hepburn Wind, said the strategy used to get community support in Daylesford included monitoring noise at those houses within two kilometres of the turbines. This successful strategy has led to the formation of a new organisation called Embark, which offers advice on the management of community projects. As a result of the Senate inquiry, public health authorities will keep up the monitoring and the wind industry will continue to improve its modelling and community relations. I commend the bills to the House. 10:31 Mr EWEN JONES 96430 Herbert Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, and congratulations on your elevation to the panel. I see a great career there for you! I welcome the opportunity to speak on the appropriation bills. There are a wide range of things in Townsville that I think the government should be looking at. I would like to start with education. I declare an interest in that my wife is an early childhood teacher. Nonetheless, I feel that my comments will be very pertinent. When it comes to education we must make sure that the foundation and the building blocks are there. When you build a house you do not start with the roof; you start with the foundations. Early childhood education is where we should be spending the money. Too often we see aid time being taken away from teachers and actual teaching time being reduced. We should be making sure that children have activity based education with outcomes as opposed to desk learning. Funds should be allocated so that the teachers can teach and are taught what to do. One thing I will say—and this will be a common theme—is that I have a forklift drivers licence but you certainly would not want me loading your truck. There is a difference between having a qualification and being qualified. There is a difference between having a degree in education and being a teacher. A friend of mine, Pat Ernst, is a very good rugby league coach. He says the longest distance any coach will ever see is that between the coach's lips and the players ears and into his brain so that he understand it. Therefore it goes with teaching that, if we can get these building blocks in, if we can get the play based mechanisms through and concentrate on early childhood, the rest will come. I worry a great deal about the money being spent on NAPLAN and the My School website. After an initial burst of glory the My School website is now something that is not going to be referred to. I worry that, with NAPLAN, we are seeing teachers in the grades that are not subject to those tests practising for the next year's tests. I worry about what is happening in primary schools and high schools. Where are sport, art, music, play and everything else? I would like to see teachers given the opportunity to use their environment and their resources as best fits them. Teaching arithmetic in Mt Isa can be very different from teaching arithmetic in the inner suburbs of Sydney or Melbourne. They should be allowed to do that. So long as the outcome is that two plus two equals four in every instance, we should be okay with that. On higher education and research, I am very lucky to have in my electorate James Cook University, the only university in Australia which has higher education in a tropical environment at its core. One of the projects about which I would question this government's support for renewable energy is the James Cook University algae project. With this algae project it is completely feasible that we could have a coal fired power station with zero emissions by integrating an algae plant into the design of a world's best practice coal fired power station. Therefore, we would have the cheapest form of power available, being a coal fired power station, and zero emissions. I just cannot see the downside to it. In the Galilee Basin you would be able to build something like this at places like Prairie or Torrens Creek, which would feed into the north-west minerals province and allow things like the Kennedy wind farm, which I will touch on later, to feed into a national grid. Remember that the national grid only goes to Woodstock, which is basically 50 kilometres away from Townsville. That is the extent of the national grid into western Queensland. The CSIRO scientists at the ATSIP building in Townsville are looking into the science of using fresh water. If we are to make the north-west province of Queensland—the Mitchell grass plains west of Townsville—the food bowl, we must listen to the science. I was happy in the end that our scientists were given their 3½ per cent pay rise, but it was disappointing that they had to go cap in hand to stop-work meetings to make a point that this research is valuable. If we are to be the smart generation and tap into this Asian century, it must be driven by the science. Places like James Cook University and CSIRO are exactly the places we should be focusing on. Our medical school is turning out first-class medical graduates. Tropical medical training is taking people with a degree and turning them into general practitioners. I would like to congratulate the government on the funding that they have provided to tropical medical training. In the future as this program and this organisation become even more important, with the numbers coming through, I do believe that more money and attention should be given, especially in regional Australia, to the training and assistance given to international medical graduates, as they still make up a large number of our medical practitioners. They should be helped as they play such a key role in places where Australian GPs do not go. In relation to James Cook University I would like to push the government even further. They have not committed to the Australian institute of tropical health and medicine. This is a vital piece of infrastructure in the tropical world. Papua New Guinea is just at the top of Australia—it is a short boat ride. We have a ward at the Thursday Island Hospital dedicated to people with drug resistant tuberculosis and malaria. From there it is only a quick trip to the mainland of Australia. We saw our first Australians become the most susceptible to the H1N1 or bird flu viruses. Once these things come to the mainland we may see catastrophic events. Let us hope the situation is under control in Papua New Guinea. But if there were to be a breakdown of law and order we would see a great influx of people coming across the Torres Strait into Australia, and with that will come the need for health care. There are things we have to do for the tropical world. With around half the population living in the tropical world, the work that this organisation should be doing should be supported. I would also like to push the government to support Youth with a Mission. Ken Mulligan has been in this House and spoken to members on both sides. YWAM take a boat as far as they can into the remote provinces of Papua New Guinea, where they provide quality dental care, eye surgery, GP visits for people who have never seen a doctor and dental visits for people who have never seen a dentist. That should be supported. The Australian Institute of Marine Science has been granted great funding to produce an ocean simulator. This will be world-leading research. It is not in my electorate but it all goes through Townsville. We will have PhD students and researchers coming from all over the world to use this fantastic facility. The Australian Institute of Marine Science is also leading the world in farming and breeding lobsters. This is an incredibly difficult thing. We now have them up to wriggler stage and we are seeing the fruits of that. When we are talking about food security, especially in the tropical world, where we are seeing seas being fished out, this must be supported. Ian Poiner, the recent CEO of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, organised the first-ever audit of Australia's fish stocks, and he still thinks we only know about 10 to 20 per cent of what is in our seas. John Gunn is the new CEO of the Australian Institute of Marine Science. We are talking about letters, and other members of this House will have received these, in relation to protecting the Coral Sea and making it a marine park. It takes 38 hours from Townsville, from the Australian Institute of Marine Science, under full steam to get to this place in the world that they want to turn into a park. But the operational funding for the Australian Institute of Marine Science continues to shrink. So if we want this research done and if we want these things protected we must make sure the operational funding is connected. Townsville is a very proud defence city. We have now welcomed 3RAR to Townsville, making the readily-deployable forces even greater in Townsville. Berth 10 at Townsville port is under construction. There is bipartisan support for berthing of the landing helicopter dock vessel and for readily-deployables in times of emergency. We saw during last year's Cyclone Yasi that roads were cut and the naval fleet was out of order and we could not get troops quickly enough to places like Tully and Cardwell, which were severely affected. I would like to see an LHD there—and we are getting two, one based in Townsville permanently and one based in Exmouth permanently—and in that way it is at the pointy end of where we can organise all these things to be. It would also give Townsville properly the perfect three-force representation. With the air force facility at Garbutt I would like to see an increased presence and training opportunities there. We have the MHR90 simulator going in there. But there are real problems there and I would like the defence department and the ministers involved in defence to look at the structure of payments here. I have been contacted by the guys at Kookaburra Concrete. They have done the flooring for this, for an organisation that won the tender and is based in South Australia. This organisation has gone into administration over a failed project in South Australia, leaving our guys, our subcontractors in Townsville, very exposed. We all know when it comes to the administration and liquidation of companies that there are real issues. We do have to make sure that these people are taken care of. As for renewable energy, the Kennedy wind farm, outside Richmond and Hughenden along the Flinders Highway, will bring good power at around $45 per megawatt hour—but they will produce this power and there is nowhere for it to go. I would like to see support for a powerline, be it by CopperString or somebody else, for something like this, which is about renewable energy, to feed into a national grid. I would like to restate for the record the coalition's support for fair indexation for DFRDB pensions. It is our policy now, it was our policy leading up to 2010 and it is our policy going into the future. I would like to call on the government to recognise the folly of this and that it has gone on since the Whitlam era. We have had more than enough time to fix this, and we have not addressed it. They are not asking for anything extra. They are asking for what is fair. I would also like to come out and state very clearly for the record that I support the National Disability Insurance Scheme. But we must make sure of how we are going to pay for it. It may get me in trouble with Scott Stidson and Garth Brimelow at home and all the people at Cootharinga in Townsville but we have to get it right and we cannot afford to have people fall through the gaps because we have acted too quickly. Therefore I would like to see as much bipartisanship on this as possible, working towards making sure that everyone will be covered by this so that everyone is brought along and, more importantly than that, so that we are bringing along people who are not actually affected by it at the moment to make them understand what we are trying to do. If someone has a work accident and is put in a wheelchair, as Garth has been, that person is covered, but if you are driving on the weekend and you have an accident—or if you fall off your own balcony—and you are then in a wheelchair for the rest of your life you get nothing. That is what we are trying to cover. These are the sorts of things that we must do. It must be paid for and it must have broad community support. The Every Person Counts campaign is just the start of the conversation. We have to explain to everyone what we are trying to do and why it matters. I would like to echo the statements in the House today about closing the gap and I would like to echo the words of the Leader of the Opposition in the main chamber this morning. In my electorate is the community of Palm Island, where we have 95 per cent unemployment, yet QBuild, the Queensland government organisation, send tradesmen over to build small houses. The houses are poorly built and poorly designed, and they do not care. We have tradesmen on Palm Island who cannot get jobs. We have 95 per cent unemployment and it has been that way all the way through. Truancy are education are major issues on Palm Island. If they do not learn to read and write, they will be doomed to repeat the cycle of poor outcomes we are currently experiencing. Too many young people are in jail now because they started as a 16- or 17-year-old driving unlicensed cars and they could not pass the test. They become part of the system and get arrested; sooner or later they are going to end up in jail. If they do not want to do this, if they do not want to end up there, parental and personal responsibility is required to make sure that they do get to school. As the Leader of the Opposition said this morning, truancy is a real issue and we have to make sure that these people are going to school. I have spoken at schools to Indigenous groups and Indigenous students and quite often they say they were not at school that day or that week when they were asked if they had a question for me. This cannot be let go. Education is the key to everything. I never want to try to simplify the situation. It is a very deep and complicated issue, but we have to know that education is the key. I would like to really push it on everyone, especially on Palm Island, that getting your kids to school—from the mayor's children down, whoever the mayor should be after the last next election—is the key to everyone having a better outcome on Palm Island and in Townsville. 10:46 Ms SMYTH 172770 La Trobe I am very pleased to be able to speak on the appropriations legislation before us today because this legislation is a very clear way of seeing what the priorities of the government are and what they have been since coming to office. It is particularly important to look at the appropriations that we are considering today, and those that have been made since the government came to office, in the context of the very many challenges that the Australian nation has faced during that time and the way that the government has navigated the nation through them. The spending priorities that are set are a pretty clear reflection of the kinds of priorities a government has for the nation. It is very interesting in that context to reflect on some of the contributions made by members in this debate, and in broader debates throughout this place, particularly since the commencement of this parliamentary year. I am thinking particularly of those opposite who have contributed to the debate and have largely forgotten, it seems, about two of the very significant things that have impacted upon our economic circumstances and our fortunes generally, namely, the global financial crisis and the significant natural disasters that our country has faced. In the midst of all of these very difficult circumstances for individuals and for our country, this government has consistently shown that it prioritises jobs and that it will support the kinds of social reforms that Labor has always stood for. This includes things like supporting people on a pension, ensuring that families have an opportunity to get a decent level of financial support to be able to look after their children well and provide for their futures and ensuring that our country gets the kind of health and education commitments that it needs in order to become a better country and that its citizens need so that they have a very good quality of life and good prospects in the future. It is extraordinary that some of the comments of those opposite have revealed how little regard they have for such very significant events as the global financial crisis. Indeed, as recently as yesterday, we heard the member for Goldstein speaking in the House during the matter of public importance and mentioning the GFC as some sort of by-line, some sort of anecdote in history, just a blip— Mr Husic 91219 The Asian economic crisis was more important apparently. Ms SMYTH 172770 Indeed. He has actually referred to the government's response as 'a panic reaction to the global financial crisis'. This is understating something that the world is continuing to deal with the aftermath of on a daily basis. A panic reaction! So, while this government was committing funding and making appropriations for the protection of jobs in our country, while this government was committing funds to a stimulus package which has been lauded around the world by countries which would far prefer to be in our circumstances today, we see the economic luminaries of the Liberal Party referring to the government's stimulus spend as a panic reaction to the global financial crisis. It really is quite extraordinary. It comes in the context of all of these 'woulda, shoulda, coulda' commitments that we hear from the Liberals so very regularly. If these guys had been in government, quite clearly our unemployment figures would be double what they are now, quite clearly we would be facing extraordinarily dark financial circumstances. I realise that those members opposite continue to look incredulous about the global financial crisis because it is, in their view, a mere byway in history. But we take it seriously and, strangely enough, economists around the world take it quite seriously and I imagine they would not refer to our response to it as a panic reaction. Once again, appropriations—what you choose as a government to commit the Australian people's resources to—really do reflect one's priorities, and there could not be a starker example of our priorities for jobs, for the growth of this country, for economic stability and economic security than our response to the global financial crisis. So it bears repeating, and repeat it I certainly will, happily. We do not hear quite so much from those opposite about the detail of what they might have done had they been in office. There are many reasons for that. One is that they are still not entirely sure about where they would take the country on the question of the surplus, should they ever get the opportunity to come to office. So in the context of an appropriations debate it is very interesting to think about what their priorities might be. It is in fact difficult to get a read on most of them because we do not know day to day what any member of their frontbench and all the people behind them might think about a surplus, might think about our future economic prosperity. We still do not have a complete figure on the extent of the black hole. We think it is about $70 billion, but again that changes depending on who you are speaking to and who has pulled out the abacus on any given day on the opposition benches. Most recently and most pertinently in the context of the current debate on the private health insurance rebate means test, we are still not clear what they are intending to do on that—they might repeal it, they might wind it back—or whether their words on this are as hollow as their words on every other significant debate in this country, whether they will actually stand by their bluff and bluster or whether they are just going to go very quietly on it after the debate has concluded in this place. It has been very interesting to reflect on some of the things that have come up in the context of this appropriations debate and other significant economic debates which occasionally those opposite choose to engage in, depending on their feel at the time. But the things that we are seeking to get on with and the things that we have made appropriations for and will continue to make appropriations for are around the education of our nation, the development of skills and training for young people in our nation, to provide for lifelong learning, to ensure that our children have the skills that they need for future career development but also to ensure the future economic prosperity of our country. I was delighted at the end of last year to have announced in my electorate a commitment by this government to two new trade training centres. We know that, when we came to government, those opposite had so badly underfunded skills and training in this country that electorates like mine really had very little in the way of skills and infrastructure investment. It was enormously pleasing to have been able to visit both of the schools that will be sites for the trade training centres. The first of the schools that I visited was Belgrave Heights Christian College, which has been given a commitment of $1.2 million for a new trade training centre to be built there. That will enable children and young adults from the area to develop skills in hospitality. This is a facility that is going to be able to be used—and I know that the school is very willing for it to be made available for this—by students from right around the hills area. In the hills area there is a great deal of interest in this trade training facility. The reason this government has committed money to this—the reason we have committed so much to skills and training in electorates such as mine—is we know that a person who leaves school before finishing year 12 will earn around 20 per cent below average earnings. That is the reason this government, through its appropriations and through its policy approach since coming to office, has invested and is investing in trade training. It is for the future. Unfortunately, we tend not to see terribly much from those opposite on this. We know that they defunded skills and training while they were in office. Belgrave Heights Christian College was also the beneficiary of a very significant BER investment. They are delighted with this government's investment in the school and the benefit for the surrounding community. The principal, Andy Callow, was incredibly enthusiastic about the opportunities available to students at his school. He very generously has extended those opportunities to students at other schools in the area. The second of the trade training centres—which are, as all of us on this side know, part of a national program to invest in trade training right around the country—to be established in my electorate will be at Hillcrest Christian College at the southern end of my electorate. This will benefit students from areas such as Clyde, Officer, Berwick, Beaconsfield and surrounding areas in the south-east of Melbourne. I was delighted to be able to visit that school. The centre is going to provide skills in the equine industry and that is particularly appropriate for the part of the world in which it is located. I was pleased to be able to speak to the principal, Daniel Pampuch, to get a very good understanding of the kinds of skills that will be on offer for students right around the southern part of my electorate. These are serious and practical commitments, things that stand to benefit many students into the future. They are just two of the commitments that I could mention. Approximately 61 schools in my electorate have benefited from the BER program. Around 118 projects have been completed or are underway. Those projects involve the commitment of around $110 million in my electorate alone. Schools know the priority that this government puts on education. They know that there are practical and real commitments being made, commitments that were never made under the 'woulda, shoulda, coulda' years of the Howard government. We hear the revisionist commitment to education that those opposite supposedly now have, but we all know better. Virtually all of my schools, it is fair to say, also know better. These are the things that we are doing in education. We have made very significant commitments to things like the National Solar Schools Program, which schools in my electorate have benefited from. There is an enormous range of things happening right around the country and in my electorate in education that I have mentioned in this place previously and that I will continue to extol the virtues of both here and elsewhere. Government investment in another key areas has, as so many Australians know, created enormous practical changes, and that is the commitment of this government in health. My electorate has been the beneficiary of some of the appropriations made by this government in health in each year it has been in office. Nationally, the government's commitment to hospital funding has seen an increase of $20 billion since 2008. That is no mean feat, and it is certainly no mean feat in the context of an opposition which maintains its commitment to cut spending in health on things like GP superclinics and a whole variety of other things that this government has done to make practical health improvements for a constituency such as mine. We know that when those opposite were in office they slashed the health budget by $1 billion. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition was principally responsible for that piece of policy work. In my electorate, I want to focus on the commitment to mental health investment that this government has made. Nationally, this government has committed to $2.2 billion in early intervention and care in mental health. I am very pleased to say that my electorate will be the beneficiary of a regional headspace unit, which will offer support and assistance to so many young people in what is one of the fastest growing areas of Melbourne and one of the fastest growing areas of our country. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 11:01 to 11 : 39 11:39 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt I rise today to speak on Appropriation Bill (No.3) 2011-12 and Appropriation Bill (No.4) 20011-12. I am particularly concerned because the purpose of these bills is to continue to raise additional revenue. We see major blow-outs in a broad range of areas. I think immigration is a classic example, where there is an additional $330 million to cover last year's underestimations. We are now looking at a $1 billion fee in relation to a failed policy. Prior to 2007 this issue had been comprehensively addressed by a government that I was very proud to be in. I do apologise for my tardiness. My legs slowed me down a little. We have just come back from a vote in the House and in my view we are going to see a very significant winding back of private health insurance in this country. That in itself is going to force a lot more people to either exit private health insurance because it will become unaffordable or, at the very least, reduce their cover. In doing so, it is going to put a massive impost on regional hospitals. As I spoke about last night, in Cairns they are already bursting at the seams and do not have the capacity because of underfunding and gross mismanagement by the state government and the politicisation of the health bureaucracy, which has seen some appalling decisions. It is struggling to cope. When you have a look at that and then you have a look at the money that has been squandered over the last few years, you have to despair at the money that was lost—$2.4 billion on pink batts—and at the lives that were lost, including one up in my region. We are familiar with the other fiascos. The school building program up in our area was a joke quite frankly. But there are other impacts. Last year I raised the issue of the flooding of six communities in the outer islands of the Torres Strait. After not getting any satisfaction or any interest from the government, I made a decision to put up a private member's motion. As that private member's motion was going through, I was a little surprised but also pleased that I was approached by Simon Crean's office asking me to delay the voting until August. From the advice I received from his office, the government was of the view that they would support the building of these walls with a $22 million investment. Rather than play politics with it, I agreed to hold it over. His problem was that he did not want to take the money out of the Regional Development Australia Fund. He wanted to find, in their words, another bucket of money. I agreed to that in the interests of having the matter resolved, appreciating that about a third of the Saibai Island cemetery had already been washed out into the sea, that there was $1 billion worth of infrastructure on these six islands that needed to be protected and that there were some serious health risks in relation to the inundation of water during the king tide period. The vote eventually went through in August and I wrote a letter to Minister Crean thanking him for his cooperation and consideration with regard to the urgent needs of the Torres Strait Island communities and asking if he could give me a time frame for when the money would be available to start addressing these concerns. I should have been suspicious when there was a delay in his response. Eventually I got that response. I got it just before the Christmas break. I had gone around and seen the minister. At that point, he started umming and ahing—he was surrounded by department officials—and he said he would have a letter to me shortly. Just before Christmas, I got a Christmas present from Simon Crean. Basically, he wrote to me and said: 'This is not a problem of the government; this is something that has to go back to local government. It's a state government, local government problem. We give financial assistance grants to the Torres Strait council for $6 million a year. Let them fix the problem.' This is in direct contradiction to the commitment that was given. I actually have an email from one of his senior staff members apologising to me for the deceit and for the misleading arrangement that they made. At every opportunity I get, I will continue to remind the Torres Strait Islander people of the deceit by Minister Crean—I think it was him more than his office because I actually have an apology from one of his former staff. Sadly, because of that deceit, we have now seen the king tides hit again. We have seen more of the cemeteries—people's families—being washed out to sea, never to be recovered. I was amazed to find that this same government, at the same time, committed $328.2 million to micro Pacific nations to assist them in dealing with climate change. That money goes through the UN. Guess what that is going for? We see all of the problem at the moment about leadership. This is buying a position through the UN for none other than Mr K Rudd. They do not realise that the islands in the Torres Strait are in the Pacific. They do not realise that the islands in the Torres Strait are actually part of Australia. And these islands are having massive damage every year in king tides. It is totally fixable. They could do it over two years with $22 million. Mr Tehan 210911 22? Mr ENTSCH 7K6 22. Do you know what the problem with the Torres Strait Islanders is? They do not have a vote on the UN. We wonder, if we were to get them a vote, how quickly the government would be racing out there to get things fixed. You know: another vote with the UN; another way of getting rid of a thorn in the side of this government. At every opportunity, I will continue to raise this. I think it is absolutely appalling that $328 million of taxpayers' money can go over to those microcountries but we cannot afford to save Australian communities suffering from the same challenges. It is just absolutely appalling. While I am on that subject, I will talk about some other issues that we are facing too. We remember quite clearly the building revolution that we had in the stimulus package. How great was that? That was going to really make things happen. Of course, it was another example of wasted opportunities and a continued, building deficit, which facilitates the requirement that we have now for raising more money to pay for misjudgments or miscalculations in funding. In spending the money on those school halls, they had another layer of bureaucracy. They should have invested in more practical infrastructure. In my electorate of Leichhardt, for example, schools are notoriously lacking in basic facilities. I am not referring to schools in remote communities here, which have been traditionally neglected by state governments, or even city schools. In some cases, only the threat of strike action by teachers and protests by parents have forced the issue of funding. Trinity Beach State School, which is in the northern suburbs in Cairns, was so run down that parents threatened to take their kids out of school unless basic issues such as covered play areas, rusted gutters, drainpipes, poor drainage and leaky, smelly toilet blocks were fixed. The state government only started to put money into those after parents shamed them into doing it. The sad part about it is that the stimulus packages that we have heard so much about in recent years certainly failed to equip schools with much-needed facilities. I think that, again, it is another indictment of seriously failed policies, which at some stage we are going to have to address. Another area I would like to mention is our banks. There have been a lot of issues about banks in recent times and a lot of concerns about the dominance of the major four. Recently we had the decision from ANZ to independently raise interest rates. And, of course, the others all followed because they are very keen to get their snouts in the trough and take as much as they can from their mortgage holders. The greed of these banks, in their pursuit of increased profits at the expense of their customers, is most evident. Another thing the big four banks are doing is changing their loan-to-valuation ratios. In my area, where we have been doing it tough for the last four or five years, they have been adjusting their loan-to-valuation ratios. They used to be around 70 to 80 per cent but they are now dropping them to around 60 to 65 per cent. At the expense of their borrowers, the banks are getting their valuers to go in and revalue the properties. The banks are telling the valuers what price they expect and they are bringing the value down by about 20 per cent. The valuers have got no choice; if they do not do it they have got no work. So they are doing this. And the borrowers are charged for the privilege. The banks come back to the borrower and say: 'Your valuation has dropped by 20 per cent and we've adjusted the loan-to-valuation ratio. We know you've made every payment that has ever been required of you but you now need to put in X amount of dollars to fix that adjustment. If you don't, you must sell any other real estate or property you have or we're going to come in and take back your property.' This is the sort of thing that is happening. It puts huge pressure on many businesses in the area. It is quite frightening to see and I think we need to be very vigilant with this. I think it is about time we had some sort of inquiry into the practices of the big banks. But there is an alternative. There is a little bank in Cairns that has been going for 112 years. It is called the Cairns Penny Savings and Loans. I declare an interest here. I actually use it as my preferred bank. It is totally based in Cairns. We have got Peter Phillips and his team. They are all local people in that bank. There is a local board with all local people. The bank was originally established in 1899 by a group of locals who noted that banking in those days was aimed at the more lucrative trading cycles and tended to overlook the needs of local residents. What has changed in 112 years! This bank has been an outstanding success in our region. Not only are their interest rates very competitive but they have the trust of the customers. You can walk in and talk to them anytime. They do not have all these undisclosed fees for services that continue to escalate in the big banks. They have not had to wind back these fees—as we see some of the big banks doing because they have been subject to a whole range of criticism because people just cannot afford it anymore—as they have never had them in the first place. The Treasurer says you can walk away from the big banks. But we need to be looking at ways we can establish more of these wonderful little institutions like the Penny Savings and Loans. That will be real competition to the greedy big four and it will get community banking, and trust, back into our communities. That is the sort of thing that will actually make a difference. With all these inquiries and everything, the big fellas will still find ways around it. But if we find ways of making it easier to establish these little community banks I think you will find it will make a profound difference for our communities. (Time expired) 11:54 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra I rise today to speak about investment, something that the Gillard Labor government is not afraid to make—particularly when it comes to Canberra and the people here who strive to make this town the best capital city in the world. The government is committed to delivering a strong clean energy future for Australia, improving our economy and returning the budget to surplus in 2012-13. The 2011-12 budget delivered some great things for Canberra. Our nation's capital saw investment of $82.2 million for roads, $30.6 million for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, $33.9 million for the Australian War Memorial and $1.7 million for a new exhibition on World War I, $6.1 million in base funding for the High Court, $2 million for the completion of the National Gallery of Australia building and $2.1 million for Australian Disability Enterprises to support the work of Koomarri. Koomarri is based in my electorate. It provides a great service to disabled Canberrans and to the carers and parents of those disabled Canberrans. I attended an event late last year where I met with a number of carers and their disabled children, some of whom are quite profoundly disabled. One of the key or fundamental messages I got from the conversations I had with those parents—who were quite often in tears and very distressed and concerned about what is going to happen to their children if they pass on or if they become ill at some stage—was, 'Bring on the National Disability Insurance Scheme.' These people want the National Disability Insurance Scheme. They see the value of it, and the sooner they can get it the better. It was very strong and profound message. Many of these parents were in tears because they are terribly worried about what is going to happen to their children. Some of the children were in their early 20s. Their parents were a bit older—in their late 50s and 60s—and they were concerned about what is going to happen to their children if they get ill and eventually do pass away. The message from them was, 'Please—we love the National Disability Insurance Scheme and we want it to come along as soon as possible.' Canberra, and the indeed the nation, has also undoubtedly benefited from a range of investments in health, training, infrastructure, small business and families. I would like to outline some of the achievements we have made in those areas today. Better health and a better health system will always be a Labor priority. We were the ones who introduced Medicare. A universal health system is in the Labor DNA. It is fundamental to Labor's identity. In the ACT, the federal government has invested $67 million in a range of health reforms, including $8.3 million to expand the capacity of public hospital emergency departments, $26 million in capital and recurrent funding to deliver 21 subacute beds, $6.8 million to boost elective surgery capacity at the Canberra Hospital and $7.5 million in flexible capital funding. In the past 12 months I have been out to the Canberra Hospital on a number of occasions with the former minister for health and the ACT Chief Minister, and had a number of tours of the great new facilities that are being built and expanded out there. The Canberra Hospital in Woden, which is in my electorate, is a great institution and very much loved by Canberrans. Canberrans have a great sense of ownership of the Canberra Hospital. They also have a very keen interest in its future. The Canberra Hospital services about 30 per cent of the region—so it is not just a hospital for Canberra, it is a hospital for the capital region. Through our investments, and also the investments of the ACT government, we are seeing it ever expanding, ever growing, and ever providing better health services for the people of Canberra. Among the funding that we have provided to the Canberra Hospital and to health in the region is funding for 24 regional cancer centres around Australia to bring services closer to patients. I was pleased last year to be joined by the previous minister, Nicola Roxon, to turn the first sod on a fantastic new regional cancer centre to support and treat people from the ACT and our region—that 30 per cent in the region that are battling cancer. This centre will provide support to half a million people in the region. It will be a wonderful support to them and their families, and I am very much looking forward to watching this cancer centre being built over the next 12 months and coming years. It will provide a much needed facility to Canberrans and also to people in the region. It will also provide an opportunity for people in the region to stay in Canberra to get the support that they need when they are battling cancer or coming up to be diagnosed with potential cancer. As we all know from our own personal experiences and the experiences of people in our electorates, it can be very challenging and confronting if you are diagnosed with cancer and then to have to go through that journey of travelling interstate or intraregion to get your treatment can also be very challenging and often quite lonely. This cancer centre will provide much needed support and respite for those cancer sufferers and for their families. It is a very welcome initiative. I was proud that the Gillard government contributed some $30 million to this $46 million project. But Labor's investment in health goes beyond Canberra. For a start, we have invested $2.2 billion in mental health, which includes 30 new headspace centres to bring the national total to 90 and provide nationwide coverage, up to 12 additional youth psychosis centres, 40 more family support services, 425 more personal helpers and mentors, and $344 million for new support services for the severely mentally ill and the National Mental Health Commission. I am very much looking forward to speaking tonight in the adjournment debate on post-traumatic stress disorder and what is happening in this space and the range of support mechanisms that are set up to deal with this disorder. It is one of those things that does afflict many people and can often be quite invisible. So I am looking forward to bringing people's attention to that in the adjournment debate tonight. There is also another $3 billion to improve hospitals and cancer facilities throughout Australia. I mentioned what was happening in Canberra but that applies right across the nation. The Gillard Labor government is also investing $53 million to help improve access to public dental services. This investment is important because in 2007 Labor inherited a health shambles: six in 10 Australians were living with doctor shortages, public hospitals were run into the ground and bulkbilling was in national decline. Since then, Labor has worked to turn this Liberal shambles around. We increased capital works with $1.8 billion to build and rebuild 63 hospitals and health centres. We funded more doctors and nurses and boosted Medicare rebates to help bulkbilling grow. We delivered national health reform one year ago this week, ending the state and federal blame game in health. We have delivered more money, more beds, less waste and less waiting for public hospitals nationwide. There has also been our investment in nurses. We are training an extra 1,000 nurses every year and an extra 5,500 doctors over 10 years. We have increased public hospital funding by 50 per cent and reached agreement with states and territories on funding future public hospital growth via an extra 1,300 federally funded hospital beds and a further 13,000 residential aged care places. We are doing more to ensure there is fairness in our health system. This will be done through a means test of the private health insurance rebate, which looks on track. It has been passed today. So a household on $1,000 does not subsidise the insurance of one on $500,000. The Gillard Labor government's commitment to health just goes on and on. We are also equipping 120 hospitals with new elective surgery equipment and/or operating theatres. We are investing in new community health programs, including plain packaging of tobacco products, tough new restrictions on tobacco advertising and subsidised nicotine replacement therapies. We are investing in the after-hours GP helpline for 24-hour day access to expert health advice. These are just some of the latest investments in health. This is because only Labor cares about delivering world-class health care for all Australians and only Labor can be trusted to keep our health and our public hospital system strong. I look forward to seeing even more investment in the health services that will be possible with the introduction of the means test for the private health insurance rebate. I turn now to infrastructure, which is a fundamental framework for us to enhance productivity and to grow this nation. In terms of infrastructure, the Gillard Labor government has invested $1.1 million to fix local black spots on top of the $82 million for road infrastructure this financial year—this is just in the Canberra context. There was also the announcement by Minister Albanese of $144 million in funding for the Majura Parkway. That is perhaps the most welcome announcement of all, as it delivers something that has been needed for many years. The ACT government will co-fund that. It is very welcome news. We have the Tuggeranong Parkway and Gungahlin Drive linking one side of the city from north to south. But we now need to have the other side of the city linked from north to south, and the Majura Parkway will allow that to happen. Investment in infrastructure and roads in Canberra has included $200 million for new roads and for the maintenance of Edison and Glebe Parks. We have had $32,000 for signage and line-marking improvements in Tuggeranong in my electorate. We have had over $240,000 for signage and intersection improvements for the intersections of Mugga Lane and Long Gully Road in Symonston. In addition to that, we have made an $18.5 million investment in the Monaro Highway. The ACT government has also provided about $2 million for that. I am very much looking forward to that coming on line. That will finally, after 40 years, make the Monaro Highway a dual carriageway the whole way. We have been waiting 40 years for this to happen. At the moment, the upgrade is causing a bit of inconvenience for my constituents who work in Fyshwick. But it is a welcome development. I am very much looking forward to going out there and getting an update on progress in the near future. Thanks to both federal and ACT Labor we are seeing that huge enhancement occur after waiting for 40 years. It is a great development. I could go on and on about the support that is being delivered to community organisations. I would just like to mention one, though—the investment that we have made in the Canberra Rape Crisis Centre, which last year received more calls than ever before. The Rape Crisis Centre is in my electorate and it does incredibly important work. I am a very strong supporter of it. Last year, we had Minister Ellis out there speaking to the workers, who do a fantastic job in providing support to men and women in Canberra. The Governor-General officially opened their beautiful new premises in Weston Creek. I am very proud of that investment and very proud of the fabulous work that the Canberra Rape Crisis Centre does. When it comes to skills training, we have also made record investments in that area. The dignity of work is something that our government wants to help all Australians realise. I know that there are many employment initiatives in electorates across the country to get people into work and help them stay there. Better education, training and infrastructure are top priorities for the Gillard Labor government. I am always proud to tell my constituents how we have doubled investment in school education, upgraded facilities at every school and provided more information for parents than ever before. I mentioned this last night. I have nearly finished all the official openings of the projects funded through our significant Building the Education Revolution investment. Each primary school across my electorate received between $1.5 million and about $3.5 million and all the parents, students and staff in those school communities are absolutely overjoyed at the investment that we have made. In many ways, they cannot believe their luck in many ways, because they would never have been able to raise that sort of money through sausage sizzles or fetes. It would not have been possible. It is beyond their wildest dreams. Not one person I have met at those schools does not think that the BER is the greatest of investments. We have also created 130,000 new training places and are encouraging apprentices to stay in their training and to get a skilled job by investing $100 million in a mentoring program, $100 million in new apprenticeship models that deliver high-quality skills quickly and $30 million to help mature age workers formalise their trade skills. The Gillard Labor government has made significant investments in Canberra in education, health, infrastructure and community organisations—the list goes on and on. I am particularly proud of what we are doing here in Canberra. The feedback that I am getting from the community is that they love what we are doing here. I am very proud to represent the Gillard Labor government in Canberra and am very proud of the investment that we are making. (Time expired) 12:09 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I rise today to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2011-2012 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2011-2012. When talking about the overall economic performance of the Gillard government there are three issues that come top of mind. The first one is the issue of trust and credibility—the issue of the truth. The second one is waste—and we have seen a lot of waste. The third one is the carbon tax and what it is going to do to the already increasing cost of living being felt in communities across the country. Trust in government is vital and trust in the Prime Minister is vital. Yet sadly what we are seeing day by day is that our Prime Minister cannot be trusted. We saw it with the promise that there would be no carbon tax under a government she led, which was made before the last election and then was immediately disavowed after the election. We have seen it rear its ugly head with what happened on Australia Day. As 7.30 highlighted last night, we now once again cannot believe the version of events that we are getting from the Prime Minister on this issue. We have seen it with the private health insurance bills, the commitments that were made before the 2007 election and what was done immediately after to renege on those commitments. Trust in government is very important for overall economic health. If you cannot trust what the Prime Minister and the government are saying then the overall sovereign risk increases. We now have companies, small businesses and individuals—farmers and manufacturers; people in all sectors of our economy—unable to believe what this government tells them. That means that the investment decisions that they would like to make are being put off, because they do not know whether this government will go back on its word and make a decision that will harm that long-term investment if they go forward with those investment decisions. The best thing that we can do to improve sovereign risk in this country is to go to an election. People are fed up with their being told one thing and then the government doing another. It has got to the stage where lack of trust is eroding people's confidence in this government. It is time for the government to recognise this and to realise that it is damaging the nation and increasing sovereign risk, meaning that investment in all sectors across the country is being curtailed. No-one has the confidence to believe what the government is saying, even when it is looking them in the eye. They are worried that it will do something else. That is sad. This was personified in the Prime Minister's appearance on Four Corners. I do not think that we have ever seen anything shiftier in political history in Australia than her answers to the two questions that were put to her about whether she had seen the polling that was being handed around to destabilise Kevin Rudd and whether a speech was being prepared in her office two weeks before Kevin Rudd was rolled. If you cannot have confidence in the words of the Prime Minister, it harms in every way people's ability to look and say, 'Okay, what is the level of sovereign risk in this country?' Australia has always been seen as a safe place to put investment. I now turn to the question of waste. You have all seen today just another example of how this government treats the taxpayer with utter contempt. On the front page of today's Australianwe have the $700 Labor Party set-top box. We then have the $19 set-top box, which you can get down at your local discount store. The $19 set-top box versus the $700 Labor set-top box. On the front page of the Australianis pictured one of my constituents, who made this very valid comment which I think stands true for a lot of the spending problems this government has. She said: I think their idea might have been well intended, but you wonder if they thought it through. I will just repeat that, because I am hoping that the Labor members who are here today might just take this into account the next time they think of one of their wonderful ideas: 'I think their idea might have been well intended, but you wonder if they thought it through.' That is the $700 Labor set-top box versus the $19 set-top box that you can get from your local discount store. It is gross waste. Let us turn to the BER. Once again it would be fair to say that the idea might have been well intended, but you wonder if they thought it through. Sadly, they did not. I have seen in my electorate example after example of waste and more waste. There is a little school, which I will not name because the school is still dealing with the BER issue, in one of the areas of socioeconomic disadvantage in my electorate. There is a school principal who is doing outstanding work in trying to educate those students. They had a roof which needed replacing because it was leaking. An amount of $1.2 million was spent on giving the school a new roof. The first time that it rained, the principal had to get up with a hammer because the rain was pouring so badly into one of the classrooms. She had to get up on a ladder herself and get a hammer and fix a hole in the roof to make sure that damage was not done to all the inside carpet and from rain running down the walls and ripping all the paint off the walls. So it was $1.2 million to fix the problem and the problem was made worse. Mr Neumann HVO Whose fault's that? Mr TEHAN 210911 Yes, whose problem was that? It had nothing to do with the federal government that allocated the money! No; you just gave the money and then you wiped your hands. You do not care what happens to that taxpayers' money. Mr Neumann HVO Oh, rubbish; that's nonsense. Mr TEHAN 210911 Why are you laughing then? Mr Neumann interjecting— Mr TEHAN 210911 You are laughing at this; you do not care what happens to the— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83D Order! The member for Wannon will not respond to the interjections, and the member for Blair will desist from interjecting. Mr TEHAN 210911 What happened in that school is an absolute disgrace. You should come down and talk to the principal about it, and then you would see firsthand what happened to that $1.2 million. That program was rushed out. I go back to my constituent who was on the front page of the Australian today, who said, 'I think their idea might have been well intended, but you wonder if they thought it through.' And they did not. Just think about what could have been done with the money that was wasted. When we talk about employment, when we talk about job creation, think about what could have been done with that money. For instance, what about if you had thought: 'Okay, we've got a couple of billion dollars here; maybe we should go to state governments. One idea which might be quite a good one is, ''Let's work towards the reduction of payroll tax.''' If you understand business in the community, you will understand that payroll tax is one of the biggest disincentives to employing people. That would have been a very constructive way, a way which structurally would have changed the employment market in this country and led to more job creation. That is just one idea. The member for Blair asked me for one—there it is, right on the plate. Think about it; it would be a very good way to go about it. The third issue is one that is about to hit the community and businesses across my electorate and across the country. It will add to the cost of living. It is the carbon tax. It is not too late to say that the carbon tax is the wrong policy at the wrong time. If you will face up to that you can save this country from immeasurable damage from this insidious tax. I have an aluminium smelter in Portland in my electorate. It is a very good investment by Alcoa. It provides incredibly important jobs and, not only that, those jobs feed into the local community and provide jobs there as well. The carbon tax will add a $40 million cost to smeltering for Alcoa in the state of Victoria. That is the figure that was announced by the company in Senate estimates. At this time, when a review has just been announced of the 600 workers' jobs at Point Henry, and the company has come out and stated that the carbon tax is going to be a $40 million hit to its bottom line, why would you progress with it? Surely you would step back and say, given the climate for manufacturing at the moment, that this is not the right tax for the right time. You would admit, 'We got it wrong.' I would go back to my constituents and say, 'Maybe the idea was well intended, but I wonder whether we have thought this through properly.' It is not just big manufacturing; it is small manufacturing. With a company like Gason in my electorate, which manufactures equipment which leads to a reduction in carbon emissions from soy, what are they getting for producing this equipment? Mr Stephen Jones A9B Carbon farming! Mr TEHAN 210911 Carbon farming does nothing for them. Understand the issue—they are a manufacturer. Carbon farming does nothing for them. You do not understand your issue. What do they get for producing carbon-reduction equipment? They get a carbon tax. How is that fair? The carbon tax will add to the cost of living, and understand that the cost of living is increasing. We see it with insurance premiums, with people's electricity bills and with the cost of child care—another policy where once again this government's intentions might have been okay but they did not think through what the ultimate result of their policy would be. I welcome the opportunity today to talk on these two appropriation bills and to raise the three key points that I have raised. The first was about the issue of trust and, sadly—I know the members sitting opposite saw it—that Four Corners show once and for all detailed that we have a Prime Minister and therefore a government which cannot be trusted. The second point I have highlighted is that we continue to see waste upon waste upon waste. Labor's $700 set-top box is just another example of this, especially when you realise that for $19 at the local discount store you can get a set-top box. The third issue is what the carbon tax is going to do to manufacturing—both small and large—in this country and, also, to the cost of living, to what it is going to do to increase people's electricity bills and to what it is going to do to a range of issues in driving up overall costs. It is an insidious tax and the government should just admit that it was an idea that might have been well intended but they never thought it through. (Time expired) 12:24 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair This government's record on economic management has resulted in lower taxes, stronger growth, lower interest rates, lower unemployment and inflation in a low band. This government's economic management is the envy of the OECD. This government's economic management has seen a stimulus which has retained jobs. About 250,000 people would have been thrown on the scrap heap if those opposite had followed what they thought was the New Zealand model, and we would have seen unemployment rates in excess of seven per cent in this country. The rate is about 5.2 per cent. Those opposite have said no to my electorate and no to the country—no to Blair, no to Ipswich and no to Somerset. There is not a road-funding bill that has been passed through this House in the last four years since I have been elected that those opposite have not opposed. There has not been a health-funding bill that those opposite have opposed that has not made an impact on my electorate. There has not been a bill in relation to education that has made a positive impact on my electorate that those opposite have not opposed. There has not been a regional development infrastructure funding commitment and execution in my electorate that those opposite have not opposed. Time and again they have opposed every single thing. They say no to Ipswich, no to Somerset and no to Queensland. What we have done with respect to road funding in my home state, doubling the funding to $8.5 billion, those opposite failed to do. We have increased the funding for rail 10 times and doubled the road funding—$36 billion for road, rail and ports. Those opposite should stand condemned with respect to road funding in South-East Queensland in particular. They have opposed, for three elections in a row, the most important road-funding commitment that this government has made, the Ipswich Motorway. It will be completed by the middle of or late this year. The Ipswich Motorway links Brisbane to Ipswich and goes on, linking from there to the Warrego and Cunningham highways, to western Queensland, Toowoomba, the Darling Downs, the Lockyer Valley, the Brisbane Valley et cetera. That is where we get the minerals through—on those roads. That is where farmers take their produce to the Rocklea markets and on to the ports. That is where mums and dads drive through. We have done the Ipswich Motorway against the opposition of those opposite. All the mayors in South-East Queensland supported it. Even Campbell Newman, the alternative Premier of Queensland, supported it. Those opposite opposed it. They opposed the funding for the Blacksoil Interchange—again, one of the magnificent seven projects that we were urged to do by the mayors of South-East Queensland. We put in $54 million, and the state Labor government has just closed the tender. Those opposite opposed it for 11½ years. They opposed the Dinmore to Goodna section of the Ipswich Motorway, doing nothing on the Blacksoil Interchange for 11½ years. Let us look at road funding. Those opposite gave such little amounts. For example, let us talk about the Somerset Regional Council. Under Roads to Recovery from 2005-06 to 2008-09, the total amount that the Somerset Regional Council received under those opposite—and this is the local council with the largest area in South-East Queensland—was only $714,468. That council has the largest area of the councils in South-East Queensland, and it got $714,000. We increased it to $3.266 million in local road funding from 2009-10 to 2013-14. For Ipswich City Council again we did that. We increased it from $5.9 million to $6.55 million. Even in the electorate of the member for Groom, the road funding increased from $3.9 million to $14.9 million, with those opposite opposing all funding for roads. Brisbane City Council got the same. Road funding was massively increased for South-East Queensland, with those opposite opposing it time and time again. The member for Wannon talks about waste. Is the road funding in South-East Queensland a waste? One in seven Australians lives in South-East Queensland. Is that a waste? Yet they opposed the funding for it. They should stand condemned for that. It is ridiculous to oppose that What about regional infrastructure in that area? They opposed all the regional infrastructure in that area in my electorate. They opposed the funding for the Ipswich civic centre upgrade. They opposed the funding for the Ipswich Baptist Church community hall upgrade. They opposed the funding for the aquatic facilities and also for the River Heart Parklands on the Bremer River in my electorate. They opposed the corporate centre in the north Ipswich football area, where the Ipswich Jets play every week. They opposed the funding for the Fernvale Indoor Sports Centre, the skate parks at Esk and the skate part at Kilcoy. They opposed the funding for the Somerset Civic Centre—$2 million under Regional Development Australia funding. They say no to every regional infrastructure fund in my electorate. They also opposed the road funding. Let's talk about health funding. They opposed the GP superclinic in Ipswich, which was so influential and helpful during the flood. They opposed the funding of the Medicare Locals program and for the health and hospital networks. They also opposed the funding we put into the Ipswich general hospital and they opposed the rehabilitation, geriatric and palliative care funding that we provided. They opposed the BER in my electorate. The member for Wannon talks about the BER and that it is all a waste. Tell the people of Esk, the people of Fernvale and the people of Patrick Estate in my electorate who used those BER halls and sheds as the place they went to to shelter from the flood. That helped them to rebuild their homes and their communities. Those opposite say that is a waste. The BER projects provided jobs and vital infrastructure. In my seat, I cannot find one community that does not think the BER was a good thing for their school community. BER has been so important. They opposed the trade training centres. They opposed the Ipswich trade training centre at St Edmund's. They have a fantastic facility there that is linked to Ipswich Girls Grammar School and Ipswich Grammar School. That project was $3 million. Those opposite also opposed all the computers in schools. They would rip up that program. They criticised us for not delivering them fast enough and then went to the last election with a policy opposed to it. They opposed the funding for the trade training centre at St Peter Claver College. They opposed the funding for the trade training centre at Ipswich State High School which is linked to other schools in Ipswich and the lower Somerset. They opposed the language learning centres and the science laboratories at places like St Peter Claver College and Ipswich State High School. They cannot find a school funding project that they would not oppose in the BER. The Leader of the Opposition actually belled the cat on this because he does not want certain people to be educated well. He only wants the right people to be educated well. That is what he said: only the right people. They opposed all the BER funding. Those opposite do not want to fund areas of social and economic disadvantage. Only Labor governments provide for the Ipswich and Somerset region. Only Labor governments provide the road funding in that area. Think of all the national school partnerships. Think of all the things in the 20 schools in the Ipswich and the Somerset region that are taking part. I have seen the advantage that has been provided in real working-class areas like One Mile and Leichhardt. I have seen the pride in the schools there and their pride in the extra facilities they have received. I have seen the improvements in literacy and numeracy in those schools. To have seen the great things that have been done in those schools is fantastic. I have 64 schools in my electorate and five more have recently opened. We have invested in those schools. Also, we have provided additional funding for chaplains in those schools. They helped so much during the flood. We are rolling out more chaplaincy services in those areas and I know that they will be warmly appreciated. With respect to funding in my electorate, all those opposite can do is say no. On this side, we know how important these projects are. I was not intending to do this, but I want to go through this because the member for Wannon talked about waste and the BER. When I got elected in 2007, I was approached by the community at Brassall State School, the third biggest primary school in my electorate, about the need for a new school hall. The P&C president, Shelly McDonald, came and talked to me about it. She said that the previous member for Blair could not get them funding. They kept on asking for it all the time. We rolled out that funding under the BER and the Prime Minister was with me when we opened that school hall at Brassall State School on 21 July last year. Peter Doyle was the principal then. That school lost all of its computers owing to flooding. It had buildings demolished because they were flooded. There was not a piece of paper left as a result of the flood. It was entirely trashed. All credit goes to Peter Doyle and the whole school community for rebuilding the school and having the kids back on time. That school hall was a symbol of the pride of that school. They were so happy that day to see that school hall officially opened by the Prime Minister. Does the member for Wannon think that was a waste? What about the new facilities for St Joseph's? St Joseph's Primary School in North Ipswich was the flood evacuation centre for the people of Brassall and North Ipswich during the flood in January 2011. I was there and opened the new facilities at that school. They received $2.625 million for a new library, new classrooms and other improvements. The people of Brassall and North Ipswich suffered in the flood. I saw the happiness, the joy, the enthusiasm, the pride and the self-respect of the people and the whole Catholic community in North Ipswich and Brassall on the day that was opened. Does the member for Wannon think that was a waste? I do not think it was. What about Esk? That was where the SES and the rural fire brigade stayed. That is where people bunked as the waters from Redbank Creek flooded through the CBD of Esk and through people's houses. Esk Caravan Park was destroyed. People went to that hall. Without that hall there was nothing in Esk and no place to go. Was that a waste of money? Do not tell the people of Esk that was a waste of money because it certainly was not. The new library and the new hall are an important part of the education of the children there. What about the heritage in my home city of Ipswich? We have seen refurbishments, a new multipurpose hall and a new gym, in one of the oldest schools in Ipswich, Ipswich Central State School—my dad's old school. It got $3.2 million. I know that is one of Ipswich's oldest schools and it is important. What about poor Karalee, where hundreds and hundreds of homes were flooded in January 2011? A grant of $3 million effectively gave them their own civic centre at the Karalee State School—a new performing arts and resources centre. I know that is so important for that area. I saw the happiness on the young people's faces as they performed on that Saturday afternoon when we opened it. Karalee was badly hit during the flood. Was the funding there wasted? I say it was not. What about the new kitchen gardens at WoodLinks State School and Lowood State School? We gave them $60,000 grants under the Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden Foundation. Was that a waste? I think not, and the people do not believe that either. What about Claremont Special School and Ipswich West Special School? After I got elected Ipswich West Special School approached me because they needed a hydrotherapy complex—a pool for their kids with severe disabilities. They had not been able to get the money under the coalition. For over 20 years Peter Davis was the principal there and he could not convince coalition members in the federal government to give him the money. They would not do it. We provided that funding. We did it for them and now they have got a hydrotherapy complex there under the BER. Was that waste? I think not. I could go on and on and on. Those opposite stand condemned for their refusal to invest in health, education, community and road infrastructure in South-East Queensland. They say one thing down here and they visit all those schools and facilities back in their electorates and want to take the credit for it. We have seen their websites and their newsletters. This appropriation bill is in the spirit of this Labor government. It wants to make a difference in the lives of people through the length and breadth of this country. I commend the legislation to the House. 12:40 Mr BILLSON 1K6 Dunkley My contribution today is about Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2011-2012 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2011-2012. They represent an implementation of the MYEFO—the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook—adjustments that were made in a few short months after the government laid out its 2011-2012 budget. It is interesting that the shelf life of that budget was so short and that we are here discussing substantial variations in the form of these appropriation bills. I will not itemise all the areas of expenditure, other than to note that some of the leading items include a substantial amount of money related to the carbon tax: funds that are aiming to soften the impact, to ease the burden and to relieve some of the pain that is inherently acknowledged in these budget appropriations. All those adjustments, the soft landing and making sure that the hurt is a little bit less would not be necessary if it were not for the implementation of the carbon tax. That is the one that was promised not to happen. This would not be a discussion that we had to have if the Prime Minister had honoured her undertaking: 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' So in these appropriations across a number of portfolios there is a substantial amount of money to deal with transitional assistance for the carbon price and the job support package, recognising the vulnerability, the risk and the harm to important sectors of our economy. There is also some money that is designed to help households to meet the additional costs of the carbon tax, and money for setting up the bureaucratic infrastructure that sits around the measure that the government promised it would not implement but now is. It is an interesting document in that it says a lot about where the government is, but it also gives us an insight into what is actually going on at the moment. There is quite a remarkable political Ponzi scheme being played out in this nation's parliament. You have heard government members talk about what a fantastic job they do in spending bucketloads of money. No-one is saying that they cannot spend money. I have not heard anybody that I have met suggest that this government cannot spend money. It knows how to spend money like no other government before. It knows how to spray it around and defer the responsibility for financing that spending onto subsequent generations. In the few short years since the Rudd-Gillard government was elected, the Commonwealth outlays have grown by almost $100 billion. In the last year of the Howard government, if my recollection serves me well, I think the federal budget was about $270 billion. It is now up at $360 billion. That is an incredible uplift in government expenditure. Then the government has the hide to come out and say, 'Oh, but we are not the highest-taxing government,' on a very spurious set of data analysis. What it does not talk about is the deferred tax that is debt. Debt is simply tax deferred for subsequent generations to pay. Again, just as no-one contests the ability of this Labor government to spend money, it is unrivalled in its ability to accumulate debt and to record record deficits. But the political Ponzi scheme sees the economic harm and the financial responsibility transferred on to subsequent years and to subsequent generations, as if it does not matter. It is an intergenerational theft of their opportunities to choose the priorities and the expenditure profile when it comes time for the subsequent generation to manage and to lead this nation and to shape its economy. In effect, it is actually stealing those opportunities, claiming them today and then being able to come into this chamber, as we have heard Labor members do, spruiking about all the money they have sprayed around everywhere. There is an infinite number of worthwhile things that you can do with other people's money, and the government has proven its capacity to make some inroads into that infinite range of possibilities. But there comes a day when you have to account for it. I have touched on how this political Ponzi scheme is sucking resources out of current and future generations to finance this extraordinary expenditure. Today, we as a nation will borrow another $100 million dollars, and this is at a time when the government boasts about the economy being at trend growth and the terms of trade being as good as they have been for a century and half. Yet we are still proving to be incapable of paying our way. If, under the Gillard and Rudd administrations, the Commonwealth of Australia were a corporation, Gillard and Rudd would have lots of 'please explain's from the economic regulators in Australia. They would have lots of calls from ASIC to explain how their accounting tricks could be justified against the prudent and good practice that the corporate world needs to meet, but because they are the government they are not held to that same level of account. If the Stock Exchange were a corporate entity, it would be wondering how some of the assertions that have been put out into the marketplace could be made at all, given there is no evidence to substantiate those claims. We see this in the way that the government, after having accumulated extraordinary deficits, has almost overnight contrived a surplus for political advantage. It has been engineered for one budget, one year. Expenditure has been pulled forward into this financial year and then pushed back outside the target year to create a wafer-thin surplus for 2012-13. So we see how in this budget and in these appropriation bills the already enormous deficit which was going to be inflicted on this nation is getting worse. Where expenditure can be pulled forward into this financial year it has been and where other expenditures have been able to be deferred they have been put out past 2012-13. And this is while the government seeks to achieve some kind of political goal that it has set itself in light of the fact that the broader Australian public is quite dubious about this government's economic management, competence and capability. So these additional expenditures come on the back of quite an extraordinary series of deficits. These are the four biggest deficits in our nation's history. Remember: these deficits have been arrived at—and I am drawing from the Labor government's own rhetoric—at a time when the economy seems to be going well. Any hardship is dismissed as growing pains and the trend growth that we are on now should enable us to pay our way, but we are failing miserably as a nation to fund our expenditures. The four biggest deficits in Australian history have a cumulative total of $167 billion, and that is supposed to be praiseworthy in the eyes of the Labor government and its members. If the Prime Minister were the chief executive officer of a corporation and she received a bonus—whether it be a substantial payment or some political kudos—derived from a contrived financial outcome, everyone would look quite curiously at that. In fact, if the government were in the corporate world, the corporate world would be highly critical that high-flying executives were manipulating the fortunes of its company and massaging its finances to create some arithmetic outcome for which they would hope to be rewarded. If that happened in the corporate world there would be outrage. When this government was going through its post-neoliberalism, former Prime Minister Rudd was trying to say that all things that had helped make this country great and grow our economy were all of sudden quite evil and that we needed a bigger government in every boardroom, in every economic decision and in every household of the country. One of the things he said at that time was that corporate executives were running companies to try to achieve certain financial KPIs so that they would be highly rewarded. Isn't it odd that here we are some years down the track—we no longer have Prime Minister Rudd; we have Prime Minister Gillard—and Prime Minister Gillard is presiding over a Commonwealth corporation, the Commonwealth of Australia, and is doing the very things that former Prime Minister Rudd was so highly critical of when he was Prime Minister. We have a contrived financial picture. We have a completely incredible set of assertions sitting behind one year's financial outcome where the CEO—in this case, the Prime Minister—wants to be lauded and praised for this contrived one-year financial outcome. I am not certain it will even happen, despite all the fiscal gymnastics, transactional shuffling and political Ponzi arrangements that the government is overseeing. We are still yet to see whether there will be a surplus as the Prime Minister and Treasurer have promised on the back of, dare I say, some very poor form. If past performance is a guide to future performance then it is very hard to believe the government will actually create a surplus, even as it creates this cynical fiscal strategy to contrive a budget outcome for 2012-13. There has been no discussion about how it will unwind these Ponzi arrangements that impose cost vulnerability on subsequent generations just so the government can try to look good in the short term. The shadow finance minister has quite rightly touched on one of the glaring problems with the budget strategy that the government is proposing—and that is the imposition of a carbon tax. It is a particular gift to impose a new tax and have a net detrimental impact on the budget position, but that is what the government has done as it tries to massage the introduction of this tax. This tax is not only causing direct costs, which are canvassed in these bills; it is also causing enormous concern in the business community. You wonder where this trend of growth that the government relies upon to have some kind of credibility, albeit fairly spurious, with these numbers will end up after the carbon tax is introduced. I sought to ask the Prime Minister about the concerns that are widely held in the business community, particularly in the small business community, about the impact of the carbon tax. She dismissed that concern and that question. She dismissed the anxiety and the fear that is out there amongst the business community, where they know that this is going to be detrimental to their interests, to the interests of employees and to the prosperity they bring to their communities. She tried to suggest that it was somehow a contrivance of the opposition, which I found quite remarkable. In survey after survey the message is consistent. In your great state of Queensland, Mr Deputy Speaker, just a couple of days ago the Chamber of Commerce and Industry released its report. Almost without exception across every region in Queensland the carbon tax was either No. 1 or No. 2 on the list of big concerns. Regionally, it was a concern. The carbon tax was only ever displaced by concerns about energy costs, which of course will go up with the carbon tax. So those interwoven concerns are the pinnacle of the anxieties, uncertainties and lack of confidence in the business community, and yet the government tries to talk it away as if it does not matter. If you look across the survey results, it does not even matter what size the business is: carbon tax concerns or concerns about the cost of energy are still at the pinnacle of concerns. Yet the government tries to swat this away as if it does not matter. I am genuinely concerned because I look into the eyes of people in small business and family enterprises who are contending with a very difficult economic climate, despite the boast to the contrary of the government. I feel their concerns because I am there with them as they express very sincerely their anxieties about the future. They know cost-of-living pressures mean that consumers are not interested in price increases. They see that their input costs, not only their direct energy costs but all of the other input costs in their business, that have carbon costs embedded in them will be pushing up the cost of doing business. But there is no customer appetite to see those costs passed on. Whenever these issues get raised, Minister Combet, such as in his Press Club speech, swats them away with arrogant indifference—'You cannot get your car serviced in India, and you cannot get your dry-cleaning done in China.' That is of no comfort whatsoever to the small business community. In the communities that I represent, the mechanics are saying that people are not getting their regular scheduled service; they are only coming in when there is a need for a repair. The drycleaners are saying that people are less inclined to make use of their services. They have less frequent dry-cleaning of the articles that require it, and consumers are looking at other options for how to keep their clothing clean, such as washing by hand and the like. This carbon tax hangs as a dagger over the small business community and it is eating away at the credibility of the budget and the economic scenario in this country. That is why these measures and the carbon tax should be deferred until the Australian public have a chance to cast their vote on just how well things are going for our nation. Debate adjourned. Sitting suspended from 12:56 to 16:00 BUSINESS 1524 BUSINESS Rearrangement 1524 16:00 Ms HALL 83N Shortland I move: That consideration of order of the day No. 2, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. BILLS 1524 BILLS Access to Justice (Federal Jurisdiction) Amendment Bill 2011 1524

Access to Justice (Federal Jurisdiction) Amendment Bill 2011

Second Reading 1524 16:00 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling I am pleased to rise to speak on the Access to Justice (Federal Jurisdiction) Amendment Bill 2011. This bill seeks to amend the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Family Law Act 1975, the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 and the Judiciary Act 1903 to implement the provisions of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General model bills relating to procedural and jurisdictional matters relating to the Federal Court and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I wish to note at the outset that the coalition broadly supports this bill as we recognise that affordable access to our courts is an essential component of the enjoyment of our individual rights and liberties. The coalition has a proud record in this regard. The establishment of the Federal Magistrates Court by the Howard government was the most important step forward in recent years, providing a forum for the low-cost, uncomplicated and efficient determination of disputes by a chapter 3 court. We recognise that the final determination of disputes, especially in the courts but also in the various Commonwealth tribunals, necessarily entails steps that incur costs and delays—necessarily because the proper administration of justice requires the parties to disclose all information and material relevant to their dispute. Their processes can be abused by parties who seek to intimidate, delay and financially outshoot less well resourced litigants. Therefore, court and tribunal rules must ensure that judges and arbitrators have the authority and flexibility to detect and prevent abuses. The court and tribunal rules already provide this authority and flexibility, and the measures proposed by this bill provide incremental assistance to ensure that the administration of justice is not sidelined by process questions. I will now briefly touch on the provisions contained in this bill. As has been noted in the bill's explanatory memorandum, the amendments proposed aim to provide the function and efficiency of the discovery rules in civil proceedings, specifically to provide more flexibility in costs orders and to allow pre-trial oral examination. The bill also aims to implement the SCAG model bill on suppression and non-publication orders and to implement the SCAG model bill concerning vexatious proceedings. It will align the jurisdictional limit of Family Court matters in Western Australia with the Federal Magistrates Court, and it will provide more flexibility to the AAT when dealing with the payment of fees. One of the more notable issues in this bill is suppression and non-publication orders, which vary considerably across Australian jurisdictions. Stakeholders have suggested some minor amendments to the suppression order regime and to the explanatory memorandum in relation to the Western Australian Family Court. The coalition supports measures to improve access to justice. However, we preserve the right to move amendments to this bill in the Senate pending the committee's recommendations. I note that this bill has been referred to the relevant committee. So, on the face of it, this bill does not present any problems. I think it is always wise within this parliament to give new legislation as wide an airing as possible so that people can look at it, examine it and make sure that the legislation itself is as flawless as possible. With that reservation in mind, the coalition does broadly support this bill and I therefore commend it to the House. 16:04 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I rise to speak in support of the Access to Justice (Federal Jurisdiction) Amendment Bill 2011. After practising in the area of family law for more than 20 years before I came to this place, I have to say that I do not share the same faith and belief as the member for Stirling that the Federal Magistrates Court is a great step forward. The problem is that the Howard government, which he lauded in relation to its so-called proud history of legislative reform to improve access to justice, actually messed up the jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Court. We saw it having to be broadened and we saw more and more resources having to be applied to that court. This has resulted in concurrent jurisdiction in many respects between the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. We have seen variability in terms of the appointments until recently, when we have seen better federal magistrates appointed, and we have seen problems of imperialism and administrative difficulties in the court registries between the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. This is an area in need of legislative reform and I do not accept the belief of the member for Stirling. He lauded the Howard government as a great champion of the rights of people to access justice. That simply is not the case when you look at how it messed up the Federal Magistrates Court. This bill amends by way of schedule a number of areas. In schedule 1 we are dealing with strengthening the power of the Federal Magistrates Court to deal with discovery. It provides additional direction for the Federal Court to have the power to make orders with respect to discovery and specifies the maximum cost that may be recovered for giving discovery or taking inspection. The process of discovery in any litigation, particularly matters dealt with by the Federal Court, can be expensive. This empowers the Federal Court judges to actually take control of the whole process of discovery, and I think that is a good and beneficial reform. The second schedule deals with suppression and non-publication orders. These are very difficult issues for federal courts to deal with. I know that the Law Council of Australia has expressed some concern about this. There are grounds for making an order set out in section 102PF. I think they are right. I think the reform is good. I do think that having information in the public domain is a good thing, but there are times when suppression orders or non-publication orders have to be made, particularly when it is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice, to protect the safety of a person and to avoid causing undue distress or embarrassment to a party or a witness in criminal proceedings involving an offence of a sexual nature. It is only right, particularly in relation to children, that that is the case. There are good grounds for that and I support that schedule; I think it is important. Vexatious litigants take up an enormous amount of time in court proceedings and schedule 3 deals with that. The new section 102QC allows a person to request a certificate stating that they are the subject of vexatious proceedings orders. In my practice as a lawyer I have dealt with vexatious litigants. It is extremely difficult to deal with them. Often they are quite unreasonable. I accept the reforms here. Schedule 4 will remove the $5 million monetary limit on family property jurisdiction exercisable by family law magistrates in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia under section 46 of the Family Law Act 1975. I do think it is high time that the Western Australia government referred all of its powers over to the Commonwealth government so we have one system of family law in this country and Western Australians are not treated differently. There are always problems in that regard and I think it is high time that the dingo fence that stops at the Nullarbor Plain be expunged. I cannot see why residents of Western Australia should be treated any differently to residents of Queensland. Schedule 5 deals with Administrative Appeals Tribunal fees. I note there was some concern expressed about changes in relation to fee structures for the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which replaced the AAT's power to waive an application fee and replace it with a flat fee of $100. Here, we are allowing provision to be made for the introduction of a reduced application fee which imposes additional burdens on disadvantaged people and we are allowing the AAT to defer payment of the reduced fee to a later date. I note that the Law Society of Australia is comfortable with this particular change as it would relieve the hardship faced by applicants unable to pay the reduced fee. I think there are some good and worthy reforms here. This is consistent with a government that is very committed to making sure people have access to justice. I think the coalition does not quite have the record the member for Stirling said it does with respect to reform, particularly in the area of the Federal Magistrates Court. 16:10 Mrs GRIGGS 220370 Solomon I rise to speak on the Access to Justice (Federal Jurisdiction) Amendment Bill 2011. This is a bill to introduce amendments which have been generated by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. The provisions prepared by this committee relate to a model bill for procedural and jurisdictional matters relevant to the Federal Court and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The amendments are directed at changes in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1995, the Family Law Act 1975, the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 and the Judiciary Act 1993. The amendments proposed by the bill aim to improve the functioning and efficiency of the discovery rules in civil proceedings specifically to provide more flexibility in costs orders and to allow pre-trial oral examination. They are also to implement the standing committee's model bill based on suppression and non-publication orders and to implement the standing committee's model bill concerning vexatious proceedings to align the jurisdictional limit of family law magistrates in WA with the Federal Magistrates Court and to provide more flexibility to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal when dealing with payment of fees. The coalition supports measures to improve access to justice. As the member for Stirling said, the Howard government established the Federal Magistrates Court with the express desire to provide a low-cost forum for the uncomplicated and efficient determination of disputes. Any court proceedings, however, generate costs and delays. In the pursuit of justice, consistency of decisions and open justice, we recognise that the administration of justice includes a requirement for parties to disclose relevant information and materials, which often leads to costs and delays. It is unfortunate that these processes can be abused by parties with a mind to intimidate, delay and financially out-shoot less well resourced litigants. Acceptance of this point therefore requires the court and tribunal rules to enable judges and arbiters the flexibility to detect, and the authority to prevent, such abuses. While existing rules provide some existing measures, this bill provides incremental assistance in terms of administration of justice to prevent the sidelining of matters by questions of process. The bill seeks to address some of the variance across Australian jurisdictions relevant to suppression and non-publication of orders. It has been suggested by stakeholders consulted in the preparation of this bill that some minor amendments to the suppression order regime and the explanatory memorandum in respect of WA family magistrates are necessary. As I have said, the coalition supports the measures to improve the process of justice and rules designed to further progress open justice, including measures to improve access to justice with cost-efficiency. While we broadly support the measures introduced by this bill, the coalition reserves the right to introduce amendments to the bill in the Senate pending the outcome of the Senate committee's recommendations. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83D I call the Attorney-General for her summing up. In doing so, I would like to congratulate her on her promotion to that position. 16:14 Ms ROXON 83K Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker Livermore. Last time I spoke here, in some excitement at my first bill as the Attorney-General, I was welcomed by the chair as the health minister. I think old habits die hard. Thank you for those congratulations. I would like to thank the honourable members for Stirling, Blair and Solomon who spoke on this bill. I know that for some people this bill seems like it is just a procedural one. It does go to many procedures within our courts, but the reforms will have a noticeable and beneficial effect on the experiences of court users and they are therefore worthy of considered debate. I thank people for contributing in that light. The Access to Justice (Federal Jurisdiction) Amendment Bill 2011 is an important step in the Labor government's efforts to make our judicial system responsive, accessible and efficient for all people who need its services. The courts must help to protect, and act impartially for, all participants in court processes whether they be one-off users in difficult circumstances, like a couple going through separation proceedings, or large corporate players utilising the courts to resolve commercial disputes. These reforms implement the practical recommendations from expert bodies such as the Australian Law Reform Commission and the Attorney-General's Department's Access to Justice Task Force, as well as bringing into the federal sphere model laws developed through the then Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. They go directly to addressing the points of aggravation experienced by court users and those wishing to report on court proceedings—that is, unnecessarily complex and costly discovery processes, a perceived overuse of suppression and non-publication orders, and unnecessary and wasteful litigation caused by vexatious litigants. By giving the Federal Court greater control over the costs of discovery, and clarifying that oral examinations can be used to assist in identifying which documents should be subject to discovery, we will support judges to manage and progress cases. By implementing the SCAG model suppression and non-publication order laws, we are also playing our part in ensuring nationally consistent rules are in place and in supporting open and transparent justice. I note, however, a matter that we will keep our eye on: the current concerns about the volumes and types of orders being granted. They are primarily at the state level; nevertheless, this does make our system more nationally consistent. This bill will tighten up the scope of those suppression orders. Courts will have to specifically consider whether the order is really necessary and craft the order in as narrow terms as possible to achieve its objectives. The court must, when making a suppression order, take into account that it is the primary purpose of the administration of justice to safeguard the public interest. Open justice is part of ensuring we can do that. By establishing fair and understandable vexatious litigant rules we are also balancing the need to keep our courts accessible while ensuring valuable court time is not wasted on repetitive, unmeritorious claims at the expense of other users. By amending the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act to allow applications without up-front payment of filing fees and allow regulations to give the AAT the power to impose fees on government agencies if they unsuccessfully defend appeals, this government is demonstrating its absolute ongoing commitment that individuals should be able to seek review of government action. This bill is all about improving access to justice for all who need it. It contains practical, considered measures initiated and supported by experts in the field of court practice. Extensive consultation with court officers, users and other stakeholders has ensured that these measures will achieve their desired outcomes. I thank the parliament for its support. Bill read a second time. Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2011-2012, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2011-2012 1528

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2011-2012

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2011-2012

Second Reading 1528 16:19 Ms HALL 83N Shortland I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2011-2012 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2011-2012. I was not expecting to speak on this legislation at this particular time but I think it is very important legislation that highlights the government's excellent management of the economy. Under the Gillard and, previously, Rudd government, the Australian economy has been the envy of countries throughout the world. The bills before us today just show what an exceptional job the government has done in looking after the Australian economy. It is important to point out that under the Gillard government there has been a massive growth in jobs and that during the period of the Rudd and Gillard government 170,000 new jobs have been created. It is really important also to point out that in the last year's sittings over 250 bills were passed through the parliament, which is many more than were passed through in the Howard government period. It really reflects upon the performance of this government over the period that it has been in power. I have to compare this to the performance of the opposition and their thoughts on how we should handle government. On one hand, you have a government working to return the budget to surplus, whilst on the other hand you have an opposition that has a $70 billion black hole—I should correct myself; it is a $72.4 billion black hole, because the Leader of the Opposition has stated today that he is going to repeal the changes to private health insurance. Those are changes that will benefit the people that I represent within this parliament. They are changes that will deliver more money to the health system instead of delivering to health insurance. Since the Labor government has been in power, it has committed itself to health reform. Under the Howard government, an inquiry was undertaken into the health system, and a report, The blame game, was tabled in parliament. This highlighted the deficiencies within the health system. It highlighted the fact that cost-shifting was taking place between the Commonwealth and the states. It was the Rudd and Gillard government that undertook to resolve this problem. So we have had a massive investment in health, with money being put into the health system, an increase in the number of doctors who are being trained and more money being spent on hospitals, more beds and an increase in the capacity of accident and emergency departments. There have been agreements between the Commonwealth and the states to really improve the delivery of health services. I look then and say: well, what is the opposition proposing? The opposition is proposing to take money out of the health system by rescinding the legislation that was passed in the House today—legislation that, as I said, will definitely benefit the people in Shortland electorate. Shortland is an older electorate. Shortland has a large number of people who are on pensions and lower incomes. As I mentioned in my contribution to the debate in the House yesterday, the median income for people living in the Shortland electorate is under $1,050 a week, based on the 2006 figures. The majority of people in the Shortland electorate who have health insurance—and that is 49 per cent of the electorate—will not be affected by the legislation, whilst there is probably in the vicinity of five per cent that it will impact on. The Leader of the Opposition today made a commitment to rescind that legislation, which would mean that five per cent of people I represent in this House would benefit, rather than the 95 per cent who need to access health services on the ground. We were faced with a chronic shortage of doctors in the Shortland electorate prior to the government undertaking its massive health and hospital reform. That reform, as I said, arose out of the blame game. There is a stark contrast. One side of the parliament provides policies that will benefit the majority of Australians, while the other side of politics provides support and assistance for a very small group of people. We have heard a lot in this parliament about the Building the Education Revolution program. Every school in the Shortland electorate that has had work done under this program has been absolutely ecstatic. One school with a smaller student population would have liked a bigger school hall, but it was not able to get it under the guidelines of the program. However, I have school after school that has had new blocks of classrooms, with smart boards in those classrooms. People in those schools are able to access the latest technology and are no longer accommodated in leaky demountables. I think of one school in particular, and that is the Gwandalan Public School. At the beginning of 2008, when the Rudd government was elected, I went to visit the school and met the principal, Don Begg, and the president of the P&C at that time, Melanie Symington, and they took me around the classrooms showing me the work that needed to be done, how the school was rusting, how water was leaking into the classrooms and the rotting carpet. Don Begg had a very busy year that year. He spent his entire Christmas holidays working at the school, painting and giving those demountables a facelift. He filled the leaks and did his very best to make those classrooms functional. In the middle of last year I attended the official opening of new classrooms. The principal was so delighted. The school had six new state-of-the-art classrooms. The old demountables had gone. The toilets that were falling down around their heads were fixed. The contrast with my first visit to that school—when there was a very unhappy principal and very unhappy president of the P&C—was graphic. You saw the emotions from an excited principal who was so ecstatic about the work that had been done at his school. I would like to encourage the members on the other side of this parliament to talk to their schools. I offer them the challenge of seeing how many of their schools would like those buildings taken away. I am talking about schools in not only the public system—the school I just mentioned was in the public system—but also the private and catholic systems. Outstanding work has been done in all sectors. The Windale Catholic school has the lowest SES statistics of Catholic schools in the whole of New South Wales, but the work that has been done in that school under the Gillard and Rudd governments has been phenomenal. The children from that school came to Parliament House and visited the Prime Minister in her office. Some of them had not been outside Newcastle until they made this visit to Canberra. When they were in the Prime Minister's office, they thanked her for the money that had been spent on the school. They thanked her for the support that they were getting through the national school partnership program and they also thanked her for actually caring about them. These students are from a very disadvantaged area. An enormous amount of change has taken place under the Gillard government. We made a commitment to the people of Australia to bring the budget back to surplus. We also undertook to address climate change. Our compensation package, which will come into play on 1 July, will lead to tax reductions for low- and middle-income earners. There is also a compensation package for pensioners. I understand that, once again, the Leader of the Opposition has said that he will take away those measures if he is elected. Let us look at the situation of the two parties. On the one hand we have a government that is investing in the community and in our young people by putting money into schools. It is also investing in our health system in order to help people when they get to the other end of their life or when they get sick and need to know that there will be a doctor there or a bed for them in hospital and that they will be able to get the health care they need. The Productivity Commission brought down its report on aged-care reforms towards the end of last year. We have a minister who is looking at that report and who is keen to embrace reform in aged care. We have the National Disability Insurance Scheme. As somebody who worked in disability for many, many years before entering parliament, I know that that sector has been underresourced for a very long time. I know that carers and parents struggle every day to care for and provide support and opportunity to disabled members of their family or friends. This scheme will give people with a disability a real opportunity to be active members in our society, to seek employment, to find that employment and to have the dignity that goes with work and being able to make choices about their own lives. On the other hand, we have an opposition that, if it ever made it to the government benches, would take from the people of Australia. It would take from those people who are most in need. It is not going to deliver on the National Disability Insurance Scheme as it initially promised it would. If it were, it would be a long, long way down the track. It would take from the health system by investing in insurance rather than health care. When it comes to education, I hate to think what an Abbott government would deliver to the Australian people. It certainly would not be investment in infrastructure and it certainly would not be investment in education. I commend the legislation to the House. 16:34 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes While I do not want to be critical of my friend and colleague the member for Shortland, I have never heard such claptrap and propaganda in all my life. She issued a challenge to visit her schools. She should come to the school at Louth in my electorate. They have a wonderful investment. They have a classroom for each child. The school at Windeyer also has a classroom for each child. These isolated schools could have had money spent elsewhere. While we are on the BER, we have schools that got covered outdoor learning areas—a bit of iron on a metal frame—for the cost of a five-bedroom house in any of the towns in my electorate. This appropriation bill is because of the mismanagement of this government. It is all very well to talk about the wonderful largesse flowing through to the constituents in various electorates, but this is all about value for money. And what we have seen from this government is that they cannot handle money. While we are on the BER, members opposite might like to come to Dubbo and speak to the tradesmen who are in dire financial straits because of the mismanagement of the BER and the lack of scrutiny of the contractors who managed this program. They had many people do jobs worth tens of thousands of dollars and in some cases hundreds of thousands of dollars that are yet to be paid for. The tradesmen believed that, because they were working for the government, that money was guaranteed. But they were sadly wrong. When the subcontractors failed to pay them the government did not back them up. Government members interjecting— Mr COULTON HWN I would like a little bit of quiet. This is a free-ranging debate and I am speaking about the financial mismanagement. When we have an appropriation bill to fill in the gaps where the government has overspent, there is nothing more appropriate than talking about waste and mismanagement. The government came to power with a $20 billion surplus, including money in the bank and a Future Fund. But it has all been raided. How about we start with the Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund of $2.7 million. The member opposite, from the wild regions of Tasmania, would understand the importance of telecommunications. I have patches all over my electorate that do not have basic telephone services. They do not have mobile telephone services and they have no way of getting them. That is because the fund that was put aside by the Howard government to fund this infrastructure was raided. One of the first things I had to do when I got elected to this place was sit through the humiliation of watching this government raid the money that was salted away by the Howard government to protect the telecommunications infrastructure of the people of regional Australia. That is gone. This government is very good at spending money but not very good at managing money. A lot of the schemes we have seen promoted by this government, a lot of the policies, have been about restricting the capacity of this great country, not growing it. The job of government is to provide an environment where the citizens of a country can undertake their best endeavours, where they can succeed, where their hard work brings them benefits. Government should basically be an unseen guiding hand that provides that environment. Instead we have a government that wants to meddle in people's lives. They want to control the environment. They want to control the river system. These are things that are not possible to attain. With these grand gestures they are severely impacting on the residents of Australia, particularly those that I represent in this place. The carbon tax is going to affect everyone in Australia. I cannot find anyone who can guarantee we are going to see any changes to the environment from the carbon tax. Indeed, the government's salesmen, Professor Flannery, says maybe in a thousand years if the whole world follows Australia's lead we might see some changes. So this grand gesture to garner the support of the green fringe elements and give the Greens politicians in this place the opportunity to strut on the world stage is not going to have any environmental effect at all but it is going to affect the lives of everyone. The member for Shortland spoke about this wonderful compensation that is coming through the carbon tax. Compensation by its very definition is a payment for hardship caused. There is no need for compensation if you do not put in the tax in the first place. Why will people need compensation if there is no carbon tax? I represent a regional seat where people are heavily reliant on fossil fuel not only for their production but because of the distances involved for the basic tenets of life like education, health and employment. There is a large fossil fuel component for regional Australia. And, because of the harsh climate, a lot of energy is required to heat and cool homes and workplaces. We are finding now, with the cost of electricity going up and the further escalating costs predicted—they are not denied; they are predicted—coming up from 1 July, that the sad reality is that older people, the most vulnerable people in my electorate, are sweltering in summer and are spending their winters under the blankets because they are not game to turn on their air conditioning or their heating. Meals on Wheels volunteers tell me that they are finding elderly people in the middle of the day in bed, not because they are unwell but because they cannot afford—or they perceive that they cannot afford—to run their electricity. What is more, this carbon tax is something that we are going to do all by ourselves. None of our trading partners have this. This is what I liken this carbon tax to. When we send our athletes to London later this year, we could just chain a 10-kilogram steel ball to their ankle and say: 'This is our grand gesture to the rest of the world to show that we care about the environment. We're going to put this 10-kilogram ball on the legs of all our athletes when they go to London and expect them to compete with people who aren't encumbered.' That is exactly the same as the government are expecting Australian businesses, Australian farmers and Australian manufacturers to do with their competitors in the rest of the world by giving them a tax that their competitors do not have, a tax that will serve no purpose other than to generate money into consolidated revenue and provide a grand gesture. We have seen other forms of mismanagement from this government. There is no better example than the youth allowance debacle. Great changes were made to the way regional students were serviced when the current Prime Minister was Minister for Education. While there has been some redress—I have to say a massive backflip—to restore independent youth allowance, there is still the means test element to it. While this government might not be very fond of farmers and farm families and saw the independent youth allowance as some sort of benefit to a farming elite, the reality is that the people who are really suffering now are the people who work in the towns. These people are coming to me asking why they cannot get independent youth allowance for their child, who has actually spent 12 months or 18 months working in a supermarket to earn the money. They might be a teacher and their husband might be a policeman or work in the banking sector or something like that. Two-income families are ineligible for any sort of assistance. They are expected to educate their children and compete with people who live within a bus ride of a university. So there is still that discrimination against country kids, and the youth allowance debacle was another example. We as a nation are looking forward to the rollout of the NBN, or supposedly we are. But, once again, the more I find out about the NBN, the more I realise that this is going to be—I will quote Kim Beazley; I looked up the word the other day on Google—a boondoggle. The NBN is a boondoggle. What is more, it is a boondoggle that will not benefit the people in my electorate. A few of them will gain access to high-speed fibre services. Many of them feel that they do not want that or do not want to pay for it. But many people think that the point-to-point wireless connections that are going to get to most of my towns will provide higher speed on their hand-held devices. Most of the people in regional Australia are connected to the internet in a mobile sort of way. The NBN wireless system will go to a point in your house, at your personal computer. You might be able to have a router within your house, but for someone who is working in the field the NBN will play no part. When a technician goes to repair a tractor in a cotton field at Moree and is looking for a fast internet connection for his diagnostic equipment, he will go through Next G with Telstra, but he will not be getting anything from the NBN. So people will be using the system they have now, because in most places it works, and the NBN is going to be a $50 billion white elephant. There is no greater example of financial mismanagement. You cannot measure your success as a government purely by the beads and blankets you can hand out to your constituents on a regular basis. The success of a government occurs when the Australian people have the confidence to do it themselves. The greatest gift a government can give its constituents is the confidence to succeed and have a go. What is happening now, right across Australia and particularly in my electorate, is that people are holding back. They are nervous about the future. They are holding back on purchasing that extra bit of land, on putting on an apprentice, on updating their work vehicle and maybe on sending their kids to university. There are actually families in my electorate who are having to choose which of their children have the greatest aptitude to go to university. In the year 2012, that is an absolute disgrace. The member for Braddon is pulling funny faces, but that is an absolute fact. Tertiary education might not be a big deal in Tasmania; they might not have quite the same levels down there. But this is a big deal. In conclusion, it is a sad state that many of the appropriations that are coming through on this bill are because of the mismanagement of this government. I believe the best thing it can do is put up the white flag, go to the Australian people and let them decide on the management style of this country. 16:48 Mr SIDEBOTTOM 849 Braddon I just have to say to the member for Parkes, as much as I like him: really and truly. You said many of the people in your electorate are nervous about the future. But they would be a hell of a lot more nervous about the future if it had not been for this government and the previous government of ours, and the way we tackled the global financial crisis. You only have to look at Europe and the United States to see what could have happened. Relatively speaking, we are much better off than them. You will not recognise it, so your negativity needs to be spoken about. Before you leave the chamber: you raised issues about appropriation, and I would like to comment on them. For your information, and contrary to what you are saying, there are a record number of students enrolled in our universities today, and there are record numbers of students from rural and regional Australia—particularly from low-income families—in our universities. So I have to correct the way you were portraying the people of Parkes. Also, I will finish by saying that the NBN system—with some of the issues that you have raised, I acknowledge—is better, with the potential that exists for rural and regional Australia and particularly metropolitan Australia as well, compared to no policy at all from those opposite. So I cannot let the member for Parkes make those wild, exaggerated, generalised statements and just get away with it. I am sorry that he has walked out the door before at least he has had the opportunity to hear that. Now, we are here to discuss appropriations, and— Mr O'Dowd interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83A The member for Flynn will sit in silence! Mr SIDEBOTTOM 849 Indeed, and I hope the member for Flynn is speaking on this. I cannot see his name down there at the moment. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83A He is not on the list. Mr SIDEBOTTOM 849 Anyway, I am more than happy to hear his comments. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2011-2012 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2011-2012, amongst other things, are approvals for measures such as the government's plan for a clean energy future, a remarkable, reformative piece of legislation that is about to come into action. It is great to see how, in particular, the agricultural sector has taken up the challenge of the clean energy future—and I will to refer to that in a moment—particularly in this Australian Year of the Farmer. I am very happy to celebrate that with them. Also, these bills are part and parcel of measures that fund the Tasmanian forest industry adjustment package. That, of course, is highly relevant to my state and particularly my region. The bills also provide Australia's contribution of overseas development assistance to the Horn of Africa drought and famine—very, very important. They also provide assistance to eligible businesses affected by the temporary suspension of the live cattle exports to Indonesia. I mentioned the agricultural sector and the clean energy future. I will spend some time a little bit later talking about the clean energy future and its implications and benefits in my electorate, but I particularly want—in this, the Australian Year of the Farmer—to point out that Australia's agricultural sector is embracing a clean energy future, contrary to the suggestion of the member for Parkes, with more than 500 applications received from universities, land managers, the industry and government agencies for this government's funding to test and develop new ways for farmers to reduce carbon emissions. They are interested in it. They are practical people. They want practical results. And they are prepared to test those. I noticed in today's Senate estimates that the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has confirmed that we received at least 240 applications for the first round of the $99 million Action on the Ground program under the Carbon Farming Future Fund. That is 240 applications for the first round. A further 235 applications had been received for the first round of the $201 million Filling the Research Gap program, also part of the Carbon Farming Future Fund, which is a key component, as I mentioned before, of the clean energy future plan. The Action on the Ground and Filling the Research Gap programs provide funding for research into on-farm practices and new technologies—specifically those. The level of interest in these programs shows how keen the agricultural sector is to benefit from the opportunities in the land sector to cut carbon pollution. The member for Parkes asked why we have a clean energy future and why we are going about this responsible program, because, he said, it does not do anything for the environment. Cutting 160 million tonnes of pollution from the atmosphere by 2020 I reckon is doing something for the environment. That is going to allow us to meet our international commitment to cut emissions by five per cent on year 2000 levels. That is the equivalent of taking 45 million cars off the road. That is a target that those opposite support. If we are attempting to meet those targets and reduce pollution by 160 million tonnes from the atmosphere through our system and they agree with those targets, how can they say that our program is not doing anything for the environment? The member for Parkes really has got a logic problem in his argument. Back to the agricultural sector embracing a clean energy future: I knew they would because they are practical people. They live on the land. They survive on the land. They know the land. They know what the land can do. We are there to support them in those endeavours. Agricultural emissions will be excluded under the carbon price mechanism, as I hope all those in this House are making clear. But farmers also have the opportunity to earn extra income by sequestering carbon or reducing emissions, such as nitrous oxide and methane. Part of our $1.7 billion investment in the land sector is for new research and on-farm demonstrations. Again, farmers are practical and take a great deal of note of extension programs and particularly on-farm demonstrations. That is a very practical way of developing and appreciating innovation. These activities will help the agricultural sector unlock the economic and productivity benefits of reducing emissions and at the same time protect the environment. The $99 million Action on the Ground program, which I mentioned earlier, helps the industry and farming groups test and apply research outcomes in real farming situations. Again, these are on-the-ground demonstrations and on-the-ground practical situations. Applications, for example, include proposals to demonstrate practices in the livestock, dairy, viticulture, cropping and poultry industries and to undertake on-farm projects. The $201 million Filling the Research Gap program funds research into new technologies and practices for land managers to reduce emissions and store soil carbon. Applications cover reducing methane emissions, reducing nitrous oxide emissions, increasing soil carbon and improving modelling capabilities. Further applications, I believe, have been received for biochar research, which is part of the Carbon Farming Initiative. The $2 million Biochar Capacity Building Program, which supports research into how biochar and integrated biochar systems can be used in Australia to mitigate emissions, has received something like 29 applications. These research proposals, I understand, are undergoing assessments and will be ranked by merit. So here is the agricultural sector embracing the clean energy future. Here are funds available to encourage them, to support them and to nurture their ideas and innovations in order to reduce our emissions and to increase their productivity. I congratulate Minister Ludwig, Parliamentary Secretary Mark Dreyfus and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, the Hon. Greg Combet, for their work in this area. I mentioned at the outset that a clean energy future will support and benefit my local region. I have spoken about that before in the House and pointed out how people in my electorate will benefit. One of the other benefits of this appropriation legislation is that it allows for funding to support the Tasmanian intergovernmental agreement on forestry. Forestry in Tasmania, as we all know in this place, has been and continues to be a massive challenge and a political football for some. The industry has been changing for some time now and it continues to change. Indeed, the same thing is happening in Western Australia, as it is in Victoria and New South Wales. We know this. There are a lot of factors at work, be it the Australian dollar, the changed market conditions, demands of customers for the product or the change in domestic demands and expectations of the industry. The reality is that in Tasmania that transition—those challenges—has been going on for some time. The intergovernmental agreement seeks to respond to a group of stakeholders who came together under their own volition to try to iron out what effectively have been generations of combat and conflict. They came together with a set of principles to try to transition the industry into the future, dealing with it realistically and, at the same time, conserving those areas of our forests worthy of conservation while being able to guarantee contractual resource arrangements that currently exist. This process is underway. Unfortunately it has been seriously undermined by the disgraceful actions of activists in environmental groups who—we will share this with other colleagues in other states; this is not going to be confined to Tasmania—now use techniques to attack markets and to attack customers of producers, retailers and processors until they have economically blackmailed them out of taking product. The products of Tasmania, like in other parts of Australia, are certified as product sustainably managed. That is being attacked by these activist groups as being the opposite. It is disgraceful behaviour. It has seriously affected a major employer in Tasmania, Ta Ann, who source their supplies legally and sustainably and have now put off workers because their customers in Japan, in particular, have been frightened off by activist groups who peddle disinformation, deceit and lies. Being a retailer, you do not want to be involved in people having demonstrations outside your store, people scaring your customers. So they are forced out. These tactics will be used from here on, not just in forestry. You can bet it is going to happen in dairy and in our marine industries such as fisheries, and so on it will go. It is disgraceful behaviour and they need to be reined in, particularly by the Greens. The Libs need to get off their pat and stop the criticism and try to get a constructive solution to Tassie's forestry issues so that we have a future. This government has appropriated funds to support Tasmania in this transition. In my electorate of Braddon we have just announced nearly $6 million for an agritrade centre to help with the development of dairying skills, and also an upgrade of Harcus River Road and the development of energy supplies so that we can go from low-value beef into high-volume dairying by developing 27 more dairy farms. 17:03 Mr RANDALL PK6 Canning I am very pleased to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2011-2012 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2011-2012 and to speak to the financial implications that I am about to raise as a result of these appropriations. I wish to talk about federal money that has been applied to assist with the NBN rollout in my electorate. On 4 November 2011, Regional Development Australia Peel lodged an application on behalf of a consortium including Explor Consulting, the Western Australian Department of Commerce and Curtin University in collaboration with iiNet, Cisco Systems and the City of Mandurah. The application was for just $35,000 from the pool of funds in the department of regional Australia to support local projects facilitating the NBN rollout in its first and second rollout areas. In my electorate this would be in some of the suburbs of Mandurah and Pinjarra. Despite a number of assurances since December last year that a funding decision would be made this week—in other words, manana; this week, every week—there has still been no response to this application. As it would not be prudent to commence a project until funding confirmation has been secured, the lack of a decision on this issue is holding this project up. I am willing to point this out and say, 'Yes, the NBN looks like it is coming to the electorate, but we are still asking when.' It has been coming forever. At a forum on the possibilities of the NBN which took place in my electorate last November, the mayor of the City of Mandurah, Paddi Creevey, was excited by the NBN opportunities that had been spruiked to her. The City of Mandurah is keen to make sure it is a success story when it comes to facilitating the NBN rollout. It is also keen to make sure it is a success in engaging with local business and residents with regard to what the NBN can do for them. That is why the city facilitated the forum and it is why it is involved in taking the initiative in getting funding to support local projects with regard to the NBN rollout. There are many questions from people in my electorate about the NBN, not only about when they will get it but also about what, if any, benefits it will offer. It is not good enough for the government to throw the infrastructure out there and then expect the success stories to just happen on their own without some sort of support. The government needs to provide real on-the-ground support for these programs. As of Friday last week, it was advised to RDA Peel that the funding decision is tied up in other processes within the department. No advice about when a decision will be made is forthcoming. I will now write to the minister to further address this issue and to express my support for RDA Peel's funding application. As I said, it will take just $35,000 to get this going but it is being held up in the bureaucracy. That is a shame. The other issue I wish to raise in relation to RDAs generally is that of services provided by government. Peel RDA is trying to determine what services are provided to the region by the Australian government to understand what issues need to be addressed. This was a result of the Peel Community Development Group's draft report Peel Away the Mask II, which investigates social conditions in the Peel region. It is an excellent publication. There is no current tool available from the Australian government that allows such groups, or interested community members, to see exactly what is being spent and delivered in the regions. The only data available is limited to that required under Senate Order No. 9 in relation to contracts over $100,000 and Finance Circular No. 2009/04 on grant announcements, both of which provide very limited information. Such information remains very difficult to ascertain despite Minister Crean's promise in 2010 that the Labor government would introduce a means by which federal government funding could be tracked. At the Sustainable Economic Growth for Regional Australia, or SEGRA, conference on 19 October last year, Minister Crean said: In addition, we are moving to introduce a breakdown of the Federal Budget which more clearly shows the pattern and priority of Commonwealth spending across all regions of the country. Known as spatial accounting, this will be a major advance and will allow comparisons nationwide across regions. It will take transparency to a new level. This is still not available. Despite transparency being part of the agreement that was made with the country Independents to form this government, the promise has not been fulfilled. Transparency is something we all desire. The minister has promised it but he has not delivered it. You may ask why it is that this promise has not been kept. It is because disclosing such comparative information would demonstrate the stark differences in funding between different regions—between, for example, my Liberal held seat of Canning and that of, perhaps, a country Independent seat in northern New South Wales, dare I say Lyne. It would be nice to be able to see the difference in funding between the two seats. Since that insufferable 17-minute speech by the member for Lyne marking the beginning of this incompetent minority government, Australians have heard story after story of disproportionate spending in the three seats held by the three Independents. Dare I say it, the last budget papers had a whole section dedicated to budget initiatives in their seats. We all know that the Australian Labor Party is making a hobby out of breaking promises. I will not go into them all now but we saw one today in terms of the Medicare levy and private health insurance. This is one promise it is truly in our best interests not to see broken, so as to expose the enormous amount of money that has been funnelled into these electorates. My constituents in Canning would be livid if there was a website that clearly demonstrated what they were missing out on in terms of federal moneys being poured into the electorates of the Independents to prop up this flailing government. I call on the minister to fulfil his promise and provide spatial accounting for us all to see, to take transparency to a new level as promised and to draw back the curtains and 'let the sunshine in' as promised. In terms of services versus infrastructure, let us remind ourselves that the BER involved many instances, particularly in the eastern states, of wasteful spending by this high-spending government. This is because they are only interested in cutting ribbons and placing plaques on buildings—trying to get the kudos out of it—rather than delivering what is actually required by the community. While it is nice for government members and their newsletters, this is unfortunate in that the things that are desperately required in our communities are not necessarily infrastructure but services. A local constituent who is heavily involved in the Regional Development Authority in my electorate has spoken about the urgent need for government to focus on the delivery of services rather than the delivery of capital infrastructure. However, under the RDA fund guidelines for round 2, the eligibility requirements ensure that this will not occur. Round 2 of the RDAF will deliver $200 million to regional Australia—that is, if the money ever gets handed out. This government is making a habit of making it impossible for recipients of the money to actually use the funds that have been assigned. In many instances the money is being handed back to government—and it obviously goes back into consolidated revenue—because they cannot use it under the terms it was given to them. This is because, to be eligible for RDAF round 2 funding, the local RDA committees will only be assessing applications from organisations or groups that have an annual turnover of at least $1.5 million each year for a minimum of three years. For goodness sake! How many small organisations in our electorate have that sort of turnover? It is just ridiculous. Obviously, it is that way so that it does not get to be handed out. The other element of this handout requests that the minimum grant is $500,000. This encourages waste. Some local organisations do not need that amount of money. However, it is either $500,000 or nothing. They are compelled to unnecessarily spend this money. They have got to beef up the application to $500,000 before it can actually be applied for. How ridiculous! I just mentioned a moment ago funding of $35,000 for a project. That would not comply under the current rules. It is quite crazy and it has gone too far. Just to show the anomalies that are created in these programs, I want to talk about a community group that has asked for some money from the government. The group is not even getting heard. Before I come to that I want to remind the House that Minister Crean came to my electorate and, at the golf course, promised to give the RDA an extra $50,000 to help keep its doors open because of the unique circumstances in Western Australia. He has promised this. His staff have promised it to me. I have been to his listening post and they have promised it again. I was told that the money would come before Christmas. It is still not there. They are battling to run the RDA. I am wondering if this is a direct ploy to try to shut the RDAs down so that they cannot do their job—or is it just an attack on the RDAs in Western Australia? I am going to continue to pursue this. The migrant centre in Mandurah in my electorate urgently needs funds so that it can stay open and help the people it is trying to serve. Given the increased number of migrant arrivals, it is not good enough for the government to dump these people in Australian communities without adequate support to help them gain an education or to try to get themselves into the workforce. I have written to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, the Hon. Chris Bowen, on two occasions regarding the funding of the Mandurah migrant centre. I first wrote in May 2011, when I appealed for help in identifying financial assistance that may have been available to the centre. I did receive a letter in response to my call for help for this group. However, the funding options detailed in the minister's response were totally unsuitable. The response included details of two possible grants that were available, under the Adult Migrant English Program and the Settlement Grants Program. The letter detailed that the Adult Migrant English Program contracts for the newly appointed providers were not due to expire for some years—on 30 June 2014. So the centre cannot apply until 2014. They need help now. The settlement grants funding round for 2012-13 appears to not yet be open for application. We cannot find any information about when they will open. So both of those suggestions from the minister are not much help. It would still take some time to get the funding for the centre through any of these channels if the application were successful. The centre needs assistance now, not from some ethereal funding mechanism in the future. I have not yet received a response but I look forward to receiving the information. This centre requires about $32,100 per annum for its operating costs. Other than that it is staffed by volunteers. Here we have a community group that gives of its time and that desperately needs government help. The need for this group has been exacerbated by the government's not being able to stop the massive flow of boats to our shore. Yet good people in my community who are giving their time to help the people who end up in the regions—Mandurah is in the Peel region—cannot get any attention at all from the Gillard government. I will give one example of the good work that the centre does. Volunteers from the centre helped a newly arrived family from Iran to find accommodation to rent and to find a suitable school for the children, who were aged from eight to 12. They assisted the family with associated paperwork to do all this. The centre has also assisted the family by directing them to a number of social inclusion activities. Dare I say that the Minister for Social Inclusion might want to listen to this; then he will find out what it actually means. But here we have this group needing funds and it cannot get them. I therefore urge the government to support the Mandurah migrant centre and all the other issues I have raised in this House today. (Time expired) 17:18 Mr NEVILLE KV5 Hinkler Today I want to talk about appropriation bills Nos 3 and 4 and then to range a little more widely, as is allowed when debating appropriation bills, into another area. The funds being sought through these bills are supposed to cover the shortfalls in funding which the government tells us have happened because of the instability of global financial markets. The amount involves little more than $3.1 billion. Of course the global financial environment will have an impact on our economy; no-one doubts that. But it is this government's financial incompetence and continuing waste of money that has made these extra appropriations necessary. The government tells us that Australia continues to outperform the developed world in economic growth, that we have strong public finances, that we have sound resources investment. Another strength they claim is low unemployment, which is most definitely not the case in my region. The most recent unemployment statistics for the Wide Bay Burnett region show unemployment to be sitting at 5.3 per cent, almost two points higher than when Labor came to power in November 2007. When I refer to the Wide Bay area, I do not refer to the electorate but rather to the lower part of the electorate of Flynn, my electorate of Hinkler and the electorate of Wide Bay itself, with a little bit of Maranoa thrown in for good measure. When we get down to youth unemployment, for the 15- to 24-year-olds, the figure is even more concerning, at 11.4 per cent. These are not figures that any government should be proud of. They are figures that will increase because of the government's addiction to taxation, spending and, sadly, wasting. This philosophy can be seen in full living colour courtesy of Labor's carbon tax agenda. Australians always knew Labor's carbon tax would cost them dearly, and today, courtesy of these bills, we get a taste of by how much. Most of the funds being appropriated under bill No. 3 relate to measures and programs being put in place because of the imposition of a carbon tax on the Australian economy. A full $2.8 billion is being sought to fund program blow-outs and policy decisions made by the government. The money includes $1.3 billion to support several agencies in their task to roll out Labor's clean energy manifesto and a further $1 billion so that the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency can make cash payments to coal fired power stations to help them cope with the changes that are being wrought. One figure which caught my eye is the $106 million to be spent on completing the ceiling insulation inspection program for households throughout Australia. There are some in my electorate that still have not been fixed up after 18 months. One in the township of Howard is particularly worrying. I was one of the first whistleblowers about this dog of a program, and, for my efforts, I was howled down by the then minister. I was accused of manipulating a local insulation company to create headlines for the program. In fact, I found out recently that the then minister actually sent people from his office or from the department—I am not sure which—to check everything I had said in the parliament. I thought that was extraordinary—to send someone all the way from Canberra to Bundaberg to check me out. But I had my facts right. There were 14 forms of rorting going on. I documented them. I tabled them in the parliament and the tabled document was raced up to Bundaberg so they could check out whether I had been telling the truth. Well, I was telling the truth, and all those things were subsequently proven to be true. I was telling one of my constituents about the money being sought to fix this fiasco, and she said to me, 'As if people weren't ripped off enough in the first place. Now it's the tidying up phase which is costing heaps of money. There are so many better ways they could have spent that money.' I could not agree more. I think the people of Hinkler should also be clear on where their hard-earned dollars are going and just how much is being spent on setting up this carbon tax. These are just a few of the ways taxpayers' dollars are being spent through these appropriation bills. Thirty million dollars will be spent on setting up the Clean Energy Regulator, which will assess emissions data and make sure industries comply with carbon pricing. One hundred thousand dollars will go to the Department of Finance and Deregulation so it can review the establishment and operations of the Clean Energy Regulator. Six million dollars will go to the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency to promote the carbon tax to small businesses and community organisations. Thirty-six million dollars will go to the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities so it can set up a biodiversity fund. The Department of Human Services gets $36 million to dish out to people who need compensation for the extra costs from the carbon tax—perhaps we could tolerate that one. Also included in the appropriation bills is another $24 million in assistance to cattle producers, who were disgracefully abandoned by the government when, last year, they had a knee-jerk reaction to what was going on in Indonesia. I suspect that this is nowhere near enough assistance for this industry and the businesses associated with it. I know from cattle producers in Queensland that they are really worried about where the industry might be going, particularly in relation to the live cattle trade. I also note that in these bills the government is seeking an immediate $330 million to cover the blow-out in asylum seeker management costs, following the scrapping of the Pacific solution and temporary protection visas. In fact, across the entire immigration portfolio, not including last year's blow-out, the increase for the four years to 2014-15 is three-quarters of a billion dollars—that is extraordinary. Then there is the $550 million, which is almost three times more than the $197 million the Treasurer and Minister Bowen told taxpayers the bill would be for immigration when they released the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook for this period last November. So, from November until now, we have had a blow-out of nearly three times more. In just a couple of short months, the government seems to have allowed this thing to escalate by $560 million. I am sure that the hardworking, tax-paying people in the Hinkler electorate were also horrified to hear that the immigration budget has increased by a billion dollars since 2007-08, going from $1.69 billion to around $2.7 billion today. That is a lot of money. Perhaps this has something to do with the 15 per cent increase in permanent staff and the 24 per cent increase in the number of the highest paid positions, with the median pay packets being between $180,000 and $210,000. That is five to six times the average wage of people living in my electorate. You can understand, firstly, their being so worried and upset about the way this boat people fiasco has been handled but, secondly, knowing the people handling it on behalf the government are earning five and six times what local people in my electorate are earning they find particularly galling. Asylum seeker management costs have been revised to $1.2 billion for the financial year, which is up from the revised figure of $880 million last year. On a more bipartisan matter now I would like to deal briefly with the apology to the Indigenous community and the Prime Minister's statement today on Closing the Gap. I do not resile from where I stood on that matter. I was one who certainly had to grapple with that apology. I entered into it with an open mind and a humble and, dare I say, contrite heart. I thought that if we were all going to have to do it then we should do it well. I based that initially on the fact of children being separated from their parents. All societies, primitive and developed, across the world, even some of the most hated and despotic societies, have recognised the bond between a mother and her children. Only the most hardened and experimental have tried to separate children from their parents, particularly from their mothers. These children were brought up for most of their lives in an institution, with some of them never seeing their parents again and others being told most cruelly that their parents or their mother had died—worse still, some did this in the name of a loving God. It was an outrageous blasphemy for people to do those things and to pretend that they were doing it in charity. I am not saying that there were not some very good and well intentioned organisations that did look after Indigenous kids and did give them a future—and I know some of those from my own experience of people I have known over the years. But there are others that were totally unacceptable. I think too it is fair to say that, far from helping those children, the psychological damage to the parents and the bewilderment of the children probably put that generation back 10, 15 or 20 years and the catching up is still going on. I see some pleasing things in the Prime Minister's speech of this morning. The figures do show some closing of the gap but there is still a long way to go. One thing I am troubled by is on the margins of this problem. It is where we get into this so-called cultural sensitivity. I repeat what I said in my speech four years ago when I was talking about this cultural aspect. I will read it out and you can take your own meaning from it. I said: How this can be acceptable today in the Australia we live in is well beyond me and it is down to both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians to accept responsibility for it. Paternalistic attitudes, no matter how well intentioned, have spawned a welfare mentality crippling many Aboriginal communities and drastically reducing self-reliance, personal responsibility and self-determination. I feel that for decades now, political correctness and confected cultural sensitivities have been the greatest hurdles we have faced in fixing the serious problems of Aboriginal Australians. One Indigenous leader has said: Culture is often invoked as a justification for this lowering of expectations and standards. It will be invoked by indigenous community members as well as those developing policies and delivering programs, as a justification for not upholding rigorous standards that apply in the mainstream. We must be careful to ensure that we are not unconsciously using culture as an excuse for failure, poor performance and under-achievement … why is ‘cultural appropriateness’ never invoked as a justification for higher standards and higher expectations—and higher levels of achievement, rather than lower? Beware whenever the words ‘culturally appropriate’ are used: it is usually an alibi for low standards and dumbing down. Those are the words of Noel Pearson in his 2004 position paper Bending to dysfunction, bending to the problems. I heartily endorse what he said. I think too there are still a lot of anomalies in getting Aboriginal children into education. We thump our breast and we say that education is the door through which they will escape the grinding poverty, but I still do not think we have created nearly enough opportunities for those children. 17:33 Mr MITCHELL M3E McEwen I rise today to support the federal government's Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2011-2012 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2011-2012. Success and progress have never come from those who stand still. This government will be successful because we never stand still because we create change using methods that give us a far better society. One of the measures supported through these bills is our comprehensive plan for securing our clean energy future. I am very proud to be part of a government which is championing this vital initiative. The plan will cut the nation's pollution and drive investment which will help ensure that Australia continues to compete internationally and that it will remain strong now and into the future. The decisions that our government has made have taken courage. It would be easy in the short term to do nothing and to not take advantage of new and emerging markets. But where would this take our great country? This is why the Gillard government is taking action to tackle climate change by putting a price on pollution and ensuring that all money raised will go to supporting households and jobs to build this clean energy future. Our government has a plan to cut pollution and lay the foundation for the clean energy future that Australians deserve. Putting a price on carbon will require Australia's biggest polluters to pay for the pollution that they put into our environment. We on this side of the House are supporting families and households as we move to this clean energy future. The bill sets out a range of measures including supporting jobs, households and energy markets and setting up the Clean Energy Regulator. More than 43,500 McEwen residents will receive support from the funding in this bill, because it is for families and individuals, to assist with any additional costs that may be associated with the emissions trading system. The revenue raised will go to tax cuts and increased payments for pensioners, low- and middle-income earners and families who are doing it tough. Support will be provided to eligible self-funded retirees, job seekers, students and other income support recipients and low-income earners. Under our Household Assistance Package, more than 20,900 pensioners in McEwen will receive pension payments increased by more than the average price impact of an emissions trading system. Pensions will increase by $338 per year for singles and $510 per year for couples combined, and concession card holders who rely on essential medical equipment will also be eligible to receive a $140 essential medical equipment payment each and every year. Family assistance payments like family tax benefit A will increase by 1.7 per cent. Nine out of 10 households will receive some assistance through tax cuts or payment increases. This monetary support is permanent and will increase in the future. The Gillard government will review the adequacy of assistance each year and will increase it further if required. I am proud to be part of a government that makes the big decisions that demand courage right now, decisions for the future which, when we look back, will be seen as the right decisions. The coalition, who are trying to manipulate and grasp anything they can to promote their own political ambition, would claw back this support for all these people in McEwen. Just like Medicare and the superannuation reforms that we have proudly introduced, you would think no party would seek to undo them, because they have irrefutably changed Australian society for the better, but if the coalition had had their way none of these essential reforms would have seen the light of day. In the context of this government's clean energy future initiatives, we again hear the opposition cranking out the same old broken record of their negative spin. Consistency is not the Liberal Party's strength. As we all know, Mr Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, dismissed climate change as 'absolute crap', yet they still have their own carbon plan which will tax individuals $720 on average a year to fund support for big polluters. Last year on radio the Leader of the Opposition said: I've never been in favour of a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme. But in 2009 he stated: We don't want to play games with the planet. So we are taking this issue seriously and we would like to see an ETS … That is what he said at the time. In the same year he also said: You can't have a climate change policy without supporting this ETS … Yet last year Mr Abbott criticised the proposed five per cent carbon emissions cuts as 'crazy', even though the coalition support the target. They have their own policy for the same target. You really have to ask: can you ever get a straight answer out of that lot opposite? Last year he repeatedly commented that measuring carbon dioxide was near impossible, and he said: It's actually pretty hard to do this because carbon dioxide is invisible and it's weightless and you can't smell it … The member for Wentworth quite eloquently put an end to that. You have to wonder—this is a bloke who is a Rhodes scholar, yet he must have failed year 9 science to not understand that sort of thing and spew out the garbage that he does. But we should not be surprised that he thinks this, as most of his views are from the dark ages. What is even sadder is that it was the Howard government which introduced standards for emissions accounting—a government that he was a senior minister in. It is clear that those on the other side do not understand science. Over the years, when you look back and you look across, it is just a litany of contradictions from the Liberal Party and the National Party. In speaking on this bill, I would also like to touch on the foreign aid component which this legislation is seeking to fund. Over a year ago, I was delighted to be involved with Plenty Valley Christian College, a school in my electorate that has been working extremely hard on the Make Poverty History campaign. After the students learned about the hardship and the challenges that people face in other countries, they decided to stand up and take action to raise awareness and help others less fortunate than us. Year 10 students led the college in organising the school to be involved in a worldwide campaign to help raise the issue of poverty around the world. The students collected hundreds of birthday cards from the school community to raise awareness in our wider community. They brought to the government's attention our commitment to the Millennium Development Goals, particularly goals 3 and 4 to improve child and maternal health. I would like to say as their local member and as part of the Gillard government that I am proud to represent such caring young people from my electorate. Our government is committed to the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals, which are the agreed targets set by the world's nations to reduce poverty by 2015. This bill will see Australia providing $127.3 million to support developing countries in transforming their resources into significant, valuable and sustainable benefits for all their citizens. I would like to stress that the Australian aid program does not fund mining ventures. The aid program recognises that mining in developing countries is inevitable and that Australia would be better placed in helping these developing countries to develop their economies with sustainable practices. The potential benefits for developing countries to lift their economic status are enormous, especially for improving incomes, employment, education and enterprise opportunities for poor people in both rural and urban areas. Many of our developing partner countries have substantial natural resource endowments, which, if well managed and regulated, can accelerate poverty reduction efforts. For example: in Papua New Guinea, mining employs over 30,000 people and provides 80 per cent of export earnings, and this is before LNG revenues are realised. Australia has already helped many countries to make progress towards the Millennium Development Goals, such as in Papua New Guinea, where more than 900,000 children were immunised against measles and other childhood illnesses between 2000 and 2009. In East Timor, Australian assistance contributed to a decrease in infant mortality from 60 per 1,000 live births in 2003 down to 44 in 2009. In Indonesia, more than 2,000 new junior secondary schools were built or renovated between 2006 and 2010. That created places for about 330,000 more children to get a decent education. I am looking forward to getting back to my electorate and visiting Plenty Valley Christian College again and talking to those students who are now in year 12 about the progress that we are making with our responsibilities as a member of the global community. The Gillard government is committed to our Millennium Development Goals and to assisting nations that are not as lucky as we are. The early stages of a child's development are extremely important. It is well known that what happens to children in their early years has consequences throughout the course of their life. The electorate of McEwen has one of the largest zero- to 5-year-old populations in the country and it is continuing to grow, with large numbers of families and their children moving into the area. Another measure in this bill introduces reforms to strengthen incentives for parents to have their children immunised, which will improve immunisation coverage rates. As we know, immunisation helps to guard against harmful infections before they come into contact with humans. Immunisation helps people stay healthy by preventing serious infections. Immunisation is the safest and most effective way of giving protection against diseases. After immunisation, your child is far less likely to contract a disease when there are cases of disease in the community. We know when enough people in our communities are immunised that an infection can no longer be spread from person to person and that can help kill off a disease altogether. This is how smallpox was eliminated from the world and how polio has now disappeared from many countries. The Family Tax Benefit Part A supplement, which is worth $726 per child per annum, will now only be paid once a child is fully immunised at one, two and five years of age. These new conditions will be implemented at a new immunisation checkpoint at one year of age, along with the existing checkpoints at two and five years of age. This means that over the three immunisation checkpoints families will now have an incentive of more than $2,100 to insure their children are fully immunised. Health is obviously a very important issue in my electorate. That is why we have seen things like the GP superclinics in Wallan and South Morang going ahead and there has been the removal of GP training place caps. All of these things are designed to help give us better health and a better standard of living. It is important that these things be funded and continue to grow to make sure that we have a better future for our kids and their kids as they come along. It is important that these bills are passed speedily so that we can get on with the job of delivering a better Australia for our future. 17:45 Dr STONE EM6 Murray I rise today in this debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2011-2012 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2011-20012 to talk about a very significant part of the work of any government—the funding of medical and health services. We must succeed, in a way that is different from the past, in providing enough rural health services. We know that there is an incredible shortage of health practitioners who are prepared to go to and stay in rural and regional Australia. My electorate is in Murray in rural Victoria. There we have a significant shortage of health service professionals compared to Melbourne or any other metropolitan area in Australia. For example, the number of GPs per 100,000 people in rural areas is 50 per cent to 66 per cent of the metropolitan provision. Mortality rates are 15 per cent higher for rural men and nine per cent higher for rural women compared to urban residents. And we need to close the 17-year gap in Indigenous life expectancy in Australia. One of the greatest initiatives of the Howard government was designed to tackle rural doctor shortages through the establishment of departments of rural health and clinical schools. They were established in a number of key locations around rural Australia. Some of these centres have now changed the face of medical services and training for all time. They have certainly changed the culture of medical services provision in my part of the world. Then minister for health, Michael Wooldridge, championed these initiatives and I will always be grateful that he listened to my argument that the first of these new departments of rural health should be established in north-central Victoria in Shepparton. The first sod was subsequently turned on a pouring wet day in a tent by Prime Minister John Howard. He was standing there at an excellent site over the road from Goulburn Valley Health. The site had enough space for what was soon to be built—excellent student residences and teaching places. Shepparton is, of course, within the Goulburn Valley. It is a unique part of Australia with a rich mix of Indigenous, refugee, migrant and very long-established families. They have long suffered from a lack of specialist and general practitioner services. We were in despair. It is only a two- to three-hour drive up the highway to the capital city but it seemed impossible for us to lure new health service professionals to replace the ageing and very excellent medical workforce we had had for decades in our part of the world. The University of Melbourne Department of Rural Health was therefore established in 1999. In 2002 it evolved into the Rural Clinical School and the School of Rural Health in that same year. I can very well remember when the first students from the University of Melbourne Parkville campus had to be cajoled—they had to be metaphorically dragged, kicking and screaming—to even think about leaving the city to come to this rural environment at Shepparton. It gives me enormous satisfaction to say now, 11 years on, that the places at the rural clinic schools are oversubscribed and that was also the case in 2009, 2010 and 2011. It is now the case that the academic results of the medical students there are better than the results achieved by their metropolitan peers. In fact, the valedictorian medical student for the 2009 graduating class in the whole of the University of Melbourne came from the Rural Clinical School—Dr James Hillis. More than 30 per cent of those who graduate are choosing rural internships. There are increasing numbers of senior registrars at our hospitals in the Goulburn Valley and elsewhere in northern Victoria who are in their final year of GP training. We are also very proud that our longstanding professor, Professor Dawn DeWitt—who has recently taken up a new position in North America—in 2009 was part of the team from the Rural Clinical School who were awarded the Melbourne Medical School Excellence in Teaching Award and in 2010 led the team that won the Melbourne Medical School and University of Melbourne Program Innovation in Education Award. In 2003 there were fewer than 20 students and only a few staff; now, there are 500 to 750 rural health profession students, supported each year with an annual budget of about $10 million. We also have the Centre for Excellence in Rural Sexual Health, which is extremely important in ensuring wellbeing in our part of the world. We have higher rates of teenage pregnancy than in many other areas and we certainly need to tackle a lot of sexually transmitted diseases and reduce the incidence of foetal alcohol syndrome. Two Indigenous full-time staff and, in all, five Indigenous staff work on these campuses. This is an initiative that can only continue to grow and to change expectations in relation to rural placements for medical students. Another important initiative was providing special places at the University of Melbourne for students who had finished their secondary schooling in northern Victoria. Some of them are now looking at practising medicine in the places where they grew up. Over $40 million has been spent in infrastructure since 1998. This has not only been at the campus itself in Graham Street but also at Goulburn Valley Health. This infrastructure has included specialist consulting suites, a simulation centre and a library. Then there is the joy of the new $1 million medical teaching facility. We have as part of this initiative a special GP teaching clinic. In Australia there is still an expectation that general practitioners, as part of their everyday work, take on senior medical students and, almost like an apprenticeship, guide them and provide some clinical experience. This is difficult when your GPs are very hard-pressed, with large numbers of patients in their waiting rooms. Also, they often do not have sufficient space to give to their student. So this GP teaching clinic has been a highly successful innovation in Shepparton. In this clinic, patients are diagnosed initially by a student, before moving on to a specialist academic GP, who again talks with the patient and looks at the diagnosis and conclusions made in the earlier consultation. This service has grown to a point where the books are full. I have had so many comments from my constituents. They are coming to my office in Shepparton saying, 'We have been to that clinic. We can't believe how caring our treatment was; we were able to spend time discussing our health problems. We're going back.' I think that is an excellent outcome. We also have placements for dental, pharmacy students, social work and psychology students. There is also a very important nursing collaboration with La Trobe University. I cannot imagine that in the very early days anyone would have believed the extent to which the Department of Rural Health Rural Clinical School based in Shepparton has leavened the health service professional environment throughout northern Victoria. We now have towns like Numurkah with special funding for extra teaching space and accommodation. At Echuca we have funding that has converted what was a nursing home into excellent student accommodation, just a short walk to the Echuca District Hospital. That city too is now able to participate in convincing medical students born and bred in the capital cities that a regional city can be an excellent place to live and work. There is the Murray to Mountains internship and beyond project, which is a set of collaborative postgraduate basic trainee positions. There is the Bogong and Victoria Felix collaboration for supervisor teacher training for Melbourne university students. There has been mushroom-like development from the home base at Shepparton, and we have seen that some of our most expert GPs—our most long-serving GPs—have also been able to add academic teaching to their professional experience. They would never have expected to have had that opportunity without shifting from a rural location. The purpose-built facilities we now have, which include things like procedure rooms, general practice and specialist consulting rooms, student consulting rooms and the student learning hub, encourage multiple interactions between our longstanding practitioners and students. At the new University of Melbourne Shepparton Medical Centre we are seeing patient care which at the same time provides a true learning environment. It is win-win all round. We are also proud to have in our part of the world a large Indigenous community that is very much integrated but there is an understanding that their needs must be met in a culturally sensitive way. That is being provided as well at the University of Melbourne Shepparton Medical Centre. It is our hope that it will not be long before one of our Indigenous school leavers chooses medicine as a career and will be able to spend some of their important learning time based in their home community at Shepparton. There are of course a number of other cities and towns that also cooperate or integrate with the University of Melbourne's special centre of learning, what was once called the Department of Rural Health. They include Wangaratta, Benalla, Bendigo and Ballarat. I am proud that Georgia von Guttner, the manager of much of that activity, has been able to grow that collaboration and cooperation. We have been particularly blessed with the excellence of the staff in this project. I mention Professor Dawn DeWitt, who gave nearly eight years to the pioneering work of developing this institution. While she was and is a diabetes specialist, she is also a specialist academic teacher, so students who have gone through this place of learning in Shepparton have been given an extraordinary level of personal tuition and have, I am sure, had an experience that will last them a lifetime. At the graduation ceremony at the end of last year I was so impressed with the enthusiasm of these doctors to be and of their understanding and empathy with the particular issues facing rural and regional Australia. Numbers of them said that if they were not intending to return immediately to a rural practice they certainly saw themselves basing much of their career in a place beyond the capital cities, because they appreciated that life can be very satisfying beyond the tram tracks. I commend these types of initiatives to this government. Unfortunately, there has been neglect and there has been a failure to innovate in a way that the John Howard government did. Dr Michael Wooldridge was exceptional in his understanding as health minister, because he himself was a medical practitioner. This innovation was bold. It was not cheap. It took teaching away from institutions that had never imagined they could set up green fields sites and still offer excellence in learning. But the Shepparton campus has proved that all can be achieved with dedication and commitment. I congratulate all who have been associated with this project from the beginning. I know that in the future it will be a place of continuing excellence and will provide many dedicated and committed rural and regional health service professionals. 17:59 Mrs GRIGGS 220370 Solomon I rise to speak today on two budget appropriation bills that are currently being debated in this place. The purpose of these bills is to propose appropriations from the consolidated revenue fund for both the ordinary and annual services of government and for those that are not the ordinary annual services of government. These bills provide for funds in addition to those allocated in the 2011-12 budget to support government activities outlined in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. This week the government released additional estimates that show a further budget blowout in asylum seeker costs of around $866 million, or more than 25 per cent. This being the case, the government is asking for another $330 million immediately. This significant amount of taxpayer money is necessary to cover the shortfall arising from the year's cost and the expected increase for the year. Further, the entire immigration portfolio cost is expected to rise and, not including last year's blowout, the increase for the four years to 2014-15 is expected to be around $759 million. To put this simply, this blowout is $559 million, which is almost 300 times more than the $197 million the Treasurer and Minister Bowen informed taxpayers the bill would be for immigration when releasing the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook for the period last November. Clearly, in just a few months the government appears to have reassessed their abacus and blown out the estimates by around $560 million. In addition, the 2011-12 immigration budget will cost about $2.73 billion, or more than $1 billion above the $169 million it cost in 2007-08. On a comparative basis this is almost $330 million, or 14 per cent, more than the now estimated $2.4 billion it cost to run immigration last year. The budget for management of asylum seekers has been revised, and that cost has increased to $1.2 billion in the 2011-12 financial year on the revised figure of $880 million provided last year. Again, on a comparative basis, in the 2007-8 financial year the cost for managing asylum seekers was less than $100 million. Revealed during the latest round of estimates, the cost blowout takes the total budget for Labor's border protection failures over the last three years, since the 2009-10 budget, to $3.9 billion. In addition, the government has increased funding over the forward estimates for asylum seeker management in the 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 financial years by a further $648 million. This figure takes into account the savings from not proceeding with the failed Malaysia people swap deal. I would like to reiterate the words of the shadow minister for immigration and citizenship: The Government and Department did not revise their budget when they abolished the Howard Government’s border protection policies, despite Secretary Metcalfe admitting today that this was a major change in policy. The Government either ignored the advice on the cost impact of abolishing the Pacific Solution or the advice was never given by the Department or Secretary Metcalfe. Having finished speaking about and highlighting the fact that there is a big blowout in our border protection for which all these extra funds are needed, I would now like to turn to interest rates and unaffordable housing. Families in my electorate at Darwin and Palmerston know that since Labor was elected electricity prices are up 51 per cent, gas prices are up 30 per cent, water prices are up 46 per cent, education costs have risen by around 24 per cent, health costs have risen by 20 per cent, rent costs have risen by about 21 per cent and grocery prices are up by 14 per cent. And, as of today, with the passing of the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2011, Australians will now pay more for their private health insurance. Forty thousand Darwin and Palmerston residents covered by private health insurance were betrayed today. Independent analysis shows that thousands of people will either downgrade or cancel their insurance because they cannot afford the additional costs that will be placed on them. People doing this are going to place an enormous amount of pressure on our already stretched public health system. But, this being said, Territorians are still angry at the betrayal over the carbon tax. They tell me that they are very concerned with the increased cost of living and reiterate to me that they are already paying record house prices and the highest prices in any capital city for groceries, petrol and rent, along with soaring power bills and interest rates. I have raised this before in this House about the carbon tax and how it will affect every aspect of people's lives, and in particular the families that are already struggling to make ends meet. People in Darwin's northern suburbs tell me that they are worried that they will no longer be able to afford to pay the electricity costs associated with cooling their houses from the tropical heat. I was more concerned to hear from pensioners who tell me that they go to the shopping centre not to shop but to escape the heat and take advantage of the free air conditioning that is being provided by the shops. When asked, the reasoning was quite simple: the increasing cost of living, particularly in terms of power, means that in many instances these people are unable to afford the costs associated with cooling their homes. It is quite alarming. I raise again the fact that the carbon tax appears to be a tax on remoteness and, indeed, a tax on the Territory. It stands to increase the cost of living and directly impact our key industries in the Northern Territory, including my electorate, such as primary producers, mining, tourism, construction and aviation. When I spoke against the introduction of the carbon tax, I gave the example of a local regional airline that will be significantly impacted. I want to restate the example today, as I think it is important that everyone understand how Territorians will be impacted, particularly small business people. Airnorth is an award-winning Territory-grown business that has been operating since 1978 as an air charter service across the Territory. Airnorth has 156 scheduled departures weekly, servicing 14 destinations and carrying in excess of 250,000 passengers annually. It employs 180 staff in Darwin. The picture that I have painted is of a solid company providing essential services to the Top End of Australia. Airnorth will be impacted by the carbon tax. The executive chairman of Airnorth, Mr Michael Bridge, shared with me some of his company's concerns about the projected impact that this tax would have on its business and its growth plans. In the 2011-12 financial year, Airnorth budgets to use 15.5 million litres of aviation fuel; in 2012-13, it plans to use 16.5 million litres of aviation fuel; in 2013-14 it will increase to 21 million litres of aviation fuel; and in 2014-15 it will increase again to an estimated 25 million litres of aviation fuel. Based solely on the usage of fuel, the direct effect that a carbon tax will have on Airnorth in the 2012-13 financial year will be an additional tax of $986,700. In the 2013-14 financial year it will be $1,318,590. In the 2014-15 financial year the company will have to pay an additional tax of $1,651,000. If this company is to remain prosperous and provide the service that is required by its consumers, it will have no choice but to pass on those additional costs to consumers. That is bad news for consumers. In addition to the issue of the significant increase in tax, Mr Bridge also highlighted to me that the Gillard Labor government had publicly stated that they are only taxing Australia's 500, 400 or 300 biggest polluters. Airnorth, as a small business in the Northern Territory, cannot be deemed one of the 500, 400 or 300 big polluters. But, as outlined here today, they are going to be taxed anyway. This is because the Gillard Labor government has applied the carbon tax to the aviation industry through the aviation fuel levy. This means that, no matter how big or small your aviation business, the tax will be applied. Airnorth is not the only Territory aviation company that will be affected. Locals like Hardy Aviation, Chartair and Pearl Aviation will all be paying the additional tax. They will all be penalised for building their businesses and needing to use more aviation fuel. Cost of living pressures are also being felt across other small businesses and they are telling me that they are struggling. Margins are falling while costs are rising. We all know that small business health is a good barometer for the strength of local community economies. It is pretty concerning how many shops and small businesses are closing down. All you have to do is have a look in the Darwin mall to see how many vacant shopfronts there are. Small businesses are doing it tough. But I heard today in the chamber one of the ministers saying, 'That's okay: we care about small businesses'. What a joke. The small businesses in my electorate do not think that the government cares about them at all. On the topic of the government not caring at all, I would like to talk about the RAAF houses in Eaton. I have spoken on this issue a number of times in this place. I would like to know why the Gillard Labor government is again defying the will of the parliament and the will of Territorians. A motion was passed unanimously last year to make these houses available to Territorians. Why will the government not listen to the call from Territorians? They want these houses to be made available. They do not want them sitting there vacant, wasting away. These are taxpayer funded assets and they should be used. I hope that there is no truth to the rumour that the Labor government is going to demolish 120 of the 396 houses in the suburb of Eaton while claiming that they are not up to Defence standards when they are most definitely up to community standards. I know that the community would be outraged at such a ridiculous and unwarranted decision. Even if new houses were going to be built in their place that would not justify a decision to demolish houses when there is such a housing shortage in my electorate. I would like to spend a few minutes following up on some promises that the Gillard Labor government made in the lead-up to the 2010 federal election. I want to get an update on where these things are. A $1.5 million all-weather, world-championship-level BMX track was promised. That has not been delivered yet. I would like to know where that is. There was a promise for 1,200 new affordable rental homes for the Northern Territory. They have not been delivered yet. There was some talk that there had been an extension granted until 2015. That is still three years away, so I would like to get an update on that. Then there was the promise for the new music and dance festivals and the Big Day Out, which was planned for March, April and May last year in Palmerston. Those months have all been and gone and those festivals have not occurred. Where is the money for that? Then there is the $5 million that was promised for a GP superclinic. That never occurred. As I have said, I did not support the concept of a GP superclinic. However, that $5 million could be used for medical services, particularly now that we are going to have much more pressure on our already strained public system. That $5 million could be given to us. We would really like to look at that. A GP superclinic has been built in the northern suburbs, but it was by a private company, and they are bulk billing—good news for the northern suburbs in Darwin. They did not need the government, but they would still like that $5 million. To finish off, I would like to remind the House of a motion that I tabled last year calling for 19 February of each year to be gazetted as the Bombing of Darwin Day and for it to be named a day of national significance by the Governor-General. As this motion was also unanimously supported by the parliament, I hope that this coming weekend, with the 70th anniversary commemorations, the Prime Minister or one of her representatives will make an announcement in Darwin that the wishes of the parliament will be upheld and that 19 February each year will be recognised as a national day of significance. Additionally, it is my hope that, if such an announcement is made, all parties are acknowledged for their involvement in bringing this request to the parliament. I do not want just Labor people to be recognised; I would like the coalition to be acknowledged as well, because we took the lead in bringing this to the attention of the House. 18:14 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I appreciate the opportunity to join this debate. I want to raise several issues which are of great importance to communities across the Gippsland electorate. I will start with the township of Yarram and two key projects that are critical to the future of the town and which deserve support by both state and federal governments. Before I get to those projects, I would like to pay tribute to one of Yarram district's finest ever citizens, who passed away during the parliamentary break: a gentleman by the name of Bernie Walpole. Bernie passed away on 23 December at the magnificent age of 94. As a friend of the family, I attended Bernie's funeral service; it was a tremendous celebration of his life. We heard about Bernie's remarkable service to the community in education, in local government and in sporting pursuits. Bernie was the kind of bloke you could always rely on. There is an old saying that if you want something done you get a busy man to do it. Bernie was always busy, but he always had time for a chat. He was a man of many passions. He loved his community. He loved his farm. He loved his garden. He loved his family, especially his beloved wife, Merle, who died several years ago. I consider myself to have been very fortunate to have known Bernie for many years. His personal integrity and determination to make a difference in life made him a role model for anyone pursuing public office. As I indicated, Bernie served his community with great distinction as a local government councillor and a shire president and he will be fondly remembered not just by his family but by the entire community. The two projects that I referred to earlier are the types of things that Bernie would have loved to have gotten his teeth into. One is the plan by Mirridong Services in Yarram to build Scammell Park, which will be a group of independent living units. Mirridong is the principle provider of services to adults with a disability within the Yarram district. It provides day services, accommodation and respite services. Mirridong has a very proud reputation from serving the Yarram district community over many years. It has some big plans for the future which I believe deserve support at a government level. Their plans for a $3 million facility are very well developed and they have applied for some federal government support to develop these independent living units. This is a need that has been identified in the community, particularly for adults who are living with a disability and residing with elderly parents who may not be able to continue to care for their children in their later life. Scammell Park will provide an important option for those parents to remain with their child while they receive the specialised support and care that they need. At the same time, they will be able to help to develop the child's independent living skills to enable them to continue to live independently and to be active in the community when the parent can no longer care for them. I have been briefed over the last couple of years by the Mirridong board about this particular project. I can say that the Yarram district community is fully supportive of this application, which came about as the result of many years of community consultation and planning. It is an outstanding project and it is certainly worthy of federal government support. I commend the board and the staff of Mirridong Services for the work that they do with people with disabilities in our community. They provide a great service to the Yarram district and they help bond our community together. There is another project in the Yarram district that I want to refer to and that is a plan to develop a community hub, which will include childcare facilities. To say that this proposal has had a chequered past is to state what is obvious to the local community. The lack of childcare services was identified as a major issue in the Yarram district more than five years ago. It was certainly subject to some election commitments in 2007, when my predecessor, Peter McGauran, made a $1 million commitment that a re-elected government would fund a childcare service in Yarram. That commitment was publicly matched by the Labor candidate at the time, which was reported in the local media. But unfortunately the funding for that program has not eventuated. Given this government's track record in relation to broken promises, I should not be so surprised. The federal government now has the opportunity to redeem itself in the eyes of the Yarram district community. This is something that, as I said, had bipartisan support in the lead-up to the 2007 election. It was a commitment by the coalition at this time. As everyone is well and truly aware, the Labor Party won that election. But their candidate made a commitment to the same project, so I believe that it is something that the government should revisit. I am pleased to say that there has been something of a breakthrough on this issue in recent times in the form of the commitment made by the Victorian state government to the community hub project. I want to pay tribute to the local state member and Deputy Premier, Mr Peter Ryan. He is a very good friend of mine. I used to work with Peter before I became a member of parliament. Peter has worked very hard with the community to develop this project and to continue to liaise with the Wellington Shire Council to get something together that could be taken to governments to seek funding support. The Victorian state government has provided $900,000 under its local government infrastructure program, which is a very good step in the right direction. The Wellington Shire has completed a feasibility study to determine what services should actually be included in the community hub model, but it needs some additional funding before construction can begin. I understand that council is going to consider the recommendations of this feasibility study and determine which is the best way to progress but that either way child care is going to be included as a core service. It is likely that the community hub will include a public library, a kindergarten, child care and community meeting spaces in the shire service centre, so it meets a lot of this government's commentary, if you like, about consolidating community services and providing that hub-type approach where small regional communities like Yarram can enjoy the support services that perhaps some of our major regional centres and certainly our metropolitan areas take for granted. I think it is a great project and I believe it is well worthy of government support. The members of the Yarram district community have been very patient. They have been very patient with me as their federal member when over four years we have not been able to get funding from the federal government. They have been very patient with the state government as well in that regard. They have worked tirelessly to have the project developed to this stage and they deserve to be commended for their efforts. We still, though, have a long way to go. We will need more funding to be secured for the full scope of the project, and I am hopeful that the state and federal governments will be able to see their way clear to working with the Wellington Shire Council and working with those hardworking and deserving citizens of the Yarram district to finally deliver childcare services. I must say that a couple of the mums who first contacted me and initiated the debate about childcare services in Yarram now have no need for childcare services; their children are at school and they are probably of an age now that it is not really for an issue for them. But they are continuing to work for it as they recognise what an important issue it is for our regional communities. It is actually impossible for us in some of our small regional towns to attract skilled workers unless we can offer some of the services that people expect—in particular, in the modern era, childcare services. If we are going to attract teachers, doctors and other skilled professionals to our small regional towns, we need to make sure we have that level of childcare service which is befitting our regional centres. In the time I have remaining I want to reflect on an issue of importance to the future of the East Gippsland community, the other end of my electorate. That is the issue of funding for upgrades to the Princes Highway, particularly in the section of the highway east of Sale. I imagine, Mr Deputy Speaker Symon, that you have probably had the opportunity to travel that road on many occasions. The highway, in Gippsland, has been the subject of much community debate over many, many years. To its credit, the federal government made allocations to the duplication of the highway between Traralgon and Sale, and I can report that that project is progressing. I think that in all $175 million has gone to that 50-kilometre section of road between Sale and Traralgon. The full scope of that project is somewhere in the order of $500 million, so there is a lot of work still to be done in that particular area. That section of the road between Traralgon and Sale is eligible under the national road network for Commonwealth funding, but the problem starts at Sale and goes all the way to the New South Wales border and then into the South Coast of New South Wales, where the Princes Highway is not eligible for Commonwealth funding under the national road network. It is an issue that I have raised with the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport in the past. To his credit, he has discussed it with me. It is also something I have raised with colleagues in my own party. The section of road from Sale to the New South Wales border is a section of road on which, quite frankly, too many people are dying and too many people are suffering horrific injuries. The road condition is a very significant part of the problem. We obviously need to take into account that we are talking about a section of road which is 2½ to five hours from Melbourne. It is a stretch of road where people might be getting fatigued by the time they get there and we have not built safety into the road environment. There are too many sections of that road where there are no overtaking areas, where there are poor or non-existent shoulders and where there are run-off road hazards. There are a whole range of reasons why the road is a safety risk. It has one of the highest accident and fatality rates in the state of Victoria and there is no question that the road environment itself is a contributing factor to the road trauma we are experiencing. I have worked very closely over recent times with my state counterpart, the member for Gippsland East, Tim Bull, on this issue, and he supports my view that there is a lot more work that we need to do. I believe that one of the first things we need to do is fund a safety audit of the road and then develop a 10-year strategy to upgrade the highway east of Sale. If we do not have a plan to roll out the safety upgrade as funding becomes available, I think we are starting behind the eight ball to begin with. I will continue to lobby the federal government and I will be lobbying my colleagues in the coalition to make the highway east of Sale eligible for Commonwealth funding in the future. If we are going to be realistic about it, we should be talking about the highway all the way up the south coast of New South Wales and through Eden-Monaro. I have not spoken to the member for Eden-Monaro of late about that issue, but sections of his road are in pretty poor condition as well. My concern is that there really is no long-term plan at the moment for the upgrade of even the most basic safety features that perhaps we take for granted on some of our other highways. Again, I am talking about things like shoulder-sealing, the need for more overtaking lanes, some realignment of some of the dangerous corners that exist and improvements to the road surface itself. In recent times we have seen an increase in the use of very heavy vehicles on the road. I am talking not just about the transport industry in terms of trucks but also about caravans and recreational vehicles, which are bigger now than they ever were before. That has added to the danger. In some of the narrow sections of road east of Orbost as you head towards Cann River on the New South Wales border it really is a nightmare watching two large vehicles pass each other. The mirrors almost touch as they come along that section of road. There is no margin for error on many sections of the highway. I estimated on one trip that there is probably about 40 kilometres of highway where there is actually no shoulder whatsoever. So one small slip, one small error could send a vehicle off into the gravel and into potential danger with the surrounding vegetation. So, in my view, too much of the current debate about the highway funding east of Sale is based on anecdotal evidence, some of which I have just passed on to the House tonight. But I do believe there needs to be a complete safety audit, with a view to developing a 10-year strategy for upgrades of that section of road. To its credit the previous state government did that, and the current state government has been doing some upgrades of the road. It would be unfair to either of those governments to suggest that nothing is happening, but the pool of available funding is simply not adequate to get the major overhaul that is required. VicRoads is trialling some new ideas on that section of road between Sale and Bairnsdale at the moment, with some new line markings and some wider line markings and encouraging drivers to use their headlights at all times, and there is some new and improved signage. But I do not think any of that really replaces the fact that we are going to need some major upgrades to the road and it is going to cost a lot of money. There simply has not been a major funding commitment to invest in the safety upgrades that I have talked about. I understand that, in tight budgetary times, road funding is a highly competitive area of responsibility for governments and that there are many competing needs throughout our nation. But, when the No. 1 highway is a virtual goat track in parts of the section through East Gippsland, and lives are being lost and horrific injuries are being suffered, we have to find a way to invest in safety improvements not only for those very clear social reasons I have just pointed out but also for the enormous economic benefits it would bring to the East Gippsland region in increased productivity for our transport sector, better linking our communities and making us more accessible as a tourist destination. This is something that I think we need to resolve to work harder at improving, both at a state and at a federal level. I sincerely believe that we need to find a way to get that Princes Highway east of Sale, right through the Gippsland electorate and the Eden-Monaro electorate, within the parameters of the national road network to ensure that additional funding can flow in the future. In the brief time I have left I want to touch on one other issue which I suppose is a personal passion of mine—that is, the health of the environment of the Gippsland Lakes. This year we have experienced an algal bloom in the Gippsland Lakes, and that is not an unknown event. We have had algal blooms over many years at different times. There are a whole range of factors that play into what causes algal blooms but the simple fact is that, when they arrive, they do have an impact on our local tourism industry and on the amenity of the Gippsland Lakes area. It is an issue for us as a community to deal with. For more than a decade, I have campaigned on the need to have ongoing commitments from state and federal governments to do practical environmental work in the catchment to look after the health of the Gippsland Lakes. My view is that the Gippsland Lakes are really the Great Barrier Reef of the south. It is the biggest inland waterway in the Southern Hemisphere. It is critical to our tourism industry and it is critical to our enjoyment of the Gippsland region. There are some very strong cultural links to the Gippsland Lakes amongst the Indigenous community and also amongst people who choose to live and work around the Gippsland Lakes system. The state government has allocated $10 million over the next three years for environmental works around the Gippsland Lakes and catchment area. That is welcome news and I congratulate the state government for that. The previous state government made commitments as well at various times over the last decade. But my concern is that the current federal government funding has run out. About $3 million was allocated in 2007 but there has been no ongoing federal funding. It is a major concern that, at the Commonwealth level, we have a Ramsar listed wetland and we simply are not pulling our weight in looking after the environment of this national treasure. So I would like to see a greater commitment at the Commonwealth level to the Gippsland Lakes in the future. I think there is enormous community support for such a funding commitment, if the relevant ministers could see their way through in subsequent budgets. I thank the House for the opportunity to raise those issues tonight on behalf the people of Gippsland. 18:30 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde I rise to speak on Appropriations Bill (No. 3) 2011-12 and Appropriations Bill (No. 4) 2011-12. In taking this opportunity, I would like to speak about the single biggest issue affecting families, individuals and businesses within my electorate of Forde, and that is the issue of the rising cost of living and the rising cost of doing business. Under this Labor-Green government, we have all witnessed the cost of basic essentials going up and up. Interest rates are climbing and jobs are being shed—and that is before we even get to the carbon and mining taxes, which will only make these issues worse. For example, last year food shot up by about 6.1 per cent, electricity shot up by about 10.7 per cent and motorists paid a little bit over 11 per cent more for petrol. At a time when these costs are skyrocketing, jobs are at risk. More than 1,800 jobs are known to have been lost in January alone, and that figure does not include the 1,000 workers at ANZ who were shown the door earlier this week. Last year we were promised the creation of 700,000 jobs by the Prime Minister. However, yet again, we are left feeling betrayed because no net new jobs were created last year. The Executive Chairman of Manufacturing Australia has warned that 400,000 Australians are in danger of losing their jobs in the coming year. Whilst the Prime Minister continues to be consumed with the future of her own job, many other Australians are facing the prospect of underemployment or even unemployment in the near future. Just this week an article in the Courier-Mail grabbed my attention with the headline, 'Workers struggling to get full-time jobs,' as employers increasingly hire part-time and casual workers. This can be supported by some statistics from Roy Morgan that were released in January 2012. The figures show an unemployment rate of 10.3 per cent. It is important to bear in mind that these are calculated on a different metric from the ABS, but that is as it is. An estimated 1.3 million Australians are unemployed or looking for work. This is Australia's highest ever number of unemployed as reported by Roy Morgan and according to their methodology. It is also Australia's highest unemployment rate for a decade—since January 2002. A further 7.5 per cent of the workforce are working part time or looking for more work—an alternative term is 'underemployed'. They represent 934,000 Australians. This takes it to a record total of 17.8 per cent of the workforce or 2.21 million Australians who are either unemployed or underemployed. The single biggest question I face when I return to my electorate is: when are we going to get a break? Where are we supposed to find the means and the funds to pay for all of these increases? Australians are bunkering down with their savings because they do not feel confident about where this government is leading this great nation. I wish I could tell them some positive news. However, when I return to my electorate at the end of this week, I will be bringing more bad news—news that, again, Labor has broken a promise to the people by spearing an arrow into the heart of the private health insurance rebate. I have already spoken about that and the proposed introduction of means testing in the other chamber. That legislation has now passed, so I will not elaborate on it here. But I will use it as an example to highlight my point that, yet again, the cost of living is set to increase as premiums will grow for every man, woman and child in this country when others pull out of private health insurance cover. Last week, I was confronted with the question of why there was so little government support for a single mother battling with the costs of medical bills for her child who has serious health conditions. Here is a woman who could benefit from a national disability insurance scheme. However, instead of a national disability insurance scheme we are given an NBN, and I can tell you that the feedback in my electorate about the NBN has not been positive. Most people do not want it, most say they will not sign up for it and most are outraged at the billions of dollars going into this project with no checks or balances. After all, what can one expect from an idea born on the back of a drink coaster on a VIP flight? The cost of the NBN has already blown out to—who knows?—$50 billion. That is $50 billion that could have been far better utilised elsewhere. As an example of the failure to control costs on the NBN, we have a business in my electorate that can supply the same infrastructure as the NBN is providing for half the cost, yet we have an NBN that is using a foreign company to provide the services and locking out our local providers and businesses. While we are on this topic of funding poorly thought-out ideas, the latest figures on set-top boxes show a cost blowout to $700 per set-top box. I had a constituent contact my office asking why money is being spent on set-top boxes when they have seen digital televisions advertised for around $200 or $300. Another blow-out in Labor's budget is the abolition of the Pacific solution and temporary protection visas. This has seen a blow-out in the budget of more than $1 billion. The costs of running the immigration department have gone from $1.6 billion a year under the Howard government through to $2.7 billion a year under the current government. Back in my electorate we have a range of infrastructure projects in desperate need of funding, like the expansion of the M1 between the Gateway and Logan motorways. It is extremely frustrating to see so much money being wasted by this government which could instead be allocated to projects that would improve the daily lives of commuters in my electorate and also those surrounding me between Brisbane, Logan and the Gold Coast. Under Labor we have seen four of the biggest budget deficits in our history. Labor continued to borrow $100 million a day, and in just four years Labor has turned a $20 billion surplus into $167 billion in accumulated deficits and $70 billion in net Commonwealth assets into $133 billion of net debt. That is $6,000 for every Australian man, woman and child. In addition to this these Australians are paying $100 million a week in interest, which is robbing our future generations of their wealth. The truth is that Labor loves spending money, and in its latest spending spree Labor has spent more than $17 million setting up an agency that will enforce—enforce—the carbon tax. This is another great big new bureaucracy—that $17 million was borrowed funds because Labor has not raised any money from the carbon tax yet—towards enforcing a tax that the majority of Australians strongly oppose. I agree with the statement made by Senator Birmingham in a recent media release that it is outrageous to spend $200,000 on the branding of an agency that has no competition. Long before the implementation of this toxic tax we are seeing the early days of its purpose, which is to bleed taxpayers dry. To add salt to the wound, this week banks went out on their own, independent of the decision of the Reserve Bank, and increased their interest rates. Mortgage holders around the country can thank Labor for those increases, as Labor's growing mountain of debt continues to place an unnecessary strain on interest rates. Mr Craig Thomson interjecting— Mr VAN MANEN 188315 You need to put away your Keynesian economics textbook and get a proper one. Housing affordability is also a big issue in our electorate. There are many housing developments going ahead within Forde, but these are being curtailed because of the inability of both the developers and home buyers to get finance. In addition, the ability to service those mortgages or loans is being restricted because of the level of interest rates. People are being forced away from the dream of buying a new home or buying an investment property. All of this has a flow-through effect to our local builders and contractors, where they have little or no work. Additionally, it was reported in today's Courier-Mail that one in five residents of the Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast and Fraser Coast struggle for necessities like food and power bills because of the cost of servicing the mortgages on their homes. According to this survey, these areas suffer the worst housing stress of all Queensland council areas. On the Gold Coast, for example, which is about a third of my electorate, 41,000 families spend more than a third of their income on housing. Brisbane has one of the highest numbers of people suffering housing stress, at 55½ thousand, and Logan sits somewhere in between. What people cannot fathom is why they should have to pay for Labor's reckless economic mismanagement. For 12 years Australians were able to enjoy good government under the coalition. The prosperity of that time speaks for itself. We had a 20 per cent increase in real wages, more than two million new jobs, and our real net worth per head more than doubled. We need to turn this country around for future generations and ensure there is hope, reward and opportunity for our children and our children's children. The Treasurer boasted yesterday about our AAA credit rating, which is great. But the average family do not feel as if they are benefiting from the AAA credit rating, nor do they feel the benefits of the mining boom. The Treasurer restated Labor's big productivity agenda to invest in skills and infrastructure like the NBN, but nowhere in his dialogue did he mention relief for everyday Australians. It is one thing to say the economy is steaming along, but it is another thing to see with your own eyes families and individuals who are struggling to make ends meet—and I am sure that is not just in my own electorate. While on the topic of those who struggle, I am very concerned about the decline in financial support for our not-for-profit community groups. As people's ability to donate dries up as a result of ever-increasing cost-of-living pressures, individuals are finding it harder and harder to donate or volunteer their time because more and more people are having to spend longer hours at work just to make ends meet for themselves. Individuals, along with businesses, in my electorate keep putting their hands in their pockets to help these organisations but it is becoming increasingly difficult. A number of local business in my electorate have also suffered as a result of the actions of this incompetent government. Business owners are working longer and longer hours, sometimes around the clock, and taking home less and less, just to ensure their staff are being paid. At the end of the day, though, many businesses are starting to just give up and shut up shop in an economic crisis that burdens business with excessive red tape and hinders and disables their ability to grow and prosper. We need to remove the dead hand of government from the economy to give business the opportunity to be more productive and more innovative. The coalition believes that the key to a strong economy is to live within our means so we can improve productivity. This means borrowing less, thereby putting less pressure on interest rates, providing the ability to lower taxes and ultimately putting more money in the pockets of Australians so they can live long and prosperous lives and leave a positive inheritance for future generations. Labor governments continue to scramble to support their dubious claims that they are looking out for the underprivileged. It is the poor and needy that end up being stung most by the politics of envy. Labor have a problem with success. They do not want to see everyday Australians be personally responsible or entrepreneurial. They want to create a society where everyone is brought down to the lowest common denominator. They call us negative and accuse us of false pessimism. However, it is my duty as the elected member for Forde to fight for my constituents. At the risk of being seen as negative, I know that I am listening to my electorate and carrying out their wishes. In conclusion, I hope that the government take some time to reflect on their role. It is not fair on the Australian people for this government to continue focusing on their own political survival. It is time for the government to listen to the people, not the polls. I speak on behalf of my constituents when I say enough is enough and let us get Australia back on track. 18:44 Mr SYMON HW8 Deakin I rise to speak in support of Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2011-2012 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2011-2012. However, I do not support the amendment moved by the member for Goldstein, who seeks to delay these measures for the best part of two years and maybe even longer. The total additional appropriation being sought through these bills is just under $3.2 billion. The vast majority of that is to provide for the implementation of the clean energy future package passed by parliament in 2011, despite the Liberal and National parties' opposition. There are several recently announced programs from the clean energy future package which I would like to highlight as they have great benefit to community organisations, local government and low-income residents not only in the electorate of Deakin but right across Australia. The Community Energy Efficiency Program will invest $200 million in partnership with local councils and community organisations to improve energy efficiency in council and community buildings and facilities. With dollar-for-dollar matched funding, this program is a great opportunity to save energy, particularly electricity, and the cost of energy. In my home state of Victoria the price of electricity has been rising at close to 10 per cent per annum and for a domestic customer the current retail tariff in my area is now around 22c per kilowatt hour. This is not just a recent phenomenon and I will admit it has happened under state governments of both flavours. From everything we read about the need for new infrastructure in the industry, it is going to keep going that way. There are gains to be made from energy efficiency, in particular savings from converting standard lighting—incandescent, fluorescent or discharge lighting like the very lights in this chamber—to LED lighting. The money saved by making the conversion can be very substantial. Energy savings can be 60 per cent, 70 per cent or even 80 per cent compared to existing lighting. This result is in a lower electricity bill and a win-win situation as it reduces demand on generation. In Victoria and in large parts of Australia generation of baseload power is almost at a critical point, particularly on very hot or very cold days when there is simply not enough power in the grid for everyone. Mr Chester interjecting— Mr SYMON HW8 The member for Gippsland would be well versed in power generation issues, as am I, having had a background in the electrical industry for well over 20 years. The member for Gippsland is probably of a slightly lesser age than me but I can remember when light globes were advertised quite proudly as being 1,000-hour globes. I thought that was pretty amazing, that 1,000 hours was a long time. If you do the maths, it is about three hours a day every day for a year—that is pretty good—but the big advantage of the new LED lighting technology is its product life. If you think 1,000 hours is not bad, reset your sites to 50,000 hours. Imagine having to change a globe after 50,000 hours. Mr Chester IPZ Only a sparky would know that. Mr SYMON HW8 And that is the good thing about having sparkies in parliament. If you look at LED, you could use it 24 hours a day, every day of the year for six years before you needed to replace the globe. That would be good in places which have very high ceilings, like many community facilities. I know a lot of them struggle when it is time to relamp a hall or similar. It is not the cost of the lamps; it is the cost of getting somebody in who can get up in the air to change those lights. Most community groups simply do not have that sort of money. I see that time after time in many of my local facilities. There are two other complementary programs to the Community Energy Efficiency Program—the Energy Efficiency Information Grants Program and the Low Income Energy Efficiency Program. The Energy Efficiency Information Grants Program is a $40 million initiative that will provide funding to industry associations and not-for-profit organisations which can work with community organisations and small to medium sized businesses of up to 200 full-time equivalent employees to provide information on better ways to use and to reduce the use of energy. The third program in this package is the $100 million Low Income Energy Efficiency Program, which includes the Home Energy Saver Scheme that is available to 100,000 low-income households. That particular scheme will be delivered as part of the existing Financial Management Program and is designed to assist households that are experiencing difficulty in paying for their energy costs. By concentrating on improving financial and energy management practices through financial counselling services, the scheme can directly assist low-income households. I should now turn my attention to another program that the Liberal Party voted against in this place: the Building the Education Revolution program. That has delivered more than $79 million of funding to schools in my electorate of Deakin. This huge investment in our local education structure has been met with acclaim by principals, teachers, parents, students and all the various parents associations—anyone you care to name, really, including the people who worked on the projects and the community groups that get to use them outside hours. Right across the electorate, they have only wonderful things to say about the new infrastructure that their schools have received under that program. It is a huge program, and I still have a few more schools to open. They have been ones that have had various site problems over the last year or two. We are in the home straight now, and I thought I had better have a look and see how many I actually did in the last year. It added up to 18 that I opened in the last year—$39½ million of funding for schools in the electorate of Deakin. Of course, they were not just government schools; they were also Catholic schools and independent schools as well. The really good thing about the program in my part of Melbourne is that by working with the state education department, particularly in the early stages of the program, our schools not only have got the buildings that most suited them but, in many cases, have gone out and got individually architect-designed buildings and got a very good price for those. I thought I would do a bit of a rewind. I think the first one I got to open during the year was in the newly redistributed part of Deakin, at St James Primary School, a Catholic school in Vermont. That was a project that I had not been completely up with, because until recent times it was over the boundary in the electorate of Aston. Its $2½ million multipurpose community centre included two new classrooms, and there were refurbishments of three classrooms down at the other end of the school. It also managed to put together the installation of new interactive whiteboards, upgrade its school toilets and fit out a resource centre and multimedia lab. It is a great result for that community. It is a school that needed infrastructure and needed money spent on it. Like many schools in the area, it was a really good school inside but from the outside it certainly needed some work, and it has now had it. As I mentioned before, this also went to independent schools. Tintern Girls Grammar School is a very large independent school in my electorate of Deakin, and it received $2 million to put towards an early learning centre. It also put in nearly $1.4 million of its own funding, and the result is a very spectacular-looking building that has some particular good energy efficiency measures in it as well. I was there for the opening of that, and it was a rather unique day. We even had an archbishop out to assist in the opening, and it was a very good time. Tintern, by doing the building that it did, ensured that it got a great outcome that will serve the school very well for many, many years to come. The early learning centre has three spaces inside it which are named after the values at Tintern Girls Grammar—that is, Endeavour, Discover and Adventure. Early last year, on 15 March 2011, I also attended the opening of Burwood Heights Primary School, which has now been redistributed into the electorate of Chisholm—a part of the world, of course, well known to Madam Deputy Speaker Burke. That was also a project that was done in conjunction with the state, so there was not only a BER building there but also a rebuild of the school. Being a multipurpose room, it is also very handy for that school to have assemblies in. Its old hall, if I can call it that, where I had attended many assemblies before, was not big enough to hold the whole school plus parents, and that is such a common thing for so many schools in the electorate. The space can also be used to expand the school's kindergarten, meaning that the project not only is meeting needs now but has a great capacity to meet the school's needs into the future. Another Catholic school I attended the opening of in the past year was St Thomas the Apostle School in Blackburn, which was established in 1953. They received $2.5 million and the work they did there is spectacular: it is architect designed; it has access for the disabled—they have a lift; and they have brand new classrooms and computer lab facilities. It is a really wonderful space. They were also able to do up a lot of the office area and administration parts. This building in many cases had not been touched at all since 1953, so it has really gone ahead by half a century. In addition, some existing classrooms were refurbished. There was great employment of locals on the project. More recently, towards the end of last year, I was privileged to open the Marlborough Primary School's new BER building, which was funded under stage 2 of the P21 Program. It was the school's first new building in 35 years. Again, it was a wonderful school from the inside that was looking more than a little bit faded from the outside. It now has a much better outlook and a great future. The building certainly makes the school. They set theirs up as an early learning centre for their junior students. Each school has done it differently. At Marlborough it is the little ones who get to use the new building. Having two daughters who have gone to primary school—one is still there—I know there is a great deal of competition about which class gets to use the new building and which gets to use the old building. With the new building, Marlborough also has a great opportunity to grow as a school. It is in a great part of the electorate, Heathmont. It needs facilities to show off to the public so that when people drive past the front gate for the first time they say, 'I would like to have a look inside and see what they offer.' That is a good thing for any government school. On 18 May I had the pleasure of opening the Ray Symons Multipurpose Centre—no relation, I might add—which is at the Eastwood Primary School. Eastwood Primary School has been in the papers for an awfully long time, quite simply because it was falling down. It is of weatherboard construction and was built nearly 60 years ago, I believe. There are holes in the external walls you can put your hand into. The buildings are not made for the learning of today. I remember the first time I went there, in late 2007. The first classroom I looked at had one power point, so there was no hope of using any of today's modern teaching aids. The new multipurpose centre is what is called a Maroondah template building, of which there are only 10 in Victoria. Eight are in very close proximity to the electorate of Deakin. That is a great testament not only to the regional network leaders but also to the principals and especially the parents associations and school councils of the schools involved. It meant that those schools got a full-sized building big enough for an indoor basketball court for a figure of $500,000 less than was being quoted by the Victorian state government for the same facility. Therefore, the school was offered only $2.5 million under the BER. They were able to get a full-sized hall rather than something that was closer to half the size. That has been great for the local community. To me the good thing about a building like that at Eastwood Primary School is that it ensures the school's future. Whilst the state government is still dragging its heels on a rebuild, there is a brand new building there that shows not only the parents and students but the local population that there is commitment by government to their place of education. That is very important. We have lost many schools in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne in the last 20 years. Although that rate has slowed down a lot there is certainly no cause to become complacent. The more money, the more investment that is put into schools, the more locals will send their children there. With government schools it is particularly important, as it is with Catholic schools, many of which have many low-income families sending their children there. That is just a short rewind of the year in the types of funding that were delivered to the electorate of Deakin. There is a whole lot more of that to come and that is a wonderful thing to look forward to. I thank the House. 18:59 Mr MATHESON M2V Macarthur I would like to talk about my growing electorate and the infrastructure needs that face my community over the next two decades. In Macarthur we are expecting an influx of more than 200,000 new residents in the next 20 to 30 years. This will result in an increase of more than 300 per cent in the Camden local government area. The infrastructure required for new and existing residents in Macarthur must be provided before this growth occurs to ensure my electorate remains strong and resilient as it grows. In preparation for this boom, I have spearheaded a series of infrastructure meetings between local, state and federal government representatives in Macarthur. These meetings will ensure that we plan strategically for the future in the face of the major growth and change that will confront the region over the next 20 to 30 years. The purpose of these meetings is to ensure a serious dialogue between some of the key stakeholders in my community to work out a strategic way to build a stronger and more self-sustaining Macarthur. There are several issues facing my electorate that we have begun to address. These include urban growth, dealing with the impact of this growth, recognising opportunities within the challenge of growth and ensuring that Macarthur sustains itself as a strong and resilient region. The group includes the mayors from Campbelltown, Camden and Wollondilly councils, state members of parliament, local council general managers and me. Together we have put together a list of Macarthur's high priority infrastructure projects that focus on self-sustaining an independent region for the future. South-western Sydney has been earmarked by the metropolitan plan to take the greatest number of new dwellings and population growth in the whole metropolitan area over the next 25 years. This will have profound effects on Macarthur, including massive changes to the character of the neighbourhood, the location and nature of jobs and employment, access to roads and public transport, access to quality services and facilities and, of course, retail, commercial, government, health, education and community services. One of the things I love about Macarthur is that it already has a strong sense of regional and community identity. It is also geographically well-defined and has a good variety of regional level facilities and services. Apart from employment, Macarthur is reasonably self-sustaining; with some help, it could be more self-sustaining in the long term. More than 75 per cent of its population leave the area and commute to work on a daily basis. I would like to see more employment lands developed in Macarthur providing more opportunity for people to work closer to home and their families. I believe that all levels of government can harness this existing energy and community capacity in Macarthur to capitalise on future growth and make the area more prosperous. This will offer a better lifestyle for our children and encourage them to live, work and bring up their own children in the Macarthur region. As a federal representative, I am working closely with local councils, the state government, community leaders and business leaders. We must ensure that Macarthur becomes a sustainable and independent region and not be satisfied to continue as a dormitory for Sydney. To do this we need good planning, collaboration and coordination to secure the resources that will turn the challenges of growth into opportunities for economic prosperity, social equity and enrichment as well as environmental enhancement. All of these elements are crucial in determining our quality of life. We must think and act strategically and make decisions that are focused on the betterment of the Macarthur region as a whole. I believe the key to the success lies in infrastructure—planning for it, securing the resources to pay for it and ensuring that it is delivered on time, in the right place and on budget. Decisions made about infrastructure must consider the contribution each item can make to a more sustainable Macarthur. The regional benefit must be measured against the cost. This approach is fundamental in obtaining funding from the federal government through Regional Development Australia. As a group, we have identified the high-priority roads, traffic management facilities, public transport links, water supplies, sewerage and the like that do not just facilitate new housing suburbs but will assist in private economic investment in new jobs and enterprise development. With the expected population boom in Macarthur, we must also ensure that adequate capacity exists in our existing roads, traffic facilities, drainage, open space, recreation and community facilities and services to serve the new and existing population without compromising existing service levels and amenity. This means not just local government type infrastructure but state and federal facilities and services as well. It is very important that infrastructure investment be strategic, targeted and cost-effective and achieves tangible regional benefits. Today, Macarthur high-priority infrastructure projects include better connectivity and access on our roads; better public transport, including commuter parking; the development of employment-generating lands so that people can live and work in Macarthur; health, education and community facilities and services, such as upgrades to our hospitals, the university, TAFE and ambulance and police stations; better recreational facilities; access to water and sewerage; and better internet connection. We have put together a high-priority infrastructure project list for Macarthur, backed up by a regional cost-benefit analysis. This will mean that we can ensure that we are ready to apply for grants and make strong representations to Regional Development Australia, infrastructure funding agencies and government ministers when funding becomes available. Progress has already begun, and I must thank my state colleagues for the infrastructure they have provided to my electorate in the New South Wales government 2011-12 budget and forward estimates. This included planning work for the upgrade of the M5 between King Georges Road and Camden Valley Way; $25 million to complete construction of the jointly funded F5 freeway widening between Ingleburn and Campbelltown; $15 million to continue construction of a four-lane upgrade of Camden Valley Way between Cobbitty Road and Narellan Road; $139 million to begin the Campbelltown Hospital redevelopment and emergency department; $292 million to continue construction work on the south-west rail link, with 11.4 kilometres of twin track between Glenfield and Leppington; and a $900,000 upgrade to Warragamba Dam. Macarthur residents were extremely grateful for all the money spent in the region. These projects are a great start in dealing with the high-priority infrastructure needs identified for Macarthur. Both Narellan Road and Camden Valley Way cause a great amount of grief for motorists commuting to and from work in my electorate. It is great to see that upgrades to these roads are currently on the state government program, but I believe they would benefit from federal funding as well. The Spring Farm Parkway extension and connection to the Hume Highway, including on and off ramps at the Hume Highway at Menangle, is also a high priority. These projects will significantly improve traffic flow and congestion that locals are experiencing every day in my electorate, which will only be made worse as the population increases in the coming decades. The extension and upgrade of Badgally Road from Gregory Hills Road into Campbelltown and a bus interchange at Campbelltown Station will better connect our new communities to public transport options. We need to upgrade Appin Road and Raby Road with widening and intersection improvements. We need a four-lane bridge over the Georges River to replace the causeway on Cambridge Avenue. Residents have been waiting for over 20 years for that to occur. State government feasibility is now being carried out on the widening of the M5 east from the M7 interchange, with additional lane capacity required. We also need to extend the south-west rail link past Leppington to relieve our regional road and existing rail line congestion. It is also imperative that we make improvements to the existing rail lines and services, including interchanges, express services, easy access, increased services and improved parking and security. Improvements are also needed for our existing bus services, including high-frequency early services, priority connections from Camden to Macarthur via Narellan, and connections from Campbelltown to Liverpool via Oran Park and Leppington. Also on our list of infrastructure projects is the upgrade of Picton Road, including the interchange with the Hume Highway, and the completion of the Maldon-Dombarton rail link to take more trucks off the road and improve our freight transportation services. I would also like to see the Badgerys Creek airport site rezoned to create employment-generating lands and allow residents not to have the restrictions of an airport zoning affecting work on their homes. Recreational and cultural facilities, or so-called soft infrastructure, are also important factors for our growing community. Be it sports facilities, humanities or the arts, it is important that we have this infrastructure available to turn all of this new development into real communities. As you can see, Madam Deputy Speaker, there are many projects in my electorate which are needed to service new and existing residents in the Macarthur region. With a forecast of 300 per cent growth in the next two to three decades, it is vital that we develop a region-wide strategy to deal with the expected population boom. It has been very productive working with my local government and state government colleagues to establish this plan for our community's future, and I would like to thank them for their input. We all agree that we need good planning, collaboration and coordination to secure resources that will turn the challenges of growth into opportunities for economic prosperity, social equity and environmental enhancement, which are all crucial in determining our quality of life. I believe that this joint effort between all levels of government will help us achieve more for the communities which we represent. I also believe the key to our success lies in infrastructure—planning for it, securing the resources to pay for it and ensuring that it is delivered on time in the right place and on budget. Our next step is to make strong representation to infrastructure-funding agencies and government ministers to capitalise on this growth. We all have one goal for Macarthur—to make it more prosperous and to offer a better lifestyle for our children in future generations. I will continue to fight for the infrastructure and services my community deserves as we experience this incredible growth over the next two decades. 19:10 Mr SIMPKINS HWE Cowan In my remarks tonight I would like to address one of the great strengths of the electorate of Cowan—and probably one of the great strengths of all electorates across the country—and that is volunteerism. We know there are dedicated volunteers out in our communities who believe in something that is very special. They are the ones who are prepared, in their own time, to turn up to meetings, to turn up to activities—fundraising and other events—and to help members of their clubs or the community generally. They are prepared to show up and do what needs to be done. What sort of place would we have and what sort of country would we have if people were not prepared to do that? What sort of country would we have if everyone in the community just said, 'I am only going to do this if I get paid'. So, in reality, within Cowan I have a very strong community volunteer sector. There is the bushfire service and we have SES volunteers all doing wonderful jobs. This evening I would like specifically to mention a number of different groups. I would like to begin by talking about the strong seniors club sector. Within my electorate of Cowan the seniors clubs provide services to older residents across the electorate. They do things like computer training, craft work, pottery, painting, carpet bowls, card playing, bingo, outings and a great range of other activities. The executives and the committees of these seniors groups do a wonderful job. As we know, there is often a sense of isolation felt by older people. That is obviously made worse by their lack of mobility as they get towards the twilight years. So it is very good and a great thing that people, often other seniors, are prepared to take up positions in these clubs. Particularly on this occasion I would like just to mention some of these volunteers. There is the Waneroo Seniors, with their long-term president, Marcia Dinnie—a real driving force there. She is backed up by vice-president, Jean Squibb, the secretary, Ingrid Bartle, assistant secretary, Ada Aldridge, treasurer, Heather Kearton and assistant treasurer, Joy Pettigrove. Then there is the committee: Neville Rickard, Heather Hicks, Yvonne Ward, Lorraine Havlin and Margaret Whiting, and honorary committee members Priscilla Wright and David Morgan. These are great people who are doing a great job for the largest seniors club in the electorate of Cowan. It has close to 400 members as I understand. It is also worth mentioning—although I have already mentioned it in the House of Representatives chamber—that they won the community organisation of the year at the City of Wanneroo Australia Day award ceremony. Over in Ballajura there is another very fine club—the Ballajura Seniors. When I was back in Perth on Saturday night, I had dinner with the Ballajura Seniors. Their president is Ray Fox, the vice-president is Laurie Chapman and the secretary is Val Russell. There is also the committee: Glenys Welch, Dot Moloney, Ella O'Gorka and Frank D'Silva, and many volunteers including Jim Thomas, Alf Gardner, John Macey, Margaret Ryan and Peter Welsh. Again, the Ballajura Seniors are doing a great job, and they even tolerate my bad indoor carpet bowling. They welcome me whenever I go there. At the Girrawheen Seniors, the president is Deanne Hetherington, the acting vice-president is Mrs Jan Johnson and the secretary/treasurer is Merilyn Hunter. Merilyn has not been well in recent times, and I wish her all the best for the future. The committee consists of Angela Genovese, Mrs Bella Alphonso, Jenny Hunter, Dot Dodd—again a member of the Lions club and a very outstanding lady—and Christine Situ. The bowls room captain is Coral Fotheringham and the games room captain is Alf Smallcombe. The Wanjoo Seniors—the Wanneroo-Joondalup seniors club—are meeting in Woodvale. Their coordinator is Pat Kiernan, their assistant coordinator is Joan Evans, their treasurer is Mrs Muriel Connor and their secretary is Winsome Kiernan. Again, the Wanjoo Seniors are always very happy whenever I turn up to let me have a very brief word and say hello to the members, so I always appreciate that. The Kingsley Seniors Group is led by President Ms Pat Shears, Vice-President George Mullins, secretary Mrs Pat Jack and treasurer Ms Pat Geary. As I said, at the seniors clubs within Cowan and in fact all the way across the country there is a degree of vulnerability involved with growing older and it is good that these sorts of positive groups can provide connections and incentives for our seniors to remain involved within the community. They provide lifelong learning in the case of computer training, and they are also therapeutic by way of the arts and crafts. So they are very good organisations and I am very pleased that I have so many great seniors groups within Cowan. Just down the road from the Wanneroo Seniors is the Country Women's Association of Wanneroo. For an urban electorate—what I would describe as an outermetropolitan electorate—it might seem a little bit odd that there is a Country Women's Association branch, but they also do outstanding work. They are very keen on assisting breast cancer charities, and every year they put on a great morning tea which raises a lot of money for that cause. As I said before, an outermetro Country Women's Association does not seem quite consistent but, given that they have been around for 47 years, many of the suburbs within the city of Wanneroo—formerly the shire of Wanneroo—and in what is now the north of Cowan did not exist when the Country Women's Association began there 47 years ago. But all the best and greatest traditions of the Country Women's Association are carried on by President Colleen Forsyth, secretary Marion Passanisi and treasurer Mrs Pat Doig. I congratulate them and thank them for all the great work they do for charity and the Wanneroo district. It would also be remiss of me if I did not mention another great community organisation, community service clubs. I would like to talk a little bit about the Lions clubs. Again, fortunately, I have a great many Lions clubs within Cowan, although there are about 25 suburbs within Cowan. There are Lions clubs at Ballajura—starting with the club I am a member of, of course—and also at Girradoola, which stands for Girrawheen and Koondoola, and at Wanneroo, and there is the Lions Club of Kingsley-Woodvale as well. They do fabulous work for the community and the individuals within the community that are in greatest need. They raise money for the particular Western Australian Lions causes: the Lions Save-Sight Foundation, the Lions Hearing Foundation and the Lions Cancer Institute. They also support the Lions Youth of the Year competition. The four clubs in Cowan are all doing very well and they are used to devoting a lot of their own time in the best traditions of volunteerism for their fundraising activities. Of course, all the money raised is pushed back out into the community for these great causes. Whether it is the individuals or the other groups that are in need of support, the Lions are always reliable and will always try their best to respond. It is not uncommon to see the Lions clubs out and about doing sausage sizzles at the local Bunnings. They do the prize wheel draws at fairs and shows. In November, the Ballajura Lions Club was at the Wanneroo show running their prize chocolate wheel and generating funds for many good projects. The famous Lions Christmas cakes are always worth buying, along with the mince pies and Christmas hampers. I again congratulate the Lions clubs for all the great work that they do. A similar club but dedicated more along the lines of business links are the Rotary clubs. Again, I have two Rotary clubs within the electorate of Cowan. The Ballajura-Malaga Rotary Club is led by President Patricia Canning and the spring fair committee is led by Gary Faas. Gary is quite an identity as is the iconic Ballajura spring fair. I always turn up to it and set up my tent, as do other members of parliament. Each year at the Ballajura Rotary fair I am used to seeing every member of the club. It is not a very big club, but the members are always there for the running of that great iconic fair within the Ballajura area. They include Fred Morrell, Karen Barry, Robert Barry, Clint Fricker, Sue Fricker, Geoffrey Knight, Steve Lennox, Peter Dunn, Robert Doohan, John Pelligrini, Shane Cross, Bruce Whitham, Lynette Rowe and Barrie Conway Mortimer. The Wanneroo Rotary Club is also in the north of the electorate of Cowan, with President Phil Cousins, President-elect Debbie Singh, Secretary Colin Parker and Treasurer Bill Kell. Fortunately, the Rotary clubs are always keen to do their best for the community, and I congratulate both the Ballajura-Malaga Rotary Club and the Wanneroo Rotary Club for the great work that they do within the community. In the limited time that remains, I would like to speak about not a service club but a sports club, which is a real favourite of mine. I have always been fond of junior sport and sporting clubs in general because I believe that they provide a great opportunity for, and a great service to, the wider community. The Wanneroo District Netball Association is a very large organisation within the northern suburbs of Perth. Whilst it is located at the Kingsway Sporting Complex, with its 57 courts, the association draws clubs and players from across the whole of the northern suburbs. Thousands of players from the youngest net players all the way up to the ladies play there each Saturday. Whilst local residents might be a little concerned about parking issues and the traffic flows that emanate from such a popular sporting venue, for one day a week or one half-day a week it is probably not too much to ask for the great work that the association does. The association was established with just six courts in 1974 and it has grown to a size where, last year, 433 teams played there each week. As I said, the association now has 57 courts of a high standard. Making up the committee is President Wayne Malloy, Vice President Estelle Walker, Director of Competitions Leanne Govorko, Director of Facilities Vickie Carstairs, Director of Umpires and Development Yvette Thomson, Director of Finance Jackie Horner. Melinda Dickson, Wayne Daley and Bridget Stonier Gibson are also members of the committee. They are all hard workers. As with all sporting organisations, the coaches, managers and umpires are there with all the other volunteers to support the many schools and clubs that play each Saturday at the Kingsway Sporting Complex. They are all doing a very great job. They draw the many clubs, schools, children and ladies from across the northern suburbs to play there. In the last minute available to me, I would like to pay tribute to the sad passing of a life member of the association and a very good friend of mine, Barbara Connett. She was a lady who had dedicated herself to many causes, and netball was one of them. She served the association faithfully for many years and was rewarded as a life member. She was also a loyal member of the Liberal Party and had been a booth captain for many elections as well as being a staff member for the Hon. Ray Halligan MLC. That was when I first met her. The last time I saw her was in November at a fete and she seemed to be fighting hard against the cancer afflicting her. I was surprised when, unfortunately, she succumbed quickly in the end and passed away on 14 December. I offer my condolences to her husband, Grant, and her daughters Amy and Rebecca. Barb will be greatly missed. I have spoken a lot about volunteers tonight. They are the glue that holds our community together. They do great work and I pay tribute to them. I thank them for what they do. They are outstanding and long may we have volunteers in Australia. Debate adjourned. Main Committee adjourned at 19:2 6