2012-05-24 43 1 6 House of Reps 0 0

Thursday, 24 May 2012

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Anna Burke) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

PRIVILEGE 5459 PRIVILEGE 09:01 Mrs D'ATH HVN Petrie I rise to raise a matter of privilege. An article by Michelle Grattan in an online version of the Age this morning appears to reveal details of the meeting of the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests that was held last night. The details in the article seem to indicate that there has been an unauthorised disclosure of the internal proceedings of the committee. At the meeting the committee specifically discussed that it was important that members not disclose matters from the committee whilst it was considering a very important issue of privilege that had been referred by the House. I am extremely disappointed that this disclosure has occurred and I am unsure of the source of the disclosure. I am aware of the general provisions relating to the unauthorised disclosure from committee proceedings, and I propose in accordance with those to pursue the matter with those within the committee. I seek leave to table the online article from Michelle Grattan from the Age. Leave granted. 09:02 Mr SECKER 848 Barker On indulgence, Deputy Speaker. Can I say, as deputy chair of the committee, I totally support the chairman's position today. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 5459 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Afghanistan 5459 09 Mr STEPHEN SMITH ( 5V5 Perth — ) ( ): by leave—The government is committed to providing regular reports and updates on Afghanistan, including to the parliament. I last updated the House on 10 May on a range of issues relating to Australia's detainee management in Afghanistan in keeping with my commitment to provide regular updates to the Australian people on detainee management and to be open and transparent on these matters. I undertook at that time to update the parliament more generally on Afghanistan following my attendance with the Prime Minister at the NATO/International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) Leaders' Summit in Chicago over the weekend. The summit followed on from the recent meeting in Brussels of NATO/ISAF Foreign and Defence Ministers, which I attended together with Foreign Minister Carr. Chicago s ummit At the NATO/ISAF Leaders' Summit in Chicago on 20 and 21 May, the Prime Minister and I reaffirmed Australia's long-term commitment to Afghanistan. This was a valuable opportunity for the international community to commit to supporting Afghanistan post-transition, after 2014, so essential to secure Afghanistan's future. Australia's commitments to Afghanistan align with the key outcomes of the Chicago summit. Firstly, at Chicago, the international community reviewed transition and mapped the way forward in Afghanistan to the end of 2014. As President Obama said at the conclusion of the Chicago Summit, 'We leave Chicago with a clear roadmap. Our coalition is committed to this plan to bring our war in Afghanistan to a responsible end.' In Afghanistan, transition is already in progress, with around half the population living in areas where the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) have begun taking lead security responsibility. The third tranche of provinces and districts will formally commence transition in the middle of this year, at which time three-quarters of the population will be living under ANSF security lead. It is expected that the final, and fifth tranche, will begin transition by mid-2013, the so called Lisbon milestone. At this point, with all of Afghanistan's population under Afghan National Security Forces security lead, ISAF's role will shift from combat to support. Oruzgan province will formally commence transition in the middle of this year and will likely have fully transitioned to Afghan National Security Forces responsibility over the subsequent 12 to 18 month period. Secondly, the international community is committed to continuing to fund, train and support the Afghan National Security Forces post-transition to consolidate and build on the security gains of the transition strategy. As the Prime Minister and I announced on 16 May, Australia will contribute US$100 million annually for three years from 2015 as part of international community efforts to help sustain and support the Afghan National Security Forces beyond the end of the transition process. It is essential that the international community provides the resources for ensuring the sustainability and effectiveness of the Afghan National Security Forces beyond 2014. Australia has already contributed substantially to the development and sustainment of the Afghan National Army (ANA), pledging in 2009 US$200 million over five years to the Afghan National Army Trust Fund. Australia has a vital national interest in supporting Afghanistan's security and stability after transition. Our commitment to ANSF funding reflects these enduring national interests. Thirdly, at the Chicago summit, the international community committed to supporting Afghanistan's development in the long-term. Australia's longer term commitment will be underscored by the Comprehensive Long-Term Partnership with Afghanistan, signed at the Chicago summit by the Prime Minister and President Karzai. This was foreshadowed by the Prime Minister in her statement to parliament in November 2011. The signing of the partnership confirms Australia's bilateral commitment to Afghanistan and sets out Australia's enduring cooperation and relationship with Afghanistan post-2014. It sends a signal to the people of Afghanistan, the Taliban and the region that the international community will not walk away from Afghanistan at the end of 2014. Similarly, on 1 May 2012, the United States signed a strategic partnership agreement with Afghanistan, which provides a framework for their long-term bilateral relationship. A number of our international partners, including NATO, the United Kingdom, France, India and Italy have signed similar agreements. Eighteen months ago at the Lisbon summit, in November 2010, the international community and the Afghan government set down a clear process and timeframe for transition of full security responsibility to the Afghan National Security Forces. Australia's own transition planning is entirely consistent with this strategy. President Karzai announced on 13 May 2012 the third tranche of provinces and districts to formally enter the transition process. Australia welcomed the inclusion of Oruzgan province in this third tranche. The Afghan National Army 4th Brigade is progressing towards being able to operate independently, and is increasingly assuming the lead for the planning, preparation and execution of tactical operations. The Afghan security presence is expanding across Oruzgan province. We fully expect to be in a position to hand over security in Oruzgan province to the Afghan National Security Forces over the 12- to 18-month period that I have referred to. We must, however, continue to be present in support of the Afghan National Security Forces in Oruzgan, and be combat ready to do so until transition is complete. This means that, as transition progresses, the Afghan National Security Forces will take on more and more responsibility for security. But ISAF partners must remain ready to support them, as required. After the completion of transition, our commitment in Afghanistan will look significantly different from the commitment we have today. Australia's commitment to Afghanistan will not end with the transfer of security responsibility to the Afghan National Security Forces in Oruzgan province. Australia has made clear that we expect to maintain a presence in Afghanistan beyond 2014 through training, military advisers, capacity building and development assistance. Civilian c asualties Let me deal with a range of other matters relating to Afghanistan. The government is committed to transparency and providing information on civilian casualties in Afghanistan to the parliament and the Australian people. The Australian Defence Force takes the issue of civilian casualties very seriously. The Australian Defence Force operates under strict rules of engagement intended to minimise civilian casualties, and deeply regrets any loss of innocent life. Today I update the parliament on the status of inquiries into the following civilian casualty incidents: On 2 November 2010, following an engagement between an Afghan National Security Forces and Mentoring Taskforce 4 partnered patrol and insurgents in the Baluchi Valley region, it was claimed that a civilian had been killed by small arms fire. On 27 March 2011, a small Afghan boy was seriously wounded, and an Afghan man was killed, during an engagement between insurgents and a partnered Afghan National Police Provincial Response Company-Oruzgan and Special Operations Task Group patrol. Sadly, the young boy, after receiving medical care, died from his wounds. On 29 October 2011, Australian soldiers engaged and killed a man who approached their site at speed and failed to adhere to all directions to stop. Unfortunately, the Afghan male was unable to be saved. An inquiry was conducted into each of these incidents. The inquiries are under consideration and I will advise on the outcomes of this consideration in due course. On 1 May this year, an Afghan boy was injured during an engagement between insurgents and Australian Special Forces and elements of the Afghan National Security Forces undertaking a partnered security operation. The boy is receiving medical treatment and is expected to recover. As the Department of Defence advised on 9 May, an inquiry is underway on this matter. When completed, the inquiry will be considered and I will advise of the outcome in due course. Combat f atality r eports I now turn to an update on Inquiry Officer Reports into deaths of ADF soldiers in Afghanistan. All Inquiry Officer Reports into combat deaths which occurred in 2010 have been completed, the respective families have been briefed on the outcomes of the inquiries and the outcomes of the inquiries have been made public, or not, as appropriate. In 2011 there were nine incidents resulting in the combat deaths of 11 soldiers. Family members have been briefed in relation to five of the nine incidents. Briefing the family members in relation to three of the nine incidents will be progressed as soon as possible. Once the Inquiry Officer Reports have been considered by the families, the reports will then be presented to me for consideration for public release. I regard the wishes of the family so far as public release is concerned as a relevant material factor to consider in publication of the report beyond the family itself and others directly affected. In relation to the ninth incident involving the 30 May 2011 crash of the Australian CH-47D Chinook helicopter in Afghanistan, on 4 April the Chief of the Defence Force advised that he had appointed a commission of inquiry into the incident in which Lieutenant Marcus Case was tragically killed. Detainee m anagement u pdate I turn now to detainee management issues. Since my statement to the House on 10 May 2012 on detainee management in Afghanistan, I can provide updates on a number of issues. CCTV failures I have previously reported to the House on the temporary loss of CCTV footage at the Australian Defence Force Initial Screening Area (ISA) in Tarin Kowt. As noted in my report to the House on 9 February 2012, I asked the Department of Defence to investigate whether any of these failures in the CCTV footage coincided with allegations of detainee mistreatment. I can now report to the House that Defence's review of detainee files has revealed that no additional allegations of detainee mistreatment were identified during the time of the CCTV outage. Interrogation As previously reported, the government has agreed to extend the time selected detainees could be held in Australian custody at the Initial Screening Area, prior to their release or transfer, for the purpose of comprehensive screening. Comprehensive screening enables the Australian Defence Force to determine whether a detainee has knowledge which could assist in the force protection of the ADF, ISAF and Afghan partners. The length of time for which detainees can be held in the Initial Screening Area may be extended beyond the current 96 hours (four days) for an additional three days, and a possible further extension of three days. As at 21 May 2012, approximately 20 per cent of detainees apprehended by the ADF while on operations in Afghanistan have undergone interrogation within the Initial Screening Area since interrogation operations commenced in February of this year. Of these, around 25 per cent of detainees interrogated by the ADF have been released within the initial 96-hour period as there was insufficient evidence to support their continued detention. The remaining 75 per cent of detainees interrogated by the ADF were held in Australian custody within the Initial Screening Area beyond the initial 96-hour period on an initial three-day comprehensive screening extension. Approximately 40 per cent of these detainees remained in Australian custody on a subsequent additional three-day comprehensive screening extension. Capture/recapture Between 1 August 2010—when Australia took responsibility for detainee management from the Dutch—and 21 May this year, the ADF captured 12 people who were subsequently released then recaptured. Six of the individuals in question were released as there was insufficient evidence to warrant their continued detention. Of the remaining six detainees, there was sufficient evidence to warrant their transfer and prosecution. Three were subsequently transferred to United States custody at the Detention Facility in Parwan, and three were transferred to Afghan custody at the NDS, National Directorate of Security detention facility in Oruzgan. Australian Defence Force Investigative Service (ADFIS) In January this year, I was advised that the Inspector General of the Australian Defence Force had commenced an inquiry into allegations of flawed Australian Defence Force Investigative Service, or ADFIS, processes in the Middle East Area of Operations. Last week, I was advised that a number of further matters had been raised in the context of these allegations. In addition, concerns had also been raised in relation to the conduct of Inspector General of the Australian Defence Force inquiries in the Middle East Area of Operation. These matters are now the subject of separate inquiries by the Inspector General of the Australian Defence Force. I will advise on the outcomes as appropriate in due course. Australia's wounded In Afghanistan, our military and civilian personnel carry out their work in a difficult, arduous and challenging security environment, at substantial personal risk. Since the beginning of this year, 10 soldiers have been wounded in battle. Eight of these injuries were sustained in improvised explosive device attacks and two were wounded during contact with the enemy. The government and the parliament acknowledge the sacrifice of Australian Defence Force members in fulfilling Australia's commitment to Afghanistan. We also acknowledge the sacrifice and the pain of their families. We have also seen an Australian civilian wounded in Afghanistan for the first time. Mr David Savage, an AusAID worker, was injured in a suicide bomb attack on 26 March this year. The Australian people and the Australian government and the Australian parliament value very much the contribution made by our civilian personnel, such as Mr Savage, working closely alongside their military colleagues in Afghanistan. Conclusion Progress towards transition to Afghan-led security responsibility is being made in Oruzgan province and across Afghanistan. This progress towards transition is in line with the Lisbon Strategy and the plans of our International Security Assistance Force and Afghan partners, as confirmed at the Chicago summit. The summit itself was a success: in reviewing transition and mapping the way forward in Afghanistan to the end of 2014; in securing the international community's commitment to continuing to fund, train and support the Afghan National Security Forces post-transition; and in supporting Afghanistan's security and development in the long term. Notwithstanding this success, Afghanistan continues to be difficult and dangerous—difficult and dangerous for our troops deployed there. As the northern fighting season commences, the thoughts of all members of the House and all Australians will be with our forces in Oruzgan and Afghanistan. I thank the House. I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the honourable member for Fadden to speak for 17 minutes. I also present a paper tabled in conjunction with my ministerial statement. Leave granted. Mr STEPHEN SMITH 5V5 I move: That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Fadden speaking in reply to my statement for a period not exceeding 17 minutes. Question agreed to. 09:19 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden I thank the minister for his continued commitment to keep the House up to date with the progress of combat operations and the work of international communities within ISAF and the wider body of work, including the reconstruction and aid effort within Afghanistan. The coalition notes the outcomes of the Chicago summit. We note the outcomes that NATO has released. We note the range of comments on the delivery of outcomes including the three points that President Obama has released. We also note that the Oruzgan transition in tranche 3 is looking to commence mid-year with completion over 18 months from July to December next year in transitioning from combat to support. We continue to reiterate that this should always be a metrics based, command judged and led transition. Commanders should be the ones telling us patrol base by patrol base, valley by valley, ridgeline by ridgeline, the pace at which transition should occur. I refer the minister to what would appear to be confusing statements from the Prime Minister. I am sure the minister will be able to fix these up at some stage or provide some guidance. I note the Prime Minister on 16 April, when announcing Hamid Karzai's next few months in terms of tranche 3 and transition, indicated the bulk of our force and enablers would transition in 12 to 18 months. That would cease their work literally by Christmas 2013. The Prime Minister said: We will no longer be conducting routine front-line operations within the Afghan National Security Forces. The Australian-led Provincial Reconstruction Team will have completed its work and the majority of our troops will have returned home. We will no longer be conducting routine front-line operations … Provincial Reconstruction Team will have completed its work. The first question is: did the Prime Minister mean the PRT or was she in fact referring to the mentoring taskforce? In terms of the bulk of our troops coming home, is that a firm commitment from the Prime Minister that at the cessation by, or no later than, the end of next year the MRT will indeed commence coming home in bulk? I note that in the joint transcript between the minister and the Prime Minister on Monday 21 May, the Prime Minister again said: In Oruzgan Province, in which we work, transition begins in coming months and, as you know, we expect this process to take 12 to 18 months, and at its conclusion the majority of Australian troops will be able to return home. The Prime Minister makes the same statement. She then goes on to say: Our mission after transition will change and it will evolve. Afghanistan will have responsibility for its own security. ISAF will have made a shift from its combat mission, but there will still be a continuing need for support. However, under questioning, later on the Prime Minister made this statement: At the end of 2014, what you see is the end of the current mission, the current combat mission, and a move to a different set of circumstances … All we simply ask is for some clarification, Minister, in terms of whether 2013 is the end of it. Is it the best likelihood under the best guidance you currently have for the full transition from combat to support? Will the bulk of Australian combat troops be returning by the end of that transition, currently somewhere between July and December 2013, or will the bulk of the troops be moving in 2014? General Allen's statement that in the last 12 months there has been an expansion of the Afghan security forces from 276,000 to 340,000 is a welcome statement, including his comments: The expansion and professionalization of Afghan security forces now allow us to recover the remaining 23,000 US surge troops by this fall— I gather he means August or around that time— enable us to continue to pressure the Taliban to reintegrate and reconcile, and make possible security transition to the Afghans in accordance with our Lisbon commitments. Such statements are indeed welcome. I also note from the minister that he is committing Australian forces, with which the coalition agrees in terms of transition, to Duntroon in the desert, which I still believe is the preferred thing to call it rather than Sandhurst in the sand, and to the school of gunnery, which is great, as well as a future role for our special operations as long as the mandate is acceptable to the nation—all of which the coalition accepts. Minister, you have made no comment on the current over 150 embedded ostensibly staff officers within the various joint headquarters. I gather US forces will retain some headquarter element and there may be an opportunity for Australian military forces to retain some military officers embedded at that headquarter level—again, which the coalition would support. It would be good to get an idea at what level and at what ranks and at what positions the Australian military could expect to have some of their officers and other ranks within that embedded force. I note the support for a long-term partnership within Afghanistan to ensure that Afghanistan can no longer return to being a place where terrorism is supported, aided, abetted, indoctrinated and given freedom of action. Again, the coalition supports a long-term partnership. We acknowledge the $100 million per annum starting in 2015. We were somewhat interested to see that this number is significantly higher compared with the majority of other European nations, especially when we factor GDP into the equation—the percentage of GDP that other nations have provided. I think Australia can be very proud that as a nation we are so generous in our support, not only to the US alliance in providing such a level of funding but to NATO as a whole. We also note that aid will run or increase from $165 million to $250 million by 2015-16, as announced on 20 May 2012. Minister, last time we spoke, a week or two ago, the coalition expressed its profound disappointment in the budget, especially in the $5½ billion worth of cuts to Defence. We acknowledge and we accept your statements and the statements of senior military officers that this will have no impact on current defence support to current operations and we accept that. However, as we look forward to a long-term partnership in transition, we see that elements of Australian military forces, ostensibly special forces, may well have a commitment role up to the end of the decade—again, something which the Prime Minister has announced in this House and the coalition has supported. If that is the case, the question is what impact will these defence cuts have on our future military capability and our future military operations post-2014, acknowledging and accepting at face value the commanders' and the minister's judgment that the current cuts will have no impact on current military operations? I therefore ask, Minister, if you could get back to the House with your advice as to what impact the current cuts will have on future combat capability. I refer you to Chief of Army General Morrison's message dated 9 May 2012, sent to all commanders and RSMs, where he lists in significant detail the cuts Army will have to make as a direct consequence of the budget. In fact, in his opening paragraph he said: It is important that you understand the scale of the ADF's budgetary reductions to help you put into context the decisions that have been made. So, Minister, if you could provide some update on the following delayed projects and what impact they may have on future conduct capability, accepting current combat capability is fine: JP 2097 Phase IB—REDFIN Special Operations Capability, the replacement special operations vehicles and battle management system, which has slipped at least one year; JP 129 Phase 3—the Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, the Shadow replacement or upgrade, which has slipped one year; LAND 125 Phase 3 Charlie—Soldier Enhancement Version 2 or enhancing the F88's lethality, which, again, has slipped; LAND 125 Phase 4—the Integrated Soldier System Version 3, next generation of the soldier combat system covering lethality, survivability, mobility and command and control; JP 154 Phase 2—the counter IED, or improvised explosive device, force protection ECM and the weapons technical intelligence capability; and, lastly, JP 3011 Phase 1—the non-lethal weapons enhancing the ADF's non-lethal capabilities. I note the minister's update in terms of civilian casualties and the work that has been done to ensure that civilian casualties are investigated where they occur. I think it is important, though, for the House to understand the professionalism of our soldiers, which the minister has of course spoken of. Having spoken to many soldiers in Afghanistan over my three visits there, and having known many of their commanders, I know we are faced at times on combat operations with civilians being in the middle. I know as a statement of fact that when civilians are caught in the crossfire Australian soldiers cease shooting. Our enemy does not, and there lies the substantive difference between our force and the enemy we fight. Every effort is made to ensure that there are as few civilian casualties as possible—every effort. In terms of civilians in the battlefield, which is an everyday occurrence, their place in the battlefield ensures that our combat capability cannot be maximised because we do not fire into civilian compounds. We cease firing when civilians are engaged in the middle ground or in the way but our enemy forces do not. I thank the minister for his update on civilian casualties. I remind the House of the professionalism of our forces and the work they do every day to ensure civilians are not harmed and are not impacted. I remind them that the enemy we face has—to their shame—no problem firing at our troops where there are civilians in the middle. I thank the minister for his brief on the ADFA issues and the ADFIS issues and for his update to the House in that respect. I request the minister to drop the coalition a confidential line on the nature of those ADFIS issues and where they are, to give us an idea from a personnel point of view. I note the minister's update on combat fatality reports. I note that all inquiry officer reports in combat deaths that occurred in 2010 have been completed. The families of those personnel killed in action have been briefed on the outcomes of those inquiries. I understand some of those reports have been made public and some have not been, and the coalition supports the minister's absolute discretion in determining what is appropriate in those circumstances. I agree with the minister that the families' wishes with regard to any public release are paramount and should always be highly in consideration. I note that there are still four incidences outstanding from 2011, and the families of those ADF personnel killed in action may not have been briefed as a result of those actions. I acknowledge the minister will update the House as soon as practical on the outcomes of those inquiries. We all understand that it is important that families know in as much detail as possible the circumstances around how their loved ones gave their lives for the nation, but again I urge the minister to ensure the appropriate resources are provided to finalise these inquiries. Some of these four may have been waiting up to 300 days—10 or 12 months. Reports on inquires into US service personnel take an average of two months to complete. The four outstanding are taking up to 10 to 12 months. It is important, as we finalise the discussion of the update on Afghanistan and the coalition's response, that I join the minister in acknowledging our men and women and what they are doing. The government and the opposition were represented yesterday when the elements of MTF-5—which is the base force surrounding the 3rd Battalion, the Royal Australian Regiment—and all of the enablers from 15 different units had their parade at Enoggera Barracks as family and friends wished them well as they went. It is important to know that something like 900 troops from MTF-5, based around the 3rd Battalion, will transition over the current months into Afghanistan for their six-month tour of duty. I wish Lieutenant Colonel Trent Scott, a good colleague of mine whom I joined with in 1988, and the men and women of the 3rd Battalion, the Royal Australian Regiment, and all the enabling forces that go with MTF-5, the very best in what they do. I know Australians can be proud of what they will do. They will fight hard. They will ask no quarter and they will give none. However, they will show great compassion. They will show great leadership on the field. They will respect the Afghans with whom they fight and those whom they fight against, and they will do our nation proud. Minister, thank you again for your commitment in keeping the House up to date. BILLS 5467 BILLS Broadcasting Services Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2012 5467

Broadcasting Services Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2012

First Reading 5467 Second Reading 5467 09:33 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2012 introduces amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to facilitate earlier access, in particular circumstances, to the Viewer Access Satellite Television service, or VAST. The VAST service is a first-class, direct-to-home digital commercial satellite television service which covers all of Australia. For the first time, viewers not served by terrestrial transmitters have access to the full range of digital television services. Every Australian can now access the full range of commercial and national free-to-air digital TV services. However, currently viewers in areas that will never receive reliable commercial digital television terrestrial reception cannot access VAST until six months before switchover in their licence area. This bill will allow the conditional access scheme administrator to specify open access areas, where viewers residing in such areas will be automatically entitled to immediate access to VAST. The bill will also amend the definition of applicable services used by the scheme administrator to assesses eligibility to access VAST. Currently, an assessment of whether viewers have adequate reception of applicable services only considers those services provided by commercial television broadcasting licensees. The amendments in this bill will broaden the definition to also take account of services provided by organisations which represent commercial broadcasters, such as Regional Broadcasting Australia. The bill also contains minor amendments to allow broadcasters operating in the Remote Central and Eastern Australia licence areas to use services from VAST as a source of programming for their terrestrial transmitters. It also contains amendments to authorise viewers in the Territory of Christmas Island and the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands, the Coral Sea Islands Territory and Norfolk Island to access VAST if they choose. Finally, the bill will provide greater flexibility to vary the timing of a simulcast period relating to a metropolitan or regional licence area. While the timetable for the switch-off to analog signals was announced in 2008, further consultation with broadcasters indicates that metropolitan switchover dates are likely to require variation. These changes will stagger the transition to digital television to ensure both government assistance schemes and broadcaster engineering resources are available and appropriately managed to achieve digital switchover by the end of 2013. In some cases, these amended dates could fall outside the maximum variations currently permitted by the Broadcasting Services Act. The bill will allow the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy to vary the date for a licence area's digital switchover to any future date the minister specifies, provided that date is before 31 December, 2013. Similar amendments will be made in respect of digital-only local market area determinations. The government is committed to working with local communities on the switchover to digital television, and will continue to set and publicise the dates well in advance of switchover. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Bill 2012 5468

Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Bill 2012

First Reading 5468 Second Reading 5468 09:37 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I am very proud that today I am introducing legislation which represents some of the biggest maritime reforms in Australia's history. The Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Bill 2012 creates a single national maritime regulator and a national safety system for domestic commercial vessels. This legislation replaces eight existing federal, state and territory regulators with one national marine safety regulator; the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA). This bill will replace 50 pieces of legislation in seven jurisdictions with a single national law, providing clarity and consistency for Australia's seafarers and commercial vessel owners. In 2009 the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreed to a national approach in regulating the safety of domestic commercial vessels in Australia. Three years of hard work, by all jurisdictions and industry stakeholders, has delivered this bill. This bill establishes AMSA as the national maritime regulator, with responsibility not only for the large commercial vessels that undertake overseas voyages, but now also for the domestic commercial vessels that work around our coast. Importantly, this bill establishes one single national system for marine safety regulation. The impact of this in practical terms is that marine safety standards will be consistent and consistently applied across the country. This means that people who rely on domestic commercial vessels for their livelihoods or as a means of transport can be confident that every commercial vessel, wherever it is in Australian waters, will be required to meet the same nationally agreed safety standards. It means that people who design and build commercial vessels in one jurisdiction do not have to have that vessel recertified each time they sail into a different jurisdiction's water. This also means that companies who operate national businesses and have vessels in more than one state will not have to grapple with different regulatory and administrative requirements to manage their fleet and their crew. There are no borders on the water—there is no reason our regulatory system needs to create artificial boundaries. Fundamental to this reform and the benefits that it offers is that it is a cooperative reform. All states and territories have actively participated in developing the legislation. In the future, existing state and territory regulators will deliver national law functions under the delegation of AMSA. The benefits of this approach are many. The national regulator will be able to draw on the extensive knowledge and experience that is housed in the state regulatory authorities; stakeholders will not lose the contacts they have come to rely on; there will be an opportunity to share knowledge and approaches across state and territory boundaries—but at the same time stakeholders will reap the benefits of national consistency and transparency. National reform is not easy and this reform has been no different. I would also like to thank the many parties who have given generously of their time, their knowledge and their experience. Stakeholder support for this reform is very strong. This is no surprise—the benefits it will offer to the Australian economy and to Australians who own, run, work or travel on domestic commercial vessels are undeniable. As the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport I have had the privilege to undertake the most comprehensive reform of the maritime sector in Australia's history. This legislation was approved by the Standing Council on Transport and Infrastructure that met in South Australia last week. I thank my state and territory ministerial colleagues for their cooperative approach and their support for this legislation. This bill, the shipping reform bills and the navigation bill position Australia to make the most of its future as a shipping nation while ensuring that safety of vessels and those who sail upon them as well as the protection of our treasured marine environment is paramount. I commend this bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012 5470

Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012

First Reading 5470 Second Reading 5470 09:43 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I introduce to the House the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law (Consequential Amendment) Bill of 2012. This bill was agreed at the Standing Council on Infrastructure and Transport meeting held in South Australia on 18 May 2012. This bill complements the marine safety national law now before you and gives effect to agreements reached with the states and the Northern Territory on the national marine safety regulatory reform. The bill provides that the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) board will include a member with knowledge and experience in the construction or operation of domestic commercial vessels. This is important to make certain that in the future AMSA, as the national maritime regulator, has available to it the necessary knowledge to inform and guide decision making. This bill amends the Australian Maritime Safety Authority Act 1990 to give this effect. Jurisdictions have also agreed that the offences and penalties attached to the general safety provisions in the national law should align with those in the model work health and safety legislation. Some jurisdictions are yet to enact the model work health and safety legislation. This alignment will therefore occur as a consequential amendment when all states and territories have enacted work health and safety legislation which corresponds substantially with the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. I commend this bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Navigation Bill 2012 5470

Navigation Bill 2012

First Reading 5470 Second Reading 5470 09:45 Mr ALBANESE ( R36 Grayndler — ) ( ): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This year, the 100th year since the sinking of the RMS Titanic, is also the 100th anniversary of the Navigation Act 1912. For those 100 years the Navigation Act has been Australia's primary legislation regulating ship and seafarer safety, shipboard aspects of protection of the marine environment and protection of the rights and conditions of seafarers. The original Navigation Bill was in the process of development when the Titanic sank on 15 April 1912. As a result, the draft legislation was amended before it had even commenced to incorporate the safety recommendations that were internationally agreed following the disaster. This vital piece of legislation has been the key legislative vehicle to give domestic effect to Australia's international port state control responsibilities and a range of international conventions. But the act is 100 years old and it shows. On 5 June 2009, I announced that the Gillard Labor government would rewrite the Navigation Act 1912. After approximately three years of planning, public and whole-of-government consultation, extensive drafting, and through the commitment and cooperation demonstrated by all stakeholders, it is with great pride that I introduce the Navigation Bill 2012 to the Australian parliament. We are in the middle of a once-in-a-generation resources boom. Each year almost 4,000 ships transport goods to and from Australia, carrying 99 per cent by volume of Australia's imports and exports. This constitutes the world's fifth largest shipping task. The increase in demand for Australia's exports and new resource developments means Australia's sea freight task is expected to double by 2025. The safety and efficiency of the shipping industry is therefore critical to Australia's economic prosperity, maritime environment and security. Australia's re-election last year to the council of the International Maritime Organisation served to reinforce Australia's longstanding tradition as an active participant, in a cooperative multilateral approach to the regulation of maritime safety and marine pollution prevention. This bill supports that approach. This Navigation Bill 2012 is a comprehensive rewrite of the Navigation Act 1912. The bill is written in plain language, reflects contemporary maritime industry practice and provides clarity to domestic and international seafarers, vessel owners and operators on their regulatory responsibilities. Gone are the archaic and redundant provisions that peppered the Navigation Act 1912. Many of the 1912 act's original provisions were taken from the British Merchant Shipping Act of 1894 which included laws that had been around since the 18th century. You will be reassured to know that it is no longer an offence to take a lunatic to sea without telling the master. Not only is the Navigation Bill clearer and more accessible to the reader it is more flexible allowing the regulatory framework to keep pace with changes in the domestic and global maritime sector today and in the future. The bill introduces a civil penalty regime which expands the range of regulatory options available to the regulator for breaches of the legislation. The bill also allows for the development of an infringement notice scheme in regulations. Of primary importance, the Navigation Bill gives effect to our international obligations under various conventions to which Australia is a signatory, covering matters such as the safety of life at sea; training and certification of seafarers; prevention of collisions at sea; watertight integrity and reserve buoyancy of ships; pollution prevention standards for ships; safety of containers; salvage and regulations to determine gross and net tonnage of ships. The bill will also ensure Australia's compliance with the International Labour Organisation's Maritime Labour Convention—which Australia has ratified and which will soon come into force internationally. I have previously introduced legislation to establish an Australian International Shipping Register. The employment provisions contained in the Navigation Bill will be a key part of the legislative framework that protects the rights of seafarers working on those vessels. The Navigation Bill applies to Australian commercial vessels undertaking overseas voyages and where it is consistent with international law, to all foreign flagged vessels in Australian waters regardless of the voyage. As such it provides a legislative framework within which the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) can exercise its port state control responsibilities. AMSA has an enviable reputation as the regulatory authority with responsibility for 'big' ships. The Navigation Bill complements the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Bill, which I introduced today, that establishes AMSA as Australia's single national maritime regulator. The Navigation Bill also incorporates the provisions of the Lighthouses Act 1911, one of the oldest laws on the statute book and one that predates even the Navigation Act 1912. Like the Navigation Act, the Lighthouses Act has struggled to keep pace with changes to maritime industry practice and rapid technological change. The recast provisions relating to aids to navigation have been modernised and are now sufficiently flexible to encompass a world where satellites and global positioning systems operate in company with traditional beacons and lights. It is appropriate that the provisions of the Lighthouses Act are incorporated in the Navigation Bill as it will ensure that aids to navigation, which are so essential to safe navigation, are an integral element of Australia's primary maritime safety legislation. The Lighthouses Act 1911 will be repealed once the Navigation Bill is enacted. As the transport minister I have had the privilege to undertake the most comprehensive reform of the maritime sector in Australia's history. This bill, the shipping reform bills and the National Maritime Regulator Bill position Australia to make the most of our future as a shipping nation while ensuring that safety of vessels and those who sail upon them as well as the protection of our treasured marine environment is paramount. I commend this bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Navigation (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012 5472

Navigation (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012

First Reading 5472 Second Reading 5472 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Navigation (Consequential Amendments) Bill contains a number of amendments to existing acts that are required to ensure the existing regulatory framework interacts properly. The bill makes those consequential changes to 29 other pieces of legislation and forms a part of the most comprehensive maritime reform in Australia’s history. This number gives an idea of the complexity of the task that has been undertaken in the past three years. I thank all those who have been engaged in this process: government, public sector and also industry. I commend this bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (2012 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2012 5473

Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (2012 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2012

First Reading 5473 Second Reading 5473 (Jagajaga—Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister for Disability Reform) (09:55): Ms MACKLIN PG6 I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill introduces several measures from the 2012 budget and some other amendments to family assistance and child support provisions. Income test exemptions for WA seniors The first of the budget measures will provide a permanent exemption from the social security and veterans' entitlements income tests for the Western Australian government's Country Age Pension Fuel Card and the Cost of Living Rebate Scheme. The Country Age Pension Fuel Card scheme provides a card for eligible people living in country areas of Western Australia to purchase fuel and taxi fares, worth $500 a year for single people and for couples. The Cost of Living Rebate Scheme provides an annual payment to help with cost-of-living pressures for holders of a Western Australian seniors card. In 2012, the payment is $155.25 for single people and $232.90 for couples. The Australian government previously exempted the value of the WA Country Fuel Card and the Cost of Living Rebate Scheme from the social security and veterans' income tests up till 30 June 2012. This exemption has operated for the last three years and ensured that people benefiting from the schemes did not have their income support payments reduced under the means tests. The exemption is due to end on 30 June 2012. This bill now makes that exemption permanent, so eligible people can have confidence in the long term that their income support payments will not be reduced because of benefits received through either Western Australian scheme. This Australian government exemption will benefit around 13,000 recipients of the WA Country Fuel Card and around 60,000 recipients of the Cost of Living Rebate Scheme who are in receipt of a social security or Veterans' Affairs income support payment. Portability of income support and family payments In a further budget measure, the bill tightens the rules for people who travel overseas while receiving income support payments and family payments. From 1 January 2013, the length of time that people on most income support payments will be able to be overseas, and continue to receive payments, will be reduced from 13 to six weeks. Many Australians have strong family and friendship connections overseas and it is appropriate to provide a limited portability period for government welfare payments. However, we believe that people of working age should be in Australia participating in the community and preparing to return to work if they can. Six weeks is a reasonable period of time for an Australian resident to manage family or personal matters that may arise from time to time overseas and have their overseas stay funded by the Australian taxpayer. There is also discretion to extend portability periods in genuine exceptional circumstances, such as when a person falls ill overseas and cannot return. Family tax benefit part A will continue to be paid for up to three years but will reduce to the base rate at six weeks, rather than at 13 weeks under current rules. This change does not affect age pension or disability support pension recipients who have been assessed under new rules from 1 July 2012 as having a severe and permanent disability and no future work capacity. Some payments such as special benefit and Newstart allowance do not have general 13-week portability. They can currently only be paid outside Australia in limited and defined circumstances such as attending an acute family crisis or legal proceedings overseas. These payments will now only be payable for a maximum of six weeks. The bill also makes complementary amendments to the rules relating to waiting periods to receive some payments. Family tax benefit part A eligibility As also announced in the budget, the bill limits family tax benefit part A to children aged under 18. Families of children aged 18 and 19 who are studying full time may continue to get the payment until the calendar year in which they complete secondary education or equivalent vocational education. This government is ensuring that the family payment system helps low- and middle-income families with the costs of raising children when they are young and while they are at school. We believe that young people (over the age of 18) leaving high school should embrace the opportunities that come from further education or getting a job. That is why we think it is reasonable that family assistance stops when a young adult turns 18 and leaves school. Of course, youth allowance is available to young people if they need financial support while they are studying or looking for work. This government understands the costs of raising children. That is why we have already delivered up to $4,200 extra a year to family tax benefit families with teenagers aged 16 to 19 who are in full-time secondary school or equivalent vocational education. And of course our new schoolkids bonus—already passed by this parliament despite attempts by those opposite to block it—and the further family tax benefit boosts that are part of this budget, will continue to help families to make ends meet. Non - budget amendments The bill also makes some other minor non-budget amendments. An amendment will clarify existing policy in relation to the low-income supplement, part of the government's Clean Energy Future Household Assistance Package. This bill will ensure that family tax benefit households will qualify for a payment of low-income supplement where a person has a family tax benefit child for 39 weeks or more during the year, where both partners have a notional tax liability of less than $300 a year, and where the person meets the other qualification conditions for the low-income supplement. Another minor amendment in the bill corrects an inequity in the family tax benefit part A rate provisions concerning whether reasonable maintenance action is considered to have been taken in certain cases in which child support is privately collected. A further amendment will allow a person's percentage of care for child support and family tax benefit purposes to be based on the actual care of the child immediately, rather than following a 14-week delay that applies currently when there is a change in care that departs from a formal care arrangement. This amendment will apply only in special circumstances, such as where there is evidence of violence or other unusual behaviour. The bill will also clarify in the child support legislation the authority for the practice of automated decision-making using computer programs. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families) Bill 2012 5475

Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families) Bill 2012

First Reading 5475 Second Reading 5475 10:04 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families) Bill 2012 provides a pathway for certain family members of current and future overseas lateral recruits to the Australian Defence Force (ADF) to satisfy the residence requirements in order to be eligible for Australian citizenship at the same time as the ADF member. Generally, most permanent residents who wish to apply for Australian citizenship by conferral must satisfy a general resident requirement of 'four years lawful stay', with the last 12 months as a permanent resident immediately before the day the person applied for Australian citizenship. This is an objective way of demonstrating that applicants for Australian citizenship have a commitment to our society, a society in which they are seeking to be a full and formal member. However, it has long been recognised, both in policy and legislation, that there is more than one way to demonstrate a commitment to Australia. One of these other ways is to undertake military service in the ADF, in defence of our nation. This is an honourable and often dangerous vocation. Australian citizenship law has had specific arrangements to acknowledge that service in the Australian military demonstrates an extraordinary commitment to Australia. These arrangements have been in place since the then government decided that 'aliens' could join the Australian Army in 1952. Currently, under section 23 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, for the purposes of section 21 a person has completed 'relevant defence service' if the person has completed: at least 90 days service in the permanent forces of the Commonwealth; or at least six months service in the Naval Reserve, the Army Reserve or the Air Force Reserve; or was discharged from that service as medically unfit for that service and who became so unfit because of that service. However, there are three issues that the government considers must be addressed and this bill addresses these issues. Firstly, the Australian Defence Force recruits certain highly proficient technical specialists, so called 'overseas lateral recruits', who have previous experience in other defence forces to maintain the operational status of our military forces and to train other ADF personnel. These specialists often migrate with their families to begin a new life in Australia. As currently structured, the arrangements offer a reduced residence requirement to become eligible for citizenship by conferral to the permanent resident ADF recruit and their permanent resident children under the age of 16 years. Their permanent resident children aged 16 and 17 should meet the general residence requirement of 'four years lawful' or be refused under the minister's discretionary power in subsection 24(2), unless refusal would cause 'significant hardship or disadvantage'. However, their permanent resident spouse and any children 18 years and over must fulfil the general residence requirement, in order to be eligible for citizenship by conferral. We do not believe these arrangements are fair and show due respect to families. As the law stands, members of the same family unit are treated differently—for example, a father who serves in the ADF and a 15-year old child will become eligible to become citizens after his 90 days of service but the spouse and an 18-year-old and a 21-year-old child would have to wait up to four years, effectively splitting the legal status of the defence family in Australia into two. It seems contrary to the ideals of fairness that our nation holds so dear to fracture a family, especially the children of that family. The families of these 'overseas lateral recruits' have accompanied the ADF member to Australia. They too have uprooted their lives and they too have significant challenges in settling into a new life here, while continuing to provide support to the ADF member. This bill seeks to provide a more consistent approach to eligibility arrangements, allowing an ADF family who migrates together and adjusts to life in Australia together, to be eligible for Australian citizenship together. The bill will also assist the families of recruits in accessing employment opportunities and education assistance, and demonstrate that we welcome them to Australia, as a family. Also, and very importantly, the bill provides a pathway for family members to access the relevant defence service eligibility in the tragic event that the ADF member dies while undertaking service. In this instance, the family will be treated as if the ADF member had completed their relevant defence service. While the loss of their loved one can never be replaced, we as a nation can share that loss with them and assist them in rebuilding their lives. The scope of this bill is confined to family members or 'relatives' who were members of the family unit of the defence person at the time the defence person was granted their visa to migrate to Australia to serve in the ADF, and those relatives hold the same kind of visa because they are a member of the family unit of the defence person. These 'relatives' may include the spouse or de facto partner, dependent children of any age, and a dependent parent. The new arrangements will apply to those overseas lateral recruits who were granted a visa prescribed in the Australian Citizenship Regulations on or after 1 July 2007, the day the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 came into effect. Undecided applications now before the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, as well as new applications for Australian citizenship will be considered under these new arrangements. This has been done in order to give substance to the policy intent. Therefore, it does not extend to those family members who subsequently decide to come to Australia on another visa or those people who migrate to Australia with their families for another purpose and then decide to join the ADF. Also, these new arrangements do not change the application fee structures that currently apply to ADF members and their families. The second issue the government seeks to address here is to clarify what constitutes the relevant defence service requirement as it applies to members of the reserve forces. As set out before, the current arrangements specify a member of the Naval, Army or Air Force Reserve has completed relevant defence service if the person has completed at least six months service. Supporting policy sets out that 'six months service' corresponds to 130 reserve force full days attendance. The spirit of the current arrangements is to extend Australian citizenship to reservists who are actively engaged in the ADF. It is not intended to extend a preferential treatment to persons who join the reserves and who are not actively engaged in military service. For instance, the current arrangements were not intended to benefit a person who joined the reserves and only attended duty for, say, one day or one week across those six months. A decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has cast doubt on whether the current law reflects this intention clearly enough. The bill removes this doubt by specifying that service in the Australian reserve forces will be counted where the person has undertaken a total of at least 90 days service—a day being one which the person was required for, attended and was entitled to be paid for duty in one or more of the reserves—whether or not that service was continuous. The bill also clarifies that a person undertakes service in the permanent forces or the reserves only if the person is appointed, enlisted or transferred into any of the permanent or reserve forces. This is to make clear the government's intent that these arrangements are for ADF members only and not persons who may enter into a contract with the ADF to provide other services, such as contracted interpreting and translating staff. However, in addition to the technical amendments I explained earlier, the government's bill provides broader and more equitable coverage than the private member's bill which was previously introduced by the member for Fadden. I am aware the member for Fadden introduced his private member's bill on 21 May and I acknowledge and welcome the member's support for improvements to the policy area. For instance, this bill will extend the reduced residence requirement to all migrating children of the ADF lateral recruit, not just those who are aged under 18 years or who are students aged under 25. Disabled children and children who are not students but who are wholly and substantially dependent on the ADF parent and who have migrated with their ADF parent will also be eligible to apply for Australian citizenship under the bill the government is now introducing. Also, the bill will cover a dependent parent, so families who migrate to Australia and who bring an elderly loved one who is dependent on the ADF lateral recruit can also enjoy the benefit of an earlier pathway to Australian citizenship. The legislation gives expression to the government's clear intent to support the ADF families who migrate together, and adjust to Australian life together, to apply for Australian citizenship together. Very importantly, this bill will ensure that, on the tragic occasion of the death of a service man or woman, the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship can be extended to the family members. I am pleased to acknowledge the role of Defence Families Australia in pressing for these important changes to the relevant defence service requirement and for their passionate advocacy on behalf of the families of ADF personnel. This organisation has blossomed from its beginnings as the National Consultative Group of Service Spouses, which the Hawke Labor government established in 1986. This bill will allow a key group of migrants—the families of those service men and women who have chosen to migrate to Australia to offer their skills and expertise in the defence of our nation and ultimately their lives—to become full and formal members of our society at the same time, not as a group of individuals but as a family. I look forward to welcoming these families to join the 4.5 million other people who have chosen to become Australian citizens since 1949. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Stronger Super) Bill 2012 5478

Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Stronger Super) Bill 2012

First Reading 5478 Second Reading 5478 10:16 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill introduces a framework to support the implementation of superannuation data and payment standards that will apply to specified superannuation transactions undertaken by superannuation entities and employers. These amendments are part of the SuperStream package of measures designed to enhance the back office of superannuation. The superannuation industry is currently dominated by paper based transactions that are inefficient in both processing costs and the time taken for transactions to occur and superannuation to be deposited into member accounts. Members of superannuation funds and employers will both benefit from the changes. For example, fund members will benefit from being able to easily manage their superannuation accounts, have low-value inactive accounts consolidated automatically and easily check if their superannuation contributions have been paid. Employers will benefit from having standardised simplified administrative processes when dealing with superannuation funds. Conversely, superannuation funds will benefit from standardised simplified administrative processes when dealing with employers and other funds. It is estimated that the SuperStream proposals could save the industry and, therefore, members of superannuation funds up to $1 billion per year. Much of the benefit of these savings should flow through to members in the form of lower fees and charges. The standards will be mandated for superannuation entities (including approved deposit funds), retirement savings account providers and for employers. A new penalty framework is also introduced to ensure trustees of superannuation entities, RSA providers and employers comply with these standards. This bill also enables the Commonwealth to collect the costs associated with the implementation of the SuperStream measures and enables the minister to make a determination that specifies the proportion of levy money paid to the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) that is to be credited to the APRA Special Account. The cost of implementing the SuperStream reforms is $467 million in total, over seven years, to be paid for by a temporary SuperStream levy on APRA regulated funds. If you average the full levy increase of $121 million to apply in 2012-13 across the approximately 33 million accounts existing today, the cost is roughly a modest $4 per account per year. Estimates undertaken by the superannuation industry have identified that SuperStream will save in the order of $1 billion each year in processing costs. Averaged over the approximately 33 million accounts existing today, this saving is in the order of $30 per account each year. This is a significant saving for each and every member of a superannuation fund. The coalition have acknowledged that the SuperStream measures have the potential to deliver real savings that will benefit superannuants and for once they support changes that make the superannuation system more efficient, transparent and competitive. Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Superannuation Supervisory Levy Imposition Amendment Bill 2012 5479

Superannuation Supervisory Levy Imposition Amendment Bill 2012

First Reading 5479 Second Reading 5479 10:21 Mr SHORTEN ( 00ATG Maribyrnong — ) ( ): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill provides the Treasurer with the ability to make a subsequent determination of the amount of the superannuation supervisory levy to be paid for a financial year. The superannuation supervisory levy will pay for implementation costs to improve the administration and management of super accounts, making the processing of everyday transactions easier, cheaper and faster for both members of funds and employers. It is part of the SuperStream package of measures designed to enhance the back office processing of superannuation. Key measures include the introduction of data and payment standards and consolidation of accounts. Estimates undertaken by the superannuation industry have identified that these SuperStream measures that I have been speaking about this morning will save in the order of $1 billion each year in processing costs. Averaged over the approximately 33 million accounts existing today, this saving is in the order of $30 per account each year. The cost of implementing the SuperStream reforms is $467 million in total over seven years to be paid for by a temporary SuperStream levy on APRA regulated funds. If you averaged the full levy increase of $121 million to apply in 2012-13 across the approximate 33 million accounts existing today, the cost is roughly in the order of a mere $4 per account. This bill will provide the Treasurer increased flexibility in determining the maximum restricted and unrestricted levy amounts, the restricted and unrestricted levy percentages and the superannuation entity levy base to be used in finalising the levy amount. Full details of the measure in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Tax Laws Amendment (Cross-Border Transfer Pricing) Bill (No. 1) 2012 5480

Tax Laws Amendment (Cross-Border Transfer Pricing) Bill (No. 1) 2012

First Reading 5480 Second Reading 5480 10:23 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill ensures the effectiveness of Australia's transfer pricing rules. Transfer pricing rules are critical to the integrity of the tax system. This bill will play an important role in ensuring that an appropriate return, for the contribution of Australian operations to a multinational group, is taxed in Australia for the benefit of the broader community. This is an important issue: in 2009 cross-border trade within multinational groups was valued at approximately $270 billion, or about 50 per cent of Australia's total trade flows. Last November the government announced that it would reform Australia's transfer pricing rules. As part of these reforms, the government also announced it would move to end the uncertainty around whether or not the transfer pricing rules contained in our tax treaties could apply independently of the unilateral rules in division 13 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. The bill deals with the second announcement. It confirms transfer pricing rules contained in Australia's tax treaties and incorporated into domestic law provide assessment authority in treaty cases. These changes apply to income years commencing on or after 1 July 2004, being the first income year following the parliament's last statement, demonstrating the longstanding legislative intent that the law operated in this way. There were a number of important issues in the forefront of the government's mind in developing these rules. Firstly, the government is keen to ensure that the law is fully effective in the way parliament has clearly intended it to operate. Secondly, we need to ensure the integrity of the tax system is not compromised. This particular measure is designed simply to protect Australia's existing revenue base—it was not designed as a revenue-raising exercise. Thirdly, these amendments reflect the bargain we have struck in our treaties. They are consistent with internationally accepted transfer pricing rules. Finally, the government noted the long-held view of the Commissioner of Taxation that, arguably, the current law already gives effect to the intent of parliament. In this context the government is clarifying the operation of the law. The government was mindful of differing views on this point. A decision to change the law from a date before announcement is not taken lightly. It is generally only done, as in this case, where there is a significant risk to revenue that is inconsistent with the parliament's intention. There is considerable evidence, across the decades, that parliament intended that the treaty transfer pricing rules operated in addition to our unilateral transfer pricing rules in division 13. This is fully described in the explanatory memorandum accompanying this bill. In summary, Australia's current unilateral transfer pricing rules were introduced in 1982 in the form of division 13. The treaty transfer pricing rules and the division 13 rules were intended to operate as alternatives in the event that one more effectively dealt with profit shifting than the other. The explanatory memorandum circulated by former Prime Minister and the then Treasurer, John Howard, explained that specific amendments would operate that way and I quote: … the provisions of a double taxation agreement that deal with profit shifting, either under a 'business profits' article …, or an 'associated enterprises' article …, may have to be applied instead of Division 13. Even in 1982, profit shifting through transfer pricing practices was seen as such a threat to the Australian tax base that there was clear bipartisan support for the measure. The important role that treaties play in this regard was evident in the debate. The then shadow Treasurer noted, and I again quote from the House of Representatives Hansard of 28 April 1982: Possibly the most significant aspect of our treaties, … is the section modelled after Article 9 of the model OECD agreement which allows the reconstruction of profits of associated entities which have obviously been engaging in transfer pricing activities. This provision has generally been regarded as a more effective weapon against transfer pricing than the current section 136— which, of course, was the predecessor to division 13— … because the provisions of the Income Tax (International Agreements) Act prevail over the ordinary provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act. The amendments contained in this bill confirm the way parliament intended the law to operate since at least 1982. There are at least six subsequent statements in the parliament, as set out in the explanatory memorandum, which reflect a strong consistency across decades of parliament's intent in relation to the transfer pricing rules. Further to parliament's previously stated intent, the amendments contained in this bill are also entirely consistent with the commissioner's long-held and publicly expressed view of the current law. In light of this there are strong arguments for concluding that under the current income tax law, treaty transfer pricing rules apply as an alternative to division 13. If this is the case, these amendments constitute a mere confirmation of these rules. To the extent that there is any uncertainty in relation to the operation of the current law, these amendments ensure the law can operate as the parliament intended. The potential impact on taxpayers has been carefully considered. Importantly, these provisions only apply where a tax treaty is applicable and therefore any party that these measures apply to will be able to access the treaty mechanisms designed to relieve any double taxation that could arise. Further, settled cases will not be re-opened as a result of these amendments. Settled cases would only be re-opened when the taxpayer breaches a term of the settlement, when the settlement has been entered into on the basis of a fraudulent misrepresentation or when re-opening the settlement would deliver a more favourable outcome to the taxpayer. Penalties are another important issue when considering any law that has application to prior years. A transitional rule is included in these amendments to ensure the penalty provisions of the income tax law apply as though this bill was never enacted. The ATO's ruling on how penalties generally apply in transfer pricing cases is to calculate the penalty based on the lesser of the amount determined under division 13 or the treaty. This transitional rule ensures the practical operation of the penalty provisions is not disturbed. This government has engaged extensively with the business community in relation to this measure. The measure is not wholly supported by multinationals and their advisors—and given this is a robust integrity measure—this is not altogether unexpected. That said, the bill has greatly benefited from the inclusion of some important features following consultation. The bill will essentially achieve three key objectives. First, as explained, it will ensure the transfer pricing articles contained in Australia's tax treaties are able to be applied and provide assessment authority independent of division 13. This will be achieved through providing an express liability provision in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. Secondly, it will require that the transfer pricing rules in this bill are interpreted as consistently as possible with the relevant OECD guidance. The work of the OECD reflects the best international thinking on transfer pricing and has shaped transfer pricing regimes around the world. The OECD's transfer pricing guidelines are widely used by tax administrations and multinational enterprises globally. This provision will provide a clear legal pathway to the use of OECD guidance. It will avoid the costly necessity for users to get expert advice on whether the state parties to a particular treaty apply the guidance and will make it clear which set of guidelines is to be used. Finally, as mentioned, the government has had many discussions with the business community in developing these rules. As a result of those talks we are moving to clarify the interaction between transfer pricing and the thin capitalisation rules. Previously, this interaction was only dealt with through administrative arrangements. Other provisions of the bill essentially support and enable these key features and ensure the provisions work and interact appropriately with the rest of the income tax law. They ensure there can be no double taxation at a domestic level. They ensure that the commissioner can make a determination and provide taxpayers with appropriate information for the ongoing management of their tax affairs; and they ensure that where an adjustment is made, consequential adjustments can also be made to ensure a taxpayer is not unfairly disadvantaged (or subject to double taxation). Lastly, I have mentioned the contribution of the business community in consulting on these rules. On the subject of consultation, I would like to note the involvement of the NGO community. I would like to thank the Justice and International Mission Unit of the Victorian and Tasmanian Synod of the Uniting Church for its ongoing contribution. Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Tax Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 2) Bill 2012 5483

Tax Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 2) Bill 2012

First Reading 5483 Second Reading 5483 10:34): Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay ( I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill amends various taxation laws to implement a range of improvements to Australia’s taxation laws. Schedule 1 protects workers’ superannuation entitlements and government pay-as-you-go withholding revenue and deters phoenix operators. It strengthens the director penalty regime by extending it to cover superannuation obligations and, in some instances, making directors and associates liable to pay-as-you-go (PAYG) withholding non-compliance tax. These amendments provide disincentives for directors to allow their companies to fail to meet superannuation and PAYG obligations. They do not introduce new obligations on the company but rather bring company directors within the scope of the existing director penalty regime where they have failed to ensure that their companies meet their obligations. The Legislative and Governance Forum for Corporations has been consulted and has approved the amendments to the Corporations Act contained in this schedule. These amendments commence on royal assent. Schedule 2 amends the taxation of financial arrangements (TOFA) consolidation interaction provisions where a financial arrangement, such as an asset or liability, of a joining company is acquired by the head company pursuant to a joining or consolidation event. Where this occurs, this bill ensures the tax treatment of the financial arrangement is consistent with the TOFA tax timing rules, which recognise gains and losses from financial arrangements on an accruals basis as opposed to a realisation basis. The changes also recognise the fact that, like financial assets, the value of a financial liability can change other than from the repayment of the liability. Schedule 2 also amends the TOFA consolidation transitional balancing adjustment provisions to ensure the transitional balancing adjustments for existing arrangements that the head company acquired as part of a joining or consolidation event are worked out taking into account the proposed changes to the TOFA consolidation interaction provisions. These amendments address the technical issues raised by industry as part of the post-enactment consultation on the TOFA consolidation stages 3 and 4 regime and maintain the integrity of the tax system by ensuring symmetrical tax treatment of financial assets and liabilities. These changes will apply from the start of the TOFA consolidation stages 3 and 4 regime. Schedule 3 amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to modify the consolidation tax cost setting rules so that the tax outcomes for consolidated groups are more consistent with the tax outcomes that arise when assets are acquired outside the consolidation regime. Under the consolidation regime, when a consolidated group acquires an entity, the tax costs of the entity's assets are reset at an amount that reflects their respective share of the group's cost of acquiring the entity. The consolidation regime was amended in 2010 to clarify that, for some assets, this reset tax cost (rather than the original tax cost) is used when a taxing point later arises for the asset. The amendments applied from 1 July 2002 as they were thought to be merely returning the regime to its originally stated intent. Shortly after passage of those amendments, it became clear that the new rules could result in the recognition of the tax costs of some assets being brought forward in an unanticipated way. Consequently, the Board of Taxation was asked to examine the operation of the rules. The board concluded that the scope of the new rules, as enacted, is broader than was originally intended at the time of their announcement in 2005 and could allow consolidated groups to access deductions that are not available to taxpayers outside the consolidation regime. The changes in this bill take away the unintended retrospective benefits arising from the 2010 amendments and are necessary to protect a significant amount of revenue that would otherwise be at risk. These changes demonstrate the government’s commitment to maintaining the equity, fairness and integrity of the tax system. Schedule 4 makes consequential amendments to the Tax Administration Act 1953 to give effect to the increase in the managed investment trust (MIT) final withholding tax rate to 15 per cent for payments made in relation to income years commencing on or after 1 July 2012. Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Income Tax (Managed Investment Trust Withholding Tax) Amendment Bill 2012 5484

Income Tax (Managed Investment Trust Withholding Tax) Amendment Bill 2012

First Reading 5484 Second Reading 5484 10:39 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill amends the Income Tax (Managed Investment Trust Withholding Tax) Act 2008 to increase the managed investment trust (MIT) final withholding tax rate to 15 per cent to fund payments made in relation to income years commencing on or after 1 July 2012. Fund payments made by a managed investment trust to nonresident investors, subject to certain conditions, are currently subject to a managed investment trust withholding tax of 7.5 per cent. Increasing the final withholding tax on managed investment trust distributions from 7.5 per cent to 15 per cent better balances the need for Australia to be an attractive destination for foreign investment whilst still ensuring Australia receives a fair return on profits generated in Australia. The 15 per cent withholding tax for managed investment trusts is still competitive with rates in other countries, consistent with the government's original 2007 election commitment, and significantly lower than the 30 per cent non-final withholding tax that applied under the previous government. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Pay As You Go Withholding Non-compliance Tax Bill 2012 5485

Pay As You Go Withholding Non-compliance Tax Bill 2012

First Reading 5485 Second Reading 5485 10:41 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill accompanies schedule 1 to the Tax Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 2) Bill 2012 to make directors, and in limited circumstances their associates, liable to Pay As You Go (PAYG) withholding non-compliance tax. The tax liability arises where the company has failed to pay the commissioner amounts withheld under PAYG withholding arrangements and the director, or their associates, is entitled to a credit for amounts withheld from payments made by the company to them. This bill will impose a tax to reverse the economic benefit of a credit entitlement for directors and their associates. This produces a result consistent with the government’s election commitment. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Tax Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 3) Bill 2012 5485

Tax Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 3) Bill 2012

First Reading 5485 Second Reading 5485 10:43 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill amends various taxation laws to implement a range of improvements to Australia's tax laws. Schedule 1 will reduce the marginal tax rate that applies to nonresident workers employed under the government's Seasonal Labour Mobility Program to 15 per cent, administered as a final withholding tax. The change will apply with effect from 1 July 2012. The Seasonal Labour Mobility Program is an important element of the government's Pacific Engagement Strategy, a whole-of-government strategy designed to advance Australia's engagement in the Pacific. It builds on the successful Pacific Seasonal Worker Pilot Scheme, which concludes on 30 June 2012. This measure will significantly reduce compliance costs for seasonal workers participating in the program and simplify administration for the Australian Taxation Office by removing the requirement to lodge a tax return. The changes introduced in this bill will not impact Australian workers or nonresidents who are not seasonal workers. Schedule 2 amends the excise law, which currently treats the blending of fuels taxed at different rates as excise manufacture, which can only occur in licensed premises and requires payment of additional duty, unless an exemption applies. The amendments specify the circumstances where blending the same types of gaseous fuels, which have been taxed at different rates, is not treated as excise manufacture. The amendments also specify the circumstances where blending the same types of aviation fuels, which have been taxed at different rates, is not treated as excise manufacture. The blending issues were unintended consequences of two sets of legislation. First, the alternative fuels legislation, which provided for the phase-in of duty on gaseous transport fuels. The phase-in provided the possibility of inadvertent excise manufacture when fuel taxed at one rate is delivered into a tank containing fuel taxed at another rate. Second, the clean energy legislation applied an effective carbon price on aviation fuels and nontransport gaseous fuels using the fuel tax system. This provided the possibility of inadvertent excise manufacture when the carbon price, and hence the fuel tax, changed. The amendments ensure that the law works as intended. They have not been previously announced. They will have nil revenue impact. These amendments are intended to commence on 1 July 2012. Schedule 3 amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to ensure that the government's policy to deny access to the low-income tax offset for the unearned income of minors—such as dividends and interest—operates as intended. This measure was originally announced in the 2011-12 budget and applies from the 2011-12 income year. The amendments contained in this schedule will clarify that trust beneficiaries who are minors—that is, children under the age of 18—cannot receive the benefit of the low-income tax offset for unearned income earned through trust distributions. This will ensure consistency of treatment for all minors' unearned income—irrespective of whether it is earned directly or indirectly. Schedule 4 provides income tax exemptions for clean energy advance payments for recipients of ABSTUDY, the Veterans' Children Education Scheme, and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act Education and Training Scheme. This schedule will also implement income tax exemptions for payments in lieu of the clean energy advance and supplements to recipients of the Transitional Farm Family Payment and Exceptional Circumstances Relief Payment. An exemption for clean energy payments to other income support recipients, such as those to pensioners and Newstart recipients, has already been legislated and it is appropriate that all income support recipients be treated in the same manner. Schedule 5 makes the taxation of employment termination payments fairer by scaling back concessions for large termination payments that are not linked to hardship, such as golden handshakes. These large termination payments are typically received by senior executives as part of their overall remuneration. These amendments mean that, from 1 July 2012, the employment termination payment tax offset will only be available for that part of a termination payment that takes a person's total annual taxable income—including the termination payment—up to $180,000. Payments related to hardship, such as genuine redundancy, invalidity or the death of an employee, are not affected by this measure. Full details of these measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Income Tax (Seasonal Labour Mobility Program Withholding Tax) Bill 2012 5487

Income Tax (Seasonal Labour Mobility Program Withholding Tax) Bill 2012

First Reading 5487 Second Reading 5487 10:49 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill imposes withholding tax on income derived by nonresident workers participating in the Seasonal Labour Mobility Program. Seasonal workers will be subject to a final withholding tax at the rate of 15 per cent. The change will apply with effect from 1 July 2012. The Seasonal Labour Mobility Program is a whole-of-government strategy to advance Australia's engagement in the Pacific. These measures will increase the net amount of remittances to the Pacific Islander and East Timorese participants and reduce unnecessary compliance and administration costs. This rate of tax will only apply to holders of a special program visa—subclass 416—who are employed by 'approved employers' under the program. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Tax Laws Amendment (Income Tax Rates) Bill 2012 5487

Tax Laws Amendment (Income Tax Rates) Bill 2012

First Reading 5487 Second Reading 5487 00:00 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill amends the personal tax rates for the ordinary taxable income of nonresidents for tax purposes. This amendment will ensure that these rates continue to align with those of Australian resident taxpayers, as has historically been the case. From 1 July 2012, the first two personal marginal tax rate thresholds for nonresidents will be merged into a single threshold. The rate for this threshold will be linked to the second personal income tax rate for resident taxpayers. Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Corporations Amendment (Proxy Voting) Bill 2012 5488

Corporations Amendment (Proxy Voting) Bill 2012

First Reading 5488 Second Reading 5488 (Oxley—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (10:52): Mr RIPOLL 83E I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Today, I introduce a bill that will clarify a requirement in the Corporations Act 2001 relating to executive remuneration. During 2011, the government enacted reforms to strengthen Australia's remuneration framework through the Corporations Amendment (Improving Accountability on Director and Executive Remuneration) Act 2011. As part of these reforms, key management personnel and their closely related parties were prohibited from participating in the non-binding shareholder vote on remuneration. However, an exception was provided to allow the chair of an annual general meeting to vote undirected proxies in remuneration related resolutions where the shareholder provides informed consent for the chair to exercise the proxy. Some confusion has arisen about whether this exception applies to the non-binding vote on remuneration. The government's intention on this matter is clearly set out in the act passed last year and its associated extrinsic material. Additionally, ASIC announced last year that if companies are concerned about this issue, they could apply to ASIC for relief. However, for the avoidance of any doubt, the amendment in this bill makes it clear that this exception also applies to the non-binding vote required under section 250R. While it has always been the case that the chair could have voted undirected proxies where the shareholder provides informed consent, the government has made this clarification, so that no harm or cost or disruption was caused from any confusion arising from the original Corporations Amendment (Improving Accountability on Director and Executive Remuneration) Act 2011. There is no doubt that at no time was any company chair at risk as a result of any confusion surrounding the original amendment. However, the government has responded to and worked closely with stakeholders to ensure that this bill makes it absolutely clear that the exception allowing the chair to vote undirected proxies also applies to the non-binding vote on remuneration. Finally, I can inform the chamber that the appropriate approval of the Ministerial Council for Corporations has been obtained as required under the Corporations Agreement. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 5488 COMMITTEES Public Works Committee 5488 Reference 5488 (Brand—Special Minister of State and Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) (10:55): Mr GRAY 8W5 I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: new National Archives Preservation Facility and refurbishment of the existing Mitchell facility for the National Archives of Australia at Mitchell, Australian Capital Territory. The National Archives of Australia preserves valuable Commonwealth records as part of archival resources of Australia and makes them available to present and future generations of Australians. The National Archives presently leases a number of facilities across Australia, with the largest record storage facilities being located at Mitchell and Greenway in the Australian Capital Territory, Chester Hill in New South Wales and East Burwood in Victoria. A comprehensive strategic planning study undertaken by the National Archives on the existing record storage capacity and capability against projected future requirements confirmed that repositories were operating at close to full capacity. Current estimation is that the National Archives will be full in 2015. A 2010 survey of Commonwealth agencies identified a backlog of 165 shelf-kilometres of archives that will in time be transferred to the National Archives. The National Archives preservation facility and Mitchell refurbishment projects were developed under the two-stage capital works budget approval process. The new National Archives preservation facility and refurbished existing Mitchell facility, together with an internally funded upgrade of the Archive's Sydney facility, will provide gross space until 2031. The Greenway facility in the ACT will be relinquished. The new facility will enable the National Archives to partly address the 165 shelf-kilometre backlog, provide sufficient storage for growth until 2031, provide greater capacity and capability for a digital repository, and provide improved preservation and conservation work areas. Subject to parliamentary approval, a multistage procurement process will commence in 2013. The successful developer will commence work on construction of the new facility and the integrated fit-out in 2015, with occupancy planned for mid-2016. Also, subject to parliamentary approval, work will commence on the existing Mitchell facility refurbishment in 2017 and be completed in 2019. I commend the motion to the House. Question agreed to. Public Works Committee 5489 Reference 5489 (Brand—Special Minister of State and Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) (10:57): Mr GRAY 8W5 I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Base Infrastructure Works Project under the Base Security Improvement Program. Security at defence sites remains a high priority for the government and for the Department of Defence. Defence continues to review and improve its protective security arrangements to ensure that its most valuable asset, people, remain safe and able to conduct their important role. The $205.52 million base infrastructure works project is part of the wider defence base security improvement program. It proposes to deliver a range of infrastructure enhancements to 16 sites. This project is part of Defence's response to the government's 2009 review of defence protective security arrangements. These enhancements have been designed specifically to reduce the risk to defence personnel from the possibility of a terrorist attack. Protective measures include the provision of alert and surveillance systems, electronic access control and detection systems, improved command monitoring and management facilities, and enhanced entrance and reception facilities. The infrastructure solution delivered by this project has been developed in conjunction with a range of other protective security improvements which are being implemented across the entire defence estate in Australia. These include legislative changes, policy and procedural improvements, the introduction of armed response capabilities at some sites and other minor infrastructure works. Defence is working closely with local planning authorities as well as the relevant roads and traffic authorities to ensure that any disruptions during construction are minimised. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is scheduled to begin in late 2012 and is planned to be completed by mid-2015. I commend the motion to the House. Question agreed to. Infrastructure and Communications Committee 5490 Report 5490 10:59 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield On behalf of the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications, I present the committee’s Advisory report on the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Bill 2012, Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2012, Shipping Registration Amendment (Australian International Shipping Register) Bill 2012, Shipping Reform (Tax Incentives) Bill 2012 and Tax Laws Amendment (Shipping Reform) Bill 2012, incorporating a dissenting report together with the minutes of the proceedings. In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper. Mr CHAMPION HW9 by leave—These bills form part of the federal government's Stronger Shipping for a Stronger Economy package and include tax reforms to promote global competitiveness of this industry, a new regulatory framework for coastal trade with a transparent licensing system, the establishment of an Australian International Shipping Register to encourage Australian businesses to participate in international trade and the establishment of a Maritime Workforce Development Forum to advance maritime skills and training priorities. In 2008 the former Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government recommended the creation of a new policy framework for Australian coastal shipping in the Rebuilding Australia's coastal shipping industry report. In 2010 the Department of Infrastructure and Transport released a discussion paper for stakeholder comment on those reforms. And in late 2011 to early 2012 the Department of Infrastructure and Transport and the Department of the Treasury released exposure drafts of the bills in further consultation with industry on proposed reforms. As mentioned earlier, the five bills were introduced on 22 March, 2012. The inquiry had to look at not all that had come before it but just at the legislation proposed before the House. We did not intend to, and I do not think it is sensible to, go over ground that had been well examined by previous inquiries. The submissions we sought were to the extent to which any concerns were raised regarding the consultation process as reflected in the legislation introduced. We received 31 submissions from shipping companies, petroleum companies, union representatives, industry representative bodies, the Department of Infrastructure and Transport and the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. The committee also sought a supplementary submission from the Department of Infrastructure and Transport based on the issues brought up in some of those submissions. There were some general issues raised with the committee. These were mainly concerns regarding industry competitiveness and substitution, the limiting of foreign vessels on coastal trades and the level of consultation, which seems somewhat surprising given that this issue has been examined not just in inquiries, as I outlined before, but also originally in the Ships of shame report back in the early nineties. It is a little surprising that the issue of consultation was raised. Also raised were requests for a Productivity Commission inquiry. There are five bills in this package. They are all significant, they are before the House and they are well canvassed by the report. Given that we intend to have a fairly dynamic debate in the House I do not propose to go over the content of all those bills. There is a minority report which gives some indication that all of these bills will be contested vigorously on a fairly partisan basis, so I am sure the House will hear all of the arguments more than once before the end of this process. However, I acknowledge the goodwill of the deputy chair and opposition members of the committee. Despite their dissenting report they were cooperative and decent in the process and the procedures of the committee. It is always a pleasure to work with the deputy chair. I acknowledge the work of our predecessors in the 42nd Parliament for establishing the foundation for these Australian coastal shipping reforms. We understand that it is not the committee's role in considering legislation to replicate the entire policy debate but simply to consider the effectiveness of the legislation in achieving the stated objectives and improving and establishing a vibrant Australian shipping industry. The committee outlines in the report some proposed areas of reform that could be included in regulations that are yet to be made public or considered in future reviews of the legislation. The committee's majority believes that the stated aims and reforms in these bills are desirable and that they are in the national interest, and we recommend that they be passed. I thank the House for its time. 11:06 Mr NEVILLE KV5 Hinkler by leave—I thank the previous speaker for his kind words. Although we do not always agree as a committee there is a very civil atmosphere there and we seek by different routes to come to conclusions on legislation that are for the betterment of the Australian people. I would like to make a few comments on the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications advisory report into the five bills comprising this shipping package. This is not the first time this committee has looked into coastal shipping in Australia. In 2008, I was part of an inquiry that looked into coastal shipping policy and regulation, chaired by the member for Ballarat, Catherine King. The coalition and the government are of one voice when we recognise the need to have a strong coastal shipping industry—that has never been in dispute. For an island nation such as Australia, our maritime industry will form a vital part of our national and international transport network. The importance of shipping to our interstate, intrastate and international trade is significant. I understand that shipping carries 99 per cent of international cargo by weight and 75 per cent by value. However, domestically—and this is quite a shocking figure—ships carry only around a quarter of freight. It is no secret that our domestic freight task is going to increase dramatically over the next 20 years with the mining boom and various things. Some estimates indicate that it may treble along the eastern seaboard. Obviously shipping has to play a greater role in moving domestic freight if we are to take the pressure off our congested national highways and make the best of our rail system. At present, however, the Australian flagged shipping industry is in decline. It has been regularly noted that the number of Australian flagged vessels has dropped from 55 in 1995 to 22 today. It is disappointing that the inquiry into such a broad and complicated area was dealt with in a truncated way. In saying that, that is not a criticism of the chair or the previous chair or the government as such but of the process. This is a very important area and perhaps it should have been subject to a more wide-ranging inquiry before we got down to legislation. These bills, if passed, will have a very serious impact on the coastal shipping industry in Australia. It is only right that the committee should have given adequate time to consider the serious implications and to hear from the industry stakeholders. I am a great believer you should always have your witnesses before you. This is not the first time that the committee has had a limited opportunity to investigate bills. It is incredibly disappointing that we have such a constrained inquiry process under what is called the 'new paradigm', which was supposed to give House committees greater not lesser scope to investigate matters. As I said earlier, I support the shipping industry in Australia playing a greater role in interstate and intrastate trade. This has been the consistent position of the Liberal and National parties for quite some time. However, the coalition members of the House committee have recommended that the bills not be passed. The first objective listed in clause 3(1) of the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Bill 2012 is that the regulatory framework promote a viable shipping industry that contributes to the broader Australian economy. We are not convinced that this objective will be realised by the packages in their current form. In fact, we are concerned that the opposite may result. The regulatory impact statement on the bills states at paragraph 156: With a tighter cabotage policy, Australian shippers of domestic freight incur higher costs from lost opportunities to take advantage of cheap transport in passing foreign ships and having to pay for empty repositioning voyages by domestic ships. Part of the cost of empty voyages by foreign ships may be passed on in the form of higher freight rates to the Australian exporters and importers that employ the foreign ships to carry their international cargoes. However, as noted by the Australian Logistics Council, no attempt is made in the regulatory impact statement to quantify this. The Cement Industry Federation and other bulk commodity users have expressed their fear that the legislation will push up freight rates to such an extent that, when combined with other government policies such as the carbon tax, it will make it more attractive to import products such as cement and sugar from overseas. As I come from a sugar-growing area, you can understand my double concern. Additionally, as noted by the minister in his second reading speech: We are committed to aligning Australian productivity practices with the best in the world. To do this, we will need a compact between industry and unions. This compact must include changes to work practices, a review of safe manning levels and the use of riding gangs on coastal vessels. The minister has said that this is an essential element to make our shipping industry viable. The industry compact is yet to be concluded, so we have rushed ahead with this inquiry before we know the nature of the compact. Without seeing the principles agreed to by the Maritime Union of Australia and the Australian shipping industry it is difficult to assess whether the minister's stated goal will be achieved. If the compact is such a critical part of the package then surely it should be fully developed, agreed to and made public before the bills are debated. Only then will we be able to assess the matter on its merits. A number of shipping companies and organisations have also raised practical concerns with the package. After considering their comments I believe that the new scheme will unnecessarily add to the industry's regulatory burden and at the same time will not achieve its stated goals of revitalising our shipping industry. The temporary licence system established by the coastal trading bill seems to increase complexities and red tape for business and, because of this, it does not appear to be an improvement on the current permit system contained in the Navigation Act. The requirement for a minimum of five voyages in a 12-month period before an application for a temporary licence can be submitted and the requirement to provide the detailed particulars of each such voyage will certainly add to industry's regulatory burden. While a variation is possible, again, you have to vary a minimum of five voyages. Why this arbitrary limit has been added to the other five initial voyages is unclear and will, obviously, increase the paperwork for the industry. These are only some of the technical issues that were raised in submissions to the committee. In conclusion, I repeat that the Liberal and National parties are keen to support the Australian shipping industry. It must play an increasing role in our domestic freight task. However, we sincerely believe that this package is flawed to such an extent that it will not meet the objectives and, as such, we have recommended that the package not be passed. BILLS 5493 BILLS Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012 5493

Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012

Second Reading 5493 11:16 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin I rise to speak briefly in support of the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012. Since coming into government Labor has done much to assist children in their development and to assist parents in raising them. The government increased the childcare rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent, and it now stands at $7,500. It has increased family payments, most recently in this year's budget, with the schoolkids education bonus of $410 for each primary school child and $820 for each secondary school child. It has also increased family tax benefit part A payments up to $600 per family. Also in this year's budget the government added another $55.7 million for the Home Interaction Program for Parents and Youngsters. That is a very important program which very directly targets young mums and their children. Labor has done that because it wants every child to have the best start in life. There has been considerable research which shows that the support given to children should start from the day a child is born, because early child development is crucial to a child's future. This legislation is another initiative that will help children with their development. Parental care in the very early days can be so important to the child and make so much difference in later life. The dad and partner pay bill enables eligible dads and partners to take leave from their work to support mum and baby and to receive two weeks pay at the minimum wage rate, that is, the same rate as that which applies to the Paid Parental Leave scheme and which currently is around $590 per week. This will be a welcome measure for the parents of a newborn and particularly so for first-time parents for whom parenting is a new experience. The birth of a child is a special time for families. For the mum it can also be extremely demanding, tiring and, at times, stressful. This can be more so the case if there were complications with the birth for either the mum or the baby, or other medical conditions that may arise after the birth. All births are different and the level of support and care needed by both mother and baby will differ. But support and care is needed and the two weeks of paid leave available to the dad or partner enables that care to be provided. The support will be particularly welcomed by parents who, for whatever reason, do not have other close family members nearby to lend a hand if the need arises. Of course, this legislation complements and supplements the Paid Parental Leave scheme legislation introduced by the Labor government in 2011. That legislation provides 18 weeks of parental leave at the minimum weekly wage rate. It is a provision that the opposition claim they will increase, and they say they will do so by taxing the largest companies in this country with an extra 1.5 per cent tax. But they did nothing about it in their last 12 months in office. In fact I understand many of them in the past have opposed a paid parental leave scheme. It is interesting that, after this government brought in the 18 weeks Paid Parental Leave scheme, the opposition then say that they will go one better. It is a complete turnaround from where they were when in government. Nevertheless that is what they say, and I understand that they will also be opposing this legislation today. The new assistance which will be available from 1 January 2013 effectively brings the Paid Parental Leave scheme to 20 weeks. The payment will be made by the Department of Human Services and not by the employer. The payment is in line with the recommendations of the Productivity Commission when it handed down its report on this matter. Finally, the dad and partner pay will be available to eligible full-time, part-time, casual, seasonal, contract and self-employed workers. Like the parental leave pay, this new payment will be available during the first 12 months after the birth or adoption of a child. This is good legislation. It is legislation that, once again, adds support to families, and I commend it to the House. 11:21 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh I too rise to support this very important bill, the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012. This is a very good bill. This is true Labor reform where we give the opportunity to parents to better their lives and to ensure that, during those very, very important moments after the birth of a child, dad can be home for a short time to do all he can to bond with the child, to assist the mother and to do all the things that parents do for their newborn. The purpose of the bill, as I said, is to extend the government's provisions to new parents through the creation of a new payment, called 'dad and partner pay,' for eligible working fathers and other eligible partners. That will be available from 1 January 2013. The dad and partner pay will be set at the rate of the national minimum wage, at the same rate per week as paid parental leave. The government's new dad and partner payment will be available to eligible people from all walks of life—retail workers, hospitality workers, office workers, factory workers, construction workers, farmers, small business owners and teachers, just to name a few. It will be available to eligible full-time, part-time, casual, seasonal, contract and self-employed workers. The dad and partner payment will be available to the father of the child; the partner of the child's birth mother; an adoptive parent of the child; or a person who satisfies circumstances prescribed by the paid parental leave rules 2010 exceptional circumstances. The eligibility criteria for dad and partner pay, including the income test, work test and residency requirements, will be consistent with those applying to parental leave pay. This is a great addition to the package of programs and payments that Labor has put in place to help working families. It is very important as it assists parents, as I said, in those very early days of a child's life, a very important stage. This package is there to assist fathers in those very important days to be able to be at home, to bond with the child, to help with that child and to be a part of that very important development of that child's first few weeks. There are probably no more special or magical times in our lives than at the birth of a new baby, than the addition to our families of a beautiful new child. Many of us in this place have been through that period and we know that it is one of the greatest times in our lives. I do not think there is anything that beats that moment when you come home with that newborn child. Many of us here have been through that and would understand what I am saying. There is probably no other time in our lives when the overwhelming sense that we experience is joy and hope for the future, that of our families and of the child itself. There are probably no more difficult and draining times in our lives than those first few days and weeks—I am sure that many of us would say months—when the time required to care for a newborn child is at its dizziest height, around the clock, 24/7. Those first, wonderful, magical days and weeks are the focus of this bill, providing the encouragement and help that this Labor government wants to give to new dads and partners to fully participate, help their loved one and bond with their new child. I am sure that many MPs here in this place who have had children know the strain of the parents, especially the mother, who needs to take care of that newborn child alone. This measure will assist in that regard. I am certain that many women would see the potential help of their partner a godsend—help with the child, help around the house, help in venturing out into the world for provisions, help in managing the flow of relatives and well-wishers and, quite simply, help in getting some sleep. I have two wonderful boys, who are now adults. When they were born our finances were such that I could not have time off work. At that time I was driving taxis. I did that full time for eight years. But I managed to change my shift around and worked the so-called 'drag shift,' from 6 pm to 6 am. I then came home and tried to give Wendy, my wife, a bit of a rest so that I could do something with our child. I remember how difficult that time was. It was a period when—and still is even today for many people—finances were not that good, when people still had to go to work and life still continued. This measure will assist those people. I note that the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs is here in the chamber. I congratulate her on such a great bill that will assist families and parents to give them some sort of help during those very important moments when that child is brought home. I commend the bill to the House. 11:26 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga I thank all members for their contribution to the debate on this very important bill, the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012. As the member for Hindmarsh, I think, has so eloquently put it, this is a very special time in the lives of mums and dads. We hope that this extra paid time will give dads the sort of help and support that the member for Hindmarsh has put so well. This bill extends the government's Paid Parental Leave scheme to include a new payment, the so-called dad and partner pay, for eligible working fathers and partners. It took this Labor government to deliver this bill and Australia's first national Paid Parental Leave scheme. It gives working parents, mums and dads, the security to stay at home with their newborn babies in what we all know are those very critical, early months of a child's development. I can inform the House that more than 150,000 families across the country have already taken up this government's historic Paid Parental Leave scheme. Dads will now be able to have the chance to have some time off work as well. Dad and partner pay will give eligible fathers and partners two weeks pay, at the rate of the national minimum wage. Our Paid Parental Leave scheme, now with dad and partner pay added, will of course further reduce the pressures on new parents when their children are very small. It also, very importantly, gives both parents the opportunity to share in the care of their newborn baby. It is the case that so many dads want to do that, which is a great thing. It also lets parents make their own choices about how they want to balance their work and family arrangements. Another important thing about our Paid Parental Leave scheme is that it delivers real benefits to business. It is funded by the government and paid through employers, so employers can stay in touch with their long-term employees while they are taking time off to care for a new baby. I will just remind the House that this was the approach recommended by the Productivity Commission after an extensive inquiry. This does make sure that our Paid Parental Leave scheme is a workplace entitlement not a welfare payment and, as I said, it very importantly makes sure that employers keep in touch with their valuable skilled staff. That is why I am very disappointed that the Liberals, yet again, are trying to wreck our Paid Parental Leave scheme that so many people, parents and employers, are already benefiting from right around Australia. We do not support the foreshadowed Liberals' amendments that would undermine the link between women taking time off to have a baby and their workplace. The Liberals tried this once before in here. It got voted down. Now they are going to try and wreck a scheme that is working very, very well. This demonstrates this opposition's view of Paid Parental Leave. They are trying to upset a paid parental leave scheme that is working very well. By contrast, they have put forward a proposal themselves for paid parental leave that certainly does not have the support of their own party room. It would give wealthy women—women earning $200,000, $500,000 or $1 million—$75,000 to have a baby, if Mr Abbott had his own way, while working families would have to make do on the minimum wage. We know that there is a lot of conflict about this in the Liberal party room. We know that they have a massive $70 billion budget black hole that they have to fill, and yet they want to spend billions on paying very, very wealthy women, giving them $75,000 to have a baby. We will not be supporting the foreshadowed amendment. It will undermine our Paid Parental Leave scheme, which is working extremely well for parents and for employers. And I think this proposed amendment from the opposition just shows once again how out of touch they are with the needs of working families. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Menzies has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to. Question negatived. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Consideration in Detail 5497 11:33 Mr BILLSON 1K6 Dunkley I ask leave to move opposition amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together. Leave granted. Mr BILLSON 1K6 The amendments that I will put on behalf of the coalition are very sensible amendments. I am reminded, in listening to the minister, that I think Bill Kelty was right—sometimes the truth will do. There is nothing of the kind in the amendments that the coalition is putting forward that does in any way undermine the government's scheme. We have some well argued and clearly articulated views that people's costs do not default to a minimum wage when a child arrives—people's household expenses continue—and that the coalition's paid parental leave proposal is responsive to that real-life reality, giving real money and real time to deal with the real expenses families face. But, given that the government is not receptive to the coalition's improved and far superior paid parental leave scheme, we are seeing what we can do to improve the scheme that is currently operating. The coalition's amendments seek to do that by relieving a completely unnecessary and unjustified burden on employers, particularly small employers, to act as the pay clerks for the government's scheme. The amendments that we have put forward seek to vary the current default position under the Paid Parental Leave Act where employers, in the majority of cases, are mandated by the department secretary to carry out the Commonwealth's paid parental leave pay-clerk responsibilities. The amendments would change this so that employers would only pay PPL payments when both the employer and the employee consented to the employer making those payments. What that means is that—for an employer with the resources, the size of operation or, in some cases, with a scheme of their own already where they are keen and in a position to do the government's work for it in making these payments, and where the employee feels that that is in their interests as well—that arrangement can take place. That opt-in arrangement would see an employer complete the paperwork and verify eligibility in partnership with the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth would confirm eligibility and then interact with the employer and then set around a number of payments—a number of payments that in fact probably total about 20 transactions. I will just hold up for the benefit of the chamber and for those who are interested a flowchart of what would actually take place. There are almost 20 separate transactions that an employer is obliged to be engaged with once it has been confirmed that an employee is eligible for the government funded, government determined PPL payments. Our argument is this. We know there is a significant increase in small business insolvencies, with time-scarce small business employers working very hard to stay afloat. They are cash poor, in many cases, and without the organisational infrastructure to change their payroll system so that this payment coming through the Commonwealth mimics a payment as if it were made by employers but then is not subject to many of the other requirements that come along with a payroll system. Our view is that not all employers are inclined to do that work or are in a position to carry it out without considerable and unnecessary cost and compliance risk. Once they have been determined by the secretary to be obliged to carry out this role, if they do not carry out that responsibility a substantial fine is available to the government to penalise them and that is an additional compliance risk for an employer. I was very interested to hear in the second reading debate a number of the Labor members talk about how well the scheme was going because so many employers were involved. What an Orwellian contribution that was. They do not have a choice—they are obliged to be involved. To use that argument to say there is no problem here, there is no opportunity for improvement, is absolute nonsense. In relation to the minister's argument that this would, in her words, 'undermine the scheme' encourages me to go back— (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER BU8 Order! I understand the honourable member has not in fact moved the amendments but had been granted leave to move the amendments. I invite the member for Dunkley to formally move the amendments. 11:38 Mr BILLSON 1K6 Dunkley I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (after line 3), at the end of the table, add: (2) Schedule 2, page 58 (after line 25), at the end of the Schedule, add: Part 3—Amendments to reduce the compliance burden for employers Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 36 Section 4 (fourth paragraph under the heading " Chapter 3—Payment of parental leave pay ") Repeal the paragraph, substitute: 37 Section 6 (definition of employer determination decision ) Repeal the definition. 38 Section 6 (definition of subject to review ) Repeal the definition. 39 Section 6 (definition of transfer day ) Omit "(3),". 40 Subsection 64(1) (note) Omit "Sections 93 and 94 affect", substitute "Section 94 affects". 41 Section 83 Omit "is being reviewed or". 42 Subsection 84(3) Repeal the subsection. 43 Subsection 85(1) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (1) This section applies if both of the following apply:    (a) the Secretary is required to pay an instalment to a person under subsection 84(4) (which deals with payment of instalments where an employer determination is revoked);    (b) the employer determination made for the person and the person's employer has never come into force. 44 Subsection 85(3) Omit "paragraph (1)(a) or (b)", substitute "subsection (1)". 45 Section 93 Repeal the section. 46 Section 100 Omit the section, substitute: 100 Guide to this Part 47 Subsection 101(1) Omit "Secretary must", substitute "Secretary may". 48 Paragraphs 101(b) and (c) Repeal the paragraphs, substitute: (b) both the person and the employer have consented in the claim to the employer paying instalments to the person; and 49 Paragraph 101(f) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: ; and (f) the employer determination is made on or before the day on which the payability determination referred to in paragraph (a) is made. 50 Subsections 101(2) and (3) Repeal the subsections. 51 Subsection 101(4) Omit all the words after and including "of all or any", substitute "that the employer is not a fit and proper person". 52 Subsection 102(5) After "a person", insert "and the person's employer". 53 Subsection 102(5) Omit "the person a", substitute "them a". 54 Subsection 102(5) Omit "the person of", substitute "them of". 55 Section 103 Before "Within", insert "(1)". 56 Section 103 Omit all the words after and including "do one of", substitute "give the Secretary a written notice (the acceptance notice) that complies with section 104". 57 Section 103 (note) Repeal the note. 58 At the end of section 103 Add: (2) The employer may, at any time, by written notice given to the Secretary, withdraw the acceptance notice. 59 Subsection 104(5) Repeal the subsection. 60 Sections 105 and 106 Repeal the sections. 61 Subsection 107(1) Omit "or (3)". 62 Subsection 107(2) Omit "or a compliance notice given under section 157". 63 Subsection 107(3) Repeal the subsection. 64 Subsection 108(1) (table item 2) Omit "as required by a compliance notice given for a contravention of section 103", substitute "within the time required under subsection 103(1) or has, by written notice given to the Secretary, withdrawn the acceptance notice for the employer determination". 65 Subsection 108(6) Repeal the subsection. 66 Division 4 of Part 3-5 Repeal the Division. 67 Section 146 (table items 10 and 11) Repeal the items. 68 Subsection 157(1) Repeal the subsection, substitute: Compliance notice given by Secretary (1) This section applies if the Secretary reasonably believes that a person has contravened subsection 82(2) (which deals with notifying the Secretary if certain events happen). 69 Paragraphs 159(1)(b) and (c) Repeal the paragraphs. 70 Section 202 (fifth paragraph of the Guide to Part 5-1) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: 71 Subsection 203(2) Repeal the subsection. 72 Subsection 205(1) Omit ", 207". 73 Paragraph 206(1)(b) Repeal the paragraph. 74 Section 207 Repeal the section. 75 Subsection 209(2) Omit ", other than an application under section 207 (which deals with application for review of employer determination decisions),". 76 Paragraphs 210(2)(a) and (b) Omit "an employer determination decision or". 77 Paragraphs 212(1)(c) Repeal the paragraph. 78 Paragraph 212(1)(d) Omit "any other", substitute "a". 79 Section 213 Omit "employer determination decisions and". 80 Subparagraphs 215(2)(a)(vi) and (vii) Repeal the subparagraphs. 81 Paragraphs 223(1)(a) to (d) Omit "an employer determination decision or". 82 Subsection 224(1) Repeal the subsection. 83 Subsection 224(3) Omit "(1) or". 84 Paragraph 225(2)(b) Repeal the paragraph. As Bill Kelty said, the truth will often do. The changes that we are foreshadowing in these amendments do not in any way alter people's eligibility. They do not in any way compromise what the minister boasts about as the success of the scheme. In fact, what was ironic was that in the early phase of the scheme, the option that we are putting forward was the way the scheme operated. So for the first six months this is what happened: these payments were paid by Centrelink through the Family Assistance Office directly to eligible employees and it was on that basis the government went around boasting about the success of the scheme. All we are saying is let the success continue. If that is the benchmark, make that available to employers. But for those where the employee and the employer wish to have the employer handle the payment then so be it. We are not objecting to that. If that is people's desire then these amendments facilitate that. I remember last time this debate was held that one of the people brought out in support of the current arrangements was Sony, a very substantial international corporation with more people in their pay office than most small businesses have in their entire enterprise. They had an existing paid parental leave scheme, so it was a matter of simply bolting on the extra cash from the Commonwealth and they were more than happy to do that. I say good luck to them, but not every business in Australia is Sony. Not everyone is in a position to carry out that work and not everyone is desirous of carrying out that work, either as an employer or as an employee, but if they are, let them do that work on behalf of the Commonwealth. Let employers and employees who are eligible for PPL payments opt in to have the employer pay those payments. The minister says this is part of the staying in touch regime. Again, I would draw her attention to the fact that the staying in touch provisions that are available under the legislation the government has introduced are not being altered at all. We are not stopping that. We see the value in that. Where there might be some change in technology or an important occasion within the workplace where someone on a period of paid parental leave is invited to come back in and be a part of the workplace because of something of significance, we are not opposed to that. What this is about is who organises the back of house work to see some digits appear in an electronic bank statement. This is not mid last century, when you came in and got your pay cheque off somebody. There is no physical engagement with this payment—it is an electronic funds transfer. So how that adds to the quality of the relationship between an employer and an employee is beyond me. I am quite certain most workplaces I have been involved with and many I have talked to, rather than turn their minds to more than 20 engagements in transactions with the risk of fines if they get them wrong, would rather spend their time talking with the person eligible for paid parental leave about how things are going, how the microhuman is going, how the family is going and how excited people are about coming back, even organising a bouquet of flowers, not having this the red tape burden that would distract the employer from that work. The DEPUTY SPEAKER BU8 I ask the member for Dunkley not to make excessive use of props. He has referred to the props sufficient times. Mr BILLSON 1K6 Sorry, I thought twice was not excessive in my second contribution, but I thank you for your counsel. I will put the props to one side, waving them to show you how many points of engagement there are. My point is the payment process is a financial transaction and the back of house work in the first six months of this scheme was done by the Commonwealth, and we believe that should continue unless the employer and the employee want it to be different. These amendments bring about that change. They actually inoculate against the risk that was identified in the Productivity Commission report, that the biggest danger employers were facing was the risk of discrimination towards women of reproductive ages because of imposts the scheme might impose upon them, not as it currently stands but if there was work and coordinated effort to require employers to push up the contribution with their own funds and their own effort. The other thing this debate offers is an opportunity for the government to correct a broken promise. The Prime Minister, then in another shadow ministerial role, said: Labor will not support a system that imposes additional financial burdens or administrative complexity on small businesses or in any way acts as a discouragement to the employment of women. Yet what we have here in the way this scheme is designed are those additional financial and administrative burdens and complexities—the very thing that was promised by Labor not to be imposed on small business. Well, here is a chance for the government to honour a commitment by rectifying yet another broken promise. (Extension of time granted) That was what the government committed to when in opposition. That promise was broken. We have tried on a number of occasions to allow the government to keep the faith with those to whom it had made that commitment and here is another opportunity for that today, to actually ensure that the system does not impose additional financial burdens or administrative complexity on small businesses. What has changed? Not much, according to a then Labor minister, Jan Jarratt, when she wrote to the previous—two ago—small business minister asking: 'Why don't you embrace what the coalition is doing? Why don't you look at even an opt-in or an opt-out proposal?' That is what Labor in Queensland were advocating, so it is nice to know that even some within the Labor movement thought what was being proposed was a perfectly sensible measure, along with the very long list of industry organisations, particularly small business groups, that want to be cut some slack here and to have the red tape burden reduced. That is exactly what these amendments seek to achieve. The big organisations have the resources and are in a position to carry out a pay clerk role on behalf of the Commonwealth with no change whatsoever to the eligibility criteria or the payments that might be available to eligibility recipients. It requires no change whatsoever, none of the undermining that the minister would have you believe exists. It is about who does the back of house work so that some digits appear on a bank statement. The Commonwealth has done that before and did it well. It used to boast about the success of the scheme. We think that should continue. And guess what is in the bill we are debating today? Those payments to the dads. And guess who is processing those? The Family Assistance Office at Centrelink. So the machinery that we are advocating should be available to a small employer—the minister argues it undermines the very scheme and then she launches into an attack on the coalition; her argument is absolute nonsense—is the very machinery that is being used to make another payment relating to the Paid Parental Leave scheme. And guess what happens in the event that the employer is insolvent or at some risk and the department secretary chooses not to decree that they be the ones carrying out the pay clerk role? The machinery that we are arguing should be available more broadly kicks in. So this is not some transformational change; this is a sensible, completely pragmatic, very constructive and positive proposal to relieve an unnecessary and unjustified small business compliance and red tape burden in particular. The government, when in opposition, made a commitment that it would not do this. When in government, Queensland Labor said that what you have done is not helpful for small business so why don't you do what the coalition is proposing. The Productivity Commission said there are a range of things that need to be weighed here but please do not place new barriers in front of employers employing women of a reproductive age such as additional cost and compliance burdens. There is a shopping list on this flow chart. I will not wave it around again but I will quickly summarise the action steps that are needed in the minister's department's own material about the considerable work that is involved for an employer in these exercises. It says employers are not required to separately identify payments—but they are not required to make a superannuation contribution, so we should decouple that. It says it is not supposed to trigger any payroll action, so decouple that as well. It says there is no need for a separate bank account but you need to make sure you can account for every dollar that comes in. It says there are processes required for ensuring that people are eligible—and so on and so on. So this is not without a considerable amount of burden on an employer at a time when there is quite a lot of mutual adjustment needed in a workplace where one of your team members has the good fortune of looking forward to becoming a parent. That is a time of considerable mutual adjustment for the person anticipating the child and also for the workplace. So why add to that with this needless, useless and unnecessary red tape burden? Well, there is a reason—and the ACTU belled the cat on it. 'If the coalition amendments got up,' the ACTU warned, 'it would restrict unions' capacity to improve and enforce PPL in workplaces.' So this is not really about the integrity of the scheme. It is not about any suggestion that we are undermining. This is about giving small business employers a break. The only argument that runs against that is the union saying that, with this machinery in place, it is easier for the union movement to fit up employers with additional costs and additional obligations. The objections to these measures should be seen for what they are. (Time expired) 11:48 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga As I indicated, the government will not be supporting this amendment. I am pleased that the member for Dunkley referred in his remarks to the Productivity Commission report, a very significant piece of work that was done for the government on paid parental leave. Unfortunately, the member for Dunkley did not go to the recommendation of the Productivity Commission's report on the employer role. The recommendation considered that, even though it was recommending a government funded scheme, the delivery mechanism should demonstrate that paid parental leave is a normal feature of employment arrangements like other workplace entitlements such as annual leave. They recommended the role for employers in the scheme that the government has implemented because they considered that it would benefit business. So if the member for Dunkley was being truthful today in the debate he would go to the recommendations in the Productivity Commission report that go to exactly this point. The potential administrative burden on business, including small business, was in fact taken into account by the Productivity Commission in their detailed analysis. Once they had done that analysis they nevertheless recommended that employers make these payments for their long-term employees. I repeat again that the reason they did that was to keep a connection between an employer and an employee when the employee takes time off to have a baby. The Productivity Commission itself found that it would help employers—I think it is important that we do listen to the advice from the Productivity Commission in this regard—retain valuable and skilled staff. I want to go to the feedback that we have had from a range of sources indicating that the employer role in the Paid Parental Leave scheme is in fact operating smoothly and that it would not be helpful to the smooth operation of the scheme for the opposition's amendment to get up. Employer funding arrangements are working well. We have had few complaints about the scheme either from parents or employers and the early findings are that employers are not finding their role burdensome. I will just go to the preliminary advice from an employer survey conducted in the first six months of the employer role. It says that the scheme has been relatively easy for organisations to implement. Employers have found that sourcing information is easy, information was accurate and helpful and that most employers, regardless of their business size, said it was easy to organise payments. So I think in these debates it is important that we look at the facts rather than the rant that we heard from the member for Dunkley. If I can go to some of the figures, since the scheme started on 1 January 2011 we have, as I said, had more than 150,000 expectant and new parents applying for paid parental leave. We have a lot of people who have actually finished receiving their payment and others, of course, currently receiving it or waiting for their babies to be born. More than 29,000 employers have registered for the scheme. Around 43 per cent of those are small businesses—12½ thousand. Around 5,000 registered employers have opted to provide parental leave pay to employees that they are not required to pay it to. These would be employees who are working for them on a shorter term basis, for example. Around a third of those 5,000 are in fact small business, so all of the evidence would suggest that businesses are not finding it difficult; in fact, quite the reverse. That is why it is so disappointing to have this amendment moved. It was lost once. I hope it will be lost again, because the scheme is working very well for parents and working very well for employers. We hope that the scheme can continue to work very well for both parents and employers. That is why the government introduced it, and the government will be opposing the amendment. 11:53 Mr BILLSON 1K6 Dunkley The minister referred to the Productivity Commission report about how things will help employers. Just to assist the House, and for those listening, the Productivity Commission said a paid parental leave scheme would help employers. There is nothing whatsoever in the report that says that forcing employers to pay the payments would help employers. There is nothing of the kind in it at all. There is an on-balance recommendation in the report, if I could help the minister, that signalling—that is, some effort to characterise the nature of the payment—would somehow justify the imposition of the burden. I just correct that information for the House, because there was quite a mangulation of what is actually in the Productivity Commission report dressed up as a justification for the current arrangements. The signalling is supposed to say that because a number appears in a bank account people will immediately understand what that is and that that will build a stronger bond between employers and employees. For anyone listening, I ask you to imagine if enhanced interpersonal relationships simply require a number to appear in a bank account—that in some way that would explain why there was cash being thrown around by the government in order to enhance its relationship with those receiving the cash. In an employer-employee arrangement, I am pretty certain that people—particularly the women I have spoken with—would have thought, 'That is a strange way of maintaining a relationship: by having a payment made into a bank account and the back office operations being a burden imposed on employers.' Secondly, the signalling argument that is canvassed in the Productivity Commission's report is completely undermined by the government's own rhetoric. It never misses an opportunity to run around telling everybody that it is paying for this, it is a Labor scheme, isn't it great and aren't we blessed to have a Labor government. So the signalling virtue that the minister was half inferring, given that she had misrepresented the recommendations as they were provided in the Productivity Commission report, has actually been undermined by the government's own behaviour. The government's own behaviour has compromised the signalling benefits in a hotly contested on-balance conclusion in the Productivity Commission report in which there was industry organisation after industry organisation explaining the reality of it in the workplace and that this was, in their eyes, a very dubious conclusion that the government now hangs its hat on. Also, I understand the minister to have been saying that it negates the need for the government to honour its commitments. If it was so clear, why make that commitment? Why make an election commitment that says that Labor will not support a system that imposes additional financial burdens or administrative complexities on small businesses? Why make that commitment if you are not intending to keep it? This is like: 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' The government is saying, 'There will be no compliance and financial costs for small businesses under a PPL scheme the government leads'—yet there is. It is a broken promise. Here is a chance to rectify this broken promise and actually live up to the words that seemed perfectly reasonable and were happily shopped around and traded around prior to the election, but when push comes to shove there will be some contorted representation of what is in the Productivity Commission report. It is as if the government is saying, 'Oh, we do not need to uphold our election commitments.' It is a bit like saying, 'The Greens stole my homework.' Here, it is the PC that are being blamed for not honouring the election commitment. Finally, let me reiterate that the motive behind this is about signalling, according to the Productivity Commission. The government's own actions undermine the value of that signalling by singing out to anyone who is interested: 'It is a government scheme. We determine who is eligible. It doesn't matter what you are paid, this is what you are going to get.' That is what the government is actually doing. So even the on-balance argument in the Productivity Commission report has hit the rocks because of the government's own behaviour. What does it leave you with? It leaves you with the question: what is the justification? This is where this secret ACTU memo bells the cat. The only reason the Gillard government is opposing these very sensible and constructive measures and amendments by the coalition to support small business is that the unions want them to oppose it. Why do the unions want to oppose it? As it says in this secret memo that was given to me, the amendments that we are proposing 'will also restrict the union's capacity to improve and enforce paid parental leave in the workplace'. This is an industrial campaign to impose additional top-up costs and burdens on small business, the very additional costs that the Productivity Commission warned against. Those are the facts behind this argument, and I urge the House to support the sensible coalition amendment. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER BU8 The question is that the amendments be agreed to. Bill agreed to.

The House divided [12:03]
(The Deputy Speaker—Hon. Anna Burke)

 70 AYES 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 Irons, SJ 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 Moylan, JE Neville, PC O'Dowd, KD Prentice, J Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE Randall, DJ Robb, AJ Robert, SR Roy, WB 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 Wilkie, AD Wyatt, KG 70 NOES Adams, DGH Albanese, AN Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Bradbury, DJ Brodtmann, G 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 Ferguson, LDT Ferguson, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Garrett, PR Georganas, S Gibbons, SW 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 McClelland, RB Melham, D 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 Snowdon, WE Swan, WM Symon, MS Thomson, CR Thomson, KJ Vamvakinou, M Windsor, AHC Zappia, A 4 PAIRS Abbott, AJ Gillard, JE O'Dwyer, KM Rowland, MA Ruddock, PM Emerson, CA Somlyay, AM Marles, R

The numbers for the ayes and the noes being equal, Madam Deputy Speaker gave her casting vote with the noes, in accordance with the principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave a bill in its existing form.
Question negatived.

 Third Reading 5507 12:12 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. National Health Reform Amendment (Administrator and National Health Funding Body) Bill 2012, Federal Financial Relations Amendment (National Health Reform) Bill 2012 5507

National Health Reform Amendment (Administrator and National Health Funding Body) Bill 2012

Federal Financial Relations Amendment (National Health Reform) Bill 2012

Second Reading 5507 12:13 Mr BILLSON 1K6 Dunkley This is an important piece of legislation, shortly after the very tight vote that we just had on another important piece of legislation. This is the National Health Reform Amendment (Administrator and National Health Funding Body) Bill 2012. I am sure you will hear many erudite and informed speeches about the provisions of this bill. One of the things that is of particular concern to me in the Dunkley electorate is the pressure that is being imposed upon the health system, particularly as people are concerned about their private health insurance. You are seeing a transfer of demand out of the private system towards the public system, and I am very interested to hear how the government might believe these mechanisms will make it more responsive. In Frankston hospital the revenue that comes from privately insured patients supplements the resources that are available, and resources are already stretched. The very dedicated doctors, nurses and teaching and professional staff of Frankston hospital—and we support the teaching effort and the development of health professionals—are under extra strain because of people's concern that private health is being put out of their reach due to the changes to the incentives. I am very keen to hear from the government about that. I might leave my contribution at that point. 12:14 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I start by commending the member for Dunkley for his contribution of obviously well thought-out words. They come from a man who knows the area of health very well and is very well connected with his community. I appreciate very much the time that he took to give the House just a small part of his knowledge this morning. The bills before us, the National Health Reform Amendment (Administrator and National Health Funding Body) Bill 2012 and the Federal Financial Relations Amendment (National Health Reform) Bill 2012, seek to enact the funding model of the National Health Reform Agreement. The agreement announced in August 2011 was the third time the Labor government lauded an historic health reform proposal. Each new agreement was effectively a watered-down version of what was previously promised and supposedly agreed to. The genesis of the government's various health reform proposals, and of these bills, was the member for Griffith's central promise at the 2007 election, as the then Leader of the Opposition. The member for Griffith promised that he had a plan to fix hospitals, that the buck would stop with him and that, if his plan was not being achieved by mid-2009, Labor would hold a referendum to 'seek to take financial control of Australia's 750 public hospitals'. Labor's leadership turmoil earlier this year provided a valuable insight into the government's chaotic decision-making process on this major policy platform. Former health minister Ms Roxon, the member for Gellibrand, claimed that the process for considering health reform policy was often done without proper advice and it was, to quote Ms Roxon, 'a ludicrous way to run government'. In particular, the proposal for a referendum to take over the hospital system was, in her words, 'a cynical approach' and 'would have been a disaster'. The member for Gellibrand issued joint media releases with the member for Griffith and promoted a possible referendum as part of the government's policy. However, in relation to her concerns, Ms Roxon, now Attorney-General, said—and I quote—she 'did not think it served any purpose to share that with the public'. The member for Gellibrand refused to stand up to what she considered to be bad policy, in an area in which she had executive responsibility. Incredibly, she was not admonished but rather promoted. That in itself is a good reason for the intense scrutiny that has been applied to this government's turbulent administration of this important area of public policy. The current Minister for Health, Ms Plibersek, introduced this legislation as the final tranche of the government's reform agenda. The National Health Reform Amendment Bill establishes the administrator of the National Health Funding Pool and a national health funding body. A national funding authority, the National Health and Hospitals Network, was to be established as part of the government's first version of an agreement; however, within months of it being announced, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet advised that the authority would no longer be established. The then health minister, the member for Gellibrand, then claimed: … it's not appropriate for us to … and we've made it very clear we don't want to increase the size of the bureaucracy. It's not appropriate for us to establish an authority where there is not a need to do so. She went on to say: … there will need to be people who can process essentially the cheques that need to be paid through to local hospital networks, but it doesn't require an authority. Yet here we are today considering a bill for a new bureaucracy the government considered was necessary, then was not necessary and now is necessary again. It speaks volumes for the chaos of this government's approach to policy and the lost opportunity for genuine health reform in this country. The unnecessary, until recently, funding body is just another in a long line of bureaucracies. Funding for hospitals under the agreement enacted by these bills will not flow until 2014—well beyond even the next election. I suspect even the member for Griffith would acknowledge that, despite all Labor's promises, public hospitals in this country are not fixed. Yet there has been no delay in ensuring enormous additional funding is available for the immediate establishment of new bureaucracies. So far under this government, in only 1½ terms, we have seen the establishment of: the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, separate to the department, at a budgeted cost of over $35 million; the National Health Performance Authority, at a cost of over $118 million; the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority, at a cost of over $91 million; Medicare Locals, with funding of over $416 million; the Australian Medicare Locals Network, at a cost of $12.5 million; and local hospital networks. In addition, this government has already established the Australian Preventive Health Agency and Health Workforce Australia, and has proposed in this budget that the Aged Care Financing Authority and the Aged Care Reform Implementation Council be established. There is enormous potential for duplication, waste and overregulation. That will be the hallmark of this government. This risk is even greater, given the former health minister's recent illumination of the government's politics-over-policy approach to these reforms. There has been $38 million allocated in the budget for the administrator and funding body. That is a large investment by taxpayers for 'people who can process essentially the cheques'—to again to quote the words of the former minister, Ms Roxon. The funding pool, according to the National Health Reform Agreement, is comprised of state pool accounts for each state and territory. The administrator will operate the pool which will provide payments to the states for public hospital services. The administrator will calculate and advise the Commonwealth Treasurer of payments to the pool. The states will also pay their contribution into the pool for activity funded services and the administrator will then distribute it to the local hospital networks. I suspect that Barry Jones has been engaged to put together the organisational chart and the way in which this giant money laundering exercise will operate at huge expense to both the Commonwealth and to state taxpayers. The Independent Hospital Pricing Authority is meant to set a so-called national efficient price for hospital services and to determine which services are to be block funded as opposed to activity funded. The department, in its evidence to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, advised that the administrator in making the payments will need to know the number of services provided by each local hospital network and the efficient price of those services. A national efficient price has not yet been established. On available advice from the authority, activity based funding will initially be based on mean or median cost of a service rather than any notion of an actual 'efficient price'. This may have consequences for hospitals in terms of driving real efficiency, but also in ensuring the viability of best practice where providing quality service with good outcomes is above the median cost. There has been little explanation of if, when, or how the system is to transition to a normative pricing model where value—or in the government's terms, the 'efficient price'—is properly defined. It has not been properly explained why another $40 million bureaucracy is required to process the payments when we already have an independent authority pricing the services. Similarly, there is not proper consideration given in this bill, including in the functions as to how this new body will coordinate its responsibilities with the other entities that have been established under the National Health Reform Act 2011. In addition to the activity based funding, the agreement provides for the continuation of block grants in certain circumstances. Commonwealth funding for block grants, teaching, training and research will flow through the pool accounts to state managed funds. Public health funding and any top-up funding will flow through pool accounts directly to state health departments. All discretion of how that Commonwealth funding will be spent will rest with the state health ministers. This bill and corresponding legislation in each state will appoint a single administrator for all jurisdictions. It is reasonable to ask why the Commonwealth would cede these powers to the state health ministers, bearing in mind that this is giving a discretion over Commonwealth funds. The answer lies very simply in this single fact: the Prime Minister put pen to paper on this deal, not because it was going to provide better health outcomes for Australia and not because it was going to drive efficiency or see better outcomes in the way in which we finance health in this country; it is simply because this Prime Minister was at a moment of weakness and wanted to sign a deal and wanted the Australian public to believe that she had brokered a deal. Greater scrutiny since that time shows why the states were so anxious to sign it, because they found a buyer or a purchaser in distress. The administrator will be appointed after the Standing Council on Health has agreed to that person and the date, period and terms and conditions of appointment. Clause 232 provides that the Chair of the Standing Council on Health is to give each member of the council an opportunity to nominate an individual. All members of the council must agree on the appointment. A unanimous appointment may be an interesting test for cooperative federalism. The bill also sets out provisions for termination. The council can suspend the administrator from office if requested to do so by at least three state ministers or the Commonwealth minister. The bill sets out the functions and powers of the administrator, which will also be contained in state legislation. The Western Australian government did raise a number of concerns in relation to the need for greater delineation between the functions of the administrator and those functions that will be performed on behalf of the Commonwealth and the functions it will perform on behalf of the states. It was argued that clause 238 of the bill was not fully consistent with clauses B26 and B27 of the agreement—in particular, that the Commonwealth bill should not confer the function of making payments from each state pool account in accordance with the direction of the state concerned but that this authority should be provided solely by state legislation. The bill also provides for the states to confer powers and functions or impose duties on the administrator and a Commonwealth officer. This is intended to address the issues arising from the High Court's decision in the Hughes case, which found that an officer of the Commonwealth may only be conferred with powers under a state act with the express agreement of the Commonwealth parliament. The Western Australian government's submission to the Senate inquiry noted that the administrator will be appointed jointly and severally. Therefore, it was argued, the Western Australian parliament is able to appoint and confer powers on the administrator of the Western Australia state pool account. I note that the government has circulated amendments intended to address these concerns. The administrator and the officials are not subject to the control or direction of any Commonwealth minister but must comply with written resolutions of COAG. The administrator will make payments from each state pool account in accordance with the direction of the relevant state minister but, in accordance with the government's amendments, this specific function will be removed from clause 238 of the Commonwealth's bill. The primary objective of the administrator and funding body, as stated by the minister in her second reading speech, is to provide transparent arrangements for public hospital funding. Under clause 240, monthly reports must be provided to all jurisdictions, and made publicly available, on payments into and out of state pool accounts and state managed funds. An annual report must also be provided to responsible ministers and tabled, in the words of the bill, 'as soon as practicable' in the parliament of each responsible minister. It may assist the House if the minister would explain what time frames 'as soon as practicable' might entail and why a number of sitting days was not, or could not be, specified. The Auditor-General may undertake a performance audit of the administrator. This involves an audit to determine whether the administrator is acting effectively, economically, efficiently and in compliance with all relevant laws. The Auditor-General must advise the other jurisdictions' Auditors-General of an intention to conduct a performance audit so that any other audits may be coordinated at the same time. The bill also establishes the National Health Funding Body to assist the administrator in their role. The CEO and staff will be employed under the Public Service Act 1999 and will constitute a statutory agency. The bill, and this year's budget, are silent on the number of staff that will be employed by this nearly $40 million entity. Similarly, there is minimal detail of the responsibilities of the body, other than to 'assist the administrator'. Surely, for this level of expenditure, there must be a more defined role for the body, and it is incumbent on the minister in her summarising comments to advise the House how many new bureaucratic positions will be paid for from that $40 million. The bill also contains provisions creating an offence for the disclosure of certain information, with relevant exceptions. There are additional provisions preventing the publication and dissemination of information by the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority, the National Health Performance Authority, the administrator and the funding body that is likely to lead to the identification of a particular patient without consent. Concern has been raised about the reliance on consent, rather than informed consent. The department advised the legal view is consent that must, by definition, be informed. In relation to protecting the affairs of a person, by not disclosing protected information, the minister said, 'The inclusion of these provisions is essentially precautionary, as it is highly unlikely that the administrator or the funding body will hold information about the affairs of a person.' We will have a watching brief on that issue. One of the more interesting aspects of the administrator is that they will be appointed severally by the Commonwealth and the other jurisdictions. This appears to be a fairly unique arrangement in modern times. This means that the administrator is subject to various administrative laws and requirements. The minister used FOI as an example. There are also various archives, ombudsman and privacy considerations. The EM explains that proposed regulations will modify the Commonwealth acts so they can apply effectively as laws of the states, conferring appropriate rights and obligations on responsible state ministers and referring appropriately to state entities. Today we are also considering the Federal Financial Relations Amendment (National Health Reform) Bill 2012. The bill replaces national healthcare special purpose payments with national health reform payments. It also provides for changes to funding responsibilities for aged and disability services agreed through the National Health Reform Agreement, with the exception of Victoria and Western Australia. Finally, and not directly related to the health reform proposals, the bill makes minor technical amendments to GST determination. It has been stated that the changes do not affect the total GST determined. They remove the requirement to separately determine three components of GST where the data are not available or provide little or no insight into GST collections. In relation to health funding, the bill provides that payments will be determined by the minister by legislative instrument. However, the legislative instrument will not be disallowable. While this may not be in the interests of parliamentary scrutiny, it is consistent with subsection 44(1) of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003, as it concerns a scheme between the Commonwealth and the states. The bill states that financial assistance is payable to the states 'on condition that the financial assistance is spent in accordance with the National Health Reform Agreement'. Under clause 70 of the agreement, the Commonwealth is to provide $16.4 billion through guaranteed top-up payments to the states and territories. This will occur from 2014-15, well after the next election. It seems to be a common trait of the Labor government to announce and seek praise for promises to be supposedly delivered in the distant future. There is no requirement for the states to spend the Commonwealth's so-called top-up payments on public hospital services. Clause A71 of the agreement says just that funding can be spent on ameliorating the growth in demand for hospital services. It is difficult to see how this will promote productivity or ensure the efficient use of Commonwealth funds. It seems state treasurers have secured a good deal, but there is little in this agreement to guarantee improvement in how funding is spent. The minister in her second reading speech said: For far too long the dialogue between the Commonwealth and the states on public hospital funding has been characterised by mutual blame and recrimination, with accusations of removal of funds by one level of government when additional funds were put in by another. However, whilst this agreement sets the Commonwealth contribution as a proportion of the efficient price, the agreement at clause A60 provides that states will continue to determine the amount they pay for public hospital services. They will also determine the mix of those services and functions. The mutual blame and recrimination the minister referred to is alive and well under this agreement. Just months after signing up, the Tasmanian Labor-Greens government pulled millions of dollars out of public hospitals and front-line services. Over $100 million was proposed to be cut from health and public hospitals, including a reported 20 per cent of the operating budget of the Royal Hobart Hospital. It is very difficult to see how this reform is delivering better outcomes for the people of Tasmania, who are suffering under the fiscal mismanagement of a Labor-Greens government. Labor has always measured success on how much money is spent, rather than what is achieved by the expenditure. We have seen it with the school halls, we have seen it with pink batts, we have seen it with GP superclinics, we have seen it with the NBN, and we are seeing it with this bill before the parliament today—very little achieved for enormous sums; money that mums and dads and small businesses have worked hard for and that their taxes have contributed to. Somehow, Labor seems to take pride in that. Health reform should be about more than bureaucracy and buying off state governments. It should be about using taxpayers' money more wisely and productively in our health system. It has been well documented in this House, and publicly, that health costs are rising faster than government revenues and at some point there will be a crunch. This government missed the opportunity to make genuine reforms to improve productivity and efficiency. That fact is now widely accepted and recognised. This government's attacks on productive areas of our health system are even more perplexing given this supposed reform agenda. The multiple billion-dollar cuts to private health will only put a greater burden on the public system and highlight the inconsistency of this government's approach. Around 10½ million Australians have private hospital cover and private hospitals perform 65 per cent of elective surgery. Disrupting this balance is a profound risk to our health system and is not consistent with any genuine efforts to improve the system. In relation to public hospitals, the coalition supports sustainable and transparent funding. Despite the government's best propaganda efforts, Commonwealth government expenditure for public hospitals increased around 110 per cent between 1995-96 and 2006-07 and greater accountability measures were imposed on how the states spent the money. There is a responsibility on federal and state governments to ensure we have a viable and robust public hospital system going forward. The coalition does not oppose the bills being debated today but does continue to hold concerns about the lack of focus on productivity, the bureaucratisation of the health system under Labor and the lack of evidence for improved outcomes for patients, as evidenced by the unfolding situation in Tasmania. The coalition will continue to carefully monitor and scrutinise the implementation of these reforms. 12:35 Ms HALL 83N Shortland It is always a great pleasure to follow the shadow health minister, whose only contribution so far to the health debate as far as policy is concerned has been to introduce a private member's bill to exempt 37 dentists from having to meet their responsibility in relation to the chronic dental health program. I am pleased to see that the opposition is going to support the legislation, because it is a very, very rare occurrence that I stand in this parliament and actually speak to a piece of legislation that the opposition says it will support. As I said, the shadow minister's contribution to the health debate was not about providing better dental health services to Australian people but rather looking after 37 dentists who have not met the requirements for their payments under the chronic dental health program. I think all Australians can question whether or not the shadow minister really is across his portfolio and understands health issues. Whenever I speak on any health legislation I refer to the report of an inquiry conducted in November 2006 entitled The blame game: report on the inquiry into health funding. It looked at a number of the issues that are covered by this legislation relating to cost shifting between the Commonwealth and the states. The report was commissioned by the previous government, when the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Health and Ageing, and the committee brought down some really good recommendations. It was a unanimous report; it was supported by both sides of the parliament. I am sad to inform the House that the then government did nothing to implement any of the recommendations in that report. After being elected, the Rudd government, firstly, followed by the Gillard Labor government, decided that health was a priority. They decided it was time to address the waste and mismanagement within the health system that had been rampant under the then Howard government, with, as I mentioned before, the Leader of the Opposition as health minister. So the Rudd and Gillard government embraced health reform. The final health reform package that was taken to COAG delivers a national deal on health that will actually last. It takes into account the recommendations of The blame game report and that notes that there has been massive cost shifting over a very long period of time. I will give an example of that situation. I used to be a member of a state parliament. I stood in that state parliament and criticised the Commonwealth for cost shifting. I have also been in this place when the state, whose parliament I was previously a member of, was criticised for cost shifting. A situation has been set up where the Commonwealth can blame the states and the states can blame the Commonwealth. At the end of the day, the people that miss out are the Australian people. That issue is at the heart of the reforms that the Gillard government has progressed. The Gillard government is investing $16.4 billion in the health system and imposing tough national standards to make sure that the money goes where it should. Because of that national deal, every person in Australia will benefit, no matter where they live. The legislation before us today is about putting in place those national standards. It is about making sure that the payments are made and that there is proper oversight of the national health reform agenda. Those reforms are delivering $16.4 billion to health in this country. More subacute beds and local hospital networks have already been set up. Medicare Locals has already been set up. This is about delivering health locally, based on the needs of the local community, and ensuring that all Australians get the health care they need. It is not about putting health money into insurance; rather, it is about putting health money into delivering health services. Along with this, 6,000 doctors will be trained over the next decade. Within my electorate, under the previous government, something that was really noticeable was the shortage of GPs. It is an outer metropolitan area. In the Newcastle area, there was a chronic shortage of doctors. Try as I did to get the then Howard government, with the Leader of the Opposition as health minister, to address those issues, I could raise no interest. I am pleased to report to the House that I am noticing a real improvement in the number of doctors available locally for people in Shortland electorate to attend to get the health care they need. This is a direct result of the government's investment in the training of more doctors. This government also realises the need for improvement in emergency departments and in reducing elective surgery. This government realises all these approaches need to be adopted so that the health of Australian people can be cared for. I always find it hard, when I follow the member for Dickson, not to become too negative about what he has said to the parliament. I found his comments about the scheme and Barry Jones just ludicrous. Talking about it as a money-laundering exercise is, I think, appalling— (Time expired) Mrs Bronwyn Bishop SE4 Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The National Health Reform Amendment (Administrator and National Health Funding Body) Bill 2012 is about appointing the administrator in the National Health Funding Body. I think if the member could return at least in part to the subject instead of what she is doing it would be helpful. The DEPUTY SPEAKER BV5 The honourable member for Shortland will address the matters of the bill. Ms HALL 83N Certainly, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I felt that it was very important that I take the member for Dickson to task for the statement he made about Barry Jones and this being a joint money-laundering exercise. I am really responding to issues that were raised by the previous speaker in this debate. I feel that it is in the interest of good sound debate and of ensuring that the Australian people have the correct information that I respond. As the member for Mackellar rightly points out, this legislation is about amendments to the national health reform agenda. It makes amendments relating to the administrator's functions and the Hughes provisions and to allow the funding body to assist the administrator in acting in his or her state capacity. The purpose of these amendments is to amend the bill to address concerns from the Victorian and Western Australian governments that the Commonwealth legislation should not confer on the Commonwealth appointed administrator powers to exercise functions that should be exercised only by state appointed administrators, such as making payments from state pool accounts within the National Health Funding Pool. There are four aspects to the amendments. In talking to those amendments, I need to say that these are essentially technical amendments, in that they do not change the operation of the administrator of the National Health Funding Pool; they just allow the function to be conferred on the office. They do not change the role; they allow it to be conferred on the office. The bill as introduced reflects an agreement by Commonwealth and state officials on how these functions should be conferred in Commonwealth legislation and be mirrored in state legislation. After the bill was finalised the two jurisdictions I have mentioned changed their mind. Rather than having all functions conferred under both Commonwealth and state law, the states asked that state functions be conferred only under state law. So this was a request of the states. These amendments remove from Commonwealth law the functions of monitoring state payments into the National Health Funding Pool and making payments from that pool. These functions will now be conferred on the administrator under state law. However, the Commonwealth law will still require the administrator to report monthly on payments of Commonwealth and state funding to local health networks, resulting in unparalleled public access to information about how money flows through the public hospital system. I believe that is a very important component of this legislation. It is imperative that those monthly reports be made. It is imperative that this amendment goes through the House, so as to ensure the functioning of the body. I am very pleased that the opposition is supporting it. The other amendment that is being made to the national reform bill will enable the Commonwealth to make national health reform payments to the states and territories. This will require key changes, including replacing the national healthcare specific purpose payments with payments to public hospital and health services and ensuring that national health reform payments are made in accordance with the National Health Reform Agreement. The bill is being amended to change the date of effect from 1 July 2012 to the date that the act receives royal assent. This amendment is being made to ensure there is greater flexibility to make payments to some or all of the parties ahead of 1 July 2012. This is fairly technical, but important, legislation. It will ensure that reform of the health system flows in the way the government intends. It puts in place proper accountability measures. I strongly support this legislation and am pleased that the opposition, for once, is not opposing legislation before the parliament and will be supporting the government on this legislation. 12:50 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I am pleased to rise to speak on the Federal Financial Relations Amendment (National Health Reform) Bill 2012 and the National Health Reform Amendment (Administrator and National Health Funding Body) Bill 2012. These bills form part of the package of bills that give effect to the National Health Reform Agreement entered into between the states and the Commonwealth last year. The first of the bills before the House this afternoon does two key things: it sets up the Administrator of the National Health Funding Pool and it sets up a separate body called the National Health Funding Body. These arrangements are part of a new funding deal, under which public hospitals around Australia will be funded with activity based payments rather than block grants. In other words, if the cost of a hip replacement is determined to be $15,000 and you as a hospital do 10,000 of them, your hospital will get $150 million. The money will come from a new national funding pool; into the pool will go money from both the Commonwealth and the states. The second bill makes some changes to the existing law governing federal financial relations—that is to say, the basis on which the Commonwealth government pays money to the states. Those changes are necessary to give effect to these new arrangements specific to the health sector. According to the minister's second reading speech, these new arrangements will 'introduce the unparalleled transparency into public hospital funding that Australians require'. Later in her speech, the minister was obviously concerned that she had not been hyperbolic enough in her description of this legislation, so she said it would bring 'complete transparency'. As is usual with this government, there is a great gap in the new arrangements between the good intentions and the troubling reality. To be clear, a number of the ideas that underpin the reform are good—activity-based costing and funding as a principle makes sense; greater transparency and accountability also make sense and are principles to which we can all sign up. But the real question before us is whether this legislative package is going to deliver on the great expectations which have been stated in the minister's second reading speech and elsewhere. I put to the House that there are good reasons to be sceptical that it will in fact live up to these great expectations. I highlight three points in the brief time available to me. The first point is that the process to get to this stage has been typically shambolic under this government, starting with sweeping promises by former Prime Minister Rudd which have been massively underdelivered. The second point is that the arrangements, including those given effect to by the legislation before the House this afternoon, are extraordinarily complex, and that gives good reason to doubt their likely effectiveness. The third point is that there is in fact no guarantee that these complex new arrangements will improve accountability and transparency for users of the health system. In other words, from the perspective of the customers of this enormous system, there is real reason to doubt that all this complex bureaucratic rearranging of the chairs is going to make much practical difference at all. I turn firstly to discuss in greater detail the shambolic process by which we got to this legislation before the House this afternoon. The National Health Reform Agreement is the third form of such an agreement pursued by the Rudd-Gillard government. We might all remember that former Prime Minister Rudd was going to fix the blame game in health. That is what he promised at the 2007 election, and, in March 2010, he said to the National Press Club: Today we are delivering on the most significant reform of Australia’s health and hospital system since the introduction of Medicare almost three decades ago. … … … The Government will deliver better hospitals by establishing a national network, that is funded nationally, and run locally. For the first time in history the Australian Government will take on the dominant funding role for the entire public hospital system. For the first time, eight state-run systems will become part of one national network. To fund this Network, the Australian Government will take around one-third of the GST revenues and place it in a new National Hospital Fund to be spent only on health and hospitals. We would all recollect that early 2010 was a very dangerous time to be a patient in a hospital anywhere around Australia, because at any point you faced the real and practical risk of waking up from an operation only to find the then Prime Minister perched on the end of your bed, chatting cheerfully to you and surrounded by a scrum of television cameras and microphones. Happily, that danger is now past, but who can forget the little of shiver pleasure that seemed to go through the then Prime Minister's body whenever he said that the Commonwealth would be the dominant funder of the health system? Who can forget how he leapt on this issue to disguise his complete collapse on climate change, which went from being the 'greatest moral challenge of our time' to something he just dumped when it all got a bit too hard? The long and tortuous path towards these bills being before the House this afternoon was characterised by hopeless overreaching and overpromising by the Rudd-Gillard government in its first incarnation. Who do we know this from? We know this, interestingly, from the former minister for health, who spoke publicly just a few weeks ago of the chaos behind the scenes in the lead-up to this announcement, with the then Prime Minister giving her as the minister only a few days notice of his plan to announce a federal takeover of the health system. As the historical record shows, the guts of the April 2010 plan were soon scrapped; key elements have disappeared, cast onto the scrapheap of history. The idea that the GST would be held back from the states to fund health activities and the idea that the Commonwealth would become the majority funder of public hospitals are both gone—as is, of course, the notion that there would be one national network of hospitals. Version 2 along the lengthy and tortuous road towards the legislation before the House this afternoon came in February 2011 as the new Prime Minister sought to differentiate herself from her predecessor. But, again, a complex series of negotiations needed to occur before an announcement could finally be made in August 2011, and what was announced in August 2011 was different in form again to what had been spoken about earlier in the year. Emerging from the potted history I have just gone through there are a number of points to bear in mind as we weigh up the merits of the bills before the House this afternoon. The first is that the chaos at the very heart of this government and at the very height of this government has affected sound administration and sound public policy in the health field as in so many other fields. Secondly, what we are seeing in the bills that the House is considering this afternoon is very different to what was originally promised. Thirdly, while this government has a strong political incentive to talk up the scope of the National Health Reform Agreement and the scope of the changes implemented in the bills before the House this afternoon, they in substance fall a great deal short of the vaunting ambition first announced by then Prime Minister Rudd and of his bold promise to end the blame game. I turn now to discuss in more detail the second proposition I put to the House this afternoon. It is that the arrangements embodied in the bill before the House today and in other parts of this legislative scheme are extraordinarily complex and involve the establishment of a plethora—a multiplicity—of new bureaucratic organs. Three new statutory bodies have already been established to implement this package of reforms. The first is the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare; the second is the National Health Performance Authority; and the third is the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority. The bill before the House this afternoon brings into being two more bureaucratic bodies. Lest we be troubled that we have an inadequate supply of such entities, this bill comes to the rescue with, first, the administrator of the National Health Funding Pool; and, secondly, the National Health Funding Body. I particularly commend the imaginative person who came up with the term 'national health funding body'. They were on fire that day! Why are there two separate entities established? It is quite mystifying. They have the same essential function—they dole out the money from the National Health Funding Pool—and yet we have two separate entities. It is almost as if some demented professor of public administration had set himself the personal challenge of coming up with the most complex scheme he could possibly imagine. But the sad reality for taxpayers is that all of us will be paying for the new public servants to be hired and employed by these two new entities as well as the plethora and multiplicity of other entities which I have already described. The Department of Health and Ageing told the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee that the national health funding body will have a staff of approximately 120—'But don't worry,' said the department of health to the Senate committee. They assured the Senate committee that they are going to get much bigger savings in head count from the department's strategic review, so there will be overall head count savings in the health bureaucracy. I have to inform the House that I do not believe it for a second. New bodies mean new bureaucrats, more money spent on overhead, more money spent on administration, new empires being built, scope for new turf battles and new and blurred accountabilities, and taxpayers up for paying more to fund this elaborate new structure. Surprisingly, even such an unlikely authority as the former Minister for Health and Ageing agrees with my scepticism about this new elaborate bureaucratic administration. This is what she said last year: It's not appropriate for us to—and we've made it very clear we don't want to increase the size of the bureaucracy—it's not appropriate for us to establish an authority where there is not a need to do so. There will need to be people who can process essentially the cheques that need to be paid through to local hospital networks, but it doesn't require an authority. Subsequently there was a change in policy, I regret to say. For one brief, shining moment I thought the member for Gellibrand was going to establish herself as somebody who cares about cost efficiency and sound financial management. Tragically, this brief burst of sunshine did not last for long and this government soon returned to its overwhelming love of establishing new bureaucratic organs and entities. Indeed, I have asked a question on notice in parliament of every parliament minister asking how many new departments, agencies, commissions, government owned corporations or such bodies have been created in their portfolios since the election of the Rudd government. Not all of them have fessed up, you will not be surprised to hear, but so far they have admitted to 34 new bodies across the spectrum of government activity and it is clear the new health minister is going for gold. She is determined to establish a plethora of new bodies such that her ministerial colleagues can only shake their heads in envy. As any expert in organisational behaviour will tell you, complex structures, unclear lines of authority, duplication of functions and lack of clarity about who is responsible for what are a recipe for terrible organisational performance. If you look at the complex structures set up with the so-called national health reforms, you will see that is exactly what we have. There are, let me remind you, eight new bodies: independent hospital pricing authority, national health performance authority, Australian commission on safety and quality in health care, national preventative health agency, mental health commission, Medicare local Australia and administrator of the National Health Funding Pool—not to be confused with my favourite, the national health body. With the simultaneous establishment of so many new organisations, the scope for confusion and turf war is extraordinary. Even more troublingly, key details of the new arrangements are not yet finalised. For example, the Commonwealth has set itself the task of devising by December 2012 a national strategic framework to set out agreed future policy directions and priority areas for GP and primary health care. You can only imagine the joy that that particular task would bring to any self-respecting bureaucrat's heart. The Australian Medical Association had this to say: The real health reform will come with system redesign and proper service planning at the local level through the local hospital networks— in other words making the point that, for all of this creation of new boxes in the organisational structure, the real work has not yet been done despite the bold promises from this government. I turn lastly to the question of whether any of this is likely to actually improve accountability and transparency for health consumers. I modestly submit that there are very good reasons to be sceptical that it will. I predict there will continue to be squabbles about whether the Commonwealth is paying enough to the states. It is true that we have some new interposed bureaucratic agencies through which money will flow from the Commonwealth to the states. It is true that we have a new formula in accordance with which the money is paid. But I put to you that, if a hospital in a state does 10,000 hip replacements—to continue the example I gave at the start—but actually spends $20,000 per hip replacement, it will have spent $200 million and the relevant state health minister will be pointing the finger at the Commonwealth minister when only $150 million is supplied. This bureaucracy will create enormous distraction and will impose a burden of compliance on the customer-facing end of the system: the hospitals. At the end of the day, all of this will largely be invisible to patients, who will see very little difference in what they get. 13:05 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I speak in support of these two pieces of legislation. One is the National Health Reform Amendment (Administrator and National Health Funding Body) Bill 2012 and the other is the Federal Financial Relations Amendment (National Health Reform) Bill 2012. If you listened to the member for Bradfield, you would think that Labor controlled government in every state and every territory. In fact, that is not true. In fact, the National Healthcare Agreement was agreed by COAG, the Council of Australian Governments formed by Labor and coalition governments at different levels, in 2008 and amended in July 2011. Perhaps the member for Bradfield should consult with his state colleagues in the Liberal Party, the Liberal-National parties, the Country Liberal Party and other parties like that—whatever guise or description they call themselves in the state or territory—because his conservative colleagues signed up for this agreement in 2008 and signed up for it in July 2011. He did not say that in his speech today at all. In fact, he did not tell this House that they agree at a state level to this process. The problem with regard to health funding in this country has been driven by mutual blame, suspicion, accusation, Canberra bashing, state bashing and the like year after year. So the agreements we came to in 2008 and 2011 were about increasing the capacity of the federal government to contribute more to improving transparency. That is why it did not matter whether it was a chief minister or a premier of a Labor or Liberal state. They agreed to a process to improve transparency, reporting and auditing of each separate state account in the funding pool; provision of advice by the administrator being set up under this legislation to the Commonwealth Treasurer on calculation of Commonwealth payments to each state minister; the preparation of special-purpose financial statements in the operation of each state pool which the states are contributing and the auditing of each state pool by state auditors-general; and the inclusion of special-purpose financial statements in the administrator's annual report. This process was agreed to by both sides of politics at a state and federal level, but those opposite cannot bring themselves to say 'yes' to just about anything. It is 'no' to this, despite the fact that their coalition and conservative colleagues at a state level support this. Why do the states support this? They know what will happen when we establish this process and the government at this level commits more money: it will make a difference. You will see the Commonwealth bearing greater costs associated with the establishment and ongoing costs of the administrator and the funding body, and you will see an increase in contributions by the Commonwealth for the growth of hospital and health funding to 45 per cent in 2014-15 and 50 per cent from 2017-18 onwards. We have guaranteed that we will provide $16.4 billion in additional efficient growth funding from 2014-15 to 2019-20. We have also put forward an additional $2.8 billion into the system. Why am I giving these figures? Because it is true that the coalition offered nothing at a state level in my home state at the last state election and at the last federal election: not an extra doctor, not an extra nurse, not an extra hospital bed, not an extra ward nor an extra hospital. Complaints, whingeing, carping, moaning, griping and grudging—that is what we get from those opposite. We do not get dollars and cents on the table. On this side of the House there are proposals to establish apparatus, agreed on a bipartisan basis and with additional money on the table—double the kind of funding that our previous coalition government from 1996 to 2007 offered the Australian people. We are seeing substantial funding increases. There are structures or frameworks being established under this legislation and, as I said, some block funding services provided. This is changing the way we do things, and it has been agreed to by the states: an administrator will advise the Treasurer about who will pay into the national health funding pool, amounts calculated by the administrator and an emphasis on activity funded services. That is what is happening with this legislation. This legislation establishes the administrator of the National Health Funding Pool. I do wonder sometimes why coalition members actually stand for federal politics. They seem to be against government and they seem to be against anything that governments do. But we know that government, private enterprise and community services actually make a difference. The coalition's hatred of and hostility towards government seems to be endemic—it seems to be in their DNA. We hear members opposite talk about this sort of thing and all they want to do is criticise. We have established the National Health Performance Authority, which those opposite opposed—inexplicably. I am simply amazed that they did. We have established the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority as well. The coalition cannot consult with their colleagues at a state level about these types of things. I do not know whether they believe that the only way to communicate is by carrier pigeon, but certainly email and phone still operate. I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition should ring up Barry O'Farrell and see what his attitude on this is? And Colin Barnett, and even Campbell Newman, because the states are backing us on this—except that those opposite, their federal coalition colleagues, cannot bring themselves to do so. Let us have a look at our record, because the legislation here establishes a framework for a new system by which we will provide funding, and then let us look at those opposite. They do not say this. They do not admit it, although the then health minister back just before the 2007 election had to grudgingly and with contrition admit it, that the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare was correct in saying there was a diminution under the coalition government of funding for health and hospitals and that the states and private sector had to take up the slack. Grudgingly, he admitted that on the eve of the 2007 federal election. Conceding the veracity of that report was pretty tough for them, I am sure, because he had been there for a long time—the minister for health in the coalition government. And now he is in a different disguise—a different label. He is actually the Leader of the Opposition—the same man who ripped $1 billion out of the health system when he was there. We have massively increased the funding and we cooperated with the states. That is what this legislation is all about. This legislation goes hand in glove with what we have seen in terms of the budget: the extra $515 million for dental health funding and trying to redress the problems in public waiting lists—$400 million for a blitz on the public waiting list. What did the coalition do when they got into power in 1996? They abolished the Commonwealth Dental Scheme, forcing low- and middle-income earners onto long waiting lists that stretched out further and further again. I saw the same thing when I was the chair of the Esk health reference committee, and I saw it when I was on the Ipswich and West Moreton Health Community Council, as the waiting list expanded further and further at the Ipswich general hospital and its satellite hospitals in and around the Ipswich and West Moreton region. And why was that? Because the coalition steadfastly refused to accept that their policies were a failure. They refused to inject serious money to redress the problem. We are doing that as part of the budget, as part of the arrangements covered by this legislation. We are making sure that dental care for the disadvantaged is a priority, and that people do not face those waiting lists and those barriers to getting the health care they need, because poor teeth result in illness, injury and other problems. I am very proud of that, as well as extra provisions on bowel cancer reform, and I am very proud this government does it as well. We are making a difference in the injection of funding in health and hospitals and in the private sector. I am pleased to say that in my own electorate the bulk-billing rates under this government and the health programs have reached a record high in the March quarter of 81.2 per cent of GP services bulk-billing. But in Blair the rates are so much greater. I found that out today when I looked into it. The rates for GP visits in Blair are 90.3 per cent of GPs bulk-billing; rates for pathology are 89.2 per cent; and rates for optometry are 99.1 per cent—an overall rate of 83.1 per cent. That is a big difference. I remember when it languished in the sixties and seventies under the previous Howard coalition government. We are establishing a national health reform framework under this legislation. It is going to make a difference. It is going to make sure that what we establish in consultation with the states will see the federal government take a greater proportion of responsibility. Those opposite cannot bring themselves to agree that we are securing the future of Australian health by increasing funding. We will see how they vote on health bills in the future, but so far they do not seem to acknowledge their failures of the past. They do not seem to acknowledge that this is a bipartisan approach across all levels of government to take health and hospital funding into the future; a framework and an agreement that is devised by all levels. I support this legislation. I think it will make a difference in my area. We are making a difference, as I said, in the bulk-billing rates. I note the Senate report on this particular legislation supported it, and it was very clear in what it had to say about it. I note that the costs under this framework will be borne in large part by us. I note the fact that it will be open and transparent. I note the COAG reforms. I note that the communique was signed off by all levels of government and by all sides of politics, and I just wish those opposite would finally recognise that this is too great an issue to be subject to partisan bickering by those opposite. I support the legislation. Debate adjourned. BUSINESS 5523 BUSINESS Orders of the Day 5523 13:19 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I move: That Federation Chamber, private Members’ business, order of the day No. 13 relating to a Sovereign Wealth Fund be returned to the House for further consideration. Question agreed to. Rearrangement 5523 13:18 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler by leave—I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent order of the day, private Members' business, motion relating to a Sovereign Wealth Fund, being called on and considered immediately. Question agreed to. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 5523 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Sovereign Wealth Fund 5523 13:19 The DEPUTY SPEAKER BV5 ( Hon. DGH Adams ) (): The question is that the motion be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells having been rung— The DEPUTY SPEAKER BV5 As there are fewer than five members on the side for the ayes, I declare the question resolved in the negative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Question negatived, Mr Bandt, Mr Wilkie, Mr Oakeshott and Mr Katter voting aye. BILLS 5523 BILLS National Health Reform Amendment (Administrator and National Health Funding Body) Bill 2012, Federal Financial Relations Amendment (National Health Reform) Bill 2012 5523

National Health Reform Amendment (Administrator and National Health Funding Body) Bill 2012

Federal Financial Relations Amendment (National Health Reform) Bill 2012

Second Reading 5523 13:25 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman This is an important debate about the healthcare of this country. This is an important debate about whether you invest $692 million in non-service-providing bureaucracy. This is a debate about whether, having set up 10 authorities in health, you set up an 11th. This is a debate about just how much focus you can place on the back-end, fiddling with the structure of our health system, without putting any skin in the game at the front. This is fundamentally about how much money is ripped out of service provision in order to fund this government's preoccupation with setting up more authorities and spending more money on layers of bureaucracy that once was done by something called the Department of Health. I can understand that the more consultants one employs, the more you need a panel to monitor them; and that in turn is watched by committees; and that in turn is guided by councils and is ultimately answerable to authorities one after the other. I can also see good reason, from the Left side of politics, to simply generate more and more of these layers and call it transparency. I can understand why ultimately, when you are trying to guarantee more outcomes, and a floor in outcomes, in the end you simply need more people watching the system to achieve that. I can also see, from where those people come from, why that is so important to them. But this debate is also about whether we are prepared to turn our health system around and put the patient at the centre of that experience, whether we are going to unlock resources and make them available to the clinicians on the frontline that know how to make the system work better but are currently disempowered to do so. Today's debate is quite simply about how far we are prepared to go before we have a system that is completely out of balance, with a focus on bureaucracy and not enough on the patient. There are actually truly important things to be focused on in health policy, but this is by an administration that spent not $1 and not one cent of the stimulus package on health. If healthcare were something truly important, Minister Plibersek, tell me exactly what in the stimulus package was spent on healthcare and what proportion of it was spent on health. You will always have a procession of government MPs from both sides, when they are incumbent in government, saying they are spending more than their predecessors, but that is not the debate. Healthcare is growing and Australia's expenditure on health is approaching 10 per cent of GDP. Every administration will claim they spend more than their predecessor. No, this is the debate about just how many layers of bureaucracy are needed for a system to work. At some point we have to say that is enough. I can understand wishing to continue the important roles of many of these commissions and councils. But we also need to ask ourselves how big they have to be. This is not a debate about the ends, it is a debate about the means by which we get there. If I go through the $118 million over four years on the National Health Performance Authority and the other nine authorities that have been established—not even including those that already existed and are being continued—at some point we have to say, is this the best way to spend the money? You only have to look at the budget—the cold, hard reality of every budget—to see the context in which these authorities are being set up. It is simply by ripping money off service providers and simply by building less Indigenous health infrastructure. It is about removing money from important things like delivering public and preventative healthcare. Let's go through it: I am not giving you this data, I am reading it from the budget papers—$3.3 million cut from substance misuse programs, particularly in Indigenous Australia. If there is one thing you ask people in Central Australia most it is, 'Where are the support services for those who need them most?' There was $68 million cut from the health workforce programs and $75 million cut from Indigenous health infrastructure. This is the currency that builds these new authorities. I am not for a moment going to say that we do not need a system to get the Commonwealth and states working together, but I am criticising the size, the mechanism and the delays in how it is being done. I am criticising the fact that there has been a complete focus on the back end of the health system by an administration that has lost sight of the front end. There is effectively no communication with rural doctors about ways to retain them in practice or about the reforms around geographical classification systems. This is a government in denial. I say, simply, that what we need to be doing in Australia is pick up what is truly at the forefront to give us a cutting-edge health system. We have seen this in other nations around the world who have freed themselves from the almost puerile debate about the fact that there is no role for private health in medicine. Parts of Europe have effectively moved on from that debate. We have no movement whatsoever on workforce productivity and no action around the Productivity Commission reports. The reality is that in public radiotherapy in this country you will wait 10 weeks on average for treatment if you do not have private health insurance, but there is no movement from the other side to fix that problem. There is no movement from the Commonwealth. There is no movement from the fact that they have 21 public health staff per linear accelerator in the public system and about 11 to 12 in the private system. There is no answer to that. In relation to mental health they have been dragged kicking and screaming to a solution after leaders from mental health forums had to resign their positions to get some action from this government. In the big area of time to commercialisation, pharmacogenomics, which is the need to have companion diagnostics for more efficient prescribing, none of that is being addressed, where massive savings exist. Of course, in this proposition we simply have Health Workforce Australia, with a considerable amount of money, working slowly through the modelling process to fund solutions particularly for regional and remote Australia, for providers practising at top of licence and in making sure we are providing the workforce that we will need in decades to come. At the moment we have deficits with doctor numbers, deficits with nursing numbers and no other answer from this government except, 'We'll train more.' That is right—they will simply turn the taps on and hope they end up in the right location. This is the product of focusing on the back end where you take everyone's job, make them insecure, cancel the divisions of general practice and throw it all up in the air. What do you think stakeholders do? They are completely panicked about where they will be next. They have no idea whether they will get a share of the Medicare local pie. Do you know what they do for two or three years? They stop criticising the government, they grab one-page press releases and say, 'What are we going to do? How does my job survive? How can I make this system work that has been imposed on me?' That is understandable. I have always said that, as health is probably the most complex system run by a government, reform of it is a privilege that is earned; it is not an automatic right of incumbency. This is a government that did nothing except talk about a takeover and then not do it and then come up with a plan that states rejected. Then, in this period of absolutely desolate despondency in a government that is completely and utterly distracted from the main game, we have these flirtations with truthfulness. The former health minister said: … we don’t want to increase the size of the bureaucracy—it’s not appropriate for us to establish an authority where there is not a need to do so. There will need to be people who can process essentially the cheques that need to be paid through to local hospital networks, but it doesn’t require an authority. I rest my case. The former health minister said that and yet here we are today consuming valuable time that could be spent finding solutions for remote and Indigenous Australian health delivery—but we are not. Why not? Because the price of setting up these administrations is removing money from the Cape York welfare reforms. That is right, with new ways of looking after children, identifying those most at risk, the direct instruction model of education to keep kids at school, not just once in the morning but all day, enjoying school, staying at school and graduating school. That money gets ripped to do what we are debating today—the 11th authority. It is like you get one extra authority thrown in when you establish your first 10. We are quite happy to talk about the importance of these reforms and of jurisdictions working together, but you read a set of budget papers and there are 38 employees in rural health services, then you read the next set of budget papers and there are 98 employees. I do not want this to be a flippant comment, but once there was a department of health to do these things. I do not mind us finding smarter ways to do things but what we are doing here is the lazy approach. It is more layers, more levels and no necessary agreement from our state colleagues on the way this is being done. When the political obituary is written of this government they in health will say that they fiddled with the back end but never took the hard yards at the front. It is a government quite happy to fiddle with financing, as they do around school reforms, but they are not looking at quality. The one thing that a government can do is focus on quality of care. Have there been any reforms around practice incentives? No—just move the bar higher to save a few quid. Have there been any reforms around chronic disease management so that we get guaranteed outcomes when a patient comes to a GP? No—just keep paying the money out without any guarantee of quality outcomes. The government has been incumbent now for four years. It is time now to take some responsibility for the outcomes of the health system and to stop fiddling with the back end. Get your head out from around the back and come and live with a local remote nurse for a week and come and see chronic renal services being delivered in Central Australia in the Western Desert. Get out of Canberra, get out of the beltway and start looking after local service providers. Free them up to unlock the potential of this great health system. 13:36 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I will not spend too much time talking about the previous member's contribution, but I cannot go past pointing out a few things. When he said, 'What did you spend out of the stimulus? Not a cent on health and hospitals.' Well, not a cent beside the $5 billion in the Health and Hospitals Fund. I guess if he thinks that is nothing then he probably has a different view of value for money from me, as well as $600 million on the GP superclinics and GP clinic upgrades. He spoke about bureaucracy as though this is all about bureaucracy. There is no net increase in bureaucracy because of these measures. This measure will move some staff who were in the department of health to an independent body. You would think that having an independent body would be something that would be welcomed by members opposite. The previous speaker was concerned about this all being about bureaucracy and the back end. He failed to mention the increased investment that the Commonwealth will make in hospitals over coming years—an extra $20 billion into hospitals and into hospital services, going up to, initially, 45 per cent and then 50 per cent of the funding of the growth in the efficient price of hospital services. In fact, the previous government, when Tony Abbott was health minister, decreased the proportion of Commonwealth funding going to hospitals. This government is increasing the proportion of Commonwealth funding going into hospitals. We are talking about a guaranteed $16.4 billion extra in coming years. The idea that we make that investment without having the surety, transparency and insight that these independent funding bodies give us is not right. That is the reason the coalition never made any health reforms, that they never improved our health system—because they were ripping money out of it. But the money they did put in, they just shovelled out the door without watching where it went. The government not only have the health funding body that we are speaking about today but also have the MyHospitals website that allows people to see in detail the performance of their own hospitals. I thank members for their contributions to the debate on these bills, the National Health Reform Amendment (Administrator and National Health Funding Body) Bill 2012 and the Federal Financial Relations Amendment (National Health Reform Bill) 2012. These bills represent a critical part of the government's historic national health reforms and deliver on improving the sustainability and transparency of funding for our nation's public hospital system. Under the National Health Reform Agreement the Commonwealth government and all state and territory governments have agreed to implement new funding arrangements for our public hospitals to improve access, transparency and financial sustainability. The National Health Reform Amendment Bill provides a key element of that agreement through the creation of the National Health Funding Pool Administrator and the National Health Funding Body. Corresponding legislation will also be introduced in all states and territories, supporting the establishment of the administrator. The administrator will be responsible for calculating and advising the Treasurer of the levels of Commonwealth funding for public hospitals required to meet our commitments under the National Health Reform Agreement. He or she will also be responsible for making payments from the National Health Funding Pool and reporting each month and annually on the amounts paid through the National Health Funding Pool to local hospital networks, the basis on which payments were made and the number of services provided. This will provide unparalleled transparency in public hospital funding. For the first time, the public will see how much funding flows to local hospital networks and why and where the money comes from. The provisions relating to the appointment of the administrator will be the same in the Commonwealth and state and territory acts. I will shortly be moving amendments to the bill to give effect to an agreement with the states to split the functions of the administrator between Commonwealth and state laws. But the sum of the functions will remain as they are expressed in the current bill. This legislation also establishes a national health funding body to assist the administrator in his or her tasks. Since this bill was first presented to the parliament the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee has conducted an inquiry. I am pleased to inform the House that the committee has recommended that the bill be passed, with the amendments that I will shortly be moving on behalf of the government. The Federal Financial Relations Amendment (National Health Reform) Bill 2012 will also put Australia's federal financial relations on a more sustainable footing for the future and allow us to better manage health expenditure growth. These changes are designed to deliver value for money spent on important health services. This bill makes our health reforms possible so that future generations can enjoy an affordable and sustainable healthcare system. I thank, again, the members who have contributed to this debate. The establishment of the National Health Funding Administrator and the National Health Funding Body is clear evidence of the government's ongoing drive to deliver for all Australians the best-quality healthcare possible and to improve the transparency of our health system. I note that the shadow minister for health and ageing has entered the House. He asked earlier about the number of public servants who would be employed by this body. About 20 people will manage about $30 billion of finances going to hospital health services. However, there is no net increase in the number of health bureaucrats because we are, at the same time, reducing the number of health bureaucrats in the health department itself. I commend the bills to the house. Question agreed to. Bills read a second time. National Health Reform Amendment (Administrator and National Health Funding Body) Bill 2012 5528

National Health Reform Amendment (Administrator and National Health Funding Body) Bill 2012

Consideration in Detail 5528 13:43 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (21) together. Leave granted. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M I move government amendments (1) to (21) as circulated together: (1) Schedule 1, item 27, page 10 (line 8), after "Part", insert "(other than in subsection 238(1))". (2) Schedule 1, item 27, page 13 (line 9), after "monitor", insert "Commonwealth". (3) Schedule 1, item 27, page 13 (lines 11 and 12), omit paragraph 238(1)(c). (4) Schedule 1, item 27, page 13 (after line 17), at the end of subsection 238(1), add: Note: The corresponding legislation of the States will provide that the functions of the Administrator include monitoring State payments into each State Pool Account for the purposes of Division 2 (or equivalent) and making payments from each State Pool Account in accordance with the directions of the State concerned. (5) Schedule 1, item 27, page 13 (lines 32 to 34), omit subsection 238(5), substitute: (5) To avoid doubt, this Part is not intended:    (a) to give the Commonwealth ownership or control of money in a State Pool Account; or    (b) to affect the obligation of the Administrator under the law of a State to make payments from the State Pool Account of the State in accordance with the directions of the State. (6) To avoid doubt, the Administrator may have regard to information obtained in the exercise or performance of functions under the law of another jurisdiction in the exercise or performance of the Administrator's functions under Division 2. (6) Schedule 1, item 27, page 17 (lines 11 to 13), omit subsection 245(3), substitute: (3) The Administrator is required to provide to the responsible Ministers of all jurisdictions a copy of advice provided by the Administrator to the Treasurer of the Commonwealth about the basis on which the Administrator has calculated the payments to be made into State Pool Accounts by the Commonwealth. (7) Schedule 1, item 27, page 18 (line 35) to page 19 (line 6), omit subsection 248(1), substitute: (1) A National Health Reform law of a State may confer powers or functions, or impose duties, on one or more of the following if the powers, functions or duties relate to the exercise or performance of the functions of the Administrator (including the functions of the Administrator under a National Health Reform law of a State):    (a) the Funding Body;    (b) an officer of the Commonwealth. Note: Section 250 sets out when such a law imposes a duty of the Funding Body or an officer of the Commonwealth. (8) Schedule 1, item 27, page 19 (line 12), omit "Administrator", substitute "Funding Body". (9) Schedule 1, item 27, page 19 (line 17), omit "Administrator", substitute "Funding Body". (10) Schedule 1, item 27, page 19 (line 21), omit "Administrator", substitute "Funding Body". (11) Schedule 1, item 27, page 19 (line 26), omit "Administrator", substitute "Funding Body". (12) Schedule 1, item 27, page 19 (line 29), omit "Administrator", substitute "Funding Body or an officer of the Commonwealth". (13) Schedule 1, item 27, page 20 (line 3), omit "Administrator", substitute "Funding Body". (14) Schedule 1, item 27, page 20 (line 22), omit "Administrator", substitute "Funding Body or officer". (15) Schedule 1, item 27, page 20 (line 24), omit "Administrator", substitute "Funding Body or officer". (16) Schedule 1, item 27, page 20 (line 26), omit "Administrator", substitute "Funding Body". (17) Schedule 1, item 27, page 20 (line 27), omit "Administrator", substitute "Funding Body". (18) Schedule 1, item 27, page 20 (line 30), omit "Administrator", substitute "Funding Body". (19) Schedule 1, item 27, page 21 (line 9), at the end of section 252, add "(including the Administrator's functions under a National Health Reform law of a State)". (20) Schedule 1, item 27, page 21 (line 21), at the end of subsection 255(2), add "(if appointed)". (21) Schedule 1, item 27, page 22 (line 14), at the end of subsection 256(2), add "(if appointed)". Essentially, they are technical amendments in that they do not change the operation of the administrator of the National Health Funding Pool, just how the functions are conferred on the office. The bill as introduced reflected agreement by the Commonwealth and state officials that the totality of the administrator's functions should be conferred in both Commonwealth and in mirror state legislation. Agreement on this approach had underpinned the development of the legislation over a period of six months. After the bill had been finalised for introduction, two jurisdictions changed their views. Rather than having all functions conferred under both Commonwealth and state law, the two states asked that state functions only be conferred under state law. Amendments (2) and (3) accommodate their wishes by removing from the Commonwealth law the functions of monitoring state payments into the National Health Funding Pool and making payments from the pool. These functions will now be conferred on the administrator under state law. However, both Commonwealth and state law will still require the administrator to report monthly and annually on payments of Commonwealth and state funds to local hospital networks, resulting in unparalleled public access to information about how money flows through the public hospital system. Apart from amendments (20) and (21) the other amendments are consequential upon the splitting of the functions between Commonwealth and state law. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 5530 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Cystic Fibrosis 5530 13:45 Mr MATHESON M2V Macarthur Tomorrow is 65 Roses Day and some very special children in my electorate will be raising awareness about cystic fibrosis. CF is the most common, life-threatening, recessive genetic condition affecting Australian children and young adults today. There are about 3,000 people living with the condition in Australia. CF seriously affects breathing and digestion, and sufferers need up to two hours of intensive chest physio daily to help break up the mucus in their lungs so they can breathe. They also take up to 40 enzyme tablets to help with digestion every day just to survive. The average life expectancy of someone with CF is now in their mid-30s, but there are still many children who do not reach adulthood and, sadly, there is no cure. In Australia, one in every 2,500 babies will be born with CF and there are one million genetic carriers. Today, there are more than 80 people living with CF in Macarthur and most of them are children. Earlier this year I was brought to tears when I heard 12-year-old Julia Free from Elderslie speak about her condition. Julia said that, even though CF was a big part of her everyday life, she would not let it define who she was. She does not want people to think she is special because she has CF; she just wants to be herself. And, while she hates the hospital visits, going to clinic, missing school, the coughing attacks, surgery and having drugs pumped through a line in her arm, Julia considers herself lucky to have a family and community that love her and are helping her raise money to find a cure. I encourage everyone in this place to make a donation towards 65 Roses Day tomorrow so that Julia's one wish can come true: that CF will soon stand for one thing—cure found. Humphreys, Mr Laurie 5530 13:46 Ms PARKE HWR Fremantle I want to take this opportunity to remember Laurie Humphreys, a very significant and special resident of the City of Cockburn within my electorate of Fremantle, who passed away from cancer on 8 May 2012. I attended Laurie's funeral at Fremantle Cemetery last week on 15 May along with many of Laurie's family members, including his partner of many years, Frankie, and his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, as well as his many friends, including the member for Swan. In late 2009 I spoke of Laurie's experience during my contribution to the motion on the national apology to the forgotten Australians. Laurie was sent to Australia as one of many British child migrants in the middle of last century. From that kind of start in life, a childhood of hardship and dislocation, Laurie Humphreys went on to make an enormous contribution to community and public life in Western Australia as an active and successful unionist, a member of the Medina Branch of the ALP in Western Australia, and a long-time and influential Cockburn councillor. Laurie also formed FACT, Forgotten Australians Coming Together, and it was his staunch advocacy for forgotten Australians throughout Western Australia and nationwide that helped to put this miscarriage of justice into the public view. In his book, A Chip Off What Block: A Child Migrant's Tale, Laurie talked about how extremely blessed he was in his life, despite his upbringing and despite never having had the benefit of a formal education. Laurie grew from a boy who was given very little in the way of love and care to a man who gave so much to his family, his community and to this nation, and I want to pay tribute to him in this place. 13:48 Mr IRONS HYM Swan I also rise to speak about Laurie Humphreys and to add weight to the words of the member for Fremantle. I also attended the funeral last week, with the member for Fremantle and with my wife, and, in the very short time that I have, I would first like to acknowledge the selfless, never-ending work that Laurie did for the forgotten Australians and child migrants from the UK and Malta. Unfortunately he passed away prior to seeing the naming of the service centre he fought so hard for and which, again, the member for Fremantle and I attended, the day after Laurie's funeral. His work and efforts for FACT, Forgotten Australians Coming Together, will not be forgotten. I am proud to be the patron. Laurie had a rich life and I will now tell you a little bit about him. It was unfortunate that the member for Fremantle did not have time to get that in, because he did have a rich life and vast experience. In 1953, at the age of 20, Laurie was the secretary of the Northcliffe Branch of the Timber Workers Union. In 1962 he was the president of the Bakers Hill Primary School Parents and Citizens Association. He was also a foundation member of two branches of the Australian Labor Party. While Laurie attained many positions within the union movement, perhaps some of his major achievements were his 17 years as vice president of the Western Australia branch of the Transport Workers Union, the four years he served on the executive of the Trades and Labor Council of WA, the eight years he served as the Transport Workers Union delegate to the state executive of the ALP, and the fact that he attended every ACTU congress of the Australian Council of Trade Unions from 1972 to 1988. Laurie was a great man, and I wish his family well. (Time expired) Girl Guides NSW and ACT 5531 13:49 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fraser On 16 April I attended the Girl Guides NSW and ACT Jamboree held at Exhibition Park, with the member for Canberra, Gai Brodtmann, and Trudy McIntosh, an intern in my office. There were over 550 guides aged between 10 and 17 who pitched their tents for a week of fun-filled activities and leadership workshops. This was the first jamboree to be held in Canberra since 1966. Margaret Norris, a long-time Girl Guide, attended the opening night's celebrations and shared with the girls her experiences. Margaret had attended the first camp in Canberra in 1966 and her reflections were insightful. There were Canberra Girl Guides from four local districts—Ginninderra, Gungahlin, Black Mountain and Murrungundie—who met with others from 261 districts across New South Wales and regions surrounding the ACT, including Queanbeyan, Goulburn, Yass and Bega. Kylie Gray, a guide leader staying in the camp all week, was dressed in a completely orange outfit, and brought along her polished tea set to make the girls feel more at home. Dressed in an orange feather boa, hat and orange overalls, she even had an orange camera to document the occasion. Girl Guides NSW and ACT State Commissioner Belinda Allen spoke on the ability of guides to foster leadership skills. Youth leader Sam Chenney from Port Macquarie spoke of her love of Girl Guides and said that the best decision her mum ever made was to let her join the Girl Guides, given that she has had so many fantastic opportunities and met lifelong friends. Farrer Electorate: Floods 5532 13:51 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I rise to highlight the enormous distress and ongoing frustration of farmers in my electorate of Farrer who have been rejected for modest financial assistance from the government to repair their properties after severe local flooding in March of this year. The crux of the problem here is the complex assessment procedures currently in place to release what are generally known as category C grants from the federal government. As it stands right now, a farmer can have one metre of water destroy assets on their property but will only receive federal assistance if a nearby town is also affected by floods. Fifty kilometres away, another farmer could have two metres of water destroy the property but will not receive the grant because the local town is not flooded. This is not just a problem in Farrer. My coalition colleagues in both the Riverina and across the border in Indi have also highlighted this issue. I welcome recent acknowledgement by the federal Attorney-General and the New South Wales Premier that there is a problem. But I would ask that these words of comfort become real actions to fix what is a ridiculous anomaly which has beset hundreds of hardworking farmers across southern New South Wales. I do appreciate the expression by the Attorney-General soon after the floods when she admitted that the complex state-federal joint assessment process is not working and could be tidied up. May I reassure her and let her know that, as local members, we stand ready to assist with that consultation and rebuilding process. Debt Collection 5532 13:52 Mr KELVIN THOMSON UK6 Wills I want to bring to the attention of the House the issue of debt collection and the lack of controls in Victoria. I was surprised to read a report in the HeraldSun of 14 May that debt collectors are not required to be registered in the state of Victoria, and I was alarmed that it has been alleged by police that the Visy packaging company is using the Hells Angels to collect bad debts. As reported, the Consumer Action Law Centre, the Australian Institute of Credit Management and the Collection House have all made submissions to the Department of Justice for the practice to be licensed. I would hope that the Victorian government does not dither on this issue and takes immediate action to introduce adequate protective measures. I understand Victoria is the only state in the Commonwealth not to have legislation controlling this practice. Members would be aware that without adequate safeguards the practice of collecting debts could lead to inappropriate methods of collection and possible injury to those who owe a debt by undesirable elements in our community. I would ask that the Victorian government, as a matter of urgency, take steps to introduce safeguards and controls before a serious incident occurs. Adequate licensing legislation will protect the consumer and weed out the undesirables to prevent them from gaining a permanent foothold in this industry. A rigorous procedure is needed before a licence to collect debts is issued. It is most important that governments protect the rights of consumers from persons who would exploit this situation. Battle of the Coral Sea 5532 13:54 Mr EWEN JONES 96430 Herbert I rise to speak on the Battle of the Coral Sea. May 2012 was the 70th anniversary of the Battle of the Coral Sea—the first time ever that the Japanese were turned around in the Second World War. Townsville played a significant part. To celebrate and commemorate the event we asked high school students in Townsville to write an essay on the significance of the Battle of the Coral Sea. I am pleased to say that although this was voluntary, we had a great response from Kirwan State High School, Pimlico State High School and also William Ross State High School. The winner was Tegan Lynch, whose essay on the significance of the battle and the threats that it did pose to Australia was absolutely fantastic. She was closely followed by Chloe Riordan from Pimlico State High School, and Sam Smithers from Pimlico State High School completed the clean sweep for that high school. It is also important to recognise that the Battle of the Coral Sea was the very first time that ships were not in direct contact with each other during the battle but the battles were fought by aeroplanes launched from aircraft carriers. The aim of the Japanese was to secure Port Moresby. We were able to stop that and from there push them back up to Guadalcanal to the Battle of Midway and on through. Although we lost the actual battle, the significance of the battle was fantastic for the defence of Australia, considering the people in the battle were pretty much militia men. Most of the professional fighting force was in Europe and unable to return to Australia. I would also like to say a special hello to the Indigenous Youth Parliament here today. In the words of the Binal people of North Queensland: waddumulli. Bass Electorate: Aged Care Forum 5533 13:56 Mr LYONS M38 Bass I rise to congratulate and thank everyone involved in the aged care forum held in Launceston last week. I had the opportunity to host the Hon. Mark Butler MP, the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, in my electorate of Bass. The minister, Senator Helen Polley and I hosted a forum on aged care, which gave seniors, pensioners and service providers from Bass a great chance to ask the minister directly about the government's plan to build a stronger aged-care system through the Living Longer, Living Better reforms. There was a fantastic response from attendees as they heard more about how they and their families will benefit from more choice, easier access and better care—thanks to these landmark reforms to Australia's aged-care system which are designed to tackle the major social and economic challenges of the nation's ageing population. It was a great event and many insightful questions were asked. It is fantastic to know that the residents of Bass are actively planning for their retirement. I am proud that the Labor government is acting to ensure that quality, affordable care will be available to all Australians in their senior years. Leader of the Opposition 5533 13:57 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the electorate of Wright, to acknowledge the outstanding work done by the coalition leadership team, led by Tony Abbott: a man you can trust, a man of vision, a man of integrity and a man of sincerity. He is a leader who offers hope, reward and opportunity for all Australians. He is a man who can unite this nation by stopping the class warfare caused by the cheap politics of this government, whose handouts given to a select few are designed to turn neighbour against neighbour, Australian against Australian. Tony Abbott is a man you can trust, and he is a man you can trust to unite this country and to restore confidence. As part of the coalition team, my job will be to represent the mums and dads, the businesses, the pensioners and the people of Wright. I will stand with this team to return this nation to its former glory, to stop the waste and to stop the mismanagement, because this government is addicted to spending. Guess who is going to have to pay it back? The people of my electorate. Yes, Tony Abbott and the coalition are the team you can trust. We are going to the next election. I want you to remember the infamous words that will haunt this government. Four days before the last election, the Prime Minister said that there would be 'no carbon tax under a government I lead'. Say one thing, do another. Trust Tony Abbott and the coalition team. We will rescind this carbon tax and we will put a stop to the waste and mismanagement. We will also stop the boats. Media Ownership 5534 13:58 Mr MURPHY 83D Reid I rise today to applaud the courage of Mr Tom Watson and Mr Martin Hickman, who have written a book, Dial M for Murdoch: News Corporation and the Corruption of Britain. I will read just part of this. This book uncovers the inner workings of one of the most powerful companies in the world: how it came to exert a poisonous, secretive influence on public life in Britain; how it used its huge power to bully, intimidate and cover up; and how its exposure has changed the way we look at our politicians, our police service and our press. I will read the conclusions of this book. Rupert Murdoch was not running a normal business, but a shadow state. Now exposed by the daylight, it has been publicly humbled, its apparatus partially dismantled and its executives in retreat, at least for the moment. It stands shaken and ostensibly apologetic, but it is still there, and Rupert Murdoch is still in charge. Madam Deputy Speaker, in the very near future we will be considering the future of our media ownership laws in Australia. We will be applying a public interest test and we will also be looking to examine who is a fit and proper person to own a media company in Australia. I exhort everyone in this House to read Dial M for Murdoch— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S Order! In accordance with standing order 43 the time for members' statements has concluded. Honourable members: More! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S No, the standing orders do not allow me to give the member for Reid any more time—nor do they allow me to give time for the member for Wright to make his application for the front bench! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 5534 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Carbon Pricing 5534 14:00 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah My question is to the Prime Minister. How does the Prime Minister reconcile the climate change minister's statement to parliament yesterday that the closure of the Kurri Kurri smelter is not driven by the carbon tax with his concession on radio this morning that the carbon tax is one of the factors that has affected the plant? How can Australians trust her government on anything when ministers cannot be straight on an issue as important as people's jobs? 14:01 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor Yes, this is an important issue because it is about the jobs of working people and our government always takes very seriously the jobs of working Australians. We do that despite the continued negativity and day-to-day opposition of the Leader of the Opposition and his team. They did not support jobs during the global financial crisis. They did not support the jobs of steelworkers. They did not support the jobs of automobile workers. The Leader of the Opposition talks a lot about jobs but he has never acted once to support a job in this nation. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S The Prime Minister will return to the question. Ms GILLARD 83L On the question of the jobs at Kurri Kurri, this is an important issue for those working people. Of course, when any job is lost in this country, our concern goes to the person who has lost their job, and to their family. It is a very difficult time for them. But I would refer the Leader of the Opposition to the statement made by the vice-president of the company operating the smelter on the Channel 9 news last night. He said, 'We've been losing a substantial amount of money for the first four months and we need to stop the losses'—that is, this business has been in a loss-making position. And, as the Leader of the Opposition well knows, carbon pricing does not come into effect until 1 July. Mr Abbott EZ5 Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order on direct relevance: the climate change minister belatedly admitted the carbon tax had something to do with it. Why won't the Prime Minister? Why won't she come out of denial? The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition knows he cannot use points of order for debate. The Prime Minister has the call. Ms GILLARD 83L There is no amount of spin or negativity from the Leader of the Opposition that changes the fact that this business is in a loss-making position before carbon pricing starts on 1 July. Of course, that is because of changing conditions in the aluminium industry. We have got the continuing fallout from the global financial crisis. Opposition members interjecting— Ms GILLARD 83L We know that those opposite, including the shadow Treasurer, who is screaming and shouting, like to pretend the global financial crisis did not happen. Of course, it did happen and we supported jobs and you voted against Australian jobs. There is a fallout from the global financial crisis. There has been a 40 per cent fall in aluminium prices around the globe. That means there are numerous closures of older, less-competitive smelters around the world. The Leader of the Opposition should not treat working people with contempt by coming into this parliament and trying to pretend that circumstances about their jobs are just more fodder for his fear campaign. On this side of the parliament we respect working people, we support their jobs. The Leader of the Opposition just treats them with contempt day after day—but what else would you expect from a man who advocated Work Choices and believes in it still. Mining 5535 14:04 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, how is the resources boom contributing to a strong economy and how is the government making sure all Australians benefit from this once-in-a-generation opportunity? 14:04 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I thank the member for Canberra for her question. I know that she is vitally interested in jobs and the strength of the Australian economy and she understands the importance to the modern Australian economy of the resources investment pipeline. Australians, as I said yesterday, would be watching with some anxiety circumstances in the eurozone and particularly circumstances affecting Greece. People may well have noted the lack of a clear new plan emanating from a meeting of European leaders being reported in the Australian media today. From this, they would be right to conclude that there are significant headwinds in the global economy. But the Australian economy is walking tall despite these difficulties in the global economy. Today we have further evidence of just how our economy is walking tall in these global circumstances, and that is the fact that new figures show the resources investment pipeline is now nearly half a trillion dollars—half a trillion dollars of new investment flowing into our country, into our resources sector. This is giving our nation a once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure that the mineral wealth within our grounds is fairly shared across the economy. As a Labor government we are committed to doing just that—through the minerals resource rent tax, which will ensure that we can boost investment in infrastructure and keep feeding the boom. The minerals resource rent tax means we can provide small businesses, who work so hard for this nation, with a tax break. We believe that the mums and dads who operate those small businesses are entitled to a fair go and a little bit of tax relief—and we will provide it. And we will ensure too that Australians around the nation see for themselves the benefits of this boom. Many families are saying they understand that the circumstances and fundamentals of the Australian economy are strong but they want to know where their share is. We are determined to give them their share through increased family payments whilst we work with Australians on cost-of-living pressures through our new schoolkids bonus. Of course, we have been opposed every step of the way in trying to ensure that the minerals boom is fairly shared across this nation. But as a government we are determined that Australian families will feel the benefits of the mineral wealth within their grounds at this time in our nation's history. Carbon Pricing 5536 14:07 Mr TRUSS GT4 Wide Bay Thank you, Mr Speaker—Madam Deputy Speaker— Mr Albanese interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S The Leader of the Nationals has the call, and the Leader of the House will let him get his question out. Mr TRUSS GT4 Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My question is to the Prime Minister. Why should the Australian people trust the Prime Minister on anything, given her solemn pledge six days before the last election, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead'? 14:08 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I say to the Leader of the Nationals: why should Australians pay a $1,300 impost per family because of the carbon pricing scheme of the Leader of the Opposition? Why should Australian families have their increased family payments ripped out of their hands and given to Liberal Party mates like Clive Palmer? Why should Australians see $70 billion slashed out of the health and education services that families rely on? Why should Australians see— Mrs Bronwyn Bishop SE4 Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There was absolutely no leeway in that question under the direct relevance rules. For her to be talking about opposition policy issues— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. Ms GILLARD 83L I was really asked a very broadly phrased question, and I am explaining to the House. Why should Australians put up with $70 billion being taken out of health and education and payments to families? Why should Australians have to put up with tax being increased on Australian families by the shadow Treasurer, a plan he has so clearly revealed? The Leader of the Opposition comes into this place day after day with his scare campaign, but let me assure the House of this: there is one side of politics, one Prime Minister, that you can trust to run the economy in the interests of working people. There is one side of politics you can trust to always put the interests of a privileged few before the interests of the many. If you want a government that is going to put Gina's interests first then the Leader of the Opposition is your man. If you want a government that is going to work with Australian families to alleviate cost of living pressures through a schoolkids bonus, for example, that is opposed by the Leader of the Opposition. If you want someone who is going to vote against supporting jobs, standing by steelworkers and standing by car workers—then the Leader of the Opposition is your man. Mrs Bronwyn Bishop SE4 Madam Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S Order! The member for Mackellar has taken one point of order already on the question. There is only one point of order allowed under the— Mrs Bronwyn Bishop SE4 It is not on relevance. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S If it is not on relevance, the member for Mackellar has the call. Mrs Bronwyn Bishop SE4 Thank you very much. I refer you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to page 527 of the House of Representatives Practice, where it is stated that question time is a time of political impact, of opportunity to give members the opportunity to hear satisfactory answers to their questions. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S Order! The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. If there are rhetorical questions, there may be rhetorical answers. The Prime Minister has the call. Ms GILLARD 83L Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, the government will always prioritise the jobs of Australian working people. We will always prioritise supporting Australian families. We will always prioritise building the economy we need for the future through clean energy, through sharing the proceeds of the mining boom and through investing in education and infrastructure, including the National Broadband Network. The Leader of the Opposition has made it abundantly clear to the Australian people that he will always put the interests of Liberal Party mates and a privileged few before the interests of working people. That is the contest in Australian politics, that is the divide in this parliament, and we are a government very proud to run the economy in the interests of working Australians. Budget 5537 14:12 Mr MITCHELL M3E McEwen My question is to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer update the House on new investment numbers released today? How do they support the government's approach in the budget to spread the benefits of the mining boom? 14:12 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley I thank the member for McEwen for that question, because just this morning we did receive a stunning endorsement of our economy's very strong economic fundamentals. We have had a report from the Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics that shows that the investment pipeline is simply skyrocketing. In the just six months to April 2012 the pipeline has grown by more than 10 per cent to reach a new record high. This means that Australia's pipeline of investment in resources is now worth half a trillion dollars, up from $456 billion just six months ago. And over half of that pipeline is at an advanced stage, providing a bedrock of support at a difficult time in the global economy. This is a resounding vote of confidence in the future of our economy and our region, and it simply torpedoes the claims by those opposite, who always try to talk down our economy. In our economy we have solid growth, low unemployment, contained inflation, low net debt and, of course, we have this huge resources investment pipeline that is worth half a trillion dollars. I think it is about time those opposite came out and welcomed these figures, instead of talking our economy down as they do day in, day out. As the Prime Minister said before, our economy does walk tall in the world, but we do understand that not everybody in our economy is in the fast lane of the resources boom, which is why the budget focused on spreading the opportunities of the boom right across our economy. In terms of the investment programs for small business—loss carryback, the instant asset write-off—all of this is part of spreading the benefits of the boom right around our economy and, in particular, to small businesses but also to households. We do need to spread the benefits of the boom to households right across our economy. Of course, there will be increased family payments to 1.5 million families and, as the Prime Minister said before, a new schoolkids bonus to help 1.3 million families with education costs. The Liberals over there are happy to give the planet's richest woman a tax cut, but we on this side of the House are absolutely intent on providing a schoolkids bonus and increases in family payments to people on low and middle incomes. They will not stump up for people with a disability or for families on low and middle incomes, but they are quite happy to give a very big tax cut to the world's richest woman. We on this side of the House will never, ever apologise for standing up for working families in this country. 14:15 Mr MITCHELL M3E McEwen My supplementary question is to the Treasurer. He has spoken about the $½ trillion investment pipeline. How do these numbers build on the already strong fundamentals in our economy? 14:15 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley I do thank the member for McEwen for that question, because I think today's news is welcomed, as is the report from the OECD just two days ago. That was not welcomed by the opposition, either. They did not have anything to say about that good economic news for Australia, just as they have got nothing positive to say about the news today—because they simply will not get out of their mud bucket to say something positive about the country. It would be good if they stopped talking down our economy and got behind the fundamental strengths in it. I think the Australian people deserve that sort of positive approach, and that is what they get from the government. In our economy we do have solid growth returning to trend. We have low unemployment at 4.9 per cent. We have an exceptional record of job creation—over 800,000 jobs. We have contained inflation. We have a low cash rate and, of course, we have got this $½ trillion investment pipeline. These are things that we should all celebrate for Australia. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 5538 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:15 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S I would like to recognise the presence in the gallery today a delegation from Uruguay, led by the Minister for Industry, Energy and Mining, Mr Kreimerman, and with him the Ambassador for Uruguay. Thank you for visiting our parliament today. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 5539 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Member for Dobell 5539 14:16 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her press conference on 29 April, where she said in relation to the member for Dobell, 'I have made a judgment about the parliament and about respect for the parliament.' How can the Australian people trust the Prime Minister on anything when she maintains that she is respecting the parliament by excluding the member for Dobell from the caucus but continuing to rely on his vote in this place to stay in power? 14:17 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor To the member for Sturt, I dealt with effectively an identical question yesterday. I do understand that the opposition do not want to ever come into this parliament and talk about jobs. They are not interested in jobs. They do not want to unveil their $70 billion of cutbacks in health and education. They do not want to talk about that. They of course do not want to talk about— Mr Pyne 9V5 On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: the Prime Minister claims she has responded to questions, but she does not answer questions. Now what she is saying is not relevant to the question she was asked. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S I will ask the Prime Minister to answer the question before the chair. Ms GILLARD 83L I was merely pointing out that here we go again with the opposition in its spin and negativity. I refer the member for Sturt to the statement of the shadow Treasurer at the National Press Club on 16 May, where he indicated to the people there and to the Australian nation that the Liberal Party would very cheerfully accept the vote of the member for Dobell. So, enough of this hypocrisy. Clean Energy Legislation 5539 14:18 Mr WINDSOR 009LP New England My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and relates to the confusion and misinformation about the impact of the clean energy legislation on local government landfill operations. Could the minister clarify which programs and strategies are available for local government authorities to minimise the potential emissions impacts? 14:19 Mr COMBET YW6 Charlton I thank the member for New England for his question, because the government's clean energy future plan—of course, developed in discussion with the member for New England—does provide local councils significant economic opportunities to reduce methane emissions from their landfill waste and to boost their revenue. Reducing methane emissions, which is a powerful greenhouse gas, from council landfills can be achieved by using existing and well-known technologies that have been in place for some time. Essentially, what is involved is the covering of the landfill and the capturing of the methane as the waste decomposes. The captured methane can be flared off or burnt off or used to generate electricity, which can be used to power council facilities and be sold into the electricity grid. So, the destruction of methane from existing waste from landfill facilities can also create revenue under the government's Carbon Farming Initiative. On top of that, if landfill operators use the methane to generate electricity they may be eligible for renewable energy certificates under the renewable energy target legislation. There are already 59 landfill gas generators registered and operating in Australia. In fact, one of them is within one of my own local government areas in Newcastle, at the Summerhill waste facility—and I am very familiar with it. Using opportunities of this nature might also have the effect of eliminating or significantly reducing any liability for landfills under the carbon price mechanism. The facts of the matter are that the majority of local council landfills in Australia will have no liability under the carbon price. It is only the larger landfills that will be obliged to pay the carbon price for their methane emissions and even then their emissions will not create any liability during the financial year 2012-13. By using the opportunities that I have been pointing to to capture methane, the liability in the future for those large landfills could be significantly offset. In fact, the government estimates that the Carbon Farming Initiative income will outweigh the carbon liability for those large landfills all the way through to 2020. So there are significant opportunities, and I noted yesterday that the Tamworth Regional Council indicated it intends taking them up in the member for New England's electorate. They will have good environmental outcomes and they represent important economic benefits that are potentially there for local governments as well. Employment and Workplace Relations 5540 14:22 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation. How is the government making sure that working people are getting a fair go at work? Are there any challenges to his support on the horizon, and, Minister, why is it important to be transparent about policies affecting working Australians? 14:22 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong In this government we believe in the fair go all round at work. In this government we believe in the creation of wealth in Australia and the creation and improvement of national income. But we also on this side of the House in this government believe in the fair distribution of the national income. We are delivering the fair go all round. That is very clear. Here are five or six simple numbers: better productivity through the year, up to 1.8 per cent—up from the haunting legacy of the Howard government of 1.4 per cent; reasonable wage rises occurring for Australian workers; 87,000 new jobs created since January, despite the difficulties caused by the global financial crisis; superannuation—nine per cent to 12 per cent, opposed over there, supported here; and 8½ million Australians better off because of the people on this side. You do not have to take my word for these things. The ILO, the IMF and the OECD—the rollcall of serious global observers—say that this government gets the importance of the fair go all round. I am asked, 'Are there challenges?', and I hate to say that there are some storm clouds of challenges gathering on the horizon. There are some people in public life who want to cut take-home pay, who want to cut shift rates, who want to cut penalty rates, who want to cut redundancy rates, who want to undermine safety at work. What we need to do in order to see off these repugnant ideas crawling out from under the rock where they have been banished since 2007 is to be transparent. This government's transparency is here for all to see, and we stand by what we do for all to read—this is the bill we passed looking after coalminers; this is the bill we passed for better safety; this is the bill we passed for safe rates; this is what we have done for health and safety. We know where we stand. We are on the record. We have got our record, our views, out for all to see. Indeed, six months before the 2007 election, we had 50 pages of policy—nothing to hide, all upfront, all for debate. But those opposite think that politics is a game of hide and seek. They hide the policies and the public have got find them. The quiet achiever from Canning, though, yesterday belled the cat. He said, 'We've got an IR policy, but we don't want to be done like John Hewson was by Paul Keating, so we're not going to tell you.' Indeed, Christopher Pyne played Sergeant Schultz on the media today: 'It's not me; I'm not the IR guy. Oh, that's the policy committee. I'm not in that. I'm only in shadow cabinet; what would I know?' Let me tell you, a mouse pad is not a policy. (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 5541 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 5541 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Member for Dobell 5541 14:26 Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM Cowper My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister of her previous statement: ... question time is supposed to be one of our key accountability mechanisms. If there is a big scandal ... you are supposed to be able to get to the matter in question time ... How can the Australian people trust the Prime Minister on anything when she has failed to keep that commitment by routinely gagging debate in the parliament over matters surrounding the member for Dobell? The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S The Leader of the House on a point of order? Mr Albanese R36 In order to solicit an answer it is helpful if a question is asked, and there wasn't a question asked there. Mr Pyne 9V5 If the Leader of House had been listening he would have heard that the question is: how can the Australian people trust the Australian Prime Minister on anything, given— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat! My difficulty with the point of order from the Manager of Opposition Business is that I would have thought that that question has been asked and answered on numerous occasions. But I was going to rule the question in order and call the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has the call. 14:28 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I am happy to say to the member who asked the question that I very much enjoy question time because it reminds me every day of how truly pathetic the opposition is. Unfortunately, it is the opposition that is broadly opposed to question time, which is why they do their stupid motions every day. But in my own way I am grateful for that because it enables me to get 25 minutes more work done every day. So move your motion and I will go and get something important done for the nation. Carbon Pricing 5542 14:29 Ms LIVERMORE 83A Capricornia My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and Minister for Industry and Innovation. Will the minister update the House on the outlook for the coalmining industry with the introduction of the carbon price? What does this say about confidence in the industry? How is the government making sure people across the economy benefit from the mining boom? 14:29 Mr COMBET YW6 Charlton I thank the member for Capricornia for her question. She represents workers in a lot of coalmines, as I do in my electorate and in my region. There is great cause for confidence in the coal industry because the coal industry is continuing to see very strong growth. In the figures referred to earlier by the Treasurer that have been released today by the Bureau of Resource and Energy Economics, actual and planned investment in the coal sector currently stands at $96 billion. This does not include over half a billion dollars currently committed for new exploration investment. That extraordinary investment pipeline will help keep not just coalmining but also a wider economy strong in coming years. It is good news for all Australians, except one—the Leader of the Opposition. It is bad news for the Leader of the Opposition because it exposes the deceit of his predictions of doom and gloom for the coal industry under the carbon pricing arrangements. In fact, on a visit to Peabody Energy's Metropolitan mine last June, he claimed the carbon price meant 'death to the coal industry'. The day after he visited another Peabody mine in Queensland, predicting the destruction of the industry, the company rather inconveniently announced at a $4.7 billion takeover of Macarthur Coal. Peabody's latest quarterly report is quite instructive on this. It shows an increase in Australian revenues of 48 per cent and an increase in profits of 11 per cent. That is the doom and gloom, that is the nature of the deceit that has been engaged in day after day in relation to the coal industry by the Leader of the Opposition. Like so many of the claims of the Leader of the Opposition on carbon pricing, as the facts come out in relation to his predictions of death for the coal industry, all will be revealed. The fact of the matter is: the coal industry is experiencing record growth and investment. That is why government has determined to spread the benefits of the boom through mechanisms like the minerals resource rent tax to people throughout the Australian community, not just to the Clive Palmers and Gina Rineharts of the world. We have introduced those measures through things like tax cuts for households, increases in family tax benefits, increases in the pension and other measures to assist households that were announced in the budget. Those are the facts. It is important for people to hear the facts and, as the facts come out, the Leader of the Opposition's fearmongering will be completely exposed for the deceit that it is. 14:32 Ms LIVERMORE 83A Capricornia Madam Deputy Speaker, I have a supplementary question about the household assistance that the minister just referred to. What does this mean for my local community and others in Central Queensland? 14:32 Mr COMBET YW6 Charlton I thank the member for Capricornia once again for her question because the average assistance that the government is providing to households across the country, as has been stated many times, is an average of $10.10 per week. We are delivering that assistance through tax cuts, through increases in the pension, through increases in family tax benefits and many other Commonwealth payments. The fact of the matter is that through these measures millions of households will be better off. In the seat of Capricornia, about which I have been asked, 47,000 taxpayers will receive a tax cut and over 36,000 people will receive payments such as increases in the pension or family tax benefits. These are significant measures to assist Australian households. Opposition members interjecting— Mr COMBET YW6 I am asked why. We are delivering $10.10 a week on average in assistance to Australian households to assist them meet the cost-of-living impact of the introduction of the carbon price—which, contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition has said in his campaign of deceit, will only increase electricity prices on average by $3.30 a week. We are delivering the assistance to people. We have boosted that through other measures in the budget. We are giving people the facts. He is engaging in fear. Gambling 5543 14:34 Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P Curtin My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister of her declaration that: 'When you give a promise to the Australian people you should do everything in your power to honour that promise.' How can the Australian people trust the Prime Minister on anything when she promised the member for Denison in writing that she would introduce mandatory precommitment for poker machines and then trashed that promise this year? 14:34 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that, on matters to address problem gambling, the government is very serious about dealing with the destruction that problem gambling can bring to Australians and their families. Of course, the member for Denison has a very specific view about mandatory precommitment. That legislation was not going to succeed in this parliament because the opposition had said very clearly that they would not support it—because the opposition say no to absolutely everything. We would not at all be surprised that the opposition would choose to oppose a government measure. All they ever do is just say no. So, in the face of the opposition's obstruction, we have worked hard to put together legislation which we hope will get the support of this House. I do not know if the Leader of the Opposition has specifically stated where he stands on this legislation, but it will be the biggest package of reforms to address problem gambling ever considered by the national parliament. So the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may want to reflect on whether she wants to do anything about problem gambling or whether she wants to just keep saying no and playing politics. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may also want to discuss with the Leader of the Opposition, given she is interested in these questions of trust, what he meant when he said in the 2004 election campaign about the Medicare safety net: That is an absolutely rock solid, ironclad commitment. Ms Julie Bishop 83P Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order on relevance: I asked the Prime Minister about her broken promise to the member for Denison and she should direct her answer to her broken promise. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S Order! I ask the Prime Minister to return to the question before the chair. Ms GILLARD 83L The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is interested in broken promises, so she may want to raise that with the Leader of the Opposition, trashed after the election. On problem gambling, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has a decision to make: does she care at all about problem gambling or not? I suspect, like the rest of the opposition, she will just say no. Road Infrastructure 5544 14:37 Ms SAFFIN HVY Page My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Will the minister please outline the government's commitment to duplicating the Pacific Highway? What is the government doing to support this commitment, and how has this support been received? 14:38 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Page for her question and for her ongoing commitment, like the member for Richmond and the member for Lyne, for ensuring that the Pacific Highway is fully duplicated. We allocated $3.56 billion in the recent budget which, if matched by New South Wales, would allow for the full duplication of the Pacific Highway by 2016. Now, you would think that that would be supported by all those who care about road safety and by all those who care about productivity. But I was surprised, when listening to Senate estimates yesterday, that Senator Barnaby Joyce said we were just pork-barrelling seats on the Pacific Highway. We know that the Greens have said that the only reason we are funding the Pacific Highway is because of donations from trucking companies. I expect them to oppose road funding but I do not expect it from local members and the National Party. I should add: 'if you look at what their record is.' The member for Dawson has said this: 'We're looking at the commitment of $3.6 billion put on the table for the Pacific Highway. You can only write it down to pork-barrelling and vote buying.' That is the attitude of the National Party towards works in the electorates of the member for Cowper and the member for Paterson and other people on the North Coast of New South Wales. Well, here are the facts. There are five projects underway on the Pacific Highway. The amount of $1.6 billion, or 92 per cent of the funding for projects, is in seats held by the coalition. Only three per cent is in the electorate of Lyne and four per cent in seats held by members of the Australian Labor Party. Of the work to be done, 48 per cent is in coalition-held seats, and these people have the hide to say that it is pork-barrelling. This is in the national interest. The coalition in New South Wales are baulking from their responsibility to front up money and the coalition are attacking the allocation of money for this project. It is little wonder, given they put in $1.3 billion over 12 years and we have already got over $4.1 billion allocated up to now. They have more interest in giving Gina Rinehart a tax cut than looking after the Pacific Highway. (Time expired) Asylum Seekers 5544 14:41 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister that before the election she promised she would open a regional processing centre for illegal boat arrivals in East Timor and there would be no expansion of processing centres in Australia. How can the Australian people trust this Prime Minister on anything when the East Timor centre was junked after the election and 4,300 new beds have been added at centres opened or expanded at Curtin, Scherger, Wickham Point, Darwin, Broadmeadows, Pontville, Inverbrackie and, soon to be, Perth? 14:41 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor The answer to the member's question is very clear. The opposition has decided it wants to see more boats, and because the opposition has decided it wants to see more boats— Mr Randall interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S The member for Canning is warned! Ms GILLARD 83L Because in its negativity it is so opposed to the national interest, the opposition in this parliament under this Leader of the Opposition trashed the outlook of the former Howard government, trashed everything that was ever said or acted upon by the former Howard government in enabling governments to make appropriate decisions about offshore processing. The member who asked this question was part of leading the opposition to a position that meant it did everything it could to stop the government entering into an arrangement with Malaysia and putting it into operation. It decided that, instead of having the maximum deterrence for boats, it wanted to see more boats. Now, this reckless negativity has cost our nation. It has meant that people are embarking on dangerous journeys. It is against safety at sea. It has also meant that we have seen more boats. Mr Morrison interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S Order! The member for Cook! Ms GILLARD 83L The member is screaming and shouting but the one thing he will not do is come into this parliament and vote to enable the government to put into place the arrangement with Malaysia. He will not do that because he wants to see more boats. He loves it when he sees boats, because he will always put their political interests above the nation's interest. This is the reckless negativity of the opposition at every stage and in this area of policy above many others. Their trashing of the national interest is there for all to see. Family Payments 5545 14:44 Mrs D'ATH HVN Petrie My question is to the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, and Disability Reform. How is the government delivering support for families in the lead-up to the carbon price coming in July? Are there any challenges to this support? 14:44 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga I thank the member for Petrie for her question and for all the work she does, especially for families in her electorate in the Northern Suburbs of Brisbane, as this government goes about its work to build a clean energy future for our country. It is the big polluters that are going to be paying for the pollution they put into our community, and not Australian families. One of the very important things that has been happening over the last 10 days is that we have been delivering to families in advance of the carbon price starting. Families have been receiving up to $110 per child for families on family tax benefit part A and up to $69 per family for those on family tax benefit B. Mr Hunt 00AMV Why would they need that? The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S Order! The member for Flinders is warned. Ms MACKLIN PG6 I can inform the House that as of last night around 1.3 million Australian families have received their household assistance payments valued at $255.6 million. That is the money that families are getting in their pockets right now to make sure they get the extra assistance to help make ends meet. From 1 July this year we will also be providing families and other Australians with a tax cut. More than seven million Australians will receive more money in their take-home pay because of this tax cut. It will mean that around a million of them will not even have to fill out a tax return anymore. For a family with two primary-school-aged children and an income of $80,000, this means they will get more than $1,000 in tax cuts and payment increases. That is the reality of what this side of the parliament is delivering to Australian families. We know what the big danger is for families. We know that this Leader of the Opposition wants to claw this money back from families, take it out of their purses and wallets— Ms Marino interjecting— Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S Order! The member for Forrest is warned. The minister has the call and will be heard in silence. If you do not want to upset the Manager of Opposition Business, I think you had all better behave. Ms MACKLIN PG6 That is exactly what this Leader of the Opposition intends to do: get rid of the tax cut, claw back the family payments and, of course, just say no to the schoolkids bonus. Prime Minister 5546 14:47 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister of her statement: I am going to be held to higher standards of accountability than any Prime Minister in the modern age. I ask: how can the Australian people trust the Prime Minister on anything when she has failed time after time to stand in this House at that dispatch box and respond to the motions moved by the Leader of the Opposition and the Manager of Opposition Business that go directly to her accountability? (Time expired) 14:48 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor To the member's question: really, one wonders about the levels of delusion on display over there. Let us just go through some of the facts. The opposition has moved 57 censures or suspensions. That means they have lost the opportunity to ask 359 questions. That means they have lost, in total, 31 hours and two minutes of question time. That means they have lost, in total, the equivalent of 14 question times. What the opposition shows in this parliament every day is that it does not want to debate the real issues facing the Australian people; it wants to engage in negativity and spin. So it comes in with these kinds of questions which we have heard today—nothing serious ever about the economy, nothing serious about the budget, nothing on the future of health, nothing on the future of education, nothing on building the future economy, nothing on our relationships with our region, nothing on the defence or national security of the nation—nothing of meaning. The opposition comes in with its cheap politics and then it follows up its pathetic attempts in question time with the Leader of the Opposition or, increasingly, the Manager of Opposition Business, just carrying on with their cheap politics for 25 minutes. If the member over there thinks that is accountability, or the appropriate way for a member of parliament to conduct themselves, then he is seriously out of touch. Can I suggest he gets himself in touch by standing at a school gate in front of a school in his electorate, looking every working mum and every working dad in the eye and saying, 'I don't believe you should get the schoolkids bonus.' Mr Andrews HK5 Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S The member for Menzies will resume his seat. The question gave a great deal of latitude, and I am not sure I could find relevance to draw to an answer. The Prime Minister has the call. Ms GILLARD 83L I was asked a very broadly phrased question, so I am saying on accountability: why doesn't the member for Menzies—or indeed, the Leader of the Opposition—stand at a school gate and tell every working mum and dad he does not want them to have the schoolkids bonus? Why doesn't he go to a car factory and say, 'I do not support money to support your jobs'? Why doesn't he go to a steel mill and in front of those steelworkers say, 'I did not support money to support your jobs'? Why doesn't he walk to a hospital and say, 'I took $1 billion out of you last time and now I've got $70 billion worth of cuts to make'? Why doesn't he go and talk to school teachers about the planned cuts that he has for education? When it comes to accountability I am certainly there for real accountability. It is the opposition that does not want to be held accountable for its reckless negativity. Small Business 5547 14:51 Mr CHEESEMAN HW7 Corangamite My question is to the Minister for Housing, for Homelessness and for Small Business. How does the budget support small business in my community and across Australia? 14:52 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I thank the member for Corangamite for his question and his interest in more than 15,000 small businesses in his electorate. The budget announced by the Treasurer delivers for small business in this country. The budget, firstly, returns us to surplus. That is important. The budget, secondly, spreads the benefits of the mining boom. That is also a very important factor in providing support for small business. Indeed, there are specific measures to ensure that small businesses, incorporated or otherwise, are in a position to have an environment in which they can thrive. The budget surplus is very important because it gives the Reserve Bank the opportunity, if it so chooses, to lower the official cash rates. Recently we saw a 50-basis point reduction of the official cash rate. That effectively means we now have an official cash rate that is lower than at any time during the Howard years. That provides opportunities for small business to access credit and provides confidence that that can happen more effectively for those businesses in need of credit. The budget surplus also provides a buffer for our economy against any possible future international economic shock. Again, this is a very important thing and it was remarked upon by the OECD this week as being a very effective way of protecting ourselves against any future shock. This budget also provides some very specific initiatives to help the more than 2½ million small businesses in this country that employ almost five million Australians. We have the loss carryback initiative which provides direct benefits for up to 110,000 companies. That will allow them to invest and innovate. It also provides confidence for those businesses who may not be directly benefiting but know that if they end up in a loss position for the financial year they will be able to claim the refund of taxes paid previously. The instant asset tax write-off is a very good initiative for cash flow. It allows for the purchasing of each and every asset up to $6,500. This has also been well received by COSBOA and others in the small business community and provides great opportunities for small businesses. The Leader of the Opposition is on the record opposing a company tax cut entirely and also opposing the tax cut for businesses that we were proposing to introduce. This is a shameful thing for a Liberal leader who pretends to support small business. What is even worse is that this Leader of the Opposition wants to take the tax relief for small business in the budget and give it back to Clive Palmer, give it back to Gina Rinehart. The Leader of the Opposition has no regard for small business in this country. (Time expired) MOTIONS 5548 MOTIONS Prime Minister 5548 Censure 5548 14:55 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I seek leave to move a motion of censure on the Prime Minister. Leave not granted. 14:55 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Warringah from moving forthwith: That this House censures the Prime Minister for her consistent failure to be honest with the Australian people. We have a right to move a censure motion in this parliament, and the Prime Minister has an obligation to respond. She has a duty to this parliament and she should not shirk her duty. I have to say no previous Prime Minister, no Prime Minister in living memory, would be as cowardly in facing this parliament as this Prime Minister is. That is why standing orders should be suspended. Standing orders must be suspended because this parliament needs to debate the Prime Minister's consistent failure to be open and honest with the Australian people. And hasn't there been a long litany of betrayals? There was her failure to be straight with the member for Griffith over the prime-ministership. There was her failure to be honest with the Australian people before the last election over the carbon tax. There was her failure to be honest and straight with the member for Denison over poker machine reform. There was her betrayal of the member for Scullin over the speakership. There was her failure, seen again and again in question time this week, to be honest with the Australian people and this parliament over the carbon tax, pretending time and time again that it had no impact on the decision to close the Kurri Kurri smelter when plainly it had every impact on that decision. Is it any wonder that Bill Kelty, in desperation over the legend of the Labor Party, said to his former colleagues, 'Start with the truth. Why don't you try the truth?' This is a Prime Minister who has never seen the truth, never known the truth and, if she ever saw it, she would flee from it, as she flees from this parliament day in, day out. Where this Prime Minister has particularly failed to be straight with the people and the parliament—and this is why standing orders should be suspended—is over the member for Dobell and his statement to the parliament earlier this week. At a human level, I have a great deal of sympathy for the member for Dobell. All of us in this chamber, including members on this side of the House, have a great deal of sympathy at a human level for the member for Dobell. We have no sympathy though for a government and for a prime minister who have put him in this position by insisting that he remain in the parliament when the honourable course of action for him would be to resign. That would be the honourable course of action for the member for Dobell. Standing orders must be suspended— Mr Albanese R36 Madam Deputy Speaker, I am reluctant to move a point of order, but there is a very clear standing order for which the Leader of the Opposition's statements are out of order. There cannot be a statement that someone must resign from the parliament. It is clearly out of order. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S The Leader of the Opposition has the call and will refer to the motion before the chair. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Standing orders must be suspended because it is the Prime Minister who is in the dock here, not the member for Dobell. There are many members of parliament over the years whose behaviour has been questionable, but it is how their party leaders have dealt with that behaviour that really matters and has determined the standing or otherwise of this parliament. Standing orders must be suspended so this Prime Minister's integrity can be debated. That is the fundamental issue that has been before the parliament this week. For months the Prime Minister has been saying to us every time we have asked questions about the member for Dobell, 'Just wait for the Fair Work Australia report,' and we waited, and we waited, and we waited, and we waited. For almost four years we waited for that report. I have to say it was worth waiting for. There were damning findings in that report, damning findings that $100,000 of union members' cash had been withdrawn improperly and unaccountably, that hundreds of thousands of dollars of union members' money had been used improperly to secure election and that $6,000 of union members' cash had been used on escort services. These are facts, these are findings of facts, not mere allegations. And where is the Prime Minister? She is skulking in the whip's office rather than addressing this issue of integrity which is dogging her government. Standing orders must be suspended because for months the Prime Minister said she had full confidence in the member for Dobell. She said she wanted him to be in the parliament for many, many years. Now, along with the carbon tax that she will not actually name, this is the one subject that she refuses to deal with. She said to the ACTU that she was disgusted with a member and with a union, refusing to name the member and refusing to name the union. She told the public that a line had been crossed, but refused to explain exactly what that line had been. Now—and this is why standing orders must be suspended—she says that the member is too tainted to sit with Labor in the caucus, but he is not too tainted to sit with Labor in the parliament. That is why standing orders must be suspended. This government has no concern for the member for Dobell, as the huge absence of members opposite during his statement demonstrated. This government is only concerned with its own survival, and that is why standing orders must suspended. The Prime Minister needs to say who she believes. Does she believe the meticulous, exacting report and findings of Fair Work Australia or does she believe the member? Does she believe this meticulous report or does she believe a self-serving piece of parliamentary theatre? Standing orders must be suspended so this Prime Minister can declare who she backs. Does she back her creation, Fair Work Australia, or does she back the member whose support she is so desperately clinging to to survive in office? This is a fundamental question of integrity for the Prime Minister, and that is why it is so disgraceful that she will not stand up in this parliament and answer it. The Prime Minister cannot avoid dealing with this fundamental choice and she should not run away from it, because Fair Work Australia and the member for Dobell both cannot be right. Either the member for Dobell has misled the parliament or Fair Work Australia is guilty of the most extraordinary incompetence, of the most remarkable conspiracy, in the long and not always glorious history of this parliament. I say to members opposite that the Australian public are watching what happens in this parliament. They are embarrassed by the revelations about the member for Dobell but more and more they are impatient and disgusted with this Prime Minister. Standing orders should be suspended because there is nothing wrong with our country that a change of government would not improve. More particularly there is nothing wrong with this parliament that a change of government could not fix. This parliament itself is not the problem. The problem is a government and a Prime Minister that are consistently trashing, debasing and demeaning this parliament in their desperate quest to survive. This is a rotten government, a rotten Prime Minister. It should go and it should go now. 15:05 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I second the motion. It is bad enough that the Prime Minister breaks her promises to the Australian people, but it is even worse that she takes the coward's course of not standing up and fighting for her position. She takes the coward's course of running from the fight, turning her back to the battle and, instead, leaving it up to the Leader of the House every time to defend her tawdry record in office in this place on these suspension motions. But it is understandable because how could the Prime Minister stand in this House and defend the indefensible. Mr Ruddock interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S Order! The member for Berowra. Mr PYNE 9V5 It is no surprise that she will not be here today, that she will not stand in this House to defend the indefensible. That is another reason why she should be censured: for her failure to be honest with the Australian people. She should be censured because the Prime Minister has lost the trust of the Australian people, she should be censured because the Prime Minister presides over a rotten government and she should be censured because the Australian people deserve better. I thought in question time I was not listening to Julia— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S Order! The Manager of Opposition Business. Mr PYNE 9V5 Standing orders should be suspended because this motion of censure against the Prime Minister is the most important matter that we can deal with before the House today. Questioning the honesty, the integrity and the character of a Prime Minister is a very serious step. We have taken it very rarely in the last five years. We may have moved many suspensions; we have hardly moved any censures. The import part of this debate is that it is about the censure of the Prime Minister. In question time the Prime Minister said: … there is one side of politics … that you can trust … I thought for a minute that I was listening to Julia Zemiro the comedian, not to Julia Gillard the Prime Minister. How could the Prime Minister stand in this place and seriously so argue, after the breach of faith on the carbon tax, the mandatory precommitment for poker machines, the East Timor solution, the citizens assembly and the Australia Day riot? One after another, she has broken her promises to the Australian people. That is why standing orders should be suspended, so that we can debate this motion properly and so that speakers from both sides of the House can take the time necessary. If the government think they can defend the Prime Minister, why would they not take the censure? Former Prime Minister Howard used to take every censure that the then opposition moved, because former Prime Minister Howard had the confidence to stand in this House and defend his record, to stand and defend his government. This Prime Minister failed to take the censure. She scurried from the chamber to coward's castle and refused to stand in here and defend her record, and for that she should be condemned. Don't just take my word for it, Madam Deputy Speaker: standing orders should be suspended and this motion should be debated, because there are people on that side of the House who want to debate this motion. Some of them have done so in the last three months. In fact, a third of the caucus voted against the Prime Minister. Rather than vote for this Prime Minister, they voted for someone they described as a psychopath. In fact, former Prime Minister Rudd was the one who, on 24 February, said: Julia has lost the trust of the Australian people … He also said: It wasn't K Rudd who made a pre-election commitment on a carbon tax. It wasn't K Rudd who made a particular commitment to Mr Wilkie on the question of poker machines. It wasn’t K Rudd who had anything to do with the East Timor solution or the Malaysia solution. These were initiatives and decisions taken uniquely by the prime minister. Wasn't he absolutely right? The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S Order! The Manager of Opposition Business needs to return to the motion before the chair. Mr PYNE 9V5 And that is why the Prime Minister should come into the House and debate this motion. The reason why standing orders should be suspended is that the censure motion must be debated in this House. I call on the cross-benchers to support this motion to suspend, because debating the integrity of the Prime Minister and her character is the most important thing we can do in this parliament to try to restore some integrity to this disastrous 43rd Parliament, which has broken the confidence of the Australian people in their national government. It is time now—not in June, not at the end of next year—for the Prime Minister to go. It is time right now, today, for the caucus to act, to do what we all know they want to do, to save their own political hides and dispatch this Prime Minister. 15:10 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler We are not going to take lectures about parliamentary behaviour from this Leader of the Opposition, who is the only member of parliament to ever be thrown out of parliament for physically confronting a Vietnam vet with no legs, for marching across the chamber when he was out of control, to Graham Edwards. The Leader of the Opposition is not able to control his temper. He does not have the temperament to be the Prime Minister of this nation. He does not have the character to be Prime Minister of this nation. Ms Julie Bishop 83P Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Leader of the House is not speaking to the motion. He is telling false statements—in fact, telling lies about the Leader of the Opposition. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S The Leader of the House has the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a Leader of the Opposition who is into the politics of confrontation, aggression and conflict. That is what defines him—his very meaning— because he does not want to engage in a debate about substance and policy. Here we are, one week after the budget and the coalition are moving a suspension of standing orders, not to debate the economic policy and their alternative—which he gave on the Thursday night, which had no substance at all—not to debate the economic impact of what is occurring in Europe, not to debate the impact of what is happening with employment, climate change, social policy, transport policy, health policy and education policy. No. On 58 separate occasions they have moved a suspension of standing orders. That is why you just cannot take them seriously. The opposition said before, 'This is a suspension of standing orders to have a censure debate. We don't do that very often.' Thirty-four times they have done it—they are delusional, and the parliament is only halfway through the term—out of the 58 suspensions. They are so delusional. It is as though they go into the office of the Manager of Opposition Business for tactics every morning. They ask: 'What will we do today?' The 30 of them who sit on the 'tactics committee' have a debate and they all disagree, so they end up settling on: 'I know, we'll do what we did yesterday.' It is groundhog day because, no matter what is happening in the economy, today we had a few questions about the company in Kurri Kurri. You would think the opposition would want a debate on it. No, no. The Leader of the Opposition—the workers' friend—will be up there on Saturday, with a nudge, nudge, wink, wink, saying that it is all a result of the carbon price, but he is actually not prepared to debate the substance. I will tell you what I have been doing today, as a minister of the Crown: I have introduced five pieces of legislation, including legislation to create a national maritime regulator benefiting the economy by $30 billion over 20 years. I have introduced legislation to reform the Navigation Act. The act has been there since 1912 and still has provisions in it to allow a master of a ship to shoot someone and to be immune from prosecution. It still has provisions in it that the master has to be informed if a lunatic is coming on board. That could be appropriate! But we have reformed it—done major reform. We have announced a $20 million package to help exports in Tasmania, with my Tasmanian Labor colleagues and the member for Denison, who lobbied for this project. What did they do about it? Nothing. I will tell you what we have done. We are continuing to work on the Pacific Highway. What are they doing? Sledging it and saying no to it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S Order! The Leader of the House will return to the motion. Mr ALBANESE R36 The reason why standing orders should not be suspended, Madam Deputy Speaker, is because they are the issues of substance. That is why I went into politics. I went into politics to make a difference—to make a difference to the people who I grew up with, to the vulnerable people in the community, through things such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the education refund and through measures such as the industrial relations reforms we have brought in to get rid of Work Choices and, most fundamentally, to make sure that we have a strong economy. And there is no stronger economy anywhere in the world. For the first time in 40 years, under this Prime Minister and this Treasurer we have unemployment, official interest rates and inflation all under five per cent—for the first time in 40 years. No wonder they do not want to debate us on substance. If you want to have a debate about those issues, bring it on! But if you just want this self-indulgent, blood-lust for power that we see from this megalomaniac opposite, then we will say no to that, because what we are seeing day after day in this parliament is a trashing of the pillars of democracy, a trashing of the separation of powers, a trashing of the presumption of innocence, a trashing of the rule of law. It is fundamentally important that we meet the challenge which is there in this hung parliament. A hung parliament is different. It does bring with it different characteristics. It brings forward a challenge for the maturity of our democracy. It is the case that, for the first time since the Second World War, the government does not have a majority on the floor of this parliament. That is an opportunity as well as a challenge. It is an opportunity to have a far more consultative parliament. It is an opportunity to be far more inclusive than the traditional system whereby a government has a majority and uses its numbers to crunch through. It is an opportunity to change that. But what we are seeing from those opposite is the longest dummy spit in Australian political history—a refusal to accept the result from the Australian people in 2010. We see every single day a refusal and a challenge to the legitimacy not of this government but of our democracy. That is what has made them angry. And that is why you have the extraordinary proposition that people should just be told to resign and people should just change the outcome. We even had, last week, the Manager of Opposition Business put notices on the motion—notices on the paper— Mr Pyne 9V5 Motions on the Notice Paper. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S Order, the member for Sturt! The Manager of Opposition Business is being petty. Mr ALBANESE R36 that people could be suspended from the parliament. He withdrew that this week. He withdrew it. So what is this all about? The idea that, in the future, a government that has a majority would use that majority to change the make-up of an elected parliament. These are precedents that have consequences for the future. This is taking the politics of destructiveness to a very dangerous level indeed. And that is why senior people such as Nick Minchin have warned against the approach of this Leader of the Opposition and those who sit behind him. I know that many of them are very uncomfortable with the actions of the opposition—very uncomfortable indeed. There was even the issue of the disclosure of the committee that met last night, where you had, to his great credit, Mr Secker agreeing with Yvette D'Ath, the chair, in terms of the reference on that issue. So you have people who have stood up for integrity of process, as did the member for Canning, to his great credit. But what we see continually is a preparedness to trash any rule whatsoever. This bloke is not a conservative; he is just a reactionary. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S Order! The time allotted for the debate has expired. The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.

The House divided. [15:24]
(The Deputy Speaker—Ms AE Burke)

 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 Entsch, WG Fletcher, PW Forrest, JA Frydenberg, JA Gambaro, T Gash, J Griggs, NL Haase, BW Hartsuyker, L Hawke, AG Hockey, JB Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Jensen, DG Jones, ET Kelly, C Laming, A Ley, SP Macfarlane, IE Marino, NB Markus, LE Matheson, RG McCormack, MF Mirabella, S Morrison, SJ Moylan, JE Neville, PC O'Dowd, KD Prentice, J Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE Randall, DJ Robb, AJ Robert, SR 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 Washer, MJ Wyatt, KG 72 NOES Adams, DGH Albanese, AN Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Bradbury, DJ Brodtmann, G 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 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 McClelland, RB Melham, D 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 Snowdon, WE Swan, WM Symon, MS Thomson, CR Thomson, KJ Vamvakinou, M Wilkie, AD Windsor, AHC Zappia, A 3 PAIRS Dutton, PC Emerson, CA Keenan, M Marles, RD O'Dwyer, KM Rowland, M

Question negatived.

 15:28 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper COMMITTEES 5554 COMMITTEES Selection Committee 5554 Report 5554 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 5556 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 15:29 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S I present the Auditor-General's Audit report No. 34 of 2011-2012 entitled Upgrade of the M113 fleet of armoured vehicles. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. COMMITTEES 5556 COMMITTEES Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee 5556 Government Response 5556 15:29 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I move: That the House take note of the following document: Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee—Review of the Defence annual report 2009-2010—Government response. Debate adjourned. PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS 5556 PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS Speaker's Panel 5556 15:30 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S Pursuant to standing order 17(a), I lay on the table the Speaker's warrant nominating the honourable member for Parramatta to be a member of the Speaker’s panel to assist the chair when requested to do so by the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 5556 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Carbon Pricing 5556 15:30 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S The Speaker has received letters from the honourable member for Flinders and the honourable member for Chifley proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46(d), Mr Speaker has selected the matter which, in his opinion, is the most urgent and important; that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Flinders, namely: The impact of the carbon tax on jobs and the cost of living 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— 15:30 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders The carbon tax was, very simply, designed to destroy jobs in the aluminium sector, it was designed to destroy jobs in the electricity sector and it was designed to destroy jobs in the food-cooling and trucking industries—and it is doing that right now. Let me begin with a real world example. Yesterday Norsk Hydro announced the loss of 344 jobs at its Kurri Kurri plant in the Hunter, right on the doorstep of the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency's own seat. This plant was started in the 1960s precisely because of the cheap electricity available to it. Its foundation stone, its fundamental principle, was that it had access to cheap electricity. For those reasons, this plant at Kurri Kurri was established. For those reasons, for the best part of 40 years there has been employment in the aluminium sector. But all of that is coming to a halt. What did Norsk Hydro say in its statement yesterday? The government would have us believe that the carbon tax is simply a coincidence, that it is, like every other misfortune, just bad luck, somebody else's fault, something else coming along. But the statement from the company could not have been clearer: Following a thorough review it is clear that the plant will not be profitable in the short term with current market prices, while long-term viability will be negatively affected by a number of factors including increasing energy costs and the carbon tax. Let us look at what is happening here. With Norsk Hydro, we see that there is a bad situation, a difficult climate, for aluminium production in Australia. The worst thing you could do is take their long-term comparative advantage of relatively low energy costs—the reason that this plant was created in this place—and trash it. That is what the carbon tax does, and the evidence from the company could not have been clearer. What was the government's response? Did the government say, 'We're sorry, we acknowledge it, we realise it'? The government went into denial. The minister for climate change said in his press release yesterday: I have spoken with the company today, which confirmed that today's announcement has been driven by current financial losses that are unrelated to the carbon price … So it was nothing to do with the carbon price. We thought: this does not seem right. The Leader of the Opposition asked the minister for climate change directly about statements by the company. At 2:29 pm yesterday the minister for climate change said in this House: I spoke to a company representative again today in relation to this issue who emphasised to me that the announcement today is not driven by the implications of the carbon price. The Prime Minister then said: Minister Combet has spoken directly to the company today, and they are very clear that their current financial pressures have nothing to do with the carbon price. That was despite the fact that, in its statement, the company was express, clear and absolute. But what we then discovered this morning was that the minister knew all along that the carbon tax was absolutely at the heart of it. In an interview with Aaron Carney on ABC Radio in Newcastle this morning the minister for climate change was forced to fess up that the company said something very different. He said about the discussions with him personally: 'They have described it as one of many factors in the long term.' What are we saying here? The company told the minister. The minister said to the parliament: 'They never talked to me about it; it was never one of the factors.' The company told the minister. They also told the world via press release that the carbon tax was fundamental to their decision. The company told the minister and he deceived the parliament. The company told the world. We all knew, and the Prime Minister denied it. So what we have from this government is a denial about the jobs impact of the carbon tax, a denial about the very thing the carbon tax was intended to do. Let us look at their own modelling. Treasury's modelling says there will be a 60 per cent reduction in aluminium production in Australia compared with what would have been the case without the carbon tax. This is not against other factors; this is against the sole variable of the carbon tax. Treasury's modelling, released late last year, says the carbon tax will see a 60 per cent reduction in aluminium production in Australia. And that is what it was intended to do; that is the way it operates. It reduces Australia's emissions by moving our production offshore to China. That does not help the world, it does not help Australia, but it sure helps China. And so we see clear express Treasury modelling—undeniable. We have a clear express statement from the company that employed those 344 workers who will now lose their livelihoods, who will now be seeking work, who will now be wondering how they can meet their mortgage, pay their commitments and deal with the concerns of their family. These are real jobs expressly linked to the carbon tax by the company and then all denied by the government—except that the minister had to concede that what he said in this place yesterday was simply not true. And the situation for the aluminium industry and jobs gets worse. As we see, Bell Bay in Tasmania is under review. Point Henry in Victoria is under review. And, yes, it is absolutely true that there are real and profound challenges with the high dollar and with the low metals price in relation to aluminium production. That makes it even more the case that this is the worst possible time to impose a unilateral tax on Australian production that does not apply to the product of overseas competitors being brought into Australia. The government will say, 'Don't worry; we're giving them compensation.' The Aluminium Association's own work shows that the bill for the aluminium sector will quadruple as that compensation collapses and as the price of the carbon tax increases. Over 10 years the impact on the industry will quadruple, and that is the way they make decisions about capital allocations. That is the way they make decisions about who has a job and who does not have a job. That is the real world of decision making in business in Australia, and what we see here is that jobs are being expressly, clearly and absolutely destroyed because the cost of electricity is being driven up, because the cost of operating an aluminium plant, with their direct emissions, is being driven up and, compared with the rest of the world, an already bad situation is being made worse. Let me turn to the cost of living side. The question in relation to electricity is absolutely central. We hear from the government, 'Look, there's only been a 10 per cent increase'—and we should be thankful for that! The New South Wales Treasury says this will become a 15 per cent increase in short order. The Electricity Supply Association, who, I would remind the government, are the very people that issue the bill—not the government; the Electricity Supply Association members issue the bill—say it will be a 20 per cent increase because there is a second whammy coming in April 2014, when they have to buy forward permits under the government's scheme. So that second price is coming as sure as night follows day—not to mention incremental price rises along the way. For this year, if you are in New South Wales, you probably face a 16 per cent increase in your electricity bill, of which half or more is coming from the carbon tax. A bad situation is being made far worse. When the government says, 'Look, it's only 10 per cent now,' let us be absolutely clear that the next 10 per cent is coming right down the track and so we do this on top of what KPMG says is a 74 per cent rise in the cost of electricity over the last five years in my own city of Melbourne. All of this means that consumers will pay the bill. They are the ones that are going to pay the price. Let us go forward to councils, because we heard from the minister today that the councils are not going to pay. Well, 104 councils from around Australia—Albury, Ballina, Bathurst, Bega, Bellingen, Murray, Muswellbrook, Newcastle, Orange, Bundaberg, Cairns, Central Highlands, Etheridge, Gold Coast; it goes on right around the country—received a letter from the Clean Energy Regulator in the last week which said: 'You are possibly operating a significant landfill which potentially could mean that you will be liable under the Clean Energy Act. Please advise in writing by 31 May 2012.' The reason? It is because 'you are likely to be a liable entity for the 2012-13 financial year'. That entry will be recorded in the register. What does that mean? It means that councils around Australia, firstly, do not know for certain whether they are about to be hit; 104 councils are struggling to understand whether they will be a target. Secondly, the price of going to the tip is going up as of 1 July, and the minister knows it and the parliamentary secretary knows it. Let me give you an example from the Prime Minister's own electorate that this price rise is coming now. It comes from the budget papers on the published record of Wyndham council. Wyndham council is interesting because it is in the Prime Minister's own electorate. What have they budgeted as the amount of money they have to raise through increased rates because of the carbon tax on their landfill this year? $13.02 million. One council, Wyndham City Council, in one electorate, the Prime Minister's electorate, needs $13 million precisely because of the impact of the carbon tax. Mr Dreyfus interjecting— Mr HUNT 00AMV If the parliamentary secretary doubts it, I am happy to table the Wyndham City Council's public records for this year. Let me go further than that, though, because the question is: why has this happened? It is because they are going to have a liability for potentially 30 or 40 years for the waste which is deposited as of 1 July. The government tries to say, 'Look, they don't have to worry about that for 12 months.' But they have to collect the money now to cover that charge, because in 12 months time they are not going to be able to find who deposited the waste, who put it there. That is why Treasury has advised the Manningham City Council that they should be increasing rates now. The government knows that the price rises are coming, the government is advising councils that the price rises are coming and the government is in denial that city tips, council tips and regional tips right around the country are about to be hit. But you cannot walk away from 104 councils which have received letters from the Clean Energy Regulator in the last week. That then brings me to the last area, the fact that we are going to see rises in refrigeration. The government says, 'Look, it is only going to be a little bit.' Here is a letter from Iceman Transport Refrigeration's Cynthia Marshall to the member for Moreton, Graham Perrett. In it she says that the carbon tax component is going to take the cost of her refrigerant gas from $5,200 a month to $20,200 a month. It is going to quadruple the price. And lest you think that this firm has it wrong, the government's own Calculating the Equivalent Carbon Price on Synthetic Greenhouse Gases information brochure shows that some prices will be, in carbon tax equivalent for a tonne of refrigerant gas, $75,000. That is not a fabrication. That is not somebody else's view. That is the government's own information. So that is what is happening in the real world: people are paying with their jobs and people are paying with their hip pockets. It is no surprise that we are seeing the most dishonest advertising campaign put forward by a government in living memory. What we saw on budget night was that the campaign was taken to $70 million. It included an extra $36 million of advertising—$14 million between budget day and 1 July. That is $270,000 a day of public money to tell them why they should learn to love the carbon tax—except for the fact that it does not mention the carbon tax. Not once does $36 million buy you a mention of the carbon tax. Last night we heard why: an honest official—whose name I will not raise, because I do not want him to be purged—said before estimates that the Prime Minister's own department excluded the name because people might be confused if carbon tax was mentioned. They did it on the basis of information that the term 'carbon tax' confused people, because it really let them know that they are the ones who are going to pay with their jobs and they are the ones who are going to pay through their hip pocket. It is time this government was finally honest— (Time expired) 15:46 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I am very happy to rise today to speak on this matter of public importance. The topic, the impact of the carbon tax on jobs and the cost of living, is a very significant one. It is important because our moves to price carbon through an emissions trading scheme will make a fundamental change to the nation's economy. Our plan to cut carbon pollution and drive investment in clean energy technologies and infrastructure, such as solar, gas and wind, will help build the clean energy future which future generations of this country deserve. It will help our children. It will help our grandchildren. It will reduce our emissions and position Australian business for the development of the global low-carbon economy which is coming. It will position Australia for the jobs that come with that global low-carbon economy, which I know those opposite do not want to think about because they want to put their heads in the sand. They do not want to think about the future that is coming. They do not want to think about what the rest of the world is doing to grapple with the problem of global carbon pollution— Mr Christensen interjecting— Mr DREYFUS HWG to grapple with the problem of dangerous climate change, which I know the member for Dawson denies the existence of. Instead of actually embracing a package that would secure Australia's future in a carbon constrained world, the coalition is engaging—and we have heard some more of it today—in a hysterical, shameful and misleading scare campaign. Their claim is that the carbon price will drive up the cost of living and that Australians will be worse off. I need to be clear: nine of 10 Australian households will be receiving a tax cut or a pension rise or a benefit rise through our package to help with the cost of living. It is amazing to see the Liberal Party pretend that they care about the welfare of working Australians, given their track record of failing to provide support. Just two weeks ago our Labor government delivered an excellent budget, which provided a substantial boost to low-income households—again, something that those opposite do not care about—only to have that same excellent budget derided as 'class warfare' by the negative and out-of-touch Leader of the Opposition. If you think providing support to parents to help with sending their kids to school is class warfare, if you think delivering tax cuts for all taxpayers earning up to $80,000 a year is class warfare, then you are completely out of touch and completely beholden to your Liberal mates like Clive Palmer at the expense of ordinary Australians. The coalition's attitude to this budget shows just how shallow the supposed care that the Liberal Party and the National Party profess for working people really is. All they actually care about is their mates with deep pockets. We are interested in governing for the many and not just for the few. If the opposition cared one bit about the cost of living and about making ends meet, they would be supporting the clean energy package and the budget, because both of them will make millions of Australians better off. You know that the best way to learn about what the coalition really thinks on helping families deal with the cost of living is by looking at what the Liberal Party did when they were in office and what they do when it comes to important votes in this place. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, you cannot believe anything he says unless he writes it down. Better still, look at the actual record of the coalition. The best way for Australians to have a decent life is through a well-paid, secure job. If we had listened to the Leader of the Opposition, if we had listened to the opposition who voted against our stimulus package in 2009, we would be in a situation where hundreds of thousands more Australians would be out of a job. Around 70 per cent of the stimulus package was infrastructure which has left a long-term legacy for our nation. Not only does the opposition oppose government action to secure jobs; when in office they brought in Work Choices. That was their record in office because they have never had a plan for our economy, except a race to the bottom by cutting pay and conditions of working people. Try dealing with cost-of-living issues when you have had your penalty rates cut or when you have been unfairly dismissed. The Liberals cannot help themselves. Only yesterday we saw more reports that the coalition want to return to what many on that side believe to this day to be their crowning achievement, which was Work Choices. They are talking behind closed doors in their party room, looking at ways they can strip away pay, strip away penalty rates, strip away conditions from working people. We can hold our heads up high on the cost of living because we got rid of Work Choices. We have acted to make sure that people do have a job which is secure and that when they have a job it is fairly paid with good conditions. We can hold our heads up high because we acted to support jobs during the global financial crisis. And we can hold our heads up high because we have helped with the quality of living as well as with the cost of living by investing in services in health and education after years of coalition neglect. We have acted to improve services and we have acted to reduce out-of-pocket expenses. When we are talking about the cost of living we do need to sort out fact from fiction. There are so many false and misleading claims that have been made by this coalition opposition that I cannot begin to list them all, but they all stem from the Leader of the Opposition's desire to say and do anything to get into office. There is no abuse that he will not hurl, no misrepresentation that he will not make in order to put the position that he wishes to put. Really, they have long ago stopped basing any of their claims on reality. They claim that the price of everything is going to go through the roof, but they cannot add up. I will just take one of the more recent spurious claims of the opposition. I am very pleased that at least a representative of the National Party is here. The National Party leader told parliament yesterday that the cost of— Opposition members interjecting— Mr DREYFUS HWG Sorry to insult you—that the cost of servicing a domestic refrigerator would go up by $300 a year. But to spend that much, the Leader of the Nationals would have to call technicians to his house to fully replace the refrigerant gas every five days and he would have to do this for a whole year. Whatever will they come up with next! The opposition's claims stopped being based on reality a long time ago. They will say and do anything to whip up panic. They will hurl any abuse and misstate any fact—like the Leader of the Opposition claiming that the coal industry was going to die. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency dealt very effectively with that in question time. It is rubbish, like, indeed, the misrepresentations on the Kurri Kurri aluminium smelter. We have just heard some of them being repeated by the member for Flinders. I want to state a few things for the benefit of the House. The government is conscious absolutely of the pressures facing the aluminium industry but the issue needs to be considered in the context of aluminium prices peaking at US$3,300 per tonne but now being approximately US$2,000, a fall of 40 per cent. That collapse in aluminium prices has resulted in numerous closures of older, less competitive aluminium smelters around the world. Hydro Aluminium has consistently identified the strong Australian dollar, low metal prices and current international economic conditions as contributing to the financial problems at the smelter. The company has been clear that their current financial pressures have nothing to do with the carbon price, which is yet to commence—just to remind members of the House. This was confirmed today in the Financial Review where the company stated—and this is the company talking here, not any suggestions by the government: The carbon price is not a major issue compared to other factors. The same report confirmed that the company is already losing $6 million to $7 million a month—and there is no carbon price in place. Of course that situation is a matter of regret, but what we do not need is those opposite coming into this House and pretending that the carbon price, which is yet to commence, is the reason—and that is what we have heard from those opposite—for closures in any part of the country, or the reason, indeed, for any business failure that they can point to. We have had further spreading of misrepresentation by the member for Flinders in relation to councils. What he failed to say in mentioning the City of Wyndham is that the City of Wyndham supports the carbon price. A government member: Whoops! Mr DREYFUS HWG Whoops, indeed. What he failed to say in relation to the City of Wyndham is that the City of Wyndham provides waste services in its very large landfill to between eight and 10 other Melbourne councils and provides with its very large landfill services to a very large number of commercial firms which need to dump waste. Perhaps he did not know this. I have met with the City of Wyndham and discussed with them the way in which they are going to be meeting their obligation, and I did not hear from them any of the hysteria that the member for Flinders has been out and about with today. I did not hear any of the hysteria that the member for Flinders wants to spread. What I heard from the City of Wyndham, and the other councils who attended the meeting with me, was that they understand that the carbon price is coming in; they have made the calculations they need to make in order to be able to deal with it; they support the carbon price and they understand the way in which the mechanism works, which is that there are to be costs passed on. They understand that insofar as there are going to be rate rises for the ratepayers of the City of Wyndham that those rate rises will be in the order of 13c to 40c per household per week and that the household assistance package is $10.10 on average per household per week. So that it is more than able to deal with the small level of rate rises which will be associated with the carbon price, if indeed the particular council does need to introduce those rate rises. So when the opposition gets up, as no doubt they will again, to tell us that the lights are going to go out or that the sky is falling in or that the beer will go flat, I would say to them: they know just how untrue their claims in relation to the carbon price are. They know the misrepresentations they are making and they are going to be sorely disappointed that we do not have the disasters which they are clearly looking for, because after 1 July we will be holding this opposition to account. I will be looking forward to going to Whyalla and reminding the citizens of Whyalla that their town did not become a ghost town—in fact, that their town is a growing town, despite the fact that we have a carbon price. I am looking forward to going to coal mines around the country and discussing with workers the nonsense that we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition that the coal industry will die. And I am looking forward to going to industry around the country and telling workers the truth, unlike those opposite who think that it is appropriate conduct for them as an opposition to tell lies to the people of Australia about the affect— Mr Baldwin LL6 Ask him to withdraw. Mr DREYFUS HWG Too much for you? The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 The parliamentary secretary will resume his seat. The honourable member for Paterson on a point of order? Mr Baldwin LL6 Previous Speakers have ruled that a 'lying' is an unparliamentary term. Therefore, I ask the parliamentary secretary to withdraw. Mr Dreyfus HWG I withdraw. I am very glad to have the opportunity— The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 The parliamentary secretary has not been given the call yet. I thank the parliamentary secretary. He has assisted the House by withdrawing that word. I call the parliamentary secretary. Mr DREYFUS HWG I am very glad to have the opportunity to talk about the cost of living, because this Labor government is doing so much to help Australians. We are a Labor government and the reason why we are in this place is to act to improve people's lives, to make life easier, to improve services, to spread opportunity, to support working families. What we have from Tony Abbott's coalition is an anti-Labor party and they are anti-Labor because, no matter what we do, they oppose it. They are anti-Labor to their core because they oppose workplace rights and, at every opportunity they get, they cut services to working people. For a long time under the former Howard government, many Australians found themselves wondering why they were not able to share in the benefits of the boom, why services shrank, why costs and interest rates rose. An Abbott government would be no different. The budget has been well received by Australians. That is because it is a budget which helps Australians and all we have is Liberal opportunism that is seeking to take advantage of any downturn in the economy. Those opposite love to talk down the economy. We need to keep steadily in mind what is at stake here. The government needs to act on climate change. Any responsible government of Australia needs to act on climate change. There is an absolute consensus among climate scientists that climate change is real, that there will be significant future impacts if no action is taken to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. A low carbon global economy is coming. It is up to us to decide whether we help Australian business take advantage of this or simply bury our heads in the sand, which is what those opposite wish to do. 16:01 Mr BALDWIN LL6 Paterson There is no denying the fact that carbon tax is bad for business, it is bad for Australia. I only need to point to the evidence yesterday: Kurri Hydro—344 jobs to go. This morning at 10 o'clock the company started the consultation process to make the determination about the wind-up mothballing. So when the parliamentary secretary says he looks forward to going out into the community to meet the workers, I say to him, 'Don't bother going to Kurri because there will be no workers at the factory, there will be no workers at the aluminium smelter.' What is misleading is that this parliamentary secretary has joined in the chorus with the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency by stating that Kurri Hydro say the carbon tax has not affected their decision to close the plant. I want to quote from correspondence, a press release and a letter I received yesterday from Mr Olaf Wigstol, the senior vice-president. It says in part: Following a thorough review, it is clear that the plant will not be profitable in the short term with current market prices, while long-term viability will be negatively affected by a number of factors including increasing energy costs and the carbon tax. Yesterday in the parliament, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency responded to a question from the Leader of the Opposition by saying: I spoke to a company representative again today in relation to this issue who emphasised to me that the announcement today is not driven by the implications of the carbon price … That is misleading the House. He backed it up with a press release dated yesterday which restated that the announcement is: … driven by current financial losses that are unrelated to the carbon price, which does not begin until 1 July. On the ABC in Newcastle on 1233 this morning, I was interviewed alongside Minister Combet. During the discussion it was put to him by Aaron Kearney who actually read the website that carbon tax was a factor. Minister Combet for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and the member for Charlton who actually has a number of these workers living in his electorate said, 'It is not a critical cornerstone, they have described it as one of the many factors in the long term.' So I am going to be rather generous today. I am going to ask the minister to come in and correct the record because this minister has deliberately misled the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 Order! The member for Paterson will withdraw the words 'deliberately misled'. You can do that by substantive motion. Mr BALDWIN LL6 I will tell you why I will not. Just let me finish for a second. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 Order! The member for Paterson will withdraw or I will sit you down. Mr BALDWIN LL6 I will withdraw then. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 You will withdraw unreservedly. Mr BALDWIN LL6 I withdraw unreservedly. But on Monday, if he does not come into the House and correct the record, I will put it to the Privileges Committee for examination. Deputy Speaker, there are 344 workers on top of the 150 that have already gone in Kurri. Will this parliamentary secretary go out there and meet them? No, he will not. Will the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency stand up for his constituents? No, he will not. Because this government and, in particular the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, are like an episode of Fawlty Towers. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency plays the role of Basil so well. Just don't mention the war. Don't mention the carbon tax, don't mention the war. It is an episode of Fawlty Towers. The sad reality is that Fawlty Towers is actually funny; this government is not, and the impacts of the decisions of this government will affect our nation dramatically. In fact, modelling that was done will show that by 2050 Australia's aluminium industry could be slashed by 60 per cent and New South Wales Treasury estimates 18½ thousand job losses from the Hunter due to the carbon tax, and they have started. We can remember the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency during the waterfront dispute, standing with those workers—workers united will never be divided—standing up for their jobs. But when given the opportunity to stand up for the jobs of those people—some who live in the electorate of the minister and some who live in the electorates of the members for Hunter, Shortland and Newcastle and in my electorate—these members talk the talk but when it comes to walking the walk, the only thing they do is walk away. One would think they are like people who stand by conviction and beat their chest and deliver ultimatums. I would point to an ABC media interview just over a year ago, on 15 April 2011, when the national secretary of the Australian Workers Union, Paul Howes, warned this government, 'If one job is gone, our support for the carbon tax is gone.' Now, I expect it to be repealed 344 times because just in our patch that will be 344 jobs gone. But will Mr Howes now stand up to this government? Of course he will not, because he is one of the people who installed this Prime Minister—the same Prime Minister who promised there would be no carbon tax under the government that she led. What we are seeing is an episode of Fawlty Towers. Just do not mention the war, do not mention the carbon tax. It is disgraceful. I turn for a moment to my own portfolio of tourism. We have asked this government many times, through Senate estimates and directly of the Prime Minister: what modelling have you done on a carbon tax and its implications for the tourism industry? There has been none—no modelling. Let me point to modelling that was done by one of the industry associations, the Tourism and Transport Forum, whose modelling in the submission they put to this government said that if you bring a carbon tax in 6,400 jobs would go. These are working families that this Prime Minister talks about wanting to support, but she is prepared to see, in the tourism industry alone, 6,400 jobs go. They also said that the economic hit would be around $750 million off the bottom line. This is an industry that is already in financial trouble. They are going to have the carbon tax—oh, sorry; don't mention the war—imposed upon them. Qantas have said that the implications to them are around $150 million next year. Virgin have said that the cost implications to them are $45 million. People like Quicksilver and other cruise operators up on the Great Barrier Reef have said their cost impact in the fuel price increases alone will be $250,000 a year. This mob opposite do not understand business. If they understood business they would understand that we are actually in price-point-sensitive markets. The aluminium industry is a price-point-sensitive market but nowhere as much as the tourism industry. Now, a lot of those operators who are going to suffer this cost impost on 1 July have already forward-sold bookings for months and months to come on fixed prices. They cannot just lift their price because of the carbon tax, and what I fear is that even more jobs will go. Members opposite, particularly those in the Hunter where these jobs will go—and this will only be the beginning—have an opportunity to come into this House next week and move a bill that will suspend the carbon tax until at least after the next election when people, like those 344 workers at Kurri who are going to go, will have a chance to say what they think, and it is about time this government started to listen. Those members opposite who represent tourism electorates have an opportunity to come in here and stand up for their workers who are going to lose their jobs. This mob over there are very good at talking the talk. They are outstanding at talking the talk, but when it comes to walking the walk the only thing they ever do is walk away from the workers. We have seen it from the minister for climate change, who when he was not in power championed the case for the workers but when he gets here says, 'Oh, sorry.' There are all these excuses, but just do not mention the war. Well, let me tell you, there is a war. The coalition is fighting a war to save jobs. The government is fighting a war to kill off jobs and they should be condemned for it. 16:11 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I issue a simple challenge to the member for Paterson. If you want to put a privileges claim in against the member for Charlton, I will be following up with my own, because you just misled the House, claiming 345 jobs will be gone for a price that has not even come in. So when you are ready, we will be ready to meet that challenge. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 Order! Member for Chifley, resume your seat. I said it in the Federation Chamber this morning: the use of the word 'you' is a reflection on the occupier of this chair. It is coming from both sides of this chamber and the Federation Chamber. In your comments just then you were saying 'you, you, you'. That is a reflection on me and other occupiers of the chair. I said this morning that I would not pull people up, but I will in future whilst ever they use that word 'you'. Mr HUSIC 91219 I am grateful for the guidance and I will ensure it does not happen again. This place should be a forum for struggle. It should be a struggle for ideas. It is one of the biggest issues facing the country and it should have two sides being able to put up competing approaches to deal with this issue of climate change and how we respond. We have put a price on pollution. We recognise that with this issue you cannot keep putting it off, that in actual fact we need to embark on a major economic and environmental reform. We have put forward a comprehensive plan. Those opposite believe the best way to deal with it is to plant a stack of trees. Relying on the science and relying upon market-driven responses, we have put forward a solution. Those opposite cannot find one scientist or economist to back what they are saying. On the way through, we have admitted, acknowledged and been quite upfront that there will be price impacts, but we have also provided a comprehensive and far-reaching assistance package. Their response is to take it away: pension increases—gone; family tax benefit increases—gone; tax threshold increases—gone. I did say that this place is a place for struggle but for those opposite I never thought it was a struggle for comprehension, to be able to understand what needs to be done. They are hard-pressed to understand that when you highlight a problem you should be able to find a solution or, if you are unable to do it, at least back a solution. They go around wringing their hands 24/7 about cost-of-living increases and pressures but then vote against the schoolkids bonus. When you are worried about jobs in the steel industry, you do not vote against a steel transformation plan. When you visit factories, slipping on your own crocodile tears about jobs, you do not go and cut $500 million of industry assistance or, worse still, sneer at efforts to protect 46,000 auto jobs in this country. We have had a number of them say, 'Why should we be defending an industry that's gone?' There they are, writing off that industry, claiming it is not worth saving. That is what they are saying. That is their economic philosophy. How do you say you are worried about costs of living and not support people's means to meet those costs of living by holding on to their own jobs? And now we have an MPI claiming that the coalition has concern about both costs of living and jobs. You do not talk about tax relief for business and then say you are against a company tax rate cut. You do not do it. Dr Mike Kelly HRI Absolute hypocrisy! Mr HUSIC 91219 It is absolute hypocrisy, as pointed out by the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence. You do not say you want to see lower personal tax and then promise one million people that you will reduce the tax-free threshold. They talk about costs of living but fight against every single effort that we have put forward to help families and to secure jobs. It is worth noting that nearly a million people taken out the taxation system are 60 per cent women. Hundreds of thousands of those people taken out will be students and young people. In denying those people a tax break the coalition seeks to give a tax break to the richest woman in the world; someone who, every single second of the day, earns as much as a worker on minimum wage earns in one single week. If you were a young person and you scored a job to help pay your way through TAFE or uni, what would you think of a political party that came along and said: 'We think you should pay more tax. We think Gina Rinehart should pay less, but we think you should pay more, and that is why we are reducing the tax-free threshold.' Talk about making life harder for young people! There they are, studying, trying to get ahead and to make their way in the world, and those opposite come along saying that they want to increase tax. In my electorate 58,000 people will see a tax cut. In my electorate 19,000 will see an increase in family tax benefit payments and 24,000 pensioners will see a lift in their pension. Mind you, if you are concerned about cost-of-living increases—and I raise this with the member for Flinders because he talked a lot about my home state—5,000 of those 24,000 pensioners in the electorate of Chifley are worried that they will see an increase in their public housing rents because Barry O'Farrell will increase those rents just at the time we are providing assistance. Mr Perrett HVP Shame! Mr HUSIC 91219 A shame indeed. We provide $10.10 in assistance through all the initiatives that we put forward as a transition to a clean energy future to cover the $9.90 average increase. That is a boost to help deal with cost-of-living increases. The member for Flinders has flung around all sorts of playdough stats here— Mr Hunt 00AMV Which one did you disagree with? Mr HUSIC 91219 I am going to get to that point, don't you worry. The New South Wales government has made all sorts of claims about electricity price increases. In fact, it has been a roulette wheel of stats. The problem has been that the numbers have always gone down. They went from a point when they said that electricity prices would go up by 20 per cent in New South Wales and then, when it was challenged, it went down to 15 per cent. When it was challenged again it went down to 10 per cent, which is pretty much where the Treasury modelling anticipated that this would head. The New South Wales government also did not take into account the economic growth, particularly the growth in renewables jobs that would occur in New South Wales, and they were roundly hounded for that. They did not take into account renewables jobs, and the Premier also welcomed the fact that New South Wales would be home to the Clean Energy Financing Corporation. They did not say no to that. The member for Flinders talked a lot about my home state, but I want to give him some home truths. The New South Wales Minister for Resources and Energy was out there claiming electricity prices in New South Wales would increase by 16 per cent, the bulk of this due to the carbon price. That was what he said. Eight per cent of that increase, or, as the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency has indicated, roughly $3.30, would be as a result of what we are doing by putting a price on carbon. That eight per cent increase is compensated for—it is assisted. What happens to the other eight per cent in New South Wales that they will be paying as a result of what is happening with power prices in New South Wales? Mr Perrett HVP It's the same in Queensland. Mr HUSIC 91219 Queensland, as the member for Moreton has pointed out, has the same deal. So where is the cost-of-living increase, or the assistance to help cover that cost-of-living expense, that we never hear from those opposite? We also had reference to landfills. I can inform the member for Flinders that the biggest driver of costs in New South Wales for taking rubbish to a tip is the waste management levy administered by the New South Wales government. This will continue to be administered by the New South Wales government into the future and will increase costs. Yet we never heard a word from the member for Flinders, or any of those opposite, on what would be provided to compensate or assist families on the way through. You also might want to know that the New South Wales government was big about holding back on cost-of-living increases, yet we found out in the previous week that close to $300 increases in water bills will eventuate as a result of the New South Wales government backing a submission to IPAR to see those water bills go up. Those opposite continue to perpetuate myths and mistruths about what will happen. They pretend that they know about the impact of cost-of-living increases but do nothing about it. (Time expired) 16:21 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I rise to speak on this matter of public importance on carbon pricing to tell the House why the party that delivered us the pink batts fiasco, the green loans scandal, the school halls blow-out, the network tender debacle, the GroceryWatch and Fuelwatch embarrassments and the misguided and costly failures of the NBN has gone one step further by, in 38 days time, delivering to the Australian people—all 23 million of them—a carbon tax. This is a carbon tax that nobody voted for and a carbon tax that nobody wants. Let's not forget that this Prime Minister told the Australian people just five days before the last election, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' Let's not forget this is the same Prime Minister who said that the Labor Party was 'the party of truth-telling'. This is the same Prime Minister who promised at the last election a citizens assembly—another gabfest—and instead has delivered the Australian people another tax grab. That is what we have to wait for in 38 days time. We are here to discuss the impact of the carbon tax on the jobs and the cost of living of Australians. We are here to discuss why companies such as Toyota and Holden, Hydro Aluminium and OneSteel, ANZ, Westpac, Macquarie Group, Royal Bank of Scotland, Qantas, Goodman Fielder, Telstra, 1st Fleet trucking, Pacific Brands and Murray Goulburn all have shed jobs this year. We are here to discuss why the only jobs that are being created in Australia are in the bureaucracy, because this government has announced a $3.2 billion Australian renewable energy agency, a $256 million clean energy regulator and a carbon cop, a $25 million climate change authority and the daddy of them all, the $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation. We are here to tell the Australian people that the only other jobs outside the bureaucracy and the Prime Minister's office that are being created are in the advertising industry, thanks to a $70 million taxpayer funded advertising campaign that does not mention the two words 'carbon tax'—you would probably have to spend an extra $30 million to get it out there. Of the $70 million, $36 million is being rushed out the door, a total of $270,000 a day. This is scandalous, because on 8 March in the Agea spokesman for the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency said no decision had been made on the future of advertising. In April in the HeraldSunit was reported: 'Last night a spokesman for Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said no decision had been made about whether to create more carbon tax ads.' Rubbish: we now know about the $70 million going out the door. What are we going to get in 38 days time? We are going to get a $23 a tonne carbon tax that is going to hit Australian households by at least $515 a year—a carbon tax which will grow to $29 a tonne by 2016, $37 a tonne by 2020 and a shameful $350 a tonne by 2050. We are told by the Energy Supply Association of Australian that Australian consumers are already paying more than 70 per cent more for their electricity than their counterparts in the United States and 130 per cent more than their counterparts in Canada. What is going to happen on 1 July? Automatically gas and electricity are going up by 10 per cent. What is more we will be spending Australian taxpayer money to buy carbon permits overseas to the tune of $3½ billion by 2020 and a massive $57 billion by 2050, at a time when Europe Poll are investigating massive fraud with the carbon trading scheme. This is what Australian people have to look forward to. Who is going to be hurt? Self-funded retirees are going to be hurt. They have written to me. Gabrielle Whiting is a constituent of mine. She is under the age of 65 and earns about $35,000 a year. She has gone to the government's own calculator on its website to work out how she goes under the carbon tax. Guess what? She is $251 a year worse off. Self-funded retirees have been forgotten by this government. What the carbon tax is going to do to my state of Victoria has been illustrated in a Deloitte report. This Deloitte report contains a quote from a Premier Ted Baillieu press release. He says as a result of their modelling, which is based on Treasury modelling, by 2015: There will be 35,000 fewer jobs than would have been the case without a carbon tax. Investment will be down almost $6.3 billion, or 6.6 per cent. Per capita income will be more than $1,050 lower. The Victorian State Budget will be almost $660 million worse off. I know that in other states, like Queensland where are a number of my colleagues come from, similar Deloitte reports have found that the Queensland gross state product would be 2.76 per cent lower by 2020 and 4.11 per cent lower in 2050 with a carbon tax compared to without a carbon tax. These are destructive numbers—they are not just numbers, they are families and households. We heard in the parliament today about Hydro Aluminium which will be closing down its Kurri Kurri plant which employs 344 people. We have heard that Qantas, OneSteel and BlueScope Steel have all lost more than 2,000 jobs and will be having a $400 million a year carbon tax bill. We have heard that aluminium output, on the basis of the government's own Treasury modelling, will be over 60 per cent lower after a carbon tax—in fact, the Australian chair of Rusal, the world's largest aluminium producer, has said the carbon tax is based on 'a very flawed assumption that our competitors are going to have similar or more aggressive carbon or energy policies attached to them'. Let's not forget that Rusal has a 20 per cent stake in Queensland Alumina, with 1,800 workers in Gladstone. Let's not forget that international capital is fungible and will move overseas if the costs of doing business in Australia are too great. That is why the CEO of BHP, Marius Kloppers, has called the tax a 'deadweight cost'. If you look at Westfield, nearly 12,000 of their storeholders have had the carbon tax pricing built into their leases. If you look at dairy farmers, they are going to be paying up to $5,000 more per farm. If you look at irrigators, it is $282 a year more for them. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 5570 ADJOURNMENT Carbon Pricing 5570 16:30 Dr STONE EM6 Murray I too wish to speak on this incredible situation where in 38 days time we will have a $23 a tonne carbon tax. This is going to have extraordinary impacts across our economy. But there will also be a carbon equivalent levy or tax that, for a lot of our Australian consumers, is still something of a mystery. Mick and Julie, dairy farmers in southern Victoria, have been paying about $12 per kilogram for refrigerant gases to cool their milk. Using the new carbon tax formula for synthetic greenhouse gases to be implemented on 1 July, they will not be paying $12 per kilo but $48.40 per kilo, plus a call-out fee of $1,921, in order to cool their two vats of milk. They cannot afford this, and very few of their fellow dairy farmers can. In their email to me, they said that, to add insult to injury, these new alternative gases they are supposed to use in the future will be 13 per cent less efficient. There are over 9,000 dairy farmers running at least two refrigerated vats each, and the cost to these farmers alone from this new carbon equivalent tax will be some $25 million if they try to convert. On top of that $25 million for converting their vats, they are going to have to meet the milk factories' passed-on carbon tax itself. Murray Goulburn Co-operative, for example, has already told their farmers that they will have to pick up the $15 million to $20 million extra that it will cost the cooperative each year for energy to manufacture its milk. So these dairy farmers are really beginning to wonder: what did they do to Labor? What is it that this government has against food production in this country? They cannot be competitive against New Zealand dairy farmers, who have to pay a carbon tax of less than $10 a tonne, with a massive range of carve-outs. This is the most extraordinary tax. What other government in the world is even contemplating anything like a $23 a tonne carbon tax across the entire economy? What is the reason for this? It is just about beyond explanation, but, then again, the reason is also very simple: it was all about the Greens party. They said to the Labor Party at the time of the last election, 'We know you've got problems with your numbers in this minority government situation, but if you introduce a carbon tax according to our dictates you've got the keys to the Lodge.' That is a shocking thing to do to the Australian economy. In my area alone we have already seen, marching out the door to another country, the Heinz tomato sauce factory. You might be a little surprised to think one factory did nothing much more than make magnificent tomato sauce and tomato ketchup. They did a great job, but they are here no more—they have gone. Heinz took themselves off to New Zealand, where they are only going to pay $10 per tonne in carbon tax. I think this is absolutely extraordinary. This business of refrigerant gases is an absolutely dreadful situation. In many cases there are no standards or licensing requirements for the gases that are alternatives to hydrofluorocarbons. If these gases are to be replaced, we are talking about 300 per cent to 500 per cent increases over the current gases that they use. We are also told that in their supply chain they will be facing additional costs including insurance, administration, finance and lost custom if they do not convert. How will they convert when it costs up to $1 million for a coolstore in my area to move from a hydrofluorocarbon to ammonia? They do not have that cash. They are going to have to pay up to $100 a kilo for HFCs after 1 July. They cannot afford that. Labor is shrinking their capacity to survive as food producers for this country. This Prime Minister has told us that she thinks the food-growing prospects for our nation are wonderful and that we could perhaps even double our food production in the next two years and meet the growing global demand. At the same time, she is making it impossible for our food producers to survive in her new carbon taxed environment. Come the next 38 days we will see a shrinking of industry right across Australia but particularly in the food-growing areas. (Time expired) Parramatta Electorate: Indian and Bengali Communities 5571 16:35 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta I rise to acknowledge an event that took place earlier this month. I was not able to celebrate it because I was on my way to Canberra, but it is an event that means a great deal to Australians of Indian and Bengali descent. It was celebrated at the Riverside Theatre of Parramatta on 6 May and was organised jointly by the Ministry of Culture of India, the High Commissioner of Bangladesh and on the ground by one of my constituents and good friends, Prabir Maitra. It was the 150th anniversary of the birth of a poet, Rabindranath Tagore. He is an extremely well known poet in India and Bangladesh. He is generally regarded as one of the outstanding creative artists of modern India and he was the first non-European to win the Nobel Prize in Literature, in 1913. He wrote the most beautiful poetry at a time when his country was experiencing quite a bit of strife. He was a humanist, a universal internationalist and a strident antinationalist. He denounced the Raj and advocated for the independence of India from Britain. Anybody who has been to Indian-Australian functions will already know some of his music because he wrote the national anthem of India, Jana Gana Mana, and he also wrote Bangladesh's national anthem, Amar Shonar Bangla. I was not aware that he was the author, but I have sung along with the Indian national anthem on a number of occasions and heard some extraordinary versions of it, and it is indeed a quite beautiful piece of music. The anniversary event for me highlighted one of the great things about my community. In Australia many of us have lived in our little silos of English language, but we now have in our midst people who are aware of the extraordinary creative contributions made by people in other languages. Now, in my world, I get to look through these little windows and be introduced to some extraordinary artists. I want to share one of Rabindranath Tagore's poems today, a Bengali poem. It is not in Bangla, unfortunately; I would love to be able to do it in Bangla, because I am sure it is even more beautiful in that language. This is his translation into English. It was written before India's independence and it represents Tagore's dream of how the new and awakened India could be. It is called Where the Mind Is Without Fear. My friend Prabir Maitra keeps a copy of it on his desk—that is how I know it. It reads: Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high; Where knowledge is free; Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls; Where words come out from the depth of truth; Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection; Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit; Where the mind is led forward by thee into ever-widening thought and action— Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake. It is a beautiful piece of writing by an extraordinary artist that, thanks to my friend and colleague Prabir Maitra, is now part of my life and now part of the parliamentary record. I would like to particularly thank my Indian and Bangladesh community for organising such an event. I am told by those that were there that it was quite extraordinary. It was actually held in two locations—first in the Tom Mann Theatre and then in Parramatta. During the day they showed documentaries, they read poems and they had an artist come in from Bangladesh to sing some of the songs of Tagore. So it was quite an event and took a great deal of planning. It again shows the quite wonderful commitment to the recognition of culture. When I attend Bengali functions particularly, it is rare that there is not a poet on my table that they introduce me to as a person of great note. That is another of the highlights for me. I have attended a number of events that acknowledge the work of poets of this culture, whose members of course literally died for the right to speak their language back in the 1940s. It was a great event and I wanted to acknowledge it. I am pleased to have introduced to the House the words of an extraordinary poet whose poems are now part of my life and my community: Rabindranath Tagore. Electricity Prices 5573 16:40 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn I would like to talk today about electricity, electricity prices and especially the rise of electricity prices in my electorate. I do not go to my constituents and ask them about this; they come to me. I have been getting a lot of visits on this subject for the last 12 months, especially from pensioner groups and other people on fixed incomes and from self-made people who cannot get the pension because they have, obviously, too many assets. The latter group are concerned because they can see their superannuation funds winding down very quickly. A lot of them say to me that they will soon be on a pension because of the rising cost of living in and around Australia but particularly in my area. It is boom or bust for people in my area. They are either on huge incomes or on very low or fixed incomes. People like doctors, policemen and schoolteachers are in different situations. Doctors are in huge demand, they fly in and fly out, but schoolteachers and policemen are on fixed incomes, paying very high rent and, on top of that, very high electricity prices. Industry too is facing the challenge. The fact that a carbon tax is going to be introduced is causing panic. Also, before 2020, which is not all that far away, the intention is for 20 per cent of our electricity generation to come from renewable energy. Wind, solar and wave power and geothermal power are not going to cut it, I am afraid. The cost of these alternative energies is very high—six to 10 times higher than the price of coal fired power. We had three coal fired power stations in my electorate, but of course the Greens have put the kibosh on them. Those power stations do not know whether to keep on going, to keep on doing the maintenance, and they will not know until the situation becomes a lot clearer or there is a change of government. It is interesting to note that Germany and Japan are pulling out of nuclear power, and Germany has announced only in the last few months that it is going back to coal power. We have enough coal in Central Queensland alone—not even counting the coal in other parts of Australia—to keep coal fired power stations alive and well for the next 200 years. There is also a dilemma with natural gas. For instance, America is producing a lot of gas and the price over there is dropping to about $2 a petajoule. But in Australia and Queensland the big gas companies have locked in a price of about $14 a petajoule and the local domestic price is about $6 to $8 a petajoule. That is a fair bit more than what the big industries are paying now and what people are paying in the hotels and motels where they have gas. The cost of living is always a factor; it has been going up since day one. But now it seems to be going up a lot more and at a much faster rate. Between 2002 and 2007 the price of electricity in real terms was stable. Four years later, by 2011, prices had gone up by about 40 per cent. The international company who did research into this, the Energy Users Association of Australia, the EUAA, predict that by 2013-14 prices will have gone up by another 30 per cent. This is not good for us in our homes or in our industry. Australia is one of the top 16 countries in the world with the dearest electricity. South Australia, Victoria, Tasmania and New South Wales are among the top 10 users and payers of electricity. There is only one that is dearer than us, and that is in Norway. We have a real problem on our hands. We suggest that the carbon tax be wound back or, better still, finished. Wipe it out. (Time expired) Whitehorse Community Resource Centre 5574 16:45 Mr SYMON HW8 Deakin On Monday, 2 April this year I attended the official opening of the Whitehorse Community Resource Centre redevelopment not only in my own capacity as the member for Deakin but also representing the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government. The opening was, of course, attended by you, Madam Deputy Speaker; people from Whitehorse council, including Councillor Mark Lane, the current mayor, Councillor Robert Chong and Councillor Ben Stennett; Mr Seamus Van Der Westhuizen, from Colonial First State Global Asset Management, the group that contributed to the project, and Mr Leo Sargent from Tenant Management Group, also known to some people through the Nunawading U3A. This project was announced on 15 December 2010. I took the opportunity at that time to take a tour of the facilities, which are now in fact in Chisholm, on its border with Deakin. Like so many facilities in that area of Melbourne, it was well built and well used, but had passed its prime and needed re-doing. That was particularly true of the Whitehorse Community Resource Centre. So when I returned on 2 April this year, I was very impressed to see the newly refitted building, the home of many groups of local volunteer organisations. I could see first-hand how well they have settled into the new premises. Because the premises are used by volunteers and community organisations, they need to be good and they need to be something that people do not have to spend a lot of their time patching up just to get by and operate day to day. What they have now is certainly good. Without the volunteers in our society, many people would not be able to cope or exist as they do now. So often, volunteers are unseen. It is for good reason that, every year in Australia, we set aside a week to celebrate volunteers who donate their time, energy and expertise to others. It is equally important that our volunteers are supported with great facilities. The Whitehorse Community Resource Centre redevelopment is the home to 14 volunteer groups who, individually and together, help to build a strong local community. The newly refitted offices, conference, training and computer rooms, as well as the new reception, kitchenette and breakout area look fantastic. They are well designed and functional and are far better to work in than what was there previously. The refit of this building also incorporates space for outside community and volunteer organisations, groups that may need to use an office for only a few hours a week. There is capacity for that kind of casual use, which is great to see. As a former electrician who worked on-site for just on 20 years, I was very pleased to see that energy efficient lighting and movement sensors have been installed to save money on energy bills, reduce carbon emissions and help the environment. The more than $1.1 billion Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program has funded significant local infrastructure, such as the Whitehorse Community Resource Centre, right across Australia. This program was introduced in early 2009 as a part of the federal Labor government's response to the global financial crisis that hit Australia in late 2008. Many thousands of jobs around the country have been supported through the building of great community facilities like these. Through programs such as this, the Australian government acted decisively, working with local communities to support jobs when it was needed most—in the short term—and to build and improve local infrastructure for the long term. That was particularly important for the suburbs in the electorate that I represent, where much of the infrastructure was old and falling apart. While many other countries across the globe, at that time and currently, spent money bailing out privately-owned banks especially in Europe, Australia, through programs such as the RLCIP, invested money in local community infrastructure. This provided new jobs and kept people employed in the short term whilst providing lasting and much-needed local facilities for our community for the long term. The Whitehorse Community Resource Centre redevelopment is a great example of local government identifying community needs and of how well the federal government and Whitehorse City Council have worked together to meet these needs. The federal government invested $204,000 in this project through round 3 of the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program, in partnership with Whitehorse City Council. There was also a very generous contribution of $391,000 made by Colonial First State Global Asset Management, bringing the total to $643,000 all up. That is money well spent and well invested for volunteer and community organisations in our community in the suburb of Forest Hill. Madam Deputy Speaker, the building works were completed on 29 August 2011 and the centre is now fully operational, as you and I have seen. I am told that 26 jobs were created during the design and construction phase and six new jobs have been created now. (Time expired) Sydney Harbour Federation Trust 5575 16:50 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney I rise to speak about HMAS Platypus, which takes up 1.8 hectares on Sydney Harbour, in Neutral Bay, in the middle of my electorate. It is a historic site. The site used to be a whaling station and was also part of a gasworks. Following their commissioning by the then Minister for Navy, it became the home for the Oberon class of submarines, and thus became HMAS Platypus. Adjoining the site is Anderson Park, where I grew up playing a lot of organised sport. It is only recently that I discovered that it was also the runway for Kingsford Smith, who took off in what would have been the equivalent of a bandaid plane and flew to what is now Kingsford Smith Airport before undertaking his great, landmark journey to London. In 1996, when we came into government, this was one of the surplus defence sites that was identified for sale by the then Howard government. I argued to my community that the site needed to be used for housing in order to help fill part of the fiscal hole left by the Keating government. That was a very hard thing to do, but it was the right thing to do at the time. As time passed and we discovered the extent of necessary remediation of toxic chemicals on the site, which is now assessed at $46 million, it became even more necessary to sell the site. But I think that one of the great legacies of the previous coalition government—and I pay great tribute to John Howard for this—was the creation of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust. A number of sites across the harbour in both Labor and Liberal seats were put into the trust and used for the community in Sydney. This land could never be recovered once sold. Woolwich Docks, which is down the road from Hunters Hill, where I am, is one of the sites that John Howard preserved. It is now a vibrant centre of activity. North Head, Middle Head and Cockatoo Island are other great examples. I pay tribute to the member for Griffith, who is here, because he was, as Prime Minister, able to continue with the legacy of remediation of the site at Platypus, and he continued to allocate money for remediation. I understand that remediation is continuing. The $46 million includes whatever barging of toxic material is necessary. Barging of the toxic material is hugely important because, if it were to be trucked out, it would create massive dislocation in one of the key arterial roads to the Sydney Harbour Bridge, and it would cause gridlock beyond what we already have at the harbour bridge. I thank the community advisory committee and the local state member, Jillian Skinner, who has been a very strong advocate of the interests of Platypus. This is a long-lasting community facility. The site is probably worth around $40 million to $50 million. It is about to have $46 million spent on remediation. After that there will be a 1.8 hectare site on Sydney Harbour—on prime land—for our community. This is the most significant physical contribution to my electorate in many, many years from the federal government, and it is most welcome. In an area where there is high-density living, these sorts of sites represent the very fabric of the community. The protection of our harbour foreshores should enjoy bipartisan support. The continuation of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust and the protection of the greatest harbour in the world, Sydney Harbour, and the fact that we are all working together to make these things reality mean that even in some of the most adverse of circumstances we can all work together to make our community a better place to live. Building the Education Revolution Program 5576 16:55 Mr RUDD 83T Griffith Our school modernisation program has invested some $16.2 billion across 23½ thousand projects in our country, Australia. This is the largest school modernisation program in our country's history. It was a large part of the reason that Australia was able to remain recession free during the global financial crisis—a feat unique among the major advanced economies. I shudder to think of what would have happened had Australia fallen into recession at the time of the global financial crisis and shudder to think of the hundreds of thousands of Australian households which would have been left without a breadwinner as I remember the challenges of the GFC and look carefully at developments in Greece and elsewhere in Europe as they bear down on the global economy, which includes Australia. Part of our vision for the school modernisation program was to help build the education infrastructure we need for the 21st century and to ensure that we have school buildings and school facilities that are able to be part of our vision for an education revolution. The vision was to help build an Australia where we have the best-educated, best-trained and best-skilled workforce of any country in the world. More than 9½ thousand Australian schools have benefited from investment under the school modernisation program, and in recent times I have been speaking with many of my school principals about how the investment was used. In my own community some $88 million was invested across 124 projects. Forty-four of our schools now have brand-new facilities. There are 25 new libraries, 17 multipurpose facilities and many, many new or modernised classrooms. Bricks and mortar are, of course, merely the foundation. School principals tell me that the facilities are now being used to radically improve the way in which our children are educated. Watch and see how the interactive whiteboards are now being used in classrooms across the country on the back of the program. It is a genuinely rewarding experience. I have seen the facilities at St Martin's Catholic Primary School in Carina, which is a terrific Catholic school in my community. The principal, Michael Kelleher, is thrilled with the school's new multipurpose facility, which they have called the Dominic Centre. For the first time they have a perfect venue for bringing the entire school community together—and this is a big school—for performances, for assemblies and for community meetings. I have also seen the facilities at Seven Hills State School, which is terrific state school in my community. The principal there, Michelle Morrissey, has emphasised the significance of the new library. It is the cool place for the kids to be at lunchtime. They are now learning and enjoying the new learning environment. Whites Hill State College principal, Paul Robertson, has said that the new integrated learning centre—which now accommodates separate classrooms for music, for multimedia and for information technology—is a huge enhancement of his school community. Mayfield State School's principal, Ian Blacklock, has said that, despite the fact that performing arts and multimedia studies have featured strongly in the school's curriculum over the years, they now have a multipurpose facility and resource centre which is replete with an audiovisual system, motorised screen and digital projector and which can host around 350 people and provide a first-class venue for all the school's artistic productions. I saw recently at Cannon Hill State School, which is another great Queensland state school, the school's new resource centre. Again, the kids are now flocking to the place at lunchtime because it is cool to be in the library and to learn. All of these cases are part of a good story—an unfolding narrative—not only in my community but also across the country. Coorparoo State School's principal, Keith Warwick, has the same sorts of things to say about their new library resource centre, new classrooms and new multipurpose facility. At St Lawrence's College, a leading Catholic secondary and primary college, I have seen the new modern library and dozens of new classrooms, all with state-of-the-art equipment and resources. At Bulimba State School there is a new multipurpose facility which is now dishing up a new generation of master chefs from the award-winning Stephanie Alexander designed kitchen. These new facilities are an architectural feat in themselves, having been built literally on the edge of a cliff face. There are fantastic views of the city of Brisbane, and it is therefore a fantastic fundraiser for the local P&C. The kids are learning to cook fresh fruit, to grow local veggies and to improve their nutritional skills and opportunities for the future. The school modernisation program has been fantastic. I see it as part and parcel of the education revolution for Australia, part and parcel of what we are seeking to do with the national curriculum and with other national education reforms and part and parcel of creating the best-educated, best-trained and best-skilled workforce of any country in the world. House adjourned at 17:00 NOTICES 5577 NOTICES

Thursday, 24 May 2012

 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott) took the chair at 09:00.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 5579 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Ritchie, Mr Donald 'Don' Taylor, OAM 5579 09:30 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth On 13 May, Australia lost a great hero. Don Ritchie died at his home in Vaucluse, where he had lived with his wife, Moya, for more than 50 years. He was born in 1926. Don served in the Australian Navy in the Second World War, on HMAS Hobart. He was in Tokyo Bay when the Japanese unconditional surrender was signed. He led a full life, surrounded by his family, who grieve his passing. Don is best remembered for being the 'Angel of the Gap'. During the 50 years that Don lived opposite the Gap, he would go out and find people there, hesitating on the edge, about to take their own lives. He would use his remarkable empathy and compassion to bring them back from the edge. He would often bring them back to his house and give them a cup of tea. As he said, 'All I wanted to do was to get them away from the edge, to buy them time, to give them the opportunity to reflect and to give them the chance to realise that things might look better the next morning. I tried to get them to make the decision not to suicide—not now, not then and there. I don't counsel them; I don't tell them what to do with their lives. I just try to get them away from the edge.' Don Ritchie saved so many lives with his human warmth and his ability to help people who were on the very edge, in every respect—at the end of their tether—and had given up and were about to destroy themselves. He was able to offer them a thread of love which they could then grasp and come back slowly from the edge. At the funeral service Monsignor Tony Doherty, whom knew Don very well, talked about how he first met Don. Although Don was not a Catholic, and was known in his younger days for having quite uncharitable views about Catholics, he and Tony became very good friends. Tony said that he met Don more than 40 years ago. He described seeing this enormous, tall man—very tall—leaning over the edge of the Gap, flat on his belly, reaching over, talking quietly to a young Vietnamese man who was perched on a ledge about three or four metres below and was just about to jump. Tony said that when he saw Don talking to this young man, who was from a completely different background, he saw there a perfect expression of the love and the compassion that really defines the very best of our humanity. Don Ritchie, rest in peace. Ipswich Railway Workshops 5579 09:33 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair For close to 150 years, the Ipswich Railway Workshops have been integral to the economic, social and cultural life of Ipswich. In 2002, we saw a renaissance of the work site there, with the workshop's rail museum being reborn in a way that an old icon became a new icon. Some years later, the railway workshop's museum has attracted 100,000 visitors every year, winning numerous tourism awards for heritage. Every year the workshop's museum seems to win award after award. I congratulate Andrew Moritz, the director of the museum. Kids go there, school groups go there and we have citizenship ceremonies there, and they continue to run a railway workshop construction yard there. I am pleased to announce that four local projects in Blair received funding under the Your Community Heritage Program, and most of the $135,000 goes to the railway workshops complex and the railway sites in Ipswich: $90,909 goes towards updating the conservation management plan, introducing a more efficient, targeted maintenance regime, and $22,727 goes towards the objective of the project to develop a smart phone application for the interactive audiovisual tour showcasing the history of the Ipswich railway workshops. Grandchester also received funding for the Grandchester railway complex—$12,818—in partnership with Queensland Rail to undertake guided tours. At its height, 3,000 men and women worked at the railway workshops. In the history of Ipswich they built over 200 locomotives and thousands and thousands of carriages. Not many people know that the first railways in Queensland did not go from Ipswich to Brisbane but from Ipswich to Grandchester, then known as Biggs Camp. It is important to note also how many men worked there year after year: hundreds and hundreds of boilermakers and blacksmiths worked there. I grew up with the sons and daughters of people who worked there. My grandfather was a railway worker, and my great-grandfather was a railway worker—a carriage maker, Henry Greensill—who actually worked there as well. It is great to see this site and what it has meant to Ipswich. Kids go there, enjoy the history, the interactive exhibitions and the adventure playgrounds there, and get a knowledge of the history of Ipswich. Congratulations to the museum and congratulations Andrew for the great work you do for the people of Ipswich. Macquarie Electorate: ONE80TC 5580 09:36 Mrs MARKUS ( E07 Macquarie ) ( There is an outstanding organisation in my electorate that has been making a difference in people's lives for over 35 years. 'ONE80TC Turning lives' around runs a highly successful treatment and rehabilitation program for young men aged 18 to 35 years with life-controlling difficulties such as addictive, impulsive and compulsive behaviours, and issues of neglect, anger and self-esteem. Often the treatment is as much about broken relationships as it is about broken lives. They come to the program voluntarily, or by referral, and ONE80TC shows them a way to turn their lives around. Through well-proven support programs generations of broken young men are learning new skills, opening themselves to personal growth and embracing leadership. They and their families deserve our compassion and our support for their journey back from the abyss. The very nature of the work means that the government grant moneys are needed. Despite its exceptional record of success, ONE80TC has not secured funding in the latest round—not even an extension of funding for current programs. The Department of Health and Ageing website states that funding extensions were granted where service gaps have been identified. ONE80TC has a proven track record and has demonstrated amazing outcomes with previous funding from the department. Mark Hill, CEO of ONE80TC, has contacted the department with regard to this decision. He has challenged them to provide feedback about how they could determine that if ONE80TC did not continue to receive funding there would not be a gap in the services provided. ONE80TC is the only residential rehabilitation organisation in the entire Hawkesbury-Londonderry area that offers 24/7 care to men aged 18 to 35 years—for example: expanding bed availability from 30 to 50 beds and commencing an intern program, which has resulted in five full-time placements; implementing and successfully running a 60-day program as a precursor to the 12-month program; and expanding the program to include an after-care, extended-care department which contacts over 40 men and their families per week. Often support is practical, such as food supply and work placement. The submission to the department included letters of support from other prominent community organisations, such as from Gael Rao, acting director of the Nepean Blue Mountains health district, who wrote, 'The submission of ONE80TC is in line with the National Drugs Strategy 2010-2015, and complements the local health district strategies.' Without funding, vital work cannot continue and 50 beds will close, with 20 staff to lose their jobs. How can the Gillard Labor government's budget be about jobs if staff in ONE80TC lose theirs? More importantly, what will happen to those young men who need help, not just now but into the future? My question is to the minister, and I would like the minister to explain what he would do to support and continue supporting this vital program? Shipping 5581 09:39 Mr SIDEBOTTOM 849 Braddon Late last year the sole international shipping container service from Tasmania ceased and many of our exporters, of course, could not directly transport their goods internationally. On 22 March of this year, the Australian government announced, particularly through the advocacy of my federal colleagues and me, along with the Tasmanian government, and the advocacy of a number of exporters and vegetable processors—in particular in Tassie—that the Tasmanian government, and therefore the community, would be provided with $20 million in one-off funding to assist Tasmanian exporters to access international markets. Today we are giving more substance to that announcement by proposing the following: of the $20 million, some $14.5 million will be directed towards immediate and direct assistance to Tasmanian exporters through a one-off payment to assist them to maintain competitiveness in the new shipping environment. Apart from the loss of the AAA international container service itself, there is the high Australian dollar, and of course the Port of Melbourne has increased its fees dramatically in that time. Of course, with surpluses in Europe in particular, our exporters have been greatly affected. So this will go a long way to assisting them in the export market. We are also investing in infrastructure improvements at the port of Burnie in my electorate to increase container-handling capacity and enhance the efficiency of movements within the port—indeed, in the longer term, driving down costs to exporters. We are also going to establish a freight logistics coordination team with an industry leadership. That is directed towards investigating in far more detail with the Tasmanian community—particularly those people that use the services and the providers, along with the Tasmanian government—a strategic plan towards the logistics and the infrastructure required for better transport. So I congratulate my colleagues and the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Anthony Albanese, and also the Prime Minister, who personally and directly involved herself in the creation of this $20 million transition and assistance package. Economy 5582 09:42 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong As federal representative for Bennelong, I frequently visit businesses, schools and homes across the region to discuss important issues with the local community. Over the past two years I have witnessed an increasing pattern of concerns about the cost of living, difficulties faced by small businesses and apprehension over the carbon tax. Continued rises in the cost of living affect all families across our nation. Since 2007 the average increase in electricity costs is 51 per cent. Water is up 46 per cent, gas 30 per cent, health costs 20 per cent and grocery prices 14 per cent. It is our families who are forced to pay the bill, a problem that will be compounded in just five weeks when they get hit with the world's biggest carbon tax. The government's response is to waste a further $36 million on advertising to try to sell the carbon tax. These funds should be directed to the most vulnerable in our community. Bennelong families deserve better. On Saturday I will be joining families at a local school in my electorate to discuss these issues and the impact this government's mismanagement of the economy is having on our local community. Small businesses are directly affected when families are hurting, leading to falling sales figures and reduced confidence. Every day we hear stories of businesses large and small being forced to shut down or retrench staff to keep the doors open. To make matters worse, these businesses are forced to struggle under the weight of red tape. Since the start of 2008, this Labor government has added 18,089 new regulations. This equates to 11 new regulations every day for 4½ years. When Labor was elected it promised a policy of one in, one out, meaning that any new regulations would be offset by the repeal of others. Instead, since 2007, only 86 regulations have been repealed. That is one for every 210 new regulations introduced. Rep tape chokes the life out of local businesses and community groups. The Productivity Commission has estimated that the rewards for Australia to cut red tape would be worth up to $12 billion a year. The coalition understands that stronger shops equal stronger communities and a healthier society. It is in our DNA to take direction action to bring people together to support stronger communities. That is why I am rolling out the Bennelong Business Villages campaign to promote the need to support local community shopping centres with families, local clubs and media. It is through our policies that we will return the hope, reward and opportunity needed to reignite the community spirit of Bennelong and get out country back on track. Education 5582 09:45 Mr BYRNE 008K0 Holt I rise today to acknowledge the importance of Australia's TAFE system and the value in young Australians attaining a technical skill. In my electorate of Holt, in the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne, we have watched a growing TAFE sector and skill base which was developed since the TAFE sector was created under the Whitlam government back in 1974. In my electorate, the Chisholm Institute's campus in Cranbourne, in particular, is leading the way in providing a whole generation of young people with essential skills for the 21st century. According to Maria Peters, the Chisholm Institute chief executive officer, since 1998 Chisholm has served one of Australia's fastest growing regions, offering industry respected courses in spacious modern locations, online and in workplaces. They have campuses in Dandenong, Cranbourne, Frankston and Berwick, which is in the electorate of my colleague Laura Smyth. They are worthwhile institutions—institutions worth protecting. What I am very proud of, particularly with the federal government's investment in trade training centres and its continual investment in TAFEs like the Chisholm Institute of TAFE, is that it is validating a pathway that people take. There is a lot of pressure on our kids to go and do VCE and there is an implication that if you do not do VCE you are less valid or you are less worthwhile. That is a load of rubbish. There has been almost systemic discrimination against people who choose an alternative pathway which is just as valid as university, and one of those pathways is through the Chisholm Institute and TAFEs. The fact is that trade training centres, which also provide a pathway to TAFE, are providing the tools, the resources and the facilities that our young people need to make this pathway choice. In Cranbourne, in particular, they have an amazing water centre. It has 440 square metres of undercover training space and a permanent 36-by-six metre sandpit. This centre can accommodate heavy machinery, allowing staff and students to receive hands-on experience with earthmoving plant equipment as well training in civil construction skills, such as pipe laying, trenching and shoring. It is an amazing multipurpose facility, and industry is actually getting involved. So there is interaction between young people and not-so-young people undertaking the course and industry right at the coalface. It is actually being looked at by people coming from overseas as a world-leading course—and it is a world-leading facility, proudly funded by this federal government. I will finish off on this point: I get to sick to death of hearing this almost inverse snobbery about VCE. It is an important choice and it is a great choice—but it should not be at the expense of young people who choose TAFE as a pathway. I will always stand up and defend those people and recognise the contribution they make to our community. (Time expired) Mount Evelyn Biggest Morning Tea, Monbulk Men's Shed 5583 09:48 Mr TONY SMITH 00APG Casey I rise today in the House to congratulate and make mention of two great community events and congratulate the organisers of those events. First, I would like to congratulate the organisers and all of the community involved in the Mount Evelyn Biggest Morning Tea, which was held last Thursday in Mount Evelyn at Station House. I was very pleased to attend the Mount Evelyn Biggest Morning Tea. They have been holding this for about five or six years. As you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, and as other members would know from similar local events in their communities, the money raised all goes to the Cancer Council, and in this case Cancer Council Victoria. It was a wonderful community event, and I want to take the time to mention some of the major sponsors, including the Mount Evelyn and District Bendigo Bank, and Jill Rule and her team in particular; Meaghan Grace and the Functional Beverage Company, which provided all of the tea and coffee on the day; Morrisons, led by Jan Simmons, which is a major contributor and fixture in the Mount Evelyn township; Chris Monaghan and the Mount Evelyn Chamber of Commerce, who did so much to bring the event about; Kathie Freeman from the local Australia Post franchise; of course, the Yarra Ranges Shire Council; and the Mount Evelyn Primary School and its students, who sang and played music on the morning, capping off what was a wonderful community event. On Saturday I also had the pleasure of attending the opening of the Monbulk Men's Shed. Les Twentyman, who is known to Victorian members in this House, was there to open the men's shed. This has been a wonderful community effort led by Brian Tunks and the team at the Open Door Community Church and the Olinda Community House, who helped with the application process. Thanks also go to the Monbulk Primary School, who provided the shed space, and of course the Monbulk Rotary, Monbulk CWA and Monbulk Care Network, who joined forces to provide lunch and afternoon tea on what was a very cold and drizzly opening Saturday morning. That will be a great and much-needed facility in the Monbulk community. La Trobe Electorate: Disability Services 5584 09:51 Ms SMYTH 172770 La Trobe I am very pleased to be able to speak today and update the House with a few words about matters that have been occurring across my electorate in relation to the very significant issue of disability and disability services and, of course, in the context of some very significant announcements that were made during the course of the budget about the launch of the National Disability Insurance Scheme somewhat earlier than had originally been expected. It was with great pleasure that I was able to attend an unusual occurrence, it must be said, last month: a rally down the main street of Pakenham. I do not think that there have been terribly many rallies down the main street of Pakenham in south-east Melbourne, but I was pleased to be there together with a number of disability services advocates and with the Outlook disability service, welcomed along by a young man called Jarred Marrinon, who told us exactly what an NDIS would mean to him and talked about the circumstances of his own life, facing disability in very difficult circumstances. He is someone who has volunteered, and it is fitting to be able to recognise after National Volunteer Week someone who has made a commitment to volunteering in the area of disability—and Jarred most certainly has. He was involved in the Youth Disability Advocacy Service, and he volunteered at Outlook and is now working there, which is great. Of course, we all know that on the day that that rally occurred and rallies right around the country occurred, a very significant announcement was made about additional funding for, and the bringing forward of, the NDIS. It was a pleasure to see that as an outcome after significant community advocacy in places like the electorate of La Trobe and surrounds. I was very pleased on the weekend to be able to go along and be hosted by the Rotary Club of Berwick, which held the Rotary Southern Districts Shine On Awards. It was a pleasure to be there to acknowledge the great work of so many—again, voluntary in many instances—disability advocates and people facing quite profound disability themselves. I will mention one of the young award recipients, Elvira Alic, who works for the Spinal Muscular Atrophy Association of Australia and who does an extraordinary range of work for them. She also has SMA type 2 and is living with the very real effects of it at the moment, but that certainly does not stop her going out and assisting others in the community. Finally, I would like to mention my visit recently, in the last week, to Belgrave South Primary School, where I met with Belinda Mullan and Jack Mullan. Jack is a prep student who has a very profound disability. It was a pleasure to be there with Senator Jan McLucas and to talk about exactly what the NDIS would mean for Jack, and to speak to some of the students at the school about the campaign for an NDIS. Macarthur Electorate: Youth Solutions 5584 09:54 Mr MATHESON M2V Macarthur Not a week goes by that I do not hear about the wonderful things young people are achieving in my electorate. Be it academic or sporting achievements, leadership roles or charity endeavours, I am continually amazed, but not surprised, by the great things young people are doing in Macarthur. Today I would like to pay tribute to Youth Solutions, a not-for-profit organisation that supports young people in Macarthur, Wollondilly and Wingecarribee and helps them make safer life choices and achieve their full potential. The team at Youth Solutions in my community works with young people to identify drug and alcohol related issues and address these concerns. Some of its initiatives include youth, drugs, alcohol and tobacco forums; adolescent smoking programs; educational programs at local high schools; party safe projects; and parent programs. The organisation also has a youth advisory group that meets every month to talk about the issues concerning young people and develop solutions to these problems. I have met this group and I was very impressed by their great ideas and their enthusiasm. Youth Solutions is also working in partnership with the Campbelltown Catholic Club to encourage safer celebrations for young people in my community. In its latest campaign, Who Carries the Responsibility, it will make celebrations safer for young people through an online pledge campaign. As a former police officer, one of my favourite programs run by Youth Solutions is its Midnight Basketball program. This is an initiative between the Campbelltown City Council, Sector Connect, Uniting Care Burnside, YMCA, Macquarie Fields Police, Youth Off the Streets, Office of Communities Sport and Recreation, Claymore Youth Centre and Youth Solutions. The Midnight Basketball program gives young people the opportunity to engage in sport and give them access to positive role models and youth workers. It also provides a safe and positive environment at a time when young people may be vulnerable to harmful and antisocial behaviour. It is a fantastic program that has achieved great results for young people in my community. Since 2002, Youth Solutions has won a number of awards including community service awards, business awards and national drug and alcohol awards. The reason I want to speak about this organisation today is to encourage my community to support its upcoming charity night on 21 July at the Campbelltown Catholic Club. The Youth Solutions Latin Fiesta charity night will raise funds to support its future projects in the Macarthur community. In this week's Macarthur Advertiser, Youth Solutions' chief executive officer, Geraldine Dean, said Youth Solutions was great for community support and this was a great way for everyone to get involved. The night will include a latin band and dances, a three course meal, a silent auction, a raffle and mystery prizes. I would like to thank the team at Youth Solutions for the fantastic work it does for young people in my community and wish them all the best for their charity event. I would also like to encourage those people in Macarthur that are passionate about our young people to take part in this event and show their support for this great bunch of people doing amazing things in our community. I would like to wish Geraldine Dean and her team all the best in addressing the needs and concerns of our youth in Macarthur. WikiLeaks 5585 09:57 Mr DANBY WF6 Melbourne Ports Last week, Majid Jamali Fashi was hung in Iran's notorious Evin Prison. He joined hundreds of political prisoners, human rights activists and minority religious people executed in that country by that harsh regime. Fashi had been accused of being responsible for the death of an Iranian nuclear scientist, Massoud Ali Mohammadi. Fashi's death is a result of an unredacted WikiLeaks report released a month before his arrest. A cable from the US embassy in Azerbaijan described one of its sources as an Iranian martial arts expert. Apparently Fashi had visited Azerbaijan the month before the cable was released for a kickboxing tournament. Analysts argue that Fashi might have lost his life because the confidential cable was published by WikiLeaks. Even if Fashi was not the source of the cable, the document gave the Iranian regime a pretext for charging him, torturing him and executing him. Daniel Domscheit-Berg, a former associate of Julian Assange who defected from WikiLeaks in 2010, said the reason he split from Assange and WikiLeaks was that the disputes within that organisation had created a siege mentality. In an interview two years ago, Domscheit-Berg said WikiLeaks released thousands of internal US Army documents relating to the Afghan war. Around this time, collaborators of the allies were exposed by leaked information. The moral responsibility of WikiLeaks was pushed aside for publicity and notoriety. WikiLeaks dissidents argued that releasing these names did not serve WikiLeaks's original purpose of questioning US foreign policy but simply placed the lives of individuals in jeopardy. This is another example of the narcissism, in my view, of Julian Assange, who recently disparaged our Prime Minister. Similarly, in 2006, elections in Kenya were marred by violence following a WikiLeaks leak about an individual. Assange told the London Observer, '1,300 people were eventually killed and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak.' Some people might think that was commentary; others might think it was a narcissist playing God. I am very proud to have been criticised by WikiLeaks as a person that Mr Assange does not like in Australia, who is a friend of the Americans. Obviously, as the Chair of the Australia-US Parliamentary Friendship Group, one naturally and openly speaks to the American diplomatic establishment in Australia. For instance, we are holding a forum today on the US elections. People in this place honestly strive to change the world by politics—conservative or social democrat. The Assange anarchist way is not my way. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 5586 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2012-2013, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013, Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2011-2012, Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2011-2012 5586

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2012-2013

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013

Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2011-2012

Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2011-2012

Second Reading 5586 10:02 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy The burning question for productive Australia—certainly agriculture but manufacturing probably even more so and tourism even more so again—is interest rates. Our interest rates are wildly out of step with the rest of the world. I keep being accused, with my non-free-trade viewpoint, of being out of step and ridiculous. The only place I am out of step is in this chamber, in this parliament. This is the only place I am out of step. The rest of Australia agrees with me. Eighty per cent of Australians continually say that they would be prepared to pay a few bob more for whatever they are buying to protect and create Australian jobs. Interest rates are a classic example. Europeans are on one per cent; Japanese and Americans, last time I looked, were on 0.1 per cent; and Australia is on over 4½ per cent. Where are you going to park your money? Of course you are going to park your money in Australia, where you get 4½ per cent. You are not going to park it in Europe, where you get only one per cent interest. And also, we have got an appreciating dollar under this regime. So there are two reasons to park your money here. It is a self-reinforcing mechanism which has pushed the dollar up. In Mr Costello's second year in office, the dollar was at 52c. The dollar is averaging more than 100c now. Mr Costello can take most of the blame for that, but the Labor Party can most certainly take their part of the blame. They are in office, they should be doing something about it, and they are not. Having said that, we praise the Treasurer because he said that the interest rates coming down is good. I think there was pressure from the Treasurer to bring them down half a per cent. But they are still four per cent above the rest of the world—most certainly 3½ per cent. They are 300 times higher than they are in the rest of the world. So, if you invest your money here, you get 300 per cent more money than if you invest your money there—if the dollar comes down. When the dollar rose under Mr Costello from 52c to 90c, the income for my cattlemen halved and the income for my miners halved. And we closed down mines. We closed down mines; Kagara zinc mine is closed at the present moment—a great company. We plead with the government to take the bit between their teeth and do the sensible thing that every other government on earth is doing. I am telling you that, with the Europeans moving to an increase in money supply, money will drain out of Australia, interest will drain out of Australia, their industries will surge forward and ours will continue to die. Let me be very specific. As I get up to speak today it looks like this year we will have 82 per cent of motor vehicles in Australia come in from overseas. Mr Keating started this stupidity—and I can remember vividly hearing him on the radio when I crawled out of bed one morning; he said, 'We will be the freest economy on earth.' I thought: 'This imbecile. Are we going to go to Chinese wages or are we going to import all our jobs to China?' Those are the only two possibilities if you move to a free market. No-one else in the world moved to a free market. The only two countries on earth that have a free market are Australia and New Zealand—and, if you want to include a third country, it would actually be Canada. One cannot help but believe that the colonial spot marks are showing. Why would these two—arguably three—countries be the only three countries on earth that move to free trade? Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, you are well aware that we cannot get a pound of beef into Europe. We were allowed technically 6,000 tonne but we cannot even meet the requirements for 6,000 tonne. To put that in perspective for other people here: America takes 400,000 tonne a year, and they are one-half or one-third the size of Europe. What a joke. We cannot sell beef to Europe. We cannot sell a pound of beef to China. These are the two biggest economies on earth, and we cannot sell a pound of beef to either of them. So much for free trade. When Mr Keating made his wonderful statement that we were going to become a 'free economy', over 72 per cent of the motor vehicles in Australia were Australian made. This year, 82 per cent of them were imported from overseas. We all know that within 10 years there will be no motor vehicle industry in this country. We cannot build a tyre in this country. We cannot build an electric motor in this country. We will not be able to build a motor car in this country. We will be a Third World technology country. As for agriculture, Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be well aware that the Fin Review and the Sydney Morning Herald have said loud and clear—this place has not listened to them—that within three years this country will be a net importer of food. It will not be able to feed itself. We are a net importer of fruit and vegetables now. Three years ago we were an exporter of seafood. This year 80 per cent, it would appear, of our seafood will be imported from overseas. We are a net importer of pork. But soon overall we will be a net importer of food. We live in a country that cannot feed itself. So, to that silly fella that led a party—which I am ashamed to say that I was once a member of—who walked around with his hat turned down and said, 'We will be the food bowl of Asia,' I say: listen, you fool; we are going to be the begging bowl of Asia. All this country now has, as a result of the policies of this place, is an iron ore quarry and a coal quarry. That is all it has. I predict the new government, the LNP government in Queensland, will be the worst government in Queensland history, because they have the terrible combination of arrogance and no vision, perspective or intelligence. They have already announced that the Galilee Basin—half of our entire coal reserves in Queensland—will be mined by people from overseas. Thanks to the policies of this place, all six of our great mining companies are now all foreign owned. They were all Australian owned 15 years ago. Now they are all foreign owned. Thanks to this place, we allowed every one of them to be sold overseas. We do not own the resource. The resource is owned by China, China and India. Those are the three groups of people that own the resources. We are not going to get any profits out of it. We are not going to get any wages out of it. What the hell will we get out of it? All the machinery and equipment comes from overseas in mining. We do not produce any machinery or equipment for mining in Australia. So what do we get out of it? We get a hole in the ground; that is what we get out of it. But a grubby little government like the outgoing ALP government was grasping for some taxation out of it. The grubby little government that has come in, that cannot see around the doorstop, just want to get some taxes out of it and look after their corporate friends. Who are the front men for the two Chinese areas that are owned? The front men are Gina Rinehart and Clive Palmer. Who owns the LNP? Clive Palmer. Surprise, surprise. If you are a Chinese person, you say: 'Well, hold on a minute. Our boys back home are getting paid $5,000 a year'—that is the average weekly earnings in China. 'What are we going to pay your people? $160,000 a year?' Fair damn go. I mean, naturally, Clive Palmer, Gina Rinehart and the Indians, the Adani Group that own the top of it, are going to say: 'Hold on a minute. We are going to fly our people in from overseas. None of this paying you Australians $160,000 while our people back home are being paid $5,000. No more of that.' We do want to thank the government very sincerely for the $350 million which is still in there for the transmission line. Governments throughout Queensland's history gave us railway lines and ports. The great Theodore governments up to the 1950s, and they were Theodore governments, gave us railway lines and ports. The government built the railway lines and ports and made absolutely unconscionable amounts of money out of it. The great Bejelke-Petersen government created the coal industry and the aluminium industry in Australia. They built the power station for the aluminium industry. They built the railway line for the coal industry. That is why we have a coal industry and an aluminium industry here today. So we thank the government for that $350 million for that transmission line. But, if you give us that transmission line to send coal into the Galilee Basin, you can use that railway line to sell coal. Have the courage to say: 'No, we will not fly in 40,000 workers from overseas. Those jobs are for Australians.' Yes, you might have to pay an extra $10,000 and, yes, you may not be allowed to kick the workers around. God bless the CFMEU. I stand 1,000 per cent behind the CFMEU and their stand against fly-in mining—and that is in Australia. I will be out there at every rally and stop-work meeting that the CFMEU have, because, if they are turning it on for fly-in mining in Australia, what are they are going to turn on when the LNP government in Queensland attempts to fly workers in from overseas? I leave it to your imagination. We have a proud history of industrial force in Queensland and we will not be resiling from that position, I can tell you. If you give that to us and we get those wages out of the coalmines, then we will give back to Australia $75,000 million a year from the Galilee Basin. My homeland is the richest mineral province on earth, with vast uranium, phosphate and iron ore deposits. If you give us a little canal, about 150 kilometres—that is all; most countries have tens and hundreds of thousands of kilometres of canals—so we can get out through the gulf instead of coming all the way back through Townsville, particularly for phosphate and iron ore, then we will gift to Australia an extra $15,000 million a year. That is $90,000 million a year, nearly $100,000 million, into an economy of $1,000 million a year. e will increase your GDP just in the income from those ore and coal reserves by $100 million a year. That is what we will give back to Australia. We have a commitment from the federal government—$350 million on that transmission line, but the LNP government has knocked the transmission line on the head. They have already announced that they are going to fly the miners in from overseas; they are not going to give you any infrastructure to open up your resources and this is all in two months! They have announced they are tightening the gun laws and, effectively, strangely enough they have announced that they are going to do nothing about flying foxes as well, which of course is the burning question in the state of Queensland. If we get a government that builds things—a nation-building government—which we have not seen for 30 years in this country; not since Doug Anthony, one of the greatest figures of stature in this country's history. When he left the stage we had no one. When Bjelke-Petersen left the stage we had no one. And to our eternal shame, Ted Theodore is remembered for the Mungana scandal and the Bjelke-Petersen government is remembered for silly, stupid rubbish: there was not a single, solitary minister went to jail for corruption—they went for misuse of their parliamentary expenditure. Be careful, everybody, because what it was for was using their cars for private purposes. That is what the four ministers went to jail for in Queensland—so much corruption! But these great builders like Theodore and Bjelke-Petersen—I plead, Mr Deputy Speaker, for people to read my book where you will see it in detail and flashing neon lights. Those who may have been brought up in the Labor tradition will walk with very great pride. It is only $39, too, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ms Saffin HVY Is it in the library here? Mr KATTER HX4 Yes. But the details of what those successive Queensland governments did to hand to their nation the coal industry, the base metals industry and the aluminium industry are in there, and I named the chapter, 'Walking with giants'. Probably Les Thiess was the greatest of them. We can build again, but we need money from the budget. We thank the government for the $350 million but the government must do a lot more because there will be no enlightened government coming out of Queensland. The one project that was needed for nation building they knocked on the head. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 Order! Before I call the parliamentary secretary I will just remind members once again. I was reluctant to pull up the honourable member for Kennedy for the use of the word 'you', the word 'you' referring to the occupier of this chair. It is a reflection on the chair. I have reminded him of that and also other members on both sides of this House before. Next time I will interrupt, and I am sure that members do not want to be interrupted in their precious time of speaking in this chamber or in the main chamber. I just ask members to remember that when they use the word 'you' they are pointing directly to the occupier of the chair, and it is a reflection on the chair. Refer to 'the member' or to 'the government' or other bodies but do not use the word 'you will'. It is a habit that has crept in that I have observed as an occupier of the chair. Mr Katter HX4 Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, I have great respect and friendship for you, and I would never, ever put you in the category of the contempt in which I hold many other members. 10:18 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham It is a great pleasure to speak to the budget that was presented by the Treasurer this year, and to follow the member for Kennedy in this debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2012-13 and cognate bills. Much of what he has contributed I would not agree with, but some of it I do. I think that in talking about the significance of the mining industry in this country he has touched on two very important areas that as a government we have been pursuing since we were first elected. They are: the development of the skills of the people of this nation to ensure they get access to the jobs of the future—exactly the issues he was addressing there—and also that we redirect some of the wealth into infrastructure across this nation to ensure that as a nation we are well positioned to make the best opportunities of the future, and where we sit in particular in the Asian century. So while I may not always agree with the member for Kennedy's description of history or his prescription for the solving of the problems, I think that we can start with the base of an agreement about what the problems are and to acknowledge that they are certainly priorities for this government, and have been. Indeed, they were priorities for people representing the peak industry associations when I was first elected in 2004, when there were constant reports about backlogs and blockages in our system as a result of a shortage of skills and a shortage of infrastructure. They are two very important issues that the member for Kennedy touched on in his contribution. This budget, I would argue very much, is a budget in the great tradition of Labor budgets and reflects the values that we seek to represent in this place. I say that for two reasons. Firstly, we do have a great tradition of building the skills and infrastructure of the nation. The Labor government has at the federal level a long history of building road, rail and transport infrastructure and ports and shipping. Indeed, at the moment the minister for transport is undertaking a mammoth task to rebuild the shipping industry of this nation, which has been let wither on the vine so badly for so long. We have a great tradition of putting in place the transport infrastructure on land that is needed to move the goods and services of our nation around what is, at the end of the day, one of our biggest challenges—the tyranny of distance not only internationally in terms of where we sit from major markets but also internally in connecting our cities and regions across the nation. This has been really importantly reflected in this budget by the fact that we seek to introduce a new form of profits based tax on the mining industry in order to be able to redirect what is the wealth of this nation. I take the member for Kennedy's point and note that he has some concerns about who owns the companies. But, at the end of the day, the wealth of the nation is owned by the nation. It is owned by the people of this country, and we should ensure that we leverage that to get maximum benefit for diversifying our economies and supporting the sections of industry and the country, in terms of regions, that need to be able to be supported to take advantage of the boom and, indeed, supporting the regions that are experiencing the boom to manage that in an effective way—which I think many members here would, I think, reflect. That is exactly what a large part of the task of this budget is directly aimed at. In my own region of the Illawarra, clearly we see both of those phenomena happening in one place. We have a very vibrant and strong mining industry. Coming from five generations of coalminers, I am most conscious of the reality of that industry in my region—and it is continues to flourish. I was talking to some of my uncles on the weekend, one of whom said that the biggest job he has had was writing CVs in the 1980s when he was retrenched 12 times when the mining industry was at the other end of the cycle. So we are very conscious in our region of the importance of the mining industry. But we are also a base for manufacturing. People would be aware of the BlueScope restructure last year and the significant flow-ons from that. So we do see both speeds and both challenges. We are also a region with a major university, and we have seen growth. For example, our university produces the largest number of IT graduates in the nation. We have seen growth in aged care, in a much more professional, developed aged-care sector providing services of a much greater variety to people with different demands as they age in the modern age. We have seen a growth in our service sectors as well. So we reflect that diversity and those various speeds in the economy. Part of that first part of the task of the budget that I referred to is about delivering on those infrastructure transport links and freight support that we have talked about. I am also very pleased that the budget gave a very strong injection and support to the development of skills in this nation and a continued support for our TAFEs, universities and private providers in this sector to continue to provide the opportunity for people to get the education that they need in order to be able to take advantage of the future. We are very aware that if somebody leaves high school in this day and age—let alone in the future—without a further tertiary qualification, whether that is a certificate, a diploma or a degree, they are going to significantly struggle to hold a job in the modern economy. That is not something that we should be accepting in any way, shape or form. Part of my new role as the parliamentary secretary in this area is to look at how we ensure that adults have the language, literacy and numeracy skills to be able to access those educational opportunities I am very pleased to be able to be undertaking that task, because I think it is very important. Indeed, members may have heard some of the stories of people in their own communities who grew up illiterate as adults and have had the opportunity through various governments over time to gain literacy skills. What a difference it makes to not only their own lives but also their kids. If your parents are literate and able to support you in your schooling, you are going to do much better at school. I think those commitments in the budget around education skills are also particularly important. The other side of it is the micro side: it is what we are attempting to do to support individuals and to support families in order to manage the cost-of-living issues. In my own area of Cunningham I want to acknowledge that, in particular, the additional money—the schoolkids money—is going to be very important. I have talked to lots of local families who are very pleased with this particular initiative. My own sons are adults now, but I have had a lifetime of understanding the challenges, as many of us in this place with children have, of the costs to commence schooling, whether it is uniforms or equipment and so forth. There are just over 7,000 families in my electorate who are going to be eligible for that bonus—that is $410 a year for each child in primary school and $820 for each child in high school. It will be very welcome. There are about 8,000 families in my electorate who will get the increase of up to $600 in family tax benefit A from 1 July next year—another important initiative to support families. Just over 9½ thousand young people, single parents and unemployed people in my electorate will receive the supplementary allowance. This is designed to help them meet the cost of utilities. The singles will receive $210 and couples $350. I think it is important to acknowledge that sometimes people hear the big stories and think: 'You're just talking about families.' That is not the case; we are also seeking to support young people, single parents and the unemployed with that sort of allowance. There will be, very importantly, about 47,000 workers in my electorate who will receive a tax cut from 1 July this year. When you add that to the history of tax cuts that we have put in place since coming to government, it is a very important addition to give people more of their own income in order to meet their costs of living. About 4,000 workers in my electorate will no longer pay tax due to the increase in the tax-free threshold. So it is a great incentive to say to low-income workers, 'Get back in the workforce and engage with the workforce, even if it is getting a casual or part-time job, because you can earn up to about $18,000 now before you will even have to put a tax return in. You won't have to pay tax.' It is an enormous initiative. In my area it will be very welcome for 4,000 workers and I am sure it will be welcome in many other members' areas where there are significant issues around unemployment, particularly if that unemployment is connected to people who are disengaged from the workforce, such as disadvantaged young people, single parents or mature workers who have been out of the workforce for a long time. We know that that first step in the door, whether it is a part-time or casual job, can be the turning point to getting someone re-engaged with the workforce. To be able to say to those people, 'You can earn up to $18,000 without paying tax,' is a huge incentive. I am really pleased with that initiative in the budget. There will also be nearly 23,000 workers in my area who earn up to $37,000 who will receive up to $500 towards their superannuation accounts—again, another great Labor tradition building on superannuation in this country. One of the GFC realities was that one of the strengths of our economy was our investment of over $1 trillion dollar in superannuation and the solid savings base that gives to this nation, so it is good to see that also supported in this budget. About 45½ thousand workers will get increased superannuation benefits when we move from nine to 12 per cent. As we all seek to have a retirement that is long and of quality, we will increasingly appreciate the importance of that increase to superannuation. Just over 15,000 small businesses will be eligible for the instant tax write-off for each asset worth up to $6,500. I think it is really important I make the point to my own local businesses: that is not one a year; that is up to $6,500 on every asset that they purchase, including up to $5,000 on a new vehicle, if that is part of their business requirement. When we initially introduced this as part of the stimulus response to the GFC, local small businesses in my area got a double bang because they bought from each other. It was not just the purchasing business that got the benefit of an instant asset write-off; they were likely to buy their car or their new computer or new piece of equipment from another local business, so that business got the benefit as well. I would argue it is a really good incentive. Some of my local businesses talk to me about the fact that we could not get the one per cent decrease in tax through for them because, sadly, those on the other side opposed it. But they were very supportive of this initiative, which provides the capacity for them to write off these assets and also supports other local businesses. At a more local level, the budget contains just over $1 million towards local roads for the Wollongong City Council, and I know they very much welcome that investment. There is a commitment in this budget of $25.5 million towards the next stage of the Maldon-Dombarton rail link, something I have been campaigning for since I was first elected. Some members here might have an understanding of it. It was actually half built by the state government. When Mr Greiner was elected as Premier he stopped it. It was in the mid-eighties, when the coal industry took a dive. In a sadly short-sighted way, it was seen as not worth proceeding with. There are magnificent visions of a fly-over bridge across the gorges, but it just stops half-way. It is half built and has sat like that for nearly 30 years now. The port of Port Kembla has become a critically significant port for the eastern seaboard of New South Wales. There is real capacity at Port Kembla to utilise it in a greater way and to create more local jobs, but we need that rail link completed. The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister Albanese, has very much supported us on that project. When the Prime Minister came to the area to respond to the BlueScope announcement, she announced that we would commit to taking that project to the next stage and to get all the engineering and environmental work done. I will continue to lobby to get it included on the next round of nation-building infrastructure priorities. It is not a small task but it is a strategically very important and significant task. All round, this is a great Labor budget, doing all the things that the nation needs to do. I absolutely commend these bills to the House. 10:33 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck I rise today to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No.1) 2012-2013 and related bills. Before I examine some of the critical infrastructure needs that have been left off the list for Hasluck yet again, I would like to take the time to speak about the suite of bills in their totality and what they mean for the Australian people. This budget will deliver all the wrong things for the residents of Hasluck and the nation as a whole. Inside Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013 is what amount to bribes to soften the impact of the world's largest carbon tax. There are massive blow-outs in the cost of border protection as the government run around trying to find rooms for asylum seekers as detention centres overflow. The NDIS is underfunded, while equity funding for the NBN is being kept off the bottom line of the budget. Behind the smoke and mirrors is a government that has hidden the rise in the Commonwealth debt limit from $250 billion to $300 billion in Appropriation Bill (No. 2) to avoid proper scrutiny and debate on the matter. This government continues to borrow more than $100 million per day and in four years has delivered a cumulative record deficit of $174 billion. The interest on this debt runs into the billions of dollars every year. That is money that could be better spent on many projects in many electorates, but in particular Hasluck, which is being neglected by this Labor government. All of the above comes without taking into account the world's biggest carbon tax, which is being rolled out in a matter of weeks. The carbon tax will hurt the people of Hasluck; make no mistake about that. Despite the fact that Julia Gillard said, five days before the last election, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,' Budget 2012 is Australia's first carbon tax budget. The world's biggest carbon tax is about to hit families, jobs and investment at the world's worst time. The budget papers confirm that despite falling international prices Labor's toxic tax will go up to $29 a tonne in just three years, and an additional $36 million will be spent on taxpayer funded carbon tax advertising over the next two years. The advertisements mention the cash bribes but do not even mention what they are for—the world's biggest carbon tax. The carbon tax will cascade through the economy. Despite the Labor government's lie that only big emitters will pay the price, the cost of virtually everything will go up and up and up. I would like to draw the chamber's attention to the Red Hill Waste Management Facility to the north-east of my electorate. This is managed by the East Metropolitan Regional Council, a conglomerate of local governments in Hasluck and its surrounds. The Department of Environment and Conservation provides the EMRC with an annual licence to operate the site once it has been adequately demonstrated that a range of conditions regarding pollution, buffer distances, noise control and waste types and quantities can be met. The use of modern techniques and principles of sanitary landfill design and operation, including leachate collection and methane gas capture, have contributed to the site successfully operating within DEC conditions for the last 22 years. I had the privilege of visiting the Red Hill site with the member for Swan, Steve Irons, earlier this year, and we were blown away by the work and effort that has been put into managing landfill responsibly—educating schools on responsible waste disposal and capturing in excess of 75 per cent of all gases emitted from the landfill. These are just a few of the amazing things that the Red Hill Waste Management facility is doing to protect our environment. You would think that such an initiative would be rewarded by a government—but, no, this facility is one of the entities set to be included in the carbon tax. The reason? Its size. You would think that the pooling of the resources of six local government authorities to save money and create a better environmental outcome than a typical landfill would be rewarded, but not in this instance. This government and its lazy approach to environmental policy is penalising them. I know they are worried about this tax. They will be forced to put up their prices and inflict an additional cost on constituents within my electorate and surrounding ones. They are worried that this will drive some people away from the landfill to dump their waste illegally as it becomes too expensive to do the right thing. This is another example of Labor's failed policies, which are too numerous to mention, even in a 15-minute speech. I turn my attention to small business in Hasluck, which is the engine room of the local economy. They get no compensation for the carbon tax in this suite of appropriation bills. The Gillard government must cut red tape and axe the carbon tax to help improve small business conditions which are well below the five-year average. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry's May 2012 Small Business Survey states that small business conditions were at low levels, with conditions expected to deteriorate further in the coming quarter. The Prime Minister has also dumped her promised company tax cuts. Less than two months ago she said, 'If you are against cutting company tax, you are against economic growth. If you are against economic growth, then you are against jobs.' I regularly speak to local business owners in Hasluck when I am visiting shopping centres or precincts or when I am out doorknocking. They all tell me the same thing: this is the worst possible time to introduce the world's biggest carbon tax. Small businesses are the biggest employers in my electorate and, in uncertain economic times, everyone is concerned that this carbon tax, which will have no environmental benefit to Australia, is the coup de grace to economic growth and many small businesses in Hasluck. If you think I am exaggerating about this, I challenge Labor members to go and visit small business owners in their own electorates. Ask them how things are really going and you will find out there is no popular support for this ridiculous tax. Tourism is a vital sector in the north of Hasluck, particularly the Swan Valley, Kalamunda and Guildford. People travel from afar to visit these areas and incorporate these activities when they are choosing to visit Perth from Asia and even Europe. Once again, this budget does nothing to help this struggling sector. Let me highlight some figures to show just how important tourism is nationally. It is worth 5.2 percent of our gross domestic product; or, in money terms, $73.3 billion. It employs nearly 910,000 people. However, the tourism sector is feeling the pinch. Domestic tourism numbers are falling as the cost-of-living pressures hit Hasluck and Australian families. International tourists are faced with the strong Australian dollar, that rising debt levels do nothing to address. Although the sector is hurting, this suite of appropriation bills fails to provide adequate carbon tax compensation for tourism. It stands to destroy 6,400 jobs and cut 10 per cent from industry profits. It will also reduce Tourism Australia's budget by 6.2 per cent or $8 million in real terms. During its peak in the Howard years, Australian tourism made a profit of $3.584 billion. Next year the sector will stand to make a net loss of $8.7 billion under the Gillard government. Shame on this inept government! I am a strong believer in a smaller government that allows citizens to flourish without being saddled with mountains of red tape and regulations. Excessive government interference in the market place creates inequitable outcomes. Honourable members interjecting — Mr WYATT M3A It is good that the members are having the conversation. Instead of spending even more money on creating further bureaucracy, I call on this government to spend money on helping fertile ground where small businesses can flourish. Spend money on actually helping the people of my electorate to be masters of their own destinies instead of spending millions on advertising propaganda with no positive outcome. In the south of Hasluck there is a desperate need for further services for my constituents. Let me highlight a few areas of desperate need that would create an ideal set of conditions for attracting more businesses and residents who would boost our local and even national economies. This is where a relatively small investment from the federal government would have major benefits to its citizens. The growth areas in the east of Western Australia are in the Southern River, Gosnells, Huntingdale and Thornlie areas. Many people from these areas are forced to travel up to an hour to their place of employment as house prices rise and they cannot afford to buy closer to the CBD or work centres. Their commute is often slowed down terribly by the inadequate Nicholson Road and Garden Street roundabout. Delays of 30 minutes or more at this one intersection are not uncommon. This is made worse by the fact that a national train line runs just 200 metres from one of the entries to the roundabout. This and the fact that it is close to a major arterial road, the Roe Highway, causes misery for many. An overpass there would allow the free movement of traffic over this rail line and help emergency vehicles clear the area. It would also help small businesses based along Nicholson Road to attract more customers who are not put off by these delays. To relieve congestion over a period of time, creating an environment where more people can work from home if they choose to is important. Giving businesses better access to faster download speeds is also critical if an area expects to hold its local industry and not lose them to the CBD. The broadband services in this part of Hasluck are very slow, and in some cases non-existent. I regularly receive letters, calls and emails from constituents in these areas who are frustrated about this situation. A common thread that runs throughout these complaints is what happens when they call Telstra. When they call they are told there is nothing that Telstra can do due to the snail's pace of the NBN rollout. They are also told that they will have to wait anywhere from five to seven years for faster broadband speeds. How is my electorate supposed to grow in a sustainable way when people hear that moving into the south of Hasluck means living with dial-up speeds and shocking traffic congestion? Ten to 15 years ago broadband speeds may have been considered a luxury but everything is pushed online now, and my constituents in the south of Hasluck are being left behind by this woefully inadequate government. At this point I would like to acknowledge the work of the WA state government member Peter Abetz MLA, who has been tireless in his efforts to improve the Garden Street-Nicholson Road intersection and to improve broadband speeds in this area. Between us we have lobbied hard at state and federal levels for two years to see this change realised. I would also like to mention the outstanding work of three local governments in Hasluck—the City of Gosnells, the Shire of Kalamunda and the City of Swan—who all travel regularly to Canberra to lobby for improvements to our area. They go out of their way to facilitate shadow ministers I bring to Hasluck so they can bring these matters to their attention. What we never see is the actual Labor government ministers venturing into Hasluck to speak to these LGAs. Unfortunately, despite their best effort, it seems the Gillard government is content to ignore their practical approaches to improving parts of Hasluck and seems to be content on rolling out bloated, ill-conceived policies that do more to create blockages in society than to improve things. Finally, the surge of new residents to this area—particularly Gosnells—has created an unbearable strain on GP services. There are over 90 languages spoken in this area of Hasluck. The government is dumping people into this area with little or no support. This is not news to this government. In a bid to prop up support in the Midland area, the Gillard government chose to build a GP superclinic right across the road from the existing GP superclinic instead of putting one in Gosnells, which has limited access to the range of GP services. This neglect is outrageous and shows how badly it performs with policy. Waiting times and the lack of bulk billing in Gosnells is a major issue for my constituents and has once again not been addressed or funded in this budget. People want to know when choosing an area to live in whether or not they can have access to the CBD and transport links and whether or not they can shop if they need to. They need to have access to modern technology like broadband and to be able to visit a GP when necessary without month-long waiting times. The Gillard government has repeatedly failed tens of thousands of people in this area of Hasluck not by accident but by ignoring the lobbying of local government, the complaints of local people and the pressures placed on them by political representatives. Instead of spending billions of dollars housing illegal immigrants in this country, Prime Minister, adopt the coalition policy on border protection; use the billions you will save to improve the lives of Australian people; and take greater care of our pensioners, self-funded retirees and service men and women. It is what they deserve. I know that we live in times in which the global economy will have an impact. Certainly the Department of the Treasury papers say the conditions in some parts of the economy are likely to remain challenging. I think that in challenging circumstances the ability of the people of Australia to access services that they pay for through their taxes and expect to be delivered so that their needs are met also has to be considered. 10:48 Mr CHEESEMAN HW7 Corangamite Today I rise to speak on the 2012-2013 budget. I was wondering as I was putting together this speech what Tony Abbott might have said to his party room meeting the day after the Treasurer delivered the speech. I am sure he would have said: 'Let's not worry about facts. They get in the way of the truth. Let's get out there and continue to mislead the Australian community about the state of the economy.' This budget very much is a Labor budget. It is structured in a way that will support families, particularly in terms of delivering economic growth, supporting low unemployment, supporting low inflation and keeping downward pressure on interest rates. If we look at the state of the economy today with its national unemployment rate of 4.9 per cent, the reality is that our unemployment rate is lower than that of the Howard government. We have created some 800,000 jobs in what has been a remarkably challenging economic environment not just domestically but also globally. And we have heard members on this side of the House indicating very clearly the challenges that we face. This budget very much delivers on Labor's commitment to continue to maintain a surplus, which of course is very, very important. But it also is a Labor budget in that it is structured in a way that will help families, particularly in responding to cost-of-living pressures. Labor is delivering for my constituents throughout their entire lives to ensure access to services and support and to make sure that no-one is left behind. From Alvie to Belmont, children are getting the best start in life thanks to Labor's paid parental leave scheme. This scheme provides working mums—some 969 of them—support in looking after their children in the very, very early weeks of their lives and supporting mums and dads who might choose to adopt a young one. It is a fantastic Labor initiative. This will ensure that parents have that precious opportunity to bond very early with their child, which I think is certainly very important. Having two young sons myself, I know the importance of not only spending time with a newborn baby but also in assisting our wives and partners in looking after those children. From Colac to Dereel, Labor is supporting the delivery of high-quality child care. The 50 per cent child-care rebate is very much appreciated by families across my electorate. Indeed, there are about 3,854 families that have been enjoying that benefit to enable young parents to return to work and to continue to support their families. From Elliminyt to Forrest, this budget delivers a boost to family tax benefit A and family tax benefit B provisions. In Corangamite, there are over 10,000 families who rely on family tax benefit B, and that will provide $110 per child per year—again helping to support families. There are around 8,000 families on family tax benefit B, and that will provide those families with an extra $69 per child per year. Once again it is Labor that is delivering money to help support families with children. We know that there are many pressures on families, and anything that Labor can do to support families we will of course do. There are also around 9,000 families across the electorate who will be receiving the schoolkids bonus. My electorate of Corangamite is a key part of the Geelong growth corridor. Many young families are moving to my electorate to build their first homes and to raise their families. The schoolkids bonus is going to help support them in raising their children—which I know is a very popular aspect of the budget. There will be some $410 per year in support provided to families with children in primary school, and some $820 will be provided to families with kids in secondary school. This is an initiative that will help right across my electorate to support families in their efforts to raise and educate their children. It is absolutely the Labor way; it is what we do. We are providing additional support for teenagers so that families can support young people, particularly during their later high school years, their university studies, their apprenticeship studies and the like. Again that is very important. Some 50,000 taxpayers in the electorate of Corangamite will be receiving a tax cut on 1 July, and some 40,000 of those 50,000 constituents will receive a tax cut of at least $300 a year. These tax cuts are very well tailored to support my community, in particular to support people who have been out of the workforce for some time, whether it be because they have been raising a family or because they have been made redundant at some point in the years before. These tax cuts will provide a real incentive to get those young and older people back into the workforce. It is a Labor way to go about things. The tax cuts will very much support families in Corangamite, and that is very important. Labor has historically played a very important role in working, particularly with the trade unions, to build and deliver people's superannuation savings. It was Labor and the trade unions that worked hand in glove to put in place compulsory superannuation savings that enable people to retire with dignity. That very strong Labor initiative was undertaken primarily in the eighties and nineties. It is Labor again that is recognising the importance of superannuation—and we are particularly recognising that a larger percentage of our society is going to be post the age of 65 as the baby boomer generation moves through. We are recognising the importance of providing dignity in retirement to families by increasing superannuation by three per cent. That means that a typical 30-year-old worker today will retire with more than $108,000 in their superannuation account when they get to retirement. That is critically important not only for those individuals but also for the Commonwealth budget, because it will enable future governments to keep our pension costs low. It is important that, wherever we can do that, we do so. Corangamite—and, indeed, the Greater Geelong area—has a very large number of small businesses. In fact it is often misunderstood how important the small business sector is in the Greater Geelong region. Most people when they think about the Greater Geelong region talk about the very large manufacturing businesses that are in the region—and indeed they are important. But equally important, if not more important in terms of it being the engine room of the Geelong economy from both an employment perspective and a wealth generation perspective, is small business. Labor recognises that, and we are putting in place arrangements to help support it, including the instant asset write-off. These measures, I think, are very important combined with the loss carry-back mechanism—again, something that will support cash flow and liquidity in small business. It is something that I am very pleased with and very proud of. Unfortunately, we were not able to continue to pursue the one per cent tax cut that we wanted to provide to business across my electorate and the economy. We were not able to do that because Tony Abbott was not prepared to support tax cuts for small business. It is very disappointing, but we have put in place a number of other mechanisms in its stead which we have been able to get through the parliament. Labor also recognises that for pensioners—and I have some 25,000 pensioners in my electorate—it is a particularly challenging and difficult time. We are putting in place additional money, some $338 a year for singles on the pension and some $510 a year for combined pensions, to support them in meeting the cost of living pressures that are within the economy at the moment. This budget is very much a Labor budget. Time does not permit me to talk about some of the very local outcomes that we have been able to secure not only in Corangamite but across the Greater Geelong region. I look forward to engaging with my constituency around those matters to highlight the very strong contribution this government, the Labor government, is making to the Greater Geelong region. 11:02 Mr TONY SMITH 00APG Casey It is my pleasure to speak on these appropriation bills and the budget itself. In doing so, I want to raise a number of issues with the government's economic approach, which is embodied in their budget. At the outset, let me say that this budget should be judged against the backdrop of the government's believability, against the government's capacity in the past and against the government's performance. Indeed, as the shadow Treasurer said just last week at the National Press Club, a budget is a measure of so many things: a government’s honesty and honour, a government’s competence and capacity. This budget, unfortunately, as so many Australians now know, is a budget that fails all of those critical tests. Across Australia at the moment, there are various indicators of falling confidence. Just recently the Sydney Morning Herald had the headline 'Consumer confidence wilts'. 'Lack of faith puts Australian economy at risk,' warned Dennis Shanahan in the Australian. 'Small business pessimistic,' pronounced the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Just this week the AustralianFinancial Review proclaimed 'Labor’s image is bad for business.' It is the case that as this is happening the shadow of what is happening overseas, particularly in Europe, is critical. We see Greece threatening to drag the entire eurozone over the brink. We observe America grappling with huge economic difficulties and massive deficits that have driven the US federal government debt to 100 per cent of GDP. We hear the Chinese economy may also be slowing. Indeed, in question time this week the Treasurer spoke of events in Europe that he said 'cast a very dark shadow over the global economy'. He went on to concede that Australia was 'not immune from the global instability'. The Treasurer has a real talent for stating the obvious. The critical point as we debate this package of bills and the budget is how, in the midst of this global turmoil and turbulence, the government is affecting Australia's ability to withstand these challenges. Has the Treasurer strengthened or weakened Australia's economic position? Is his approach and that of the Prime Minister making the Australian economy more or less robust? Has Australia's economic resilience been buttressed or buffeted by the policies of this government? The answer to these questions is clear: despite Labor's best efforts to obscure and obfuscate the facts, the fact is that unfortunately this government's crisis of competence has spawned a crisis of confidence throughout the Australian economy. We emerged from the global financial crisis in good shape. The primary reason we emerged from the global financial crisis in good shape is that we entered it in great shape. We have so far weathered the worst of the storm, because Australia was in a very solid fiscal position back in 2008. As we debate these budget bills we should look back to the days of surplus budgets. We should look back to the days of paying off Labor's $96 billion of net government debt. We should look back to the days when not only $96 billion of net government debt was paid off but also $45 billion was left as a nest egg in the budget tables for all to see to buffer against future crises and challenges, just as it did. Without the policies of the Howard government we would not have been able to emerge from the global financial crisis in the shape that we did. Without the responsible budgeting of Treasurer Costello between 1996 and 2007 we would not have been in a markedly different position on the debt front from many other countries. In fact, if we had kept accumulating debt at the rate that we were in the last five years of the Keating government we would have entered that crisis with much more lead in our saddlebags. Over the last 4½ years, first with the member for Griffith as Prime Minister and now with the member for Lalor as Prime Minister, we have seen a frenzy of ill-conceived and ill-executed spending. The government have not only burnt through that $45 billion cash nest egg that was left after paying off the $96 million of net government debt but plunged on the forecast to $145 billion of net debt, nearly $200 billion of deterioration over their period of office. The Treasurer likes to claim that it was the government stimulus spending that saw Australia through the global financial crisis. The Treasurer does not like to talk about the waste. The Treasurer does not like to talk about the fact that he has been unable to deliver a surplus budget. The Australian public have seen the record of this government on so many things—from the carbon tax which they were told would never happen, to the Treasurer's constant pronouncements about what his budget will do each year. It is worth looking at how he has put this budget together and what that means for the future. Sometimes what he does not mention is more important than what he does mention. In trying to conjure together the projection, the forecast, of a small $1.5 billion surplus, the Treasurer has fiddled with as many programs as possible to shuffle money from one financial year to the next—all so that he can project, as of now, a surplus. The truth, which he did not mention in his budget speech, is that he is seeking to increase the Commonwealth debt limit from $250 billion to $300 billion, in other words increasing the national credit card limit. Instead of stating this in his budget speech, of course, it is buried deeper than the wreck of the Titanic in a vain attempt to escape the blatant contradiction between his record and his rhetoric. Despite his talk of fiscal restraint, this Treasurer will continue to borrow $100 million every day. If we look back at the current financial year—that is, the financial year that the Treasurer talked about and predicated his last budget on, just over a year and a couple of weeks ago when he stood in the House of Representatives—and when you look at his deficit estimates, it really does provide a window into both his capacity and the extent to which the Australian people should believe his pledge of a $1.5 billion surplus. Just 18 months ago, in the mid-year economic update, the Treasurer said that the deficit for the current financial year—which ends in five weeks or so—would be about $12 billion. By budget night last May, he said that the $12 billion had almost doubled to $22 billion for this financial year. By December last year, in the six-monthly official update, it has risen again, from $22 billion to $37 billion. Then on budget night he estimated that the final outcome would be $44 billion. That is, over 18 months, $12 billion to $44 billion. We will not get the final figure until September—and we ain't finished yet. There are still a few weeks left in this financial year. But this Treasurer who—and let me be generous and just take the one-year blow-out—forecasts a $22 billion deficit and says it will come in at 44 billion, missed by that much and yet he expects us to believe that he will deliver the small surplus. Even to get those figures into the budget, it meant money-shuffling throughout programs on the most ridiculous level. And this is before he has introduced a carbon tax and all the other taxes that I do not have time to speak about. It is no wonder that when small business owners and families across Australia look at the economic challenges coming down the pipeline, and then look at the capacity of this Treasurer to deal with them, they lack confidence. They lack confidence because the only thing they can trust with this Treasurer is that his word will not be kept. The only thing they can trust with this Treasurer is that his forecast will not be met. That is the only thing small business owners and families across Australia can trust with this Treasurer. Small businesses are critical. There are 2.7 million of them. If they lack confidence, that has a huge impact on our economy. It is little wonder that the Dun and Bradstreet business failures and start-up analysis for the December 2011 quarter found that small business start-ups had fallen a staggering 95 per cent. These figures show that small businesses, and the small-business leaders of tomorrow, are looking at this Treasurer and looking at this government's lack of competence and these figures show they do not have the confidence to begin a small business—and that is before we talk about what is going on in the small business sector itself. I make this prediction: when we speak on these bills next year, we will be talking about how, once again, the Treasurer has missed his forecasts and misled the Australian people. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 009LP I call the member for Shortland. 11:18 Ms HALL 83N Shortland Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I congratulate you on your elevation to the chair. This is the first time I have spoken when you have been in the chair and I know that you will be a fine Deputy Speaker. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 009LP Thank you. Ms HALL 83N I rise to support the budget that was brought down on 8 May. I would like to congratulate the Treasurer on the fine work that he has done in putting together a budget that I am proud to take to my electorate. This is a budget that delivers to Australian families and a budget that delivers to older Australians. It is a budget that will see Australia go into surplus by the end of this year. It is a budget that really hones in on the issues that are of greatest importance to the people that I represent in this parliament. It is a budget that delivers on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and that is something that is very close to my heart, as I worked for 12 years in the area of disability before coming to this place. I know how important it is for people with a disability to have the opportunity to maximise their quality of life and to be able to have opportunities that they are currently denied. I know how important it is for their families and their carers to have certainty about what is going to happen to their child when they are no longer able to care for them. I know how important it is for them to see that their child is respected and offered opportunities that other children are offered. Quite often in the past they have been denied these opportunities. The National Disability Insurance Scheme is creating a new era, an era where people with disabilities will have the opportunity to maximise their independence and to live as long as they possibly can in a situation where, maybe, they can live independently in the community, looking at their options for employment and ensuring that into the future they will have choices and opportunities that they have been denied. I really encourage the opposition to support those particular changes and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The other area that I think was particularly impressive was dental health. For a long time Australians have been denied the opportunity to have the dental health care that they need. In this House earlier this week, we debated a motion—or a bill, I think—that was put forward by the shadow health minister. I was extremely disappointed that in the overall scheme of things he brought a bill to this parliament that actually is about 37 dentists and not about providing dental health care to Australians. The chronic dental health program that is in place at the moment has benefited some people, but there are a lot of people who do not have a chronic dental health issue who are denied access to this scheme. Whilst a millionaire can get access to the chronic dental health scheme, somebody on Newstart or a pensioner who relies on their pension and enjoys reasonably good health is denied any access to dental health care. So the major commitment in this budget to dental health is something that will benefit that people I represent in this place. It means $515 million in funding which will address the immediate dental healthcare needs. All those people who have been languishing on the dental health waiting list will have a chance now to be seen a lot quicker. I checked what the current waiting time is in my electorate. People are waiting months. People come to me in my office and have told me that they have been waiting for over 12 months to get the dental care that they need. I think that is very unfair. This is addressing that issue. This is putting in place a program and funds that will address an area of real need. There will $346 million over three years—it is going to blitz this dental health waiting list—and $78 million to help dentists relocate to regional and remote areas. While it might be a problem getting dental health care if you are on a low income in an area like mine, after 12 or 18 months you can access it. But, in some areas, you have absolutely no chance of ever being able to get that dental health assistance. I know when the Howard government was in power and the Leader of the Opposition was the health minister, we were advised that the Commonwealth's contribution to dental health was made through private health insurance. Private health insurance is something that not everybody can afford, and it is those people who cannot afford private health insurance that are the ones languishing on the dental health waiting list. These changes are going to be welcomed by everyone I represent in this parliament. The money that has been put into the national health reform is something that has also made a big difference within my electorate. There have been big, big changes, and now with the local hospital networks it has really improved the functioning of the health system. I was a member of the Committee on Health and Ageing in the parliament when the Blame game report was brought down. When that report was brought down it showed how it was a very convoluted system and how it needed to be reformed. The previous government did nothing about it. The Rudd and Gillard governments have embraced it and have undertaken reforms that are benefiting all Australians. One area of health that received extra funding was the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program. In the first week of June it is the National Bowel Cancer Week. During that week I will be holding a forum within my electorate. A wife of a friend of mine died of bowel cancer earlier this year. If she had had a bowel cancer screening test she would still be with us here today. She had had bowel cancer for five years by the time it was finally discovered and she was being treated for something else at the time. Also at that forum will be somebody from the Cancer Council, obviously, speaking and somebody who has survived bowel cancer. This money over four years to expand the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program is welcomed by everyone. I was pleased to hear the minister say that in the future she is going to expand it even further. My local Rotary Club is currently gearing up to undertake its bowel screening campaign in the community, where they will go out there and get as many people to have the bowel cancer screening test. It is a really, really important initiative in this budget. Members of the opposition have been scathing in their criticism of the schoolkids bonus. I would like to share with the opposition the fact that in my electorate it was welcomed. The parents who heard comments made by the opposition that they were going to go and waste that money on gambling and alcohol and drugs were absolutely horrified. These are parents who are buying school uniforms and books for their kids, supporting their kids in their education, and they are being accused by the opposition of going to waste this money. It is absolutely horrific that any opposition in this parliament could come out and be so disparaging of Australian families. I think they stand condemned by their actions in relation to that and I am sure the Australian people will let them know loud and clear just how important this bonus is to them in providing education for their children. The other area that I was particularly pleased with in the budget was the Living Longer, Living Better aged-care reforms. It is a massive reform to the aged-care sector. It is about delivering better access to aged-care services. It is about addressing the critical shortage in aged care. It is about allowing older people to stay in their homes for a lot longer. It is about giving support to carers. It is about addressing the national dementia epidemic. I might add here that, as you well know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the health and ageing committee is now conducting an inquiry into dementia, and I think that we will really become aware of just how important this need is. This is a new approach to aged care. I moved a private member's motion in this House on Monday and I was absolutely horrified to hear speaker after speaker on the opposition side saying that they did not support this package, that they did not support massive reforms to the aged-care sector that would deliver great outcomes to older people in the community. They were at odds with the pensioners and senior citizens at Lake Munmorah Senior Citizens. When I attended their meeting and explained to them how the system would work, they were really very, very excited about it and they were pleased to hear that they would not be forced to sell their family home. It is a great initiative. I was a little bit disappointed in the budget in relation to foreign aid. I would have liked us to have kept the previous goal, but the Treasurer has assured us that it is only moving the time frame out by a year. But I would have liked to have seen us uphold our former commitment in relation to foreign aid. In the area of Newstart I think that there was room to provide a little bit more support for people who are on Newstart. But, overwhelmingly, I see that this is a budget that will benefit the people I represent in this parliament. It is a budget that has delivered many things to the people of the Shortland electorate, particularly through the programs that have been funded through this budget—for example, the Energy Efficiency Scheme that has delivered in excess of $353,000 to the Lake Macquarie Business Enterprise Centre. They are welcome initiatives that are going to benefit the people I represent in this parliament. (Time expired) 11:33 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff I rise to speak about yet another federal Labor government budget—yet another great disappointment for my constituency on the Gold Coast and yet another squandered opportunity. The reality is that this was a typical Labor budget in that, despite its headline surplus figure of $1.5 billion, it will in reality be another significant budget deficit. We have remarked that it will take 100 years of Wayne Swan surpluses to repay four years of Wayne Swan deficit. The fundamentals are this: Labor are bad economic managers. That Australia is still in relatively good shape is a consequence of the longevity of the reforms that were implemented by the Howard government and the very strong economic footing that the Howard government provided the people of Australia with and indeed the way in which our institutions were funded and the debt repaid. There are several inescapable facts. Most fundamental of these is the key driver of Australia's debt-to-GDP ratio, which was 100 per cent a consequence of the fact that the previous Howard government and the then Treasurer, Peter Costello, left Australia with zero public debt—zero public debt. In fact, Australia was left at the end of the Howard government's period in office with net assets of $70 billion. In the short four or five years since the Labor Party was elected, we have seen that position erode from a $70 billion net asset position to now a negative $130 billion of debt. That is, for all intents and purposes, a $200 billion turnaround in the space of about four years. That, of itself, speaks volumes about the Australian Labor Party. If you listened to the Australian Labor Party, you would think that this complete erosion of our nation's finances was a consequence of external factors. If you listened to the narrative from the Australian Labor Party, you would think, 'Look, we just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and that is why Australia's finances have been completely eroded.' That is a nice cover, but it is not the reason for the turnaround. The reason Australia's finances have gone backwards at an incredible rate of knots is the reckless spending and the badly applied use of taxpayers' funds by this Labor government. We have seen billions upon billions upon billions of dollars utterly wasted by this government; which, frankly, in my view, borders on economic incompetence. Speakers from the government in this debate have stood up, puffed their chests out and said: 'We are proud to give money out to Australian kids through their families. We are proud about what we did with the Investing in Our Schools Program.' Do you know what? I do not share that pride. It is not because I begrudge Aussie kids having brand-new school halls. It is not because I think that parents are going to waste money. The reason I begrudge the Australian Labor Party, when they stand up to crow about their so-called economic achievements, is that those Aussie kids that they talk about—who are sitting in those school halls, whose parents are receiving $800 or $900 or $1,000 in cash handouts from this Labor government—will be paying off the debt that Labor has left us for the next 20 years. So, when they sit in a school hall, they are not sitting in that school hall with the full knowledge that that school hall was built by borrowing money from overseas, money that those kids will have to pay off for 20 years before Australia is even back in the position of starting to save for our future. That is the real legacy of the Australian Labor Party. It is entirely consistent with Labor's form when it has been in federal government before and with Labor's form in every single state across this Federation. It is extraordinary when you look at the state of Queensland. For so long Queensland was the economic beacon of Australia. We were the lowest taxed state in the Federation and we were the central hub for economic activity in our Federation. After 20 years of Labor government in Queensland that has all been erased. Queensland is no longer the lowest taxed state in the Federation. We are about third or fourth. Queensland no longer is the epicentre of economic activity. Population growth in the state has declined to now being in net terms nearly zero. Economic growth has slowed down. The previous Bligh and Beattie Labor governments have left Queensland with debt of around $60 billion to $80 billion. It is a farce that members of the Australian Labor Party stand up and try to whitewash these things, as if in some way they are good, because they care about the people, because they want to hand out money hand over fist, and say that it is the coalition who are the problem because we say no. That is right; we do say no. We say no repeatedly to this government when it comes to economic stewardship, because this government has frankly no idea. It is not bold. It is not visionary. It is not good governance to say: 'We want to hand out $900 here. We want to build $16 billion worth of school halls there. We want to spend money doing this and that and the other. It is the coalition who always stands in our way.' That is right. I am proud to stand in the way of the Australian Labor Party. I am proud to say to the Australian Labor Party, 'Your reckless spending must stop,' because I have two children and I know that it is my kids who will be paying off for decades the debt that the Australian Labor Party leaves behind. At what point does the Australian Labor Party wake up, look in the mirror and say to the next generation of Australians, 'I am sorry; we have betrayed you'? At what point does the Australian Labor Party say to the Australian people, 'I am sorry; whereas the previous coalition government meant that we paid zero when it comes to paying off interest on debt, we now have to pay $8 billion a year in servicing interest that this government has racked up'? I recall when the Labor Party first came to office, roughly four short years ago. At that time they wanted to increase Australia's debt ceiling to $75 billion. They said: 'Don't worry about it. We'll never reach it. $75 billion will be more than enough to see us through. We are never going to get to it.' Well, guess what? We got to $75 billion. So then the Labor Party said: 'We need to increase our debt ceiling to $100 billion. But don't worry. We'll never get to it. It is just a precaution. It is just there as part of our financial manoeuvring.' Guess what? We reached $100 billion. Then the Labor Party said: 'We need to increase our debt ceiling again, up to $200 billion.' And now the current debt ceiling is at $250 billion. Do you know what Labor is doing in these budget papers? In these budget papers the Labor Party says: 'Look, we are going to have to increase the debt ceiling again. We are just going to push it up to $300 billion. But don't worry about it. We will never get to it. $300 billion. It is okay. Our debt to GDP ratio is low by world standards.' The audacity of the Australian Labor Party is extraordinary—their spending and the way they portray themselves. They constantly sap people's aspirations in this country by punishing those that are successful by saying, 'If you earn over $150,000, we are going to effectively tax the bejesus out of you.' It escapes them that this erodes the desire to move ahead in this country. They punish those who are successful, they punish those who generate wealth, they punish those who create employment, they punish the industries that are the entire reason the Australian economy is still moving forward, and then they redistribute all of that and give it to those who are not in that situation. Then they wonder why Australians say: 'Do you know what? This is just too hard. We would rather take our money and invest our capital elsewhere.' They seem to think that we live in a closed environment, where Australians do not have options to invest that capital in overseas markets—which they are doing, because that is more profitable for them than retaining their capital here. In addition, it is important to recognise the opportunity cost of the way Labor wastes money; there are two ways Labor has wasted money. We have seen the billions of dollars that have been wasted on the school halls program, the pink batts scheme, GroceryWatch, Fuelwatch, the green car fund—the list is endless. You name it. Billions upon billions upon billions of dollars of money has been channelled into all of these harebrained schemes that Labor backs wholeheartedly the one minute and walks away from the next. That is the first opportunity cost. The second opportunity cost relates to the fact that now, as I said, we are paying an interest bill of $8 billion a year. Under the coalition that $8 billion a year could have been spent on programs. There could have been new hospitals, new roads, infrastructure spending—a whole range of different things. That is what the coalition did. What we are doing now as a direct consequence of Labor's spending is paying $8 billion a year in interest. I have to say to my constituents: 'I am sorry; we can't extend the heavy rail down to Gold Coast Airport—a cost of $2.8 billion—even though that money would have been available, because now that money has to go towards servicing Labor's debt. We cannot have $30 million for a cruise ship terminal on the Gold Coast—something that would drive employment and tourism—because now that money goes on repaying Labor's debt. We cannot find $2 billion to cover the cost of hosting the Commonwealth Games—something that would showcase my city and indeed all of Australia to the world—because now that money has to be spent on servicing Labor's debt. And we can't find $280 million for the cultural precinct at Evandale, because now that money has to be spent on servicing Labor's debt. We cannot find $1.8 billion to pay for light rail on the Gold Coast, because now that money has to be spent on Labor's debt.' n fact, one of the announcements that I made prior to the 2007 election was for $455 million for the widening of the M1 between Nerang and Tugun. Guess what? This government, in collaboration with the Queensland Labor government, tore that money away from the Gold Coast, ripped it away from my constituents and funnelled some of that money up the road. Instead of having an eight-lane carriageway on the M1, a national road between Brisbane and Sydney, we now have parts that are three lanes and other parts that are two lanes in each direction. That is Labor's legacy. When people of the Gold Coast in my constituency look around and say, 'Where is the money for the light rail? Where is the money for the Commonwealth Games? Why aren't we improving heavy rail to the Gold Coast airport? Why aren't we doing something with the cruise ship terminal? Why aren't we seeing more funding like, for example, the local Roads to Recovery program, which was a coalition initiative—why aren't we seeing more funding there?' the answer is straightforward, and there are two reasons. Firstly, because that money now has to be spent to service the massive debt that the Labor Party has left us and, secondly, because that money was simply blown. Wasted. It may as well have been thrown on a fire and gone up in smoke; ridiculous programs, like their pink batts scheme—so-called stimulus programs. If you want a good example of the way that this government has just absolutely wallowed in ineptitude, look at their set top box scheme, an announcement that I think was in the last federal budget. An allocation of around $450 per set top box installation to transform an old analogue TV to be digital-ready now—$450 per installation. The simple fact that you can buy a 42-inch plasma screen, delivered and installed, for less money than that—go to kogan.com.au if you need to verify it—escapes the Labor Party. The reality is that this certainly has all the hallmarks of a Labor budget. It is a failed budget, and it fails because their centrepiece of this budget—which is to crow about additional compensation for Australian families as part of Labor's attempt to buy them off, frankly, before the introduction of the carbon tax—is nothing more than a laundering exercise. It is a laundering exercise, because Labor is borrowing that money from overseas, then taking that money and giving it to Australian families and saying, 'Aren't we great?' But there is a little asterisk at the end of that sentence. That little asterisk is this: that those Aussie kids who are supposedly the beneficiaries of that money will be the people who for the next two decades are forced to pay higher taxes in order to repay the massive debt that this government has racked up in four short years. One hundred years of Labor Party surpluses are required in order to repay four years of Labor Party debt and deficit. The Labor Party stands condemned for their reckless spending, for the opportunity costs that they have brought about on the Australian people and, most fundamentally, because they have betrayed future generations of Australians, who will have to repay the debt in order to get Australia back to square one. (Time expired) 11:48 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter I like the member for Moncrieff, and I have a healthy respect for his ability and capacity. I really cannot understand why he is not serving on the front bench, representing his party, but I am sure his time will come. But when we come to speak on the budget we come largely to speak about our local communities, and I have never heard such rubbish from him. I cannot believe the dissertation I have just heard from the member for Moncrieff. He represents a thriving tourism area. Where would it be now if Australia were in recession? How would the member for Moncrieff's electorate now be faring if, like Europe in particular, we were now in recession as a country? As we speak today, in every corner of Europe they are wondering what they will do next about their economic situation. The eurozone is falling apart and they are wondering how they get growth back into their local economies, and they wonder how they are going to deal with the debt crisis of southern Europe. Meanwhile, back in Australia, of course, we still enjoy healthy growth. We managed to avoid recession, one of the only Western democracies to do so, and of course that has left us with a little bit of debt. The member for Moncrieff's alternative was not to spend that money and allow Australia to sink into a deep recession. All those things he was just talking about, which are no doubt worthy projects in his electorate, would not be funded today, because government revenues would have fallen considerably as the economy went into negative, and government outlays would have risen considerably as people joined the unemployment queues. Unemployment now in the Hunter region is at 3.9 per cent. In my electorate it is 3½ per cent. That would not be the case— Mr Ciobo 00AN0 No, it isn't. Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 I will take the interjection. I am not sure what it was, but I suspect I know. I do not take all the credit for that, nor does the current Labor government. The Hunter region is transforming itself off the back of reforms over a period of more than 20 years, started by the Hawke and Keating governments, continued by the Howard government and now kicked along again by the current Labor government. But let us not have this rubbish that this debt, which as a percentage of GDP is very small in Australia, is somehow a problem for us and that, if we had not had it, we would be funding things in the member for Moncrieff's electorate. That is not true. If we had gone down the path he has suggested, his electorate would be in much worse shape today than it is thanks to the intervention of this government—intervention recommended by no less a person than the then Treasury secretary, Ken Henry, who was very persuasive recently on 7.30. I can advise the member for Moncrieff that that full interview can be seen, by the way, on the ABC website, and he should read it. I would ask those who might be listening to this debate this morning to ask themselves who has it right—Ken Henry or the member for Moncrieff? I know where my money is, and I suspect most of them will come to the conclusion that Ken Henry probably has a better idea about these things than the member for Moncrieff, as talented as the member for Moncrieff might be. I suspect they would also see Ken Henry as being just a little more independent in his pronouncements than the member for Moncrieff is, because as you would expect the member for Moncrieff is in here playing the political game. I am not saying I have never done that. I am sure I did in my younger days, but I have come to mature and I have come to understand that you do better in this place if you speak frankly about the challenges facing us and the opportunities before us, and that is what I will do this morning in the time afforded me. On that theme, I want to say this: when I was elected to the Cessnock City Council in 1987, the Cessnock LGA was in pretty bad shape. Historically the area affectionately known as the Coalfields was established on the back of pit tops. Cessnock, Paxton, Ellalong and Millfield—I could go on and on—were there because there were mines there. The mines were sunk first and the communities were established around them. Of course, eventually the mines moved on and the people did not. That left the Coalfields in pretty bad shape. When I was elected, unemployment in Cessnock, for example, was more than 13 per cent. Youth unemployment was probably around 30 per cent. Things were pretty rough. Our roads were goat tracks. Roads like Allandale Road, Maitland Road, Aberdare Road, Lang Street in Kurri, Mitchell Avenue in Kurri and Victoria Street in Kurri were just goat tracks. We still have some problems with roads; all of us continue to work on those. We have more than our fair share, but basically our roads have come a long way. We did not have recreational facilities to speak of. We did not have any decent parks. We do now. We did not have any traffic lights. When I was elected to the Cessnock council in 1987, there was not a set of traffic lights in the whole city—a city covering Cessnock, Kurri and many communities around them. We have many now. Many of these things come naturally as the city grows, but the Cessnock LGA is a very different place today from what it was then. If we wanted entertainment in the Cessnock LGA in those days, we went to the club or the pub. There was nothing wrong with that; they are good pubs and clubs and they are getting even better. But, if we wanted to do something beyond that, we drove to Newcastle or, more likely, we drove to Sydney. Today Sydney comes to us. The vineyard concerts are becoming very famous and well attended. The whole Cessnock economy has been transformed, driven by the services and retail sectors. Coalmining is very important. We are very fortunate, because we are part of the boom, but the boom is not in our backyard. A large proportion of our workforce still works in mining by travelling down to areas like the member for Charlton's area and more particularly to the Upper Hunter. But things have improved dramatically. I said that I think the unemployment then in Cessnock was 13 per cent. Today it is a six per cent unemployment rate in Cessnock, and 3.5 per cent is the unemployment rate in the Hunter electorate. We have the Hunter Expressway now coming through our area—a federal government investment of $1.45 billion, which will transform traffic flows through the region and provide towns like Cessnock and Maitland and a number of communities in between—Lochinvar, Greta, Branxton, Mount Vincent, Mulbring et cetera—with much-needed bypasses of their local communities and much needed relief from heavy vehicle traffic in particular. The Hunter Expressway is going to significantly impact positively on the Hunter's economy. I say all these things not to take credit for them, although I like to think that over 16 years in this place and then eight years before that on Cessnock council I played my role. I will say again that for 11½ years of that period the conservatives were in power here in Canberra, and they take some credit for some of the transformations we have seen in the Hunter's economy and social fabric over those years. It has been a team effort. When John Howard was the Prime Minister, I like to think that I worked pretty well with his government to do what was right for my electorate, including the Cessnock LGA, which I love very, very much. I have lived there all of my life and I suspect I will live there for the balance of my life. One of the reasons I make this point is that yesterday Norsk Hydro announced that it has finally taken the decision to close down its aluminium-manufacturing plant in Kurri Kurri, with the loss of around 400 jobs. Already a number of months ago they closed down one potline, which caused them to shed about 150 jobs. This is very, very unfortunate, disappointing and distressing for those directly affected—either those who have been working at Hydro, some of them for many years, or those working in the industries would support Hydro, whether they be supplying food or doing other manufacturing and works associated with the plant. What concerns me is the way people talk down the town in the wake of these things. Hydro have been making it clear for a while that aluminium prices and the Australian dollar were killing them. They have had the additional frustration of their inability to secure an appropriate and acceptable long-term power supply contract with the New South Wales government. We knew this was coming, as sad as we find it. But it is not the end of Kurri Kurri, it is not the end of the Cessnock LGA and it is certainly not the end of the Hunter electorate. We are a booming community. We are very fortunate. We have much at our disposal. With unemployment at 3.5 per cent in the Hunter electorate and six per cent in the Cessnock LGA or thereabouts, most of those workers, in my view, will have very good employment prospects. They are semiskilled and skilled, and well placed to pick up the enormous amount of job opportunities in the Hunter region, including very close to home. The biggest challenge for me when I became the member for Hunter was finding jobs to put people in. Today my biggest challenge is finding the people to fill the jobs. I regularly talk with employers who are simply crying out for employees. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 11:59 to 12:15 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 If I were one to write and read my speeches, I might know where I was before I was interrupted by the division—a first for me—but I know what theme I was on, and it is this. The Cessnock LGA is in great shape. It is more beautiful than it once was and more vibrant than it once was. The unemployment rate has never been so low. We have never had such economic diversity and I am sure that all those who are looking for a job post-Hydro will find themselves a job in a labour market—and I remember where I was up to in my speech now—where employers are screaming for employees with the sorts of skills held by those who, very unfortunately, will be made redundant as a result of Hydro's closure. So my main message to the many out there talking the area down is: please stop it. It does not help. We are in very good shape and our future is a very bright one indeed. Please stop this rubbish about blaming the carbon price for the closure and, in doing so, making political capital out of what is a pretty distressing time for those who were directly affected. In the minutes left to me, I want to mention a couple of people who have, sadly, passed on in recent times. I spoke about Mrs Lola Neilly in the adjournment debate on Monday, and I want to quickly mention two other people. One is Bill Parker, who was a Kurri resident, served for many, many years on Cessnock City Council, including a term as deputy mayor, and served with me for the eight years I was on Cessnock council. He was a wonderful individual of unchallenged integrity and a talented councillor who always put his city first. He will be sadly missed. The second person I want to mention is Mr Kevin Levido. Kevin Levido was a very well known Cessnock resident from a very well-known family. He for many years managed the local Bandag tyre-retreading business for the O'Neill family. He was very active, like Bill Parker, in the Labor Party. He was also involved in a range of other organisations, including the local Masonic lodge. He was a very disciplined character and always very fit, even in his later years, but, again, like Bill Parker, he was a man of very great honesty and integrity. He was known to be pretty tough too, including on his employees and, indeed, those close to him. But that was his way—we are all different. He remained a person who was very highly respected in the local community. To both of those families once again go my sympathies and condolences. Although we lost Bill probably some months ago now, this has been my first opportunity to acknowledge his passing and to thank him again for his contribution and to thank his family for allowing him to spend so much of his time doing what he loved, trying to improve his local community. It is the very community that I have just been talking about, of course—Kurri Kurri. If Bill were here, I have no doubt that he would agree with me that we have gone ahead in leaps and bounds since the days when we enjoyed one another's company on Cessnock council. He would not be happy to hear people talking down the local area. He, like me, would say, 'It's a tragedy we've lost Hydro, but, gee, we've got so much else going for us.' 12:20 Mrs GRIGGS 220370 Solomon I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013 and cognate bills. As I have said before, while I am in this place I will do whatever is possible to ensure that my electorate of Solomon—and, indeed, the Northern Territory—receive their fair share of funding from the Commonwealth government. Once again, despite the endless rhetoric from Labor in the lead-up to the budget, this was not a tough budget. There was more borrowing, more debt and more taxes and then a sugar-hit cash giveaway to offset the carbon tax. The government have resorted to accounting tricks and money shuffling to manufacture the appearance of a wafer-thin budget surplus of $1.5 billion in the 2012-13 financial year. If the Gillard Labor government really believe they can deliver a surplus, why are they moving to increase the Commonwealth debt limit from $250 billion to $300 billion? They are increasing the government's credit card limit, and we all know that we cannot trust Labor with credit cards. They have tried to hide the fact that they need to increase the credit card limit by having the proposal buried in the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) in order to avoid proper scrutiny and a specific vote on the debt limit. This government are embarrassed that government debt levels are at absolutely unprecedented levels. They do not want Australians to know that they have maxed out the credit card again. The Treasurer did not even mention the plan to raise the debt limit in his budget night speech, and, when he was asked later why he needed to lift the debt limit if he was returning the budget to surplus, he responded, 'Well, very simply, this is no big deal.' Net debt is rising to $145 billion. This dwarfs the previous record of $96 billion left by Paul Keating—and this is no big deal? That is not what my constituents tell me; they tell me it is a big deal. This government tell us about restraint, but they are now spending $100 million more per year than they were when they came to office. This represents an almost 40 per cent increase over a time when inflation has risen to 13.2 per cent. Look at what Labor do; do not listen to what they say. They are continuing to borrow $100 million per day. That is $100 million for every day that this Labor government are in power. In 18 months, the government's estimated deficit on the 2012-13 financial year has blown out from $12 billion to $44 billion—and it may blow out even further, because the year is not over. In the last four years Labor have delivered record cumulative deficits of $174 billion. The interest payments on Labor's debt alone are set to reach an alarming $8 billion per year. What this budget did was very simple: it confirmed to every Australian that this government are not fit to lead. The government are so swept up in holding onto power and improving the polls that they have forgotten their core responsibility to the Australian people. To a nation that is facing high costs of living, and dealing with a failed immigration policy, the Gillard Labor government give the following: the world's biggest carbon tax; cynical bribes to soften the impact of the carbon tax; broken promises on corporate tax cuts; higher unemployment; blowouts in the cost of border protection; an underfunded NDIS, which is nothing more than a cruel hoax; and equity funding for the NBN which is being kept off-budget. That is what this Labor government give us. Despite Julia Gillard saying five days before the last election, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead', budget 2012 is Australia's first carbon-tax budget. The world's biggest carbon tax is about to hit families, jobs and investment at the world's worst time. The budget papers confirm that despite falling international prices Labor's toxic tax will go up to $29 a tonne in just three years and that an additional $36 million will be spent on taxpayer-funded carbon tax advertising over the next two years. The advertisements, as we know, do not even mention the carbon tax. They mention that cash bribes, but they do not mention the phrase 'carbon tax'. The carbon tax will cascade through the economy. Despite Labor's lie that only the big emitters will pay the price, the cost of virtually everything will go up, up and up. Small businesses, which are the engine room of the economy, will receive no compensation for the carbon tax. We have had four deficits in four years. The overall budget for 2012 delivers a deterioration of $26 billion in the cumulative Commonwealth budget position over the forward estimates since last year's budget. The blow-out in this year's deficit from $23 billion to $44 billion means more borrowing and more debt, which future generations will have to repay. All of this is despite the fact that in real terms the government is experiencing the fastest growth in revenue since the mid-1980s. This is the fourth Labor deficit in four years, and together they total $174 billion. Treasurer Swan has never managed to get his figures right. The 2011-12 budget deficit has now blown out, as I said, three times, from $12 billion to $23 billion to $37 billion to $44 billion, and this year has not even finished. This year's budget, as I have said, was all about cooking the books. In headline cash terms, the Gillard Labor government will spend $8.7 billion more than it earns in the 2012-13 financial year, because the government continues to spend on projects such as the NBN, which have been taken off budget. If the government were honest and included the NBN expenditure, the budget would show deficits over the next three years. To put it simply, there would be no surplus if the NBN were on the books. In fact, by bringing forward just two programs, the back to school payment and the Commonwealth grants to local government, the government artificially saves more than $1.5 billion in the 2012-13 financial year. Honest budget treatment of these two programs alone would wipe our Treasurer Swan's wafer-thin surplus. We now have record debt. As I have already said, this government seeks to increase Australia's debt ceiling to a record $300 billion, which is four times higher than it was in 2008. Australians are right to be concerned about Treasurer Swan, with yet another increase in our nation's credit card limit. Net government debt will climb to a record $144.9 billion in 2013-14. That is an increase of almost $40 billion since last year's budget. By 2015-16, the government will be spending over $8 billion a year, or around $22 million a day, on interest payments alone. This is the price tag of Labor's legacy of waste and reckless spending. With the higher unemployment, last year's budget promised 500,000 new jobs over two years, but the government now expects to miss its target by 300,000 jobs. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate is forecast to increase to 5.5 per cent, while the government is cutting $200 million out of job service programs. This government is all about high taxes. The budget includes another six new tax hikes, including through heavy vehicle road user charges and reduced tax offsets for families with higher medical bills. This brings to 26 the number of new or increased taxes the Rudd/Gillard Labor governments have delivered since 2007. Let us get to the broken promises. The Gillard Labor government has dumped the Prime Minister's promise about company tax cuts. Less than two months ago in the House of Reps on 14 March, she said: If you are against cutting company tax, you are against economic growth». If you are against economic growth, then you are against jobs. The Prime Minister has also broken her solemn promise set out in the 2009 defence white paper to increase defence spending by three per cent in real terms until the 2017-18 financial year. In this budget, the Prime Minister and Treasurer Swan cut a further $5.5 billion out of Australia's defence budget, on top of the $2.5 billion they cut out of the defence budget last year. As a percentage of GDP, defence spending is now at historically low levels. While defence continues to be cut, Prime Minister Gillard's broken border protection and onshore processing policy has delivered another $1.4 billion blowout in asylum seeker management. Yet, despite the Gillard Labor government's big talk, the $1 billion committed over the forward estimates to the National Disability Insurance Scheme is almost $3 billion less than the Productivity Commission recommended. Australians with disabilities will be forgiven for feeling short-changed by the Gillard Labor government's budget. The budget also set aside just $5 billion towards the Gonski review. The $5-billion-a-year price tag means Labor's independent schools hit list is not far away. Australians want a government which can deliver an economic strategy to build a strong Australia, reduce the cost-of-living pressures and create secure jobs. Instead, they have a government mired in chaos and a Prime Minister with no judgment. My electorate of Solomon is in desperate need of infrastructure to make its economy more productive. In Solomon, we are also in desperate need of health infrastructure to give our people better access to health services. There are more disappointing elements in the budget: in particular that families have been targeted and the perception of a wealthy family is now a family on $150,000. With the higher cost of living continuing to apply pressure on families' budgets and interest rates, we all know that a family on $150,000 is far from being wealthy, especially in regional Australia, where the cost of living in high. Many people in my electorate and my family and friends across Australia have raised with me their concerns regarding the significant expenditure on housing associated with asylum seekers in the Territory. The general view is that this money could be better spent on infrastructure to build on the Territory's potential and on funding longer term projects within my electorate. This Labor government's short-sighted measures and poor fiscal management are set to continue to the pain for families within my electorate of Solomon. Despite Labor talking down the impact of the these changes, the truth is that, at a time when families are struggling with costs of living pressures, the carbon tax will hurt families. I remind the House again of the pink batts fiasco, which resulted in the deaths of Australians. I remind the house of the Building the Education Revolution scheme, which directed funds to building halls at schools already scheduled for closure. I remind the House of the hard-earned taxpayers' money spent on an inefficient solar rebate program—a program that not only was economically inefficient but did almost nothing for environmental outcomes. How can we forget the exorbitant and unnecessary cost of giving set-top boxes to pensioners at a cost higher than that of a whole new television? Nor have we forgotten the $900 of stimulus payments that were sent to people living overseas and to people who were in fact dead. On another note, after the 2010 federal election the Prime Minister was asked by the member for Denison what Labor would do with the promises made by Labor candidates in seats where Labor did not win. The Prime Minister stood at the dispatch box, hand on heart and said, 'Our promises were fully costed—every single one of them. Of course they will be delivered. Of course they will. We don't go around making promises that we won't fulfil. Following on from that passionate statement of commitment in the chamber, I wrote letters to the Prime Minister on behalf of the electorate asking for clarification as to when the pre-election commitments made by Labor would be delivered in my electorate of Solomon. One promise I would like to touch on quickly was the promise of 1,200 new affordable rental homes in the Northern Territory, priced at at least 20 per cent below market rates under the National Rental Affordability Scheme. This promise was rebadged from the previous election. Now, according to a recent National Rental Affordability Scheme monthly performance report dated 30 April 2012, out of the 1,696 NRAS incentives, the Northern Territory has currently a grand total of—wait for it—14 allocated incentives. That was 14 out of 1,696 in the Northern Territory. As I have said many times in this place, the Northern Territory and indeed my electorate of Solomon is experiencing a housing crisis, and the best number this government can come up with is 14. Mind you, this comes at the same time this Labor government is introducing its toxic carbon tax. This Labor government is definitely toxic and cannot go through with its plans. It really is a mess. At the same time, this government is demolishing houses in my electorate. The RAAF base is fantastic, with really good houses, but this government is knocking them down. It just beggars belief. It is just a disgrace. The coalition government said that it would save those houses, and I am here again today to say that it should. I would like to end by reminding the House that the carbon tax will hurt families, small businesses and all the people in the Northern Territory, and they are very clear that they do not want a carbon tax. This budget was all about the carbon tax. Debate adjourned. ADJOURNMENT 5615 ADJOURNMENT Small Business 5615 12:35 Dr SOUTHCOTT TK6 Boothby As I get around my electorate and talk to small business the thing that I increasingly hear about is the tough conditions that small business is facing and the fact that there is just no confidence—no confidence to invest, no confidence to plan for the future and very tough conditions in the economic climate. Small businesses are known as the backbone of our economy, but what we see is a government who are intent on crippling small business—the mum and dad shops that we all rely on. The Labor Party are failing small business right across the country. Their promise of one-in, one-out small business regulation has been a complete failure. The Labor Party have introduced 18,089 new regulations to cripple our small businesses but have only repealed 86. This makes it essential that we get rid of the red tape, that we remove red tape from small businesses. It is something that we have committed to doing in government. The world's biggest carbon tax is only 37 days away, and this budget will do nothing to restore confidence. It will increase the cost of everything that small businesses need: the cost of their electricity will go up 10 per cent and the cost of gas will go up nine per cent. All of this will have an impact on small business. The best thing that the government could do to restore confidence and improve the conditions of small business would be to dump the carbon tax. Small businesses are struggling, and that is why I recently held a small business forum in Boothby with the shadow minister for small business, the member for Dunkley. The forum was held in Blackwood and was well attended by a number of concerned small businesses in the electorate. The response from the meeting was very much along the same lines—concern around the fragile state of the economy, concern about the rising costs of doing business and concern over the carbon tax. While the member for Dunkley was visiting the electorate we also took a walk through Westfield Marion, a major shopping centre in my electorate. This was a perfect opportunity to touch base with small business owners in the electorate, and they raised similar concerns. While on the topic of Westfield Marion, I have had a number of small businesses contact me, concerned about the decision by Westfield to implement paid parking at the centre. The local traders in the centre are extremely concerned that the paid parking proposal is going to put further pressure on their retail sales. They are concerned that paid parking is going to have a significant negative impact on foot traffic through the centre. Fewer people will be fewer sales, and this is at a time when small businesses are already struggling. As well as small business local residents have voiced their disapproval of the paid parking proposal, suggesting that it will lead to increased congestion in the suburbs surrounding the centre. I am concerned about this proposal, particularly coming at a time when small businesses are really struggling and really doing it tough. I am very disappointed that the South Australian government allowed this proposal to go ahead, given that they operate the GP Plus Health Care Centre at the site and given that they own the SA Aquatic & Leisure Centre. This is something that the South Australian government should have put the line through, and instead it allowed it to go ahead. The thing that small business now needs most of all is a return to confidence and a return to a government which is looking forward to the future and not simply focused on its own survival. Kingston Electorate: Infrastructure 5616 12:40 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I am very pleased to talk about the government's achievements in community infrastructure. Just in my local electorate over the last 4½ years since I was elected, I have seen significant community infrastructure delivered. I am incredibly pleased and proud of the things that we have been able to deliver. I would like to go through some of the infrastructure that this federal government has been able to deliver to the local community. Previous governments have left it up to the state and local councils, but this government has really been helping to deliver community infrastructure. First, I would like to talk about the Onkaparinga Rugby Union Football Club. The redevelopment of the Onkaparinga rugby club in my electorate was one of my election commitments in the 2007 election. I was pleased that $100,000 was committed to this important local project, which was completed in 2009. The upgrade was well overdue and critical to enabling the club to grow and attract new members. I was also pleased recently to be at the opening of the Aldinga Recreation Centre. In 2007, families and residents of Aldinga made it very clear to me that they believed more recreational facilities needed to be established. Aldinga is a growing area with a lot of young families and young people, as well as older residents, who want some activity and a place to go to perhaps play sport or be involved in the community. I am so pleased that in 2009 the federal government delivered $2 million to the City of Onkaparinga to construct this recreation centre. I was pleased to be able to open the facility with the City of Onkaparinga this year. This will allow many young people in the region to participate in a wide range of sports, including basketball, netball, volleyball, soccer and badminton. The design is really exceptional and really exciting and has the capacity to expand as the population grows. This is a very exciting investment, once again delivered by this Labor government. The Woodcroft Library and Neighbourhood Centre is a fantastic new facility in my electorate to which the federal Labor government contributed $750,000 as part of the Green Precincts program. This facility has best practice green design features that not only provide a sustainable library and meeting place but also demonstrate to local residents some ideas of how to make their homes more energy efficient and water efficient. Once again, there has been a really exciting partnership between local council and the federal government. The Port Noarlunga foreshore redevelopment is one of the developments that was part of the stimulus money provided to local councils. Those on the other side have said this money was a waste. You tell that to the Port Noarlunga foreshore residents, who have been waiting for a redevelopment of the foreshore. Three million dollars was delivered to complete the development of the Port Noarlunga foreshore. Port Noarlunga is a beautiful place to visit. It is just wonderful. There is a reef out there and exciting opportunities for scuba diving and recreation. It is a wonderful area, but it was not very inviting. So the redevelopment of the foreshore has allowed it to become a much more open community space for people to enjoy. Along with the Witton Centre, which was redeveloped with state government and local council money, and the surf-lifesaving club, this is just a wonderful, beautiful facility that has enhanced our local environment. There has also been the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program. This program has allowed investment in significant infrastructure, with 58 local infrastructure projects in round 1, including the redevelopment of the Hallett Cove Sports and Community Club kitchen, which was very important. In round 2, we saw five local infrastructure projects, including Bice Oval, Christies Beach, Willunga Recreation Park, construction of a dual-use path along Christies Creek linear trail and important upgrades of reserves. There were a number of others I did not get to, but I am so pleased that in this budget we have delivered funding of $3.4 million to the Hallett Cove Library and Community Centre. I have spoken about this a number of times, but Hallett Cove is a growing area along with Sheidow Park and Trott Park, and they need an upgrade to the community centre. I am so pleased that in this budget the Commonwealth is once again partnering with local councils and delivering the community infrastructure that is so desperately needed in my electorate. Warrnambool Racing Club 5617 12:45 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I rise today to congratulate the Warrnambool Racing Club on the fantastic success of its May Racing Carnival. It was a three-day event. Over 27,000 people attended. Tabcorp Holdings was up 20 per cent. It was a fantastic event for Warrnambool and south-west Victoria, bringing millions of dollars to the region. In particular I congratulate Des Roberts, the Chairman of the Warrnambool Racing Club, for the fantastic job he has done since taking over the presidency of the club. This was his first May Racing Carnival as chairman and it was an outstanding success. I congratulate Des for that. Des asked me whether I would present whips to the winning jockeys of the three major jumps races on each day of the carnival—an offer which I took up and was honoured to do. I thank Des for making that suggestion. It was a great privilege for me to be able to be part of the three days of the carnival by presenting those whips to the winning jockeys. I take this time to thank John Green, the CEO. John has done a fantastic job since he has been at the Warrnambool Racing Club, and I think the three days of racing in early May were a tribute to John's professionalism in his role as CEO. I also take a moment to congratulate Denis Napthine as the state's Minister for Racing. Denis understands the importance of the May Racing Carnival. He understands the importance of jumps racing to Victoria, and he has done a fantastic job putting confidence and prize money back in the industry and also investing to make sure the safety requirements are there. As a result, we saw three days of racing both on the flat and on the jumps which were second to none. For me one of the particular highlights of the three days was when a horse that I have a small share in saluted in the third race of the final day over 2,000 metres. Well done to Wells. I take this time to thank those people with whom I am involved in that horse: Sandy McGregor, an old university friend; Alan; Andrew; Martin Kavanagh; Nic Rule; and Geof Cain. It was terrific to see Wells salute and terrific to be involved, especially with my good friends who have a share in the horse with me. I also take the opportunity to acknowledge Martin Kavanagh's wife, Laura, for her kind hospitality during the carnival. It is incredibly important to regional and rural Australia that towns can put on events whether they be sporting events or musical events, which bring people to them. By attracting people into the regions, we bring in revenue. It brings people to the restaurants. It brings people to the retail stores. It puts towns on the map. People go back and visit those towns. The Warrnambool Racing Club acknowledge this and promote it. They have someone who promotes the carnival. It is very interesting, as you go around and talk to people—especially those who have travelled from interstate or from Melbourne—and how they say: 'It's fantastic to come down to Warrnambool for the three days of racing. But it's also fantastic because it leads us to come back with our families and spend some time during the summer or during the school holidays.' The importance of these events to the economies of regional and rural Australia cannot be underestimated. In conclusion I would once again like to congratulate the Warrnambool Racing Club on three wonderful days of entertainment that they put on. I am sure that every one of the 27,000 people who went along on those three days all had a fantastic time and that everyone is looking forward with anticipation to going along again next year. Marine Sanctuaries 5618 12:50 Ms PARKE HWR Fremantle Standing on the cusp of one of Australia's most historic conservation decisions, it was my privilege two weeks ago to co-host an extraordinary event in the Mural Hall of Parliament House. Like the cultural conscience of the nation, celebrated Fremantle author Tim Winton had flown in to deliver a keynote address as government enters final deliberations to create a network of marine parks and protected sanctuaries around our continent's coast. In his own unique style, Tim reminded us all of the enormity of the role that our unique marine environment plays in defining our great coastal lifestyle and who we are as Australians. He reminded us of our childhood family trips to the beach: the sunburn and salt of a day's snorkelling adventure and the fishing, surfing and camping of a family coastal holiday. But he also reminded us that as an island people it is easy to take our marine inheritance for granted, that things are not what they used to be and that the trends are not looking good. And like hundreds of thousands of people have done recently through government public consultation, he was primarily there to remind MPs of our responsibility to get the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for nationwide marine protection right. Marine protection is beyond doubt now a mainstream issue. As Tim put it, 'It is now white bread thinking. The overwhelming and uncontroversial scientific consensus is that in order to maintain or regain their health, our oceans need the balance tipped back firmly in their favour. How? By more sober management and more restraint, creating savings in the form of sanctuaries. Commonwealth waters are public assets—the family silver. It is silver that moves, breathes and swims. If you have ever swum in a school of trevally, or barracuda or anchovies you will know what I mean; it is like being Scrooge McDuck rolling around in the vault.' The recent creation of two new marine parks in WA state waters by the conservative state government only serves to underline this fact. As Tim noted, when the same bumper sticker supporting marine sanctuaries appears first on the kombis, then on the BMWs and then on the tradies' utes you know it has taken hold in middle Australia. It has taken hold because people understand that setting aside key feeding and breeding grounds and our other special and iconic places makes sense. It is often these iconic places that inspire people to care and to take action. Iconic places like Ningaloo Reef, which Tim Winton reminded us sparked rallies—one which was 15,000 strong in my own electorate—seeking protection for this now World Heritage listed jewel. It is now time for the sort of protection that visionary Labor leader, Geoff Gallop, bestowed in state waters to be replicated in our own federal waters; to protect our natural wonders which, as Minister Tony Burke has said, 'Would have been protected 20 years ago had they been found on land'. Places in the north-west, like the remarkable Rowley Shoals, the Kimberley Wilderness and the Pilbara's Coral Coast; and in the south-west the Abrolhos, Geographe Bay, the Albany canyons, Recherche Archipelago and the Diamantina Fracture Zone. In addition, just 20 kilometres from my own electorate lies Australia's largest canyon. Larger even than the Grand Canyon, the Perth Canyon is home to the world's largest animal, the blue whale. It would be an inspiring gift to future generations of Western Australians if such a remarkable natural icon was afforded full protection. The WA dive industry is also calling for another two sanctuaries off metropolitan Perth to safeguard their future business. Another message from that evening which resonated was the need for prudent conservative management of our marine waters. As Tim also noted, we do not want to be 'the richest, most mobile and well-educated generation in Australia's history that passes on a dud inheritance and leaves the estate in arrears'. I want to finish with this lasting message from Tim Winton: This room is filled with people who came to this place with high ideals, to make a difference, to seek the common good, with thoughts of leaving a noble legacy for the future. Something your peers and your families will be proud of. Something that will give you deep satisfaction after you leave this place. …   …   … So, here’s my question. What will you have done this year to secure that birthright – for the common good? …   …   … So this is a genuine legacy moment. Supporting the introduction of a proper system of marine parks may well be the most significant legislative gift you will make to this nation. There’s no point being half-arsed about it, and going soft in the face of short term vested interests. If your predecessors had done that last century we wouldn’t have national parks on land. They held their nerve and took the long view. Let’s do it right while we can. When your grandkids ask you what you did as a member of parliament some of them, I’ll admit, will be entranced by your stories of tax reform. …   …   … But think of the day when you help your granddaughter reel in her first flathead, the day you take your nephew to the aquarium, the morning you take your grandkids snorkelling in a marine sanctuary and their eyes are out on sticks. There’s always that quiet moment you get on the way home. After they’ve seen that turtle, those dolphins, the rockpool full of life. That’ll be when you let it slip. Offhand. You know, real casual, about what you did when you were in parliament. You helped save Australia’s oceans. You’re one of people who made the marine parks. And you did it for them. Tax reform might do it. Fair enough. But to get that rare moment when a little kid looks up at you with a flicker of interest, even a moment of admiration. My money’s on the dolphins and the marine parks. Carbon Pricing 5620 12:55 Mr IRONS HYM Swan It was interesting to hear the member for Kingston talk about all the money that has been spent in her electorate, obviously coming up to the next election. But the government must remember that every bit of money they spend they have to take off someone else—they have to take it off taxpayers, ratepayers or somebody else. That is what I want to speak about today. The federal government has sent a carbon tax warning letter to two councils in my electorate of Swan, the Town of Victoria Park and the City of Canning, warning them of a substantial hit from the carbon tax. The Victoria Park and Canning councils are the only two inner metropolitan councils in Perth that have been targeted by the Gillard government and sent these letters, and the residents in my electorate will be very concerned about the potential impacts on their services and rates. It is a ridiculous situation where some councils have, and some have not, been singled out as liable to pay the carbon tax as 'polluters'. It is, quite frankly, disgraceful that two councils and ratepayers in my electorate have been singled out to pay this tax. In addition, councils will pay, directly or indirectly, carbon tax on the landfill operations they run or use. As tip charges go up and up, the risk of illegal dumping will increase. It staggers belief that the Town of Victoria Park and the City of Canning will be whacked for collecting and disposing of household rubbish. Collecting household rubbish is a core responsibility of local government, and under the carbon tax councils will be slugged for collecting rubbish. With only weeks to go until the start of the carbon tax, it is clear the carbon tax is going to hit these councils' budgets, just as it will hit household budgets. And, with only weeks to go, the federal government still cannot provide councils with clear guidance about the exact costs of the tax to council budgets. The government's carbon tax policeman is warning Victoria Park and Canning to brace themselves for increased costs but cannot tell them how much those costs will be. With just weeks to go before it is implemented, this is a shambles. Local residents will be paying the carbon tax on their rates—just as they will be paying carbon tax on electricity and the necessities of life. By increasing council costs, the carbon tax costs will mean either increases in council rates and charges, or cuts to services. These impacts are just the start, as the carbon tax is legislated to go up and up. The Australian Local Government Association estimates that the cost of the carbon tax—excluding landfill operations—will be a minimum of $185 million nationally. It seems remarkable that local councils around Australia could account for around 20 per cent of those entities directly liable to pay Labor's carbon tax. In addition to the Town of Victoria Park and the City of Canning, I fear that another council in my electorate is in line to be hit especially hard by the carbon tax: the City of Belmont. The City of Belmont is a member of the six-council EMRC. On 26 March 2012 I visited the Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council, or EMRC, Red Hill Waste Management Facility with the member for Hasluck. I heard the member for Hasluck talking about this in this chamber this morning during his response on the appropriation legislation. When we visited this place we were impressed by the work they are doing, the efficiency and the way they are utilising the methane gas escaping—they are using it to generate power. It was a super-impressive effort by the six councils to reduce emissions and also to increase their efficiency in terms of waste. The member councils of the EMRC—which includes Belmont and the part of Kalamunda in my electorate, and the City of Swan and the part of Kalamunda in the member for Hasluck's electorate—have grouped together to make their waste management more efficient. Their Red Hill facility saves ratepayers money and cuts carbon emissions. However, the Gillard government's carbon tax is going to punish them for this, because the entity is large enough to qualify for the carbon tax. The only reason the EMRC is the size it is is that six councils pulled together to save costs and reduce emissions, and now they and the ratepayers will be slugged by the carbon tax for doing the right thing. This is ridiculous and shows the perverse impact this tax is going to have. Ultimately it is the Belmont and Kalamunda ratepayers who are going to have to stump up for this, which is absolutely disgraceful. There is a clear difference between the coalition and Labor on this issue: Labor has no mandate for the carbon tax and the coalition will seek a mandate to scrap the carbon tax. The people in my electorate of Swan all remember Prime Minister Gillard stating, five days before the last election, that there would be no carbon tax under a government she leads. I will continue to remind them of this broken promise until the next election. The carbon tax is targeting councils in my electorate of Swan. Shame on the government for this. Should the coalition be elected at the next election, we would rescind the carbon tax as our first order of business. It does not work. It does not even cut emissions, the supposed primary objective of a carbon tax. Fowler Electorate: Religious Celebrations 5621 (Fowler) (13:00): Mr HAYES ECV Fowler is the most multicultural electorate in this diverse nation of ours. In fact, more than half the residents of my electorate were born overseas. One of the main benefits of representing such a diverse electorate is the opportunity to attend various cultural and religious functions. Although I get to enjoy plenty of variety in foods and music and various customs these days, what always moves me is that, despite the differences of history and traditions, the religious celebrations I attend promote the same core values: peace, harmony, love and family. From events celebrating the Buddha's birthday, to Islamic Iftar dinners, to the breaking of bread on an Orthodox saint's day, these core values are always present. Considering that almost a quarter of my electorate has arrived from Vietnam since the fall of Saigon 37 years ago and a further 10 per cent are of Chinese origin, it is no surprise that 17 per cent of people in my electorate identify as Buddhists. This has given me the opportunity to gain a greater insight into the teaching of the Buddhist faith, and I have great respect for the positive spirit of the Buddhist religion. This spirit was very much on display during the celebrations early in May commemorating the birth, death and enlightenment of the Buddha, referred to as Vesak. I had the honour of speaking at the Freedom Plaza event in Cabramatta organised by the Mingyue Lay Buddhist Temple and Prajna Monastery. The event brought together various Buddhist communities, including the Vietnamese, Chinese and other Asian communities. The communities celebrated with lion dancing, music and food. I would like to take the opportunity to thank my very good friend of many years James Chan, who is the president of the Australian Chinese Buddhist Society. He has taken much time to include me in community events and I am very much in his debt. I also attended the Vesak celebrations organised by the Phuoc Hue Buddhist Temple. The event brought together the Most Venerable Thich Phuoc Tan, the Venerable Thich Phuoc Dat and the monks and nuns of the Phuoc Hue temple with a number of community leaders and guests. I have previously mentioned that religious celebrations across my electorate have similar values of harmony, inclusion, family and love. These values were certainly on display at the Orthodox saint day celebration of St Nikolaja Zickog that was organised by the Serbian National Defence Council in Canley Vale. I was invited to participate in the celebration of the blessing and breaking of the bread, which was followed by a very good traditional Serbian dinner. Followers of the Eastern Orthodox religion make up 6.5 per cent of my electorate and they make a wonderful contribution to my community and to the nation in general. I would like to thank Milovan 'Misha' Karajcic, the president of the council and a good friend of mine, together with the council secretary, Susan Tepsa, for inviting me to be part of this wonderful religious celebration. I would also like to thank the leaders of the Assyrian community in my electorate, including Hermiz Shahen, the Deputy Secretary General of the Assyrian Universal Alliance, and Mr David David, President of the Assyrian Australian National Federation, for inviting me as their guest speaker at the opening ceremony of the Assyrian New Year Festival. The event was hosted by the Assyrian Church of the East, whose members make up about two per cent of my electorate. This is an annual event held on 1 April, as that day in the old country represented the beginning of spring, the symbol of resurrection and new beginnings. Another prominent religion in my electorate is Islam—5½ per cent of the population of my electorate identify themselves as Muslim. For a number of years now I have been attending the Ramadan Iftar dinners, which are celebrated in a very wholesome way, organised by the Feza Foundation with its chairman, Ismail Aydogan, and Sule College with its head principal, Ahmet Yamakoglu. I have also attended events organised by Adem Centinay at the Bonnyrigg Turkish mosque, including the breakfast and family day in March, which reinforced the values of harmony and family unity and values. I am very fortunate to have such a diverse community. I am fortunate also to have people in it who take seriously their religion with a view to promoting tolerance, harmony and understanding in our community. Federation Chamber adjourned at 13:05   QUESTIONS IN WRITING 5624 QUESTIONS IN WRITING Foreign Affairs and Trade (Question No. 962) 5624 962 Ms Julie Bishop 83P asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 22 March 2012: (1) How many staff currently work on issues related to climate change in the Minister's department, and what is their APS/SES level. (2) What is the 2011-12 budget allocation for the Climate Change and Environment Section within the Minister's department. (3) How many staff currently work in the United Nations Security Council task force, and what is their APS/SES level. Dr Emerson 83V The following answer has been provided by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the honourable member's question: (1) On a "full-time equivalent" (FTE) basis, based on the estimated proportion of staff time devoted to work on climate change issues, there were 5.2 FTE employees across the department in Canberra that regularly spent a significant and quantifiable proportion of their time on climate change issues, as at 31 March 2012. The breakdown by classification is as follows: We are not able to quantify the proportion of time spent from time to time on climate change issues by officers posted overseas. (2) The Department allocates budgets at the divisional level. There is no specific budget allocated to the Climate Change and Environment Section (CCE). (3) On a "full-time equivalent" (FTE) basis, which takes account of part-time employees, UN Security Council Taskforce had 9.27 FTE employees as at 31 March 2012. The breakdown by classification is as follows: Prime Minister and Cabinet: Skills Training Australia Pty Ltd (Question No. 970) 5625 970 Mr Laurie Ferguson 8T4 asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 8 May 2012: Since 1 January 2008, has the Minister's department contracted Skills Training Australia Pty Ltd, 92 Copeland Street, Liverpool, NSW, to conduct training; if so, for each type of training, what (a) was the purpose, (b) was the duration, (c) sum was charged per participant, and (d) oversights (if any) occurred on the specified outcome, duration and delivery. Ms Gillard 83L The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: My Department has advised that it has not contracted Skills Training Australia Pty Ltd, 92 Copeland Street, Liverpool, NSW to conduct training. Social Inclusion: Skills Training Australia Pty Ltd (Question No. 996) 5625 996 Mr Laurie Ferguson 8T4 asked the Minister for Social Inclusion, in writing, on 8 May 2012: Since 1 January 2008, has the Minister's department contracted Skills Training Australia Pty Ltd, 92 Copeland Street, Liverpool, NSW, to conduct training; if so, for each type of training, what (a) was the purpose, (b) was the duration, (c) sum was charged per participant, and (d) oversights (if any) occurred on the specified outcome, duration and delivery. Mr Butler HWK The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Please refer to the response to House of Representatives Question 970. Burmese Government (Question No. 1007) 5625 1007 Ms Julie Bishop 83P asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 9 May 2012: (1) On what date did the Burmese Government first extend to Australia an invitation to send electoral observers, and what was the nature of the invitation. (2) Did the Burmese Government specify a preference for officials or parliamentarians or any other person to act as observers. (3) Did the Australian Government contact other nations invited to send electoral observers prior to its decision to send parliamentarians from Australia. (4) Did the Australian Government ask other nations whether they were sending officials or elected representatives to Burma. (5) What reasons were given by the Burmese Government for refusing visas to the parliamentarians nominated by the Australian Government. Dr Emerson 83V The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Burmese Government extended the invitation to the Australian Government on 20 March 2012. The invitation was for the Australian Government to send two officials and three journalists to observe the 1 April by-elections in Burma. (2) Yes. The invitation from the Burmese Government was for two officials and three journalists to go to Burma to observe the 1 April by-elections. Accordingly, the Australian Government asked officials with expertise in electoral systems and Burma's politics to participate along with media representatives. In parallel, we also requested that the Burmese authorities allow Australian parliamentarians to observe the elections. (3) Yes, we engaged with ASEAN nations and ASEAN dialogue partners, Canada, New Zealand, and the US. We also consulted the United Nations in New York and the European Union in Brussels on the composition of the delegation. (4) Yes. (5) The Burmese Government advised that capacity constraints made hosting dignitaries impossible at such a busy time.