2013-05-15 43 1 9 House of Reps 0 0

Wednesday, 15 May 2013

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

BILLS 3181 BILLS Medicare Levy Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 3181

Medicare Levy Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013

First Reading 3181 Second Reading 3181 09:01 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Australia's strong economy and Australia's social safety nets are the envy of the world. In this bill, we see Australia at its very best. In this bill, we see that we still can be the strong, smart, fair Australia that created the age pension and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Medibank, Medicare and universal superannuation. In this bill, we see that there is still a place for collective action to solve those great pressures of life that are too big and complex for individuals and families to solve alone. In this bill, we see a nation united in a spirit of concern to strengthen and extend the fair go, to ensure no-one is left behind. We also see a parliament ready to put the national interest ahead of ideology. To those who say Australian politics no longer works, I say simply: read the Medicare Levy Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill. This is a united embrace of national responsibility and a great act of mutual care and solidarity. Every week or fortnight, a sliver of the pay packet will go to DisabilityCare Australia: around a dollar a day for the average earner. But all that money added together from every corner of the nation will be a mighty force for good. Today we give an assurance to all Australians who live with disability and to those who care for them: DisabilityCare Australia will be here when you need it—election after election, decade after decade, generation after generation. It is a new assurance for 410,000 Australians living with significant, permanent disability now and for their families and carers. Today we also give a new assurance to all those Australians who do not have a disability today but who, through the vagaries of fortune, will come to have a significant, permanent disability in times to come. For everyone who thinks, 'It couldn't happen to me—could it?' this bill brings peace of mind, it brings the knowledge that a scheme as well designed and stably funded as Medicare will be here when you need it. Let me turn to the detail of the bill. The bill will increase the Medicare levy by half a percentage point, from 1.5 per cent to 2 per cent, from 1 July 2014. The bill also makes consequential changes to the upper phase-in amount for low-income taxpayers with income between certain thresholds—as well as to the formula for calculating the amount of a person's Medicare levy liability where a person has a spouse or dependants. These changes reflect the increase in the Medicare levy. Low-income earners will continue to receive relief from the Medicare levy through the low-income thresholds for singles, families, seniors and pensioners. The current exemptions from the Medicare levy will also remain in place, including for blind pensioners and sickness allowance recipients. A number of other tax rates that include a component for the Medicare levy will also increase in line with this change—these include increases in the rate of fringe benefits tax and excess contributions tax. These bills will be introduced by my ministers today and further details of these consequential increases are set out in the explanatory memorandum. Every cent raised by the increase in the Medicare levy will be allocated to a special fund over the next decade—the DisabilityCare Australia Fund. By law, the fund will only be spent on supporting people with disability through DisabilityCare Australia. The DisabilityCare Australia Fund will be established by the DisabilityCare Australia Fund Bill 2013, which will be put before the House as part of this package. Full details of this fund will be outlined in the explanatory memorandum to that bill which is to be tabled by the Deputy Prime Minister shortly. Increasing the Medicare levy will raise approximately $20.4 billion between 2014-15 and 2018-19—amounting to approximately 55 per cent of the total cost of funding DisabilityCare Australia over that period. The Commonwealth's share of the fund will go toward our additional contribution to DisabilityCare Australia. This will cover around 60 per cent of the Australian government's new net spending on the scheme over the 10 years from 2014-15. In last night's budget, the Deputy Prime Minister outlined that through this increased levy and other wise savings, DisabilityCare Australia is fully funded. DisabilityCare Australia is designed to ensure every Australian with significant and permanent disability, regardless of where he or she lives, gets the care and support they need. DisabilityCare Australia will end the notorious 'postcode lottery' for people with disabilities in this country. I want no more of the unfairness and irrationality by which a person gets vastly different support merely because of where he or she lives or how a disability was acquired. This requires the commitment and support of state and territory governments. The government will assist the states and territories with funding their share of DisabilityCare Australia by setting aside some of the money going into the DisabilityCare Australia Fund. Over the life of the fund, the states and territories will be allocated a total of $9.7 billion. The states and territories will be able to draw down from the fund when they meet key conditions for implementation. DisabilityCare Australia will have full coverage across the Australian Capital Territory by July 2016, in New South Wales and South Australia by July 2018, and Tasmania, Victoria, Queensland and the Northern Territory by July 2019. These agreements will see the scheme cover around 90 per cent of the total Australian population. The Western Australian allocation from the fund will be quarantined until we reach agreement with that state. We encourage the Western Australian government to join the cause. All our people deserve the best. To ensure that DisabilityCare Australia is fully funded, the government has implemented a number of other savings measures. Part of the savings from reforms to the government's assistance for private health insurance announced in the 2012-13 MYEFO which have not been allocated to the government's dental package will support DisabilityCare. Funding will also come from reforms to retirement incomes policy, the phase-out of the net medical expenses tax offset and other long-term savings decisions now announced as part of the 2013-14 budget. Making a new call upon the finances of Australians is not something that is done without care in this country. The fact is when a levy does happen, there is a very good reason for it and rightly so: Bob Hawke with the Medicare levy; John Howard with the levy for gun buy-backs; the government's flood levy which rebuilt Queensland; and, now, this increase in the Medicare levy to support DisabiltyCare. Ours has been a fiscally-responsible government—offsetting all new spending since 2009, holding expenditure at a level lower than the average seen over the past 25 years. A levy was not our first choice of funding vehicle for DisabilityCare. But, with the high dollar and the historic anomaly of nominal GDP growth falling below real GDP growth for a sustained period, the revenue write-downs have been unprecedented: $17 billion for this financial year since the last budget update alone. In short, the facts have changed. I am also deeply conscious that the states and territories face their own fiscal pressures arising from these same complex economic circumstances. So we want to be able to offer them more support to pay for the scheme, which is why a substantial share of funds raised by this levy will go to the states and territories. Most importantly, we have listened to the sound case made by disability support groups for secure, ongoing funding for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. In a time of burden sharing and wise savings, they are right to want to ensure that DisabilityCare has a sustainable and stable funding stream, in order to guarantee the security DisabilityCare is designed to bring. The President of People with Disability Australia, Craig Wallace, has summarised the argument well. The levy will be, in his words: An insurance premium for good times and bad ... people's disabilities will not go away the next time we have a surplus. That is the backdrop against which I introduce this bill. That is why the government not only has bipartisan support for this bill; we have near-nationwide agreement on this scheme. Following the groundbreaking agreement with New South Wales last December, the other jurisdictions have joined the cause, one by one: South Australia, the ACT, Tasmania, Victoria, Queensland and most recently the Northern Territory. That means 90 per cent of Australians are now part of the plan, leaving only the people of Western Australia still waiting for a decision by their premier. People with disabilities and their families have campaigned so long to design and fund a national disability insurance scheme. Many of those advocates are watching here today, and they will be very focused on what is happening in this parliament. I want to take the time to welcome those in the gallery and so many beyond who are following proceedings today. I acknowledge you all now and I acknowledge, most importantly, the passion and dedication of so many people with disability, so many families and carers, who have brought the campaign to this point. In recent weeks, as the momentum you have built has broken through, as we have struck agreements with states and territories and announced details of the funding, I have seen the hope and anticipation which Australians with disability, particularly young Australians, now share. The Saturday before last, I travelled to Melbourne to meet with the Premier of Victoria and sign my state, the state in which I live, to DisabilityCare. In Melbourne, I saw Sophie, a twelve-year-old girl who lives with Down syndrome. As her parents describe her, Sophie 'reads and writes, mucks around on the monkey bars, can be well behaved and badly behaved, runs like a billy goat, and is a budding photographer'. She took my photo while we were there. Last week I travelled to Brisbane to meet Premier Newman and sign up Queensland to DisabilityCare. While I was there, I met Sandy, who is 17 and lives with a physical disability similar to cerebral palsy. Sandy has big dreams for his future, like any teenager, but his future also has some big needs: mobility aids that cost tens of thousands of dollars, personal care to maintain his hygiene and physical therapy to maintain his muscles and his health. When I met this young man he handed me a card signed by him and his mates to say thanks for what we are doing for people with disability—a card illustrated by the photo Sophie had taken a week before. In years to come, DisabilityCare Australia will ensure Sophie and Sandy and so many other young people with disability will have the security and dignity every Australian deserves. This, above all, is why Australians are so overwhelmingly supportive of DisabilityCare. Over the past six years, the idea of a national disability insurance scheme has found a place in our nation's hearts. In March, we gave it a place in our nation's laws. Today we inscribe it in our nation's finances. The people who have gathered here today from around the country to witness this debate know what this means. There will be no more 'in principle' and no more 'when circumstances permit'. There will be launches, not trials; permanent care, not temporary help. DisabilityCare starts in seven weeks' time, and there will be no turning back. I commend this bill to the House. 09:17 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies As the coalition fully supports the NDIS, it is my pleasure to adjourn this for further debate. Debate adjourned. DisabilityCare Australia Fund Bill 2013 3184

DisabilityCare Australia Fund Bill 2013

First Reading 3184 Second Reading 3185 09:18 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley I move: That this bill be read a second time. Like the Prime Minister before me, I do so with a great sense of pride. This is a very special occasion in the life of our national parliament. For too long, people with disability, and their carers and families, have lived with inequity and uncertainty. That is why this government is transforming disability services by creating and locking in funding for DisabilityCare Australia. DisabilityCare Australia will provide people with significant and permanent disability across Australia with the support they need—the support they have waited for for far too long. It will provide them with choice and control. And it will enhance their opportunities for social and economic participation. Through the bill the Prime Minster has just introduced, the government will provide a strong and enduring funding stream for DisabilityCare Australia and, to provide certainty to people with disability that they will receive support in the long term, the government will increase the Medicare levy from 1.5 per cent to two per cent from 1 July 2014. Disability can affect any of us and therefore it affects us all. That is why we are asking Australians to make a small contribution that will make a very big difference to the lives of over 460,000 people with disability. It was a Labor government that introduced the Medicare levy in 1984 to fund Medicare. The introduction of Medicare and the Medicare levy ensured equal access to health care for all Australians and demonstrated a commitment by the Labor government to the benefits of universal health care. The DisabilityCare Australia Fund Bill is an important part of making DisabilityCare Australia a reality. Every dollar raised from increasing the Medicare levy will be paid into the DisabilityCare Australia Fund that we will establish with this bill. This bill makes it crystal clear that the additional funds raised by the Medicare levy can only be drawn upon to fund DisabilityCare Australia. The DisabilityCare Australia Fund will be managed by the Future Fund Board of Guardians (the Future Fund Board), who have the experience in successfully managing other government owned investment funds. The bill requires that a fixed amount of the money flowing into the fund each year will be set aside for the states and territories. This amount will be $825 million in 2014-15, one-quarter of the amount we expect to raise in that year. The annual amount allocated within the fund to the states and territories will be grown in future years by 3.5 per cent per year. Over 10 years, the states and territories will be allocated a total of $9.7 billion. Funds will be used to reimburse states and territories for spending on the scheme once key conditions are met. We will formalise those conditions in agreements with the states. Consistent with the principle that these funds are only to be used for additional costs in delivering DisabilityCare, those conditions will ensure that states can only access funds once they are incurring significant new costs in delivering DisabilityCare. To support early establishment costs, eligible states will also be able to access some of their annual allocation in 2015-16 and 2016-17. The bill will also provide the opportunity to cover interim matters to enable DisabilityCare Australia to commence operations from 1 July 2013, through the creation of a transitional special account to manage state and territory government funds until the board overseeing the National Disability Insurance Scheme Launch Transition Agency is established. The transitional special account will also be credited with the Commonwealth's contribution for 2013-14, which will be appropriated to the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. This will provide assurance to state and territory governments that the Commonwealth's contribution will be spent only on DisabilityCare Australia. This bill allows the DisabilityCare Australia Fund to receive, hold and invest the additional Medicare levy proceeds for the purposes of reimbursing the Commonwealth and states and territories for their contributions to DisabilityCare Australia. It supports the critical objectives and principles of DisabilityCare Australia. The government's plan for DisabilityCare Australia extends well beyond the Medicare levy increase and the DisabilityCare fund. In the budget last night, the government detailed the long-term structural savings that, along with the Medicare levy revenue, will fully fund DisabilityCare well beyond the forward estimates and even beyond a 10-year horizon. This unprecedented step of providing long-term funding well beyond the normal four-year budget cycle shows the depth of Labor's commitment to DisabilityCare Australia. It shows our commitment to righting the wrongs of too many years of complacency, too many years where we have not given proper regard to the needs of people with significant and permanent disability. With the secure funding we lock in for DisabilityCare today and for the future, we ensure that come 1 July 2013 DisabilityCare will be here to stay. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Fringe Benefits Tax Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 3186

Fringe Benefits Tax Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013

First Reading 3186 Second Reading 3186 09:25 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I am very pleased to be speaking today with the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. On this occasion it is to the Fringe Benefits Tax Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013, which is part of a package of measures increasing the Medicare levy by half a percentage point. The Gillard government is proud to be delivering DisabilityCare Australia, the most important social reform since the introduction of Medicare. We know this is a reform that's time has come. A reform that will deliver significant benefits to people with disability, their carers and families and to the wider Australian community. DisabilityCare Australia will transform the lives of people with disability, their families and carers. In 2019-20, the first year of full scheme, it will provide around 460,000 Australians with a significant and permanent disability the care support they deserve, regardless of how they acquired their disability. People with a disability, their families and carers deserve certainty. They deserve the certainty of knowing that they will be supported over their lifetimes, and the certainty that DisabilityCare Australia will be funded over the long term. That is why the government is increasing the Medicare levy from 1.5 to two per cent. And that is why every dollar raised from increasing the levy will go directly to fund DisabilityCare Australia. The DisabilityCare Australia Fund will be used solely for spending on DisabilityCare Australia. This will ensure DisabilityCare Australia has a strong and stable funding stream, replacing the current funding model based on arbitrary budget allocations. People with a disability, their families and carers also deserve certainty that they will receive support no matter where they live in Australia. DisabilityCare Australia is a national reform that requires the commitment and support of all state and territory governments. To assist the states and territories, the government will make a share of the DisabilityCare Australia Fund available to the states and territories. We will make available to the states and territories $9.7 billion over the next decade to assist in the delivery of DisabilityCare Australia. People with disability, their families and carers also deserve certainty that the Commonwealth will fully fund its share of DisabilityCare Australia. That is why we have also taken a number of tough savings decisions and will direct those savings to fully fund DisabilityCare Australia. The Fringe Benefits Tax Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill contains consequential amendments as a result of the increase in the Medicare levy, contained in the Medicare Levy Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013. Fringe benefits tax plays an important role in maintaining the fairness and integrity of Australia's taxation system. It places employees who receive fringe benefits on a more even footing with employees whose remuneration consists entirely of salary or wages. It ensures that all forms of remuneration paid to employees bear a fair measure of tax. The fringe benefits tax system also ensures that such benefits are counted as income when a person accesses means-tested government financial assistance, such as family tax benefits, ensuring that families are treated equally. Fringe benefits are taxed at a rate of 46.5 per cent. This is the sum of the top marginal tax rate of 45 per cent plus the current Medicare levy rate of 1.5 per cent. The Fringe Benefits Tax Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 will increase the fringe benefits tax rate to 47 per cent to reflect the increase in the Medicare levy. This will apply from 1 April 2014—the start of the fringe benefits tax year. These consequential amendments will help to ensure the integrity of the tax system. Further details of the bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum for the package of bills. In supporting these changes in the parliament, we show our support for certainty for people with disability, their families and their carers. We all commit ourselves to this long overdue and much needed reform. I commend this bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Superannuation (Excess Concessional Contributions Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 3188

Superannuation (Excess Concessional Contributions Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013

First Reading 3188 Second Reading 3188 09:31 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Superannuation (Excess Concessional Contributions Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 is part of a package of measures increasing the Medicare levy by half a percentage point. It is an honour to speak to this bill and to support it. At the outset, I should acknowledge that this is part of a team of bills, and I acknowledge the work of the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, Minister Macklin and Minister McLucas and the people with disabilities and their advocates, who have worked so hard to get us to this point. It is an honour to speak to this bill because to do so we recognise the story that so many Australians are in. It is a long twilight struggle with numbers every evening and every morning that do not come up right. It is a struggle with the limits of love—how much money we have for its expression, its gifts, its pleasures, its family occasions. It is a struggle every day, by inches, minutes, ill-chosen words, by guilty evasions, by things not said or said too late. It is a struggle that is fought by good people who have tried so hard in circumstances that are not their fault and have never been their fault—people that have been challenged and defeated by shafts of fate that are now and have always been beyond their control. These bills have been a long time coming, but we recognise their story now and the burden of love it represents, and the sorrow and the pity, day in, day out, that consumes the lives of more than one million of our fellow Australians. The increase in the Medicare levy will help fund DisabilityCare Australia, which I believe is the most profound piece of social justice and civil rights policy since Medicare. This is a watershed moment in our federation of states, our national story. It is an opportunity to alter the course of the future for millions of Australians that find difficulty in maintaining a basic level of existence that many of us take for granted. The importance, the urgency of this, should not be underestimated. Once DisabilityCare becomes a reality, we will never look back. We will never go back to a time, a truly primitive time, when people with disabilities and their carers had to shoulder the burden and fill the gap while well-meaning legislators sat back and looked at their knuckles, and hoped the problem would fix itself. This is a great cause to come before the House and the most important that I have had the privilege to work with a Labor team on. This is our chance to turn to the more than 400,000 Australians, their families and their carers that face these daily struggles and say to them, 'Your country will not leave you to fight each day alone.' We see you. You have worth. And with a bit of help from your people, your society, your tribe, there is a chance things can change. A better prosthetic may give new chances of work. The help of a specialist, one that was previously unaffordable under the private system, could make a breakthrough that can turn a life around. These bills will change lives. Change families. Change the dimension of hope in every community. No longer do we fill this place with empty rhetoric on this issue. We now put our money on the table. And we ask: what is the price of an ordinary life? Under DisabilityCare, it does not matter if you were born with an impairment, or the circumstance in which you came to be the way you are. What seems like such a basic concept, as old as the Good Samaritan, has taken a lot of work by a lot of people to come to action, fruition, to legislation in this place, on this historic day. This really is a moment in our parliamentary history to relish and remember. Equality, a Labor goal, is the simple goal of this nation-changing reform. I turn now to the details of the bill. This bill contains consequential amendments as a result of the increase in the Medicare levy, contained in the Medicare Levy Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013. Contributions to superannuation are subject to a number of different caps, which vary depending on the age and retirement status of the person making the contribution, and on whether the contribution is made out of before- or after-tax income. These caps exist to ensure that the amount of concessionally taxed superannuation benefits that a person may receive is sustainable and appropriately targeted, and designed for a person's longevity. The amount of a person's pre-tax superannuation contribution that exceeds the concessional cap is currently taxed at a rate of 31.5 per cent. This is the sum of the top marginal personal tax rate of 45 per cent and the current Medicare levy of 1.5 per cent, less the general rate of 15 per cent tax paid by most superannuation funds. This bill will increase the rate at which tax on excess concessional contributions is payable. From 1 July 2014, this rate will increase by half a percentage point to 32 per cent, reflecting the increase in the Medicare levy. These consequential amendments will help to ensure the integrity of the system. Further details of the bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum for the package of bills. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Superannuation (Excess Non-concessional Contributions Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 3189

Superannuation (Excess Non-concessional Contributions Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013

First Reading 3189 Second Reading 3189 09:37 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Superannuation (Excess Non-Concessional Contributions Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 is part of a package of measures increasing the Medicare levy by half a percentage point. This bill contains consequential amendments as a result of the increase in the Medicare levy, contained in the Medicare Levy Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013. Contributions to superannuation are subject to a number of different caps, which vary depending on the age and retirement status of the person making the contribution and on whether the contribution is made out of before- or after-tax income. These caps exist to ensure that the amount of concessionally taxed superannuation benefits that a person may receive is sustainable and appropriately targeted. The amount by which a person's after-tax contribution to their superannuation exceeds the non-concessional cap is currently taxed at a rate of 46.5 per cent. This is the sum of the top marginal personal tax rate of 45 per cent and the current Medicare levy of 1.5 per cent. The Superannuation (Excess Non-concessional Contributions Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 will increase the rate at which tax on excess non-concessional contributions is payable. From 1 July 2014, this rate will increase by half a percentage point, to 47 per cent, and will apply to an individual's excess contributions for a financial year. This reflects the half a percentage point increase in the Medicare levy. These consequential amendments will help to ensure the integrity of the tax system. The revenue from this package of bills will be used to provide a strong, stable and continuous funding stream for DisabilityCare Australia. Further details of the bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum for the package of bills. Debate adjourned. Superannuation (Excess Untaxed Roll-over Amounts Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 3190

Superannuation (Excess Untaxed Roll-over Amounts Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013

First Reading 3190 Second Reading 3190 09:39 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Superannuation (Excess Untaxed Roll-Over Amounts Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 is part of a package of measures increasing the Medicare levy by half a percentage point. This bill contains consequential amendments as a result of the increase in the Medicare levy, contained in the Medicare Levy Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013. Contributions to superannuation are subject to a number of different caps, which vary depending on the age and retirement status of the person making the contribution, and on whether the contribution is made out of before or after tax income. These caps exist to ensure that the amount of concessionally taxed superannuation benefits that a person may receive is sustainable and appropriately targeted and recognises people's life expectancy. Excess, untaxed, roll-over amounts are currently taxed at a rate of 46.5 per cent, which is the sum of the top marginal personal tax rate of 45 per cent and the current Medicare levy of 1.5 per cent. The Superannuation (Excess Untaxed Roll-Over Amounts Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 will increase the rate at which tax on excess untaxed roll-over amounts is payable. From 1 July 2014, this rate will increase by half a percentage point to 47 per cent, and will apply to excess untaxed roll-over amounts paid on or after 1 July 2014. This reflects the half a percentage point increase in the Medicare levy. These consequential amendments will help to ensure the integrity of the tax system. The revenue from this package of bills will be used to provide a strong and stable and continuous funding stream for DisabilityCare Australia. Further details of the bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum for the package of bills. I commend this bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Family Trust Distribution Tax (Primary Liability) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 3191

Family Trust Distribution Tax (Primary Liability) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013

First Reading 3191 Second Reading 3191 09:42 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill is part of a package of measures to transform disability services by creating and locking in funding for DisabilityCare Australia, the national disability insurance scheme. DisabilityCare Australia will change the lives of people with disability, their families and their carers. It will provide the 410,000 Australians with a significant and permanent disability the care and support they deserve, support they have waited far too long to receive. The government is also providing certainty. Certainty for people with disability. Certainty for their families and carers. And certainty to all Australians. Certainty that DisabilityCare Australia will be funded in the long term. The Gillard government will increase the Medicare levy by half a percentage point, from 1.5 per cent to 2 per cent, from 1 July 2014. This will provide DisabilityCare Australia with a strong and enduring funding stream. The government will also ensure that every dollar raised from increasing the levy will go directly to fund DisabilityCare Australia. As part of this package of bills, the Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer introduced the bill that will establish the DisabilityCare Australia Fund. The fund will hold and invest the proceeds from the increase in the Medicare levy and can only be used to meet expenditure directly related to DisabilityCare Australia. To ensure that all Australians benefit from this fundamental reform, the government will make a share of the fund available to the states and territories to assist them in establishing DisabilityCare Australia. Over a 10-year period, the government will allocate around $9.7 billion of the revenue from the increase in the Medicare levy to the states and territories to help fund their contribution to DisabilityCare Australia. The risk of disability is something that all of us face and the rewards of supporting people with disability will be shared by all. That is why we are asking Australians to make a small contribution to fund DisabilityCare Australia. For someone earning average wages of around $70,000 this will mean a modest contribution of around 96c a day—a small amount that will make a big difference to those with disability, their carers and their families. Despite this small increase, virtually every taxpayer is still paying less tax now than they were in 2007. I will now turn to the details of the bill. This bill contains consequential amendments as a result of the increase in the Medicare levy contained in the Medicare Levy Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013. The family trust distribution tax is payable where a trustee of a family trust has made a family trust election and a distribution is made to, or a present entitlement conferred on, a person other than the primary individual or a member of their family. The rate of the family trust distribution tax is currently 46.5 per cent, the top marginal tax rate of 45 per cent plus the current Medicare levy of 1.5 per cent. The alignment with the top marginal rate and Medicare levy minimises the incentive to reduce a person's tax through the use of a family trust. To maintain this alignment, the Family Trust Distribution Tax (Primary Liability) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 will increase this rate of tax to 47 per cent. These consequential amendments will help to ensure the integrity of the tax system. Further details of the bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum for the package of bills. Debate adjourned. Income Tax (TFN Withholding Tax (ESS)) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 3192

Income Tax (TFN Withholding Tax (ESS)) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013

First Reading 3192 Second Reading 3192 09:47 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Income Tax (TFN Withholding Tax (ESS)) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 is part of a package of measures increasing the Medicare levy by half a percentage point. This bill contains consequential amendments to the Income Tax (TFN Withholding Tax (ESS)) Act 2009. These are necessary as a result of the increase in the Medicare levy, contained in the Medicare Levy Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013. Employers are required to pay the withholding tax if they provide their employees with discounted shares or rights and employees have not provided their tax file number or Australian Business Number to their employer by the end of the income year. This helps to ensure the integrity of the taxation of employee share schemes. The rate of the withholding tax is currently 46.5 per cent, the top marginal rate of 45 per cent plus the current Medicare levy rate of 1.5 per cent. The Income Tax (TFN Withholding Tax (ESS)) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 will increase this rate to 47 per cent, from 1 July 2014, to reflect the increase in the Medicare levy from 1.5 per cent to 2 per cent. These consequential amendments will help to ensure the integrity of the tax system. The revenue from this package of bills will be used to provide a strong and stable funding stream for DisabilityCare Australia. Further details of the bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum for the package of bills. Debate adjourned. Income Tax Rates Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 3193

Income Tax Rates Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013

First Reading 3193 Second Reading 3193 09:49 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Income Tax Rates Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 is part of a package of measures increasing the Medicare levy by half a percentage point. The bill contains consequential amendments to the Income Tax Rates Act 1986. These are necessary as a result of the increase in the Medicare levy, contained in the Medicare Levy Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013. When a superannuation fund or retirement savings account member does not provide their tax file number, the contributions made on behalf of the member are counted as income of the superannuation fund or the retirement savings account provider. The superannuation fund or retirement savings account provider is then required to pay tax on the contributions where no tax file number has been provided. This helps to ensure the integrity of the tax system. The rate of the tax imposed on contributions where no tax file number has been provided includes a component which is the current Medicare levy rate of 1.5 per cent. The Income Tax Rates Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 will increase this component from 1 July 2014 to reflect the increase in the Medicare levy from 1.5 per cent to two per cent. These consequential amendments will help maintain the integrity of the tax system. The revenue from this package of bills will be used to provide a strong and stable funding stream for DisabilityCare Australia. Further details of the bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum for the package of bills. Debate adjourned. Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-disclosure Tax) (No. 1) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 3193

Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-disclosure Tax) (No. 1) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013

First Reading 3193 Second Reading 3193 09:51 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-Disclosure Tax) (No. 1) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 is part of a package of measures increasing the Medicare levy by half a percentage point. This bill contains consequential amendments to the Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-Disclosure Tax) Act (No. 1) 2007 as a result of the increase in the Medicare levy, contained in the Medicare Levy Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013. Where a share of the net income of a closely held trust is distributed to another trust, the trustee must advise the Commissioner of Taxation of each share of trust income or tax-preferred amounts that is distributed from the trust. If a trustee does not provide this information, they will be liable to pay trustee beneficiary non-disclosure tax. The rate of the trustee beneficiary non-disclosure tax is currently 46.5 per cent, the top marginal rate of 45 per cent plus the current Medicare levy rate of 1.5 per cent. The Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-Disclosure Tax) (No. 1) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 will increase this rate to 47 per cent, from 1 July 2014, to reflect the increase in the Medicare levy from 1.5 per cent to two per cent. These consequential amendments will help to ensure the integrity of the tax system. The revenue from this package of bills will be used to provide a strong and stable funding stream for DisabilityCare Australia. Further details of the bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum for the package of bills. Debate adjourned. Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-disclosure Tax) (No. 2) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 3194

Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-disclosure Tax) (No. 2) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013

First Reading 3194 Second Reading 3194 09:53 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-Disclosure Tax) (No. 2) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 is part of a package of measures increasing the Medicare levy by half a percentage point. This bill contains consequential amendments to the Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-Disclosure Tax) Act (No. 2) 2007 as a result of the increase in the Medicare levy, contained in the Medicare Levy Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013. The Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-Disclosure Tax) Act (No. 2) 2007 also imposes a secondary trustee beneficiary non-disclosure tax, which supports the core trustee beneficiary non-disclosure tax, which is contained in Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-Disclosure Tax) Act (No. 1). In order to discourage the use of circular chains of trusts to disguise the identity of the final beneficiary of trust income, trustee beneficiary non-disclosure tax is also imposed on the first trustee beneficiary where trust income is further distributed to another trust. The rate of the trustee beneficiary non-disclosure tax is currently 46.5 per cent, the top marginal rate of 45 per cent plus the current Medicare levy rate of 1.5 per cent. The Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-Disclosure Tax) (No. 2) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 will increase this rate from 1 July 2014 to 47 per cent, to reflect the increase in the Medicare levy from 1.5 per cent to 2 per cent. These consequential amendments will help to ensure the integrity of the tax system. The revenue from this package of bills will be used to provide a strong and stable funding stream for DisabilityCare Australia. Further details of the bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum for the package of bills. Debate adjourned. Income Tax (First Home Saver Accounts Misuse Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 3195

Income Tax (First Home Saver Accounts Misuse Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013

First Reading 3195 Second Reading 3195 09:56 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay (): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Income Tax (First Home Saver Accounts Misuse Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 is part of a package of measures increasing the Medicare levy by half a percentage point. This bill contains consequential amendments to the Income Tax (First Home Saver Accounts Misuse Tax) Act 2008. These are necessary as a result of the increase in the Medicare levy, contained in the Medicare Levy Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013. Where a first home saver account holder improperly uses the account, the First Home Saver Accounts Misuse Tax applies to claw back the benefit they have obtained. The rate of the misuse tax is currently 46.5 per cent, the top marginal rate of 45 per cent plus the current Medicare levy rate of 1.5 per cent. The Income Tax (First Home Saver Accounts Misuse Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill will increase this rate from 1 July 2014 to 47 per cent, to reflect the increase in the Medicare levy from 1.5 per cent to two per cent. These consequential amendments will help to ensure the integrity of the tax system. The revenue from this package of bills will be used to provide a strong and stable funding stream for DisabilityCare Australia. Further details of the bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum for the package of bills. Debate adjourned. BUSINESS 3195 BUSINESS Rearrangement 3195 09:58 Mr COMBET YW6 Charlton by leave—I move: That notice No. 2, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. BILLS 3195 BILLS Australian Jobs Bill 2013 3195

Australian Jobs Bill 2013

First Reading 3195 Second Reading 3195 09:58 Mr COMBET YW6 Charlton I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill implements one of the pillars of the government's $1 billion Plan for Australian Jobs. It will improve access for Australian businesses to work on major investment projects, placing them into global supply chains and growing Australian jobs. Together with the establishment of 10 industry and innovation precincts and increased support for the growth of Australian small- and medium-sized businesses, the Plan for Australian Jobs will grow industry, grow business opportunities and grow jobs. Australia's economy is resilient. The Labor government's economic management and the hard work of all Australians have delivered impressive growth, low unemployment and low inflation through a period which has seen the biggest global economic downturn since the Great Depression. We are well placed to look to the future with confidence and we have continued to make the reforms that will support a strong and diverse economy into the future. While the economy broadly is doing well, the high Australian dollar and difficult international conditions are putting pressure on many of our industries, particularly manufacturing. The government's industry and innovation statement entitled A Plan for Australian Jobs is a detailed set of policies which addresses these pressures. It will ensure Australian industry is able to access and take advantage of opportunities, improve competitiveness through innovation and adapt to new economic realities. The plan will ensure that Australians continue to have high skilled, well paid jobs in the advanced manufacturing industries that will be the backbone of the modern economy. As part of this package of reforms, the government has introduced this bill, which will invest $98.2 million to strengthen the ability of Australian businesses to win work on major investment projects. This reform will deliver more jobs for Australians from the massive investment projects underway in our economy. Through consultations with industry and others, it has become apparent that the increased use of global engineering and procurement firms has led to an increased reliance on the use of established global supply chains by major project proponents. In order for Australian industry to grow in a global economy, access to these supply chains is crucial. That is why under this bill any domestic project worth $500 million or more must demonstrate how it will provide opportunities to local businesses through an Australian Industry Participation (AIP) plan. Success in supplying to major projects in Australia is a crucial way for Australian businesses to integrate into global supply chains. Australian businesses are being denied opportunities to win work across a range of sectors. As well as the use of established supply chains by proponents, there are a variety of reasons why this is occurring, including the size of tender packages, specification of foreign standards in project requirements and a simple lack of information about local capabilities. Analysis of publically available information on major projects indicates that more than half of the current major projects are currently not subject to AIP requirements. The total value of these projects without an AIP plan is approximately $32 billion. Without a comprehensive and consistent approach to AIP, Australian industry participation in major projects will continue to decline. This bill will require major projects, both private and public, with a capital expenditure of $500 million or more to develop an AIP plan. An AIP plan outlines the actions a project proponent will take to provide Australian businesses with full, fair and reasonable opportunity to participate in a major project. This goes beyond the Commonwealth's existing mechanisms for an AIP plan through the Enhanced Project By-law Scheme and Commonwealth grants, procurement and loan arrangements. Under this bill, AIP plans will be applied to initial project construction and to the initial operational phase of major projects if they involve a new facility. For the first time, this bill specifies consequences for AIP non-compliance. These consequences include adverse publicity notices, naming a relevant person and the ability for the authority to seek performance and restraining injunctions to force compliance with the legislation. The bill requires an AIP plan to be prepared at an appropriately early stage of project approval, such as events during the early design and development of the project. This increases the chances of Australian entities winning work as tender specifications can be developed with Australian capabilities in mind, rather than having to comply with pre-existing specifications drawn up with overseas suppliers and established supply chains in mind. Those making procurement decisions on behalf of the project will be required to keep themselves informed of industry capability and capacity in relation to the major project prior to tendering. A mandatory element of AIP plans will be information on standards to be used in the project. Design specifications should take Australian industry capabilities and capacity and Australian and international standards into account so that Australian entities are not 'designed out' of the project. In addressing this element, if the project proponent is not using Australian or international standards it will need to state why these standards are being used. The provision of information on standards will be material to AIP plan compliance. The bill will apply to corporations and draw on the corporations power as defined in the Constitution to capture those organisations running major projects. The bill is designed to apply to projects that are at an early stage of development and that reach a trigger point for the legislation after it comes into effect and from then on. The bill also creates a new Australian Industry Participation Authority to administer the new AIP requirements. The bill provides the authority with a sufficient range of powers to ensure compliance with the bill and to deliver a range of other initiatives aimed at building capability and capacity within local business and linking them with new opportunities. To maximise coordination and focus, all Australian government requirements for AIP plans and the related support activities that boost industry capability and capacity will be delivered by the authority. The authority will evaluate, approve AIP plans, publish AIP plan summaries, monitor and report on the AIP plan implementation and impose administrative consequences for noncompliance. The authority will also take responsibility for delivering support arrangements to help our businesses develop the capabilities and connections needed to capture these opportunities. The authority will improve coordination between the Buy Australian At Home and Abroad initiative and supplier advocates and other relevant parts of AusIndustry and Enterprise Connect. It will be a one-stop-shop for Australian entities seeking to build capability and capacity and link into new business opportunities. The work of supplier advocates is to use their professional networks, business experience and access to decision makers to increase the competitiveness and capacity of SMEs, and help them connect with new business opportunities. Advocates build on the activities of industry partners and government agencies, including Enterprise Connect, the Industry Capability Network Ltd, Austrade and the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation. In addition to the recently announced Automotive Supplier Advocate, advocates currently work in the resources, rail, steel, information technology, clean technologies, water and textiles, clothing and footwear sectors. This bill represents a determined approach to helping Australian businesses develop the capabilities, experience and connections needed to capture opportunities from major projects, grow their businesses, enter global supply chains and create jobs. In effect, the bill provides Australian firms with the same fair and reasonable opportunities afforded to the global supply chain partners of major project proponents. AIP plans are consistent with trade obligations, consistent with our values and an open dynamic economy and promote, not stifle, competition. It has been estimated that this bill could bring in extra work worth between $1.6 billion and $6.4 billion per annum for local businesses. Winning work on these major projects not only has immediate benefits for local companies and their employees. It also allows them to gain experience, increase the scale of their operations and establish connections and commercial relationships with some of the largest multinational companies in the world. This will improve the prospects for Australian companies to win more work in the global supply chains of the large project investors and developers. In conclusion, the reforms contained within this bill will support the creation and retention of Australian jobs and will open up global supply chains so Australian business can access the opportunities that will underpin industry growth. I commend it to the House. Debate adjourned. National Disability Insurance Scheme Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 3198

National Disability Insurance Scheme Legislation Amendment Bill 2013

First Reading 3198 Second Reading 3198 10:10 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill follows up the recent landmark legislation underpinning DisabilityCare Australia, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, by making minor clarifying and consequential amendments to complement the main legislation. The National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013, passed earlier this year, establishes DisabilityCare Australia—the National Disability Insurance Scheme. This will enable the scheme to be launched, and DisabilityCare Australia to operate the launch, in four sites across Australia from July 2013—in South Australia, Tasmania, the Hunter region in New South Wales and the Barwon area of Victoria—and, from July 2014, in the Australian Capital Territory and the Barkly region of the Northern Territory. This bill makes minor amendments to the legislation to clarify the policy intention in relevant provisions, and to address minor anomalies and technical errors. These technical changes will make sure that all of the details intended to be specified in the rules—which are necessary for implementation of the first stage of the scheme—will reflect the principal legislation for the scheme. For example, provisions that allow rules to be made to prescribe relevant 'criteria' will be clarified to make sure rules can also be made to prescribe 'matters for consideration' or 'factors to be taken into account'. Similarly, in the case of the early intervention supports, where there is no intention to make rules and where key eligibility criteria are already set out clearly in the legislation, the current rule-making power is being removed to avoid any risk that those provisions would not be available to people who may benefit from them. The bill will strengthen the audit and risk management framework of DisabilityCare Australia. It is critical that the board adopts a rigorous approach to oversight of DisabilityCare Australia, ensuring that this historic reform is financially sustainable and will support the wellbeing of Australians with disability for decades to come. The framework for audit and risk management provides an important assurance that DisabilityCare Australia's operations and risks are being prudently and soundly managed. Other minor amendments include clarifying the matters to which the CEO must have regard when considering whether to take action to claim or obtain compensation, or take over the conduct of an existing claim. These matters are similar to the matters that the act already requires the CEO to have regard to when deciding whether to require a scheme participant to take compensation action. While it is not expected that the CEO will often need to take on or take over compensation claims, the amendments provide clarity to scheme participants and potential participants about what the CEO would need to consider before taking any such action. The bill also makes consequential amendments to other Commonwealth acts to complement the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013. The bill will establish a new National Disability Insurance Scheme Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and require that members appointed to the division have expertise relating to disability or other relevant experience. The minister responsible for the scheme will also have to be consulted before a tribunal member can be assigned to the new division. These requirements will ensure that applications for review of relevant decisions under the scheme are reviewed by tribunal members with appropriate training, knowledge or experience in this specialised area. A robust external merits review system is integral to supporting fair, efficient and effective decision making under DisabilityCare Australia. Amendments to the social security law will include changes to ensure that amounts paid under DisabilityCare Australia for supports funded under a participant's plan are not taken into account under the social security or veterans' entitlements income and assets tests. Lastly, among some consequential amendments to the taxation legislation, there will be changes to ensure that payments and benefits provided under DisabilityCare Australia to participants in the scheme are exempt from income tax. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Statute Stocktake (Appropriations) Bill 2013 3200

Statute Stocktake (Appropriations) Bill 2013

First Reading 3200 Second Reading 3200 10:15 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Statute Stocktake (Appropriations) Bill 2013 is the sixth Statute Stocktake Bill since 1998, and follows the Statute Stocktake (Appropriations) Act (No. 1) 2012. It forms part of an ongoing process to clean up the statute book by repealing legislation that is redundant, or would be better addressed in up-to-date legislation. The bill does not appropriate any money. Rather, the bill will repeal 84 annual Appropriation Acts from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2010. Those acts encompass: 28 old acts for the ordinary annual services of the government; 28 old acts other than for the ordinary annual services of the government; 15 old acts for the operations of parliamentary departments; and 13 old acts in relation to supplementary estimate appropriations. This bill will also allow the repeal of numerous subsidiary laws, connected to these old Appropriation Acts, consistent with the government's deregulation agenda. No agency will be denied access to appropriations from this bill, to the extent that old appropriation amounts may potentially need to be re-appropriated through other processes. This bill was foreshadowed last year, when parliament passed the Statute Stocktake (Appropriations) Act (No. 1) 2012. That act repealed acts from 1984 until 1999 inclusive, covering: 93 annual Appropriation Acts; 35 Supply Acts; and three acts containing redundant special appropriations from the Treasury portfolio. The government will continue to review Appropriation Acts as part of its deregulation agenda to determine whether further appropriations are redundant and can be repealed. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy) Bill 2013 3200

Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy) Bill 2013

First Reading 3200 Second Reading 3200 10:18 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill will amend the Medicare Levy Act 1986 to increase the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for families in line with increases in the consumer price index. These changes will ensure that low-income families that were exempt from the Medicare levy in the 2011-12 income year will continue to be exempt when their incomes have risen in line with or less than the consumer price index. All other thresholds have been increased under changes made as a result of the Clean Energy Household Package. The increased thresholds will apply to the 2012-13 year and future income years. Full details of the measure contained in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 1) Bill 2013 3201

Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 1) Bill 2013

First Reading 3201 Second Reading 3201 10:19 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 amends the income tax law to ensure the 'stakeholder' and 'connected entity' tests work appropriately. Broadly, the connected entity test and stakeholder tests seek to determine whether an entity controls or can influence another entity. These amendments ensure that entities with common stakeholders cannot inappropriately defer capital gains tax liabilities and prevent circumstances where medium and large businesses could access the small business concessions by breaking their operations up into several small entities. Schedule 1 also ensures that these integrity rules—and the capital gains tax provisions more generally—work appropriately for certain asset-holding arrangements. Specifically, the rules will 'look through' these arrangements and apply as if absolutely entitled beneficiaries, bankrupt individuals, companies in liquidation and security providers are the owners of the relevant assets. Schedule 2 to this bill exempts from income tax the disaster income recovery subsidy paid to individuals adversely affected by the January 2013 Tasmanian bushfires, and by ex-Tropical Cyclone Oswald and associated floods in Queensland and New South Wales during early 2013. The Queensland and New South Wales floods and the Tasmanian bushfires have had devastating consequences for those affected communities. The Australian government is giving employees, small-business owners and farmers a helping hand by providing disaster income recovery subsidy payments to individuals adversely affected by natural disasters. At this difficult time, it is important that these payments are provided and are not subject to tax. Exempting these payments from tax maximises the value of the payments for people affected by the disasters. It also ensures that the payments are treated in the same way as previous disaster assistance payments, such as those made in the wake of Cyclone Yasi in 2011. Schedule 2 to this bill also exempts any future disaster income recovery subsidy payments that the Government may make for natural disasters that occur up to 30 September 2013. Schedule 3 extends the general deductible gift recipient categories in the gift provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to include public funds established solely for the purpose of providing ethics education in government schools. The ethics education must be provided as an alternative to religious instruction and be in accordance with state or territory law. The amendment will allow taxpayers to claim an income tax deduction for donations made to funds that are endorsed by the Commissioner of Taxation and this will assist these entities in attracting funding for their activities. Full details of all measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Increased Concessional Contributions Cap and Other Measures) Bill 2013 3202

Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Increased Concessional Contributions Cap and Other Measures) Bill 2013

First Reading 3202 Second Reading 3202 10:23 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong 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 of this bill helps those nearing retirement to build the adequacy of their retirement savings. The government is introducing a higher superannuation contributions cap of $35,000 for older individuals, and I acknowledge the work of the member for Lyne in this policy. The government believes that it is important to allow people who have not had the benefit of superannuation for their entire working lives to have the ability to contribute more to their superannuation as they near retirement. Accordingly, the government will bring forward the start date for the new higher cap to 1 July 2013 for people aged 60 and over. Individuals aged 50 and over will be able to access the higher cap—the extra $10,000 to be contributed tax concessionally—from the current planned start date of 1 July 2014. The government decided not to limit the new higher cap to individuals with superannuation balances below $500,000 in light of consultation and feedback from the superannuation sector that this requirement would be difficult to administer. The new simplified cap will make it easier for people to determine whether they are eligible for the higher cap. This will reduce the risk of people inadvertently exceeding their cap and improve confidence in the system. The new higher cap is temporary and will cease when the general cap indexes to $35,000. It is estimated that around 171,000 Australians will benefit from 1 July this year when eligibility is extended to individuals aged 60 and over and a further 363,000 people will benefit in 2014-15 when eligibility is extended to individuals aged 50 and over when compared to the currently legislated caps policy. This measure will save an estimated $365 million over the forward estimates compared to the previously announced caps policy. Schedule 2 of this bill amends the Superannuation (Government Co-contribution for Low Income Earners) Act 2003 to ensure that the low-income superannuation contribution, the LISC, operates effectively and as intended. The LISC introduces greater equity in the superannuation system. The low-income superannuation contribution effectively refunds, up to $500, the tax paid on concessional contributions such as superannuation guarantee contributions for around 3.6 million low-income earners, including 2.1 million women. These amendments ensure that the Commissioner of Taxation can estimate eligibility for this payment where there is insufficient information to make the payment under the existing rules. This will usually occur when individuals are not required to submit an income tax return as they are below the tax-free threshold. These amendments also make a number of other technical amendments that will: ensure that all concessional contributions for a year attract LISC; enable the commissioner to not rectify small overpayments and underpayments of the LISC; replace the existing minimum payment rule to ensure all eligible individuals receive the LISC; and require tabling of quarterly and annual parliamentary reports on the LISC with details to be specified in the regulations. Schedules 3 and 4 of this bill will improve the fairness of the superannuation system. Currently, higher income earners receive a significantly larger superannuation tax concession than average income earners. Schedule 3 will sustain but reduce the tax concession that individuals with income above $300,000 receive on their concessional superannuation contributions made from 1 July 2012 from 30 per cent to 15 per cent. This will ensure that the tax concession received by higher income earners is more closely aligned with the concession received by average income earners, but superannuation contributions will still remain positively beneficially concessionally taxed for all Australians. For constitutional reasons, and to ensure alignment with the proposed cap on the earnings tax exemption, there are some exemptions in respect of Commonwealth judges and justices, and certain state higher level office holders. The definition of 'income' for the purposes of this measure includes taxable income, concessionally taxed superannuation contributions, reportable fringe benefits, total net investment loss and the net amount on which family trust distribution tax has been paid. Some superannuation lump sum payments, including certain disability payments, death benefit payments to dependants and early release payments for terminal medical conditions, will be excluded from the income calculation. The reduced tax concession will apply to all federal politicians earning in excess of $300,000, including the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister. This measure complements the low-income superannuation contribution measure, which, from 1 July 2012, effectively refunds the income tax paid by superannuation providers (capped at $500 each year) on concessional contributions for individuals with an income up to $37,000. It is estimated that these changes in terms of the higher charges will impact approximately 129,000 people contributing into superannuation in 2012-13. Schedule 4 will make amendments to Commonwealth defined benefit superannuation schemes by allowing a person, who is issued with an assessment from the ATO, to request that the superannuation fund pay a lump sum from their superannuation moneys, when a superannuation benefit becomes payable from one or more of the person's defined benefit superannuation interests. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Superannuation (Sustaining the Superannuation Contribution Concession) Imposition Bill 2013 3204

Superannuation (Sustaining the Superannuation Contribution Concession) Imposition Bill 2013

First Reading 3204 Second Reading 3204 10:30 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This measure was announced in the 2011-12 budget. This bill will improve the fairness of the taxation of the superannuation system. Higher income earners receive a higher superannuation tax concession than average income earners. This bill will impose a 15 per cent tax on concessional superannuation contributions made from 1 July 2012 of individuals with income above $300,000. This reduced tax concession will be more closely aligned with the concession received by all other Australians. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Base Premium) Bill 2013 3204

Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Base Premium) Bill 2013

First Reading 3204 Second Reading 3204 10:31 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Australian government rebate on private health insurance is a significant component of government health expenditure. The objective of the rebate is to encourage people to take out private health insurance by contributing an income tested rebate to private health insurance premiums. Over recent years there has been substantial growth in private health insurance membership and therefore rebate expenditure. This is despite the claims by those opposite that previous changes to the private health insurance rebate would cause over a million people to drop out of private health insurance. One hundred and twenty thousand people have joined in the six months following means testing. Private health insurance participation rates remain strong. The rate of new membership continues to outstrip population growth with 46.9 per cent of the population now holding hospital cover. As at December 2012, 54.6 per cent of the Australian population held some form of private health insurance. The Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Base Premium) Bill 2013 will amend the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 to index the government's contribution to individual private health insurance policies—making the rebate expenditure sustainable into the future and helping to reduce long-term costs in health expenditure. Background This measure was announced by the Treasurer on 22 October 2012, as part of the 2012-13 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook and was one of two reforms announced to the private health insurance rebate. In this MYEFO announcement, the Treasurer stated that the 'rebate currently costs around $5 billion a year and its growth rate of 6.3 per cent over the forwards is unsustainable'. As the rebate is funded by the Commonwealth, it is appropriate for the Commonwealth to monitor and reassess its support in this area, ensuring that every tax dollar is spent in the best possible way. Rebate This bill will create, for the purposes of the rebate, a base premium for each individual health insurance policy which will be indexed annually by the lesser of the consumer price index or the actual increase in premiums imposed by insurers. This will then be used to determine an individual's private health insurance rebate. These changes will mean that while the rebate percentage remains the same, the rebate rate will be calculated on the 'base premium'. A policy holder's percentage rebate entitlement will continue to be dependent on their age and income. The calculation of a weighted average ratio will be used to determine the base premium for product subgroups, and new insurers, that are made available after 1 April 2013. The weighted average ratio will be determined in consultation with industry and then detailed within the Private Health Insurance (Incentives) Rules prior to the bill's commencement on 1 April 2014. For premium changes, private health insurers will continue to be required to apply to the minister for health for approval under the Private Health Insurance Act 2007. This will permit the government to consider an insurer's solvency requirements, forecast benefit payments and prudential requirements, while also ensuring the affordability and value of private health insurance as a product. Summary In summary, this bill seeks to make the government's rebate expenditure sustainable by indexing the government's contribution to individual private health insurance policies. The government always needs to assess how we prioritise our spending and make sure we get maximum value for every dollar spent in the health budget. As a government, we will continue to make decisions that ensure our spending is directed to areas where it can do the most good. We feel this change is important as the rate of new private health insurance memberships continues to outstrip population growth and as such the rebate will continue to grow at an unsustainable rate. Debate adjourned. National Health Reform Amendment (Definitions) Bill 2013 3205

National Health Reform Amendment (Definitions) Bill 2013

First Reading 3205 Second Reading 3205 10:36 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill seeks to amend the definitions of 'local hospital network', 'primary health care organisation', 'private hospital' and 'public hospital' in the National Health Reform Act 2011. Clear definitions of these terms are required for the National Health Performance Authority to perform its roles, including producing reports on the performance of healthcare bodies and organisations across Australia, and highlighting efficient and innovative practices that can be adopted to improve health care across Australia. The National Health Performance Authority is a key structure under this government's historic National Health Reform Agreement (NHRA). The performance authority is delivering, for the first time, nationally consistent and locally relevant performance reporting. This reporting, in conjunction with other reforms under the NHRA, will drive system improvements through increased transparency and accountability. The revised definition of 'public hospital' allows for a multi-limbed approach that better recognises the unique circumstances in each state and territory. The revised definition also more explicitly recognises the roles of state and territory governments as system managers of the public hospital system through allowing public hospitals to be defined by reference to provisions in relevant state and territory legislation. The revised definition of 'local hospital network' extends a simpler definition of these entities across the entirety of the National Health Reform Act 2011, by linking that term to entities established to meet the local hospital network provisions of the National Health Reform Agreement. The amendment to the definition of 'private hospital' aims to simplify the administrative process for understanding what a private hospital is for reporting purposes. It does this by referencing declarations under the Private Health Insurance Act 2007. Finally, the bill contains technical amendments to provide an explicit power for the minister to make a legislative instrument, rather than leaving that power as implied in the definitions. These amendments are straightforward and necessary and will simplify the administration of performance reporting by the National Health Performance Authority. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 3206 COMMITTEES Law Enforcement Committee 3206 Report 3206 10:38 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, I present the following reports: Inquiry into the gathering and use of criminal intelligence, Examination of the Australian Crime Commission annual report 2011-12and Examination of the Australian Federal Police annual report 2011-12. In accordance with standing order 39(f) the reports were made Parliamentary Papers. Mr HAYES ECV By leave—I support the three reports of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement. I will direct my remarks to the inquiry into criminal intelligence before addressing the committee's examination of the ACC and the AFP annual reports respectively. The committee initiated an inquiry into the gathering and use of criminal intelligence in May 2012. During the course of the inquiry, the committee received evidence from all Commonwealth, state and territory agencies engaged in gathering and using criminal intelligence. On behalf of the committee, I thank all those agencies and individuals who contributed to the inquiry and specifically acknowledge the cooperation of the Australian Crime Commission and its chief executive officer, Mr John Lawler. The scope of information gathered and shared by agencies is reflected in the fact that over 450,000 information and intelligence products were uploaded to the ACC's criminal intelligence database in 2010-11. In 2010, 1.7 million individual searches of companies were conducted on the Australian Securities and Investment Commission's database. Evidence to the committee suggested that the level of cooperation across agencies is as it has ever been. There are numerous challenges and impediments which, quite frankly, limit intelligence sharing. The inquiry brought to light serious legislative, technological and other challenges to the flow of intelligence, which has produced unequal intelligence holdings and incomplete pictures of crime threats and has undermined stakeholder confidence. Criminal intelligence is currently stored in more than 30 systems operated by law enforcement, police, national security and other government agencies with limited interoperability between them. Without a single consistent methodology for criminal intelligence, different agencies apply different approaches and methods and are at different stages in developing their criminal intelligence capabilities. The siloing of intelligence brought about by these challenges and the absence of an agreement on a consistent way to collect, collate, analyse, store and disseminate criminal intelligence was identified by the ACC as a primary obstacle to producing an interoperable criminal intelligence system and a complete picture of the criminal threat in Australia. In late 2012 the 15 ACC board agencies, together with CrimTrac and the Australia New Zealand Police Advisory Agency, endorsed a proposal to establish an Australian criminal intelligence model in response to these challenges. The model, ACIM, brings together for the first time 17 agencies from three different and distinct operating environments: serious and organised crime, national security, policing and community safety. The model seeks to provide a consistent approach to managing national intelligence assets across these three environments through the establishment of common standards, protocols and processes. During the inquiry the committee focused its attention on the development of the ACIM and the role of the Commonwealth, state and territory law enforcement agencies in relation to it. Matters raised concerned the appropriate handling and protection of intelligence shared from unauthorised disclosure and dealing with data duplication. The committee made 12 recommendations relating to the use, gathering and sharing of criminal intelligence. These recommendations are directed at ensuring that the ACIM agencies are all accountable for the information and intelligence contributed to the national holding, which has in place a strong, accountable oversight regime. Amongst the recommendations, the committee supports the establishment of a national repository for criminal intelligence. The committee highlighted the need to establish a repository that provides timely intelligence and interoperability across the respective agencies that complements the current databases as well as the information management systems operated by those agencies. The committee considered a number of options raised in the evidence in relation to a repository, including the establishment of the police Google system. The committee also highlighted the key determining factors for selecting the most appropriate repository including addressing legislative impediments, sovereignty, jurisdictional ownership and privacy considerations. The committee considered a number of options raised in evidence in relation to a repository, including the establishment of a police Google system. The committee also highlighted the key determining factors for selecting the most appropriate repository including the address of legislative impediments, sovereignty, jurisdictional ownership and privacy considerations. The report goes into some detail about the determining factors raised in evidence which must be taken into consideration in the design of such a repository. While the evidence brought to light the different systems, processes and approval mechanisms in place across law enforcement agencies, it also highlighted to the committee the complexities in establishing a national interoperable system. However, while there were varying views about a national model and how it should be realised, no single agency or individual argued that the status quo provided an adequate criminal intelligence system. The committee recognised that there are no quick fixes and the establishment of a national model is complex not least because cultural change is part of the solution. Flexibility and compromise will be required on the part of all involved agencies but there must be a risk appetite for and appreciation of the benefits from establishing these reforms. The committee argues that it is critically important that all agencies invest in change, build on commonality and cooperate to provide full accountability and an interoperable national criminal intelligence model. Examination of the ACC Annual Report 2011-12 I will now turn to the committee's report on the examination of the Australian Crime Commission's Annual Report. The committee has a statutory duty to examine the annual report of the Australian Crime Commission as well as the Australian Federal Police. During its examination of the ACC Annual Report 2011-12, the committee focused its attentions on the ACC's key performance indicators and raised a number of concerns. Of a total of seven KPIs, three are quantitative measures of performance and the remainder are measured by stakeholder feedback. The committee noted the complexities in measuring the ACC's results which have moved beyond the traditional methods of measuring law enforcement outcomes. However, the committee recognised that the most useful of the ACC's KPIs would be enhanced if there were a balance between qualitative and quantitative indicators and targets against which to examine performance. In addition, while the committee recognises that the stakeholder survey is an important means of gauging the ACC's performance, it should be used as one of a number of tools of performance measurement. The committee recommends a focus on the KPIs and it encourages the ACC to continue working towards a greater balance between the qualitative and quantitative KPIs which can be measured over time. The committee also recommends that the 2012-13 ACC Annual Report detail progress made towards establishing such a balance. In relation to the ACC's programs and activities in 2011-12, the committee acknowledged the important work that the ACC had undertaken and highlighted initiatives such as Task Force Galilee. The task force was established in response to concerns about serious and organised investment fraud which cost 2,600 Australians more than $114 million over the last five years. In collaboration with 40 partners including industry organisations, the ACC engaged in identifying and disrupting these fraudulent activities. The committee commends the ACC on its work in this area and its efforts in detecting and disrupting serious and organised crime. Examination of the AFP Annual Report 2011-12 I now turn to the examination of the Australian Federal Police Annual Report 2011-12. Newly introduced amendments in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 empowered the Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce to commence and conduct proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act legislation. As the Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce commenced as a permanent taskforce in January 2012, the committee focused its examination on the AFP's activities around the proceeds of crime. The first litigation to restrain assets was carried out under Operation Beaufighter. This joint investigation and operation dismantled a multimillion dollar tax evasion and money-laundering scheme. The Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce restrained more than $54 million in assets, including luxury cars and real estate. Operation Beaufighter comprised the largest tax fraud investigation since Project Wickenby was launched in 2006. In relation to operations, investigations and improved efficiencies, the committee noted that the AFP had a most productive and successful year in 2011-12, and we commend Commissioner Negus and all officers of the AFP. The committee recognises that, by focusing its resources on building partnerships at the local and international level while also improving internal processes and procedures, the AFP met or exceeded its targets for all of its 33 KPIs and, for that, they should be congratulated. Finally, I would also like to place on record my appreciation to the members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, of which Madam Deputy Speaker, you are a member. In my experience, this committee has exemplified the best of committee traditions in that it has operated in a bipartisan way to effect parliamentary scrutiny and cooperation in developing best practices in the Australian Crime Commission as well as the Australian Federal Police. In my humble opinion, this is a committee that has acted in a way that has enhanced the operations of those organisations, and it has indeed been my honour to chair that committee now for a number of years. I commend: the secretary, Dr Jane Thomson; the acting secretary, Ms Fiona Bowring-Greer, who has been the secretary of that committee; and administrative officer, Rosalind McMahon, for their tireless work in supporting all the activities of the committee and its inquiries. Dr Thomson, Ms Fiona Bowring-Greer and Ms McMahon depict what is excellent within our Public Service. They show great initiative and, without putting too fine a point on it, they probably make us as a committee look better than what our actual contributions might suggest. I appreciate their professionalism and their dedication—and that goes to all the other public servants operating in this parliament. I commend the reports to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMP Thank you, Member for Fowler. I certainly congratulate you on the conduct of the committee and endorse your support for our secretariat staff and our public servants, who are highly valued. Public Works Committee 3210 Report 3210 10:53 Ms LIVERMORE 83A Capricornia On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the second report of 2013, relating to referrals made February to April 2013, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Ms LIVERMORE 83A This report deals with eight referrals, with an estimated total cost of $1.1 billion. It also reports on a change to budget and time line for a project that was originally considered by the committee in 2012. The proposed fit-out of the Commonwealth parliamentary offices at 1 Bligh Street in Sydney was originally referred to the committee in June 2012. The original cost estimate was $21 million and it has since risen to $25.45 million. Much of the cost overrun was due to security and IT costs being higher than anticipated. The project has also been delayed by six months. The Department of Finance and Deregulation acknowledged that it brought the project to the committee at a very early stage in the design and did not adequately incorporate this risk into the contingency and cost estimate for the project. The committee acknowledges and approves the extension to budget and timeline. The first inquiry I will address examined the construction of a new post-entry quarantine facility at Mickleham, Victoria. The project cost is $293.1 million. The project will replace a number of ageing post-entry quarantine facilities with a single, consolidated facility on the outskirts of Melbourne. The inquiry attracted significant interest from industry stakeholders. In particular, the avian sector raised concerns with regard to biosecurity at the proposed avian facility. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry established an expert advisory group to address these concerns. After receiving the report of the expert advisory group, the committee is satisfied with this project and recommends that it proceed. The second inquiry I will address examined the AIR 9000 Phase 8 MH-60R Seahawk Romeo facilities project. The project cost is $201.3 million. The project will support the operational, training and maintenance needs for the new Seahawk Romeo helicopters, primarily at HMAS Albatross, at Nowra, New South Wales, and also at HMAS Stirling, at Rockingham, Western Australia. The aircraft have a higher security classification than other aircraft, and require more secure facilities. The committee is satisfied with this project and recommends that it proceed. The next two inquiries were conducted together. They were the Air Warfare Destroyer Ship, or AWD, sustainment facilities at Garden Island, Randwick Barracks and HMAS Watson, Sydney, New South Wales; and the landing helicopter dock ship, or LHD, sustainment facilities at Garden Island and Randwick Barracks, Sydney, New South Wales. The projects will cost $109.9 million and $60.3 million respectively. The projects will provide training, operational and maintenance facilities for the new AWD and LHD ships. The LHDs will be the largest class of ship that the Royal Australian Navy has ever operated. There was some community concern over the visual impact of the proposed facilities at Randwick Barracks and HMAS Watson, which the Department of Defence has addressed. The committee was concerned that the hammerhead crane at Garden Island, which is no longer in use, costs $1 million per year to maintain and has caused four work health and safety incidents. Its removal is subject to an EPBC Act referral. The committee is satisfied with both projects and recommends that they proceed. The fifth inquiry I will address examined the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) Human Protection Performance Division (HPPD) security and facilities upgrade, at Fishermans Bend, Melbourne, Victoria. The project cost is $41.1 million. The project will rectify inadequacies in existing facilities at Fishermans Bend and enhance site security. The committee acknowledges that the Human Protection Performance Division needs to complete this project to ensure it has adequate capability as a division within DSTO. The project will co-locate all staff in the Human Protection Performance Division in one building at Fishermans Bend. The committee is satisfied with this project and recommends that it proceed. The sixth inquiry I will address examined the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Melbourne accommodation project, Southbank, Victoria. The project cost is $176.4 million. The project will consolidate all Melbourne-based television production and administrative functions in a new building, which will be integrated with the existing ABC Centre at Southbank. The committee acknowledges that co-locating staff will provide financial and administrative savings, and will enable formal collaboration and increased casual interaction. The committee is satisfied with this project and recommends that it proceed. The seventh inquiry I will address examined the infrastructure and upgrade works to establish a regional processing centre on Manus Island, Papua New Guinea. The project cost is $171.69 million. The project will construct a permanent regional processing centre to replace the existing temporary centre. The permanent centre will have the capacity to accommodate 600 transferees and 200 staff. It will be designed to meet Department of Immigration and Citizenship standards for immigration accommodation. The committee is of the opinion that the department has designed the centre to suit the climate of Manus Island and to meet the needs of transferees. The committee is satisfied with this project and recommends that it proceed. The final inquiry I will address examined the Multi-National Base Tarin Kot Remediation Project, in Uruzgan Province, Afghanistan. The project cost is $47.2 million. The base will close by the end of 2013, and the Department of Defence is required to remediate the base to ensure it is suitable for future Afghan use. The project will transfer suitable infrastructure and facilities to the Afghanistan National Security Force, deconstruct all other infrastructure and facilities, and remediate the site prior to its return to Afghan control. The committee is satisfied with this project and recommends that it proceed. I would like to thank all members and senators on the committee for their work in relation to these inquiries. As members would guess from that long list of projects in the report, it has been a very busy time for the committee and I would also like to take this opportunity on behalf of all members and senators to say thank you to the secretariat, who have been working very, very hard to enable us to have these hearings and to report to the parliament in a very timely way. I commend the report to the House. 11:01 Mr FORREST NV5 Mallee by leave—The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works has to be one of the busiest committees that I have served on in my 20 years in the parliament, and the chair of the committee, the member for Capricornia, has given credit to the secretariat, given there are projects all over Australia. In this report that we have tabled there are nine projects with an interesting variety, as the member for Capricornia has outlined. I want to make some brief remarks as to one of the projects included in the report, the construction of a new post-entry quarantine facility at Mickleham in Victoria. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Department of Finance and Deregulation propose to construct the new post-entry quarantine facility. This particular project is of particular interest to my own constituency and I was a little bit disturbed to see the number of witnesses that made submissions to our committee lacking confidence that this new facility would satisfy all the quarantine requirements particularly in regard to the avian industry—so ducks, squabs and all sorts of birds. It is very important to my constituency as it is a huge employer. Significant concerns were raised by the avian industry regarding the co-location of live birds and fertile eggs in the same building. This is not something that they are used to. They go to very particular expense and attention to make sure they are quarantined to ensure there is no transfer of those pathogens that we have heard so much about recently in the media. The key concern was that the proposal had insufficient isolation between units in the avian facility thus enabling the potential for cross-contamination. I think these concerns came about because a department was not able to explain the details of the air conditioning and the structural separation. So the committee gave consent to the preparation of documentation to enable that explanation to be made to the industry, which still continues to be very concerned about this proposal. At the committee's request DAFF established an expert advisory group to provide independent advice on this matter. We had originally expected that might have taken some time to prepare, so the committee was encouraged that this report had been provided in sufficient time for us to include comments in regards to it in the report and it is now part of the Public Works Committee website. I would urge those witnesses who came to our hearing and gave evidence and made submissions to consult that report because it has been sufficient to establish some confidence among our committee that we are satisfied that their concerns have been addressed. I would encourage the department to be a little bit more concerned about the expressions of anxiety that have been made. These are the potential customers who will use this facility and I would hate for us to end up spending $293 million of taxpayers' money and have a white elephant on our hands that the industry itself is not prepared to utilise. So I would urge the department to work a little harder on this engagement. The committee has given them the facilities to be able to satisfy the industry and I hope that occurs. I commend this report to the House with those concerns put on the public record. BILLS 3213 BILLS Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Service Providers and Other Governance Measures) Bill 2012 3213

Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Service Providers and Other Governance Measures) Bill 2012

Second Reading 3213 11:05 Ms O'NEILL 140651 Robertson I rise to speak in continuation on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Service Providers and Other Governance Measures) Bill 2012. The last time that I was in the chamber addressing this bill I was able to refer to the previous time I spoke on this matter and that was at the tabling of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services report of the inquiry into the bill which we held in November 2012. Essentially, this bill deals with the fourth tranche of legislation implementing the MySuper and governance measures of the government's Stronger Super reforms and it is in this tranche that the government will further implement the recommendations of the very important Cooper review. Not only are we are going to make amendments to those first three tranches of legislation to enable them to operate more effectively; also in this piece of legislation we will respond to the recommendations that were made by the PJC and I am very pleased that the government saw the merit in the further consultations that we had. Indeed, the whole of this process has been marked by a wonderful coalition of conversations about how to do the very, very best with these MySuper reforms. That was acknowledged by the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees, who actually stated—and we were able to put this into our report—that they acknowledged the preparedness of the government and the Treasury to consult with the industry about all of the Stronger Super changes and in particular the matters that are contained within this bill and previous iterations of it. Obviously the consultation was reflected in changes between the consultation draft and the bill. This is reflected overwhelmingly in the positive comments that we and others have made about the legislation in our submissions. That consultation did continue after our report was handed down. This bill is a set of amendments that represent a significant reform to Australia's superannuation system that is replacing existing default superannuation products with a simple, low-cost default superannuation. Thankfully, it is not called that anymore. It is simply called MySuper. What could be of more interest to Australians who are commencing or ending their working lives than what is going on with MySuper? That is why it is so appropriately named. From 1 July this year superannuation funds will be able to offer MySuper, a product that is intended to improve the simplicity, the transparency and the comparability default superannuation products. From 1 October, employers must make contributions for employees who have not made a choice of fund to a fund that offers a MySuper product. They will need to do that in order to satisfy superannuation guarantee requirements. To be more particular, this bill, and the amendments that are contained within it, respond to recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services in relation to a number of matters, firstly in relation to infringement notices and the use of service providers. The amendments will also allow a single cap to be applied to percentage based administration fees for MySuper products and clarify the application of the MySuper administration fee rules. The amendments to this bill will also, very importantly, make changes to the product dashboard requirements and delay the commencement of portfolio holdings disclosure requirements. The amendments will also clarify that no member who holds a MySuper product can actually be precluded from holding a choice product and vice versa. Finally, the other significant amendments will be consequential ones to reflect the change in the title of Fair Work Australia to the Fair Work Commission. With regard to infringement notices, during the inquiry we heard that this is a method used by APRA in other situations. We heard that the sector saw that sometimes with the proposed infringement notice there would be inadequate information, so essentially this amendment fulfils the PJC recommendation that if APRA does issue an infringement notice, the notice should be giving some adequate detail about the alleged contravention, not only because that makes clearer what the transaction between the regulator and the person receiving the notice is but also because it is an opportunity for ongoing education about this new suite of legislation and making sure that the affected person absolutely understands the nature of the problem in their current practices that have brought on this infringement notice. With regard to infringement notices and the penalty amounts, the amendment before the House today also fulfils the PJC recommendation that for infringement notices that relate to civil penalty provisions the penalty amount under a notice should be one-fortieth of the maximum penalty a court could impose. Further, the PJC recommended that the bill's provisions relating to the use of service providers be tightened up. The original bill avoided any provisions in a fund's governing rules that required a trustee to use a specified service provider, a specified investment entity or a specified financial product. The amendments limit this. It is very important so that a governing rule is only void to the extent that it is contrary to the prohibition of bill. The outcome of this—although the language around it is sometimes a little unclear—is essentially an improvement for members and trustees by an increase in the certainty with which they can look at these products. Administration fee caps is another area in which the PJC made a number of recommendations and we have made an amendment which will allow trustees to have a single fixed cap on percentage based administration fees. That will reduce the risk that members pay administration fees which outweigh the cost of administering their accounts. This was a key concern and it is at the heart of why this piece of legislation and the suite of reforms around it are so important. We believe in a fairer Australia, we believe in a stronger and smarter Australia. This legislation is part of ensuring fairness for people who have their money in super, that they are not being ripped off by people who are just taking fees out, lining their own pockets and taking it away from those people who have worked hard and deserve to have the fullness of that money in their account that they call appropriately MySuper—not somebody else's super, not my financial adviser's super, but MySuper as a worker. Critically, the product dashboard is another of the important tools that this government is establishing through this legislation and associated legislation so that people can basically do a comparison—what if I put my money in product A and product B? What would it look like? How is product A going? How is product B going? This is to take away some of the complexity and make it more transparent to be able to engage ordinary Aussies in improving their financial literacy and, through that, improving their understanding of their investment in their own future with their super. So the amendments here make information on the dashboard even simpler to understand and make it easier to compare performances across MySuper products. They also contain regulation-making power so that further amendments can be added to the dashboard in the future because the sector is working very hard to get this up and running. If they need to make small adjustments to ensure that it works even better as time proceeds, this amendment will allow that. There is also a portfolio holding disclosure, deferring the date at which trustees will be required to make information regarding their portfolio holdings available, responding to industry feedback about implementation time frames, stretching that out from 31 December 2013 to 30 June 2014. With the MySuper and super choice products, the government has become aware of a fund that intended to structure the governing rules and prevent members from holding a MySuper and a choice product. This amendment will prohibit that. Adopting these amendments will certainly increase the transparency and fairness for both members and trustees. The amendments will provide members with more meaningful information about MySuper products' performance portfolio holdings, with more information for affected persons in the event that APRA does issue them an infringement notice, with greater clarity about the penalties involved and with caps on percentage-based administration fees to prevent members from paying fees that are higher than the cost of administering their funds. They will prevent trustees from undermining the intent of MySuper and ensure that members can hold MySuper and choice products if they wish to do so. These are reforms that are coming from a Labor government, because we are the party of superannuation. The coalition never have—and never will—supported superannuation in the way that a Labor government has done and will into the future. Thanks to far-sighted Labor reforms that were denied, decried and voted down by the other side as much as they possibly could workers have $1.5 trillion of retirement savings. The coalition have opposed every single increase in universal superannuation. Further evidence of this is the fact that the Gillard government today introduced legislation which increases the concessional caps to $35,000 for Australians aged 60 and over from 1 July 2013 and extends this to Australians over 50 from 1 July 2014. To help those nearing retirement to build the adequacy of their retirement savings, the government is introducing a $35,000 cap for older Australians. This means Australians nearing retirement can contribute up to $10,000 more to their super at the concessional tax rate. This Gillard government—this Labor government—believes that it is important to allow people who have not had the benefit of the superannuation guarantee for the whole of their working lives to contribute more to their super as they near retirement. Accordingly, the government will bring forward the start date for the new higher cap to 1 July 2013 for people aged 60 and over. Individuals aged 50 and over are going to be able to access that higher cap from 1 July 2014. This is estimated to impact, in a very positive way, 171,000 people. Sadly, there is sometimes a gap in the work that we do here in the parliament. Sometimes it becomes about words, ideas and media stories, but the reality is this legislation is a powerful piece of work to impact positively the lives of 171,000 people when the new, higher cap is introduced for individuals aged over 60, and 363,000 Australians will benefit in 2014 when the eligibility is extended to individuals aged 50 and over. In conclusion, this bill will complete the legislative architecture of the MySuper reforms. It will improve integrity and governance. It will increase efficiency and effectiveness of superannuation for all Australians, not just some. We are doing this because we as a Labor government believe in the establishment of structures that lead to a fairer Australia. Dignity in retirement at the end of a great working life is a right we believe is there for all Australians. This legislation does its work in leading to a fairer and stronger Australia. It is smart legislation, and it is secured to that fair future for Australians. I commend the bill to the House. 11:18 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I am pleased to rise to speak on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Service Providers and Other Governance Measures) Bill 2012. This is the fourth tranche of legislation implementing the MySuper proposals, which followed the Cooper review into Australia's superannuation system. In the brief time I have available today I want to make three points about this legislation. The first is that to require four separate tranches of legislation really raises a question about the efficiency of this process. It has indeed been a chaotic process. The second point is that, while many of the measures themselves are not ones that are contested on this side of the House, there are some drafting issues which are worth raising. The third point is that this bill follows consultation processes in relation to earlier tranches of the legislation and in relation to the recommendations of the Cooper review. One area the Cooper review addressed—the need for reform of governance of superannuation funds—has been a glaring, continuing and serious omission in the four pieces of legislation that the minister has brought forward, and it is an omission that I wish to comment on today. I turn firstly to the point that the legislation before us today, which, as we have heard, is the fourth tranche of the complex, meandering and often chaotic implementation process adopted by this government, raises serious questions of efficiency and process. Let me quote what one witness from the Law Council of Australia said when appearing before the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services when it was considering an earlier tranche of this legislation. She had this to say about the committee that she serves on, which seeks to provide the input of the legal profession on complex legislative changes: I will spend one minute on process. We, the committee, spend a lot of time trying to prepare careful responses to legislation and often the time period—and I know it is not just for us; it is for everybody—is just too short. It is not possible to prepare a well-reasoned and thought-through submission in a week. For the trustee obligations bill the submission timetable was shorter than the period within which the committee was meant to release its report. I suppose people have a lack of confidence in the system given this timing. That is typical of the response of stakeholders to the inefficient and often chaotic process by which successive tranches of legislation in this area have been brought forward and the way that specific aspects of the provisions have been dealt with. Typically, we see last-minute amendments. And we frequently see in legislation regarding superannuation from this minister ill-judged measures introduced in one act that are subsequently reversed in later acts. In the case of the bill before the House today, we are seeing an example of such a reversal. The merits of the reversal we do not question—indeed, we welcome it—but we do highlight the fact that this is revealing of a very poor process. It would have been much better if the minister had not made the original policy error. I refer, of course, to the issue of caps on the fees being charged to members of superannuation funds. In an earlier tranche of the MySuper legislation, there were absurd provisions included that would have forced superannuation funds to charge the same percentage administration fee on any account, regardless of how high the balance in that account was and even though the economic reality, as is widely acknowledged in the industry, is that costs are generally fixed rather than rising with the account balance. The standard response from fund managers to this problem, so as to avoid overcharging those with larger balances, is to set a cap on the fee that they charge as a percentage of the account balance. Extraordinarily, provisions in an earlier act as part of the MySuper legislation would have prevented funds from doing that; it would have mandated funds charging the same percentage amount regardless of the account balance. This would have meant that somebody with a balance of $500,000 would have paid an administration fee 100 times greater than somebody with a balance of $5,000. The coalition pointed out how absurd these provisions were and we circulated amendments that, I am pleased to note, the government has now effectively adopted. So the trustees will now have greater flexibility in the charging of their fees so that they may remain commensurate with actual costs. So, while we welcome the fact that this particular change suggested by the opposition has been accepted, it is a good example of just how chaotic and disorderly large parts of this MySuper process have been. I also make the point that the multiple tranches of legislation dealing with MySuper are being introduced over the same period in which the superannuation sector is dealing with the SuperStream measures, which make it easier to move account balances between funds and in themselves are certainly sensible, and the Future of Financial Advice legislation, which imposes onerous new reporting requirements. The burden of these successive multiple changes in many aspects of the business which superannuation funds carry out in redesigning products, in retraining staff and in major changes to IT systems is very onerous. Last year, for example, AMP, one of the major players in the sector, informed the market that it expected the one-off cost of implementing the Future of Financial Advice, Stronger Super and other regulatory changes over the next 12 to 18 months to be in the range of $60 million to $75 million after tax—and no doubt its major competitors are exposed to similar expenses. Let me turn, secondly, to the question of some specific measures in this bill, and I want to focus particularly on the provision which purports to respond to recommendation 2.14 of the Cooper review. The recommendation was: The SIS Act— the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act— should be amended so as to override any provision in the governing rules of an APRA‐regulated fund that requires the trustee to use a specified service provider in relation to any services in respect of the fund. The question I want to raise relates to the drafting of proposed section 58A, which gives effect to this recommendation because, as drafted, it would void any provision which says that a fund 'may or must' acquire services from a certain person. It is clear that a rule which says a fund must acquire services from a certain person is a rule that needs to be voided if the recommendation of the Cooper review is to be given effect to. But the question I want to raise is: why does the drafting extend to a rule which says a fund may acquire such services? I want to turn, thirdly, to one area which is a glaring but, I am sorry to say, not unsurprising omission in the bill the minister has brought forward—that is, the complete silence regarding the reforms recommended in the Cooper review into the governance of superannuation funds. Today, under the so-called equal representation model, an industry fund or a public sector fund typically has up to half of its directors appointed by one or more unions. The equal representation arrangements were specifically designed into the industry superannuation fund system when it was set up by the Hawke-Keating Labor government. This had the effect of entrenching its friends in the union movement at the centre of the governance system of industry and public sector funds. This is a matter that was dealt with by the Cooper review, which had some very clear findings and recommendations. The Cooper review concluded that the equal representation system 'no longer seems to achieve its original stated objective'. The Cooper review noted that directors of superannuation funds are: … not, in fact, elected by employers or members, but rather are nominated by third party organisations, such as employer associations and trade unions— and in practice these organisations 'do not necessarily represent' the interests of all employers or employees. The system, according to the Cooper review, leaves significant groups 'unrepresented', including most obviously those who are retired and receiving benefit payments from the fund. And the Cooper review concluded that the equal representation model should no longer be mandated, and where it does apply at least one-third of representatives of both members and employers should be non-associated. This was recommendation 2.7. Unfortunately, Minister Shorten has failed to act on these recommendations from the Cooper review. Of course the minister is a former secretary of the Australian Workers Union and a former director of the largest industry superannuation fund, AustralianSuper. He has enthusiastically used superannuation policy to bolster and benefit the union movement. Industry superannuation funds held assets of $250 billion in mid-2011, and by now they would hold more. In the 2009-10 financial year they received more than 31 per cent of the $78 billion contributed in that year to the superannuation sector, excluding self-managed funds. This system serves the interests of the union movement very nicely. It means a large number of well-paid directorships to be allocated amongst union mates. I recently looked at the arrangements across 64 public sector and industry funds, with a total of more than $300 billion under management. I counted over 150 directors appointed by the unions, with a significant number of funds where the union appoints at least half the directors. These arrangements will give the unions a degree of control of superannuation that goes much further than the shrinking share of the workforce who are union members. It is no coincidence that there is a close connection between a number of present and aspirant Labor parliamentarians and the industry super funds. I could note, for example, that in addition to the minister at the table, Minister Shorten, other Labor or aspirant Labor parliamentarians who are former directors of AustralianSuper include Labor senator Doug Cameron, the Labor member for Charlton and the Labor candidate for the seat of Melbourne in the 2010 election, Ms Cath Bowtell, who I understand has been preselected to contest that seat again. It is perhaps not surprising that the unions hate the idea of not getting their automatic seats on the boards of industry superannuation funds. It is, therefore, accordingly also not surprising that this minister has chosen to ignore that particular recommendation from the Cooper review. The issue should not be what is in the interests of unions; the issue should be what is in the interests of Australians who are saving for their retirement through the superannuation system. The coalition is determined to see modern governance standards brought to superannuation funds, not the current, cosy arrangements which the unions are so fond of. The coalition will, therefore, move amendments to require that superannuation boards contain one-third in number of independent directors. This, of course, would give effect to the recommendation in the Cooper review; the recommendation which the minister appears not to have noticed as he was flicking through that particular report. It is time to bring a greater degree of independence to the boards of superannuation funds. Higher standards of corporate governance will help to deliver a more efficient and competitive superannuation system and the best possible value to superannuation fund members. Continuing to improve corporate governance in the superannuation industry will help to increase the level of confidence in the system and the willingness of Australians to make additional voluntary superannuation contributions. The purpose of the superannuation system is to provide for the retirement savings of Australians, to assist them to provide for themselves in retirement by drawing on the balances they have accumulated in their superannuation accounts. The purpose of the system is not to provide cosy directorships for a range of union officials, and the coalition is determined to look after the interests of Australians who are saving for their retirement. 11:33 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Since coming into government in 2007—and aren't many Australians ruing that day?—Labor has done nothing but constantly tinker with the superannuation scheme, despite the member for Griffith and the then opposition leader, Kevin Rudd, saying prior to the 2007 election that Labor would not change the system. This Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Service Providers and Other Governance Measures) Bill 2012 is the fourth tranche of legislation implementing the MySuper proposals which followed the super system review, also known as the Cooper review, and the government's response to that review, Stronger Super. The measures contained in the bill are broadly supported across the superannuation industry, and the coalition does not oppose them. However, once again, this Labor government has been forced to bring in a raft of changes to its own legislation after it has been introduced—and haven't we seen that time and again in this parliament and the one before it? The changes put forward by the government follow an inquiry by the Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, which found a number of issues with this bill. It is good to see that the government has recognised its mistakes, at least in this legislation, and has adopted measures put forward by the coalition such as the cap on fees. We will not oppose these changes, and we will withdraw our amendments in relation to the fee caps. However, we still will need to move amendments to require superannuation boards to contain at least one-third independent directors or trustees. This was a recommendation of the Cooper review and will improve the governance on superannuation boards. This is most important: people need to know that their superannuation—their hard-earned savings; that nest egg that they and their businesses and, in some cases, the government have put away for their retirement needs—will be there when they need it most and not have been raided by a selfish debt-ridden government. MySuper is a new, supposedly low-cost superannuation product which replaces existing default superannuation fund products. The bill changes governance arrangements and obligations in a number of areas. It will override superannuation fund's governing rules which mandate the use of specific service providers. The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, APRA, will gain the power to issue infringement notices in certain circumstances, and super trustees will be required to give reasons for decisions in relation to complaints. Additionally, the bill removes a regulatory exemption where a registrable superannuation entity also manages a non-super-managed investment scheme. Persons who have suffered damage due to a contravention of director's duties will be required to seek leave from the court before bringing action, and it provides a defence for trustees for a breach of a MySuper obligation. It will also make certain consequential amendments to the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993—the SI(S) act. Recommendation 2.14 of the Cooper review was that the SI(S) Act be amended so as to override any provision in the governing rules of an APRA-regulated fund which requires the trustee to use a specified service provider in relation to any services in respect of the fund. The amendments in this bill will bring this recommendation into effect. The reasoning from the Cooper review was that a mandate in governing rules requiring the use of certain service providers must limit trustee ability to determine if such an arrangement were in the best interests of fund members. The review also noted that trustees should be able to appoint a named service provider if it is in the best interests of members but should not be bound to do so. The Financial Services Council raised questions on the drafting of these amendments in their submission, stating: While we support the policy intent of the proposal, we are concerned that the scope of the changes under section 58A appear to be much wider than that, as any provision which specifies a person from whom the trustee “may or must” acquire a service or an entity or financial product in which the trustee “may or must” invest, will be void. Thus, the new provision seems to apply regardless of whether the clause is permissive or mandatory. We understand the intent to be that the prohibition should apply only where the requirement is mandated. The Industry Super Network and the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees both put in their submissions the view that existing contracts which are not in the best interests of members should be terminated. Currently APRA has the power to issue infringement notices but only for the late lodgement of data returns. This legislation will amend the SI(S) Act to provide APRA with the power to issue infringement notices for certain breaches of the act as well. The Cooper review recommended that APRA be given the power to issue infringement notices and fines as an alternative to criminal prosecution for certain offences. The new power will apply to a range of existing breaches, including: not putting required contributions into a MySuper account, not notifying each beneficiary about an acting trustee's appointment as soon as is practicable, not having rules in place for the appointment of member or independent representatives where required to do so, not meeting APRA's deadline for the receipt of a report relating to an investigation, and funds accepting contributions by an employer sponsor contrary to the regulator's written notice to the fund's trustee. The purpose of these changes is to attempt to deter non-compliant behaviour without needing to move to criminal proceedings. The requirement for super trustees to give reasons for decisions in relation to complaints came from recommendation 5.7 of the Cooper review. The complainant will be required to make a request in writing, which must be provided within 28 days to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and may permit longer periods for reasons to be given in the case of death benefits complaints. Some registrable superannuation entity licensees, in addition to managing RSEs, are also the responsible entities of one or more non-superannuation registered managed investment schemes. Generally, the responsible entity controlling a managed investment scheme must comply with a range of general obligations in section 912A of the Corporations Act 2001. Currently, bodies regulated by APRA, including RSE licensees, are exempt from the requirements set out under sections 912A(1)(d) and (h) of the act. RSE licensees are required to satisfy risk management requirements and requirements for adequate resources—human, technological and financial—imposed under the SI(S) Act and SI(S) Regulations. However, these requirements are not designed to ensure that adequate resources or risk management systems are maintained in respect of the non-superannuation business of RSE licensees which also manage registered managed investment schemes. We have seen in the Riverina managed investment schemes and the threat that they can place on agriculture and other industries. That is something that really needs to be looked at into the future, because MISs are quite a threat to many people who want to conduct good businesses in opposition to these particular things, including in forestry and other sectors. The Cooper review recommended dual regulated entities meet the Corporations Act financial resource requirements, and this amendment removes the regulatory exemption currently in place. Whilst there is general support for this change, some stakeholders expressed a desire to ensure this does not increase capital backing requirements through the duplication of responsibilities. Where a director is accused of having breached their duties under the SI(S) Act the amendments will require the complainant to seek leave from the court to bring such an action. In order to grant leave, the court must take into account whether the applicant is acting in good faith and there is a serious question to be heard. These amendments are designed to prevent frivolous and vexatious legal action being brought against directors. Directors will also be able to use a defence of having acted with 'reasonable precautions' or if a 'reasonable mistake' was made in relation to MySuper obligations. These defences are already available if directors act in contravention of a covenant. In the amendments proposed by the Labor government, the final composition of the products dashboard is to be set by regulations. This acknowledges the government could not get consensus on what information would be given to consumers as a quick way of comparing funds. One of the measures removed by the amendments is a measure of liquidity. Industry super funds were opposed to this type of measure being included. If this does not appear in the regulations, the government will have some serious questions to answer, as the product selection cannot be about promoting the interests of one part of the industry in isolation. The government has also adopted the coalition's stance to have a cap on percentage based administration fees. The first MySuper bill established core provisions for MySuper, including rules around the charging of fees in relation to member accounts. This included, in effect, a ban on caps for administration fees. The explanatory memorandum of the tranche 1 bill said: For any fee that applies to all members of the MySuper product, such as an administration fee or an investment fee, each member is to be charged the fee under the same charging rule. For example, if one member is charged a percentage of their account balance in relation to the MySuper product as an administration fee, then each member of the MySuper product should be charged the same percentage of their account balance in relation to the MySuper product at the same point in time … Understandably, this caused an adverse reaction amongst industry stakeholders and they, along with the coalition, were anticipating the government's current and final MySuper bill would include amendments to remove this unnecessary and counterproductive requirement. This amendment was not forthcoming until the last minute. This government has finally realised that anything which prevents the lowering of fees is not in the best interests of superannuants. The coalition members of the Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services made a number of recommendations in the report on the bill. The Cooper review also recommended an end to the equal representation model on superannuation boards. The government has failed to act on this. We believe superannuation boards should contain one-third in number of independent directors or trustees. Only the most efficient and competitive superannuation system with higher standards of corporate governance will deliver the best possible value to superannuation fund members. This is so important, given the fact that we have an ageing population and more people are going to be calling upon their super in the years ahead. Continuing to improve corporate governance in the superannuation industry will help to increase Australians' level of confidence in the system and willingness to make additional voluntary superannuation contributions. The time has come to bring a greater degree of independence to the boards of the union-dominated industry super funds. As I have mentioned before, the bill before the House represents the government's fourth tranche of legislation implementing the MySuper proposals, which followed the Cooper review into superannuation handed down some 2½ years ago. The coalition has along the way sought to improve the government's legislation as it, quite frankly, was all over the place in implementing the findings of the review. The coalition has moved a number of amendments seeking to close anomalies and amending legislation to avoid unintended consequences because this government has rushed through these changes, as it did with e-health and so many of the other things that this government has introduced into this House in this 43rd Parliament. More recently, we scored a significant policy win by ensuring that Australians' choices were preserved and that their superannuation balances were not automatically transferred, without their prior approval, to a government-legislated MySuper account. On the issue of superannuation, the coalition has a good way forward for Australia. We have begun consulting with a broad cross-section of senior superannuation industry stakeholders and experts, and certainly in the Riverina I am constantly in consultation with financial planners and superannuation experts in Wagga Wagga, Griffith and other parts of my electorate. The coalition is acutely aware of the threat that this government—because it is broke and has a $270 billion-plus debt—is planning to pose to the nation's retirement savings in the form of more new taxes on superannuation savings in order to help it plug its deteriorating budget. This Labor government has hit Australian savings with more than $8 billion in increased taxes and charges on superannuation over the past five years. Of this, $3.3 billion has come from the government's hit on low-income earners through its various reductions to the government super co-contributions established under the previous coalition government. The government reduced the contribution from $1,500 to just $500. The government is also lowering the thresholds at which the contributions are phased out. A coalition government will look to provide certainty and stability in superannuation by not making unexpected, detrimental changes to the superannuation system—hopefully after 14 September. This will allow people to save for their retirement and to plan with confidence—and that is a word that this government does not seem to understand. There is a crisis in confidence in this country at the moment, but an incoming coalition government—and that may happen after 14 September—will provide certainty and confidence within business, within families and certainly within communities and among people who are planning on retiring. A coalition government plans to increase the compulsory superannuation contribution from nine to 12 per cent; improve corporate governance arrangements for superannuation; properly address the issue of excess contributions to make sure Australians saving for their retirement are not unfairly penalised for genuine, unintended mistakes; pursue opportunities to cut unnecessary red tape in superannuation; remove regulatory barriers currently restricting product innovation and improved options to manage financial risks in their retirement phase; and revisit concessional contribution caps and super co-contributions for lower income earners once the budget is strong enough to be back in surplus—a word that I think is not fully understood on that side of the House. Finally, a coalition government will conduct a financial systems inquiry which will include the superannuation industry. A coalition government will continue to consult with a broad cross-section of stakeholders in the superannuation industry in the lead-up to this year's election. 11:48 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate—although I have to say the member for Riverina has not convinced me, with his anti-union bias, to support their amendments. I do think that occasionally the evidence and facts should come in, rather than letting prejudice, bias and anti-union bigotry overcome them. We need to have a debate about fact. Anyway, on the points on which the member for Riverina agreed with our bill, I obviously agree with him. Mr McCormack 219646 Good on you, Bill! Mr SHORTEN 00ATG It is the least I could do! The Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Service Providers and Other Governance Measures) Bill 2012 is the fourth and final tranche of legislation implementing the government's MySuper and governance reforms. These reforms originated from the groundbreaking work of the government-initiated Super System Review, led by Jeremy Cooper. I am pleased to confirm that Mr Cooper, whose report was so much quoted by those opposite, has in fact agreed to chair the government's superannuation charter group, which will assist in developing the government's proposed superannuation charter. In support of the government's MySuper reforms, the Super System Review considered the governance, efficiency, structure and operation of Australia's superannuation system. It examined measures to remove unnecessary costs and better safeguard the retirement savings of all Australians. Among the review's findings were that fees and superannuation were too high and that choice of fund in superannuation had failed to deliver a competitive market that reduced costs for members. MySuper was at the heart of the review's recommendations and is designed to focus superannuation funds on the core purpose for which they exist: optimising retirement income for members. This Labor government has already implemented three whole tranches in this area, and this bill finishes the job—brings home the bacon, as they say. It contains the remaining MySuper governance and transparency reform announced as part of the Stronger Super package in December 2010. From 1 July 2013 funds that have received the APRA authorisation will be able to offer MySuper products, and from 1 January 2014 employers will only be able to make default contributions to a fund that offers a compliant MySuper product. The industry recognises that the improvements in the transparency and consistency of disclosure will result in greater comparability, and it expects that this will result in lower fees. Indeed, we are already seeing MySuper putting downward pressure on superannuation fees and charges, which translates into more money in retirement for Australians. From 1 July 2013, the requirements for trustees of superannuation funds will rise and trustees will have new duties, including giving priority to beneficiaries over other persons. Also from 1 July, the reforms contained in the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Trustee Obligations and Prudential Standards) Act 2012 will ensure that the directors of super funds are appropriately accountable for meeting certain duties to members, including acting honestly, managing conflicts of interest and acting in the best interests of the members. These are good reforms on governance and I note for the record that those opposite—who want to talk about governance—choked when they had the chance to vote in favour of better governance and voted against it. My thanks go to Jeremy Cooper and the members of the Super System Review Panel: Kevin Casey, Greg Evans, Sandy Grant, David Gruen, Meg Heffron, Ian Martin and Brian Wilson. The review was ably assisted by the secretariat, with staff drawn from Treasury, including Roger Brake and the superannuation unit; Roger Brown and Wilson Sy, who were seconded from APRA; Hilda Miller, Philip Russell and Sophie Trumble, who were seconded from ASIC; and Pedro Cafe, who was seconded from the ATO—sadly, he has passed away since the completion of the report. The secretariat also included representatives from the private sector: Scott Donald from the University of New South Wales; Peggy Haines from Freehills; Paul Murphy from UniSuper; and Brad Tallents on secondment from KPMG. I would also like to publicly acknowledge the work of the Stronger Super peak consultative group that provided advice on the design and implementation of these reforms. Thanks must also go to the superannuation industry, particularly the four superannuation associations—the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees, the Financial Services Council and the Industry Super Network—for their invaluable contributions. I would like to publicly acknowledge the work of the regulators, both the APRA team led by Katrina Ellis and the ASIC team led by Alex Purvis. Finally, I would like to thank the team at Treasury including, but not limited to, Jonathan Rollings, Adam Hawkins, Alan Mallory and Melissa Bray for their work in developing these significant reforms. This bill was introduced into the parliament in November 2012. It was then referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, which reported on 5 February 2013. The committee made eight substantive recommendations, six of which will be implemented through amendments to this bill or otherwise. The government will also be making additional amendments to the bill following further industry consultation. Those opposite are sufficiently arrogant that they think that, when you amend a bill following consultation, it is a sign of weakness. To me that is a sign of flexibility, of pragmatism and of having listened. That is what we have been doing. The bill includes the Cooper recommendation which will override any provision in a fund's governing rules that stipulates that a trustee may or must use specified service providers or only invest in or through specified entities. The bill also renders ineffective any provisions in a fund's governing rules that prohibit a director or an individual trustee from voting on a matter relevant to the fund. Limited exceptions will be allowed, such as when a conflict of interest or duty exists. This will ensure that a superannuation fund's governing rules operate in the best interests of its members. This bill addresses a regulatory gap identified by the Cooper review by removing exemptions from certain Corporations Act resourcing requirements for entities that are regulated by both APRA under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993—the SI(S) Act—and by ASIC under the Corporations Act 2001. Under the bill, these entities will need to meet Corporations Act resources and risk management requirements in respect of their non-superannuation activities. The bill increases the time limits for members and beneficiaries to lodge complaints with the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal so these will be more closely aligned with the time limits of the courts and the Financial Ombudsman Service. Members will be able to obtain information from trustees in relation to the decisions that affect them, which will improve transparency and promote accountability among superannuation funds. This bill responds to the views of the superannuation industry and concerns about director liabilities that were raised in relation to the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Trustee Obligations and Prudential Standards) Act 2012. Firstly, the bill inserts a requirement for persons seeking to take legal action against a director for the breach of their duties to initially seek leave from the court. Secondly, the bill extends the availability of the defence of directors and trustees that their breach was due to a reasonable mistake. This defence will now cover breaches of MySuper duties. A third change is being made, following consultation on exposure of this bill, to the defences in relation to investment and management of reserves; the changes will clarify the defences available where a trustee or director can establish compliance with the covenants and MySuper obligations that are relevant to the particular loss or damage suffered. These changes have been developed in consultation with industry and are designed to better balance the rights of super fund members and the protection of directors and trustees against frivolous or vexatious litigation. The government will move two sheets of further amendments to this bill. These amendments respond to the parliamentary joint committee's recommendations and to further consultation with, and listening to, industry. These Stronger Super reforms deliver on our election commitment to provide a better deal for the many Australians who choose not to take an active role in the management of their superannuation but who instead rely on superannuation funds to act in their best interests. These reforms will also improve the governance, transparency and integrity of Australia's superannuation system. More importantly, the MySuper reforms are a great example of the triumphant power of good ideas and the importance of looking forwards, not backwards. MySuper, this bill and the other bills show that ideas remain powerful in Australian politics—especially when they are backed by belief, listening and strength. The idea that Australians, irrespective of their level of engagement with their superannuation fund, deserve a better deal from their super fund is a powerful idea. The record will reflect that these ideas will become law. It has taken a lot of argument, persuasion and debate to get MySuper on the statute books but it will happen. As a result of this bill and the ones preceding it all Australians will retire with more superannuation, they will end up paying less fees and they will have a better standard of living in retirement to enjoy those 20, 30 and 40 years of retirement. This is an argument worth having in this parliament. Labor is the party of superannuation. Every time the coalition have had an opportunity to vote to increase superannuation they have said no. Every time they have had a chance to promote mandatory universal superannuation, as the record reflects, they have voted against it. They voted against a rise from three per cent to nine per cent. Former Prime Minister Howard broke his promise to take superannuation to 15 per cent in 1996 and yet again, as recently as last year, when we proposed increasing superannuation from nine to 12 per cent, the coalition returned to their DNA and voted against it. But, nonetheless, the good ideas have triumphed over the bad ideas. We believe fundamentally that, because of these reforms, we have a unique national institution of compulsory savings which puts us among the best in the world. The opposition have always reflexively voted against increasing compulsory superannuation. Only Labor has the conviction and the foresight to increase universal superannuation to 12 per cent. We are once again looking ahead—not to the next poll, but to the next generation—and planning for the future. We are advancing an idea to empower the ownership of superannuation policy by the people through a charter of superannuation overseen by a 100 per cent apolitical council of superannuation custodians. The coalition have said, yet again, that they will not proceed with this very good idea. But we shall not relent on this argument either and eventually we will succeed. They would rather see superannuation stuck without a consistent regime, that does not prioritise the needs of adequacy, fairness, sustainability, longevity, certainty and prospectivity in our policies. We want to have a regime which looks over the 20-, 30- and 40-year horizon ahead. In a debate on superannuation and this bill, all of this amounts to one party looking forwards and one party looking backwards. Superannuants deserve better. Australians deserve better. I commend this bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail 3227 12:01 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (27) on sheet CD233 and (1) to (9) on sheet ZA304, as circulated, together. Leave granted. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG I move government amendments (1) to (27) on sheet CD233 and (1) to (9) on sheet ZA304 together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 6), insert: (2) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 8), insert: (3) Clause 2, page 2 (after proposed table item 8A), insert: (4) Clause 2, page 3 (cell at table item 17, column 1), omit the cell, substitute: (5) Clause 2, page 4 (after table item 19), insert: (6) Clause 2, page 5 (after table item 29), insert: (7) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 17), after item 10, insert: 10A Paragraph 1017BA(1)(c)    Repeal the paragraph, substitute:    (c) that the information set out in each product dashboard about fees and other costs is updated within 14 days after the end of a period prescribed by the regulations; and 10B Subsection 1017BA(2)    Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) The product dashboard for a MySuper product must set out:    (a) the following, worked out in accordance with the regulations in relation to the period or periods prescribed by the regulations:       (i) a return target or return targets for the product;       (ii) a return or returns for the product;       (iii) a comparison or comparisons between return targets and returns for the product;       (iv) the level of investment risk that applies to the product;       (v) a statement of fees and other costs in relation to the product; and    (b) any other information prescribed by the regulations. 10C Subsection 1017BA(3)    Repeal the subsection, substitute: (3) Subject to subsection (4), the product dashboard for a choice product must set out:    (a) the following for each investment option offered within the choice product, worked out in accordance with the regulations in relation to the period or periods prescribed by the regulations:       (i) a return target or return targets for the investment option;       (ii) a return or returns for the investment option;       (iii) a comparison or comparisons between return targets and returns for the investment option;       (iv) the level of investment risk that applies to the investment option;       (v) a statement of fees and other costs in relation to the investment option; and    (b) any other information prescribed by the regulations. 10D After subsection 1017BA(4)    Insert:    (4A) The regulations may prescribe circumstances in which assets of a regulated superannuation fund are, or are not, to be treated as invested in a single asset for the purposes of paragraph (4)(c). 10E Subsection 1017BA(5) (definition of quarter )    Repeal the definition. (8) Schedule 1, page 10 (after line 17), after item 12, insert: 12A Section 1540    Omit "31 December 2013", substitute "30 June 2014". (9) Schedule 1, page 10, after proposed item 12A, insert: Fair Work Act 2009 12B Subsection 155A(2)    Omit "FWA", substitute "the FWC". 12C Subsection 155A(3)    Omit "FWA" (first occurring), substitute "The FWC". 12D Paragraph 155A(3)(a)    Omit "FWA", substitute "the FWC". 12E Subsection 155A(4)    Omit "FWA", substitute "the FWC". 12F Subsection 155A(5)    Omit "FWA" (first occurring), substitute "The FWC". 12G Paragraph 155A(5)(a)    Omit "FWA", substitute "the FWC". (10) Schedule 1, page 10, after proposed item 12G, insert: 12H Clause 10 of Schedule 1 (heading)    Omit "FWA", substitute "FWC". 12J Subclause 10(2) of Schedule 1    Omit "FWA", substitute "The FWC". (11) Schedule 1, page 10, after proposed item 12J, insert: 12K Clause 11 of Schedule 1 (heading)    Omit "FWA", substitute "FWC". 12L Subclause 11(2) of Schedule 1    Omit "FWA" (first occurring), substitute "The FWC". 12M Subclause 11(2) of Schedule 1    Omit "FWA" (second occurring), substitute "the FWC". 12N Subclause 11(3) of Schedule 1    Omit "FWA", substitute "The FWC". (12) Schedule 1, page 10, after proposed item 12M, insert: 12P Clause 12 of Schedule 1    Omit "FWA", substitute "the FWC". (13) Schedule 1, page 14 (after line 15), after item 39, insert: 39A At the end of subsection 29TC(1)    Add:    ; and (j) no member who holds a beneficial interest of that class in the fund is precluded from holding a beneficial interest of another class in the fund because of that fact; and (k) no member is precluded from holding a beneficial interest of that class in the fund because the member holds a beneficial interest of another class in the fund. (14) Schedule 1, page 14 (after line 20), after item 41, insert: 41A Subsection 29U(4)    Omit "Fair Work Australia", substitute "the Fair Work Commission". (15) Schedule 1, page 14, after proposed item 41A, insert: 41B Subsection 29VA(8)    Repeal the subsection, substitute: Administration fee exemption for employees of an employer ‑sponsor (8) This rule is satisfied if:    (a) the fee is an administration fee charged in relation to one or more members of the fund who hold the MySuper product in accordance with the administration fee exemption for employees of an employee‑sponsor (see section 29VB); and    (b) in relation to those members of the fund who hold the MySuper product but in relation to whom the administration fee is not charged in accordance with the administration fee exemption for employees of an employee‑sponsor (the remaining members)—the fee would satisfy the charging rule in subsection (2), (3) or (4) if the remaining members were the only members of the fund who held the MySuper product. Note: In some circumstances, the RSE licensee may wish to offer a MySuper product for the employees of a large employer or its associates (see sections 29T and 29TB). Any fee set for that MySuper product may differ from the equivalent fee set for another MySuper product within the fund. In other circumstances, a separate MySuper product may not be offered, but instead a lower administration fee charged to the employees of a particular employer‑sponsor (see section 29VB). (16) Schedule 1, page 14 (after line 26), after item 42, insert: 42A Paragraph 29VB(1)(b)    Omit "one or more", substitute "those". (17) Schedule 1, page 14, after proposed item 42A, insert: 42B At the end of Division 5 of Part 2C    Add: 29VE Percentage ‑based administration fees may be capped       If, under the governing rules of a regulated superannuation fund:    (a) all or part of the administration fee in relation to a MySuper product is charged to those members of the fund who hold the product as a percentage of so much of the account balance of each of those members that relates to the MySuper product; and    (b) the amount of the administration fee is capped at a specified amount; and    (c) the cap is the same for all of those members; and    (d) but for the fact that the administration fee is capped in that way, a charging rule in section 29VA would be satisfied in relation to the administration fee; that charging rule is taken to be satisfied in relation to the administration fee. (18) Schedule 1, page 17 (after line 17), after item 47, insert: 47A Section 29XC    Omit "Fair Work Australia", substitute "the Fair Work Commission". (19) Schedule 1, item 72, page 26 (line 28), omit "is void if", substitute "is void to the extent that". (20) Schedule 1, item 72, page 27 (line 5), omit "is void if", substitute "is void to the extent that". (21) Schedule 1, item 72, page 27 (line 10), omit "is void if", substitute "is void to the extent that". (22) Schedule 1, item 112, page 36 (line 22), omit "242M(1)", substitute "242P(1)". (23) Schedule 1, item 112, page 39 (line 26), omit "brief". (24) Schedule 1, item 112, page 41 (line 10), at the end of subsection 224A(1), add:    ; and (o) include any other information prescribed by the regulations. (25) Schedule 1, item 112, page 41 (lines 11 to 14), omit subsection 224A(2), substitute: (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(f), the amount to be stated in the notice for the alleged contravention of the provision must be equal to:    (a) if the provision is an offence provision—one‑fifth of the maximum penalty that a court could impose on the person for that contravention; and    (b) if the provision is a civil penalty provision—one‑fortieth of the maximum penalty that a court could impose on the person for that contravention. (26) Schedule 1, page 45 (after line 17), after item 119, insert: Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Further MySuper and Transparency Measures) Act 2012 119A Subitem 13(1) of Schedule 4    Omit "FWA" (wherever occurring), substitute "the FWC". 119B Subitem 13(3) of Schedule 4 (definition of FWA )    Repeal the definition. 119C Subitem 13(3) of Schedule 4    Insert:    FWC has the same meaning as in the Fair Work Act 2009. (27) Schedule 1, item 129, page 49 (line 4), omit "42", substitute "42B".   (1) Clause 2, page 5 (cell at table item 33, column 1), omit the cell, substitute: (2) Schedule 1, item 44, page 15 (line 33), omit "in writing". (3) Schedule 1, item 44, page 16 (line 4), omit "in writing". (4) Schedule 1, item 46, page 16 (lines 13 to 17), omit subsection 29WA(4), substitute: Directions (4) For the purposes of this section, a direction that it is alleged was given to the trustee, or the trustees, of the fund after 31 March 2013 is taken not to have been given if:    (a) the direction was not given in writing; or    (b) a copy of the direction is not held by or on behalf of the trustee, or the trustees, of the fund. (5) The regulations may prescribe circumstances in which a direction given to the trustee, or the trustees, of one regulated superannuation fund is to be taken to be a direction given to the trustee, or the trustees, of another regulated superannuation fund for the purposes of this section. Exception—life policies, investment account contracts and cash investment options (6) If an asset (or assets) attributed to the person mentioned in subsection (1) is invested in one or more of the following on 31 March 2013:    (a) a life policy under which contributions and accumulated earnings may not be reduced by negative investment returns or any reduction in the value of assets in which the policy is invested;    (b) a life policy under which the benefit to the person (or a relative or dependant of the person) is based only on the realisation of a risk, not the performance of an investment;    (c) an investment account contract the only beneficiaries of which are the person, and relatives and dependants of the person;    (d) an investment option under which the investment is held as cash; subsection (2) does not apply to the extent that a contribution to the fund for the benefit of the person is invested in the life policy, under the investment account contract or in the cash investment option. (5) Schedule 1, item 47, page 16 (line 33), omit "in writing". (6) Schedule 1, item 47, page 17 (line 4), omit "in writing". (7) Schedule 1, item 47, page 17 (after line 17), at the end of section 29WB, add: Directions (4) For the purposes of this section, a direction that it is alleged was given to the trustee, or the trustees, of the fund after 31 March 2013 is taken not to have been given if:    (a) the direction was not given in writing; or    (b) a copy of the direction is not held by or on behalf of the trustee, or the trustees, of the fund. (5) The regulations may prescribe circumstances in which a direction given to the trustee, or the trustees, of one regulated superannuation fund is to be taken to be a direction given to the trustee, or the trustees, of another regulated superannuation fund for the purposes of this section. Exception—life policies, investment account contracts and cash investment options (6) If an asset (or assets) attributed to the member mentioned in subsection (1) is invested in one or more of the following on 31 March 2013:    (a) a life policy under which contributions and accumulated earnings may not be reduced by negative investment returns or any reduction in the value of assets in which the policy is invested;    (b) a life policy under which the benefit to the member (or a relative or dependant of the member) is based only on the realisation of a risk, not the performance of an investment;    (c) an investment account contract the only beneficiaries of which are the member, and relatives and dependants of the member;    (d) an investment option under which the investment is held as cash; subsection (2) does not apply to the extent that a contribution to the fund for the benefit of the member is invested in the life policy, under the investment account contract or in the cash investment option. (8) Schedule 1, item 72, page 27 (after line 21), after section 58A, insert: 58B Service providers and investments (1) This section applies if a trustee, or the trustees, of a regulated superannuation fund does one or more of the following:    (a) acquires a service from an entity;    (b) invests assets of the fund in or through an entity;    (c) invests assets of the fund in or through a financial product;    (d) purchases a financial product using assets of the fund;    (e) uses assets of the fund to make payments in relation to a financial product. (2) If the trustee, or the trustees, would not breach:    (a) a provision of any of the following:       (i) this or any other Act;       (ii) a legislative instrument made under this or any other Act;       (iii) the prudential standards;       (iv) the operating standards;       (v) the governing rules of the fund; or    (b) any covenant referred to in this Part or prescribed under this Part; in doing one or more of the things mentioned in subsection (1), the general law relating to conflict of interest does not apply to the extent that it would prohibit the trustee, or the trustees, from doing the thing. (9) Schedule 1, Part 2, page 49 (after line 6), at the end of the Part, add: 130 Application of amendment inserting section 58B    The amendment made by item 72 of this Schedule, to the extent that it relates to proposed section 58B, applies in relation to things done on or after 1 July 2013. This bill, which is the fourth and final tranche of legislation implementing the government's MySuper and governance reforms, was referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services on 29 November last year. On 5 February this year the PJC reported and made nine recommendations, eight substantive recommendations and a recommendation that the bill be passed after due consideration of the PJC's report. The government has accepted six of the eight recommendations and this bill will implement four of them. A fifth will be implemented by upcoming regulations and a sixth does not require regulation. The changes recommended by the PJC will provide trustees with more information, in the event that APRA issues them with an infringement notice, and greater clarity about the penalties involved. The service provider provision will be amended so that a fund's governing rules would void only to the extent they compel a trustee to use a particular service provider. In addition to these changes the government is introducing a number of other amendments, some of which have been suggested by industry, which will enhance the MySuper reforms and improve flexibility. The amendments will allow trustees to have a single fixed cap on percentage based administration fees. The cap will reduce the risk that some members could be charged significant amounts in administration fees which are likely to exceed the costs of administering the member's funds. Amendments will also prevent trustees from undermining the intent of MySuper by ensuring that members can hold both MySuper and choice products if they wish to do so. Finally, the bill will make consequential amendments reflecting the change in title of Fair Work Australia to the Fair Work Commission. In addition, the amendments will improve the quality and relevance of information in the 'product dashboard' about a MySuper product's performance by providing for the details to be set out in regulations and by providing trustees with more time to prepare for the reporting of their portfolio holdings. The government will also introduce further amendments in response to targeted industry consultation. These amendments will clarify that the legislation is not intended to prohibit the use of related parties, provided the trustee complies with the trustee covenants and other related legislation. These further amendments will also address concerns relating to the direction of contributions provisions by carving out certain existing products such as risk in capital guarantee products from the direction of contributions requirements in sections 29WA and 29WB, including regulation-making powers so that a direction given to the trustee of another fund can be relied upon by the trustee of a successor fund and amending the existing direction arrangements so that only directions given after 31 March 2013 are required to be in writing. The government has chosen not to implement two recommendations of the PJC. The first is recommendation 1, in which the PJC suggested imposing time limits on a member's ability to request reasons for decisions from trustees in relation to a complaint made by that member. The PJC indicated that record-keeping and a trustee's ability to respond to a request for reasons would decline as time passed. The government does not support this recommendation because it would mean that members could complain about decisions but could not have access to the reasons for those decisions. This is not consistent with the notion of procedural justice and fairness. In addition, as industry noted at the PJC hearings, there are already a range of record-keeping requirements in the superannuation sector and the bill, as introduced, does not impose an undue burden on trustees. Trustees are currently obliged to keep records and files for compliance with general trust law obligations, possible legal action and information-gathering powers of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal. In that context, a requirement to provide members with reasons for decisions is appropriate and not burdensome. The government also does not support recommendation 7 of the PJC. The PJC has suggested removing schedule 1, item 71, from the bill on the grounds that both it and item 70 make the same amendment to the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 using slightly different numbering, so there might be a drafting error. However, this item is a contingent amendment and is required because another bill before the parliament, the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Reducing Illegal Early Release and Other Measures) Bill 2012 seeks to amend the same section. Depending on which bill receives royal assent first, either item 70 or item 71 will amend the SI(S) Act. I commend the amendments to the House. 12:05 Mr BILLSON 1K6 Dunkley As I have already stated, the coalition will allow the government's amendments to pass through this parliament. However, as I said in my speech on the second reading on this bill, the government has once again been forced to bring in a raft of changes to its own legislation after it has been introduced. As I mentioned, the government's amendments follow the outcomes of the inquiry by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services into this bill, which found many serious issues that the government had not dealt properly with. I recognise and welcome that industry input and coalition scrutiny have enhanced this bill. It is good to see that the government does occasionally recognise its mistakes and adopts the measures and good ideas put forward by the coalition, such as the cap on fees. As I have stated in relation to the product dashboard, the coalition puts this government on notice that they have to be balanced in their approach when designing the regulations and not to favour their mates who are in industry superannuation funds. The coalition reserves the right to pursue amendments to the legislation to fix this issue, should the government not get the balance right. Question agreed to. 12:07 Mr BILLSON 1K6 Dunkley by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (7): (1) Clause 2, page 4 (table item 24), omit the table item, substitute: (2) Clause 2, page 5 (after table item 29), insert: (3) Clause 3, page 6 (lines 1 to 5), omit the clause, substitute: (1) Each Act, and each set of regulations, that is specified in a Schedule to this Act is amended or repealed as set out in the applicable items in the Schedule concerned, and any other item in a Schedule to this Act has effect according to its terms. (2) The amendment of any regulation under subsection (1) does not prevent the regulation, as so amended, from being amended or repealed by the Governor‑General. (4) Schedule 1, page 14 (after line 20), after item 41, insert: 41A At the end of section 29VA    Add: Trustee may set a cap for certain fees (10) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the trustee, or the trustees, of a regulated superannuation fund that offers a MySuper product, may determine that a fee that is payable by members of the MySuper product is to be capped at a certain amount (the capped fee) if:    (a) the fee is wholly, or in part, calculated with reference to a percentage of the member's account balance; and    (b) the capped fee is to apply to all members of the MySuper product. (5) Schedule 1, page 29 (after line 9), after item 73, insert: 73A After section 89    Insert: 89A Public offer fund independence rule Basic rule (1) For the purposes of this Part, a fund complies with the public offer fund independence rule if:    (a) both:       (i) the fund has a group of individual trustees;       (ii) at least one third of the group of trustees are independent directors or independent trustees, or a combination of both; or (b) both:       (i) the fund has a single corporate trustee;       (ii) at least one third of the board of the corporate trustee are independent directors or independent trustees, or a combination of both. Note:    Independent director and independent trusteeare defined in subsection 10(1) of this Act. Vacancy (2) For the purposes of the application of the public offer fund independence rule, if:    (a) a vacancy occurs in the membership of a group of trustees or of the board of a corporate trustee; and    (b) immediately before the vacancy occurred, the fund complied with the public offer fund independence rule; and    (c) the vacancy is filled within 90 days after it occurred; and    (d) immediately after the vacancy is filled, the fund complies with the public offer fund independence rule; the fund is taken to have complied with the public offer fund independence rule at all times during the period of the vacancy. (6) Schedule 1, page 29, after proposed item 73A, insert: 73B Subparagraph 92(3)(a)(ii)    Omit "basic equal representation rules", substitute "public offer fund independence rule". 73C Paragraph 92(3)(c)    Repeal the paragraph, substitute:    (c) each prescribed policy committee must consist of equal numbers of employer representatives, independent representatives and member representatives. (7) Schedule 1, page 29, after proposed item 73C, insert: 73D Subparagraph 93(3)(a)(ii)    Omit "basic equal representation rules", substitute "public offer fund independence rule". 73E Paragraph 93(3)(c)    Repeal the paragraph, substitute:    (c) each prescribed policy committee must consist of equal numbers of employer representatives, independent representatives and member representatives. The Cooper review recommended an end to the equal representation model on superannuation boards under which union and employer representatives dominate industry superannuation funds. For the record let me recap recommendation 2.7. It said: For those boards that have equal representation because their company constitutions or other binding arrangements so require, the SIS Act should be amended so that no less than one‐third of the total number of member representative trustee‐directors must be non‐associated and no less than one‐third of employer representative trustee‐directors must be non‐associated. This government has failed to act on this recommendation from its own, much-heralded Cooper review into superannuation. On behalf of the coalition I am moving amendments which will enact the following principles: (1) that existing equal representation requirements in the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 and regulations be repealed; (2) that these be replaced by requirements which give effect to the principle that each affected trustee board or group of trustees at a minimum will contain one-third in number independent directors or trustees; (3) for the purpose of independents it will take the meaning of section 10 in the SI(S) Act; (4) the independence rule would only be applied to public offer funds. The coalition views this amendment to be serious in nature and, should our amendment not be successful here today, we will continue to push for this should we be offered the opportunity to form government for this great commonwealth, Australia, at the next election. 12:09 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I always listen very carefully to the member for Dunkley because he puts his arguments in at least a pleasant fashion. Unfortunately, he has failed to persuade the government on this occasion, though not for want of trying. The opposition has proposed an amendment to the bill which would require a minimum of one-third directors on public offer funds. The government considers the current arrangements requiring equal representation remain appropriate in ensuring members are able to participate in the management and protection of their retirement savings. One of the reasons we support this is that I do not believe there would be another sector of the Australian economy which is worth $450 billion where the ideologues of the far Right would say, 'Let us change the way they are working.' What is the case for change? The case was never made out other than that it was a recommendation in a particular review, but we never unpack it beyond that. Since that review was written we have given APRA the powers to look through the governance of individual funds, and they are able to do that. APRA have advised me that they are well satisfied with the powers they now enjoy courtesy of this government—which, incidentally, were voted against by those opposite. So we have the regulator saying that the current system is working well. We have a sector of industry $450 billion large; but, because there is employee content, because sometimes there are union reps on it, the ideologues hear the dog whistle, start frothing and say, 'We must intervene in this sector of the economy because we don't like the fact that the workers sometimes have a voice in their superannuation.' This argument does not reflect well. Why tinker with a system that is not broken? There has never been any evidence that industry funds deserve any more bias, prejudice, bile and bigotry from the anti-union baiters opposite than any other set of funds. If that does not convince you, let me now also advise you of the latest APRA data from June 2012: the annual statistics bulletin. We hear that dreadful word that must send the opposition bean counters into a state of panic: statistics. The super funds managed—and this is what the statistical record shows as opposed to the ideological polemic, bias and bigotry of some of those opposite; the rancid, turgid ongoing contributions we hear bagging unions; turgid and rancid, although admittedly pleasantly put by the member for Dunkley— Mr Billson interjecting— Mr SHORTEN 00ATG I exempt the member for Dunkley from the references of 'turgid' and 'rancid'. But, having done that, no more leave passes for some of the others who have spoken. These statistics show—and I can see the opposition putting their hands over their ears like children before bedtime not wanting to hear the news—that super funds managed under the equal representation trustee system have on average outperformed the retail fund sector over the medium to long term. How can this be so if the governance structure which the opposition legislative helicopters want to invade and overturn, trashing in pursuit of their far-right ideology—if this structure is so bad and APRA says they have enough powers to look through the governance of funds—is outperforming the retail sector? This cannot be right. Black must be white! Rain must be sun! We do not know, but don't let a fact or statistic get in the way of the right-wing extremists! The government has already made legislative changes which will apply from 1 July 2013. We have raised the obligations of directors to manage superannuation fund assets prudently in the best interests of members. We have made sure that directors have to give priority to beneficiaries. We have required the disclosure of directors' remuneration. From 1 July, APRA prudential standards will require funds to maintain registers of relevant duties and interests. Regulations will require mandatory disclosure of conflicts of interest. To get a lecture from those opposite saying, 'The Cooper review said recommendation X.Y; we must follow this and, if we don't follow this, it makes what we're doing wrong'—if they are such advocates of the Cooper review, why did they fight harder than anything we have seen since their attack on the carbon price? The Cooper report recommended that the opt-in requirement apply to the provision. The Cooper review recommended intrafund advice be provided. The opposition opposes Cooper review recommendations when it does not suit their ideology, but otherwise they would run amuck with $450 billion of workers' money. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 83S The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Dunkley be agreed to.

The House divided. [12:18]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)

 72 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 Crook, AJ Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Fletcher, PW Forrest, JA Frydenberg, JA Gambaro, T Gash, J Griggs, NL Haase, BW Hartsuyker, L Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Jensen, DG Jones, ET 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 O'Dwyer, KM 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 Slipper, PN 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 68 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 Grierson, SJ Griffin, AP Hall, JG Hayes, CP (teller) Jenkins, HA Jones, SP Katter, RC King, CF Leigh, AK Livermore, KF Lyons, GR Macklin, JL Marles, RD McClelland, RB Melham, D Mitchell, RG (teller) Murphy, JP Neumann, SK Oakeshott, RJM O'Connor, BPJ O'Neill, DM Owens, J Parke, M Plibersek, TJ Ripoll, BF Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Roxon, NL Rudd, KM Saffin, JA Shorten, WR Sidebottom, PS Smith, SF Smyth, L Snowdon, WE Symon, MS Thomson, CR Thomson, KJ Vamvakinou, M Zappia, A 2 PAIRS Hockey, JB Swan, WM Somlyay, AM Emerson, C

Question agreed to.

 12:26 The SPEAKER 83S Order! Everybody is out of their place and I am not in the mood to be kind at this point in the day. The Leader of the House has the call. 12:27 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I ask leave of the House to move a motion to suspend standing orders to enable the House to divide again on the motion that was just put. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S Order! Mr ALBANESE R36 I do so in accordance with the understanding that was reached between the government and the opposition about these matters. As people would be aware, there is an event on at the moment, which meant that some members missed a division. Mr Schultz 83Q It is their responsibility to be here! The SPEAKER 83S Order! The member for Hume is warned! I have indicated that everyone is out of their place. You do not want to be thrown out at this point. The Leader of the House has the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 This was a system that was put in place for the dignity of the House and for all members to comply with and was agreed between the government and the opposition. The function is, as you would be aware, in the Great Hall— Mr Pyne interjecting— Mr ALBANESE R36 Sometimes bells are not heard in the Great Hall, as you would be aware, Manager of Opposition Business. Clearly, that it is a mistake. For that mistake, members should apologise to the House in accordance with the agreement that was put, and I would ask leave of the House to move the motion in accordance with our agreement. 12:28 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt Leave is not granted, and the reason is this. When the Leader of the House and I and the crossbenchers negotiated the reinventing the parliament agreement at the beginning of this parliament— Mr Adams interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S Order! The member for Lyons is also out of his seat. I am adamant at the moment: nobody should be interjecting on this unless they want to go and sit in their own seat—and then they would still be in trouble! The Manager of Opposition Business has the call. Mr PYNE 9V5 Thank you for your protection, Madam Speaker. The reinventing the parliament agreement was not a legally binding document and has been departed from by the government and the crossbenchers on numerous occasions. So I will not have any hypocrisy from the crossbenchers or the government about the reinventing the parliament agreement. The only matters out of the reinventing the parliament agreement that were binding on this chamber were those that were transmuted to the standing orders. The Leader of the House has on several occasions relied on that to not abide by the reinventing the parliament agreement in this place. He might now rue the fact that on several occasions over the last three years he has said, if it is not in the standing orders, it does not stand for anything. The truth is that the government, the opposition and the crossbenchers agreed that, if a member of parliament missed a division for an inadvertent but good reason, we would consider resubmitting a bill or an amendment to the chamber. Four Labor members of parliament, including one whip, failed to take their pagers, which tell us what is going on in the chamber, to the Great Hall, which is a matter of a few hundred metres away. That is not the kind of reason that was regarded as significant enough, even in the reinvented parliament agreement. We discussed at that time that this courtesy could be extended if a member was suddenly ill, was locked in a room and could not escape for whatever reason—as occurred on one occasion in this place some years ago—was in hospital or had an immediate family crisis which required their attention and they could not possibly come. It was not for situations where four members of parliament do not take their beepers to the Great Hall or pay attention to what was going on in the chamber. For that reason, the coalition will not give leave for this motion. But, if the Leader of the House wants to withdraw his motion and negotiate with the opposition over the course of the rest of the day about this matter, we will listen to the arguments and do so in good faith. 12:31 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler In accordance with the Manager of Opposition Business's request, I move: That the debate be adjourned. Question agreed to. Debate adjourned. Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 3238

Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment Bill 2012

Second Reading 3238 12:32 Mr SIMPKINS HWE Cowan I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 on behalf of a local agribusiness in my electorate of Cowan. I would like to begin by saying that I, along with the coalition, support the stated objective of the bill, which is to reduce regulatory compliance costs for business and to improve competitiveness. It is disgraceful, however, but typical of this Labor government that what this so-called agvet chemical reform actually represents is nothing but the government trying to deliver an election promise made to the Greens, at the expense of our hardworking agricultural industry and those who work in that industry within the electorate of Cowan and other places around the country. This bill is designed, first and foremost, to implement a reregistration system, to raise the cost of chemical registration and to make the registration of many chemicals uneconomic. The reregistration process adds absolutely no triggers; it is simply another expensive recheck of the triggers, funded by the industry. I was recently contacted by a local business that has been working in the import industry for over 10 years through the current practices listed by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority regarding this issue. The business is extremely concerned about the significant increases of APVMA application fees proposed under this legislation. If this bill is passed before 1 July 2013, this business is going to be faced with paying fee increases that will come into effect on 1 July 2013, 1 July 2014 and 1 January 2015. It is appalling that businesses should be forced to pay more for something that will deliver absolutely no extra benefit to them or to the industry. Internationally, our registration process is struggling to compete. It has been suggested that the Australian industry is being laughed at by our overseas suppliers, as we are operating on a far from level playing field. This is one of the key reasons that the industry and the coalition supported a reform to make it more efficient. As I said earlier, this legislation is all about a deal the Labor government did with the Greens. This legislation will give the green lobby designated time frames to concentrate on campaigns to have chemicals removed. As it has been said by previous speakers, the campaigners will run a campaign on a chemical because of a tenuous link with a disease that is unscientific and forces the APVMA to withdraw registration because of political pressure, not scientific fact. The re-registration system does not introduce any new triggers but simply makes the APVMA run costly rechecks to the existing triggers; costs which are passed onto local businesses. I can just imagine a green lobbyist trying to wear down the industry, making it too difficult to continue, instead of allowing the industry to have science-based reviews triggered by candid issues. Despite Labor's and the Greens' claims, this bill is not designed to reform the chemical registration process or to improve efficiency. What this bill will do is create a net loss in the efficiency of the regulator and reduce the ability to identify and review suspect chemicals. Unlike the Labor government, we are committed to implementing measures that will cut unnecessary red tape and will assist business in an industry, not burden them. For this reason, the coalition will not be supporting this bill in its current form, and the Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Food Security will move amendments in the third reading stage to delay commencement by 12 months. This will allow time for the development of a risk management framework which will clearly detail the application requirements. This is essential in supporting other efficiency measures, including Shut the Gate and elapsed time frame reforms. The coalition also believes that registrants should be given the opportunity to work with the APVMA to road-test the risk framework, to make sure that it operates in the way in which it was intended. To date, this has not occurred and there has been no consultation on the risk framework. It has been identified that there are considerable gaps in the current manual of requirements and guidelines which must be addressed. Lastly, without a comprehensive risk framework to deliver high-quality applications to the APVMA, they may struggle with applications that do not have all of the information required. This would result in more applications being denied, longer time frames for decisions and a higher refusal rate. The coalition is not arguing that the current system is perfect, nor do we consider that every aspect of the bill is incorrect. On the whole, the bill makes a number of changes to arrangements to manage agvet chemical registration and improvements to compliance enforcement arrangements, most of which try to improve efficiency. As such, industry supports the measures and so do we. What we are seriously concerned about is that, while the intent of the bill is right, the bill in its entirety only adds to the problem. Our amendments will improve the bill and ensure that the implementation of these aspects that are beneficial can effectively proceed. 12:38 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy As far as we can make out, and as far as I am advised, what is happening here is—for those who are not familiar with the process—that all chemicals that are used in Australia have to be approved by an agency before they are allowed to be used. This bill seeks to re-regulate them. Even though they have been allowed in, processed and accepted as right and proper to use, we now want to re-assess these particular chemicals. I am well aware of the arguments with DDT, which was used for 50 or 60 years and was then found to be very detrimental, particularly to human health. If a problem is suddenly found somewhere with a chemical that is accepted and used, then we act. If you are telling me that we process it and then process it again, yes, let's process it five times or six times. Let's keep processing it. I cannot help but introduce one little metaphorical touch. Malcolm Muggeridge, the great raconteur, long-serving editor of Punch magazine in Great Britain and populariser of Mother Teresa, said that the giant armadillo, with each successive wave of evolution, clothed itself in more and more protective armour until eventually it was impervious and safe from attack by any other creature on earth. However, its great weight meant that it could not forage for food and rapidly became extinct. I think that is a great metaphor for what is taking place here: we will protect ourselves so damn much that we will not have any food to keep ourselves alive. No-one seems to worry in this place. I am the only speaker I have ever heard mention the fact that within three years the country will become a net importer of food. I always qualify that by saying that, if you use a separate definition, it could be as long as eight years. But, whether it is three years or eight years, the country will be a net importer of food. I can talk about the Australian dollar, about Woolworths and Coles, and about the protection that is available in other countries—a 41 per cent subsidy tariff level. But there is another problem for us, and that is the cost of this ridiculous imposition that is coming forward today. As I am informed, Diuron is going to be struck down under this legislation or the regulations that will be made pursuant to this legislation. Diuron has been used extensively for many years. It removes grasses and weeds from our cane fields. We do not have to use it very much, because we now have a trash blanket which, along with some studious use of stuff such as Diuron, means that we do not have to cultivate anymore . I am not a great advocate of action on carbon dioxide. I do believe there is a problem that will arise in the oceans at some indefinite point in the future. We as a party—my party—have never been totally opposed to consciousness of that problem. But there is the enormous benefit of not cultivating in the sugar industry. For those who are not familiar with farming, cultivation is when you put a light plough through the ground to dig up the weeds so that there is no competition for the seedbed that you have planted or the plant cane that you have planted. So, when the cane plant breaks through the soil, there are no competing grasses and weeds, and that is the way that we wish it to be. With the trash blanket that we leave on the ground after harvesting—a very thick trash blanket—we do not have a great problem now with grasses, weeds and other things interfering with the growth of our cane. A similar situation exists in the other industries, except that we are constantly confronted with this danger to the reef. Professor Ian Atkinson from JCU has a device that monitors all outgoing waters from our streams and creeks. If one of those devices were put in the mouth of every single river running onto the Great Barrier Reef, we would find out whether there are any contaminants or insoluble matter that could cause trouble, or even soluble matter that could. The device monitors all unnatural presences in the waters flowing out of these streams. So we already have the machinery to deal with this problem. Do we have these monitors on all the creeks, rivers and streams going out to the Great Barrier Reef? No, we do not. We have had some rogue miners—not many but a few—and they could have been quickly traced back with that mechanism. There were the terrible events that occurred at Gladstone harbour, where hundreds of thousands of fish and marine life were destroyed. The problem that was arising there could have been picked up enormously quickly, but it was not because these monitoring devices were simply not there. Putting in a costly new layer of public servants—to make our life a misery in every aspect of farming—is a sheer waste of money. One of the many reasons that the previous Labor state government were thrown out on their heads, in a record landslide—which is possibly going to occur again later this year—was this sort of rubbish. If you want people to hate you, torture them. Make their life a misery, impose upon them a hundred restrictions to make their life a misery, and then they will hate you. This is a classic example of that. We have already processed all of the chemicals that are being used. They have already been processed. If a problem occurs, surely there are people out there who should be on the ball to ensure that, if a problem occurs, it is addressed. But you are not going to address a problem; you are simply going to redo what you have already done—that is, assess these chemicals—at great cost. Whatever tests you are going to apply with this new layer of oversight and regulatory mechanisms have already been used. They have already been used. So we are using them again. That is a sheer waste of money. The Premier that I served under for 20 years of my life in the Queensland parliament said, 'We have a transport department in Canberra that builds no roads and we have a health department that does not deliver any health services.' The head of the main roads department said: 'What it means is this, Bob: it costs me a lot of money to do the engineering work and various recommendations on environmental effects with any road building that we do. It costs a lot of money. But if I then have to prepare a report to go to Canberra, I double the engineering and environment assessment costs, and then someone in Canberra is paid to go over that report. So there is a trebling of the cost of the engineering and environmental work, which has an enormous impact on the cost of building a road.' We released lands under our act in the Aboriginal areas in Queensland for nil cost. I think there was a $20 processing cost. We released land in Charters Towers for a nil processing cost. But, when we came under the local government act and the state government rules and regulations, it became almost totally impossible to get a piece of land in Queensland under $100,000. So we went from $20 to $100,000. Like the armadillo, it would be nice to protect yourself from attack from every other animal on earth. It gives you a nice warm and comfortable feeling and the greenies in your electorate and the doctors' wives sitting at home or at the local coffee shop can feel very contented and comfortable. But, if you are a farmer in this country trying to make ends meet, God help you! I had the very great honour of being the minister who introduced prawn and fish farming in Australia. I deserve absolutely no credit for it. Credit goes to the heroic leadership in that industry—the entrepreneurs and businessmen, like Jimmy Riall, Sharkers, the Cocos, the Wardoes,and Ervin Vidor, a very famous man in Australian history and one of Australia's richest men as well. These great pioneers and all of these families deserve the credit. Dr Joe Baker, the head of the Institute of Marine Science, also deserves the credit. I deserve no credit, but I did have the honour of being the minister who took a number of critical steps to facilitate the industry. We expected that we would catch up to Thailand in prawn farming within six or seven years. Prawn farming has almost vanished in Australia. I think we are down to about five or six farms. That is all that is left. We went up close to 600 million at one stage and now we are down to virtually nothing. The reason for that is: in China, in Vietnam and in Thailand they dump raw sewage into the rivers and they take the water out of the rivers and put it into their ponds, and each day they dump the water back into the rivers again. If you are in Queensland or New South Wales, you cannot dump the water straight back into the river each day; you have got to process it four times before it goes back into the river. The processing cost effectively doubles the cost of running a prawn farm. So it has got nothing to do with wage structures; it has got nothing to do with those countries giving land for free to their prawn farmers to develop it. No, it is the cost impositions by ridiculous people trying to placate extremist green organisations. Going back 25 years, believe it or not some people would have described me as being a bit of an environmentalist. We had some big 'shikes' and 'yikes' over the logging of virgin areas of North Queensland, and I was on the other side of the fence to where I am these days. But that movement moved on, and they just became a monster that had to be fed every six months. We are feeding them the Coral Sea this six months—and we have stepped it up now and we have got to feed them twice every six months. We are going to feed them the Gulf of Carpentaria. Then we are going to feed them Lake Eyre Basin. Then we are going to feed them the seas off the south-west of Western Australia. Each six months they will find some other human sacrifice that has to be made to the green monster. And we are making another sacrifice here today. I do not know how many farmers are on the knife edge. I think we are slightly below cost of production in grain growing in Australia. I think that sugar, over the last 15-year average, has been disastrously below cost of production; but of course they have pulled back a bit in the last three years with good world prices. These sorts of decisions will destroy what is left. I know of a young man who got off his backside and went out and worked in the middle of nowhere, in the mines—Daniel Messina. He got the 'best player' award in the rugby leagues battle of the mines, as we call it. This young man, at a very young age, was head of his workshops in a big mining operation in north-west Queensland. He saved enough money to buy a couple of hundred acres of cane land, and he is making a quid at the present moment. But you will pull that quid out from under him! You will break his heart and shatter his hopes, because you just keep piling this burden upon him until we can no longer produce food economically in this country. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 140651 Order! The member will desist from using the term 'you', and I thank you for your completion with that fine flourish—as your usual style requires. Mr Katter HX4 It was meant in the plural sense. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 140651 Thank you for that apology to the chair, as well. 12:53 Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM Cowper I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. Today we have another bill and another layer of red tape for the productive people of Australia. This time we are talking about more red tape for more primary producers. This bill is all about imposing increased costs which will make it more difficult for farmers to be competitive. This bill implements changes to the approval, registration and reconsideration of agricultural and veterinary chemicals to allegedly improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the current regulatory arrangements and to provide greater certainty to the community that chemicals approved for use in Australia are safe. The re-registration process was the only election commitment Labor delivered in agriculture in the 2010 election, and there is no doubt that it was announced to placate the Greens. The Labor Party did not explain this in their pre-election statement clearly to avoid highlighting the negative impact on the agricultural community. Reforms are supposed to reduce cumbersome assessment and registration processes, be more cost-efficient for farmers and to provide industry with timely access to the best and safest crop and animal protectors. We support these objectives. This is supported by the 2008 Productivity Commission report into chemicals and plastic regulation. Recommendation 8.1 states: The Australian Government, in consultation with the states and territories, should impose a statutory obligation on the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority to ensure that: The costs of chemical assessments are commensurate with the risks posed by the chemicals concerned Its assessment priorities are directed to the most efficiently management of the aggregate risk of all agvet chemicals. In general the bill makes a number of incremental changes to the arrangement to manage agvet chemicals registration and improvements to compliance and enforcement arrangements, most of which try to improve efficiency and are supported by industry. The coalition supports a process that focuses resources on suspect chemistries through a streamlining of existing process. However, the most significant change in this bill is the re-registration process which contradicts these objectives and instead will entrench yet another layer of red tape through an automatic seven- to 15-year review process for all chemicals with extra costs ultimately passed on to chemical users. The current bill retains all existing mechanisms for triggering a review. The Australian National Audit Office's inquiry into Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority has confirmed that we have a reliable technical and scientific regulatory system for effective management of risk. This is what the report had to say: The ANAO concluded that the APVMA has reasonable arrangements in place to identify chemicals that require review and to prioritise the reviews according to the risk they represent. APVMA do look at what is happening around the world and if there are concerns raised about a particular chemical they do actually act and with the current review process they do that. There is a system to make sure that, if a concern is raised somewhere else in another jurisdiction or within this jurisdiction, we do look at it. However, despite these findings, the government has decided to add another layer of red tape through mandatory re-registration. The re-registration system adds no triggers but just another expensive recheck of the triggers funded by industry. It is also to give the green lobby designated time frames to concentrate on campaigns to have chemicals removed. For example, the campaigners will run a campaign on a chemical because of a tenuous link with a disease that is unscientific, and force the APVMA to withdraw registration because of political pressure, not scientific fact. The re-registration system does not introduce any new triggers; it just makes the APVMA run costly rechecking of existing triggers. This needlessly duplicates existing arrangements and places an added cost on the farm sector—a cost it can ill afford at this point in time. Now is not the time to again hit the farm sector, particular farmers in my electorate and across the North Coast of New South Wales who is doing it tough. Primary producers in my electorate are doing it tough because of a range of factors. Over recent times famers have been hit by a number of flood events which have left them reeling. The first flood event back in January and the second flood event in February were quite devastating. In January, floods in the Clarence Valley effectively wiped out the sugarcane crop. For many this represented the third crop they had lost in the past four years. Four years of costs and three years of no returns from sugarcane is a very difficult situation. The January event also had an impact on local fishermen, particularly in the Clarence Valley. The impact has been magnified by the follow-up February flood event, which has effectively prevented the fishermen from deriving income for months. The situation became so bad that a local community organised to have food hampers donated to families who could no longer afford to put food on the table. Many of these families were fishing families who have not had income for months. They are proud people but their current situation was diabolical. Across the North Coast region primary producers have been affected in many areas. In the Nambucca River, the oyster industry was particularly badly hit and the overall impact on the industry was expected to run into millions. As one oyster farmer said to me in an email: My partner and I run a small oyster farm on the Nambucca River. The recent floods have had a substantially negative impact upon our livelihoods. Loss of stock and infrastructure, river closures and equipment damage have all affected our business in the past months. Our business has completely come to a halt. We have no income and are struggling to make repayments. We are in dire need of assistance. Our river coordinator has put together an estimate of these cumulative damages, and we would truly appreciate your consideration with regards to any assistance you may be able to offer our local community of growers. In other parts the floods have wreaked havoc on fences and there have been reports of stock losses, mainly in the lower Macleay Valley. I should mention that there were some retailers also impacted, with tenants of the Old Buttery Factory in Bellingen severely impacted. What all this information demonstrates is how marginal many primary production can be at this point in time. Every year their costs seem to increase and the prices they receive seem to decline. Every year it gets harder for these farmers to survive. Under this government, all they seem to receive is more red tape and more levies. In the context of these floods, I have welcomed the additional assistance provided to primary producers. With regard to this bill, the coalition proposes to introduce amendments to delay the commencement by 12 months in order to allow time for, firstly, the development of a risk management framework clearly detailing the application requirements, which is essential to support other efficiency measures such as the 'shut the gate' and 'elapsed time frame' reforms. Secondly, registrants agreed to work with the APVMA to 'road test' the risk framework to ensure that it operated as intended. This has not occurred to date. No consultation on the risk framework has occurred. The current Manual of Requirements and Guidelines, or MORAG, is insufficient, with significant gaps that need to be addressed. Without a comprehensive risk framework to deliver high-quality applications to the APVMA, it may struggle with applications that do not have all the information required, resulting in more applications being denied, longer time frames for decisions and a higher refusal rate. The consequence of poorly handled transitions will be to amplify the problems identified by farmers and industry—that is, that fewer safe products will remain on the market, diminishing the competitiveness of Australian industry. This will increase costs for farmers as the price of pesticides increase. Some generic products will be lost from the market. Products are also less likely to be introduced as regulatory risk and regulatory cost increase. In conclusion, this bill will lead to a net loss in efficiency of the regulator and, contrary to the stated aims, it will reduce its ability to identify and review suspect chemistries. The bill does have some benefits in efficiency, but the only way to ensure the current bill has a net benefit in efficiency and improves the process to identify and review high-risk chemistries is to move amendments that remove the reregistration process and delay the commencement date. This is in line with our commitment to cut unnecessary red tape by $1 billion, if the coalition should be elected at the forthcoming election. In government, we believe there will be significant scope to further cut red tape and increase the efficiency of the system. That will deliver faster assessment processes for new chemistries and faster reviews of suspect chemistries and remove unsafe products from the market. If Australian agriculture is to prosper, if our farmers are going to be self-sustainable, it is essential that governments cut the red tape and cut the green tape to allow farmers to get on with the business of producing. But we know this government has no understanding of the agricultural sector, and this bill is just another example of how out of touch the Labor Party is with the primary producers of Australia. 13:03 Mr SIDEBOTTOM 849 Braddon by leave—I thank members, and the shadow minister opposite, for their contribution to this very important legislation and debate today. Whilst I have the opportunity, I would also like to thank all those staff in the department for the tremendous amount of work over years that they have put into this very important piece of legislation, as well as staff in the minister's office, my own staff and, of course, stakeholders who have participated in this process. The Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 improves the regulatory system for agricultural and veterinary chemicals in Australia. The bill also meets a 2010 election commitment. Essentially, this bill is about continuing to secure the safety of farmers, those who work on farms and those communities that are involved heavily with farming and agriculture. It is there to give assurances of health and safety to consumers of products from our farms and also to improve and secure the security and protection of our environment. These are worthy ideals indeed. It is an improvement and it seeks to do more to improve the system we already have. I hope the member for Kennedy will listen carefully to what I have to say, taking into account, notwithstanding his contribution, some of his criticisms. The bill improves the current high level of protection for human health and the environment and provides a greater certainty to the community that agricultural and veterinary chemicals approved for use in Australia are safe. Other measures improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the work of the national regulator, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, or APVMA , which I will in this speech refer to as the 'authority'. At its core the authority is an evidence based risk manager. Its job is to scientifically evaluate and review agricultural and veterinary medicines—or 'agvet' chemicals as we commonly call them. Its job is to monitor and promote compliance. The authority regulates approximately 10,000 agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines, products vital for food and fibre production in the community. In other words, it is an essential service. Stakeholders are keen to see changes to the way we regulate agvet chemicals. Environment and community groups, the chemical industry and farmer groups have made significant contributions to these reforms, including the re-registration scheme and risk framework. Some members opposite have tried to make the claim that the government has not consulted industry, including farmers, about these reforms. Nothing could be further from the truth. Stakeholders have been extensively consulted during the development of the reforms proposed in this bill, and the government has listened to these. The minister, his office and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry have put substantial energy into stakeholder engagement on this bill. It is important that I reinforce this. There has been dialogue between the government, the Public Service and the agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines industry. We have heard from stakeholder groups in more than 190 submissions. Nearly 200 people attended workshops and public meetings. We published two separate drafts of the legislation and listened to stakeholders about these drafts before introducing the bill to parliament. So it is a nonsense to suggest we have not consulted or not consulted widely. Australia's agriculture, fisheries, forestry and food industries have been involved. The government has discussed this bill with primary producer organisations in every state. Community and environment groups and the general public have had their say and been heard, as they have a right to. The states and territories have been consulted. We will continue to engage with and listen to stakeholders as we implement these important reforms. I would like to thank on behalf of the government all those groups that contributed with submissions, participated in workshops and who were involved in the committee processes. It is clear that not all stakeholders are happy with the current system and want to see improvement; but it is not true that none of these stakeholders are happy with this bill. As with any new piece of legislation, there will always be a variety of views. Given the different priorities stakeholders have for the system, it is not surprising that some views are not aligned. This bill seeks to balance the conflicting interests of different stakeholder groups and make sensible compromises where those interests do not align. I am pleased that both the House and Senate committees in their recent inquiry reports into the bill have recommended that the bill be passed. The member for Calare, during the previous debate on the bill, made claims to the effect that there was no need for these reforms. The member pointed to ANAO findings from a 2006 audit. But we must remember that the ANAO did not find the agvet chemical regulatory system to be all 'fine and okay'. The Productivity Commission also looked at the APVMA. The ANAO and the Productivity Commission, in their reports, picked up on a number of areas where issues were evident, flowing from: overly complex and prescriptive legislation that is difficult to understand and administer; legislation that could better ensure stakeholder confidence about the safety of chemicals; and a one-size-fits-all approach that does not enable—I say again: does not enable—the APVMA, or the authority, to allocate regulatory resources to the most efficient management of the aggregate risks of agvet chemicals. This legislation simply sets out to fix those issues, so noted by the Productivity Commission. Let us look at the area of improving efficiency. Schedule 1 of the bill encourages the development of more modern and safer chemicals by providing for a more transparent, flexible and streamlined regulatory process. Amendments will allow the APVMA to use the most up-to-date international research more effectively and provide improvements to intellectual property protection for those who invest in the development of the new chemicals. The reformed system will provide the regulatory settings necessary to enable the authority to do its job better. It will be able to deliver more predictable outcomes, particularly for low-risk products—and I emphasise this—in a more timely manner, contrary to the claims of those opposite. The reformed system will also result in improved health and environmental protection for the broader community. The bill also improves the way the authority works. These amendments will result in a more straightforward assessment process that is easier to understand and is more cost-effective to administer. These processes will have high levels of transparency and predictability for those seeking approval for agricultural and veterinary chemicals to enter the market. This will make the process of getting a new agricultural or veterinary chemical approved easier to understand. Thus it will remove unnecessary regulatory burden from the industry. The bill will not only make it easier to prepare good-quality applications; it will make it a requirement and, in so doing, the authority will be able to focus its resources on good-quality applications and will be working more effectively. This will be to everyone's benefit. What about re-registration? We have heard a few industry representatives and those opposite on this debate raised some concerns about having a re-approval and re-registration scheme. This scheme is set out in schedule 2 of the bill. The scheme is about better protecting human, animal and environmental health, as I mentioned earlier, and providing greater certainty to the community that the agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines used in our nation are safe. This is of the utmost importance. The regulator receives around 3,000 applications a year for new registrations, approvals, permits and variations. Very few applications are made for genuinely new and innovative products. The market is dominated by generics. The authority estimates that more than 9,000 of the products currently available contain actives grandfathered into the national registration scheme when it commenced under Labor in 1993. That is—and this is a very important point to remember—more than 90 per cent of products available today contain chemistry that has not been reviewed against contemporary standards. There is currently no systematic approach to considering whether it is appropriate for a chemical currently on the market to stay on the market. This is unacceptable. It is clear that the community expects a rigorous scientific approach to agvet chemical assessments. Mr Hartsuyker interjecting— Mr SIDEBOTTOM 849 If you just sit there quietly and listen you will find out. You are a respectful type, I must say—I have travelled with you and you do not snore. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 140651 Through the chair, if you will, Minister. Mr SIDEBOTTOM 849 But it also expects that these assessments will occur on a regular basis so they remain up to date. This government is concerned for the health and safety of those people most exposed to dangerous chemicals. We want to improve farmer safety as well as improving the health and safety of all people exposed to agvet chemicals. We also want our trading partners to be assured about the agricultural products we export. The reregistration scheme proposed brings Australia into line with other comparable international regulators but is not a copy necessarily of the overseas approach. The scheme in schedule 2 complements the Australian chemicals market so it delivers the desired outcomes without unnecessarily resulting in the withdrawal of safe and useful chemicals. So let us be clear about this: companies will not have to generate new data to make an application for reregistration. Opposition members have continually repeated this fundamentally wrong view about what is involved with a reregistration application. The scheme design imposes the most minimal requirements on industry. Holders of approvals or registrations would only need to provide information that they should already have access to. They will make a simple application electronically; the authority then does all the work from here. There is no blanket requirement for a chemical company to generate a whole new set of data to support reregistration, contrary to statements made by those opposite. The bill specifically provides that the authority cannot—and I reinforce that, cannot—require information from an applicant that the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to have. The government accepts that a long history of safe use counts in favour of keeping a tried and true chemical on the market. After looking at the simple application, where there are no reasonable grounds to believe a chemical is not safe the chemical will be reregistered without further obligations on the chemical company. The chemical company may choose not to reregister a chemical rather than have its safety examined. It is their choice. That is a commercial decision. The government does not promote particular products over others. The opposition also does not understand how chemicals will come into the reregistration scheme. The safety of a chemical is determined mainly by the hazard of the active constituent. Whether or not a product passes reregistration will be determined almost entirely on whether the active constituent in the product is still safe to be used. The APVMA will consider all products with the same active constituent together. It will not be looking at individual products, as mentioned by those opposite, so much as it will look at the chemistry behind the product. There are only 780 different active constituents. The authority will not have to, as the member for Paterson earlier incorrectly claimed, assess applications for more than 9,000 products in one year. All reregistration applications will not happen all at once, as the member for Paterson said earlier in a gross exaggeration—but why am I not surprised by that? Applications will be made progressively over the next 15 years, with the order of those applications determined by the risk of the chemical. This was made clear in draft regulations published last year. Products will remain on the market during this time and will continue to be on the market until a decision is made. If the decision is that a more detailed review is required, this will be scheduled and unless there is an immediate safety issue the product will remain on the market until a full scientific review of the issues identified in reregistration can be considered. The reregistration process cannot be manipulated by pressure groups to force chemicals off the market. (Extension of time granted) Finally, on compliance, in 2011-12 the authority closed 198 cases of alleged noncompliance, completed eight investigations, completed 18 recall actions, conducted 96 compliance monitoring visits and oversaw 60 audits of veterinary manufacturers. Schedule 3 of the bill improves the authority's ability to do this job. It provides the authority with more enforcement options to allow it to respond to the risk posed by non-compliant behaviour in an appropriately proportional manner. This will improve the authority's ability to make regulatory decisions that protect public health and safety and the environment with confidence. It is of great concern that the member for Dawson should think that improving the authority's ability to deal will those few malfeasant companies that try to avoid the law should mean that the system is harder to navigate. Industry is supportive of strong compliance powers as they benefit law-abiding makers and users of agvet chemicals. The authority is developing education and communication information to assist industry with the adjustment to the new law. This includes publishing a risk compendium. The compendium has already progressively been published by the authority's websites. I understand that the opposition will make amendments seeking the removal of the reapplication and reregistration scheme and delaying implementation, as the member earlier mentioned. I will have more to say about these amendments and the importance of and the need for these reforms at the appropriate time. Thanks for your patience. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Consideration in Detail 3250 13:21 Mr SIDEBOTTOM 849 Braddon I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (34) on sheet BX240 and amendments (1) to (8) on sheet BT247 as circulated together. Leave granted. Mr SIDEBOTTOM 849 I move government amendments (1) to (34) on sheet BX240 and amendments (1) to (8) on sheet BT247 as circulated together: (1) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 23), after item 17, insert: 17A Subsection 3(1) of the Code set out in the Schedule    Insert:    lodged, in relation to an application under this Code, has the meaning prescribed by the regulations. (2) Schedule 1, item 26, page 8 (line 18), omit "(iv)", substitute "(iva)". (3) Schedule 1, item 27, page 9 (line 7), after "residues", insert ", including metabolites and degradation products,". (4) Schedule 1, item 27, page 9 (after line 20), after subparagraph 5A(2)(a)(vi), insert:       (via) whether the constituent conforms, or would conform, to any standard made for the constituent under section 6E to the extent that the standard relates to matters covered by subsection (1); (5) Schedule 1, item 27, page 9 (line 26), after "residues", insert ", including metabolites and degradation products,". (6) Schedule 1, item 27, page 9 (after line 37), after subparagraph 5A(3)(a)(vi), insert:       (via) whether the product conforms, or would conform, to any standard made for the product under section 6E to the extent that the standard relates to matters covered by subsection (1); (7) Schedule 1, item 27, page 10 (lines 21 to 25), omit subsection 5B(1), substitute: (1) A chemical product meets the efficacy criteria if use of the product, in accordance with instructions approved, or to be approved, by the APVMA for the product or contained in an established standard, is, or would be, effective according to criteria determined by the APVMA by legislative instrument. (8) Schedule 1, item 27, page 10 (after line 35), after paragraph 5B(2)(c), insert:    (ca) whether the product conforms, or would conform, to any standard made for the product under section 6E to the extent that the standard relates to matters covered by subsection (1); (9) Schedule 1, item 27, page 11 (after line 19), after paragraph 5C(2)(b), insert:    (ba) whether the product conforms, or would conform, to any standard made for the product under section 6E to the extent that the standard relates to matters covered by subsection (1); (10) Schedule 1, item 27, page 12 (line 12), at the end of subsection 5D(2), add:    ; (c) whether the label conforms, or would conform, to any standard made for the label under section 6E to the extent that the standard relates to matters covered by subsection (1). (11) Schedule 1, item 28, page 12 (line 29), at the end of paragraph 6A(3)(b), add:       ; and (vi) the reconsideration of approvals and registrations. (12) Schedule 1, item 28, page 13 (after line 13), after section 6D, insert: 6E APVMA may make standards (1) The APVMA may, by legislative instrument, make standards for the following:    (a) constituents for chemical products;    (b) chemical products; (c) labels for containers for chemical products. (2) A standard made under subsection (1) may apply, adopt or incorporate, with or without modification, any matter contained in any instrument or other writing as in force at a particular time or as in force from time to time. (13) Schedule 1, item 29, page 18 (lines 9 to 12), omit section 8K, substitute: 8K Confidential commercial information must not be disclosed under certain provisions (1) Engaging in conduct in the performance of functions or duties, or the exercise of powers, under any of the following provisions does not authorise the disclosure of confidential commercial information whose disclosure would otherwise be prohibited by section 162:    (a) subsection 8F(2);    (b) subsection 8S(2); (c) subsection 17(4) or (5);    (d) subsection 18(4) or (5); (e) subsection 34AB(2);    (f) subsection 34AC(2); (g) subsection 47B(4). (2) Subsection (1) has effect despite subsection 162(1A). (14) Schedule 1, item 32, page 29 (after line 30), at the end of section 14A, add: (3) If the APVMA approves an active constituent under this section without an application having been made for the approval, the APVMA must, under paragraph 19(1)(a), be entered in the Record as the holder of the approval. (15) Schedule 1, page 31 (after line 8), after item 41, insert: 41A Subsection 15(2) of the Code set out in the Schedule    Omit all the words after "in relation", substitute:       to:    (a) an active constituent that is exempted by the APVMA from the operation of that subparagraph; or    (b) an active constituent for a listed chemical product if the product complies with the established standard for the product. (16) Schedule 1, page 31 (after line 10), after item 42, insert: 42A Subsection 17(4) of the Code set out in the Schedule    Omit "that does not contain confidential commercial information". 42B At the end of subsection 17(4) of the Code set out in the Schedule    Add: Note: This subsection does not authorise the disclosure of confidential commercial information whose disclosure would otherwise be prohibited by section 162: see section 8K. 42C Subsection 17(5) of the Code set out in the Schedule    Omit "that does not contain confidential commercial information". 42D At the end of subsection 17(5) of the Code set out in the Schedule    Add: Note: This subsection does not authorise the disclosure of confidential commercial information whose disclosure would otherwise be prohibited by section 162: see section 8K. (17) Schedule 1, page 31, after proposed item 42D, insert: 42E Subsection 18(4) of the Code set out in the Schedule    Omit "that does not contain confidential commercial information". 42F At the end of subsection 18(4) of the Code set out in the Schedule    Add: Note: This subsection does not authorise the disclosure of confidential commercial information whose disclosure would otherwise be prohibited by section 162: see section 8K. 42G Subsection 18(5) of the Code set out in the Schedule    Omit "that does not contain confidential commercial information". 42H At the end of subsection 18(5) of the Code set out in the Schedule    Add: Note: This subsection does not authorise the disclosure of confidential commercial information whose disclosure would otherwise be prohibited by section 162: see section 8K. (18) Schedule 1, item 43, page 33 (after line 22), after subparagraph 21(c)(iv), insert:       (iva) any other particulars prescribed by the regulations; (19) Schedule 1, item 44, page 40 (line 34), at the end of subsection 29A(2), add:    ; and (d) that the constituent, product or label complies, or will comply, with any requirement prescribed by the regulations. (20) Schedule 1, page 78 (after line 10), after item 201, insert: 201A After subparagraph 162(3)(c)(i) of the Code set out in the Schedule    Insert:       (ia) the authorising party for the information; or (21) Schedule 1, item 202, page 78 (line 14), omit "applicant or holder concerned", substitute "authorising party for the information". (22) Schedule 1, item 203, page 78 (line 17), omit "applicant or holder concerned", substitute "authorising party for the information". (23) Schedule 1, item 204, page 78 (lines 19 and 20), omit "applicant or holder concerned", substitute "authorising party for the information". (24) Schedule 1, item 205, page 78 (line 22), omit "applicant or holder", substitute "authorising party". (25) Schedule 1, item 221, page 81 (lines 19 to 32), omit the item, substitute: 221 After subsection 166(1) of the Code set out in the Schedule    Insert:    (1A) This section also applies if:    (a) a decision (the original decision) on a particular matter (the relevant matter) has been made under this Code on behalf of the APVMA by a member of the staff of the APVMA; and    (b) the original decision is:       (i) a decision under subsection 14(2), 26C(2), 29(2), 29E(3) or 115(3B) to refuse an application based only on requirements set out in paragraph 8A(a) or (b); or       (ii) a decision under subsection 112(3) to refuse an application based only on requirements set out in paragraph 8A(a) or (b) or a requirement made by the APVMA under subparagraph 111(1)(b)(iii); or       (iii) a decision under subsection 123(1A) to refuse an application based only on requirements set out in subsection 122(1); and (c) if the original decision were reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, a person would be entitled to apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of the original decision. 221A Subsection 166(2) of the Code set out in the Schedule    After "by writing", insert "within 42 days after the original decision is made". (26) Schedule 1, item 223, page 82 (lines 3 and 4), omit the item, substitute: 223 Subsection 166(6) of the Code set out in the Schedule    Repeal the subsection, substitute: (6) If the APVMA has not given notice under subsection (4) of its decision on the reconsideration within 90 days after the request is made, the person who made the request may, by writing, notify the APVMA that the person considers that the APVMA has confirmed the original decision. (7) If the person so notifies the APVMA, the decision on the reconsideration is taken to be a decision to confirm the original decision. (27) Schedule 1, page 83 (after line 17), after item 232, insert: 232A At the end of paragraph 167(1)(n) of the Code set out in the Schedule    Add "other than a decision based only on requirements set out in paragraph 8A(a) or (b)". (28) Schedule 1, page 83 (after line 22), after item 233, insert: 233A At the end of paragraph 167(1)(q) of the Code set out in the Schedule    Add "other than a decision based only on requirements set out in subsection 122(1)". (29) Schedule 1, page 83 (after line 26), after item 235, insert: 235A At the end of subsection 167(1) of the Code set out in the Schedule    Add:    ; (y) a decision under this Code prescribed by the regulations. (30) Schedule 3, page 110 (after line 8), after item 58, insert: 58A Subsection 69E(2)    Omit all the words after "does not", substitute:       apply:    (a) in relation to an active constituent or chemical product prescribed by the regulations; or    (b) to a person in respect of a particular year ending on 30 June if the total quantity of the active constituents that were, or were included in chemical products that were, imported, manufactured or exported by the person during that year was not greater than a quantity prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this section. (31) Schedule 3, item 59, page 110 (line 15), omit "matter", substitute "matters". (32) Schedule 3, item 142, page 176 (line 1), omit "(4)", substitute "(3)". (33) Schedule 3, item 263, page 197 (lines 15 and 16), omit the item, substitute: 263 Subsections 121(1) and (2)    Repeal the subsections. (34) Schedule 6, page 287 (before line 33), before item 35, insert: 34A Paragraph 6(2)(a)    Omit all the words after "approval of standards", substitute:       for:       (i) constituents for chemical products; and       (ii) chemical products; and       (iii) labels for containers for chemical products; or (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute: (2) Clause 4, page 2 (line 23), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2019". (3) Page 2 (after line 23), after clause 4, insert: 5 Review of prescribed matters (1) The Minister must cause a review to be conducted of matters relating to the powers and functions of the APVMA that are prescribed by the regulations. (2) The person conducting the review must give the Minister a report of the review in accordance with the regulations. (3) This section, and any regulations made for the purposes of this section, cease to have effect 5 years after the day this Act receives the Royal Assent. 6 Regulations for section 5 (1) The Governor‑General may make regulations prescribing matters:    (a) required or permitted by section 5 to be prescribed; or    (b) necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying out or giving effect to section 5. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), regulations may deal with any or all of the following:    (a) the terms of reference for the review;    (b) when the review is to be conducted; (c) how the review is to be conducted;    (d) the publication of the report of the review. (3) This section ceases to have effect 5 years after the day this Act receives the Royal Assent. (4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (line 27), omit ", the trade criteria and the efficacy criteria", substitute "and the trade criteria". (5) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 33), after item 10, insert: 10A Subsection 3(1) of the Code set out in the Schedule    Insert:    instructions approved by the APVMA includes authorisations and requirements (however described) set out in a permit. (6) Schedule 1, page 55 (after line 17), after item 78, insert: 78A Subparagraph 78(1)(c)(vi) of the Code set out in the Schedule Omit "or listed registration". (7) Schedule 1, items 172 and 173, page 74 (lines 11 to 17), omit the items, substitute: 172 Subsection 159(3)    Repeal the subsection. (8) Schedule 4, page 273 (after line 8), after item 45, insert: 45A Paragraph 60(1)(b)    Omit "paragraph 59(2)(c)", substitute "subsection 59(2)". We are proposing amendments to the bill to address some of the views that have been raised by members, stakeholders and through the committee reviews that have been associated with this bill. Again we are reinforcing that this is about safety, both for those who use it and for the environment itself. The government considered the recommendations of the committees and indeed of the Greens minority report, exploring amendments, for example, that might better achieve mutual objectives for our reform. One amendment is required as part of the government's response. It will make clear that the toxicity of chemical degradation products and metabolites must be considered when the authority assesses the safety of a chemical. We are also moving amendments to commencement provisions, delaying introduction of these reforms until 1 July 2014. This will not compromise achieving our objectives for the reform and responds appropriately to what we heard in this place and otherwise from stakeholders. The change will also give the regulator greater time to explain clearly what the risk compendium means to applicants and to communicate appropriately with the industry about implementation. Also in response to industry concern, we have moved amendments to provide regulations to require the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to cause a review to be conducted of any matter about chemicals regulation that relates to the functions and powers of the authority that is prescribed in the regulations. Other proposed amendments will require the authority to make guidelines for the way it completes reviews of chemical approvals registrations and addresses some other technical concerns. Several amendments correct provisions dealing with internal and Administrative Appeals Tribunal merits review of decisions to remove inconsistencies and increase opportunities for review. Amendments further address the need for efficiency in regulating agvet chemicals by providing that a person may apply to the regulator for copies of any information in the record of register that a person is entitled to. Further amendments allow for reduction in red tape associated with providing annual returns et cetera. A definition about the instructions the authority approves has been included in the bill to make sure instructions and conditions using a chemical under a permit are taken into account when considering the safety, efficacy or trade criteria. Other minor amendments will make amendments to repeal provisions where appropriate and to correct a few minor errors made in the drafting of the bill. Question agreed to. 13:25 Mr JOHN COBB 00AN1 Calare by leave—I move amendments (2) to (27) as circulated in my name together: (2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (line 3), omit "re‑approve, register, re‑register", substitute "register". (3) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (line 5), omit "application; or", substitute "application.". (4) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (lines 6 to 8), omit paragraph (c) of the definition of determine in section 3. (5) Schedule 1, item 26, page 8 (line 20), omit "29G,". (6) Schedule 1, item 29, page 14 (lines 12 to 19), omit subsection 8B(2), substitute: (2) The APVMA may specify information under subsection (1) only if the inclusion of the information would enable the APVMA to determine the application. (7) Schedule 1, item 29, page 15 (lines 24 and 25), omit ", other than an application under section 29D". (8) Schedule 1, item 29, page 15 (line 28), omit "29G,". (9) Schedule 1, item 29, page 16 (line 4), omit "(or re‑approves)". (10) Schedule 1, item 29, page 16 (line 5), omit "(or re‑registers)". (11) Schedule 1, item 29, page 17 (lines 24 and 25), omit paragraph 8H(2)(c). (12) Schedule 1, item 29, page 20 (line 23), omit "(or re‑approves) or registers (or re‑registers)", substitute "or registers". (13) Schedule 1, item 30, page 24 (lines 30 and 31), omit subsection 9(5). (14) Schedule 1, item 46, page 43 (lines 1 to 4), omit paragraph 29L(10)(b). (15) Schedule 1, item 59, page 51 (lines 23 to 30), omit section 34AD. (16) Schedule 1, item 59, page 52 (lines 30 to 32), omit subsection 34AE(6). (17) Schedule 1, item 61, page 53 (lines 20 and 21), omit the item, substitute: 61 Paragraph 47(5)(a) of the Code set out in the Schedule    Repeal the paragraph, substitute:    (a) any condition of a kind referred to in subsection 23(3) to which an approval or registration is subject; and (18) Schedule 1, item 213, page 79 (lines 15 to 25), omit the item. (19) Schedule 1, item 221, page 81 (line 24), omit "29G(1),". (20) Schedule 1, item 221, page 81 (lines 26 and 27), omit ", 29(2) or 29E(3)", substitute "or 29(2)". (21) Schedule 1, item 225, page 82 (lines 27 to 30), omit paragraphs 167(1)(da) and (db). (22) Schedule 2, page 85 (line 1) to page 99 (line 4), omit the Schedule. (23) Schedule 3, item 315, page 259 (lines 5 and 6), omit ", paragraph 45A(1)(b) or section 47C", substitute "or paragraph 45A(1)(b)". (24) Schedule 4, item 21, page 264 (line 14), omit ", 29A or 29G", substitute "or 29A". (25) Schedule 4, item 37, page 271 (lines 25 to 31), omit the item. (26) Schedule 4, item 40, page 272 (lines 8 to 17), omit paragraph 59(2)(e), substitute:    (e) the information was previously given to the APVMA other than as protected information and the use of the information is not limited by Division 4A of Part 2; or (27) Schedule 4, item 44, page 273 (lines 2 and 3), omit ", other than under Division 3A of Part 2 (re‑approving and re‑registering)". The amendments to the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 will remove the reregistration system from the bill. The coalition is strongly of the view that the only way to achieve the stated aim of the bill to increase efficiency and speed up the review of high-risk chemistries is to remove the reregistration process. This bill is designed to give the green lobby designated time frames to concentrate on campaigns to have chemicals removed. For example, the campaigners will run a campaign on a chemical because of a tenuous link with a disease that is unscientific and force the APVMA to withdraw registration because of political pressure, not scientific fact. The reregistration system does not introduce any new triggers. It just makes the APVMA run a costly recheck of existing triggers. Contrary to the government's claims that the reregistration process will increase the scrutiny on suspect chemistries, the increase in the administrative workload with the APVMA staff will reduce regulatory body resources available to deal with critical registrations and permits. The government has failed to do any cost-benefit analysis of mandatory reregistration processes for low-risk agvet chemicals with multiple uses, products such as glyphosate and iodine. It is obvious that, as a result of this expensive and time-consuming reregistration process, safe and effective chemicals will be deemed by registrants as not being economic to reregister in the small market of Australia, leading to a net loss of chemical products directly impacting on farm productivity. Furthermore, the expensive, time-consuming registration process will drag resources from the regulatory ability to access high-risk chemicals and will further hinder its efficiency, in direct contradiction to the stated aims of the reform to increase efficiency and speed up review of high-risk chemicals. This concern has been heightened by the findings of the Deloitte Access Economics report commissioned by CropLife Australia that there will be an increase in costs of $8 million per year to product registrants that will have to be passed on to users. This is despite the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Penny Wong, listing agvet chemical reform as the second key example where the government would reduce regulatory compliance costs for businesses and improve competitiveness—'would reduce', not add to as this legislation will do. Reforms need to address shortcomings of the existing chemical review process. Industry supports the streamlining of the existing process for identifying and reviewing suspect chemicals, but opposes the reregistration process which simply adds another layer of regulation that does not speed up the removal of unsafe chemicals. I was to move amendments to delay the commencement period by 12 months, but I am happy to say that the government has listened to the industry, and to the opposition, and adopted our amendments to make that happen. However, I do have to say that the parliamentary secretary stated how well the government had listened to the industry. If that was the case, we would not need to move the amendment to take out the reregistration process from this bill. I urge the reasoned and sensible members of the House to support the amendments to deliver a bill that provides an outcome that actually goes some way to delivering the long-spruiked efficiencies promised by the government and an improved agricultural and veterinary chemicals registration system. If the coalition is elected, I believe that there will be more work done—I know that there will be more work done—to improve chemical registration and once again make Australia a world leader in chemical registration, but, for now, we have to make the best of Labor's flawed reform process. 13:31 Mr SIDEBOTTOM 849 Braddon Thank you for your comments. The government does not accept your amendments. I have already given, in a very detailed way, our arguments for reregistration, and we believe that it will absolutely meet the objectives of this bill: ensuring the health and safety of the environment, farmers and the communities that use these products. The SPEAKER 83S The question is the amendments moved by the member for Calare be agreed to.

The House divided. [13:36]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)

 69 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 Crook, AJ Dutton, PC Fletcher, PW Forrest, JA Frydenberg, JA Gambaro, T Gash, J Griggs, NL Haase, BW Hartsuyker, L Hawke, AG 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 Neville, PC O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM 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 Slipper, PN Smith, ADH Southcott, AJ Stone, SN Tehan, DT Truss, WE Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Washer, MJ 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 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 Hayes, CP Husic, EN Jenkins, HA Jones, SP Kelly, MJ King, CF Leigh, AK Livermore, KF Lyons, GR Macklin, JL Marles, RD McClelland, RB Melham, D Mitchell, RG Murphy, JP Neumann, SK Oakeshott, RJM O'Connor, BPJ O'Neill, DM Owens, J Parke, M Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA 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 5 PAIRS Abbott, AJ Gillard, JE Entsch, WG Roxon, NL Hockey, JB Emerson, CA Moylan, JE Danby, M Somlyay, AM Ripoll, B

Question negatived.

 13:43 The SPEAKER 83S The question now is that this bill, as amended, be agreed to.

The House divided. [13:43]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)

 70 AYES 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 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 Hayes, CP Husic, EN Jenkins, HA Jones, SP Kelly, MJ King, CF Leigh, AK Livermore, KF Lyons, GR Macklin, JL Marles, RD McClelland, RB Melham, D Mitchell, RG (teller) Murphy, JP Neumann, SK Oakeshott, RJM O'Connor, BPJ O'Neill, DM Owens, J Parke, M Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Ripoll, BF Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Rudd, KM Saffin, JA Shorten, WR Sidebottom, PS Smith, SF Smyth, L Snowdon, WE Symon, MS Thomson, CR Thomson, KJ Vamvakinou, M Wilkie, AD Windsor, AHC Zappia, A 69 NOES 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 Fletcher, PW Forrest, JA Frydenberg, JA Gambaro, T Gash, J Griggs, NL Haase, BW Hartsuyker, L Hawke, AG 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 Neville, PC O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM 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 Slipper, PN Smith, ADH Southcott, AJ Stone, SN Tehan, DT Truss, WE Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Washer, MJ Wyatt, KG 5 PAIRS Danby, M Moylan, JE Emerson, CA Hockey, JB Gillard, JE Abbott, AJ Roxon, NL Entsch, WG Swan, WM Somlyay, A

Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.

 Third Reading 3258 13:49 Mr SIDEBOTTOM 849 Braddon by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 3259 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Drewett, Mr Brad 3259 13:50 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong Last week, former Australian tennis player Brad Drewett, lost his fight to the cruellest of opponents, motor neurone disease. Brad had twice been Australian Junior Champion, represented Australia in the Davis Cup and at 17 won his way through to the quarter finals of the Australian Open to play his idol, Ken Rosewall. Brad lost the match but won a lifelong friend. Last Friday Ken was at Brad's funeral, along with his childhood coach, Keith Walker; the Chairman of the All England Club at Wimbledon; his schoolhood friend, Phil Gardner; and a thousand other friends. As president and executive chairman of the ATP, Brad earned the respect of all players. On learning of his passing, the world of tennis stopped in silence. In Barcelona, Rafael Nadal stood alongside Roger Federer, Andy Murray, Novak Djokovic, Serena Williams, Maria Sharapova and all other competing players to pay their respects to their friend and their champion. Brad was great company. He was passionate: he loved wine and music with his friends. Most of all, he loved Jo and their beautiful children: Jack, Alice, Joseph and Thomas. Brad was a champion player, but a greater champion to players. He was a champion friend and, most of all, a champion husband and father. Whilst we, his friends, might selfishly miss him, this does not bear comparison to the loss suffered by Jo and their children. Diversity ACT 3259 13:51 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra I recently had the great honour of officiating at the opening of the Diversity ACT Hub in Kambah. I am a very strong supporter of the work that Diversity ACT does, and it has done some great work in establishing a community centre and support service for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community here in Canberra. The Hub has gone from a great idea and something of a personal vision of Ian Goudie into an active centre for the LGBTI community. Canberra has a very proud history of promoting equal rights, diversity and tolerance. In 1976 we became one of the first jurisdictions to decriminalise gay sex. In 1994 the ACT recognised gay partnerships. In 2003 we sanctioned same-sex adoption, and in 2008 we moved to institute civil partnerships. Yet, despite landmark reforms and history of being an open-minded and tolerant place, there are still people who face intolerance. This is why the Diversity ACT Hub is such a great initiative. Canberra has, until now, been without a specific community space where LGBTI people can go for professional advice, to access support services and to meet and socialise with friends and supporters. Through much hard work and the dedicated efforts of Ian Goudie and his team, we now have the Diversity ACT Community Services. Diversity ACT is a vital part of our community. It exists for the betterment of everyone in the ACT. I congratulate Diversity ACT for what it has accomplished. Royal Flying Doctor Service 3259 13:53 Mr CROOK M3K O'Connor Today, 15 May 2013, marks the 85th anniversary of the founding of the Australian Inland Mission Aerial Medical Service, now known as the iconic Royal Flying Doctor Service. The brainchild of the visionary and legendary Reverend John Flynn, who saw the opportunities of the technology of the day, took to the air on 17 May 1928 in a single engine biplane leased from Qantas and crewed by pilot Arthur Affleck and Dr Kenyon Walsh. In its first year the service flew 28,000 kilometres and treated 250 patients. Today, on average, the Flying Doctor Service will conduct 39 healthcare clinics; contact 750 patients, transporting 112 of them; and fly nearly 79,000 kilometres with more than 240 take-offs and landings. Yearly that equates to nearly 274,000 patient contacts, flying a staggering 26,600,000 kilometres and transporting more than 40,000 patients. This service is delivered by over 1,150 staff in 61 modern aircraft from 21 bases around Australia. I sincerely congratulate the Royal Flying Doctor Service on this significant milestone and thank those who work and support the Flying Doctor Service in their wonderful work in regional and remote Australia. Margaret Olley Art Centre 3260 13:54 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I was very privileged on 11 April to attend and participate in the sod turning for the Margaret Olley Art Centre at the Tweed River Art Gallery at Murwillumbah. The federal Labor government provided $1 million for this project to ensure that Margaret Olley's legacy lives on. The new centre honours the expressed wish of the late, great Australian artist, Margaret Olley, to re-create her studio and elements of her former home in a purpose-built extension of the Tweed River Art Gallery. Our gallery is one of the country's leading regional galleries, holding works of significant value to the nation. The Margaret Olley centre will make it one of the most recognised regional institutions in Australia. We are, indeed, very proud of it. The federal government's $1 million in funding will be used specifically for the exhibition fit-out and recreation of Olley House and the design and construction of the building, including the artist-in-residence studio. It is an exciting opportunity and we are very proud at our regional gallery to have such a wonderful addition to it. I would like to acknowledge that this really is a great community victory in which all levels of government and the community worked together, with contributions of more than $1 million from Tweed Shire Council; $1 million, of course, from the Margaret Olley Trust; $200,000 from the state government; $600,000 from the gallery foundation; and $80,000 from the Friends of the Art Gallery. It was a remarkable achievement by all those elements within our community. Can I also acknowledge the wonderful director of our art gallery, Susi Muddiman. She is a fantastic asset and has worked very hard with everyone to secure this great funding for the Margaret Olley centre. Adoption 3260 13:56 Mr SIMPKINS HWE Cowan Just after the last session of parliament I was at the South Ballajura shops when I was approached by Michael Tittensor. Mr Tittensor asked me about the Prime Minister's apology to those forcibly adopted and to the parents of those children forcibly adopted in past decades. Mr Tittensor is 70 years old and when he first engaged me in conversation on the subject of the apology I did not know that he had a personal involvement. At the time of the apology, I believed that the only person that could offer a personal view on the issue was my friend the member for Swan, the only one I knew who was himself adopted. He did not even know his brother until well into his adult life. His was a moving, tragic and terrible story. Another reality and something that we should also keep in mind is that there are three parties to this story: there are those who were forcibly adopted and those who lost a child or children; there are those who created and implemented the policy; and there are also those who adopted the children, such as Michael and Suzanne Tittensor. The perception of Mr Tittensor is that he and those who adopted children stand accused or even guilty in this matter. But that is not true. We should be very careful in making false assumptions. The contrast is that he provided a good and nurturing home for the children he adopted and that he and those like him are not the guilty party. I take this opportunity to thank Michael and Suzanne Tittensor and those who adopted children, providing safe, secure and healthy homes. While we have heard many negatives and injustices involved in this policy, there were also good intentions, high motives, love and, yes, even success stories. I encourage all of us to consider every side of each story. There are too many simplistic viewpoints on these sort of matters and we should be very careful about generalising and heaping good people in with a now discredited policy. (Time expired) Petition: Eritrean National Council for Democratic Change 3261 13:57 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I rise today to speak to a petition recently handed to me by representatives of the Eritrean National Council for Democratic Change. The petition contains several hundred signatures, many from my electorate of Melbourne, and raises a number of disturbing claims of human rights violations, including forced labour, arbitrary detention and restrictions on freedoms of speech. As to forced labour, the petition raises the particularly disturbing claim that Australian companies can operate in Eritrea without being required to positively verify that slave or forced labour is not being used. The petitioners also claim that freedom of speech is being dramatically restricted and that Eritrea is the world's worst jailor of journalists. There are also disturbing claims that a two per cent tax is continuing to be levied on Eritreans in diaspora, something which has been condemned by the US and Australia. In 2009 the United Nations Security Council imposed sanctions against Eritrea; however, the petitioners call on the Australian government to add Eritrea to the countries currently named in the autonomous sanction list. I have written to the Minister for Foreign Affairs to draw these claims to his attention, and I thank him for responding. It is clear that there is a strong movement from Eritrean Australians for human rights, peace and freedom in Eritrea. I thank the Eritrean National Council for Democratic Change for drawing these matters to my attention. I draw the petition to the parliament's attention and I hope that the Australian government will meet with the council to discuss their requests. Costello, Hon. Peter, AC 3261 13:59 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I am very pleased that the current Treasurer is in the House, because today I rise to congratulate a great friend, mentor and inspiration of mine—my predecessor in the seat of Higgins and former Treasurer, the Hon. Peter Costello AC. Last week Peter was awarded the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws honoris causa by Monash University. He was awarded this most prestigious honour for 'his significant contribution to Australian politics and his instrumental role in both the public and private sectors in Australia.' Peter Costello remains Australia's longest-serving Treasurer, a position he held from 1996 until 2007. During the period, he brought down 12 consecutive federal budgets, including 10 surpluses. He eliminated Commonwealth government net debt of $96 billion and introduced the largest tax reform in Australia's history, called 'A New Tax System', which introduced the GST, abolished seven taxes, and reduced income, capital gains and company taxes. Amongst other things— The SPEAKER 83S Order! In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 3262 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:00 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I inform the House that the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research, Minister for Trade and Competitiveness and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Asian Century Policy will be absent from question time today for personal reasons. The Minister for Climate Change, Industry and Innovation will answer questions in relation to tertiary education, skills, science and research, and the Minister for Defence will answer questions in relation to foreign affairs, trade and competitiveness. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 3262 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Budget 3262 14:00 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind her that she promised on at least 165 separate occasions to deliver a budget surplus in the current financial year. 'Failure is not an option,' she said, 'and we won't fail.' Given that the government is now forecasting a deficit of $19 billion for this year, how can Australians trust any of the commitments in last night's budget? 14:01 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. What you need to do as Prime Minister is deal with the facts, and the facts are, of course, that in our economy we have seen circumstances that have led to very large revenue write-downs—that is, less tax money coming into the government than was expected. That is as a result of the combination of the hangover from the global financial crisis and the high Australian dollar and its impact on the Australian economy, particularly on company profitability. If companies are less profitable then they are paying less tax. I think many Australians, from a common-sense point of view, know that to be the case. To the Leader of the Opposition I say that what budgets are about is accepting the facts and then showing your choices—showing the choices that you stand by and believe in. What the government has done in this budget is continue our focus on jobs and growth. The Leader of the Opposition may be saying to the Australian community that somehow he could make a magic difference here, but in fact you need to wrestle in detail with budgets. So the Leader of the Opposition appears to be saying to the Australian community that what he would do instead of the government's strategy is cut to the bone, with all of the implications that would have for Australian families who would see healthcare services slashed, education slashed, family payments slashed, the aged-care pension slashed—and the list goes on. Indeed, today the Leader of the Opposition has been out confirming very loudly that he would not back the government's new investments into schools. That means that the Leader of the Opposition stands for taking half a million dollars, on average, out of every Australian school. The Leader of the Opposition this morning was wandering around saying that this was a budget that had no hope in it. Well, to the Leader of the Opposition I say: go out of Parliament House and meet the families of people who are caring for people with disabilities, or people with disabilities themselves. Go and meet with them and ask what they think about this budget, delivering as it does on DisabilityCare fully funded for 10 years. Go and walk into a classroom and see what a combination of great teaching and new resources can do for a child's life, and tell them that there is no hope in this budget when this budget fully delivers on our school improvement agenda over 10 years. This is a budget for the Australian people, right for these economic circumstances, and I absolutely reject the Leader of the Opposition's strategy to cut to the bone. Budget 3263 14:04 Mr CHEESEMAN HW7 Corangamite My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline for the House how this budget makes our economy stronger, our nation smarter and our society fairer? 14:04 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley I thank the member for his question, because the budget I announced last night does make our economy stronger, our nation smarter and our society fairer. That is because we on this side of the House have made a fundamental choice to support growth in jobs and a transitional period in our economy and to do it in the face of very significant tax revenue write-downs, because the alternative would be the one put forward by those opposite: big cuts to the bone in health and education. This is not something those on this side of the House will contemplate. We will support growth and jobs in our economy, and that is what we are doing with our budget. We are building on the resilience and strength of the Australian economy. Mr Simpkins HWE It's six years of your failure. The SPEAKER 83S The member for Cowan is warned. Mr SWAN 2V5 Our economy is now 13 per cent larger than it was prior to the global financial crisis. Why is that so? Because of the policies we put in place to support demand in our economy in the face of the global financial crisis and the global recession. The consequence of that is that we did not go into recession like most other developed economies, and we are far stronger for it. We have created over 950,000 jobs in this country during our period in office. And, of course, we have a AAA credit rating from the three major global rating agencies, confirmed again last night by those rating agencies. So this budget is all about a sustainable path to surplus, supporting jobs and growth and making the investments, particularly the smart investments which will drive productivity in our economy for the future—the investments the Prime Minister was talking about before. The investments in school improvement are absolutely critical not just to making sure that no child is left behind but also to lifting our productivity for the long term. Then, of course, there is the sustainable funding of DisabilityCare, a very big initiative from this government. That is why I was so disappointed to see this morning that the shadow Treasurer said there was no hope in the budget. Tell that to the 460,000 people with permanent disabilities in this country: 'No hope in the budget.' Tell that to the people who are in employment: 'No hope in the budget.' What this actually shows is that those opposite do not have a clue as to what they are doing when it comes to economic policy. On this side of the House we have a record of getting the big economic calls right. We are doing it again to support jobs and growth in our economy. Budget 3263 14:07 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the fact that peak gross debt is not revealed in the budget papers and I remind him that the debt ceiling has been increased by Labor from zero to $75 billion, then $200 billion, then $250 billion and then $300 billion. Will the Treasurer tell the House, and the Australian people, what level peak gross debt will reach over the forward estimates? 14:08 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley What we have here from the shadow Treasurer is the fiscal fearmongering campaign writ large. What we have here is a situation where net debt peaks at 11.4 per cent in 2014—a very modest level of debt, particularly compared to other developed economies. I have been asked by the shadow Treasurer about the debt cap. Well, the answer to that is it is not necessary to do anything about the debt cap at all but we will review it in the usual way and, if it were necessary, we would lift it. 14:08 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney I ask a supplementary question of the Treasurer. I did not ask him about net debt. What is the peak of gross debt under the forward estimates as a result of his budget and subject to the debt ceiling? 14:09 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley What I do know is that as public— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S Order! Mr SWAN 2V5 What we have here from the opposition is that they want to quote the market value of the debt, not the face value of the debt. All of the material is contained in the budget papers. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 3264 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:09 The SPEAKER 83S Before I call the member for Parramatta, I would like to inform the House that we have visiting us today in the gallery a delegation of members of parliament from Vietnam. I welcome them warmly to the gallery today. I had the pleasure of meeting them earlier today and tried explaining question time to them, and I hope they enjoy the educational experience. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 3264 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 3264 14:09 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta My question is to the Prime Minister. How will the budget help keep the economy strong and ensure all Australians benefit by promoting fairness and opportunity? 14:10 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I thank the member for Parramatta for her question and for her continued focus on the interests of her constituents. As a former small business person in this parliament, she is very focused on her local economy, jobs and opportunity. I can reassure her and say to the whole parliament that the budget we delivered last night is focused on building a stronger, fairer and smarter Australia. By stronger, of course, I mean a strengthening economy. We have avoided recession. We have avoided the worst of the global financial crisis. If you compare our nation with the United States and nations in Europe, unlike those nations, we kept people in jobs. We kept people working; we focused on jobs. We focused on growth, which is why our economy is 13 per cent bigger now, and we are able to point to more than 950,000 jobs created during some of the worst economic times that the world has ever seen—the worst economic event since the Great Depression. We are a country AAA credit rated by all three major ratings agencies—only one of eight countries to be so and something not achieved under the former government. In the budget we have laid out a plan to keep strengthening our economy—a sustainable path to surplus, investing in the infrastructure we need for the future; $24 billion for the next wave of infrastructure and Labor's National Broadband Network, which is the only real way of getting fibre where it is needed, to homes and businesses. At the same time we are ensuring that we are a smarter country for the future. I want every Australian child to realise their full opportunity. That is right for our children and it is right for our nation's future. We cannot be a strong nation in the future, with high-skill, high-wage jobs, unless we invest in our schools and get our kids a world-class education. In this budget we properly fund this for the next 10 years. In this budget not only are we giving hope to schoolchildren; we are giving hope to Australians with disabilities, their families and their carers by showing the way in which DisabilityCare can be fully funded over the next 10 years. We have made these choices which show our values—what we believe needs to be delivered for the Australian people. They have not always been easy choices, but they are the right choices to build the future that Australians deserve. Budgets are about choices. They are about laying out what you believe in front of the Australian people. The government did that last night; the opposition will have its opportunity to do so tomorrow night. Budget 3265 14:13 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney My question is again to the Treasurer. Now that the Treasurer has had time to get the answer, I again remind the Treasurer that he introduced a debt limit cap of $300 billion. How much, as a result of last night's budget, will that debt peak at over the next four years? 14:13 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley I am more than happy to read out the figures from the budget papers. Gross debt or net debt—what would you like? Opposition members: Gross! Mr SWAN 2V5 Gross debt in 2012-13 is $292.8 million; in 2013-14, $321.3 million; in 2014-15, $345 million; and the peak, at 20.2, is $356 million. But the point I was making earlier— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S Order! Does the member for North Sydney want to hear the answer or not? The Treasurer has the call. Mr SWAN 2V5 That is the market value, not the face value, on issue. I know he wants to try to confuse this because he wants to be a fiscal fearmonger, ape the tactics of the Tea Party in the United States and run around the place saying that the debt is unsustainable. Net debt is low at 11.1 per cent of GDP. It is like someone with an income of $100,000 owing less than $12,000. Debt is modest in this country and we have it to support jobs and growth. So, when he is asking these sorts of questions, what he is really saying is that his alternative to these modest levels of debt—supporting jobs and growth in our economy—is to take an axe to jobs, growth, health and education. That is not something this Labor government would ever do but it is something those opposite would do, because it was the path they put forward during the global financial crisis—and if they had had their way this country would have gone into recession. 14:15 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney I ask a supplementary question. Given that the Treasurer has just admitted that, subject to the debt cap, his debt is going to go to $356 billion— Mr Dreyfus HWG Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Mr Pyne interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S Order! The member for Sturt is warned! Mr Dreyfus HWG Madam Speaker, it is not in order to ask questions which contain argument and, as yesterday, we have a question that is based on an argument. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S The member for North Sydney will get the call when his colleagues show him some courtesy. The member for North Sydney has the call. I will ask him to commence the question again but will advise against argument. Mr HOCKEY DK6 I refer to the Treasurer's answer where he said 'debt will peak at $356 billion'. Treasurer, if the debt cap limit is $300 billion, why don't you have the courage to increase the debt cap limit on your watch? 14:16 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley What the shadow Treasurer is doing is quoting market value which, admittedly, does appear in the budget papers. But what is issued is face value. I have said to him earlier that we are below the cap. That is what I said to him. He is seeking to go out there and use a market value rather than a face value and the face value is what is issued and what the government owes. So he is deliberately seeking to increase and cause fear about modest debt levels and being dishonest at it. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 3266 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:16 The SPEAKER 83S I do want to acknowledge that in the gallery this afternoon we have the former Singaporean foreign affairs minister, Mr George Yeo, visiting the Australian parliament. Mr Yeo is in Australia to receive an honour for his work with the Australian parliament. We welcome him to the gallery today. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 3266 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Budget 3266 14:17 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway My question is to the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister for Disability Reform. How does this budget help us build a fairer society by locking in funding for disability care? 14:17 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga I thank the member for Greenway very much for her question and for her dedication to this issue in her electorate. This budget does deliver a fairer deal, particularly for people with disability and also for their families and carers. It provides the hope for those Australians who know that, at some time in the future, they too may be affected by disability. They may be affected or their loved ones may be affected. In this budget we want to end the cruel lottery that has faced so many people with disability over such a long period of time—the cruel lottery that has said, 'The level of care or support that you receive depends on where you live or how you got your disability.' This budget is all about making sure that we do have a fairer nation. As Dr Ken Baker, from National Disability Services, has said today: This Budget is the first to make disability support its centrepiece. We have made the choice and it is a choice. As the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have made clear, both yesterday and today, budgets are about choices and a choice that the government have made is to put disability care at the centre of our concerns. We have also made the choice to create a strong and stable funding stream right out into the future so that people with a disability, their carers and their families can see that the commitment this government is making for their care and support is funded well into the future—in fact, for 10 years to come. In just a few weeks, on 1 July, the government will launch DisabilityCare Australia. It is a very, very exciting time. The first stage of the National Disability Insurance Scheme will see 26,000 people, in different launch sites around the country, start to come into DisabilityCare Australia, start to receive the care and support that people really need. That is why it was so disappointing to see the Leader of the Opposition say today that there was no hope in this budget. There is hope at the centre of this budget: hope for people with a disability, hope for their carers and families that they have never had before. Mr Pyne 9V5 Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that the minister is impugning improper motives on the Leader of the Opposition. He has just ridden 1,000 kilometres, from Adelaide to Geelong, for carers and the minister is trying to pretend that somehow he does not support DisabilityCare, which we have already agreed to. The SPEAKER 83S The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The member for North Sydney has the call. Budget 3267 14:20 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, isn't it the case that when the National Broadband Network and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation are added into the budget, the budget actually never delivers a surplus? 14:20 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley Here we go! He is going to redefine the way the accounting is done in the budget. He wants to rely not on the underlying cash level, he wants to do the headline cash level. But that is not something you ever did in government. All we are doing is accounting for the operation of bodies like the NBN— Mr Hockey interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S Order! The member for North Sydney is warned! Mr SWAN 2V5 EFIC, Australia Post and other organisations in the same way that the Howard government accounted for them. That is what is going on. But what we have seen with this question, like we saw with the previous question, is the coalition's fiscal fearmongering. They want to go out there and grossly exaggerate the amount of debt we have got in our economy, which is modest. We have got net debt at 11.1 per cent of GDP. That is like someone with $100,000 worth of income owing less than $12,000. It is a modest level of debt and we have it because we are supporting jobs and our economy when it is needed. But their position is really clear because, when they ask these questions, what they are really saying is: 'You shouldn't have done that. What you should have done is take an axe to the budget and an axe to jobs.' Just because the global economy takes an axe to our revenues, we are not going to take an axe to jobs like you would. We are not going to do that. We have a modest level of debt. It is a buffer because our revenues have been written down to support our economy, and everyone on this side of the House is proud of that, proud that we are supporting our economy, proud that we are supporting jobs, proud that this government has got the guts to get behind our economy and proud that we do not go down the austerity route that those opposite want to go down with all of their fiscal fearmongering and all of the consequences that come with it. When they are going on about debt, what they are really on about is their subterranean agenda to take an axe to the social safety net. That is what they are on about, and that is what his speech to the IPA was all about: do some fiscal fearmongering to set the scene to slash health and education, to cut to the bone. There is a very clear choice following this budget, and Australians will know what it is. Budget 3268 14:23 Ms SMYTH 172770 La Trobe My question is to the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth. Will the minister outline to the House how last night's budget builds a smarter and fairer nation by investing in our children's education? 14:23 Mr GARRETT HV4 Kingsford Smith I thank the member for La Trobe for her question, knowing her strong commitment to education in her electorate. The fact is that last night's budget placed caring for Australians in the future front and centre of the agenda of this government and ensured that young Australians and those with disability have hope in the years to come. Let's not forget: in this country year-9 students from the poorest quarter of Australian families are on average three years of schooling behind students from the wealthiest quarter. Let's not forget that, despite some pockets of success, we have slipped globally in our international standings. Our neighbours are pulling away while we are standing still. We on this side of the House know that a good education can be the difference between getting the high-skilled jobs of the 21st century or being left behind, and that is why we made the smart education investments in last night's budget: $9.8 billion to drive the reforms in the National Plan for School Improvement, an investment I know everyone on this side of the chamber is proud of. I am asked about reactions, and I cannot say the same for the conservative side of politics. There are some exceptions, as I said yesterday; I do not agree with everything Premier O'Farrell says, but on the plan for school improvement he is pretty correct. It provides additional resources and fairer distribution to deliver higher standards and better outcomes in schools across New South Wales. Unfortunately for the schoolchildren of the nation, the Leader of the Opposition does not share this vision. There he was again on Sunrise this morning with Kochie, who gave him another chance to discard the lycra and put the politics aside; but, true to form, the Leader of the Opposition went negative. The host says: 'You have time to think about this—the whole Gonski report, the education funding. New South Wales has already signed up. Will you keep the deal?' Mr Abbott: 'Well, we don't know what the deal is.' It is no surprise there that he has not bothered to read something again, but Kochie was surprised. He said, 'You haven't rung your mate Barry O'Farrell—he's in the next electorate to you—and said, "What's the details?"' The Leader of the Opposition: 'We're not going to sign up to anything were not convinced is a good deal.' Look at the contrast: a conservative premier who sees the importance of education, understands how the National Plan for School Improvement works and has signed up to it to deliver an extra $5 billion to students in that state versus the Leader of the Opposition here, who thinks the injustice in the education system is that public schools get too much funding, has not even read the National Plan for School Improvement and sees no hope in a budget that delivers $9.8 billion in extra investment for schools around the nation. Budget 3269 14:26 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney My question is to the Treasurer. In his National Press Club speech the Treasurer claimed that there is a fiscal consolidation in the budget of $23 billion. Given that, as a percentage of the economy, at no time has this government had spending as low as the last year of the coalition government and given that, over the next four years, the government is expecting to spend $76 billion more and collect $103 billion more in revenue, where does this claim for smaller government come from? 14:27 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley I do thank the shadow Treasurer for his question. We should first of all start with revenue and then go on to expenditure, because those opposite claim there has been no revenue write-down. They would be receiving, if they were in government, the same advice that we are receiving, which is that for 2012-13 we have had a revenue write-down of $17 billion and larger ones over the next two years. They would receive that advice from the Treasury, but they claim that that has not happened. It is just like the global financial crisis: it never happened. And now the revenue write-downs have not happened. Then, to go on with their fiction, they run around the place with a whole lot of figures that exaggerate spending. One of their criticisms is that we now spend $100 billion more in our budget than was spent when we came to government—ignoring the fact that the economy is 13 per cent bigger. The fact is that economies grow, but when it comes to our spending levels our spending levels as a proportion of GDP are about on an average with where they were when you were in government. But you insist, like you do with debt, on the spending side of the budget to go around and make all these extreme exaggerations. The reason you are doing it is that you are not going to put your policies out before the election. You want to be able to run around and claim: 'Oh, there's a spending problem. There's no revenue problem,' and try to get through an election campaign like Campbell Newman. If you get elected then you will slash and burn. That is what all of this is about. The SPEAKER 83S The Treasurer cannot use the word 'you'. Mr Pyne 9V5 Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You are not responsible for any of the things the Treasurer is talking about, and I ask him to at least try to maintain some decorum in the chamber after all his years of experience in this place. The SPEAKER 83S The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I think everybody can take some lessons about decorum in the chamber. I do remind the Treasurer of the use of the word 'you'. The Treasurer has the call. Mr SWAN 2V5 If you look at the facts—if we get them out there on the table—what they will show is that our expenditure levels are broadly, as a percentage of GDP, where they were when that mob over there were in government. So much for the spending problem. These are figures which are easily available. They are there, but they choose once again to exaggerate what is going on. We over the forward estimates have got spending growth of, on average, 1.1 per cent. Mr Pyne 9V5 Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We know the Treasurer is under a great deal of stress, but he has completely ignored your admonition from the chair. I ask you to draw him back to the standing orders. The SPEAKER 83S The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Treasurer has the call, and I do advise everybody. I know it is an arcane principle, but you are all speaking through the chair. The use of the word 'you' is inappropriate. Mr SWAN 2V5 I will just conclude with this one fact: the tax to GDP ratio this year is 21.5 per cent. When we were elected, the level we inherited from those opposite was 23.7 per cent. If we had that tax to GDP ratio that we inherited from them, that they had when they were last in government, we would be running a surplus of $6 billion and we would have increased revenue of $24 billion this year. That proves the fact there is a big revenue challenge. That is why we have taken the decisions we had to take: absolutely necessary to support jobs and growth. And God help us what would have happened if they were in government in these circumstances, because they would have slashed and burned, austerity for austerity's sake. They subscribe to the theory that you can cut your way to growth. Well, you cannot. That is what has happened in Europe, it proves that is wrong, but they have been captured by the mad Tea Party elements of the Liberal Party and the IPA. Public Transport 3270 14:30 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Can the minister please outline to the House the government's investment in public transport and why it is a smarter and fairer investment that helps address urban congestion and makes our cities more productive, sustainable and liveable? 14:31 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Moreton for his question and his ongoing support, particularly for the Cross River Rail project in Brisbane. This federal government has overhauled the way that the nation plans, finances and builds our infrastructure. We assess projects on the basis of Infrastructure Australia's advice, undertake cost-benefit analysis and work with state and territory governments to make sure that projects can be delivered. In terms of urban public transport, last night we announced the single biggest ever commitment to urban public transport by any federal government and it builds on the record funding where we have committed more to urban public transport since 2007 than all governments combined. In Brisbane, the Cross River Rail project is an absolute priority. As requested by the Queensland government, we have made an allocation of $715 million, to be matched by the Queensland government, with further support from future availability payments. This will open up services from Brisbane's north and western suburbs as well as the Sunshine and Gold coasts, and the project will make sure that an extra 17,000 people can travel on Brisbane's rail system during the peak periods. Being surprised by some of the Queensland treasurer's comments, I asked my department and Infrastructure Australia for some of the correspondence. That is what we have got; that is the work that has been done; that is how you do proper infrastructure development and funding. The SPEAKER 83S The minister will desist with the props! Mr ALBANESE R36 That is how we have complied with the requests of the Queensland government. In Melbourne, the Melbourne Metro project will similarly untangle the inner core of the rail network and open it up for the future. After ongoing discussions with the Victorian government, and in accordance with their requests, the budget allocated $3 billion for the Melbourne Metro project. Minister Mulder, the transport minister, said on Sunday, and I quote: 'It is our No.1 transport priority.' It will make sure that an extra 20,000 people an hour can travel on the Melbourne rail network. You cannot do an airport link, you cannot do an Avalon rail link, you cannot do the Doncaster rail line, you cannot solve Melbourne's congestion problems without this link. Here is the correspondence between the government, the private sector, Infrastructure Australia and the Victorian government outlining their requests for funding. We have a plan to support jobs and growth, to support public transport and to support our road infrastructure. (Time expired) 14:34 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The minister has talked about tackling urban congestion. How is the government working with the private sector to help deliver crucial transport projects sooner rather than later? 14:34 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler (—) (): I thank the member for his question. We have indeed worked with Infrastructure Australia in establishing a finance working group, chaired by Jim Murphy from Treasury and consisting of private sector representatives, to look at how, under the constraints that are there on fiscal positions of the federal and state governments, we could mobilise infrastructure spending now in order to get projects sooner rather than later. That is what we have done with both the Melbourne Metro and the Cross River Rail project: worked through with the private sector and the respective state governments to make sure that the funding takes into account that, whilst the construction time is short, the productivity benefits are long indeed. Hence the availability payment model, talked about by the private sector for a long time and delivered in last night's budget. Similarly, the negotiations we have had with the New South Wales government and Transurban regarding the F3 to M2 link—promised by the former government; nothing done. It has taken this government, $400 million from both levels of government with a contribution of construction being overseen by Transurban, to make sure that this missing link, which is of particular benefit to the Central Coast and the Hunter as well as to the freight network, is undertaken. This has been talked about for some time, and last night the federal government delivered. (Time expired) Mining Tax 3271 14:36 Mr IAN MACFARLANE WN6 Groom My question is to the Treasurer. I remind the Treasurer that revenue from the mining tax has collapsed by 95 per cent, causing forecasts to be revised down in this budget from $22.5 billion to $3.3 billion. How can the forecast for a surplus in the future be believed when it relies entirely on the mining tax revenue increasing by more than 10 times the level this year. 14:37 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley I am delighted to answer that question, because we on this side of the House are very big supporters of resource rent taxation. Indeed the PRRT, which was opposed by those opposite, has worked over time and raised something like $28 billion. It is true that the introduction of the MRRT has coincided with the biggest fall in the terms of trade that we have seen in years—17 per cent—and that commodity prices did crash, so it is not surprising that when you have a super profits tax little tax is paid when there are no super profits. That is just common sense. But I was asked about the forward estimates. I do not know where he got his from, but over the forward estimates it is estimated that it will raise $5.5 billion. That is what is estimated at the moment and, if you go through, it does move up as a result of improving conditions over the forward estimates. But it is not a surprise that at the moment, because of what occurred with commodity prices and our terms of trade at the end of last year, revenue should be substantially down now. That is what happens when you have a super profits tax. If the super profits are not there then they do not pay the tax. Those over there do not want any money from the MRRT because they are in the pockets of some very big mining companies. But the truth is that $5.5 billion is not to be sneezed at at all and the claim the member made about a proportion of the surplus in 2016-17 is just plain wrong. 457 Visa 3272 14:38 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy () (): My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Is the minister aware that the greatest jobs growth in Australian history was in WA and Queensland in the Charles Court and Bjelke-Petersen years? In both states all fly-ins, even intrastate, were banned. Does this not make an absolute mockery of the Liberals' claim that 457 visas are necessary? In light of the government body Australia Post employing hundreds of 457s for postal delivery, could he assure the House that these 457s will be terminated and Australians employed? In light of nearly 300,000 people registered for full-time employment in WA and Queensland, would he not condemn the Liberals for bringing in each year— (Time expired) Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S Order! The member's time expired several minutes ago. 14:39 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I thank the member for Kennedy— Mr Pyne 9V5 I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker, concerning a question to you on a point of clarification about the time limits. Clearly, there are time limits. The member for Kennedy ran out of time and then went on for at least the same amount of time. But how can the minister answer the question when he did not actually hear the question, but he seems to have a fully written answer? The SPEAKER 83S The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. This is not a point of order; it is debate. If he had such an issue, he could raise it with me after question time. The member for Kennedy will resume his seat. The minister has the call. Mr Katter HX4 Madam Speaker, on the point of order— The SPEAKER 83S The member for Kennedy will resume his seat. When I indicated that the member's time had expired, I hope you all noticed that his microphone was turned off. The minister has the call. If the member for Kennedy wishes to stay and hear an answer, he had better observe the standing orders. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG I thank the member for Kennedy for his question. I have a sense of what he was asking because he is interested in what happens to Australian workers. That makes him pretty lonely on that side of the House. I know that he makes the opposition uncomfortable, but he does at least— Mr Katter interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S Order! The member for Kennedy is now skating on thin ice! The member for Kennedy is seeking a point of order, and it had better be a point of order or he will not get to hear his answer! Mr Katter HX4 Madam Speaker, I am seeking a point of order because the Liberal leader accused me of having provided them with a question beforehand. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S Order! The member for Kennedy will resume his seat. I am not in the mood to ask the Serjeant to escort you, but I am getting there. And he might have some friends joining him on the way, Member for Paterson. I understand the member for Kennedy's concern about the interjection from the Manager of Opposition Business. I take it seriously, but the standing orders require the minister to be heard in silence. The minister has the call. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG The member for Kennedy has raised issues to do with workplace relations. That would make him the Lone Ranger on that side of the House when it comes to talking about the conditions of workers, so thank you. He was asking me about 457 visas, and there are three points I would like to make. First of all, this government believes that where there are jobs in Australia that can be filled by Australians, we should do that. We also believe in providing the best training opportunities for Australians. That is why we have spent a record amount on training Australians to take advantage of the jobs in Australia. He specifically asked about Australia Post, and I can reassure any anxiety he may be feeling. I understand that in the mail delivery area of Australia Post there are no 457 visas. I understand that when it comes to administrative functions there is a total of three 457 visas. I understand that in their business called Star Trek—StarTrack— Opposition members interjecting— Mr SHORTEN 00ATG No, Star Trek is what you guys have for industrial relations!—Australia Post employs a total of one person on a 457 visa. So the answer to the member for Kennedy's question is: there are none in mail delivery and I understand there are three in administration and one in StarTrack. What I can also tell him is that the Migration Council has said that seven per cent of 457 workers have reported that they are being ripped off compared to their Australian counterparts. This is a shonk and should be tackled, and we are tackling it. I can also conclude and tell the member for Kennedy who is expressing his views about the 457 visas that we are clear where we stand, just as we are in terms of workplace relations generally. What I can report to him, though, is what the Leader of the Opposition said on 27 April 2012 in a speech to the IPA—Alex Hawke's favourite book of reference—about 457s. He said that 'under a coalition government, 457s won't just be a component, they'll be the mainstay of our immigration policy'. Mr Katter interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S The member for Kennedy will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for New England has been giving him bad ideas. The member for Kennedy then left the chamber — Budget 3273 14:44 Mr LYONS M38 Bass My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. How is the government building a stronger economy with responsible savings measures that chart a pathway back to surplus and why is it important that we build a fairer society by making sure families and businesses have access to vital services? 14:45 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay I thank the member for Bass for his question. The budget handed down by the Treasurer last night set out a responsible plan to deliver a stronger economy by supporting jobs and supporting growth. But like all budgets, this budget involved a series of choices and since 2009 we have been making the choices to ensure that all of our new spending has been fully offset and in this budget we have set out $43 billion worth of savings measures. This budget outlines a 10-year plan to fund important investments to make our country a smarter and a fairer place, with investments in DisabilityCare Australia and investments in our plan for school improvement. But another important choice that we have taken has been to ensure that everybody pays their fair share, and central to that is our package of corporate tax integrity measures, cracking down on loopholes where multinationals are able to shift their profits offshore and to avoid paying their fair share of tax here in Australia. We have done that because we do not think it is fair that those companies be able to avoid paying their fair share and shift the burden onto other businesses that are doing the right thing and shift the burden onto mums and dads and families and small businesses across this country. But shortly we will be able to hear from the opposition about what choices they are prepared to take and whether or not they are prepared to stand up and crack down on these loopholes. Every time we have brought forward integrity measures to close loopholes in the tax base, they have come into this place and they have opposed them, so if you do not crack down on the loopholes you have to jack up taxes on those that are already paying their fair share or you have got to start to cut to the bone. When it comes to cutting to the bone I think we know what we are in for. At this stage of the cycle it might well be Downton Abbey Tony that we all see; that is what we will see. The SPEAKER 83S The minister will refer to members by their appropriate title. Mr BRADBURY HVW If they ever get the chance to get into government, we know exactly what we will see: what we have seen from Campbell Newman in Queensland. They will cut to the bone. They will cut pensions. They have already announced that. They will cut family payments. They will rip away the tax cuts that we have already delivered and that are in people's pockets and they will cut the Schoolkids Bonus. We believe in a fair system of taxation. We do not believe in allowing those that are ripping off the system to get away with it. We will take action and the Australian people will have a choice and that will be a choice between a government that has made responsible savings in order to invest in our nation and make it smarter and fairer, or going with an opposition that has no vision but a plan to cut to the bone. Budget 3274 14:48 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the 2015-16 and 2016-17 carbon price projections of $12.10 and $18.60 compared with the June 2016 forward price for European permits of A$5.57. How can the government carbon tax projections in the budget be believed over the next four years when the government's carbon tax projections over the last 10 months were overstated by 500 per cent? (Time expired) 14:49 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley This is part of a continuing campaign by those opposite to cast slurs on the Treasury, particularly to cast slurs on the Treasury because they have believed in a market price for carbon. The member knows only too well that the European carbon price has hit historic lows, and that is a fact and it has happened for a variety of reasons in Europe. Of course, that is now reflected in the floating price that has been projected by us when we come out of the fixed price period. But for him to somehow suggest that this is a slur on the forecasters, when in fact a market is operating like a market, just says so much about the modern Liberal Party. They do not understand markets either and it is no wonder they have got some form of direct action policy so that they are going to charge every Australian family $1,200, a new form of central planning and central intervention masquerading as policy from those opposite. So we do not apologise for a second for having a market based price and reducing carbon pollution in our society—and I said so in my speech last night. We will continue and proceed with our carbon-pricing regime because it is driving investment in alternative energy, particularly renewable energy, and it is giving us a clean energy future—and the contrast here with those opposite is quite stark. Mr Hunt 00AMV I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker, on relevance. The question to the Treasurer was: how can the government's figures be believed when they were overstated by 500 per cent over the last 10 months? The SPEAKER 83S The member for Flinders will resume his seat. The Treasurer has concluded his answer. Budget 3275 14:50 Mr SYMON HW8 Deakin My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation. How does this budget protect jobs, promote growth and build both stronger and fairer workplaces and, Minister, what are the obstacles to this plan? 14:51 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I thank the member for Deakin for his question. Last night's budget was about jobs. It was brought to you by a government that is committed to jobs, led by the Labor Party, who believe in creating and maintaining good jobs for people. There are a lot of positive choices which have been reflected in last night's budget. There is job-creating, productivity-building infrastructure, there is a hand-up for the unemployed, we make sure that there is a better education system to prepare our workforce of the future, we make sure that people with disability and carers finally get brought in from the cold and we are determined in this budget to help eradicate the scourge of asbestos and eradicate workplace bullying. That is the Labor way. That is the government way. We choose smarter, stronger, fairer workplaces. But there is an obstacle to smarter, fairer workplaces and we all know what that one is: it is the Liberal plan to reintroduce unfair individual contracts. Last Thursday they let the cat out of the bag. They hoped to sneak it in just before the budget so no-one would notice it. At the centre of Liberal workplace relations nostalgia are unfair individual contracts. For instance, last Thursday they said, 'We are going to allow employees to trade off monetary conditions for non-money remuneration'—just like Work Choices. Yesterday the retailers were gleefully celebrating that they can knock off penalty rates—just like Work Choices. Today is another day and another employer group is breaking the discipline which the Liberals are desperate to keep on the employers not to let the cat out of the bag. The Australian newspaper—and no doubt you will call them propagandists soon—reports an 'enthusiastic embrace' of Tony Abbott's proposed changes to extend hours and cut conditions. There you have it: the retailers, the hoteliers; you have got it in your own policy. It is just like the budget really—you get a choice to have a fair go all round at work or you can have a choice to cut people's working conditions to the bone. We understand, and Australia understands, much as those opposite wish it was not so, that you cannot trust Liberals on workplace relations. Just ask the retailers. They know. Just ask the hoteliers. They know what you are on about. Just ask everyone who ever lost their job under Work Choices. In fact, you only have to read Battlelines to see that Tony Abbott says it might have been bad politics but it was very good economics. We did not trust you then and we do not trust you now. Budget 3276 14:54 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer confirm that the budget reveals $3.1 billion in national partnerships and targeted program funding for schools will be cut but only $2.8 billion will be redirected to a new school funding model? How can the Treasurer claim that schools will be better off in the next four years when they are facing a $325 million cut? 14:54 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley Another question, another fiddle with the figures. There is $9.8 billion in this budget to implement the school improvement program, something that everyone on this side of the House is absolutely proud of. Of course, we know what is going to happen if we do not get this program implemented. What it is actually going to mean if the existing model that those opposite support stays in place and we do not get Gonski, the school improvement model— Mr Pyne 9V5 Madam Speaker, on a point of order: to be relevant he needs to address the issue of the next four-year cut, not the 10-year program. The SPEAKER 83S The member for Sturt will resume his seat. The member for Sturt is introducing argument. The Treasurer has the call. Mr SWAN 2V5 Madam Speaker, there is no cut. But I can tell you where the cut will be. In my home state of Queensland, if Gonski is not implemented, there will be a cut all right—about $2 billion to schools in Queensland under the Liberal Party policy, thereby proving the point that I made earlier. What the Liberals in this House are really on about is taking an axe to the social safety net and in particular to health and education because it is in their DNA. That is what they do. That is why we have had all this fiscal fearmongering today from them. Today we have a statement from former Prime Minister Howard who says that our debt levels are low. Former Prime Minister Howard can acknowledge the fundamental economic fact in this country but not those Neanderthals on the other side who want to implement a form of austerity in this country which will take the axe to health and education and jobs. Budget 3276 14:56 Ms O'NEILL 140651 Robertson My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. How does this budget build a fairer society by investing in Australia's world-leading cancer treatment and research? 14:56 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I thank the member for Robertson for that question. There is really not an Australian who has not been touched by cancer, who has not suffered it themselves, who has not seen a friend or a family member lost or undergo treatment that may be successful but is so harsh. Budgets are about choices. They are about alternative visions for the future. So while we have made responsible savings in this budget, we have also made a choice to invest in world-class cancer care. Australia's cancer patients now have the best overall survival rate in the world and we have a plan to build on that success with better research, better prevention, better treatment, more cures and better support for patients and their families. World-leading cancer care will make investments in cancers including breast, cervical, prostate, lung and bowel cancers to ensure that we continue to set the international benchmark. I am not sure why someone finds this funny. Mrs Griggs interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S The member for Solomon is warned! Ms PLIBERSEK 83M This new investment is on top of an unprecedented $3½ billion to combat cancer since 2007, like the brand new $39 million cancer centre at the Gosford Hospital which means that patients no longer have to drive to Sydney or Newcastle to get radiotherapy treatments for free. Women aged 69 to 74 will be invited to be part of our breast screening program. We estimate this will pick up an extra 600 cancers a year, and expanded investment in the McGrath Foundation Breast Care Nurses will support around 15,000 women and their families over the next four years. Improved bowel cancer screening over the next four years will see 5.4 million invitations to attend bowel cancer screening and around 1,370 critically ill patients will find it easier to get bone marrow transplants. Patients will have better access to more affordable chemotherapy drugs, helping 50,000 patients over just the next six months, noting that we have added 32 new cancer drugs to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme since 2007. There is new funding for CanTeen, the Australian organisation for young people living with cancer. There is four years more funding for the excellent prostate cancer research centres at Epworth in Melbourne and Princess Alexandra in Brisbane and new funding for the Kinghorn Cancer Centre in Sydney, because prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men in Australia and the second most common cause of cancer deaths. Lung cancer—the most common form of cancer death—receives $6 million, and there is $36.6 million for cervical cancer. Australians have the best overall cancer survival rates in the world. We want to keep it that way. We have chosen to invest. We have a plan for the future. (Time expired) Budget 3277 14:59 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook My question is to the Treasurer. I remind the Treasurer that illegal arrivals by boat have increased from two people per month in 2007-08 to more than 2,000 per month this year. How can the Treasurer credibly assume in the budget that the number of arrivals will fall in 2013-14 by almost 40 per cent, compared with the current year, and that the cost of dealing with arrivals will fall by half over the forward estimates when there is no sign of a decline in illegal arrivals by boat under this government? 15:00 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley I thank the member for that question, because we have fully accounted in the budget for all of the actual arrivals up to budget. We have also, in the budget, published the methodology for calculating the forecasts in the budget. We do these forecasts by taking advice from security agencies, impacts of future policies and the history of the issue. In the shorter term we take advice on intelligence and expected outcomes of government policy interventions and, of course, in the longer term we move to longer term averages. I want to make this point: the government have been blocked every step of the way by those opposite when we have sought to put in place the full suite of policies that is required to stop the people smugglers. Those over there are the best friends people smugglers ever had because they have actively blocked the attempts that we have put in place! Mr Pyne 9V5 Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is clearly deeply offensive to describe members of the opposition as the best friends that people smugglers have ever had when we stopped the people smugglers' business trade, and I ask the Treasurer to withdraw. The SPEAKER 83S The Treasurer has the call, and I ask him to withdraw. Mr SWAN 2V5 Our policies are designed to stop— The SPEAKER 83S Treasurer, I have asked you to withdraw. Mr SWAN 2V5 I withdraw. The SPEAKER 83S I thank the Treasurer. Mr SWAN 2V5 Our policies are designed to stop this evil trade and to stop the deaths at sea, but we need a full suite of policies such as the full suite that was recommended to us by the Houston inquiry. Part and parcel of that was the arrangement we came to with Malaysia, and they would not come to the party in this parliament. That has been a very substantial problem. So I made that statement before because they are culpable—very culpable—in terms of the current arrival rate. The government will do everything within its power to stem the boats—everything we can possibly do—but the one thing it will not do is tell lies to the Australian people, like the Leader of the Opposition about somehow turning boats back to Indonesia. He cannot do that, and he knows it. The SPEAKER 83S The Treasurer knows he cannot use that word. The Treasurer will withdraw the use of the word 'lies'. Mr SWAN 2V5 I withdraw. The policy that the Leader of the Opposition says he has is not one that is capable of being implemented, and he knows it. So it is a fiction that he puts before the Australian people. This government will do everything in our power to stem the flow of people coming through the people smugglers, including a suite of new policies that we are putting in place to do precisely that, and, when we bring them forward, we would like to have some support from the opposition. Families 3278 15:03 Mr MITCHELL M3E McEwen My question is to the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. What responsible decisions has this government made to ensure we have a fairer system to support families? What other approaches are there? 15:03 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga I thank the member for McEwen for his question, because this Labor government is about building a stronger and fairer society and one that has a sustainable family payment system—something that this side of the parliament is absolutely committed to. It was this government that delivered Australia's first national paid parental leave scheme. It is this government that has, of course, introduced the Schoolkids Bonus to make sure that when children are going back to school each year they get that extra support, and they get it from this government. We know that those opposite are intent on cutting the Schoolkids Bonus—clawing it back and taking it out of the pockets of every single family that depends on it. We will continue to make sure that families get the support that they need, and that is why we have made some difficult decisions—some tough choices—in this budget. We have decided that we need to make some changes to the family payments system, end the baby bonus and make sure that we better target support for newborns. So what we have done in this year's budget is make these changes that will still see the vast majority of families get an increased payment when they have a newborn as part of their family tax benefit part A payment. This new payment better reflects the essential costs of having a newborn baby. Many of the other families who will be no longer eligible for the baby bonus will be eligible for our paid parental leave scheme. We have made these changes because we know how important it is to fund the very significant investments that we intend to make in schooling for our children to make sure that right out into the future there will be the funding available so that every child in this country gets a great education. These are tough choices, but choices that this government has been prepared to make. The member for North Sydney talks about responsibility, talks about the need to make these sorts of tough choices in the family payments system, but when we put these to the parliament he takes them to his party room and gets rolled—not able to maintain any position. We know the latest debate that is going on inside the party room of those opposite is to do with the— Mr Pyne 9V5 Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Successive speakers over many years have ruled that it certainly is not within purview of cabinet ministers to discuss opposition policies let alone things that happen in another party's party meetings. The minister is completely out of order and you should draw her back to the question. The SPEAKER 83S The minister has the call, will be relevant to the question and should not be discussing issues outside her portfolio. Ms MACKLIN PG6 This government will make sure that families are looked after. We will make sure that we deliver the funding that all of the children in this country need to get a great education. (Time expired) Ms Gillard 83L I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 3279 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Pairs 3279 15:07 Mr SECKER 848 Barker Just before question time, Speaker, you would be aware that there was a vote on the coalition amendment to the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment Bill 2012, which was defeated 70 votes to 69. However, the member for Lilley and Deputy Prime Minister was meant to be absent due to an agreed pairing arrangement between the whips. I now have in my possession an email from the government whips office confirming that they will honour that pairing that was agreed for the Treasurer and the shadow Treasurer. I am happy to table that email or provide you with a copy. If that pair is honoured, the vote would have been tied—putting an entirely different result to the votes and proceedings of the parliament. Therefore, I request that you, Speaker, investigate and report back to the House. 15:08 The SPEAKER 83S I thank the member for Barker for drawing this issue to my attention. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 3280 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 15:08 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 83S Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented? Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Yes, grievously. The SPEAKER 83S Please proceed. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 In question time today, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations claimed that the coalition and I wanted to bring back individual workplace agreements. This is quite wrong. We support individual flexibility arrangements, more workable ones, and as the Prime Minister has said these are not individual statutory agreements. The SPEAKER 83S The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. DOCUMENTS 3280 DOCUMENTS Presentation 3280 15:09 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move: That the House take note of the following documents: Defence Force Discipline Act 1982—Director of Military Prosecutions—Report for 2012 Indigenous Land Corporation—National Indigenous land strategy for 2013-2017 Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 3280 COMMITTEES Law Enforcement Committee 3280 Membership 3280 15:09 The SPEAKER 83S I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip that he has nominated Mr McClelland to be a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement in place of Mr Hayes. 15:09 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler by leave—I move: That Mr Hayes be discharged from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement and that, in his place, Mr McClelland be appointed a member of the committee. Question agreed to. Selection Committee 3280 Report 3280 15:10 The SPEAKER 83S I present report No. 79 of the Selection Committee, relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday, 27 May 2013. The report will be printed in Hansard for today and the committee's determination will appear in tomorrow's Notice Paper. The report read as follows— Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business 1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 14 May 2013. 2. The committee determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation business and private Members' business on Monday, 27 May 2013, as follows: Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon) COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS Presentation and statements 1 Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security: Review of Administration and Expenditure: No. 10 — Australian Intelligence Agencies. The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 10.20 am. Speech time limits— Mr Byrne — 5 minutes. Next Member speaking—5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins] 2 Joint Select Committee on Cyber-Safety: Cybersafety for Seniors: A Worthwhile Journey. The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 10.30 am. Speech time limits— Mr Hawke — 5 minutes. Next Member speaking—5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins] 3 Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories: An Estate for the Future — The allocation of land to diplomatic missions in the ACT. The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 10.35 am. Speech time limits— Ms Brodtmann — 5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 5 mins] PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Notices 1 MR KATTER: To present a Bill for an Act to provide for warning labels in relation to imported food, and for related purposes. (Imported Food Warning Labels Bill 2013) (Notice given 12 March 2013.) Time allotted—10 minutes . Speech time limits— Mr Katter — 10 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins] Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. 2 MR WILKIE: To present a Bill for an Act to restrict the export of live animals for slaughter pending its prohibition, and for related purposes. (Live Animal Export Restriction and Prohibition Bill 2013) (Notice given 14 May 2013.) Time allotted—10 minutes . Speech time limits— Mr Wilkie — 10 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins] Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. 3 MR BANDT: To present a Bill for an Act to establish a Commonwealth statutory authority with responsibility for protecting and promoting animal welfare in Commonwealth regulated activities, and for related purposes. (Voice for Animals (Independent Office of Animal Welfare) Bill 2013) (Notice given 14 May 2013.) Time allotted—10 minutes . Speech time limits— Mr Bandt — 10 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins] Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. 4 MR BANDT: To present a Bill for an Act to prioritise Commonwealth funding of rail projects identified by Infrastructure Australia, and for related purposes. (Infrastructure (Priority Funding) Amendment Bill 2013) (Notice given 14 May 2013.) Time allotted—10 minutes . Speech time limits— Mr Bandt — 10 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins] Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Orders of the day 1 MS O'NEILL: Resumption of debate (from 11 February 2013) on the motion of Ms O'Neill—That this House: (1) acknowledges the inequity that exists within our communities in the provision of services to people with disability; (2) notes the high level of community engagement with the Every Australian Counts campaign for the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) and the DisabiliTEA events held around the nation; (3) supports the Government's focus on improving the standard of living for people with disability and their families through the introduction of a NDIS; (4) commends the Government for introducing the draft legislation that sets out a framework for the NDIS; and (5) notes that the first stage rollout will benefit more than 20,000 people with disability, their families and carers in the Hunter in NSW, the Barwon area of Victoria, and South Australia, Tasmania, and the ACT. Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon. Speech time limits— All Members—5 minutes. each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day. Items for House of Representatives Chamber (8 to 9.30 pm) PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Orders of the day 1 TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (DISCLOSURE OF MRRT INFORMATION) BILL 2013: (Mr Hockey): Second reading (from 18 March 2013.): Time allotted—60 minutes. Speech time limits— Mr Hockey—10 minutes. Next 3 Members speaking—10 minutes Other Members—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 10 + 4 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day. 2 MARINE ENGINEERS QUALIFICATIONS BILL 2013: (Mr Wilkie): Second reading (from 18 March 2013.) Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 9.30 pm. Speech time limits— Mr Wilkie—5 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day. Items for Federation Chamber (approx 11 am to approx 1.30 pm) PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Notices 1 M R PERRETT : To move: That this House: (1) opposes the Queensland Government's plans to cut local bus services in South East Queensland; (2) notes that these cuts will: (a) affect many vulnerable residents that can least afford it—seniors, pensioners, part-time working mums and dads and students; (b) have broader consequences, such as:    (i) negatively impacting on timetables for remaining services;    (ii) reducing access to Park'n'Rides and connecting train services; and    (iii) increasing the number of vehicles using on-street parking, clogging residential streets and putting more cars on local roads; (3) strongly supports better public transport in Queensland; (4) notes the: (a) changes are geared towards cutting 'community' bus services and moving towards a more profitable commuter service; (b) changes will create confusion and significantly increase travel time for commuters, and will be a backward step towards improving South-East Queensland's public transport network; and (c) Queensland Government's privatisation plans regarding other state-owned assets and government services, and condemns any move to sell-out Queensland's public transport network; (5) calls on the Queensland Government to rule out these cuts to South East Queensland's public transport system; and (6) notes: (a) the Coalition's failure to condemn these cuts despite the Federal Leader of the Opposition and Federal Shadow Treasurer recently making flying stops to Queensland; (b) that the Leader of the Opposition of the Brisbane City Council, the largest public transport bus provider area in Queensland, moved a motion calling on the Council to support residents who oppose these bus cuts and to reject the Queensland Government's planned bus routes cuts; and (c) the Brisbane City Council rejected the Queensland Government's planned local bus route cuts. (Notice given 14 March 2013.) Time allotted—40 minutes. Mr Perrett—10 minutes. Next Member speaking—10 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins + 4 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day. Orders of the day 1 NATIONAL ELECTRICITY BILL 2012: ( Mr Oakeshott ): Second reading ( from 29 October 2012. ): Time allotted—20 minutes . Mr Oakeshott — 5 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day. Notices - continued 2 MR TUDGE: To move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) Melbourne is suffering from a traffic congestion problem across the city and particularly on the Eastern Freeway and the Monash-CityLink-West Gate corridor; (b) without better infrastructure, this problem will worsen as Melbourne is experiencing the largest growth of all capital cities; (c) by 2020 it is estimated by the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics that the cost of traffic congestion in Melbourne will be $6.1 billion, double what it is today; and (d) as well as being an economic cost, congestion impacts on quality of life including time spent with family; (2) recognises that: (a) the Victorian Government has proposed the development of an 'East West Link' which would provide an alternate route across the city by connecting the Eastern Freeway with the Western Ring Road; (b) this East West Link would have significant benefits for Melbourne and Australia, as it would: (i) relieve bottle necks on the Eastern, Monash and West Gate Freeways and provide an alternative to the West Gate Bridge; (ii) improve freight efficiency by catering for growth at the ports of Melbourne and Hastings and increasing productivity by improving travel time reliability for freight; (iii) enhance Victoria's competitive advantage globally, improving the key industry centres and supporting the knowledge precinct in Carlton and Parkville; (iv) complete missing links between freeways to alleviate congestion and ensure travel time reliability for families and freight; and (v) reduce travel times, particularly for residents in Melbourne's east and west who travel to Melbourne to work; and (c) the Federal Coalition has committed $1.5 billion towards the construction of the East West Link; and (3) calls on the Australian Government to match the commitment of the Federal Coalition towards the construction of the East West Link as a vital piece of economic infrastructure for Melbourne. (Notice given 30October 2012.) Time allotted—60 minutes . Mr Tudge — 10 minutes. Next Member speaking—10 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins + 8 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day. 3 MR L. D. T. FERGUSON: To move: That this House: (1) recognises the accomplishments of 50 years of fruitful diplomatic relations between Peru and Australia, the continuing friendship between our nations and the contribution of Peruvian migrants in our nation building; and (2) notes: (a) the reopening of our Embassy in Lima in September 2010; (b) our: (i) shared democratic values in the context of a strong commitment to transparency, well‑established policy credibility and good governance structure and quality of institutions; and (ii) mutual emphasis on multilateral involvement exemplified by Peru's membership to the United Nations, World Trade Organisation (WTO), Organization of American States, Asia‑Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, Pacific Alliance and Forum for East Asia and Latin America Cooperation; (c) the roles of Herbert Vere Evatt and former United Nations Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar point to our mutual activity; (d) our similar activity on the free trade front and common membership of the Cairns Group, WTO and APEC; and (e) the: (i) visits to Peru by former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in 1975 and former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in 2008, and the visit of former President Alan Garcia Perez to Australia in 2007; (ii) November 2011 framework to promote Bilateral Consultations and Cooperation; (iii) presence at the 2011 census of 8,441 Peruvian born citizens in Australia and attraction of Peru to Australian visitors totalling 30,000 in 2011; and (iv) longstanding Australian mining endeavours in Peru, the growth of Peruvian student numbers in Australia and 56 Australian companies having an office in Peru or investment in a Peruvian project. (Notice given 13March 2013.) Time allotted—30 minutes . Mr L. D. T. Ferguson — 10 minutes. Next Member speaking—10 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins + 2 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day. Items for Federation Chamber (approx 6.30 pm to 9 pm) PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Notices - continued 4 MR BANDT: To move: That this House: (1) condemns the Government's $2.3 billion cuts to university funding and student support; and (2) calls on the Government to reverse the decision. (Notice given 14 May 2013.) Time allotted—30 minutes . Mr Bandt — 5 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day. 5 MR Hayes: To move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) Phelan McDermid Syndrome is a rare and debilitating disease that affects about 30 people in Australia; and (b) the condition is most commonly caused by the novo chromosomal deletion which results in a syndrome that is autism related; (2) recognises the important role the Phelan McDermid Syndrome Foundation has in providing support to families; and (3) acknowledges the: (a) physical, emotional and financial impact on families where a child is diagnosed with Phelan McDermid Syndrome; and (b) efforts of Megan Toole in raising awareness of this rare disease and supporting the affected families. (Notice given 7February 2013.) Time allotted—30 minutes . Mr Hayes — 5 minutes. Other Members — 5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day. 6 MR DUTTON: To move: That this House: (1) notes the concerns of key stakeholders in relation to the price reduction of chemotherapy drug Docetaxel and its potential broader impact on the treatment of cancer patients; (2) calls on the Government to: (a) negotiate with relevant bodies regarding the cost of dispensing chemotherapy drugs; and (b) ensure that the result of these negotiations will allow pharmacists to continue dispensing the drug, and other chemotherapy drugs, without disrupting patients; and (3) welcomes the policy of price disclosure of items on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, however calls on the Government to ensure that further disruptions to patients do not occur. (Notice given 28November 2012.) Time allotted—60 minutes . Mr Husic — 10 minutes. Next Member speaking—10 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 + 8 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day. Orders of the day - continued 2 M ARRIAGE EQUALITY AMENDMENT BILL 2012 ( Mr Bandt ): Second reading—Resumption of debate (from 18 March 2013). Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 9 pm. All Members—5 minutes. each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day. ********************* 3. The committee recommends that the following items of private Members' business listed on the notice paper be voted on: Orders of the Day— Fair Work Amendment (Better Work/Life Balance) Bill 2012 (Mr Bandt). BILLS 3285 BILLS Social Security Legislation Amendment (Disaster Recovery Allowance) Bill 2013 3285

Social Security Legislation Amendment (Disaster Recovery Allowance) Bill 2013

Reference to Federation Chamber 3285 15:10 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler by leave—I move: That the bill be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration. Question agreed to. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 3286 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Budget 3286 15:11 The SPEAKER 83S I have received a letter from the honourable member for North Sydney proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Government to properly manage the Budget. 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— 15:11 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney I confess that I genuinely wanted last night's budget to be a good budget. After five budgets of overblown rhetoric and broken promises from this Labor government, I believed that Australia's finances were in a mess. I wanted the Treasurer's sixth budget to set us straight. I expected he would come clean about the state of play. I expected that he would identify the reasons why the budget was in a mess and would admit that he had basically got the numbers very wrong—very wrong last year and the year before and the year before and the year before. I expected he would lay down a believable pathway to surplus, that he, as Treasurer, would restore the sustainability of the nation's finances. But I was disappointed, and I think many Australians were disappointed. I do not have any confidence that the numbers and the promises in the Treasurer's sixth budget are any more believable than they were in his previous five budgets. Last week, the Leader of the Opposition and I laid out benchmarks for what we believe would make a good budget. The first requirement was honesty. But straight-up in his budget speech last night, the Treasurer began the spin and excuses. Faced with his broken promise to deliver a surplus this year, he talked about the high Australian dollar 'weighing more heavily than expected on tax receipts'. As I said before, the one assumption the Treasurer got right in last year's budget papers was the Australian dollar. In last year's budget the four-year assumption that underpinned the numbers was an Australian dollar of US103c, and it has remained around there. In the previous budget it was a four-year assumption of 107c. In MYEFO, released last October, when he was still predicting a surplus, the Treasurer said: The exchange rate is assumed to remain around its recent average level … a [US] dollar exchange rate of around 102 US cents. The Australian dollar has subsequently been little different to the forecast—today it is actually weaker, under parity with the US dollar—so the Treasurer cannot use the Australian dollar as an excuse for his budget chaos. His own budget papers also show there is no shortfall in revenue. Next year revenue will be $80 billion higher than the last year of the coalition government—no shortage there—but spending will be $120 billion higher than the last year of the coalition. But in real terms, the fact is that in last year's budget revenue rose six per cent; this year it is projected to rise seven per cent; next year it is projected to rise 6½ per cent and so on. With any business that is having a six to seven per cent increase in revenue and is still under water, surely the directors would be sacked? But the government keeps overestimating revenue. Last year I described revenue forecasts as a 'magic carpet ride' in my address to the Press Club: an estimated $39 billion increase in revenue that would turn a $44 billion deficit into a $1.5 billion surplus. Of course, the government were wrong. Now they are basing forward estimates for revenue from the carbon tax and the mining tax on equally ridiculous assumptions. Net receipts from the MRRT are forecast to be just $200 million this year. That is less than 10 per cent of the $3 billion forecast in last year's budget. But, despite this massive shortfall and widespread views that the commodity price boom is fading, MRRT revenue is forecast to rise strongly over the forward estimates to $2.2 billion in 2017. So the government wants us to believe that revenue will be less than 10 per cent of the forecast this year but then will rise by a factor of 10 over the next four years. The forecasts for the carbon price also stretch credibility. The carbon price scheme links to the European system from 1 July 2015. Overnight, forward prices for European carbon permits in 2016 were at $5.57 at current exchange rates. The carbon tax revenue is based on $12.10 in 2016, a marked reduction from the originally forecast $29 a tonne. That looks pretty high. Surely, if you were preparing your budget numbers you would do it on the basis of what appears to be the most likely price today. Even stranger: the carbon price is projected to rise in a linear fashion to $18.60 in 2017 and back up to the model price of $38 per tonne by 2020. Mr Briggs IYU That's a floating price! Mr HOCKEY DK6 That is meant to be the floating price! But what is patently clear is that if they do not have a satisfactory floating market-based price they are going to reintroduce the tax! That is what their budget assumes. Fundamentally, they are changing policy in the budget. Spending relative to GDP will be higher in every year of the forward estimates than it was in the final two years of the coalition government. So the picture is clear: the government does not have a revenue problem; it has a spending problem. There is more. The Treasurer has made jobs and growth the centrepiece of his budget. He said: Two simple but powerful words are at the heart of our approach—jobs and growth. And yet, his own budget forecasts show the opposite. Real GDP growth is forecast in his budget to slow down to 2.75 per cent in 2014 and from three per cent this year. The unemployment rate is expected to rise to 5.75 per cent in the first two years, from 5.5 per cent today. So the budget comes along, and then he says: 'What spin am I going to put on it? Oh—jobs and growth!' The problem is that when he defined the spin he did not actually look at the budget, because the budget goes in absolutely the opposite direction! So promising jobs and then not delivering goes to the heart of the uncertainty facing so many families in Australia today. The forecasts for growth in nominal GDP also look optimistic. This goes to the heart of revenue. Nominal growth is forecast at five per cent in 2013 and 2014, and then even stronger—at 5.25 per cent—in the next two years. This is a much stronger rate of growth than has been delivered in the past year or so. But the Treasurer says, 'No, no—it's a hit on our revenues.' For example, the forecast for this financial year is growth of 3.25 per cent, and over the year to the December quarter nominal growth was only two per cent. If you bear with me, Madam Speaker, I need to get a little bit technical. Real GDP shows the volume of goods and services produced and then consumed in the economy in any given period. Nominal GDP shows the value of goods and services produced and consumed. The difference is the rate of growth of prices, measured in the case of a GDP deflator. The GDP deflator is different from our more commonly used price indicators, such as the CPI—the consumer price index—because, amongst other things, it takes into account the prices of exports. So forecasts of the prices of exports and the terms of trade are critical input into the forecasts of nominal GDP. What is surprising is that the budget forecasts the terms of trade to remain at very high levels over the next two years, with a negligible decline. I remind everyone that even at their lowest point under this government, the terms of trade are going to be much higher than they were at any time under the coalition. So the government's claims seem odd, because the terms of trade peaked in the September quarter of 2011 and have declined in every quarter since. They were 17 per cent below the peak in the December quarter last year. So while commodity prices picked up in the March quarter, showing that there are always swings and roundabouts, they have begun falling again. Many analysts suggest that the commodity price boom is now coming off the boil. In fact, in the budget papers they identified that iron ore prices are coming down to around $100 a tonne in the next two years in response to the increased supply of commodities in the global market. Yet, the government believes that this overall decline in prices will conveniently come to an end after two years. Why is this important? It is important because the assumption of continued high terms of trade feeds into the higher forecasts for nominal GDP. This, in turn, allows higher forecasts of company profits and taxes and, therefore, a better estimate of revenue for the budget bottom line. So, while the budget does not provide four years of forecasts of the terms of trade but it gives 15 years of expenditure in various areas, the robust near-term forecasts are a key determinant of the projected surpluses in the final years of the forward estimates. So the forecasts are very finely balanced. Sensitivity analysis suggests that a one per cent fall in nominal GDP owing to a fall in the terms of trade of just four per cent would wipe out any—any—budget surpluses this mob are claiming. That is the bottom line, and that is the risk in this budget. That is why we do not believe the numbers announced last night. The second requirement the Leader of the Opposition and I had was a realistic medium-term budget strategy within achievable fiscal rules. The core of the government's medium-term fiscal strategy is to achieve budget surpluses on average over the medium term. It is a worthwhile goal. However, the Treasurer has not told anyone what the medium term is. With seven years of deficits in prospect, what is the medium term? It may be a decade, two decades, a century, a millennium! We don't know. What we do know is that the two promised surpluses in the final years of the forward estimates are tiny: $850 million and $6.6 billion. And, as I have said, they are based on heroic assumptions. So his claim of a credible pathway to surplus is not honest with the Australian people. The third criterion laid down by the Leader of the Opposition and me was that the Treasurer must present a believable strategy for stabilising and then repaying the massive Labor debt. Unfortunately, the budget papers show that the debt continues to rise. The headline cash balance, which includes the NBN and the CEFC, remains in deficit throughout the forward estimates. We never had any project anything like what they are trying to offload off budget. This means that the government will continue to borrow more and more money over the next four years, totalling around $58.2 billion. With the expected face value of Commonwealth securities on issue of $256 billion as at June 2013, it suggests gross debt is likely to exceed the $300 billion limit not only within the forward estimates but probably in the next two years. This has been confirmed by third parties such as the National Australia Bank and UBS Australia. Yet we had the charade of the Treasurer in this place trying to compare apples with oranges and alleging that we were being misleading for the Australian people. Previously he has fronted this place and given a gross debt value, a gross debt level, according to the rules of the debt cap. Today he did not have the guts to do it. Why? He doesn't know or else he is deliberately misleading the Australian people. If this Treasurer does not know what the debt level is of this government, he is not fit to be the Treasurer of the Commonwealth. The government has flagged that it will legislate to increase the debt limit 'as it becomes necessary'. So they do not have the courage to front up with their budget papers that increase the debt without coming to this parliament and saying they are going to increase the debt level. What we do know is that the interest bill on this debt will peak at $13 billion a year—$35 million a day. That would cover the full cost of the DisabilityCare Australia program when it is fully operational. Fourth, the Treasurer must come clean on the taxation burden he is imposing. In the range of taxation measures announced last night, 60 per cent of the so-called policy savings over the forward estimates are in fact new or increased taxes. This government maintains the fantasy that it is a low-taxing government. But the fact is there are shortfalls in revenue thanks to the incompetence of the government and it is also added to by the massive borrowings and non-tax revenue. The average call on resources of this Labor government since its election will be 25.2 per cent of GDP. That is, it is utilising more than a quarter of the nation's output. That is big government. In contrast, our call on resources as a coalition was significantly less, at 23.4 per cent, because we did not borrow tomorrow's taxes to spend today. We didn't do that. We didn't borrow money like this mob. Therefore, we weren't leaving our children with the pain. This budget is flawed. This budget does not tell the truth. This budget is leaving a legacy of debt and deficit the likes of which Australia has never seen. Everything the Treasurer says and everything the Treasurer does is as unbelievable as all his previous budgets. Unfortunately, all Australia will have to pay. (Time expired) 15:26 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay It is great to be able to contribute to this MPI debate, albeit to the very flawed the proposition that has been brought forward by the member for North Sydney. The member for North Sydney asserts that the failure of the government to properly manage the budget should be the topic of discussion. It is extraordinary that, in the circumstances of the strength and the resilience of the Australian economy, the member for North Sydney, who has been prone to come into this place and go anywhere in the country to talk down the economy, would choose to do that once more. He wants to talk about confidence, yet in every utterance that comes out of his mouth he talks down the economy. Let us have a look at the Australian economy and the resilience of the Australian economy. We are 13 per cent larger today than we were before the global financial crisis. There is no major advanced economy in the world that has grown in that order of magnitude in that period of time. In fact, countries like the UK still have not got back to the starting line. They are in negative territory. Many comparable countries around the world have experienced consecutive quarters of negative growth. Here in Australia we continue to move ahead—21 years of continuous economic growth. When it comes to employment, we have created more than 960,000 jobs since we have been in office. The Leader of the Opposition says he has a plan. He doesn't have a plan; he's got a little blue book. For some reason, someone in a focus group somewhere told him, 'Whenever you are doing an interview, stick it up under your chin.' It does not add any economic ability to someone whose former boss said was economically illiterate. It adds no credibility whatsoever. The Leader of the Opposition is out there saying, 'If we get elected, in five years we will deliver a million jobs.' I have got to point out to him that in just over five years that is what we have delivered—and we had a global financial crisis, where around the world we are looking at about 30 million jobs having been lost. Here in Australia we have created almost a million jobs in that period. We did that because we took the right decisions at the right time. We stepped up to the mark and we invested in stimulus activity to keep people in jobs. The Leader of the Opposition, we all remember, was not even in the chamber. He was, in fact, asleep on the lounge in his office. The biggest economic challenge to face this country in a generation and where was the Leader of the Opposition? He wasn't the Leader of the Opposition at the time, but he was asleep on the lounge in his office. He did not even vote on it. So unlike some of his colleagues, like the member for Goldstein, who runs around when it suits him and says, 'Well, I voted against the stimulus,' the Leader of the Opposition cannot even say that, because he did not turn up; he did not vote. And this is the bloke that wants to stand up and ask the Australian people to give him the privilege of managing the Australian economy as the Prime Minister. We have outperformed every major advanced economy, whether in growth or in employment. Our unemployment rate is at 5.5 per cent. In fact, do not listen to me; listen to the former Prime Minister John Howard, who recently said: We are still fortunate that we have an unemployment rate with a five in front of it. I wouldn't have thought that was going to be possible a few years ago, and I don't think many people would. This is a ringing endorsement from the former Prime Minister John Howard, the man whose economic credibility the opposition say they want to reclaim—the mantle of economic credibility that he once had, as they suggest. He says the Australian economy is doing well. When it comes to overall performance, he says: When the prime minister and the treasurer and others tell you that the Australian economy is doing better than most, they are right. 'They are right,' he says. Do not listen to the opposition when it comes to the strength of the Australian economy. In fact, you do not even have to listen to us. Listen to the former Prime Minister John Howard—or, more importantly, listen to some independent voices in this debate. Have a look at what the ratings agencies have to say: a AAA credit rating from all three major global ratings agencies delivered under this government and reaffirmed in response to our budget handed down last night—never achieved under the former government. For all the talk about how good they were as economic managers in government, they could not achieve the trifecta of AAAs. We have got it, we have done it and it is about time it was recognised, because we have managed the Australian economy not just to deliver the sort of strength of performance reflected in those figures but to make sure that people have jobs and that the economy grows. Let us look at what some other commentators have had to say about the budget. ANZ have said, 'As was already well known, the deterioration in federal finances has largely been due to lower than expected revenues'—as we all know, except for the member for North Sydney. He reckons there is some mysterious explanation other than a deterioration in revenue. 'ANZ's assessment is that this is a budget broadly appropriate for the economic cycle. The substantial tightening of fiscal policy that would have been required to return the budget to surplus any earlier than outlined tonight would be too damaging to an already somewhat vulnerable Australian economy.' There you have it—ANZ. That sounded like a pretty strong endorsement of the budget to me. Do not listen to the member for North Sydney, the man who talks big when it comes to the age of entitlement. When he had his chance to confront a measure that we had taken in relation to trimming the baby bonus for second and subsequent children, he got rolled. Maybe the member for Goldstein, when he gets up and gives us his usual contribution, would like to tell us whether he was right there behind Joe. Were you right behind Joe? Did you help him out or did you get rolled too? If they could not make a responsible decision in relation to a modest trimming of the baby bonus, you have to ask yourself what hope they have. I could go through other commentators. Westpac said: The improvement in the budget position is appropriately gradual over the four years. …   …   … The Commonwealth Government's net debt position remains extremely manageable. It was not just Westpac that said that our debt position was manageable. I will just go back to former Prime Minister John Howard for one moment: And our debt to GDP ratio, the amount of money we owe, to the strength of our economy, is still a lot better than most other countries. In fact, if you look at the budget papers, our net government debt is about an eighth of the average among comparable major advanced economies in the world. So, when those on the other side come forward and want to start talking down the economy and the debt that we are lumbering future generations with, just remember that the whole world went through the global financial crisis. That is why it was called the global financial crisis. So you have to have a look at what happened across the globe. When you look at what happened across the globe, you can see that we came through stronger than anyone else. We punched through stronger than anyone else, and we are 13 per cent larger today than we were then, while others are struggling to get back to whether they were. We are creating more jobs, and now we are investing in the programs of the future. Mr Hunt interjecting— Mr BRADBURY HVW I hear the member for—I cannot— Mr Hunt 00AMV Flinders. You are an absolute genius—one of life's greatest geniuses! Mr BRADBURY HVW Flinders. I hear him make a little interjection. He is a man who has all of the credibility you would expect from someone who wrote his PhD on pricing carbon to tackle climate change and then, when he gets a chance— Opposition members interjecting — Mr BRADBURY HVW Look, at least the member for North Sydney went into the shadow cabinet and put the case. He got rolled, but he put the case. The member for Flinders does not even know what he stands for. The bloke went through three years putting together a thesis. I would hate to think what he got for a mark, but he put in three years of effort and his conclusion was that, if you want to do this, the most effective and efficient way is to price carbon. Most people stick their hand up and run for parliament because they want to make a difference. They want to take their values and enshrine them in the law of the land. But some people— Mr Ian Macfarlane WN6 Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I am reluctant to do this, but the reality is that the MPI is about the budget, and this stream of personal attacks by the Assistant Treasurer has nothing to do with the MPI. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 I thank the member for Groom for his point of order. I was myself on the point of bringing the minister back to the MPI before the House. Mr Hunt 00AMV This is the best you can do? Hey, mate, it was an undergraduate thesis on zinc, cadmium and lead—undergrad on zinc, cadmium and lead. So you've just misled. Mr BRADBURY HVW Matters that go to carbon pricing are very adequately set out in the budget. I thank the member for Flinders for his suggestion that this has been an undergraduate contribution. I will get back to his postgraduate contribution, which was back when he believed in actually doing something to tackle the problems of the planet. But now he is more interested in self-promotion, and that means within the Liberal Party that you do not get ahead if you assert the valid view that you tackle climate change by pricing carbon. So he has put his own interests and self-advancement ahead of the duty that each and every one of us in this place has to bring the values that we believe in, enshrine them in the laws of the land and make this country a better place. That is what we have done on this side. When it comes to economic management, I have to say that, for all the facts and figures that the member for North Sydney wants to blurt out, you did not hear him talk about the tax-to-GDP ratio. The tax-to-GDP ratio, where we look at the size of the economy and the tax that the government is collecting as a percentage of the size of the economy, is the best measure of the tax burden. It is considerably lower today than it was when we came to office. It was 23.7 per cent when we came to office; that is what the Howard government was taxing people at. It is 21.5 per cent in the current year. They talk about the tax burden. As a percentage of the economy, this government is collecting less than 22 per cent of GDP in tax collection; they were collecting almost 24 per cent. If we were taxing at the same rate as they were when they left office we would be in a comfortable surplus, but the reality is there have been revenue write-downs and cyclical and structural factors that we face. In terms of some of the structural factors, we have put in place a proposal to tackle some of the profit-shifting activity that has been going on, where big multinationals shift profits into low-tax or no-tax jurisdictions to avoid paying their fair share. I speak to many of these companies and they point out: 'This is not a question of morality; we are doing what is legal.' I say, 'Well, I don't think it's very moral.' They say, 'If you don't think it's very moral, you're the law-maker—change the laws.' You know what? That is what we are proposing: to change the laws so that we can make sure that multinational enterprises, which are some of the most profitable enterprises in the globe and profiting from economic activity occurring here in Australia, are paying their fair share—like all the mums and dads that head off to Penrith station in my electorate at five o'clock in the morning to head into the city to work each day. They pay their fair share of tax. The small, home based business in Glenmore Park is paying its fair share of tax, but these big multinationals often locate their profits in tax havens or low-tax jurisdictions and avoid their obligations. We want to stop it. But every time we have brought an amendment into this place—and we have brought $11 billion worth of them—what have those opposite done? They have voted against it. If there is a rort, a rip-off or a loophole they will be in there trying to protect it. This goes to a question of values. We believe we have to crack down on these loopholes and that is what we are doing. I do not have a lot of time left and in the time left to me I must take the opportunity to talk about the high-taxing ways of those opposite, and the latest iteration of their high-taxing tendencies is this paid parental leave tax. Tony Abbott is a man who can absolutely be believed on parental leave questions because, when he was last in office as a minister of the Crown and had a chance to do something, he said, 'When it comes to parental leave it will happen over my dead body.' Over my dead body! What a commitment he had to parental leave when he last had a chance. But now he has this you-beaut, mickey mouse, Rolls Royce version where a woman on $1 million a year can take $75,000 for that period while she is on leave. There are people all around the country who will never earn $75,000 a year. And who is going to pay for it? Companies. Remember: this is the mob that told you, 'It is a great, big, new tax and when you tax a big company it's going to flow through and be passed on in higher prices and we'll all pay, so you don't tax big companies—you actually tax all of us.' That is what they told us, but all of a sudden they are proposing a great, big, new tax. They say it is fully funded. A 1½ per cent levy on 3,000 companies will not fully fund their program. They are going to have to jack up that tax or spread it on to more and more people. See the member for Goldstein—body language is a great thing!—as he starts to have that nervous itch and twitch. He knows that this is a shambolic policy. He knows it is a sham and that, if they are going to deliver it, they are going to have to jack up taxes by more than 1½ per cent on those businesses and that will mean higher costs for consumers. (Time expired) 15:41 Mr ROBB FU4 Goldstein That was another very cerebral contribution by the Assistant Treasurer, I do not think. There is an old rule: when you are incapable of defending your position, go the man. We just had 15 minutes of that. You would think, after the presentation of the budget, you would get something more substantive than what we have just heard from the Assistant Treasurer, but you cannot blame him. The Treasurer never fronts to these debates. He is incapable of defending himself so we have just had that contribution. This budget is a sea of red ink. For this reason it carries no hope—a failing compounded by the thread of fundamental dishonesty running through this budget document. This budget is built on shifting sands because it continues the practice of recent years of being blatantly overoptimistic about revenue forecasts. For several years now we have seen the government basically assuming that the terms of trade would stay at these 150-year historic levels. They have consistently created estimates which are unrealistic and overstated. Then they spend that money and, when that revenue is not realised, they say they have to fix the books—that they have been whacked in their revenue forecasts; they have had a hit to revenue. The surpluses are a mirage—simply not believable—because once again they have blatantly overestimated the revenue forecast. The budget assumes that the terms of trade are basically going to flatline. The terms of trade are still at very historically-high levels. They are still 15 percentage points above their highest point under the Howard government—the golden years, as we are often told by those opposite. But the terms of trade are still 15 per cent higher. I have spent half my life in the commodity markets and I know what goes up, comes down. What this government has assumed for years now is what goes up does not come down—and yet commodity prices will not collapse but will start to head back to more normal levels. This budget ignores that fundamental reality of the market, that commodity prices will start to head back to more normal levels. As a consequence, those surpluses are meaningless and are, once again, built on quite false and overoptimistic forecasts. This budget is built on shifting sands, because it grossly misrepresents the cause of the budget blow-outs. All through the budget papers the Treasurer blames the high Australian dollar and low commodity prices for the budget blow-out and for the so-called 'hit to revenue'. We hear it again on the radio, we see it in the papers, we hear it on the television—the high dollar taking a sledgehammer to their revenues. We hear the endless rhetoric about how their revenues have been hit to leg by a high dollar and commodity prices coming off. As the shadow Treasurer mentioned in his remarks, the fact of the matter is that about the only thing that the budget last year accurately forecast was that the dollar would stay high, at around $1.03, and that the trade-weighted index would be around 77. In other words, quite clearly, the government anticipated 12 months ago what would be the exchange rate all year and what would be the trade-weighted index all year. Those numbers were exactly what the Treasurer and the Treasury thought they would be. So how can you now claim that the dollar and commodity prices have hit their revenue to leg? Mr Ewen Jones interjecting— Mr ROBB FU4 It is the spin—it is the disingenuous way in which this budget presents its numbers and its arguments. So all the breast-beating by the Treasurer about the 'huge revenue whacks out of the blue' and about the 'doggedly high dollar taking a sledgehammer to revenue' is all a fabrication, designed to avoid blame for Labor's real problem, namely, the profligate spending of this government. The revenue this year is $80 billion greater than that of the last year of the Howard government, yet spending this year is $120 billion greater than that of the last year of the Howard government. That says it all! This government does not have a revenue problem—revenue is going up seven per cent—it has a spending problem. I would like to see any household that would not be happy with a seven per cent year-on-year increase in revenue. I would like to see any business that would not be happy with a seven per cent year-on-year increase in revenue. The budget is built on shifting sands, because it has embedded within it a debt landmine—a rate of growth of debt that will threaten our AAA credit rating, a rating that was so hard won by the Howard government and a rating and an economy that got this country through the global financial crisis in good order. That is what got us through the global financial crisis: an economy that was inherited by those opposite, an economy which had no debt and which had money in the bank, an economy which had unemployment with a four in front of it, and an economy which had people who had had a 22 per cent increase in real wages over the previous 11 years. The economy was in an unprecedented position. That is what got you through the global financial crisis, along with the automatic stabilisers. Now we have a debt landmine, five years later, buried inside the budget. We have a rate of growth that will threaten our AAA credit rating, a rating threatened by the sea of red ink represented in this budget, which will push gross debt through the $300 billion debt ceiling, as confirmed by the Treasurer this afternoon. This budget is built on shifting sands, because it is a budget which greatly underestimates, by many billions, the real loss of revenue of various measures, such as the cost of dealing with illegal boat arrivals under Labor's policies and the loss of revenue through the collapse of the carbon price and the mining tax revenue. Labor claim that their asylum budget costs will fall by 50 per cent over the forward estimates to less than $1.5 billion under their failed policies. That is clearly absurd. If Labor simply spend what they budgeted for next year over the forward estimates there would be an additional blow-out of $4 billion. Once again, they are just making it up. The numbers of boat arrivals grow every week and every month. What Labor have allowed for in the current budget is inadequate, given a blow-out of $4 billion this year with respect to boat arrivals. They have consistently underestimated, and again in this budget, so many of the costs in so many areas. This budget is built on shifting sands and it houses fundamental dishonesty about so many things. It is why the business sector sees it as a budget which embodies no coherent strategy to create jobs and growth or to provide certainty, nothing to restore an appetite for risk and investment and nothing to restore consumer and investor confidence. Consumers and business people alike know that continuing on with our fragile budgetary and debt position exposes Australia to any hard landing in China, which could feed quickly through to export earnings, unemployment, defaults and difficulties with bank financing, foreign investor confidence and Australia's debt levels. It is why this debt, this constant sea of red ink, is undermining confidence. It is why people are not spending and why investors are not investing. It is why there is great nervousness about unemployment and the future. There is another way: the government must stop taxing, borrowing, spending and regulating and start living within its means. The growth and the role of big government that we saw in this budget last night must be displaced by fostering robust growth of our millions of small and large businesses and by restoring consumer confidence to spend. Government must, once again, provide a measure of certainty and stability. 15:51 Mr RIPOLL 83E Oxley This budget is all about choices and responsibility. This budget keeps our economy strong, makes smart investments for our future and ensures every Australian gets a fair go. It is about supporting jobs and supporting growth, and we are doing that by investing in infrastructure, investing in the real economy, investing in people, investing in the things that make a difference, investing in the things that keep the Australian economy ahead of other economies, investing in the things that give us a future and put this budget on a sustainable path to surplus. That is what this budget is about. It is an honest budget about where we sit in the global economy, about what has happened over the past five years with our fiscal position—where Australia is in terms of its revenue base. We have made the structural changes, the big reforms. We have taken responsibility. We have made the hard decisions—not always politically palatable, not always the sorts of things you do in your own political interest but the things you do in the national interest, the things that have to be done. That should always be the measure of a government. It should always be the measure of a budget—doing the right thing by the economy, doing the right thing by Australians, doing the right thing by our kids in terms of education, looking after the most vulnerable in society through DisabilityCare, making the tough choices. There is one thing that always comes to mind. When tough choices have needed to be made, no matter where the economy was at, no matter what time period it was in Australian history, it was always left to Labor governments to make those decisions. There was never going to be a good time for universal superannuation, but Labor did it because it was the right thing to do by the economy and the right thing to do by workers. On every other call, on every other hard decision, it is always us who are left with the responsibility—which we take—to make those tough decisions. We saw it again last night in the budget. We saw the tough decisions. It does not matter who is in government; the revenue write-downs will be exactly the same. The difference here is the choices you make. That is why this budget is about choices. That number will be the same whether it is us or them getting that information from Treasury. It will be the same Treasury officials, the same Treasury, the exact same people who provided the Howard government with their figures, data and analysis for 11 years. But the choices will be different because we have stepped up to the plate and put a stronger economy, jobs and growth first. If people have a job, they have a chance. That is why there is hope. That is why we still have a good economy. I actually say to people that is why we have an economy. I talk, as most people do, with people from all walks of life and international visitors who come to this country, and they cannot believe it. They look at our economy and say, 'We would give our right arm for an economy like yours.' A strong economy where unemployment is around five per cent is not good enough but certainly good in the current global environment. It was once considered full employment. I would like to think that means a lot of people are still in jobs. Since we came to government, our economy has grown by 13 per cent. Compare that to every other economy in the world: the United States, Japan, Germany, France and anyone in the EU. Their economies have grown by barely one per cent over that same period. Ours is 13—hence why we still have jobs and economy, hence why interest rates are at historic lows in this country. I will never forget that when the Howard government was sitting on this side of the table they promised that interest rates would always be lower under a Liberal government. Wrong. That has not been the case. They are lower under us. We have kept the economy strong and we have kept interest rates low. We have also kept inflation under control. Inflation is low as well. How does that translate to the ordinary person in the street? It means they have a job. Their mortgage is less. It means there is more investment in their children's future and their families because we support them through the money we have spent in education. We support them through better quality infrastructure in schools which everyone can see every day. It means we have paid for more, better quality teachers, for more programs and for special assistance where kids need a hand up because some kids do it a bit tougher than other kids. We have put money there as well. It is about delivering a fairer economy, not just a stronger economy. Plenty of people can look after themselves, but a government's responsibility is to everybody, not just the strong. It has to be fair as well, and that is what we have done. So, yes, it is a tough budget. Yes, we have had to make the tough calls on savings—$42 billion worth of savings at the same time that revenue write-downs are around $60 billion over the forward estimates. That is a lot of money to make up, but we have stepped up to that challenge. We have made the necessary savings. We are not going to cut to the bone. We are going to pull up short of where the mob on the other side want to go, and that is cutting to the bone. We have seen it in Liberal state governments. We have seen it in my state of Queensland, and that is easy to translate on the ground into massive, instant job losses and a stop in investment. Ports that were about to be built were stopped. No-one wants to pay for them anymore. There is no leveraging of government funds to leverage the private sector to invest in ports. Instead you just see a halt. At the same time that we see commodity prices coming off and a need for government to step up to the plate, what does the Queensland Liberal state government do? It stops the investment. It halts the growth. It cuts the jobs. It does the exact opposite of what you need to do. You need to invest in your people. You need to invest in skills. You need to invest in jobs and growth. And it is not just rhetoric; you do it through budgets. You do it through programs, through skilling Australia. What did we do when we came to government in 2007? Some of the very first things are two that I am really proud of. One is that we made our first major investment in people who receive the age pension. We accepted and recognised that they were falling massively behind and we made a massive structural change, indexing age pensions properly, not handing out $500 cheques before an election, not piecemeal payments to people who have worked all their lives for Australia, for the economy, making a contribution. We did it properly so it would be indexed and permanent, and no government in the future can take it away. The other major thing we did to keep the economy strong is invest in infrastructure. We set up the Building Australia Fund. We set up Infrastructure Australia. We did not just talk about it; we actually built roads. We actually build rail. We actually build ports. My good friend the member for Blair reminds me of the Ipswich Motorway—not that I need reminding of the Ipswich Motorway! But the reality is that we fought tooth and nail for over a decade to get that project up. In 2007 there was a local referendum on a lot of things, but there was one in particular on that road. It was: 'You vote for Labor; you get the road. You vote for the Liberals; you get nothing.' You get a pipe dream of some alternative bypass which was uncosted, unfunded and engineers were telling me was going to cost twice as much if it ever got built. And we have a good news story to tell. We have a further good news story to tell in this fiscally responsible budget. We have put more money on the table. We are signing an agreement with the Queensland state government. I do not care what colour they are; I want to deliver for the people of Queensland, and we are going to put $290 million to finish off the Ipswich Motorway job. Yes, it is tough times, yes, you have got to make savings, yes, you have got to cut in the right areas, but you need to invest in the right areas at the same time. That is stronger, with jobs and growth; that is smarter, by investing in schools and education and investing in our future; and that is fairer, because DisabilityCare—just like we did with Medicare—is looking after the most vulnerable in society and making sure that we have got a fair economy that delivers for everybody. That is what we are doing. What an absolute sham it is when the other side come in here with this disingenuous matter of public importance: 'The failure of the government to manage the economy.' What did they do to manage the economy when it was their opportunity to step up to the block? Let me tell you what they did during the GFC: they opposed every single measure that the government put forward to support jobs and families. Every time they were dragged kicked and screaming, but opposed every single measure to keep jobs. Since we were elected to government, 960,000 jobs have been created in this economy. Every other economy in the world has lost jobs—globally it is millions of jobs—but in Australia we bucked the trend because government had the tenacity to make the investments. Yes, that does mean borrowing. It is good borrowing, and our national net debt position is a healthy one. It is as simple as that. It is around 11 per cent and it is affordable; we can afford that. Where are we spending that money? We are spending it on ensuring that we have a strong economy, a fair economy and a smarter economy. I will never begrudge the money where we have spent it: on kids, education, infrastructure and jobs. It has been spent on making sure that we actually have a path to the future, a path to surplus—delayed, yes, but a path to surplus. The only time a AAA rating has happened is under a Labor government—with all three ratings agencies, AAA. The big test was last night: what were they going to say about our budget when it was analysed at an international level? They retained our AAA ratings across the board because it is a strong budget, a responsible budget, a fair budget, a smart budget and it helps people get through the global crisis we are all facing. (Time expired) 16:01 Mr TONY SMITH 00APG Casey This matter of public importance on the budget, on the day after the budget, now follows a new pattern in the House of Representatives. We have a Treasurer who will not front for the MPI. We have a Treasurer who will not front to the parliament and will not front to defend his budget. This is a curious thing. As I was watching the Assistant Treasurer front for the Treasurer, who does not deign to come to this place to talk about a matter of public importance, I wondered: is it because he thinks his budget is of no public importance? Is it that he just does not want to talk about his budget to the parliament? This Treasurer, year after year, refuses to debate his budget as a matter of public importance the day after the budget. The interesting thing is that—as someone reminded me—when he was the shadow Treasurer he did not want to move the MPI either. One year, famously, on the day after Peter Costello's budget there was no MPI on the budget. You do not need to take my word for it because, thanks to the former Chief Government Whip—the member for Hunter, Mr Fitzgibbon—we know about this. He told his then friend Mark Latham, who wrote about it. He wrote about how, in 2005, Wayne Swan as shadow Treasurer refused to move the matter of public importance the day after the budget because he was—too nervous, or too busy? It became a big talking point, and now he is the Treasurer he will not come in for the MPI. Here we are debating his budget. It is a budget that strings together one aspect of consistency, I have to say, and that is that every year, with this Treasurer, the question is: how much will he miss by? My friend the member for Wannon has heard me recite how much he has missed by on every deficit projection. I will not labour the point. The only thing you can say with this budget is that people are already looking back and seeing how much he missed by, and looking ahead and asking the question: how much will he miss by again? What is that mathematical calculation you should factor in—the Swan factor—to adjust immediately every figure he puts out and everything he says. As the shadow Treasurer said, in rough terms it is about $20 billion on the budget. That is basically the miss. In the year gone, as we all know, the deficit was $44 billion. A year before he said it would be $22 billion. This year we were told on 360 or more occasions that there would be a small surplus and, of course, there is about a $20 billion deficit. As the shadow Treasurer pointed out, this government does not have a revenue problem. Its problem has been that it has overforecast. That is his problem. As the shadow Treasurer and the member for Goldstein pointed out, revenue is going up this year. It is going up six per cent, it is projected to rise seven per cent in the following year and nearly seven per cent in the year after. It is worth actually looking back at their overoptimistic projections. Before I forget, just today the member for Hunter said, 'It has always been my approach to underpromise and overdeliver,' in reference to the Treasurer, who does precisely the opposite. But let us nail this absolute falsehood from this government that they have had a reduction in revenue. They have had an increase in revenue. The problem is that their overoptimistic forecast was not that they waited to see, but that they spent all the money. If you look back at last year's budget—and it is a good table to look at because it gives a very factual account, and the Prime Minister says that she likes to talk about facts—at what they promised and what happened, if you were to believe the government you would be looking for this decline in revenue. In the 2012-13 budget the 2011-12 estimated outcome was about $330 billion for receipts, and for the 2012-13 year the Treasurer thought that the increase in revenue would be about $36 billion—which would go up to about $368 billion. It did not stay at $330 billion. It has not declined from $330 million. It went to about $350 billion. It increased by quite a bit. As the member for Goldstein said, this government does not have a revenue problem; it has got a spending problem, and if you look at what they said they would spend and what they actually spent, the figures tell the story. They have spent more than they said they would, and I will not bore the House with every single figure. The problem with the Treasurer is that he is about to do it all again. His exhibit A is his mining tax, the mining tax that in the first six months collected about $120 million when it was going to bring in billions. We found out last night that it will raise $200 million. As my friend and colleague in the other place the shadow Assistant Treasurer pointed out, that is an incredible 95 per cent below the Treasurer's original $4 billion revenue forecast that he issued before the last election. Having missed it by that much—and as I have said before, you can only imagine the word pictures that this Treasurer presents on missing targets—what this budget says is that in about four years time, it will bring in about $2.2 billion. That is the year he says we will return to surplus. This Treasurer's past is his future and it is this government's pattern. All the time it leads to deficit upon deficit, a promised surplus that is a broken promise, replaced with a promise of being achieved in a few years time. As long as this Treasurer is in office, it will always be in four years time until he takes all the steps to ensure that it is pushed out and out and out. The upshot is more deficits and more taxes to try to fill the hole he has created and of course much, much more debt. Net debt was not zero. It was $45 billion in the bank when this Treasurer began. We are now seeing in the budget papers the $147 billion peak that we used to talk about becoming the peak net debt in 2015-16 being close to $191 billion. Add $45 billion to that and he is on his way to a quarter of a million turnaround. This is a failed budget with a Treasurer that will not even front. 16:12 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fraser It is my pleasure to rise on this matter of public importance to speak about the strength of the Australian economy and the important choices that this budget makes. The Australian economy is performing strongly by international standards. As previous speakers have noted, we have grown 13 per cent since 2007. It is a period when the United States has only grown a couple of per cent and when all of Europe has actually shrunk. The European economy is smaller now than it was then. Australia's economy has moved up the rankings from being the 15th largest to the 12th largest in the world. We have seen faster productivity growth over recent years than we saw under Work Choices, giving the lie to the notion that all that stands between Australia and stellar productivity performance is cutting back workers' entitlements. We have seen the sharemarket up. In fact the sharemarket is up more than 10 per cent just this year. You do not have to take my word for that. As former Prime Minister John Howard has noted: … our debt to GDP ratio, the amount of money we owe, to the strength of our economy, is still a lot better than most other countries. Former Prime Minister Howard has been willing to speak the truth on this. While the member for North Sydney used question time to fearmonger about debt, former Prime Minister John Howard has acknowledged that Australian debt levels are low. In fact the Leader of the Opposition himself has a debt to income ratio well over 200 per cent, so it is hard to see why he would envisage a debt to income ratio of 11 per cent as being unsustainable. If we go back to 2009, we had the Leader of the Opposition telling Lateline that Labor's stimulus package was 'not going to stop the recession being long and deep'. He was of course completely wrong about that. Thanks to the stimulus package, Australia avoided going into recession entirely. We did that because we did not cut back on government spending when the private sector turned bad. Two-thirds of the debt that Australia took on was due to revenue write-downs with just one-third being due to the stimulus spending we put in place. So when you hear those opposite fearmongering about debt, they are really saying that the Australian government should have cut back when the private sector was cutting back. That would have led to a long and deep recession of the kind the Leader of the Opposition forecast incorrectly in 2009. Mr Deputy Speaker, if you believe those opposite, you would believe that coalition governments spend more, tax less and have less debt than this government. Indeed, I even heard a voice from one of those opposite. 'Yes, we can do that,' they said. The problem is it is mathematically impossible. You have got to make choices. You actually have to make choices—and our budget does that. We make difficult choices but they are responsible savings measures: $430 billion in savings adding up to $180 billion in savings under this government. We understand those trade-offs. It is not sure those opposite do. Those opposite have a fiscal crater which was $70 billion before the revenue write-downs and now, with nearly $20 billion of revenue write-downs, it must surely be in the order of $90 billion. Part of the reason they have that is their unfair paid parental leave scheme, which gives the most to those who have the most. Of course, you do not need to hear my criticisms of this scheme, which may cost between $12 billion and $17 billion over four years, as you can simply go to those opposite. The member for Mitchell said it did 'not pass the fair-go test'. The member for Tangney said he was 'aware of a number of colleagues that have similar concerns on this policy'. The member for Moore said, 'The Labor Party scheme is quite good.' He said he was not sure 'why it is necessary to go to this level and how it will assist productivity'. The member for Wentworth said he was 'not going to comment on whether it should be reviewed or not'. Senator Cormann said that he is yet to announce how they will fund it, and they have not released the costings yet. Peter Reith goes further. He just says 'it is obviously bad policy'. Nick Minchin: 'I have been on the record many, many times as saying that I'm not a supporter of the paid parental leave scheme of the opposition.' He says, 'I think Tony and the opposition should now put that in the aspirational category.' And Peter Costello says, 'My view is that it is a very generous scheme.' Well, yes, it is generous, but it is generous to the most affluent; it is not generous to the neediest. The opposition leader claims that he can pay for paid parental leave with a 1.5 per cent impost on Coles and Woolies customers. The trouble is that was predicated on company tax revenues being up and we have seen company tax revenues being written down, so 1½ per cent likely does not cover the cost of the opposition's unfair paid parental leave scheme. It is likely they would have to increase company taxes and therefore increase grocery prices by even more. They have claimed that the tax increase combined with parental leave could even save the affected businesses money. But, unfortunately, business leaders have quickly come out to say that this did not fit the mathematical test—again similar to the claim that they can increase spending, cut taxes and pay down the debt faster. The opposition leader could not name a single business that would be better off under his parental leave scheme, because there is not one. It is no wonder that former Liberal leader John Hewson said the opposition leader has no interest in economics and called him 'innumerate'. That brings me to the opposition's soil magic plan, a direct action plan which they originally said would cost $3 billion over four years and now will cost $2 billion over three years. But that is at odds with the costings of independent experts. The Grattan Institute say that it will cost $100 billion to achieve the coalition's emissions reduction target via soil magic, with $1,300 in new taxes because the opposition will not deal with foreigners in order to combat climate change and that again drives up the cost. If they were serious about this policy, they would submit it to the Parliamentary Budget Office for scrutiny. They would come clean with the Australian people. They would not go around making statements like the Leader of the Opposition has made that 'we will spend no more and no less on reducing emissions than we allocate'. The fact is that something has to give. Clearly the opposition cannot both meet its budgetary targets and meet its emissions reductions targets. It will have to do one or the other. Then there is the coalition's $30 billion policy to construct dams. That shows the priorities of the coalition: $30 billion on a very odd dam scheme which seems to bear a curious resemblance to a major coalition backer's plans to develop the north. But there are no plans for investing in the education of Australia's children and no plans for paying for disability care. The opposition want to spend $1½ billion on drones, another thought bubble. When I first heard of this policy I thought we should just remind them that their coalition with the Nationals still remains strong. So there is $1½ billion on drones apparently and there is $10 million for upgrades to the opposition leader's football club, Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles, and there is $400 million for a green army. I could go on all day but the coalition's fiscal woes are the result of saying yes to every special interest and no to every sensible revenue-raising measure. What the opposition leader must do tomorrow night is come into this place and back Labor's responsible saves. He must come into this place and he must say that he backs our revenue measures, because if he does not then all he has done is dig deeper into his $70 billion crater—and, as advice goes, when you are down deep the best thing you can do is stop digging. The opposition leader could stop digging by backing Labor' measures to get rid of the baby bonus and replace it with a targeted $2,000 for those on family tax benefit part A. He could back our company tax changes which see a fairer and more responsible company tax system being put into place. He could back the series of these measures but then he would still have to make swingeing cuts. When he is asked about his cuts he likes to speak about the cuts that he will make in my electorate of Fraser and the 20,000 Canberra public servants that he will get rid of. But that is only a small drop in the ocean compared to the budget gap that the coalition leader finds himself in. He wants to give tax cuts to big miners and big polluters. They have been guaranteed. But he does not want to provide tax cuts to the Australians who are at the bottom of the income spectrum. He is going to reverse Labor's cuts to superannuation contributions taxation for low-income earners. He is going to reverse our tripling of the tax-free threshold. Both are policies that will disproportionately hit women. Budgets are about priorities and values. It is time for the opposition leader to show tomorrow night where his are. 16:22 Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM Cowper I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter of public importance in relation to the 2013-14 budget announced by the Treasurer last night. This is a budget that does nothing for regional Australia. What last night's budget speech confirmed to all Australians is that this government is in chaos. It has no credibility and it has no plan for the future of Australia. Despite all the government finger-pointing and spin about why their budget is in tatters, the reality is the responsibility for the chaos which has engulfed this government rests with the government itself. Over the past five years federal Labor have borrowed more than $260 billion and saddled future generations with a mountain of debt. They have lost control of our borders which is costing Australian taxpayers billions of dollars each and every year. They have wasted billions on school halls, pink batts and the rollout of broadband infrastructure. As a result of this waste and mismanagement, last year we saw the Treasurer desperately attempt to lay out the government's plan for a future return to surplus. Indeed it was a very wafer thin surplus. The plan was based on assumptions that no credible commentator accepted and that most Australians just did not believe. As the member for North Sydney highlighted this time last year, the federal Labor government will never deliver a budget surplus because what we know about federal Labor governments is that they have no respect for taxpayers' money and they do not know how to manage programs. It therefore came as no surprise when, less than six months into the current financial year, the Treasurer broke another promise and dropped the government's commitment to return to surplus. Since then the forecast deficit has continued to rise as cost blow-outs and further economic mismanagement paralyse the government's leadership. Any inkling of credibility that remained soon evaporated as the government's deficit forecasts continued to rise in the lead-up to last night's government Swan song. Despite manipulating the figures and using every trick in the budget book last night, the government confirmed that the $1.5 billion surplus was now a $19.4 billion deficit—a $21 billion turnaround which came on the back of deficits under this government of $27 billion in 2008-09, $54 billion in 2009-10, $47.5 billion in 2010-11 and $43.4 billion in 2011-12. Yet, despite this, the Treasurer last night stood up in this place for the second consecutive year and claimed the government had a new road map of how to return to surplus. It will not happen this financial year. It will not happen next year. This financial year we have an $18 billion deficit forecast. But apparently through the magic of manipulation the Treasurer wants the Australian people to believe that a small surplus of $800 million will be delivered in 2015-16. The truth is that no-one honestly believes this government and no-one honestly believes the assumptions that this government has based its claim on that the budget will eventually return to surplus in 2015-16. The majority of Australians know they simply cannot trust this government, and today I would like to demonstrate how last night's budget confirms why. Last night we again saw the government making all sorts of wild claims about funding for the Pacific Highway. Minister Albanese distributed a media release claiming that over the next 12 months work would commence on at least five new projects on the Pacific Highway. These five projects were in addition to existing projects. The new projects had a cumulative cost of more than $3 billion. Such a substantial commitment would be very welcome, if only it could be believed. Despite Minister Albanese's media release, when you go through last night's budget papers there is not one mention of the Pacific Highway and not one extra dollar of funding detailed in the 2013-14 budget papers. There is not one mention of the Pacific Highway in the budget papers, yet there is a media release from the minister claiming that more than $3 3 billion in projects is set to commence. The government is treating North Coast residents as mugs. They are playing with people's lives, all for the sake of a headline. This is symbolic of what is wrong with this government and why they are in such a mess. Their addiction to policy by press release has got them into all sorts of trouble and this is just another example. The truth is that funding for future projects on the highway is in limbo because of a stand-off between the Commonwealth and the New South Wales government. When the O'Farrell government was elected to office, the federal minister, Minister Albanese, immediately tore up the 80:20 Pacific Highway funding model which had previously existed between federal Labor and the state Labor government. Instead the minister began insisting on fifty:fifty funding and as a result there is a $4 billion funding black hole which has to be filled if the road's duplication is to be completed. Since changing the funding arrangements we have seen the federal government concoct all sorts of excuses for changing the funding model. The most recent came from the federal member for Page, who was put on the spot after the Gillard government announced that it would fund upgrades to the Bruce Highway based on the 80:20 model with the Queensland government. When the member for Page was asked why the same funding formula did not apply in New South Wales, this is what she told Prime Television News on 30 April: It is not part of the Australian National Network, that the Bruce Highway is, and to those highways the contribution (from the State) is 20 per cent, but it is 50/50 for the Pacific Highway. The member for Page either does not understand the existing classification of the Pacific Highway or she is deliberately misleading her constituents because the Pacific Highway has been included in the National Transport Network since 2005. This map here in my hand clearly illustrates that fact. I would like to table that document in due course. As the map shows, the National Land Transport Corridor clearly does include the Pacific Highway, as it does the New England Highway. As a result of the 2005 determination by the Howard government to include the Pacific Highway on the national network, billions of dollars in federal funding have been invested in the duplication of that road. So the member for Page needs to explain to North Coast residents why she is not being honest about the status of the highway. The extent that the government is going to in order to mislead North Coast residents is a clear concern. When you look at the member for Page's lame excuse, then you witness the spin and deception which has emanated from this government, North Coast residents have every right to be concerned about the Gillard government's commitment to completing the highway upgrade. The real fear here is that behind all the spin the government actually intends to either cut funding for the highway or defer the funding for the highway. The member for Page and the member for Lyne, who have been conspicuous with their silence about the absence of any mention of the highway in the 2013-14 budget papers, must give North Coast residents a guarantee that funding for the highway will not be cut or deferred. They should explain how each project, which the minister claims are set to commence, will be funded in the next financial year. Despite the chaos from the government, I am pleased to say that there is a better way. The coalition, if elected, will provide the strong economic management that the residents on the North Coast of New South Wales are seeking and we will also deliver the funding required to complete the duplication of the highway. We have announced and are committed to $5.6 billion. When combined with the New South Wales government's commitment of $1.5 billion that will deliver the funding necessary to complete the duplication of the road. That is $4 billion more than could possibly be delivered under the current funding arrangements. Australians know they simply cannot trust anything this government says. They clearly understand, as businesses clearly understand, that they expect governments to live within their means. Last night's speech by the Treasurer was essentially a summary of all of the government's broken promises and a display of all of the incompetence involved in getting from the position that this government inherited—a budget surplus, money in the bank—to a situation where a budget is being delivered that provides deficits as far as the eye can see. The 2013-14 budget papers show that this government has failed to detail a credible plan for our nation's future, and they really clearly show why this government is regarded widely as the worst government in this nation's history. Whether it is cost of living, border protection or the Pacific Highway, this government has simply run out of ideas and excuses as to how to address its policy failings. The sad reality is that all Australians are paying the price for this government's incompetence. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 As there are no further speakers, the discussion has concluded. COMMITTEES 3305 COMMITTEES Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry Committee 3305 Report 3305 16:32 Mr ADAMS BV5 Lyons On behalf of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry, I present the committee's report on the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry's annual report 2011-12, the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities' annual report 2011-12, Caring for our Country and Landcare, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee. In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper. Mr ADAMS BV5 by leave—In considering these annual reports, the committee was particularly interested in the Caring for our Country initiative, which is jointly administered by both departments. The operation of the community based natural resource management program Landcare was also considered by the committee. Caring for our Country is a large and complex program designed to assist in the management of natural resources. The program receives substantial funding from the Australian government. Phase 1 of the program was established in 2008. At the conclusion of this first phase a review was undertaken in 2012. The results of stakeholder feedback, as part of the review, were considered when developing the second phase of the program. This second phase, supported by $2 billion of Commonwealth funding, is due to commence in July 2013. In implementing phase 2, the Australian government has sought to improve the clarity of program administration and decision making by channelling the initiative into two separately administered streams: an agricultural sustainability stream and an environmental stream. The committee focused on the review of the program released in 2012. The review, while largely positive, found a number of areas that could be improved, including the monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement framework. It also found that additional consultation is needed in the setting of outcomes and targets. These should consider scientific and community experiences and account for the knowledge and expertise of regional natural resource management organisations. Ongoing management of natural resources is a critical investment in Australia's future. The need to manage pests and weeds in natural environments also warrants priority attention. It is also vital that natural resource management projects be monitored to enable resources to be spent wisely. In this regard, we examined aspects of the National Reserve System—Australia's network of protected areas. The inquiry focussed on joint land acquisition arrangements for the scheme where the Commonwealth provides two-thirds of the purchase price and the land manager provides the remainder. Our report calls for clarity in circumstances where a land manager becomes unable to discharge their contractual obligations to conserve the designated land. Community engagement in the decision-making process underpins natural resource management. Local communities and those with local knowledge play a vital role in the identification of weeds and pests and identify potential new conservation projects. The community should also play a role in how resources are allocated to identify those projects. The report also encourages an improvement in mechanisms for sharing project outcomes. The provision of this shared knowledge should ensure that future natural resource management projects are better assessed and managed. The committee made one recommendation, calling on both agencies to inform the committee once the new Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Improvement Strategy relating to the Caring for our Country initiative has been published. We look forward to examining the new strategy and hope the agencies will also note the committee's comments through the rest of the report. On a final note, we were pleased to see the departments embracing the use of new technology. In particular, the use of mobile devices to engage with communities to identify potential projects was commendable. Such initiatives should continue and be improved as technology continues to develop. I would like to thank the members of the committee for their work in relation to the inquiry—the member for Bass on my left; the member for Hume, the deputy chair—the committee staff for their assistance in preparing the report, and I also thank the departments for their cooperation. I commend the report to the House. Human Rights Committee 3306 Report 3306 16:38 Mr JENKINS HH4 Scullin On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights I present the committee's sixth report of 2013 entitled Examination of legislation in accordance with the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011—Bills introduced 18-21 March 2013—Legislative instruments registered with the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments 16 February-19 April 2013, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper. Mr JENKINS HH4 by leave—The sixth report of 2013 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights sets out the committee's consideration of 34 bills introduced during the last parliamentary sitting week, 492 legislative instruments registered with the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments—the FRLI—during the period 16 February to 19 April 2013, and 29 responses from ministers and private members and senators to comments made in various previous reports. The committee has identified 18 bills that it considers require further examination and for which it will seek further information. The committee also considered the Native Title Amendment Bill 2012, which had been deferred from the committee's first report of 2013, and will seek further information in relation to this bill. The remaining 16 bills do not appear to give rise to human rights concerns. The committee has identified 14 legislative instruments for which it will seek further information before forming a view about their compatibility with human rights. The committee has decided to consider two instruments as part of its examination of the Stronger Futures package of legislation. Seventy-four of the instruments considered do not appear to raise human rights concerns but are accompanied by statements of compatibility that do not fully meet the committee's expectations. The committee will write to the relevant ministers in a purely advisory capacity providing guidance on the preparation of statements of compatibility. The remaining 403 instruments considered do not appear to raise any human rights concerns and are accompanied by statements of compatibility that are adequate. The committee has concluded its examination of 26 bills and instruments for which it received responses. For the most part, the responses have addressed the concerns raised by the committee and have provided detail which could usefully have been included in the statement of compatibility. In a number of cases the committee has not been able to reach a concluded position on the compatibility of the bill or instrument with human rights as the response has not addressed the committee's questions. The committee has decided to seek further information in relation to three of the responses received. A number of legislative instruments introduced during the period under examination in this report have the effect of expanding the operation of the primary enabling legislation. The committee has previously expressed its expectation that where a bill or legislative instrument expands the operation of existing legislation, or confers existing powers on new entities, the relevant statement of compatibility will include an examination of the compatibility of the existing legislation with human rights. The committee considers that an analysis of the legal effect and practical impact of legislative instruments requires consideration of the statutory framework of which they form part. The committee notes that this approach contributes to the committee's performance of its mandate under the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 to examine acts for compatibility with human rights. Four instruments considered in this report seek to expand or extend the operation of the Extradition Act 1988 and the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987. The committee has therefore taken the opportunity to ask the Attorney-General to provide the committee with an analysis of the compatibility of those acts with human rights. The committee notes that it may be desirable for the committee to undertake a full examination of these acts for compatibility with human rights in the future. In the case of one other legislative instrument, the committee has underscored the significance of its concerns in relation to a range of human rights issues by noting that where the committee is not satisfied that human rights concerns have been adequately addressed within a legislative instrument, it may consider taking the precautionary step of giving notice of a motion to disallow the instrument. This is not a step that the committee would take lightly. The committee remains optimistic that most of the concerns raised in its reports can be dealt with in a satisfactory and timely way to enable the committee to conclude its examination of the legislation while it is still before the parliament, in the case of bills, or before the expiry of the disallowance period for legislative instruments. In this context, I would like to acknowledge receipt of responses from the Treasurer in relation to the Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2013, which the committee considered in its fourth report of 2013, and from the Minister for Health in relation to the Biosecurity Bill 2012, which was considered in the committee's first report of 2013. Both the Treasurer and the minister have noted that the provisions in relation to which the committee had expressed human rights concerns are broader in scope than intended. The Treasurer has advised that he will progress a government amendment to address the specific concerns the committee has raised, and the Minister for Health has undertaken to review the scope of the relevant provision. The committee will publish the Treasurer's response in its next report to the parliament. In the meantime, I thank both the Treasurer and the Minister for Health for their timely and positive responses to the committee's concerns. Finally, I acknowledge that by any standards this is a very large report. This is unavoidable, given the volume of legislation and correspondence considered in it. However, it does highlight that members and senators and others who follow the committee's work may have difficulty accessing the material contained in this report easily. The committee is cognisant of the need to continually improve the presentation of its work to increase efficiency and accessibility. Fortunately, the reports on the committee's website facilitate direct access to the committee's comments on particular bills or legislative instruments. The index to the pdf version of the report includes hyperlinks to each individual bill and instrument considered, and the html version of the report, which will be available shortly, provides an alternative means to access individual bills and instruments. On behalf of the committee: given the size and number of bills and legislative instruments, it is really important that I acknowledge the hard work that was done by secretariat staff and legal advisers to the committee. We appreciate the diligent manner in which this was carried out. This was of great assistance to the efficient conduct of the committee's duties. I commend the committee's sixth report of 2013 to the House. BILLS 3308 BILLS Corporations and Financial Sector Legislation Amendment Bill 2013, Corporations Amendment (Simple Corporate Bonds and Other Measures) Bill 2013 3308

Corporations and Financial Sector Legislation Amendment Bill 2013

Corporations Amendment (Simple Corporate Bonds and Other Measures) Bill 2013

Report from Committee 3308 16:46 Ms O'NEILL 140651 Robertson On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services I present the committee's advisory reports together with the evidence gathered by the committee on the following bills: Corporations and Financial Sector Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 and Corporations Amendment (Simple Corporate Bonds and Other Measures) Bill 2013, incorporating a dissenting report. In accordance with standing order 39(f) the reports were made parliamentary papers. Ms O'NEILL 140651 by leave—I commence my remarks by addressing the Corporations Amendment (Simple Corporate Bonds and Other Measures) Bill. On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I present the committee's report on the Corporations Amendment (Simple Corporate Bonds and Other Measures) Bill 2013, together with the evidence received by the committee. This bill has two distinct schedules that deal with, firstly, simple corporate bonds, and secondly, with the use of the terms 'financial planner' and 'financial adviser'. I will address simple corporate bonds first. In November 2009, the Johnson report, titled Australia as a financial centre—building on our strengths, identified the lack of liquidity and diversity in Australia's corporate bond market as a weakness in Australia's financial system. To assist in the development of the retail corporate bond market, the Johnson report recommended a reduction in the regulatory requirements on corporate debt issuance to retail investors. In December 2010, the government announced the Competitive and Sustainable Banking System package that identified the bond market as a key element of the long-term safety and sustainability of the financial system. In 2012, parliament passed the Commonwealth Government Securities Legislation Amendment (Retail Trading) Bill 2012. The legislation enables retail trading in Commonwealth government securities depositary interests on the public exchange in order to foster the development of the retail debt market. This bill continues the development of the retail debt market by reducing the regulatory requirements on issuing simple corporate bonds identified in the Johnson report, while also retaining appropriate investor safeguards. The bill will make three changes to the current arrangements for issuing corporate bonds. First, the bill offers a streamlined disclosure process through a two-part prospectus for corporate bodies wishing to issue simple corporate bonds. Second, the bill allows simple corporate bonds to be traded on the ASX, using the same depositary interests mechanism that exists for Commonwealth government securities. Third, the bill removes deemed civil liability for directors in relation to simple corporate bonds. This removes the need for directors to carry out due diligence on the two-part prospectus used to issue simple corporate bonds, and therefore reduces the costs involved with a bond issue. Importantly, investor safeguards are maintained by ensuring that simple corporate bonds adhere to a set of qualification criteria that ensure they are long-term, low-risk, and relatively stable sources of income for investors. Another measure in the bill clarifies the due diligence defence that is available to directors in respect of criminal liability regarding the offering of all securities. This bill will benefit Australian businesses by making it easier to access alternatives sources for raising funds within the domestic market, and it will benefit retail investors by allowing them to diversify their portfolios with bonds that provide relatively safe and stable returns. The second part of the bill complements the government's Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) reforms that aim to improve the quality of financial advice, and protect consumers. The bill addresses concerns that consumers may be influenced by unprofessional and inappropriate advice from unlicensed persons such as 'property spruikers'. The bill strengthens protections for consumers by enshrining in law the terms 'financial planner' and 'financial adviser' and restricting the use of those terms to those persons that offer personal financial advice in relation to designated financial products and that operate under an Australian Financial Services Licence. The bill makes it an offence for unlicensed persons to portray themselves as financial planners or financial advisers, and enables ASIC to take action against unlicensed persons using the defined terms. In effect, the bill will help consumers by clarifying where they can go to get personal financial advice, and it will improve consumer confidence in the financial advising industry. Both sections of this bill received broad support from industry. The committee recommends that the House passes the bill. I would like to thank the industry bodies and the officers of the Treasury who assisted the committee during the inquiry. I commend that bill to the House. I now turn to the tabling of the report into the inquiry into the Corporations and Financial Sector Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. This is a response to the 2008 financial crisis, which prompted calls for financial regulators to review the regulatory framework underpinning domestic and global economies. A central cause of the crisis was the largely unregulated derivatives market, which had grown rapidly. This market was conducted on both public stock exchanges and in private through over-the-counter derivative transactions. In 2009, the G20 agreed to progress measures to strengthen the international financial regulatory system. As a follow-up to its G20 commitments, the government asked the Council of Financial Regulators to undertake a consultation and review of the existing regulatory framework. The Corporations Legislation Amendment (Derivative Transactions) Act 2012, known as the DT act, was enacted in December 2012 to implement the Council of Financial Regulator's recommendations and to address Australia's G20 commitments. The DT act provides a high degree of flexibility to facilitate the adjustment of Australia's over-the-counter derivative requirements in response to international regulatory developments. Under the framework, obligations may be imposed through delegated legislation and regulatory rules. The bill complements this framework by amending a variety of acts to introduce a range of miscellaneous measures related to the regulation of over-the-counter derivatives and other financial products. First, the bill would amend the Payment Systems and Netting Act 1998 to provide legal certainty in the event of a default or insolvency of a trade participant. In those circumstances, a central counterparty may protect itself against the consequences of default by moving the transaction of a failed participant to another, solvent participant. This process is known as 'porting'. Without the amendments, insolvency law would allow an external administrator to intervene and stop or unwind porting transfers. The measures provide legal certainty to these transactions, which will generally be required in crisis situations. These amendments ensure that the Australian legislative framework is consistent with international developments, including in the United Kingdom, and are intended to increase the stability of the financial system. The second measure in the bill would provide some discretion to ASIC and the RBA in terms of reviewing certain licence holders, while also prescribing specific licence holders for ASIC and the RBA to assess annually. During the committee's inquiry, stakeholders noted that the proposed amendments would allow ASIC and the RBA to better prioritise resources and ensure that attention is directed to primary areas of focus, including large retail markets. The third measure in the bill would enable ASIC to share information with pan-European regulators, putting beyond doubt ASIC's ability to render assistance to those regulators in their administration and enforcement of foreign business laws. The intention is to promote better enforcement outcomes in Australia and abroad, and this is consistent with our G20 commitments. These commitments require countries to adopt harmonised and cooperative arrangements to ensure transparency and to manage risk in financial markets. Other measures in the bill would formalise ASIC's annual reporting commitments in relation to its use of information-gathering powers. These amendments are intended to broadly align ASIC's reporting obligations with those of other regulators, such as the ACC. The bill also proposes measures that would assist RBA officers to share protected information for regulatory purposes and allow the RBA to impose confidentiality restrictions on persons to whom protected information is provided. These amendments are intended to assist the RBA in collaborating with domestic and international regulators and are modelled on the provisions available to APRA in its legislation. Stakeholders noted that due to the increasing globalisation of markets, effective sharing of information is necessary, both in normal operations and in times of crisis, and at a domestic level and an international level. Another measure in the bill would enable the Clean Energy Regulator to share protected information with licensed and prescribed trade repositories. These amendments are intended to promote transparency and to assist with the operation of markets on which carbon credit units may be traded. The committee acknowledges that there remains significant scope for Australia to implement the 2009 G20 commitments further. This includes increases in trade reporting, central clearing, and exchange and electronic platform trading. The committee also recognises the ongoing consultation being conducted by the Australian regulators and commends them for their very strategic approach. The committee views the measures in this bill as representing practical steps towards implementing Australia's G20 commitments regarding over-the-counter derivatives. The measures are broadly supported by the Australian regulators and financial industry. The committee recommends that the House pass the bill. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank the industry bodies and experts, and the officers of the Treasury, the RBA and ASIC that assisted the committee during this inquiry. Given the significant numbers of pieces of legislation in this area that have been referred to the joint parliamentary committee, I would also like to thank the members of the committee secretariat who worked on this inquiry: Dr Richard Grant, Alistair Cadman, Madeleine Willis and Kate Campbell—and Patrick Hodda, of course who made a fantastic contribution. I commend the reports to the House. Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Compliance Measures No. 2) Bill 2013 3312

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Compliance Measures No. 2) Bill 2013

Report from Federation Chamber 3312 Third Reading 3312 16:58 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. Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Inbound Cargo Security Enhancement) Bill 2013 3312

Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Inbound Cargo Security Enhancement) Bill 2013

Report from Federation Chamber 3312 Third Reading 3312 16:58 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. Court Security Bill 2013 3312

Court Security Bill 2013

Report from Federation Chamber 3312 Third Reading 3312 16:59 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. Court Security (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013 3312

Court Security (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013

Report from Federation Chamber 3312 Third Reading 3312 17:00 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. Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2013 3313

Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2013

Report from Federation Chamber 3313 Third Reading 3313 17:01 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 Measurement Amendment Bill 2013 3313

National Measurement Amendment Bill 2013

Report from Federation Chamber 3313 Third Reading 3313 17:02 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. Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Military Compensation Review and Other Measures) Bill 2013 3313

Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Military Compensation Review and Other Measures) Bill 2013

Report from Federation Chamber 3313 Third Reading 3313 17:02 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. Social Security Legislation Amendment (Disaster Recovery Allowance) Bill 2013 3313

Social Security Legislation Amendment (Disaster Recovery Allowance) Bill 2013

Report from Federation Chamber 3313 Third Reading 3313 17:03 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. COMMITTEES 3314 COMMITTEES Membership 3314 17:04 The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The Speaker has received two messages from the Senate informing the House of a change in membership of certain joint committees. I do not propose to read the messages, which will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Service Providers and Other Governance Measures) Bill 2012 3314

Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Service Providers and Other Governance Measures) Bill 2012

Consideration in Detail 3314 17:04 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I ask leave of the House to move a motion to suspend standing orders to enable the House to divide again on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Service Providers and Other Governance Measures) Bill 2012. Leave not granted. Mr ALBANESE R36 I move: That in accordance with standing order 132, standing and sessional orders be suspended to enable the House to divide again on the question viz.: That the Opposition amendments be agreed to. I move this motion consistent with the positions that were put in place as part of parliamentary reform in what is an unusual parliament in terms of Australia's historical position. Historically, of course, governments have had absolute majorities on the floor of the House of Representatives. When the Australian people made their determination in August 2010, they chose that that would not be the case. As a result, discussions took place in good faith between the government, the opposition and crossbench members—particularly the member for Lyne—about parliamentary reform ensuring that proper functioning could occur. Members would be aware that in the Senate, because of the nature of the Senate, where the government party has historically—with some brief exceptions, which is why we got Work Choices—not had a majority on the floor, an arrangement exists whereby, if someone inadvertently misses a division, there is a recommittal. It happens without fuss. It happens as a matter of course. In fact, it happens pretty regularly. In this parliament we unanimously chose to alter the standing orders to allow, through standing order 132, for a recommittal to be put if a member is accidentally absent. There is a very sensible reason why this is the case. That is because, were it not to be, the views of this parliament—this House of Representatives—could be distorted by misadventure or someone simply missing a vote. Therefore it was determined that, if that occurred, the bill would be recommitted. It was stated very clearly in the parliamentary reform agreement. It was put in the standing orders and understood that this would be the case, in a similar way to the way in which the operation of pairs ensures the principle that a result should not be distorted because of a member's absence from parliament. Were this not to be implemented it would lead to an outcome whereby the proper determination of a majority of members of this House is not put into the law of the land. That is why I am moving this recommittal motion. I am frankly surprised that the Manager of Opposition Business is not simply supporting this. We had very clear discussions, which included the Manager of Opposition Business, the member for Lyne and others, about the circumstances in which this could occur. We explicitly discussed that an explanation should be given to the parliament of why people have missed a division. Today, as part of the budget process, the Treasurer addressed the National Press Club in the Great Hall of Parliament. This is a procedure that in the past has occurred at the National Press Club but in recent times has been moved to the Great Hall in order to accommodate the numbers of members of the community who want to participate. There were four government members—the member for Chifley, the member for Eden-Monaro, the member for Moreton and the member for Brand—who attended that function where the bells did not ring because they were turned off, one would assume as a result of the fact that it was broadcast live as a National Press Club activity. It was unfortunate—and I have communicated to the four members, very directly, that they were perhaps amiss in absenting themselves from that division—but it clearly falls within the parameters which were envisaged. In addition to this, the member for New England was in the Senate where he did not hear the bells. He also expected to vote in that division. I, of course, am not in a position to communicate in the same direct way with the member for New England as I do with my friends and colleagues on the Labor benches but in terms of— Mrs Mirabella 00AMU You should be nicer to him! Mr ALBANESE R36 You should try it sometime, I say to the member for Indi. She is on to us! I am nice to the member for New England because he is a good bloke. We have circumstances here that are precisely those circumstances that were envisaged, covered and signed off in the agreement for parliamentary reform. They are covered by the standing orders before the parliament and, in terms of process, we should really not be wasting the parliament's time. There should be an automatic recommittal as long as people are prepared to put on the record the reason for their absence. I have done that in an appropriate way on behalf of the five members who were absent from the division. It is appropriate that that be done but these are circumstances which are clearly understandable given the fact that, if you are in this building, it is a normal expectation that you will hear the bells ring. It is also the case, in terms of the procedure, that the standing order which is relevant—standing order 132—was unanimously adopted by this House. No-one has said that it should not be so. No-one has said that it is inappropriate. Indeed, I am somewhat surprised because I expected this would happen automatically. The Manager of Opposition Business knows that if you have a majority for a particular proposition you can achieve an outcome—so it can be done more quickly or it can be done more slowly, in terms of the process, if you have a majority. In terms of this legislation the opposition amendment does not have a majority of members of the House of Representatives and the bill does have majority support of the House of Representatives. If those are the circumstances and you have support for that, then we can either do it the easier way or do it in a much more prolonged way to achieve the same outcome. That is why the standing orders reflect this change. I commend the motion to the House. 17:15 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt The relevant section of the standing order that deals with the recommittal of motions is section 132(b) of the standing orders, which states: If a division has miscarried through misadventure caused by a Member being accidentally absent or some similar incident, any Member may move, without notice and without the need for a seconder, 'That standing orders be suspended to enable the House to divide again'. That is what the Leader of the House has done. That standing order is designed to ensure that, if a member is unable to be present for a serious reason, the House will recommit in good faith a vote to reflect the wishes of the House. When this matter was debated in 2010 by me, the crossbenchers and the Leader of the House we envisaged that such occasions were when a member had a very unfortunate health incident that caused them not to be able to get here, when they might be locked inadvertently in a room in the building and not be able to escape, and when they might have had a family emergency which caused them to not be able to leave their office or attend the chamber. But it did not envisage, in this case, three members being in the Great Hall having lunch, listening to the Treasurer's National Press Club speech; not having taken their pagers with them, which all members are supposed to carry at all times; not keeping their eye on the coloured lights in the building that are designed to alert us when a division occurs; and a fourth member who was simply doing a radio interview and did not want to be interrupted. A cabinet minister, the Minister for Resources and Energy, did not want to interrupt a radio interview to vote in the House on behalf of his party. The member for Eden-Monaro, the member for Chifley and the member for Moreton were just having lunch, on the people's time, at the National Press Club address in the Great Hall and they did not want to be interrupted. They wanted to hang around the Treasurer and listen to his speech. They did not want to come into the chamber and vote on a very important bill. So the opposition is not of a mind to support the suspension of standing orders because we expect members of parliament, when they are in this building, to be aware of what is happening in the chamber. There may be only five weeks left of this parliament and members might be looking for another job if they are going to lose their seats or they might be planning what they will do in the 44th Parliament. But they are still required, five weeks from the end of this parliamentary sitting period, to keep an eye on what is going on in this chamber, especially on important bills. If any members had a health issue, a family emergency or been inadvertently imprisoned in the building, then of course the opposition would have been more than happy to recommit this motion. But none of those things occurred. Instead, three of the members were lunching in the Great Hall, a few hundred metres from where we stand today. Other members of parliament who were at the same luncheon had no difficulty in getting to the chamber. They were carrying their pagers, watching the lights. Many members of parliament even have their staff be aware of what is going on in the chamber so that if there is a division they can be alerted and make their way to the chamber. You would think that the member for Brand, a cabinet minister, who is the Minister for Resources and Energy and the Minister for Small Business, and the member for Eden-Monaro, also a cabinet minister, who is the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, with their legions of staff, would have had at least one person in their office keeping an eye on the chamber so that their boss did not make a mistake and miss a vote. Four members of the Labor Party could not be bothered turning up for a very important amendment, an amendment that requires three independent directors to be appointed to industry superannuation funds. The opposition likes this amendment. It is a good amendment and we are delighted that the parliament voted for it. It did not win by one vote; it won by four votes. It was a clear and emphatic victory: 72 to 68. This amendment improves the bill. Now that the amendment has been carried by a democratic vote of the House, it should be put to the parliament as the final bill and should be carried in the best interests of industry super funds. The opposition will not be supporting the suspension of standing orders. It is important for the House tonight that the parliament gets 76 votes for this amendment to be recommitted. One member of the government is not able to be here for very good reason. Of course, as you would expect, he has been paired by the opposition, in tragic circumstances. But one of our members on this side of the House, the member for Fairfax, went home this afternoon, in Canberra, because he is ill and the government has broken the pair. Mr Albanese interjecting— Mr PYNE 9V5 You should check with your chief whip, such as he is! He could not keep his own whip in the House. The member for Moreton is a recently appointed whip and he could not even be in the House for a vote. That is who the caucus voted for. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Order! Could I remind members that the discussion is through the chair, not between one another. Mr PYNE 9V5 The minister for tertiary education is paired with another member of the opposition and arrangements had been made for another member of the opposition well in advance of this vote. The government does not get to choose our pairs. The simple truth is: the minister for tertiary education is paired with another member of the opposition in a longstanding arrangement made today and we are not breaking that pair, because our view is that that would be the wrong thing to do. But the government is breaking the pair with this side of the House when one of our members, the member for Fairfax, is ill. Mr Albanese interjecting— Mr PYNE 9V5 Mr Deputy Speaker, should I respond to him or will you ask him to— The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Order! The chamber is far too noisy. Mr PYNE 9V5 It is. You are in charge of it, Mr Deputy Speaker. You should get him back to order. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY I ask members to resist from interjecting across the chamber. The member for Sturt has the call. Mr PYNE 9V5 I would urge the Leader of the House to speak to his chief whip, who I think is the member for Werriwa, and ask him if it is true that the government intends to break the pair for the member for Fairfax in order to achieve 76 votes. The Independents need to think very carefully whether they are prepared to sign up to the government breaking the pair of the member for Fairfax, who is ill and has returned home, by all voting with the government to recommit this bill. The right thing to do if they had any integrity at all would be for one of them to absent themselves from that vote or vote with the opposition to ensure that the member for Fairfax is paired. If the crossbenchers were acting with integrity, one of them would pair themselves with Alex Somlyay, the member for Fairfax— Mr Oakeshott IYS After three years of no pairs! That is golden! Mr PYNE 9V5 That is your problem, mate, not mine. They would pair themselves with the member for Fairfax to ensure that his vote is not counted on the side of the government in spite of the fact that he is not well enough to be here. So I call on one of them to do it—not necessarily the two in the chamber; maybe the member for New England. Obviously the member for Lyne is showing his true colours. But there are others: the member for Denison, the member for Kennedy, the member for Melbourne, the member for Fisher. They may well want to pair themselves with the member for Fairfax in order to ensure that this vote is not counted, because he has returned home. He is ill. He is incapable of being here, and the government has broken that pair in order to ensure that they get to 76 votes. I ask them to think very carefully about doing that. The opposition will not support the suspension of standing orders. We support the bill and the amendment that has been made, moved by the shadow minister for small business, the member for Dunkley. We believe that a vote should be recommitted on the basis that a member has missed the vote for a very serious reason. In this case four members of the Labor government did not miss it for a very serious reason, and so I urge the House to reject the suspension of standing orders and one of the crossbenchers to do the right thing and absent themselves from the vote in order to ensure that the member for Fairfax is correctly paired. 17:24 Mr OAKESHOTT IYS Lyne To start on the issue of pairing, which has very little to do with this debate and this suspension of standing orders: I have given it due consideration from my perspective, and the answer is no. The answer, very simply, is no because for three years the question of pairing of crossbenchers has been a very real issue within a parliament where all members surely should be entitled to the same rights. At times when requests for family reasons, for health reasons and for any number of reasons that pairing exists for members of political parties, that pairing arrangement has been denied. So it is a little bit rich for the Manager of Opposition Business now, when it is convenient for the claim being made under this debate of section 132, to make a request to the good conscience of the crossbench to stand by and do the right thing on pairing arrangements which for crossbenchers effectively do not exist. I say: welcome to our world. From my point of view, no pairing arrangements exist. On the issue of section 132 for the shadow minister in the chair and for all members of this chamber: thank goodness that three years ago there was some foresight that in a parliament like this accidents would happen. This is the second such example where this has happened, the first time over a year ago when the member for Cowper had a piece of legislation to do with bats at one of his local schools. I think it was the Maclean High School that had some bats coming in. He was putting through a private member's bill from an opposition position in this parliament and I think was successful in getting that piece of legislation through this chamber. That is something for reflection for all members in this chamber: anyone can stump up and put a good idea into this chamber and on merit be successful. But there was an issue of a member of parliament being accidentally absent and a tied vote. The record was corrected under section 132. So the events of today are not unusual. They have happened before and were dealt with in a sensible way to the benefit of the opposition in the passing of an amendment to a piece of legislation carried through this chamber by a private member, the member for Cowper. Now, again, because it is not convenient for the Manager of Opposition Business, we seem to be arguing the toss over some very clear wording from section 132 and from those discussions with foresight—and with a little group hug at the end—from the very start of this parliament. That foresight was to recognise that in an incredibly tight parliament people will miss votes and, if we are going to reflect the true will of the House, there is going to be a moment where you have to correct people who are absent or who accidentally miss votes. It is incorrect for the reinterpretation of history from those discussions to be that it was only for health, for family, for sickness or—I enjoyed this one—for inadvertent imprisonment in the parliamentary precinct. If that were the case, it would have been explicit in those terms in section 132. It was purposely kept loose and broad as 'accidentally absent or some similar incident'. That is a pretty broad and loose definition, in a lively working parliament, of pretty well any series of events that happen by accident, without intention and maybe leading to the true will of the House not being reflected in a vote. So 132 is very clear. Another point of interest for the walk down memory lane is that this was actually the one point of dispute in the parliamentary agreement reached across party lines making its way into the standing orders. Yes, we lost a whole range of issues— (Time expired) The SPEAKER 83S The question is that the motion be agreed to.

The House divided. [17:34]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)

 76 AYES 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 Hayes, CP Husic, EN Jenkins, HA Jones, SP Katter, RC Kelly, MJ King, CF Leigh, AK Livermore, KF Lyons, GR Macklin, JL Marles, RD McClelland, RB Melham, D Mitchell, RG (teller) Murphy, JP Neumann, SK Oakeshott, RJM O'Connor, BPJ O'Neill, DM Owens, J Parke, M Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Ripoll, BF Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Roxon, NL Rudd, KM Saffin, JA Shorten, WR Sidebottom, PS Slipper, PN Smith, SF Smyth, L Snowdon, WE Swan, WM Symon, MS Thomson, CR Thomson, KJ Vamvakinou, M Wilkie, AD Windsor, AHC Zappia, A 70 NOES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Baldwin, RC Billson, BF Bishop, BK Bishop, JI Briggs, JE Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Cobb, JK Coulton, M (teller) Crook, AJ Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Fletcher, PW Forrest, JA Frydenberg, JA Gambaro, T Gash, J Griggs, NL Haase, BW Hartsuyker, L Hawke, AG Hockey, JB Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Jensen, DG Jones, ET Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Ley, SP Macfarlane, IE Marino, NB Markus, LE Matheson, RG McCormack, MF Mirabella, S Moylan, JE Neville, PC O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM 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 Southcott, AJ Stone, SN Tehan, DT Truss, WE Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Washer, MJ Wyatt, KG 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to, with an absolute majority.

 17:45 The SPEAKER 83S The question now is that the amendments moved by the member for Dunkley be agreed to.

The House divided. [17:45]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)

 73 AYES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Baldwin, RC Billson, BF Bishop, BK Bishop, JI Briggs, JE Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Cobb, JK Coulton, M (teller) Crook, AJ Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Fletcher, PW Forrest, JA Frydenberg, JA Gambaro, T Gash, J Griggs, NL Haase, BW Hartsuyker, L Hawke, AG Hockey, JB Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Jensen, DG Jones, ET 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 O'Dwyer, KM 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 Slipper, PN 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 74 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 Hayes, CP Husic, EN Jenkins, HA Jones, SP Katter, RC Kelly, MJ King, CF Leigh, AK Livermore, KF Lyons, GR Macklin, JL Marles, RD McClelland, RB Melham, D Mitchell, RG (teller) Murphy, JP Neumann, SK Oakeshott, RJM O'Connor, BPJ O'Neill, DM Owens, J Parke, M Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Ripoll, BF Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA 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 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.

 Third Reading 3321 17:53 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. COMMITTEES 3321 COMMITTEES Appropriations and Administration Committee 3321 Report 3321 17:55 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest On behalf of the Appropriations and Administration Committee I present the committee's report No.5—Budget estimates 2013-14. BILLS 3321 BILLS Customs and AusCheck Legislation Amendment (Organised Crime and Other Measures) Bill 2013 3321

Customs and AusCheck Legislation Amendment (Organised Crime and Other Measures) Bill 2013

Second Reading 3321 17:56 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling It is a great pleasure to speak on this bill. The bill contains two separate measures. The first part of the bill implements recommendations that have been made by Joint Task Force Polaris and the parliamentary joint committee on law enforcement's report following its inquiry into the adequacy of aviation and maritime security measures to combat serious and organised crime. The second part of the bill will remove a prohibition on the Deputy Speaker of the House and the Deputy Speaker of the Senate being members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. I will speak about those measures shortly, although relatively briefly. However, I first want to touch on an issue that this bill covers, and that is the very serious issue of organised criminal activity on our wharves and at our airports. The opposition believes that law and order should be a significant national priority. Unfortunately the government does not share this view and they have systematically attacked Australia's law enforcement capabilities since they came to government. We have seen latterly a road to Damascus style version, where the Prime Minister certainly believes that law and order should be a significant national priority. She has gone out into Western Sydney with her minister and announced some measures that they are taking to involve the Commonwealth more in this area. Unfortunately the record of the Labor Party since they came to office has been to systematically attack and degrade the Commonwealth's law enforcement capabilities in a way that I want to outline before I move onto the actual substantive part of the bill. It is unfortunate that the budget cuts that have been inflicted on our law enforcement and border enforcement agencies are going to have the result of giving criminals a better chance of getting guns and drugs onto our streets. This has been compounded thanks to the reduction in funding and personnel to law enforcement bodies such as the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service and the Australian Federal Police. This government has savaged Customs in particular, the agency tasked with stopping illegal goods flowing through our borders. Astonishingly, after a record of five budgets that have attacked the Commonwealth's law enforcement capability in every single Commonwealth law enforcement agency, we saw again last night the Labor Party attacking our law enforcement capabilities. They again savaged the Australian Crime Commission, Customs and the Australian Federal Police. Last night's budget confirmed what we already knew: that this government is not pulling its weight in this area. In fact, they have gone out of their way to systematically degrade the Commonwealth's ability to help states in their joint law and order responsibilities. I will firstly deal with the police. Under the former coalition government the Australian Federal Police saw an increase in its staffing numbers from 2,000 to 6,000. But over the past three Labor budgets, including the one delivered last night, the Gillard government has axed a whopping $309 million from Australian Federal Police funding, at a time when we have violence and gun crime plaguing our streets. In the 2012-13 budget, Labor froze the use of the $58.3 million taken directly from criminals under the proceeds of crime laws to prop up its precarious budget position. Before the Labor Party came to office in 2007, they had actually promised to increase AFP ranks by 500 operational AFP officers over five years, starting in January 2008. This commitment has not boosted AFP numbers in real terms, as there have been at least 249 AFP redundancies since the Labor Party came to office. Now, because of the budget cuts that have been inflicted on the Australian Federal Police, we in the opposition get anecdotal reports about the effect this is having on the ability of the AFP to do their job. There is no doubt that the cuts to the AFP are particularly hampering their ability to fight crime. We have heard of ludicrous things such as crime scene investigators being forced to bring their own notepads and pens to crime scenes. We are aware that our officers who are serving overseas, doing very difficult work on behalf of our country, are in line to have their pay cut. This is a sorry state of affairs for an agency that was at its peak under the Howard government. It has been stripped back to bare bones since the Labor Party came to office. This is particularly galling in an environment where government spending has been so dramatically increased over the past five years. The Australian Federal Police is not the agency that has been worst-affected by the Labor Party's savage cuts. Organised crime, which is a significant problem all over the country, is supposed to be tackled by the Commonwealth's most powerful law enforcement agency, the Australian Crime Commission. Tackling organised crime requires resources, expertise and cooperation; yet the ACC has been systematically attacked by the Labor Party. Last night's budget revealed that Labor has cut another $29 million from the ACC's budget, and 198 staff have been cut from the agency since Labor came to office. The ACC is not a large agency in terms of numbers; yet, astonishingly, since the Labor Party came to office they have cut 40 per cent of their personnel. That is 40 per cent of the personnel of our most powerful law enforcement agency, yet the Prime Minister and her minister have the gall to pretend that they are interested in the Commonwealth's law enforcement capabilities. Fighting organised crime cannot be achieved when our most powerful crime-fighting agency has been so significantly downsized, and clearly it has been sidetracked from the main game. The Labor Party's apathy and, indeed, outright hostility to Commonwealth law enforcement agencies has also significantly affected the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. Clearly the work of this agency goes hand in hand with the work of other law enforcement agencies. Customs have a very important role to play in stopping illegal goods, such as guns and drugs, from crossing through our ports and airports and arriving on our streets. At the moment it is very difficult for them to do that job properly. They are plagued by instances of corruption, and cuts to the ability of Customs to screen cargo—to the tune of $58 million since the Labor Party came to office—have given organised criminal syndicates a leg-up in their ability to bring contraband into Australia. It has taken the Labor Party a long time to admit that there are cases of corruption within Customs. This government simply does not subscribe to the tenet of a strong law enforcement regime and a strong border protection system. I was astonished last night when I was going through the budget papers to see that Customs has been dealt yet another blow—another $61.4 million cut to their overall budget and another 120 staff stripped from the agency at a time when they are already stretched beyond capacity due to previous budget cuts and also Labor's self-induced border protection crisis. Customs is not a particularly large agency. At its peak under the Howard government, it had about 5,800 people. Since the Labor Party came to office they have slashed 870 personnel from Customs, and those cuts are having a very savage impact on the ability of that agency to do what we expect it to do, which is to protect our borders. Customs is very much a victim of the Labor Party's fiscal mismanagement. Given the fact that the Labor Party have such a dismal record on the Commonwealth's law enforcement capability, that is the background that we must take into consideration when we consider the measures that are contained within this bill. They are sensible measures, but, unfortunately, they come against the backdrop of the fact that the Labor Party has shown apathy and complete disregard for the ability of the Commonwealth to do its bit to fight crime in Australia. I want to outline the key measures contained within this bill, which aims to strengthen security at our wharves and at our airports. The bill will amend the Customs Act 1901 to: include tests used to determine whether a person is 'fit and proper' to hold an ASIC or MSIC, the passes that control access to the secure environments at our airports and at our ports; impose new obligations on cargo terminal operators and cargo handlers, and provide powers to monitor and enforce compliance with those obligations; insert new offences relating to the misuse of customs information; enable the details of an infringement notice scheme to be set out in regulations; apply strict liability to several existing offences and increase penalties for a range of existing strict liability offences; and make a range of other minor changes to the Customs Act. The bill will also amend the AusCheck Act 2007 to allow a person's ASIC or MSIC, or their application for such a card, to be suspended if the person has been charged with a 'serious offence'. It will also enable the AusCheck scheme to make provision for background checks to determine whether an individual has been charged with a serious offence, or whether a charge for a serious offence has been resolved in relation to the individual. The second aspect to the bill—and this is entirely unrelated, yet it has been added on—relates to an amendment to the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006. This amendment will make the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Deputy President and Chair of Committees of the Senate eligible for appointment to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. This has been drawn to my attention by the Deputy President of the Senate, who, despite the fact that they have been subsequently deemed ineligible because of an oversight at reading the provisions of the existing act, has for many years actually been doing very good work on this committee, until it came to the committee secretariat's attention that they were not eligible to sit on it. The rationale for that is not clear, and subsequently the government moved, sensibly in this case, to ensure that that anomaly is addressed, and I thank them for doing so. This will allow Senator Parry, who is the Deputy President of the Senate, to continue his work on this committee. He has done very exceptional work on the combined law enforcement committee of the parliament. In conjunction with his counterparts in the government, that committee does exceptionally good work. Indeed, some of the recommendations contained within this bill are a direct result of the deliberations of the law enforcement committee. So I thank the government for the speedy resolution to this matter, which is clearly just a rather strange anomaly. This bill will implement a range of measures that are designed to better protect Australia's cargo supply chain from infiltration by organised crime and also increase the efficiency of the customs penalty regime. It is unfortunate that the process of implementing these measures has taken longer than it should have, particularly given that the parliamentary joint committee's report that I referred to earlier was released in June 2011. It has not quite been explained why it has taken the government so long to respond to what was an excellent report from that committee. The recommendations of Task Force Polaris—the minister has eluded many times to the good that they have done—were handed down over a year ago. Clearly, if the minister were to add more meat to the rhetoric of being serious about tackling organised crime, he would have sought to implement these recommendations sooner. He would have done a far better job of protecting the agencies that are under his control from the savagery of the budget cuts that the Labor Party has inflicted on them, including, astonishingly, further cuts that were revealed last night. Despite the failure of the Labor Party to protect the agencies that this bill affects, the coalition does support the measures contained within the bill to strengthen powers of those agencies to regulate the aviation and maritime security environment in this country. So this bill enjoys the support of the opposition, although we do so while noting the fact that the Commonwealth law enforcement capabilities have been savagely attacked by the Labor Party. If they were serious about law and order issues, they would ensure that the Commonwealth law enforcement agencies were properly resourced—sadly, something that is not happening at the moment. 18:09 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland In July 2010 the government established Task Force Polaris—a joint law enforcement task force targeting organised crime on the waterfront and in the cargo supply chain in Sydney. This task force, as the shadow minister has just mentioned, has been very successful: it has now made 39 arrests, laid 190 charges and seized over 12 tonnes of illicit substances and precursor chemicals. Last year I announced major reforms to crack down on organised crime in the cargo system. An important part of that is expanding the work of Task Force Polaris from Sydney to Melbourne and Brisbane. In the budget that was tabled last night, it includes something in the order of $5.6 million to expand the work of this task force to Melbourne and to Brisbane. In Brisbane it will be called Task Force Jericho, and officers from the Australian Federal Police and Customs have begun setting it up and it will roll out in the middle of this year. In Melbourne the task force is called Trident and it has now been established with the Victorian police. Since it was established in July of last year, Task Force Trident has already executed 71 search warrants and made 13 arrests, including the arrest of a suspect involved in the importation of over 300 kilos of liquid methamphetamine. Task Force Trident also disrupted an intended importation of 200 kilos of methamphetamine and seized 25 kilos of methamphetamine, 130 tonnes of tobacco, a commercial quantity of cocaine and a number of other prohibited items. In the short time that it has been established, the value of this task force is already being demonstrated. I should add: this is replacing a task force that was shut down by the former government. The rollout of these task forces is just one of the reforms this government has driven to make it harder for organised crime to infiltrate and exploit the cargo system. We have already implemented a number of non-legislative reforms to harden the cargo supply chain, including: changes to the integrated cargo system to limit access to specific cargo information, strengthening licence conditions on key participants in the trading system, and    increasing the number of targeted patrols of the waterfront. This bill implements further important reforms. First, the bill places new obligations on cargo terminal operators and people who load and unload cargo, which are similar to those that the Customs Act imposes on holders of depot and warehouse licences. These obligations include mandatory reporting of unlawful activity as well as fit and proper person checks at the request of Customs and Border Protection. Second, it creates new offences for obtaining and using restricted information, including information from the integrated cargo system, to commit an offence and for unlawfully disclosing that restricted information. Third, it gives the Chief Executive Officer of Customs the power to impose new licence conditions at any time and make it an offence to breach certain licence conditions. This brings the Customs broker licensing scheme into line with other Customs licensing schemes. Fourth, the bill amends the AusCheck Act 2007 to enable an ASIC or MSIC to be suspended if the cardholder has been charged with a serious offence. These amendments recognise the fact that the presence of high-risk individuals in the aviation and maritime environments can facilitate large-scale criminal activity and result in significant harm and losses to the Australian community and economy. The current ASIC and MSIC regimes provide for the cancellation of an ASIC or MSIC where the holder is convicted of and sentenced to imprisonment for an aviation or maritime security related offence. The bill introduces the capacity for AusCheck to suspend the person's ASIC or MSIC or the processing of an application for an ASIC or MSIC if the person is charged with a serious offence. This measure has been developed based on the advice of the Australian Federal Police. The government will continue to consult with law enforcement agencies and stakeholders about the offences to be listed and will be prescribed by regulation. Finally, the bill amends the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act, which establishes the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. The bill repeals provisions that prevent the deputy presiding officers from being appointed to that committee. It provides the parliament with greater discretion when appointing members to this important committee and makes membership eligibility consistent with parliamentary committees' similar functions. I have made it clear that I am serious about making sure that our law enforcement agencies have got the powers and the tools that they need to target organised crime, whether that is on the border or on the street. When organised criminals penetrate the system, they can cause enormous damage. This bill, and other measures that the government is implementing—like the establishment of a National Border Targeting Centre—are designed to give our law enforcement agencies the powers they need to stop organised crime penetrating the system. It is an ongoing battle and more reform is required. As I have said in this place on a number of occasions, that also requires and demands national anti-gang laws and national unexplained wealth laws. We need to give police more power to seize the assets of serious organised criminals. The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police has made that point recently. He said that our current laws in this area are not effective and national unexplained wealth laws are in the national interest. The Australian Crime Commission has estimated that 72 organised crime targets each generated $10 million or more in illicit profits over the past two years and six of these individuals had an estimated value of illicit profits of over $100 million each. Both sides of politics have called for national laws in bipartisan recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement in this area, but it has been rejected on a number of occasions by the states and territories. That is why the Prime Minister placed this issue on the agenda at COAG in April. Unfortunately, at that meeting, the states and territories did not agree to reform. That is a disappointing decision; it is the wrong decision. We need these laws, and the longer we wait the more money criminals will make. If we are serious about tackling organised crime, then we need national anti-gang laws and we need national unexplained wealth laws. That is what this parliament has called for—what both sides of this parliament have called for—it is what the Police Federation of Australia has called for and it is what every police commissioner in the country is calling for. We need state governments to support this and give us these powers to create these new laws and I will continue to prosecute the case for them. In the meantime, I comment this bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 3326 18:17 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. BUSINESS 3326 BUSINESS Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders 3326 18:17 Mr BUTLER HWK Port Adelaide by leave—I move: That so much of the standing and session orders be suspended as would prevent the resumption of debate on the Medicare Levy Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013, the 11 related bills and the National Disability Insurance Scheme Legislation Amendment Bill 2013, introduced earlier today, to be resumed at a later hour. Question agreed to. BILLS 3327 BILLS Medicare Levy Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013, DisabilityCare Australia Fund Bill 2013, Fringe Benefits Tax Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013, Superannuation (Excess Concessional Contributions Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013, Superannuation (Excess Non-concessional Contributions Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013, Superannuation (Excess Untaxed Roll-over Amounts Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013, Family Trust Distribution Tax (Primary Liability) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013, Income Tax (TFN Withholding Tax (ESS)) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013, Income Tax Rates Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013, Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-disclosure Tax) (No. 1) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013, Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-disclosure Tax) (No. 2) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013, Income Tax (First Home Saver Accounts Misuse Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 3327

Medicare Levy Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013

DisabilityCare Australia Fund Bill 2013

Fringe Benefits Tax Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013

Superannuation (Excess Concessional Contributions Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013

Superannuation (Excess Non-concessional Contributions Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013

Superannuation (Excess Untaxed Roll-over Amounts Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013

Family Trust Distribution Tax (Primary Liability) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013

Income Tax (TFN Withholding Tax (ESS)) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013

Income Tax Rates Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013

Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-disclosure Tax) (No. 1) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013

Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-disclosure Tax) (No. 2) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013

Income Tax (First Home Saver Accounts Misuse Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013

Second Reading 3327 18:19 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies This parliament has a shared commitment to a better deal for Australians with a disability. In the words of the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, 'the NDIS is an idea whose time has come'. All in this chamber know that the system of support for Australians with a disability is broken. The level of support a person with a disability receives can depend on a number of factors: what state they live in, whether the disability is congenital or was acquired and, if acquired, whether it was in the workplace, a motor vehicle accident or some other context. Workers compensation and motor vehicle accident insurance provide coverage in some states, but if you are born with a disability or acquire a disability later in life it can be a different story: waiting lists and queues. The result is that many people with a disability are left without the assistance that they need. So we need a new system of support based on need rather than rationing, with the entitlement for support going to the individual. The individual needs to be at the centre and in charge, able to pick up the supports, aids, equipment and service providers of their choice. This is the vision of the Productivity Commission's landmark report into long-term care and support for people with a disability. This is the vision of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It is important to note that this is also a shared vision of every government in Australia and every opposition in this country. The federal coalition, for its part, has enthusiastically supported each milestone on the road to the NDIS that has reflected the work of the Productivity Commission. We support the six launch sites. We welcome the agreements between the Commonwealth and the states and the territories for full jurisdiction-wide rollout. We support the NDIS Act passed in March. And Tony Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, has demonstrated his personal commitment to Australians with disability by raising over $1.2 million through the 2012 and 2013 Pollie Pedal charity bike rides for Carers Australia. Each year, along the 1,000-kilometre routes, Mr Abbott has met with people with disability, carers and disability organisations—and I recall meetings on this year's Pollie Pedal in Mount Gambier and other places along the route, particularly with young carers, older carers and those caring for kin and other Australians. The next Pollie Pedal will also be in partnership with and raise funds once again for Carers Australia. This is not just a professional commitment on the part of the Leader of the Opposition, it is also personal. All comments, questions and suggestions by the opposition in relation to the NDIS have been offered in a constructive spirit in an endeavour to help ensure that the NDIS is the best that it can be. The coalition has always stood ready to work with the government and see the NDIS delivered as soon as possible. The coalition believes that the full implementation of an NDIS would be nothing short of a new deal for people with disabilities and their carers. We have to get this right. Because the NDIS is a once-in-a-generation reform that will unfold over the life of several parliaments, it should be the property of the parliament as a whole on behalf of the Australian people rather than any political party. To get this right will require a very high level of consultation and attention to detail, not just today, not just in the next few weeks or months, not just in the launch sites, but from now until full implementation. The coalition has called for the establishment of a joint parliamentary committee to be chaired by both sides of politics to oversee the establishment and implementation of the NDIS. A parliamentary oversight committee would lock in all parties and provide a non-partisan environment where issues of design and eligibility could be worked through cooperatively. We believe that the government should accept this offer for a parliamentary oversight committee. I reiterate that the coalition has supported the establishment of the National Disability Insurance Scheme every step of the way. We want the NDIS to be a success and we want it to belong to all Australians. It is too important to become a partisan football. We want to ensure that the NDIS is a reality as soon as possible and on a secure footing. The best guarantee for the NDIS in the long term is good economic management, good budget management and a government that prioritises and lives within its means. Economic policy and social policy are not alternatives. They are not in competition. You need a good economic policy to afford a good social policy. The Productivity Commission, for its part, recommended that the NDIS be funded from consolidated revenue—core government business funded from core government revenue. Our view has long been that the problem under this government was not that Australians did not pay enough tax; rather, this government has not been a good steward of the ample taxes paid. We long predicted that the government's wrong priorities, waste and excessive spending would compromise their ability to fund the NDIS from consolidated revenue, as recommended by the Productivity Commission. Until a few weeks ago the Prime Minister was also of the view the NDIS should be funded from consolidated revenue. She categorically ruled out a levy or the need for one as recently as December. Instead, the Prime Minister found everything she could possibly find to spend money on and made no provision for the NDIS, hence the government's levy proposition in this bill. Our view is straightforward. We did not propose a levy. There should not be the need for a levy. The government is only proposing a levy because they have blown the bank and failed to prioritise. We do not like tax increases but we do not think that Australians with disability should miss out on a better deal due to poor decisions by a bad government. That would not pass the fair-go test. Although this legislation will pass with our support, we view the Medicare levy increase as only a temporary measure until the budget has been repaired and is in strong surplus. Let me put our decision on the NDIS Medicare levy increase into a broader context. We know that the Productivity Commission did not recommend funding the NDIS through a new tax on Australians. We understand that many families in this country are doing it tough and that tax increases are an impost on the household budget. That is why we took our time and soberly considered the government's proposition rather than respond immediately. We know that Labor's mismanagement of the economy and the state of Labor's budget do not currently allow for the NDIS to be funded from consolidated revenue without further borrowings on top of already quite significant borrowings by this government. Australians with a disability and their carers want the confidence that the NDIS means a permanent change in the way that our country supports people with a disability. People with a disability should not have to wait any longer than is necessary for the support they need. So for these reasons, the coalition is prepared to support the government's proposed increase to the Medicare levy. But it is important to recognise that the Medicare levy increase does not cover the full cost of the NDIS. The levy does not cover the difference between what governments currently spend on disability and the full cost of this new scheme. When you take into account the 25 per cent of levy proceeds that the Commonwealth will give to the states and territories for 10 years, the levy covers perhaps 40 per cent of the Commonwealth's required contribution to a NDIS over the longer term. So before this legislation passes both houses of this parliament, the government should outline how the remaining 60 per cent of funding will be provisioned. Despite promising to do so on budget night, the government has failed to outline where the balance of the funds will come from beyond the NDIS launch period. On page 4 of the budget related paper DisabilityCare Australia there is a graph headed 'Meeting the costs of DisabilityCare Australia'. It covers the period 2012-13 to 2022-23. It purports to show full funding of the NDIS. It includes a category called 'Other long-term savings—selected long-term savings from 2013-14 Budget and 2012-13 MYEFO'. These are unnamed and unquantified savings that may well have been counted several times over for other purposes. What the graph does, however, prove is that beyond the launch phase the Medicare levy increase only covers 40 per cent of the Commonwealth's share of NDIS costs. The government has still to present its full funding plan for this scheme. The NDIS is a venture of huge proportions. According to the Australian Government Actuary, the NDIS will, in full rollout, have a gross cost of $22 billion per annum and require, in complete form, an additional contribution from government of more than $10.5 billion beyond 2018-19. When such a call is being made on taxpayers, they are entitled to know exactly what the NDIS will achieve and who it will support. Before this legislation passes both houses, the government needs to be clear about all aspects of NDIS eligibility. Equally, the 400,000-plus people the Productivity Commission envisaged being supported by the NDIS are entitled to know what the gateway to the scheme is. The gateway to the NDIS comprises a number of elements: the eligibility criteria in the NDIS Act; the NDIS regulations, known as the NDIS rules, only some of which have been released and only in draft form; the NDIS national assessment tools, which have not been publicly released. Only one of the gateway elements is fully and publicly available. Now this is against the backdrop of the Productivity Commission's blueprint having been in the hands of the government for two years, against the backdrop of a $22 billion scheme, against the backdrop of a new tax base which is being created in the form of the Medicare levy increase to part-fund the scheme and against the backdrop of the NDIS launch sites going live in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania in just six weeks time. When the opposition indicated it would consider the increase to the Medicare levy, we said that first the government needed to introduce legislation to establish a fund in which levy proceeds would be held. The government has acceded to this request. Secondly, we said the government needed to legislate the Future Fund as guardians of this fund. Again, the government has acceded to this request. Thirdly, we said the government needed to release the final NDIS rules and the NDIS national assessment tools. This the government has refused to do. I repeat: we are talking about $22 billion of Australian taxpayers' money, a new tax base, launch sites going live in six weeks and the parliament and the nation not as yet—not of this evening—having before them the full details that will determine NDIS participation. When the absence of the NDIS rules and the absence of the NDIS national assessment tools are raised with the government, they state that the eligibility criteria are in the NDIS Act. It is true that there is contained in the act a broad—indeed, a very broad—outline of the criteria to be an NDIS participant. And it is true that there are some draft rules which slightly expand on the criteria. But these are still extremely broad outlines of eligibility. It has been said by some that the opposition's desire to see the NDIS rules and the NDIS national assessment tools released is getting down into the weeds. But if you are an Australian with a significant disability, the rules and the assessment tools are not some theoretical mechanisms; they are elements that will combine to underpin your opportunities and quality of life. The Prime Minister herself has said that people who want to know about eligibility should look at the NDIS Act. I cannot believe that the Prime Minister seriously expects Australians with disability to get a copy of the act, grab a set of the draft and incomplete rules and then try and hunt down a copy of the as yet to be released assessment tools and then try and work out if they are in or out and what supports they may be entitled to. The final NDIS rules should be released. The NDIS national assessment tools should also be released. Wherever I go—and I know the feedback from my colleagues in this place is this—there is universal support for the NDIS, but there is also a real hunger for further information about eligibility and the sorts of therapies and supports that will be funded through the scheme. It is not premature for potential scheme participants or their families to be seeking this information. Let me give just a few examples. For autism, early intervention is currently supported by the Commonwealth through the Helping Children with Autism program. The Productivity Commission envisaged, and the NDIS Act has provision for, early intervention services. It is assumed that the NDIS will supplant the Helping Children with Autism program. Parents of young children would like to know what this means for their children in terms of the level of NDIS early intervention supports but also the circumstances under which their children would qualify. If they do not, are there any other supports available? Surely these are very reasonable requests for information by people with children who have autism. Let me take the example of supported accommodation. This is a concern for ageing parent carers who want to resolve accommodation for their adult children with intellectual impairment. Who will qualify? If qualified, and assuming there will be an adequate recurrent package, what will be the arrangement for capital to address the accommodation backlog? What will be the model? Again, these are eminently sensible and reasonable requests for information. Or take equipment. If you need a wheelchair, what level of cost will be covered? If your wheelchair costs, for example, $14,000, will you be covered for the full cost or only part? And, if so, what proportion? Once again these are entirely eminently sensible and reasonable requests for information which is currently not being provided. Or take hearing aids. These can range in cost from a few thousand dollars to in excess of $10,000. What will the NDIS deem to be reasonable and necessary? Again, this is a reasonable request for information. Or take support for blind and vision impaired people. Will the full cost of a guide dog be covered? How often? Will home modifications be covered? What will be considered reasonable and necessary? What will be the mechanisms to deliver supports to people with vision impairment over 65? Once again, these are very reasonable and understandable questions from people who find themselves in this situation seeking information—and the government should provide it soon. At this point in time, developing a complete picture of how the NDIS will unfold is limited by insufficient information, examples of which I have just provided to the House. Neither the Senate committee that inquired into the NDIS Act nor the parliament tonight have had the benefit of the full NDIS rules or the national assessment tools in undertaking their due diligence. In the absence of these elements it is difficult to determine if the vision of the Productivity Commission is being fully given effect to. The risk, as always, with this government is their capacity to competently implement the scheme. In conclusion, we will not frustrate this legislation; we will ensure its passage. However, we will not cease posing the questions being asked of us by Australians in general and our constituents with disability in particular. We will do so in order to ensure that the NDIS delivers on the vision of the Productivity Commission for a new deal for Australians with disability. 18:37 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay I would like to thank those members who have contributed to debate on these bills. These bills represent an historic step in the transformation of disability services in Australia. DisabilityCare Australia is the most fundamental social reform since the introduction of Medicare. These bills will lock in funding for DisabilityCare Australia, providing certainty and security for the 410,000 Australians with disability, their carers and their families. The Medicare Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill will increase the Medicare levy. From 1 July 2014 the Medicare levy will increase half a percentage point from 1½ per cent to two per cent. Every dollar raised from the increase in the Medicare levy will go directly to fund DisabilityCare Australia. This will provide a strong and stable funding stream. To assist the states and territories to fund their contribution to DisabilityCare Australia, the government will allocate them around $9.7 billion of the additional Medicare levy revenue over a 10-year period. The DisabilityCare Australia Fund Bill establishes the DisabilityCare Australia Fund, which will hold and invest the revenue from the increase in Medicare levy. The fund will only be drawn down to make reimbursements to the Commonwealth and to the states and territories for expenditure directly related to DisabilityCare Australia. The bill also guarantees the share of the fund that will be made available to the states and territories. The DisabilityCare Australia Fund will be managed by the Future Fund Board of Guardians, who have experience in successfully managing other government owned investment funds. The DisabilityCare Australia Fund Bill also contains amendments that deal with interim matters to enable DisabilityCare Australia to commence operations from 1 July 2013. The remainder of the bills being considered as part of this package contain consequential amendments that will increase the rates of other taxes that are linked to the Medicare levy. These changes will build a better life for Australians with significant and permanent disability. I commend the bills to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 3332 18:40 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. DisabilityCare Australia Fund Bill 2013 3332

DisabilityCare Australia Fund Bill 2013

Second Reading 3332 Third Reading 3332 18:41 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Fringe Benefits Tax Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 3332

Fringe Benefits Tax Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013

Second Reading 3332 Third Reading 3332 18:41 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Superannuation (Excess Concessional Contributions Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 3333

Superannuation (Excess Concessional Contributions Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013

Second Reading 3333 Third Reading 3333 18:42 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Superannuation (Excess Non-concessional Contributions Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 3333

Superannuation (Excess Non-concessional Contributions Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013

Second Reading 3333 Third Reading 3333 18:43 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Superannuation (Excess Untaxed Roll-over Amounts Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 3333

Superannuation (Excess Untaxed Roll-over Amounts Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013

Second Reading 3333 Third Reading 3333 18:45 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Family Trust Distribution Tax (Primary Liability) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 3333

Family Trust Distribution Tax (Primary Liability) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013

Second Reading 3333 Third Reading 3333 18:46 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Income Tax (TFN Withholding Tax (ESS)) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 3333

Income Tax (TFN Withholding Tax (ESS)) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013

Second Reading 3333 Third Reading 3334 18:47 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Income Tax Rates Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 3334

Income Tax Rates Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013

Second Reading 3334 Third Reading 3334 18:47 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-disclosure Tax) (No. 1) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 3334

Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-disclosure Tax) (No. 1) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013

Second Reading 3334 Third Reading 3334 18:49 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-disclosure Tax) (No. 2) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 3334

Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-disclosure Tax) (No. 2) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013

Second Reading 3334 Third Reading 3334 18:50 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Income Tax (First Home Saver Accounts Misuse Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 3334

Income Tax (First Home Saver Accounts Misuse Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013

Second Reading 3334 Third Reading 3334 18:50 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. National Disability Insurance Scheme Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 3334

National Disability Insurance Scheme Legislation Amendment Bill 2013

Second Reading 3334 Third Reading 3335 18:51 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013, Australian Aged Care Quality Agency Bill 2013, Australian Aged Care Quality Agency (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013, Aged Care (Bond Security) Amendment Bill 2013, Aged Care (Bond Security) Levy Amendment Bill 2013 3335

Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013

Australian Aged Care Quality Agency Bill 2013

Australian Aged Care Quality Agency (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013

Aged Care (Bond Security) Amendment Bill 2013

Aged Care (Bond Security) Levy Amendment Bill 2013

Second Reading 3335 18:52 Dr STONE EM6 Murray I wish to speak to this collection of bills, which are part of the cognate debate for the Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013. This legislation provides the framework for Labor's so-called Living Longer Living Better package. No area of consideration can be more important than this in our national parliament. There are four key areas covered by these bills: changes related to residential care, changes to establish a new type of care that is predominately expected to be in the person's home, changes relating to governance and administration, and changes to establish the Aged Care Pricing Commissioner. Obviously respectful and skilled and properly resourced care for the aged is a hallmark of any civil society. The needs of the ageing population is one of the key social issues now facing our nation. Currently more than one million older Australians receive aged care with Commonwealth support. We know that a girl born today is probably going to live to 100 and we have not yet found cures for some serious conditions of older age like dementia and Alzheimer's disease. People with these conditions are in great need of special respect and support in suitable places. Unfortunately, the aged-care sector in Australia is in crisis. I have a number of excellent aged-care residences across the electorate of Murray, a rural and regional area. Almost all of my aged-care facilities, which offer excellent care, have staff—almost universally women—who are dedicated and committed. The vast majority of the facilities are not-for-profit agencies run by voluntary boards. All of them talk to me about the extreme financial difficulties they currently face, but will face even more if this package goes through without proper resourcing and in the condition that it is in as described by the current bill. Australia can be justifiably proud of the aged care provided for the most frail in their final years. We do have some of the best standards of aged care in the world. Unfortunately, the main issues for many facilities across Australia are such that rather than compromise the value of their service—indeed, they cannot continue if they lose their registration—a lot of these excellent facilities will be forced to close. The Commonwealth own-purpose outlays place viability at risk because of the ongoing costs which exceed the Commonwealth own-purpose outlays index. Costs are increasing by three to four per cent while the aged-care funding instrument subsidy rates have only increased by 1.45 per cent, so we have to be realistic. Recurrent funding has to be far more relevant to the index. The $1.6 billion cut from the aged-care funding instrument places enormous strain on this sector. The costs of their energy, the costs of the medical support for their residents, their wages bills—everything that they do—is going up and yet, particularly in rural and regional residences, there is no alternative for them that will give them better financial stability. According to Kaye Bernhardt, the CEO at Barwo Homestead, an aged-care residence in Nathalia, a fantastic place, the changes to the aged-care funding instrument are already cutting in and will make it very difficult for them to survive unless they have some financial relief quite soon. This is typical of my region's aged-care facilities. Barwo Homestead has fewer than 50 beds; it is in the tiny town of Nathalia, nestled against the Murray River; the nearest other facility is about half an hour to three-quarters of an hour's drive away. If a facility in my electorate had to close, then the aged partners of the people in care would have great difficulty in regularly visiting their loved ones. The families would be isolated from those people who are elderly and in their most frail state, when they are often more in need of daily visits. The refundable accommodation deposit and daily accommodation payment guidelines are still very obscure. We need to know more about what is actually intended. Too much of the detail of these bills is still being left for a later resolution. That is not good enough. Another problem is that rural housing is generally much lower in value than that of metropolitan housing. This means that the higher bonds are just not going to eventuate in most country communities. They are not available to the aged-care facilities in my small country towns. Most of the residents are aged pensioners or veterans' affairs pensioners: they simply do not have the hundreds of thousands of dollars to put into the bonds. As well, with interest rates low, the returns from the bond investments are also quite constrained. This creates the issue of not having sufficient capital funding sources. Unless the funding matches the true cost of quality care, rural facilities will go to the wall. They do need to have additional supplementary funding acknowledging their economies of scale and the fact that there are no alternatives for ageing families who live well beyond metropolitan Australia. As I said, the problem is that the closure of an aged-care facility is a catastrophe for a small town. It is not a case of someone being able to simply go around the corner to an alternative facility that is in better financial shape. Our aged-care facilities are overwhelmingly run by not-for-profit organisations with voluntary boards in the electorate of Murray, and they supplement their income right now through continual fundraising, appeals and community activities. That has helped them survive in the past, but as many of you know in this chamber the SPC Ardmona crash that occurred several weeks ago, when 114 of my growers were told they would have no income or only half of their income next year, means that the fundraising capacity in my communities is now significantly diminished. Many of my aged-care facilities depend on opportunity shops; they depend on the donations and the volunteers who go through the doors of those op shops on weekends. The Euroa aged-care facility, an excellent place, was recently able to repaint and redecorate all of their facility with a $250,000 donation from the town's volunteer-run op shop. It is extraordinary that in modern Australia, in the 21st century, we have small communities depending on op shops in order to do basic upgrading of their facilities, to make them of a reasonable and decent standard, and yet that is what the Euroa community had to do. There was not a cent of government funding in the refurbishment of their facility. They depended on, and were so grateful for, the donation of $250,000 from the op shop. Quite frankly, this is not good enough. It is also important for me to note that my for-profit homes in the electorate—they are small in number—are equally well run and equally caring in the staff's commitment to their residents. They too face real problems with ongoing funding, particularly if this Labor government continues on its current trajectory. You can imagine that the economies of scale are such that— Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 3337 ADJOURNMENT Dunkley Electorate: National Broadband Network 3337 19:00 Mr BILLSON 1K6 Dunkley Mr Deputy Speaker, you and many of my colleagues here have been to that great Southern Hemisphere capital which is not Santiago or Buenos Aires: it is Frankston! You would know that that capital of the south-east of greater Melbourne is a fantastic community, blessed by a lot of really terrific attributes: the coastal location, a vibrant commercial hub— Mr Hawke HWO The federal member! Mr BILLSON 1K6 Well, yes. Thank you for interjecting about the qualities of the federal member. It has always been a bit close, though, so maybe not everyone holds that view! You would be as surprised as I am, Mr Deputy Speaker, in all of the talk and the hoopla around Labor's long-promised but little-delivered NBN, that the great commercial centre of Frankston does not even feature in the rollout maps. Let alone the lack of progress and the tempo at which the rollout is progressing, and the highly ambitious roll-out schedule that is published: the great city of Frankston, the commercial hub—the capital of the south-east of greater Melbourne—does not even rate on the rollout plan. Under the best likely scenario, given current rates of progress under Labor's NBN, the capital city of Frankston might get some action in about 2022, if they are lucky. 2022 if they are lucky, for what is recognised as the regional activity centre—both the current state government and the previous Labor state government saw it as a crucial part of the economic future of the metropolis of Melbourne. But in Labor 's world of NBN Co. and all of the problems it has had actually hitting any of its rollout targets, there is one way to avoid disappointment in Frankston—and that is not to include it in the program at all. They cannot be late because they are not even on the schedule! Even at the current rate of progress—2021, 2022 or 2023—then maybe the economic hub that is Frankston city might be factored into Labor's NBN plan. It goes into the industrial state to the north of Frankston around Belvedere Park and Carrum Downs, where a lot of economic activity has been seen. In the great community of Mornington—one that I know you, Mr Deputy Speaker, in your terrific role as Minister for Veterans' Affairs have visited as we looked at that fantastic Memorial Park in Mornington—there is so much economic activity in the main street: retail sales activity, restaurants and professional service providers, and even in the industrial area out to Mornington East. Guess what? They are not even on the rollout plan either! You hear the Labor government and its members talking about what a wonder the NBN will be. Well, the NBN is on the never-never in Dunkley. Under Labor, the NBN is on the never-never in Dunkley. You can imagine my excitement when with the release of the coalition's plan by our leader, Tony Abbott, and our very capable communications and broadband shadow minister, Malcolm Turnbull, we could say to those communities that under the coalition faster broadband, rolled out more swiftly and more affordably, will be coming to Dunkley. We were delighted to brief Frankston City Council mayor and senior executives and the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council mayor and senior executives about the prospects of higher speed, more affordable broadband coming to their communities under a coalition government if we can earn the support to be elected, compared to the never-never scenario that they face under Labor. We thought that with updating its rollout plans in recent weeks the government may have been stung into action by the coalition's exceptionally good policy: recognising the new universal support for the rollout strategy that gets something done to deliver high-speed more affordable broadband to communities like the greater Frankston and Mornington communities. I thought when there was much announcement and hoopla again about the updated rollout plan that the Gillard government might have been stung into action. But just to rub salt into the injury, guess what? Still not included. Labor is saying a million more households. But no: no work to be commenced until the 2020s in Mornington, Frankston South, the Frankston Central Activities District, the Pines and Seaford for any time in the foreseeable future. Contrast that with the commitment of the coalition. Not only will the work be undertaken; it will be completed. In those communities we would roll out faster broadband across the Dunkley electorate within the first three years under an Abbott government if we are able to earn that opportunity. That is a real, rock-solid commitment that my community welcomes. Not only will it be available—what an enormous step forward!—not only will it be very fast and not only will it identify those commercial areas as a priority; for most households it will be $300 a year cheaper. With cost-of-living pressures, broadband costs should be coming down not going up. Get on the coalition plan; NBN Co.'s plan under Labor is a dud for the Dunkley community. Deakin Electorate: Clean Technology Investment Program 3338 19:05 Mr SYMON HW8 Deakin On Friday, 3 May I visited the Vermont terracotta roof tile factory operated by CSR Building Products. As many people in my part of Melbourne know, they are a very longstanding local employer and, of course, located within the electorate of Deakin. I was very pleased to be accompanied by the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change, Industry and Innovation, better known to many as Yvette D'Ath, the member for Petrie. At the facility we were met by Andrew Rowe, the general manager with CSR Energy; Simon Robinson, CSR's operations manager at Vermont; and John Monaghan, CSR's Vermont production manager. They explained the tile-making process to us and showed off their new equipment—we will get to new equipment shortly CSR Building Products in Vermont has received two grants through the Clean Technology Investment Program with the assistance of AusIndustry. The first grant of $250,000 was for a waste heat capture system for the factory's Ceric kiln. That is used to fire the clay tiles on a slow-moving conveyor system, but it consumes a huge amount of gas—they are by far and away the biggest gas consumer within the electorate. So on top of the $250,000 grant from the CTIP, CSR funded the project with another $500,000 making a total project cost of $750,000. I had previously viewed this site and proposed project with the then Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, the Hon. Mark Dreyfus, in September 2012. On this subsequent visit I was shown the finished project that involved installing a high temperature off-take on the Ceric kiln and then using that waste heat to feed the tunnel dryer that the roof tiles travel through. By capturing and redirecting this formerly lost heat, the company has been able to save money on its very substantial gas bill, as some of the burners on the tunnel dryer are now turned off or running at reduced capacity. The total expected energy saving over the economic life of the project is forecast to be 351 terajoules, which is a huge amount of gas. I looked at the amount in cubic feet, but it was a bit too big for me to say here. However, as we were shown on the day we visited, this project is achieving slightly better results than forecast and there may be scope for even better efficiencies as the production team finetunes the new process. CSR Building Products have also received another grant for the Vermont site of $25,733 to upgrade an air compressor system, reducing the emissions intensity of the compressor by controlling its flow and therefore its demand. Again, the company supplemented this grant with their own investment of $52,248, for a total cost of nearly $78,000. This grant from the Clean Technology Investment Program will allow CSR's Vermont site to save $12,000 a year in electricity costs from this one single compressor—although it is rather large. The air compressor with its new control gear now has an emissions intensity way below that of the old one. These investments in clean technology will pay themselves back to the company in as little as four years or so, as well as helping Australia's efforts to reduce our overall carbon emissions both now and into our future. Many people would be familiar with the sight of terracotta roof tiles in many parts of Australia, especially around my part of Melbourne, where they are very familiar. Most of them over time have actually come from that particular facility. Indeed, in many years gone by it was where the clay was mined and that is why it is located where it is. The clay these days comes from a site in Lilydale. Often known as Monier or Wunderlich tiles, they can make up a substantial, although often unnoticed, effect on a suburb's character. It is great to see that local production of such as an essential building product continues and that CSR is prepared to invest in continued manufacturing in Vermont. AusIndustry helped organise the grant application with CSR and they also assisted in the implementation of the project. The good thing is that other businesses can apply for funds from the Clean Technology Investment Program. I have seen some really great examples by both talking to AusIndustry and having a look on the website as well. Businesses can apply for funds for projects that will maintain or improve the competitiveness of their operations. The important thing is that it encourages businesses not only in Deakin but right across Australia. Contact AusIndustry. Call them on 132846 to find out how your business can become more economically and environmentally sustainable by accessing the Clean Technology Investment Program. Gilmore Electorate: Work Experience, Gilmore Electorate: CCTV Cameras 3340 19:10 Mrs GASH AK6 Gilmore Colleagues would know that we always have work experience people in our office and we ask them to speak about their experience. I would like to quote from the speech by Kate Sinclair, a year 12 student at Kiama High School. She writes: Currently I am half way through completing the HSC and lately I have found myself looking more and more toward the future, wondering what is next for Kate Sinclair. As I near even closer to the dreaded October I find myself praying for November to come; but when November does come, what then? I have pictured myself in all walks of life varying between an incredible range of career opportunities: differing from surgeon to politician to secret agent. As thinking of the future became a more frequent occurrence, a life in politics started to seem a lot more appealing than other careers. I was experiencing an exponentially growing interest in the political world; but Monday night Q&A would no longer suffice. So I thought to myself 'what better way to see the world of politics than to experience it first hand?' And thus I contacted Joanna Gash about work experience. I was thrilled by her prompt reply and how easy the planning process was. The weeks passed and it was time to begin my work experience. My first day was very exciting as I accompanied Gilmore's Liberal candidate for the coming election, Ann Sudmalis, to some of her village visits. It was surprising how many citizens attended with such a wide range of issues they wanted to bring to … attention. Throughout the day we visited three spots. It was a fun, practical day where I was able to talk to Ann about several things, including a political career. I spent the rest of the week in the office where I did several odd-jobs and designed a brochure to encourage young people to enrol to vote as soon as possible. As I completed my work I was interested to know what the other staff were doing—I found myself continually looking around and watching how smoothly the office functions due to Jo's hardworking team. I had a very pleasant week in the office due to the staff being incredibly warm, welcoming and easy to talk to. After my time on work experience my fascination with politics has grown. Having the opportunity to have a meaningful career where I can make a real difference is beyond appealing. I hope that sometime in the future I am able to pursue a political career; but for now I am focusing on finishing the HSC with the best mark I can. I had a fantastic week in Jo's office; it was a pleasure to meet the outstanding team Jo has behind her, as well as spend time with Jo and Ann. I am thankful and appreciative to [particularly] … the office staff for sharing their time and providing me with an insight into working for the community at the political level. That was Kate's speech. While I have some time left I would like to briefly mention the issue of CCTV cameras in the Shoalhaven. As many in this House would be aware, the New South Wales Administrative Decisions Tribunal recently directed our council to switch off our CCTV cameras in the Nowra CBD, stating that operation of CCTV by local councils constitutes a breach of the Privacy Act. To the credit of the New South Wales government and local members Gareth Ward and Shelley Hancock, Premier Barry O'Farrell has now promised to quickly change New South Wales law so that our council can turn these cameras back on within a few days. But I am still concerned about the possible implications that the Commonwealth Privacy Act may have on CCTV operations by local government. This decision by the tribunal could have ramifications across many electorates of those in this House. This is why I have written to the government requesting that they get immediate advice on the Privacy Act and CCTV, with a view to amend the Privacy Act to reaffirm the right of local councils to safeguard their ratepayers. Despite sending this urgent correspondence almost two weeks ago, I am yet to hear anything from those opposite. I would also like to commend the residents of Gilmore for their almost united support in favour of these cameras being switched back on. Certainly the police force and the business community are all very supportive of the CCTV cameras. Shortland Electorate: Fire Services 3341 19:14 Ms HALL 83N Shortland I rise today to speak about the ongoing closures of fire stations by the O'Farrell Liberal government in New South Wales. First, I would like to put on record my thanks to the firefighters within my electorate. They do a tremendous job right across the state, and I applaud them for the difficult job they do under the worst situations imaginable. The New South Wales Liberal government, in an effort to cut costs, has embarked upon a plan to temporarily close or take offline many fire stations throughout the whole of New South Wales, and this happens on an ongoing basis. It simply must stop. The process of taking stations offline has arisen from the New South Wales government's in-built desire to cut costs and services. Fire stations in New South Wales are made up of full-time firefighters and part-time or retained firefighters, who often work second jobs. When these retained firefighters are unable to work due to sickness, work commitments or some other event, the fire crews are moved from one station to another. It has previously been the case that full-time firefighters would be called in to fill in the shortfall in staff and ensure that the station remained operational, but that is not the case anymore. The New South Wales government, instead of paying a little overtime to our hardworking firefighters, would rather put at risk the lives of the people in the community and the safety of their property and close the station altogether, even if it is only temporarily. Often this saves them as little as $300. Within my own electorate of Shortland, the Belmont and Tingira Heights fire stations have been closed for more than 70 hours over the past two months, putting the safety of the citizens of Shortland in danger. When these fire stations are closed, the residents of suburbs such as Windale, Valentine, Belmont, Tingira Heights, Marks Point, Pelican and Blacksmiths must rely on stations in Swansea or Charlestown, and there are a number of factors that could intervene and stop fire crews getting there in time. Anyone who knows the area will understand the risks involved with this, as fire crews travelling from Swansea must rely on light traffic and on the Swansea bridge being down to ensure that they are able to get to the site of the fire before property or, more importantly, lives are lost. The New South Wales government is responsible for paying only 14.6 per cent of the total budget for fire and rescue services within New South Wales, with local government contributing 11.7 per cent and the vast majority, 73.7 per cent, paid for by the residents of New South Wales through fire levies within their insurance policy. It is unacceptable for the New South Wales government to close fire stations that residents have already paid for. In response to the concerns being voiced within the community, I recently organised a meeting with residents of Shortland, firefighters, representatives of local government and the leader of the New South Wales opposition, John Robertson. I was deeply concerned to hear our local firefighters explain the pressures that the O'Farrell Liberal cuts have put them under and was also shocked to learn that firefighters had been threatened with disciplinary action by the New South Wales government for advertising these station closures to the community. John Robertson has stated that he certainly will not be putting bureaucrats before firefighters and has also said that this is cost cutting gone mad. This can be seen as nothing more than a cover-up exercise by a government so keen to hide its cuts that it is willing to bully the firefighters whose job it is to protect us. The closure of these stations cannot and must not continue, and I call upon the New South Wales government and, in particular, the Liberal member for Swansea, Garry Edwards, to stop personal attacks on me and work with me to ensure that these fire stations remain open and are adequately staffed and that the residents of the Shortland electorate are protected from further devastating cuts to essential services. It is vital that, no matter what government is in power, we have the safety that is provided to us by the fire stations. I believe this practice must stop now, and I think that all levels of government should work together to— (Time expired) Hasluck Electorate 3342 19:19 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck I represent a great local community—a diverse community with people from all walks of life. But the one thing they have in common is their will to succeed. The people in my community are survivors—people who, when life knocks them down, get straight back up again. In spite of all these odds, they stand up to the challenges facing them, determined to achieve the best from life rather than letting the struggle of the cost of living get the better of them. They are fighting hard to provide for their families to the best of their capability. It is these individuals in my community, who are standing up for a bright future, who inspire me to be a strong advocate for their needs. The people in my community are fighting for a chance of a better future and for hope, reward and opportunity, and I want to help them to achieve this. Although we have come a long way in just three short years, I believe there is still much more to be done to make our community a stronger, fairer and more connected community for everyone. I want to build a safer local community in my electorate. Everyone is entitled to feel safe and secure in their own house, in their own street and in their own neighbourhood. No-one should have to experience fear in their own community, which is why I am fighting to make our community safer for everyone. I want children to be able to freely play in local playgrounds and walk home from school safely. This is why I am fighting for upgrades to some of our local parks and recreational areas to make them safer for families to enjoy. I believe families should be able to go away on holidays without the fear of break-ins, and I want families to be able to sleep at night without the ongoing threat of hoons racing up and down their street. This is why I have been holding community safety meetings around my electorate, this is why I have been fighting for a better police presence in key areas, and this is why I have been fighting for better lighting and CCTV cameras for the worst hot spots in my electorate. I believe we can build a local community where people are able to enjoy safety and security in their own neighbourhoods. I also want to see a more vibrant local business community within my electorate. I believe that everyone should have the opportunity to succeed, including local small businesses. I want to see local small businesses thriving with a strong local business community, I want to see residents proudly supporting their local businesses, and I want to see small businesses that have a voice in the future of our region. I want to see consumer and market confidence return so that our small businesses have the security to plan for their future. Only a coalition government will be able to fight for the interests of local small businesses with practical assistance like cutting red tape and regulation. With a stronger local business community comes more jobs. I believe that a more connected local community should be a key priority, which is why I am fighting for the internet black spots in my electorate to receive broadband. Residents of suburbs including Thornlie, Southern River, Huntingdale and Gooseberry Hill should not be missing out on the internet simply because it is not politically convenient for the government. Only the coalition will deliver the NBN to these black spot areas as a matter of priority because we understand the importance of families and local businesses being able to access broadband internet. I believe in a health system that services the needs of all Australians. I believe that our health resources need to be efficient, which is why I am fighting for a medical school at the new Midland university. It is also why I am fighting for my local community to be in charge of local health services. No-one is better placed to understand the needs of the local community than its own members. The same is true for our education system. After working with local schools for the past three years I have seen the advantage that schools derive from the backing of a strong local community. It is vital that we build a more sustainable local community, which is why I believe in investing in our future with key infrastructure. It is also why I plan to ensure that future development takes into account the growing pressures on local services. Our community is home to some precious environmental assets. These deserve to be enjoyed by future generations as much as they are by us now. These unique environmental treasures such as the Bibbulmun Track, Mary Carroll Park and the Fishmarket Reserve all deserve strong community support to ensure they are the same tomorrow as they have been in years past. These assets do not need a tax; rather, they need practical support to keep them clean. A coalition government can deliver lower taxes, a stronger and more productive economy, more jobs, and a stronger local community—which is what every member of my electorate deserves. Our Stories: 52 Stories in 52 Weeks 3343 19:24 Mr BYRNE 008K0 Holt Last Thursday, on a balmy autumn night at the Narre Warren Bowls Club, a hundred people came together to celebrate the end of a journey—a journey that chronicled the very best of our community. That celebration was the completion of the Our Stories: 52 Stories in 52 Weeks project. As I have often stated in this House, the Our Stories project came about because I felt our local community had been frequently and unfairly represented in both the local and mainstream media. I wanted to provide a vivid and real contrast to these stories and, in doing so, bring forward to this chamber and elsewhere those amazing people that live and positively contribute to the local community in my federal electorate of Holt. The Our Stories project has enabled the stories of many local heroes to be heard by the wider community. In fact, there were so many stories in our local community that we could easily have had 104 stories in 104 weeks—we just had to draw the line somewhere. Again, as I have stated, it is the people in our region that make it a great region and a great part of the world. Each year I attempt to highlight our community and the achievements of our local heroes. We do this via the Community Spirit and Leadership Awards and the Holt Australia Day Awards. However, with the onset of social media tools, such as YouTube, and the power of film to tell wonderful stories, it seemed only natural to develop our own project to tell the stories of some of our local heroes via a series of short films. The aim of this project was to chronicle the lives of those who take time out of their lives to make the local community and our neighbourhood a better place; to recognise those who are so often unrecognised and unheralded for the work they do; and to acknowledge the sacrifices that they make. We often did that via a third person. We recognise people like Brittany Leo, who is a talented, gifted young local singer who routinely donates her time and talent to perform at charity concerts; Judy Davis—the Spirit of Cranbourne—who has spent years assisting and promoting local business and the community; and Rob Wilson, who is spending his retirement developing and promoting over-60s cricket. I want now to acknowledge each of the participants who made up this project: Erica Maliki, Jeffrey Ware, Stephen Hallett, Leanne Petrides, Ron Webb, Juan Carlos Loyola, Anne Atkin, Mladen Krsman, Murray MacGregor, John Laughton, Chris Drysdale, Ben Phillips, Pam and Elvis D'Sa, Tess and Mairi-anne Macartney, George Nicol, Michele Halsall, Eric Wieckmann, Judy and Russell Owen, Grace Woltanski, Tony O'Hara, Les Boyes, Dale Sheppard, Elizabeth Anning, Susan Bergman, Val Motta, Hector De Santos, Warren and Larraine Calder, Thomas Niazmand, Father Abanoub Attalla, Brian Oates, Vanassa Gerdes, Steve Hill, Justin Yeo, Ken and Joy Reedy, Barbara Maggs, Anthony Jenner, Bob Barker, Dani Rothwell, Rahimi Baryalai, Larry Sebastian, Ruth Murray, Jenny Colvin, Rob Wilson, Debbie Nobbs, Judy Martin, Shaun Trotter, Dale McInnes, Brittany Leo, Radenko Mihailovic, Sarah Ferrante, Father Michael Protopopov, Wendy Murphy, Judy Davis, Dean Moroney, Thomas Moroney, Jacqui Taranto, Blossom Leonard-Fox and Ai-Lin Chang. It is a long list of names. Mr Sidebottom 849 Say it again—what was the second one? Mr BYRNE 008K0 All jokes aside here, they are 52 incredible stories. I would like to thank one person in particular—besides the two crew that are on my side there—and that is Alexandra Stalder. It takes a lot of work to videotape people, chronicle their lives—particularly around their busy work programs, schedules and family commitments—and put it on film. Alexandra did not do that by putting it on film on an office computer. She did it on her own computer. It was a labour of love conceived because of her enthusiasm and commitment to the community. Without Alex we would not have this. It is all well and good for me to be standing here, but the real engine room and creative spirit behind that was my staff member—as the boys will acknowledge—Alexandra Stalder. I would like to thank the guys here—Daniel White and the young fellow, Nick McLennan, for the work that he has done as well. These are great and unique stories. They are on YouTube and we have had 18,000 views of these particular stories. We have to celebrate what is good and right in our community to offer hope and engagement because this place can be pretty divisive. I hope that this Our Stories: 52 Stories in 52 Weeks project has done that. It was a great project and a great journey, and it was an honour to be on that journey. South Australia: Roads 3345 19:29 Dr SOUTHCOTT TK6 Boothby I rise to welcome the $500 million commitment made by the Leader of the Opposition last month that a coalition government will support the continuing upgrade of the north-south road corridor in South Australia. It is envisaged that this commitment will be directed to the South Road upgrade, recommended by the Darlington transport study. The coalition understands the importance of a proper non-stop north-south corridor on the 22 kilometres of South Road, from Darlington to Wingfield. I have spoken many times in this place on the matter. In August 2007 John Howard announced that South Road, south of Sir Donald Bradman Drive, would be added to the national road network and that a future coalition government would provide $1 billion for the South Road upgrade, to 2020. The north-south corridor is the RAA's biggest priority in South Australia. According to the RAA, in the winter of 2012, most of Adelaide's major north-south arterial roads did not meet minimum acceptable standards for travel times during peak travel. Marion Road crawls at 24 kilometres an hour; South Road, at 27 kilometres an hour; Goodwood Road, at 23 kilometres an hour; and Belair-Unley Road, at an incredible 20 kilometres an hour in peak time, all below the threshold level—the acceptable level—of 30 kilometres an hour during peak time. The Adelaide road network lacks a north-south non-stop expressway. Completing this upgrade will benefit residents right across metropolitan South Australia. The upgrade needs to be done in stages and Darlington is the next step. The coalition commitment draws on the road infrastructure upgrades proposed in the South Australian government's Darlington transport study. Our commitment includes: South Road reconfigured between the Southern Expressway and north of Sturt Road into an expressway-standard road incorporating road network modifications; grade separation of South Road as an underpass, extending below Flinders Drive and Sturt Road; and connection of the Darlington interchange with the Southern Expressway to provide for two-way flow. We expect construction to begin within the first term of a future coalition government. In addition, the coalition will work with the SA government to develop a business case for this project and for the remaining sections of the north-south corridor over time. The coalition understands that the entire north-south corridor upgrade is a major project that will take many years, but we will work with the SA government to make it a reality. I am proud to say that a coalition government will finally complete something that those opposite have promised on so many occasions but always failed to deliver. I have a folder full of media releases from state and federal Labor transport ministers which promise that they would build underpasses or flyovers at the bottleneck of South and Sturt roads. I have a catalogue of broken promises by the Labor Party, from 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. In the last seven years Labor have spruiked for South Road a tunnel, an underpass, a flyover, an interchange and a widening of South Road. None of these projects have been delivered. Their latest announcement three days ago is merely the latest in a long list of impressive video flyovers which have never been delivered. More importantly, their plan will not get traffic moving again in Adelaide. Unfortunately, we now see the state and federal Labor governments playing politics with vital infrastructure upgrades in South Australia. The latest discussion paper, prepared by the SA government, to update their strategic infrastructure plan recommended the works at Darlington be the next priority after the completion of the South Road Superway. Labor's reprioritised announcement now shows that they are putting politics before policy, in the same way they have reprioritised the funding for the South-Sturt Road intersection so many times before. Traffic congestion is regularly raised as one of the top concerns in my surveys in the electorate of Boothby. And my constituents are saying that, under Labor, they have become the forgotten south. The southern local councils such as Marion and Onkaparinga councils see the South Road upgrade as critical for their local economy, for local industries and for commuters, who are sick of driving at a crawl. Lyme Disease, Climate Change 3346 19:34 Mr MURPHY 83D Reid A medical condition, be it a disease, syndrome or disorder, is classed by the European Organisation for Rare Diseases as rare if it affects fewer than one in 2,000 people, while in Australia the Therapeutic Goods Administration describes a disease as rare 'if it has a prevalence of one in 10,000 people or less'. On behalf of one of my constituents, I wish to record in the House that Lyme disease in Australia falls within the official definition of a rare disease, yet it is the most common, serious, multisystem, tick borne disease in the Northern Hemisphere and growing evidence shows that, despite official denial by New South Wales Health, it does appear to be a growing problem in Australia. According to the Karl McManus Foundation, a private organisation set up to promote awareness of Lyme disease in Australia, as of March 2013 there were 394 confirmed cases in Australia and 335 suspected cases, based on evidence from people who had contacted the foundation. New South Wales Health states that Lyme disease is caused by the bacterium Borrelia burgdorferi and typical symptoms include fever, headache, fatigue, sore muscles and joints, and a characteristic bull's-eye skin rash called erythema migrans. Lyme disease is classified as a zoonosis—that is, an infection that is transmitted by a vector, such as a tick, from animals such as rodents or deer to humans. In a review of 1,415 pathogens known to infect humans, 61 per cent were found to be zoonotic, so it should not be surprising that if a disease-causing organism such as a bacterium is widespread in a population of wild animals then there is, given the existence of a vector such as ticks, a high risk that humans will be infected. An organism that causes a serious illness in humans is frequently far less harmful to its natural host, simply because the host has evolved a tolerance over time to the infection. Although the official position of New South Wales Health is that Lyme disease in Australia is the result of an infection acquired overseas, the fact that three surveys by Makerras in 1959, by Carley and Pope in 1962 and by Wills and Barry in 1994 all found the presence of Borrelia bacterium in Australian native animals should give cause for serious concern to all. I would now like to move on in this debate to climate change. The Leader of the Opposition has sworn to make the next federal election some sort of referendum on a price on carbon. Never mind that the evidence that the ever-increasing concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide is driving record changes in the number of extreme weather events, such as a recent study by NASA shows; evidently many in the opposition still do not appreciate that there is a high probability that recent weather related disasters can be linked to the effects of an increasing concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Here I point out tonight that the difference between a natural event that has a high probability of recurrence like the rising of the sun and a study that shows that, for instance, a 0.5 degree centigrade increase in sea surface temperature can be associated with an approximately 40 per cent increase in Atlantic hurricane activity. Every punter understands that, even though a good horse has been ridden by a successful jockey, there is only an increased probability, rather than a certainty, that the horse will win. So it is with global warming. Although it is difficult to say that every severe storm is caused by global warming, just like a horse with many wins, the chances are increased with the ever-growing number of extreme weather events. A study published in August 2012 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America looks at the past six decades of global temperatures and finds a 'stunning' rise in the frequency of extremely hot summers. The study compared what is happening now to what was happening between 1951 and 1980 and found that in those years extremely hot temperatures covered less than 0.2 per cent of the planet's land surface. Now those temperatures annually cover about 10 per cent of the land area—a fiftyfold increase. The study used recorded temperatures rather than computer models to demonstrate that climate change is responsible for recent extreme weather events, probably including last year's droughts in Texas and Oklahoma, the Russian heatwave in 2010 and the European heatwave in 2003 that, according to a peer reviewed analysis, killed some 70,000 people. The study's author, James Hansen, wrote: The odds that natural variability created these extremes are minuscule, vanishingly small. To count on those odds would be like quitting your job and playing the lottery every morning to pay the bills. Yet that is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition would have us do by abandoning measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. I state again: it is very, very important that we have put a price on carbon to show the world that Australia treats global warming very seriously. East West Link 3347 19:39 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston The East West Link is a vital piece of infrastructure that is desperately needed for Melbourne, particularly for residents in eastern Melbourne, including in my electorate of Aston, who face daily traffic congestion. I rise today to express my disappointment and frustration that the federal government ignored this important piece of infrastructure in the budget last night. The East West Link would be an 18-kilometre stretch of road that would link the Eastern Freeway across to the west. The proposal is to tunnel from the end of the Eastern Freeway across to the other side of the city and then link up with the Tullamarine Freeway and the Western Ring Road. It is the Victorian government's top priority as an infrastructure project and it is also the RACV's top priority as an infrastructure project. Why is this so critical? It is because the Eastern Freeway—as you would know, Madam Speaker, because many of your residents would take it to go into work each morning just as residents of Aston do—is one of the busiest freeways in Melbourne but comes to a full stop at the end of it at Hoddle Street, which means that you get enormous backlogs of traffic coming to a standstill, particularly in peak hour traffic in the morning. There are no linkages across to the west from there. Families in my electorate and in other electorates in eastern Melbourne such as Deakin, Chisholm, Bruce and Kooyong have to suffer further traffic congestion, and that means there is time away from home and stuck in traffic instead. For businesses this congestion comes at a huge economic cost. Instead of taking a very short amount of time to get from one side of the city to the other, they are stuck in traffic, often for hours, to get across to the other side of town. The additional benefit of the East West Link is to take pressure off the M1 and off the West Gate Freeway, because that also is coming to a standstill at peak hour. Having a further link across to the west would take pressure off that very busy arterial. On 7 May this year we received some very good news: the Napthine government committed for stage 1 to be built starting next year and to be completed within five years. Stage 1 would connect the Eastern Freeway across to the Tullamarine Freeway, which is probably the most important part as far as residents in my electorate are concerned. This section would cost between $6 billion and $8 billion, and the state government made an initial contribution of $294 million. As I said before, they have listed this as their No. 1 roads priority for the state, and they have requested $1.5 billion from the federal government to help make it happen. They would make up the rest through private contributions. I am pleased that the coalition has committed this $1.5 billion, so that money will go towards that project to help get it done if there is a change of government. Last night, though, despite the government going on a spending spree and despite having budget deficits as far as the eye could see, they did not put aside any money for this vital piece of economic infrastructure. I am disappointed in that regard because this was the state's top priority, it was the RACV's top priority project and it is desperately needed by residents in my electorate and across eastern Melbourne. It did not get funding last night and indeed was not even listed on the government's 10-year horizon. That is how the government thinks about this important piece of infrastructure. This means that in the upcoming election residents in Aston, Deakin, Chisholm, Bruce and Kooyong will have a very clear choice. If they choose the coalition, they know that this project will go ahead, that it will start next year, that it will be completed within five years and that that will ease congestion on the Eastern Freeway and make it easier to get across to the other side of town. However, if the government is re-elected, we know that it will not even be on their priority list for the next decade. That is the clear choice. Let's get it done. Let's put the $1.5 billion on the table so that we can reduce congestion in Melbourne. (Time expired) China 3348 19:44 Mr MELHAM ( 4T4 Banks ) ( ): In early April, the Prime Minister led the most senior ministerial delegation to visit China. My electorate of Banks has one of the highest numbers of overseas born Chinese in this country, together with those who have Chinese parentage. Regardless of the circumstances in which people chose to come to Australia, I am sure that they are pleased with this government's ongoing commitment to strong relations with their home country. The Prime Minister used the opportunity to brief President Xi Jinping on the release of the government's white paper on Australia in the Asian Century and the policy underlying that white paper for expanding and diversifying our relationship; not just our economic relationship, but also education links, science, cultural and arts links. In addition there were several key issues under discussion. On trade and finance, Australia and China continue to work together on a free trade agreement. Both countries have complex economies, so this will take some time; however, both countries are working toward a positive outcome in due course. One of the outcomes of discussions which I am sure will be of interest to my constituents is the start of direct trading between the Australian dollar and the Chinese renminbi. This will make it easier for Australian businesses, both large and small, to buy and sell into the Chinese market. On tourism, the Prime Minister announced that Australia will move towards facilitated border clearance for the growing number of Chinese tourists and business travellers through a pilot scheme to make SmartGate open to Chinese e-passport holders. I also note the announcement of the plan for an Australia Week in China, to be based in Shanghai, as a showcase of the best Australia has to offer in tourism, trade and investment. On defence, both countries launched a strategic policy exchange, bringing together officials of Australia's Department of Defence and China's People's Liberation Army to discuss regional security issues and an inaugural Australia-China Military Friendship and Culture Week to be held in Canberra in September-October 2013. On clean energy, China and Australia have agreed to new arrangements to strengthen collaboration on carbon markets. Australia is sharing information on the design and implementation of emissions trading schemes through technical workshops and joint research projects. Apart from the specific issues I have identified, a critical outcome was the agreement by the leaders to upgraded bilateral architecture based on an annual leaders meeting and ministerial-level economic, foreign and strategic dialogues. These arrangements will provide a modern platform to give renewed strategic direction to the relationship. As the local member for almost 28,000 people of Chinese origin, I am very proud that it is this government which has continued to build on the relationship established by Gough Whitlam through his visit to forge relations with the Chinese government in 1971—a visit, I remind the House, that was criticised by the coalition at the time, but a visit that has served this country well in our relationship with China. I am also aware that many of my constituents were able to stay in Australia because of the Hawke government's decision in 1989 to allow student visa holders a visa extension after the Tiananmen Square incident. Today the Labor Party has an excellent relationship with China and with those from China who now choose to make their home in Australia. The acceptance of China-Australians in this country today is particularly pleasing, because it was not always so. There was the fear of the yellow hordes post the Second World War. Prior to that there was the appalling treatment of Chinese who were here working in the mines and other places. It was a fear that was based on ignorance and prejudice. What Chinese-Australians have shown is a capacity for hard work and a capacity for the family and they have won the respect of the rest of the Australian community in terms of the way they involve themselves in not just the business community but in other activities within Australia. What it shows is once you start to interact and involve yourself in those communities, that ignorance and prejudice just flows out of you and what we have is an enrichment of this country. Chinese migration to this country has enriched Australia. We are the better for it and we are the better for our relationship with China. Foreign Investment 3350 19:49 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Riverina farmers are anxiously awaiting some leadership from the Treasurer, who has an important decision to make in the weeks ahead. The Treasurer will almost certainly get the final say on whether the American company Archer Daniels Midland is able to buy out GrainCorp. GrainCorp is the largest publicly listed grain business in the country. It is the last one of its kind. Its proposed sale to a foreign company is not in the national interest. GrainCorp's country silo, logistics and export facilities handle more than three-quarters of eastern Australia's grain crop and directly sells half of the wheat exports of New South Wales. It is big business, important business—not just for regional growers and the rural economies their hard work underpins, but also as far as Australia's trade and balance of payments are concerned. The Treasurer needs to reject any notion of a takeover if it comes across his desk. If such a buyer does not fail the national interest test, then I would ask: what does? When it looked likely the control of the Australian Stock Exchange was headed abroad, to Singapore, the Treasurer responded swiftly to protect Australia's best interests. That was an $8 billion deal. That was 8 April 2011. He needs to adopt the same attitude again to keep GrainCorp in Australian hands. This will protect growers and ensure much of the profits from our $9 billion a year grain harvest stay where they belong—in Australia. The Treasurer has the opportunity to give grain growers hope and certainty. Grain growers are worried and they want guarantees. New South Wales Farmers' Grains Committee chairman, Mark Hoskinson, of Kikoira, says that the Treasurer must call for submissions for all of those concerned, and I agree. The Labor government must consult with the people this decision affects and they will see the concern growers have. Mr Hoskinson says tax implications if growers are forced to sell their shares and infrastructure concerns, such as the foreign control of export terminals, are some of the biggest issues amongst growers. There are many grain growers within my electorate, some of whom I speak with on a very regular basis, such as Ian 'Jock' Munro, of Rankins Springs, and John Dennis, at Collingullie. They are very concerned about the proposed sale of GrainCorp to ADM. So is Griffith's Andy Ryan of the Northern Riverina Grains. Mr Munro says we should 'facilitate a process that will allow the grain producers of the three eastern States and the three state governments'—Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria—'to purchase GrainCorp and to allow the organisation to operate as a cooperative'. Junee grower Martin Honner says he is concerned about the influence of port control and the risk ports can become foreign owned and operated. And the issue of access to ports in eastern Australia is critical. As I drive around my Riverina electorate, I am constantly reminded of the reality of abolishing the single desk for wheat by this parliament in 2008. Only the Nationals voted against seeing the realities of such a poor decision which Riverina growers now face every day. Only the Nationals voted against seeing piles and piles of wheat sitting idly in paddocks under tarps around the Riverina and elsewhere, because they cannot be taken to market because the price is not high enough. And this is before we consider the implications of years of drought and the remarkably high Australian dollar. Grain growers are already up against it. Thank goodness it has rained this week. The proposed sale of GrainCorp to ADM is quite simply not in the national interest. I would urge the Treasurer to do as he did with the proposed Singaporean takeover of the ASX and move swiftly to protect this vital Australian company. I will read from the Leader of the Nationals' 3 May media release about this very subject because it is very pertinent to this debate. He said: Thinking Australians are increasingly highlighting the potential for our country to expand its food sector to feed growing global demand, but this sale would mean that our nation loses control of its grain storage and export facilities and our grain producing future. If we keep blithely going along with the domino-effect of one-by-one allowing our successful agribusinesses to fall into foreign hands, we'll have nothing left to call our own, and all the decisions about Australia's farming future will be made in boardrooms halfway around the world. The consideration of the takeover will be a major test for the Foreign Investment Review Board and Treasurer Wayne Swan. If the FIRB reckons this sale is in the national interest, then it is incumbent on the FIRB to spell out why. It is also time Archer Daniels Midland explained its plans for GrainCorp. Are there any benefits in this transaction for Australia and its farmers? Does it plan any new facilities and investment in Australia? What increased charges or reductions in services is it proposing? What will be left for Australia of profits from Australia's $9 million a year grain harvest? They are questions that need to be answered. This is a Treasurer who needs to act and act now. (Time expired) Personal Explanation 3351 19:54 Mr OAKESHOTT IYS Lyne Speaker, I rise to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 83S Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr OAKESHOTT IYS I do most grievously, Speaker. The SPEAKER 83S Please proceed. Mr OAKESHOTT IYS In the House between 5 and 5.30 pm today a debate took place with regard to suspension of standing orders to consider section 132 of the standing orders due to a vote that occurred earlier today when MPs were accidentally absent. In that debate the integrity of all crossbenchers, including me, was questioned by the Manager of Opposition Business. He made the following comments: The right thing to do if they had any integrity at all would be for one of them to absent themselves from the vote or vote with the opposition to ensure the MP for Fairfax is paired. Also, and I quote: They may well want to pair themselves with the MP for Fairfax in order to ensure that this vote is not counted, because he has returned home. He is ill. He is incapable of being here. I would not have any problem with vigorous debate and challenges to my integrity if the MP for Fairfax had indeed returned home and was sick or was incapable of voting. But he is none of the above, because I have seen him in the corridor tonight. I am also aware of at least one journalist who can confirm that the member for Fairfax is in the building tonight. I would also have little regard for getting up and correcting the record if this was just an ordinary vote with a clear majority. But it was no ordinary vote. It was a vote that everyone knew, including the member for Sturt, had only one vote in it. My integrity was challenged by someone who was misleading me, misleading the crossbench and, as the record shows, misleading the House. 19:56 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler The member for Lyne has raised a very serious issue indeed. Members should be aware that the deliberate misleading of the House is a very serious offence indeed. I just put a footnote on that with regard to potential further action on that tomorrow morning as to whether there has indeed been a question, at the very least, of a breach of privilege. We regard these issues as an issue of honour. During the debate the member for Sturt chose to say some pretty strong things and I would certainly like to ascertain the facts around this before I take it any further, including, as a courtesy, having a discussion with the member for Sturt about these issues. But certainly the member for Sturt was very clear. As a consequence also, I should indicate that the opposition have taken action against people including the member for Greenway and others in terms of a denying of pairs tomorrow on legitimate issues including some that the opposition were aware of. I thank the member for Lyne for doing his duty as a member in drawing it to the parliament's attention at the earliest possible opportunity. I thank you, Speaker, and I reserve the fact that I might have further to say on this. The SPEAKER 83S I thank the Leader of the House. This is a matter for the members involved to consider. The question before the House is that the House do now adjourn. Bangladesh: Industrial Accidents 3352 19:58 Mr LAURIE FERGUSON 8T4 Werriwa For nearly 30 years the Bhopal Union Carbide tragedy was the worst industrial accident. Unfortunately, on 24 April, the Rana Plaza collapse in Dhaka, Bangladesh, claiming 1,127 lives, took that record off Bhopal. We are talking about an event that is not strange and not unusual in Bangladesh. In fact 1,800 factory workers in the garment industry have died over the last year. The garment industry is not an insignificant industry for Bangladesh. Eighty per cent of its exports are from this industry and it generates $20 billion a year. It is a situation where the industry is so ramshackle and so uninspected that estimates of factories vary from 4½ thousand to 6½ thousand. The current wage is $38 a month, and it is the third largest exporter of clothing in the world. Some of the background to this concerns the failure to really police the industry. In the last week or so four million workers have supposedly been given the right to unionise. That supposedly has been the case up to now, but employers had the right to inspect lists, and victimised anyone who did not join. The situation in the country is perhaps best indicated by Commerce Minister Mohammed Quader's concession that 'we wanted the jobs and therefore we did not do enough to discourage the worst style of employer'. The style of employer was Sohel Rana, who owned this particular building. In the words of Ashraf Uddin Khan, Vice-President of the Dhaka district of the Awami League, Rana was the head of an underworld gang involved in drugs and extortion and illegal land seizures. In the incident on 23 April when workers complained about cracks in the building he sent them back and was quoted in the media as saying: 'This is not a crack. The plaster on the wall is broken. Nothing more. It is not a problem.' Unfortunately that led to the deaths of 1,117 people, and the heroic survival of Reshma Begum, a worker who survived in the rubble for 17 days. This is not a lone incident in this country. In November 2012 a fire in the Tazreen factory claimed 112 lives. In that incident there had been the illegal closure of factory emergency exits and floors had been added to the building illegally. This is a daily occurrence in Dhaka. In this very same case I am talking about, at the Rana Plaza, once again storeys were added onto the building illegally and also heavy generators were placed in the building illegally, where the building was not designed to support them. Mr Rana, the person involved in this building, typifies one of the problems in the country. His family has been associated with both of the competing political parties, the Awami League and the BNP, switching as is convenient depending on who is governing the country. The country is unfortunately characterised by a lack of policing. In recent weeks we have seen the announcement of a minimum wage hearing. We have seen a situation where there have been some latent moves. We have seen European companies sign up to make sure they have factory inspections in the companies that supply them. But, unfortunately, the infamous Wal-Mart corporation and a number of US corporations are saying they will not sign up to anything that will be legally binding. They will sign up to things they run themselves. They will sign up to things that will be ineffective. In Europe we have seen Marks & Spencer, the big Swedish exporting company Hennes & Mauritz, major Spanish corporation Inditex, Benetton and so on sign up. But American companies remain very reluctant. To give you another indication of what we are facing in this country, and the need for the world to be interested and perhaps for our foreign aid to look at helping the Bangladeshis to improve their factory inspectorate, we have the incident of April 2012 where union activist Aminul Islam was found murdered after a few weeks previously succeeding in negotiations with the major US fashion house Tommy Hilfiger. He was found murdered, with signs of torture, including the breaking of all of his toes and holes through his legs. He had noticed a police van near where he was praying in a mosque and earlier had expressed concerns about his safety. We need the world to make sure the fashion houses of the world are responsible and that it is not simply a matter of going to Bangladesh because wages there are cheaper than in China, which is really saying something. We need these corporations to be socially responsible. House adjourned at 20:04 NOTICES 3353 NOTICES

Wednesday, 15 May 2013

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr BC Scott ) took the chair at 09:30.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 3355 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Vietnam War 3355 09:30 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I rise to speak about the government's failure to bring justice to the more than 450 doctors, nurses and anaesthetists who served as members of the SEATO civilian surgical medical teams that operated in Vietnam between 1964 and 1972. These volunteers all suffered the hardships of war while tending to the wounded and should not be denied repatriation benefits similar to those provided to ADF personnel serving in Vietnam during the same period. Because it is alleged these volunteers were not technically under the control of the ADF but under the control of the Department of External Affairs, they have been denied justice for more than four decades. This is despite the fact that these civilians were awarded the Active Service Medal for working in a warlike situation. Justice Mohr, in his report in 2000, found that these nurses: …were integrated with the ADF and performed like functions. The Weekend Australian has recently revealed a previously hidden document, which indicated a chain of command between the ADF and the hospital of Bien Hoa, where hundreds of Australian civilian medical staff were located at the time. The result of this bureaucratic blockade is that the physical pain these civilian volunteers have suffered, including lymphomas, thyroid disease, autoimmune disease disorders, multiple sclerosis and post-traumatic stress disorder at higher rates than in the general community, has been compounded by the emotional anguish of being ignored by the government. Dot Angell says that she is angry, very angry; Ted Kremer says that he feels betrayed; and Maureen Spicer says that she is outraged. I have met some of these brave people, including former senior nurse Caroline Coventry, who went with the first Alfred Hospital team to Vietnam in 1966 and is also a Kooyong constituent. I have taken up their case by writing to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Warren Snowdon, but to no avail. Today, Mr Deputy Speaker, I give voice to their case in the parliament and join with such distinguished Australian military figures as General Cosgrove, who supports their case and calls for an act of grace by the government. As a former Vietnam veteran, General Cosgrove has said: Very plainly, the men and women of the Vietnam surgical teams, there at the behest of the Australian government, were no more 'free agents' than was I. It is never too late to right a wrong. I hope that an Australian government, whatever its political affiliation, can bring justice for these Australian patriots, who selflessly risked their lives to help others. In doing so, we will be not only properly dealing with our past but strengthening our future. Page Electorate: Coal Seam Gas 3355 09:32 Ms SAFFIN HVY Page In my seat of Page, which includes the beautiful Northern Rivers area with some of the country's best agricultural lands, best horticultural produce, pristine areas and waters, including an interconnected river system and the mighty Clarence River, we have been under assault from CSG mining companies, and now gold mining is trying to move into the Kyogle area. Our state government's inadequate mining laws leave us and our farmers unprotected from this assault—not just farmers, but particularly farmers. It has been left to the federal government to protect our water. I expect the amendment to our Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, our national environment law, to pass the Senate today. Of course, that is up to them, but it is listed for debate again this morning and could become law within a few weeks. This amendment will bring coal seam gas mining and large coalmining projects within the ambit of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The mining companies and the state government, who have given approval and who are issuing the mining licences, will have to demonstrate that both water quality and water quantity are not negatively impacted—a tall order given how difficult that would be to prove. I do not see how they will be able to do that. When I read the National Water Commission position statement on coal seam gas mining that articulates 11 principles to be followed if it is to be done, it appears to be nearly impossible to do it. I have read other reports that they have issued as well. The CSIRO publication on water in 2011 had a chapter on water, coal seam gas mining and large coal mining, actually says that they do not know some of the impacts of this type of mining on water. The member for Richmond Mrs Justine Elliot and I have joined forces to fight this threat. We are saying we have done what we can to protect us and our area in the Northern Rivers with the amendment to theEnvironment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999and now it is up to the state government to make an exclusion zone in our area. It has introduced some type of an exclusion zone but it really is inadequate and there is a lot of outs in it. It needs a blanket exclusion zone to make sure that coal-seam gas mining does not happen in the Northern Rivers. It is not an area that can sustain coal-seam gas mining. The honourable member for Richmond and I have a petition going and we are seeking 10,000 signatures. I thank the people for signing. National Broadband Network 3356 09:35 Mr RANDALL PK6 Canning I wish to speak about the coalition's plans to deliver fast and affordable broadband to all Australians. It is important to remember that both major parties have the same goal, to deliver fast broadband on an equitable basis. However, there is a fundamental difference in our approach which speaks volumes about the way the coalition and the Labor Party manage public funds. The coalition have a plan to get fast broadband to all Australians much, much sooner than later and at much less cost to taxpayers. The coalition' s broadband rollout requires funding of $29.5 billion compared to Labor's plan which is tipped to cost $94 billion. Despite throwing an astonishing sum of money at the National Broadband Network the Labor Party cannot even undertake a timely rollout of the scheme. Labor's NBN will likely take at least until 2025 to complete. The coalition' s NBN will be completed by 2019. Labor's NBN will be lucky to meet 15 per cent of its targets by June 30. In fact, it has only connected about 10,000 people nationally through its main brownfields fibre rollout. In the Canning electorate Mandurah residents have seen the slow rollout of the NBN on local streets. Initially the rollout in Mandurah was delayed around six months as the government could not get construction contracts into place effectively. NBN work in Mandurah commenced in December 2011. NBN Co clearly stated in its press release dated 6 September 2011 that the estimated time from the start of the work to the activation of first services would be around 12 months. Well, December 2012 came and no one is connected in Mandurah because the work is not finished. NBN Co now claim in April it is ready for service update and Mandurah consumers will be connected from December 2013, two years from the commencement of the work and 18 months behind schedule in total. Because Labor's NBN rollout is failing to meet any targets, it has been unwilling to engage in any factual debate and has instead resorted to misrepresentation, distortion and outright falsehoods when speaking of the coalition's plan. One misleading claim is that the coalition's broadband policy will cost $5,000 to connect. This is false. Whether it is Labor's NBN or the coalition's NBN, customers will still have to pay a monthly fee to access live internet connection. The difference here is the fee consumers have to pay. Estimated retail price in 2021 for the coalition's NBN will be $66 per month. Labor's NBN cost will be $90 per month. Another false claim being made is that Australia must go all fibre because everybody else is doing it. On the contrary, data compiled by Point Topic in the broadband forum shows FTP accounts for only three per cent of the 644 million broadband subscriptions in the world. I know how desperately my constituents want fast broadband. I recognise that and the coalition's broadband plan requires NBN Co to build in readiness for the future upgrades to take— (Time expired) Infrastructure 3357 09:38 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair The electorate of Blair has seen the most significant investment in infrastructure for many years under this federal Labor government. This is because the Labor government has invested in infrastructure. In Queensland it has more than doubled annual infrastructure spending from $143 to $314 per Queenslander. I have spoken many times in this place on the federal Labor government's $3 billion investment in the Ipswich Motorway from Dinmore to Darra and I am pleased to see it is continuing to invest in the upgrade of this motorway. The continuing work is not in my electorate but is vital to motorists in Blair and that is why the Ipswich-based The Queensland Times celebrated this continuing investment on its front page today. We are continuing to invest in Ipswich Motorway with the instalment of $279 million for the Darra to Rocklea six-lane upgrade, an upgrade located mainly in the electorate of Moreton but used by tens of thousands of people in Ipswich and Brisbane. A section of that road floods regularly at Oxley Creek. This is an important road upgrade for the economy of the western corridor and for South East Queensland. It is important for jobs, for growth and for the economic development of South East Queensland. I am not sure that those opposite who represent communities in South East Queensland understand this. This morning I am also pleased to announce that work has finally begun on the Blacksoil interchange at the Warrego and Brisbane Valley Highway intersection in Blair. This government has committed $54 million to this $93 million project—we did it back in 2011. The project was delayed four times by the state LNP government. This has been a long and difficult process and I have spoken at length in this place in relation to it. It is a notorious intersection. Approximately 40,000 vehicles a day travel along the Warrego Highway with about 9,000 vehicles a day on the Brisbane Valley Highway and a further 6,000 vehicles a day on the Wulkuraka Connection Road in Ipswich. The traffic on all three roads is expected to more than double by 2031 so it is vital to move now on this important infrastructure upgrade. The project is expected to be completed by late 2014; it is a big win for motorists. I am sad that those opposite voted against it, as they did with the upgrade to Ipswich Motorway, Dinmore to Darra, again and again. For three federal elections the coalition opposed the Ipswich Motorway upgrade and they opposed the Blacksoil interchange upgrade at the last federal election. I call on the LNP members in South East Queensland to support the upgrade of the Darra to Rocklea section of Ipswich Motorway—finally to get it; finally to realise that this upgrade is important for jobs, growth and economic development in South East Queensland. Wilson, Private Kyle 3358 09:42 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I rise today to praise the efforts of Private Kyle Wilson of Castle Hill in my electorate who this year in the Australia Day honours received a Commendation for Gallantry. This brave 22-year-old received the Commendation for Gallantry, one of only 30 awarded over the past two decades. This is an extraordinary story of an ordinary Australian doing extraordinary things. Private Wilson follows in the military footsteps of his father, uncle, brother and grandfather, the latter of whom received the Order of Australia Medal in 1983. I note that Private Wilson joined the Army at the age of 17 for a gap year. Of course, he had such a great time after he enlisted that, when the 12 months were up, he sought further military service. I put on the record at this point my great support for the ADF gap year program. I was disappointed to see its cessation in the 2012-13 budget. Private Wilson is exactly the kind of person who had the experience at 17 to go on and do great things. His citation for gallantry reads: For acts of gallantry in action on 7 September 2011 while deployed on Operation Slipper as a member of Mentoring Task Force 3 in Afghanistan. While attempting to apprehend a withdrawing insurgent commander Private Wilson and a fellow soldier came under intense plunging fire from an insurgent force numbering three to five on their southern flank as well as fire from their quarry. Despite facing extreme personal danger Private Wilson and the other soldier advanced over 100 metres with no cover, concealment or friendly suppressive fire to close with and neutralise the insurgent commander. Their actions also drew fire away from the remainder of their section enabling them to reposition and engage more fully in the battle. It is a fairly dry sort of citation but the true heroism of these young men is that they put their lives on the line for their friends and for the rest of their section without regard for their own personal safety and without regard for anything but the survival of their mates. Reading the full explanation of their story in the Australian Army newspaper is worth while. Private Wilson said that with the adrenalin pumping through his veins he really did not think about the danger until he saw the rounds falling around his feet. He looked straight over to his mate. He saw him 'with the rounds falling all around us' and he knew instinctively that it was time to take action. His training kicked in and he did not take any regard for his own personal safety. It is an amazing story of heroism. Just like all of our service personnel, young men and women, he does extraordinary things every day. Kyle Wilson is now back in Castle Hill, running his own business. He is a personal trainer at CrossFit Gym—something I know all members of this place could benefit from—and he is doing a great job re-integrating into our community in his own business. I congratulate him and his friends on his extraordinary service in Afghanistan and on behalf of this parliament welcome this great award of a Commendation of Gallantry. Racism 3359 09:45 Mr SLIPPER 0V5 Fisher There are many evils in our society, but there is no evil greater than anti-Semitism. I was interested to read in the Australian today that Professor Rees of the Sydney Peace Foundation, who is on the staff of the University of Sydney's Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, which supports the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement that explicitly equates Israel with apartheid-era South Africa, attacked the Prime Minister and others for their opposition to the position that he takes. I call on the university to sack Professor Rees because in our society what we need is tolerance, understanding of diversity and respect for individual religious convictions. It is incredibly wonderful that the Prime Minister of this nation, the honourable member for Kooyong and so many other members of parliament have chosen to sign a document supporting the London Declaration on Combating Anti-Semitism. Regrettably, in three minutes one does not have time to read all of the London Declaration on Combating Anti-Semitism, but it is a wonderful initiative. Around the world at the moment we are finding increasing anti-Semitic attacks. We are finding, increasingly, that people are opposing those of the Jewish faith. We only have to cast our minds backwards more than half a century ago to the Holocaust, when millions of Jewish people were murdered because of their religion and ethnicity. The fact that the London Declaration on Combating Anti-Semitism is receiving such strong support from both sides of parliament indicates that there are values that unite members of this parliament, and values that unite our society. Professor Rees, from the Sydney Peace Foundation, is out of step with values that this parliament represents. Professor Rees is un-Australian. His views are absolutely despicable and, in fact, the university ought not to be wasting public money paying a person who has such odious views and who supports anti-Semitism. He is, in my view, someone who has no place on the public payroll. All Australians should abhor what he has said, and I believe that members should sign this declaration. I have visited Israel five times—most recently as Speaker of the House of Representatives. It is a wonderful country, a tolerant country, and I think all of us should stand up against the evils of anti-Semitism. Child Care 3359 09:48 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins The electorate of Higgins has a longstanding and deserved reputation as a wonderful place to raise children. As such, since becoming the member for Higgins, I have made it a priority to visit numerous kindergartens and childcare centres across my electorate. I have also done this in my capacity as deputy chair of the coalition's deregulation task force. During these visits I have had regular discussions on the progress and impact of the government's significant regulatory changes, notably the introduction of universal access in kindergartens and the introduction of the National Quality Framework across the sector. It is clear that the Rudd and Gillard governments' increases in regulation are leading to reductions in places, higher fees, decreased accessibility, capital expenditure in order to alter existing infrastructure, and significant allocation of paid and voluntary work and associated increases in stress. The mandatory introduction of many of these changes brought about by universal access in the National Quality Framework is a classic case of 'government knows best', whereby it is assumed that more regulation will lead to better outcomes. This is not necessarily the case. I am particularly grateful to my colleague the member for Mayo and shadow parliamentary secretary Jamie Briggs for joining me in two round tables in April with three of my local councils—Boroondara, Stonnington and Glen Eira—and 18 representatives from kindergartens and childcare providers in my electorate. There were three key concerns raised, and I will cover them very briefly in the time available. First is the loss of kindergarten and long daycare places. Within the City of Boroondara, in order for kindergartens to provide the mandatory 15 hours a week for four-year- olds, one kindergarten has reduced its three-year-old intake by 17 places. This represents a significant diminution of service to the local community and a significant loss of income to the community-run kindergarten. The changes of staff-to-child ratios in 2016 from one to 15 to one to 11 will see either a reduction in class size or an increase in fees—or of course a combination of both. The City of Boroondara has provided advice that, if kindergartens in the suburbs of Ashburton and Glen Iris choose to decrease their group sizes to 22, thereby maintaining current staff levels of two staff per room, there will be a total loss of 32 four-year-old kindergarten places in these two suburbs alone. It is unlikely that the kindergartens will consider the alternative—that is, to pass on the increased costs—because typically fees at these kindergartens are already in the order of $2,000 a year. This is more than three times the cost of the local government primary school for just 15 hours per week. There are also significant costs of infrastructure upgrades. The City of Glen Iris has spent more than $1.5 million altering the physical layouts according to regulations, and there has been a significant increase in childcare costs. The government promised there would only be an increase of 57c per week; yet we have seen more than $100 per week added to the bills of parents. This is simply not good enough and makes it more difficult for families in Higgins. Corio Electorate: Commuting 3360 09:51 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio As the Cats climb to the top of the AFL ladder on Friday night, so too has the issue of ballooning commuting time, both on the roads and on public transport, when travelling to and from Geelong. Last week's announcement by the state coalition government to fund the eastern part of the East West Link totally ignores the more pressing issues regarding the western entrance into Melbourne. Being the key transport link between the city and the west, the West Gate Bridge is being subjected to ever-growing strain. An article in the Ageof 18 March not only describes that there are 'no specialist bridge engineers managing the West Gate' but also 'warns if the bridge continues to deteriorate, the government will be forced to impose load limits and lane closures, leading to "severe disruptions", including traffic jams several kilometres long'. The impact this would have on Geelong would be nothing short of disastrous. But the pain for Victorians will not stop there. The Victorian state coalition has announced it is ripping nearly $50 million from the arterial road management program, slashing $100 million from the road maintenance program, cutting the integrated transport system planning from $51.8 million to $26.7 million and has already sacked more than 400 VicRoads staff, forcing the customer service telephone waiting periods to blow out by 800 per cent. They are barely keeping their heads above water conducting day-to-day service. It is a sad sight to see Premier Napthine happy to sit by and let these vital roads, such as the Geelong Ring Road—made possible by the Bracks-Brumby state Labor government—not being paid the attention and funding that it needs. The other issue that must be brought to the attention of this place is the substandard public transport services between Geelong and Melbourne. If you look at the V/line Geelong Twitter account, it is bombarded with words such as 'delay', 'cancelled', 'carriage fault' and 'operating at reduced capacity'. As I read those last words, a thought comes to mind: is road congestion and a jammed-up public transport system holding Geelong back from flourishing in all it has to offer? Is our city also being delayed, and is the thought of being packed in a train carriage like a sardine for an hour making the thought of train travel unpleasant even at the best of times? Why should commuters be getting in cars and having to drive in the opposite direction to a station across town for the sole purpose of securing a seat? Boarding a train has now become akin to Boxing Day sales with people desperate for a seat hurling themselves through the train door. Where is the hope of getting people out of cars and into trains when the state coalition refuses to upgrade stations such as North Shore or Corio? Lucky for Premier Napthine, Regional Rail Link, a project championed by the previous Brumby government and this current Gillard federal government and due for completion in 2016, is set to ease public transport demand, but what is happening in the meantime? Under the Napthine government, our public transport continues to rot. Petition: Mobile Phone Coverage 3361 09:54 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I rise to table a petition which has been found to be in order by the Petitions Committee. The petition read as follows— To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives This petition of citizens of Australia, draws to the attention of the House inadequate mobile phone coverage at Lake Tyers Beach. The lack of coverage compromises the safety of beachgoers and recreational boat users while limiting growth in the small business sector. It also restricts communication between local residents and emergency services during emergency events. We therefore ask the House of Representatives to take steps to rectify mobile phone coverage at Lake Tyers Beach from 287 citizens. Petition received. This petition highlights ongoing concerns within my community about this government's failure to improve mobile phone coverage in regional areas. There is a lot of talk in this place and plenty of debate out in the community about the National Broadband Network—which communities will miss out, what download speeds will be available—but to the best of my knowledge no-one has ever died because they could not download a movie fast enough. In my community, lives are at risk everyday because of this government's failure to improve mobile phone coverage in some of the areas most prone to natural disasters in particular. There are areas in my community located a long distance from medical assistance and people who sustain serious injuries have no prospect at all of calling for assistance because the mobile phone coverage is simply nonexistent. There are areas of the Princes Highway and the Monaro Highway where there is no coverage whatsoever. These are sections of highway where there are high speeds, regular crashes with wildlife and also run-off road crashes or serious accidents involving two vehicles. These are isolated parts of the state and people have no capacity to call for help. The petition before the House from the Lake Tyers Beach community highlights both the social and the economic impacts of the government's failure to assist the industry to provide mobile phone coverage. It is a popular beach and recreational boating location. The principal petitioner is a local tourism industry operator and he makes the point that, in terms of his business, it is difficult when his customers cannot call either family or friends when they are visiting in the community and they cannot call for taxis if they visit his establishment. There are many people who have signed this petition who do not live in the immediate community but visit the region over the holiday period and they are frustrated by the experience of not being able to use their mobile phones when they are visiting. There have been significant improvements made in mobile phone coverage across the Gippsland region over the past decade, but they are all funded by the previous coalition government in partnership with the telecommunications industry. The Rudd and Gillard governments have failed miserably in relation to the mobile phone coverage. The government should have introduced a mobile phone black spot program to work in partnership with the industry and also local and state governments to improve safety and boost regional productivity. For a very modest investment, the federal government could have delivered major returns in terms of productivity and the safety of my community. More broadly, I would argue that this government's failure also extends to its lack of responsibility in relation to the emergency alert warning system, which the government has spent $26 million rolling out across Australia so that people can receive a text warning in the case of a natural disaster, such as a bushfire or a flood. I do not condemn the system because I believe that it has a great deal of merit. But I want to make the point that you should not depend on that system because in vast areas of regional Australia you simply will not receive any warning whatsoever, because this government has failed to improve mobile phone coverage across our nation. Kingston Electorate: Anzac Day 3362 09:57 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston April 25 is an extremely important day in our national calendar as we mark Anzac Day each year. It is a day to recognise the sacrifice of those defending our country and to commemorate those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. Local dawn services are an important feature of the day, giving the community an opportunity to pay their respects in their local communities. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the local RSLs, who worked hard to put on these local services in my electorate. I would also like to highlight another important Anzac tradition in addition to the dawn services that occur in my local electorate—that is, the annual youth vigil held at the Onkaparinga Memorial Gardens. This is an important activity in which young people in our community stand guard around the memorial in shifts of 10 people from 6 pm on the evening before Anzac Day until the beginning of the dawn service the next morning. During this time, these young people march around the memorial every three minutes. While they stand still, they reflect on what Anzac Day means to them. This vigil stems from the military tradition of holding ground, whereby a reconnaissance patrol would find and hold a strategic position in preparation for the arrival of their army. This would often involve all night vigils, keeping awake on watch, alert that the area of the battle is secured against threat. The young people standing guard this year came from a number of youth organisations, including St John's Ambulance Operations Branch, Girl Guides South Australia, Squadron 619 of the Australian Air Force Cadets, SA Country Fire Service Cadets and the Scouts Australia. In addition to this, an official commemoration service does occur, involving representatives from 25 local schools, with young representatives from each of these schools laying a token at the memorial. We also have many, many other local organisations that support this important event. The Anzac Day youth vigil in the south has become an important part of the way that young people respect and participate in the Anzac commemoration service. However, this year was an important milestone for the Anzac youth vigil. It marked its 10th anniversary of the youth vigil in the south. I would like to thank many of those who have ensured that this important event continues to be a part of our traditions in the southern suburbs of Adelaide. I would like to make mention of the chair of Youth Vigil in the South, Brian Holecek, and all the members of the organising committee, and Gay Thompson MP and Mr Frank Owen OAM, who originally worked hard to take this concept to make it a reality. I would also like to thank the sponsors, the City of Onkaparinga, the family, friends and supporters, and particularly the young people for participating in and supporting this event not only this year but for the last 10 years. This has become an incredibly important event and I look forward to its continuing success into the future. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER E09 Order! In accordance with standing order 193, the time for constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 3363 BILLS Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Compliance Measures No. 2) Bill 2013 3363

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Compliance Measures No. 2) Bill 2013

Second Reading 3363 10:00 Mr IAN MACFARLANE WN6 Groom I shall not keep the House long on the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Compliance Measures No. 2) Bill 2013, bearing in mind that we do, of course, agree with the government in terms of the changes it is making. Offshore petroleum safety is paramount. The changes that are being introduced under this amendment are changes which not only do we support but come from the 2010 Montara commission of inquiry report together with other policy and technical amendments. This is part of the process of ensuring that the Australian and global communities are confident in the operation of offshore petroleum assets, particularly in the oil and gas industry. Offshore petroleum is a very important part of Australia's economy, though you would not know it from the budget last night, and I will come back to that later. The reality is that our gas exports at the moment come virtually entirely from offshore petroleum in Western Australia, with some also from offshore petroleum in the waters north of Darwin. As a Queenslander, I have to say the industry is expanding onshore in Queensland, but it is also expanding offshore in Western Australia. We see the introduction of the latest technology in the world, the technology of floating LNG, where the plant is actually placed on what could be called a ship, though it is bigger than an aircraft carrier. In fact, one of the executives of the gas industry says it is a pretty handy par 5—it is about 490 metres long. That is a hell of a big ship. On top of that, you put the LNG plant and that plant then produces LNG and exports it to the world. It is imperative that as Australia moves into the next phase of offshore petroleum production—liquids, condensate and oil, and also gas for the LNG plants to supply the Asian markets in particular—we have the sort of legislation that ensures that those operations are done safely and in an environmentally sustainable way. We all know that there have been some unfortunate, and in fact disastrous incidents in recent times. Montara was the incident in Australia that caught the public's attention. Far bigger tragedies have occurred: the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico on 20 April 2010 and the death of two drill workers in the Otway Basin off the Victorian coast in 2012. They are salient reminders to the oil industry that it needs make sure that its operations are not near-perfect but actually perfect. The bill will amend the act to implement a number of findings in the legislative review conducted into Montara and will aim to strengthen the implementation of polluter pays principles in the offshore petroleum regularity regime. I hope we do not get to that. I hope the industry operates in a way that is safe but also prevents the escape of any molecules into the environment. The amendments in this bill will: introduce alternative enforcement mechanisms enabling inspectors appointed by NOPSEMA to issue environmental improvement notices; introduce a statutory duty on petroleum titleholders in the event of the escape of petroleum; provide an ability for the regulator to take up the necessary actions to recover costs from the titleholder; and, finally, improve the effectiveness of insurance requirements in the act to ensure that titleholders are in a financial position to comply with the new statutory polluter pays duty and other extraordinary regulatory costs that they may incur. As I said, the coalition supports these amendments and is of the view that the offshore oil and gas industry can operate in a manner which allows it to grow without exposing either the workers or the environment to unnecessary risks. I know from my discussions with industry that this is an issue they are very engaged in and they are very keen to make sure that it works. We need to learn from the lessons of the past. We need to make sure that we have the right set of amendments and legislation to ensure correct and safe operation. But I think the onus is on the industry to go above and beyond the requirements of the legislation, to do everything they can to make sure the safety of their workers and the protection of the environment are paramount. The thing that disturbs me and which continues to be exposed by this government is not the sorts of amendments they are making today, which we do support; it is what we saw in the budget last night, which continues to be a full frontal assault on the oil and gas industry and on the resources industry in general. The changes we saw in the budget last night may leave these amendments unrequired—that is, if this government were to be allowed to continue in its assault on the oil and gas industry, exploration and development of oil and gas offshore and onshore would basically grind to a halt. We saw last night some of the most short-sighted policy I have seen handed down by a government in my mere 14½ years in this place, perhaps even in my political lifetime going back probably three decades—that is, to make it more difficult, more expensive for multinational companies, which in the end are responsible for most of the oil and gas development in Australia, to invest here. When the oil and gas industry in Australia today is responsible for 30c of every private-sector dollar invested in Australia, it is beyond me why a government would be turning on this industry simply to desperately try to get dollars in to balance its wasteful spending. The industry is currently investing around $200 billion over five years, which is around $1,200 per second. On top of the $200 billion it is investing, it will pay billions of dollars a year in royalties and taxes to the government and create more than 100,000 new jobs. On top of all that—if that was not enough—the industry is considering investing many tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars in future projects. So when we see a change in the thin capital rules that means it is now more expensive for companies to invest in those projects, we realise that this government really does not get it. On top of that, the government changed the exploration rules. The increases in costs associated with trading or buying exploration permits will be a further deterrent to investment in Australia. Everyone, surely, wants to see investment in Australia. Everyone, surely, wants to see the amendments we are discussing today being there for an industry that is thriving, prospering and investing in Australia, as well as growing jobs, growing exports, putting extra revenue into the coffers. The changes that were introduced last night by the government to both thin capital and exploration allowances was, as I said, the most short-sighted thing I have seen for a long time. The coalition will continue to work with this government to ensure that offshore safety and protection of the environment is maintained. I had a very fruitful and useful working relationship with the previous minister, Minister Ferguson. I thank him and congratulate him for what he did for the resources industry in Australia. His replacement, the Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism, Minister Gray, is someone I have known for a long time through the corporate sector prior to him coming into politics. I have the absolute confidence in him that I had in his predecessor. I wish the minister well. I look forward to working with him over the months ahead. The outcome of our cooperation will be to the betterment not only of the industry but also of the community of Australia and better for jobs in Australia. 10:10 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I rise to speak on the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Compliance Measures No. 2) Bill 2013. I commend the member for Groom for the first two-fifths of his speech and the last one-fifth of his speech. There were two-fifths there during which I drifted off, but I commend him for his contribution and for the bipartisan support that the opposition has given this legislation. Obviously, as an island nation we have always taken a particular interest in our immediate surrounds. We have a troubled and a proud history as a federal government in being a little bit adventurous. I will particularly mention my predecessor as the member for Moreton, the Hon. James Killen, who did so much back in his time in the 1970s in terms of looking at federal responsibilities. He had a barney or two with the states working out those federal responsibilities. We can also look at the PRRT and some of the debates that went on in this place about that. Obviously, it is now well established that the PRRT is a good tax. We have a sustainable industry there that is also giving a responsible return to Australia. If you look at the Hansard debates at the time that that legislation was introduced by the Hawke government, you could swear that it was going to be the end of that industry. But we have obviously seen a significant offshore petroleum industry since, and it continues to have a healthy outlook—despite what the member for Groom said about the tax avoidance manoeuvres undertaken by some large multinational companies that work in this area. I particularly commend the Labor government in both the 42nd and 43rd parliaments for the work we have done in declaring parts of our surrounding waters marine parks. As a Queenslander, I am very proud of the Great Barrier Reef, as all Australians are. We have declared some of the other marine park areas in recognition of the important contribution that our oceans make, as a source of food but also in terms of their impact on global climate change and maintaining temperatures. If you go north-west of Australia, you are getting into an area called the Amazon of the oceans. We are only just exploring some of the scientific and health benefits associated with the marine flora and fauna. I would like to commend the work of the famous Australian writer Tim Winton, who has done much to focus Australia's view on the south-western part of Australia. And on cue a Western Australian walks in! I commend Minister Gray for the work that he has done in recognising that important interplay between industry and the environment. Sadly, over recent years we have seen a number of tragic accidents due to serious risk within the offshore petroleum industry. I first encountered this industry when I was on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industry and Resources under the member for Lyons, Dick Adams. We did a review of the draft Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Bill. We were looking at productive fields changing to be more useful in a carbon constrained world. This is offshore and sadly it is dangerous. There have been incidents. We have all read about the Montara incident in the papers. I also recall the two deaths in the Otway Basin. These can be dangerous environments and it is important to get the health and safety legislation and support well established and controlled. Those two incidents indicate that there is a need to develop strong, effective regulations of our offshore petroleum regime to ensure the health and safety of our workers as well as protecting the Australian marine environment. The compliance measures contained in the amended bill will include a range of alternative enforcement mechanisms, such as infringement notices and adverse publicity orders, and continuing penalties. It is a stepped-up scheme of common sense and it allows for a bigger stick to be hauled out slowly. The agreed recommendations from the whole-of-government polluter-pays report include: an express polluter-pays obligation and an associated third-party cost-recovery mechanism; clarifying the insurance requirements to ensure that maintenance of sufficient financial insurance is compulsory without a direction being given and to clarify the compliance role of the regulator; enabling NOPSEMA inspectors to issue environmental prohibition and improvement notices to require petroleum titleholders to take action on removing significant threats to the environment; and requiring the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority to publish occupational health and safety and environment improvement notices and prohibition notices on its website—the naming and shaming side of things. The upstream oil and gas sector is a significant industry for Australia, generating around $35.6 billion in the 2008-09 financial year. It employs over 10,000 people. Australia is in danger of marine damage and risk to worker safety within the oil and gas industry, but unless new oil discoveries are made in Australia there is legitimate concern about the long-term fall in production as ageing oilfields decline. As a Queenslander, I know that there are significant developments onshore, but offshore we look forward to new exploration and development leading to new production. The petroleum industry has been acutely aware of the environmental issues for many decades. Geologists, geophysicists and production engineers have been taught to protect and conserve the natural phenomena which surround them every time they venture into the field to initiate and build a project. As a consequence, through their work the petroleum industry has been taking steps to minimise its disturbance to flora and fauna both onshore and offshore for a number of years prior to the media hysteria about the Montara incident. With this in mind, the government has maintained a regulatory body to ensure this protection is upheld and in some cases improved. That is why we introduced the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority to police the petroleum industry's safety and environmental standards. The regulatory body was set up as a direct response to the 2009 oil and gas spill into the Timor Sea. As a result of the inquiry it was recommended that a single independent regulator look after safety, well integrity and environmental management of the Australian offshore petroleum industry. It effectively consolidates the current state, territory and national regulation for health and safety, structural integrity, environmental plans and day-to-day operations associated with petroleum activity in Commonwealth waters. As I mentioned, it will be supported by the opposition. The bill under debate today has been introduced as a necessary action to further maintain the safety of offshore petroleum workers and to enforce those further environmental standards on the industry, so that all Australians can be assured about the sustainability of our environment which is a big asset for our tourism industry as well as the enjoyment of the nearly 90 per cent of Australians who live within 100 kilometres of the ocean. Our marine environment is worth protecting by strengthening the application of polluters-pay standards. By forcing industry to stop, contain, control and clean up spills that occur we are giving our fragile environment a chance to survive and grow for future generations. Environmental protection and the conservation of biodiversity are exceptionally important for Australians, and the international community is watching us to make sure we get it right. Every Australian wants to see our economy grow and prosper. As the Labor Party we are all about jobs, but we need to get the balance right and ensure we do not do so at the expense of our environment. Stringent environmental controls must be in place across the petroleum industry. Greenhouse gas storage is significant in reducing environmental impacts, but there are also a number of measures that must be monitored to ensure maximum protection is upheld, including drilling fluids. Drilling muds must be ecologically tested to ensure there are no toxic effects on the surrounding environment. Disposal of the chemical and heavy metal content of waste material should strictly adhere to government regulations, particularly in offshore locations. Land clearing, including clearance of vegetation for tracks and drilling sites, should be further controlled to ensure any disturbance is kept to a minimum. Oil spill control is hopefully not something that the minister will ever have to worry about, but obviously this would be detrimental to our environment. The Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Compliance Measures No. 2) Bill is focused on implementing improved industry standards for clean-up and reduced environmental impact. The bill is also a reflection of our commitment to our Clean Energy Future. Obviously the Australian Labor Party is moving Australia to a low-emissions economy while upholding our commitment to protecting jobs and growth. Despite the doom and gloom and the relentless jeremiad coming for those opposite, the reality is that since 1 July and the introduction of the carbon price, the emissions in the national electricity market have fallen by about 10 million tonnes and renewable energy generated in the NEM has increased by almost 30 per cent over the same period. This is while the economy has continued to grow close to trend and we have created around 160,000 new jobs. I particularly commend the government for the Carbon Farming Initiative by allowing additional land-based abatement projects to generate credits. Despite those opposite, we have got a multi-pronged attack, which is what a price does. Obviously their mechanism will be a complete disaster. Heaven forbid if they do get a chance to implement it. I commend the legislation to the House. 10:21 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders It gives me great pleasure to support the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Compliance Measures No. 2) Bill 2013. Let me proceed in three brief steps. The principles which we uphold in relation to offshore oil and gas are very clear. The first is about the economy and energy security. We unashamedly seek to support energy security for Australia and the capacity to be an oil and gas producer and, potentially—certainly in the case of gas—exporter. These are good things for Australia and for the world. It is about human development. It is about the access to heating and cooling and all of the benefits which come with modern society. Encouraging and supporting a viable flourishing offshore oil and gas industry, with a particular focus on gas, is good for Australia, is good for human development and is one of the drivers of bringing not just tens but hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in India, Indonesia and China. That is a profound historic contribution. The second of the principles is in relation to environmental safety, security and sustainability. Whilst we want to see genuine energy security and all the human benefits that flow from it, we do not want to make the trade-off where our environment is lost. That means we need strong, clear standards. This bill fairly and squarely addresses those standards as a consequence of the Montara incident and the Montara commission. We, for example, are categorically, clearly and implacably opposed to mining and offshore petroleum and gas exploration in the Barrier Reef. In my judgement it will not change in my lifetime or, beyond that, in generations. I think that that is something which will be an Australian standard for the entire foreseeable future across the full political spectrum. So our duties are clear on that side. The third of the principles is to make sure that we try to minimise our emissions footprint. To the extent that gas replaces other forms of energy generation around the world, that is a way of doing this, but we also need to make sure that we have adequate measures. Where this broad bill addresses greenhouse gas storage—the act itself—is one way of reducing our overall national footprint. Let me then move from the principles to the bill. The bill is a response to the Montara incident. I disagree with the member for Moreton, who made the point that it was a wild public overreaction. It was a very serious incident with very serious environmental consequences. I think it was well responded to by the authorities in general, but let us not understate the environmental incident nor overstate it. It was a serious incident. Having said that, we support the amendments which are proposed as a consequence of the commission—in particular, the alternative enforcement mechanisms, infringement notices, daily penalties for continuing offences; it is a tough regime. But our Australian companies have been, for the most part, outstanding. This was a case of negligence, and it is appropriate that there are consequences when there is significant damage to the environment. Let me restate that principle. We support the inspection regime. We support the statutory duties on petroleum titleholders. We support the regulator having the ability to take the necessary action and recover costs from the titleholder, and we support improving the effectiveness of insurance requirements. Against that background, we also think that, in the future, there should be a one-stop shop for federal and state environmental approvals and assessments. In particular, I think we also ought to look—and here I move from policy to a personal view—at a single, horizontal, one-stop shop within the federal environment so that there is only one point of negotiation between a firm and the federal government rather than multiple agencies. I think a single coordinating agency for approvals, assessments and other activities would be far preferable to a multiple agency regime. That is a personal view as to how we can take the one-stop-shop concept in terms of federal-state relations to a true, national, one-stop-shop assessment. That would make the difference on projects, I think, such as Olympic Dam and Browse, where they had to run the clock for five or six years to get approvals and, in the meantime, the economic circumstances changed, the cost profile went up and the projects were lost. That brings me, lastly, to the contrast between this bill and what we saw last night in the budget. The contrast is this. This bill is an example of good cooperation, and I thank the minister and his predecessor; they have both been very good partners in working across the chamber. By contrast, the entire carbon tax process has been a debacle. We saw a write-down of $5 billion of revenues because they had phantom revenue projections last night. However, there are still phantom revenue projections. The 2015-16 price of $12.10 in the budget and the 2016-17 forward carbon price of $18 in the budget are more than double and triple what the market is saying the price will be. In other words, there is still phantom revenue built into the budget, and that means a $2 billion black hole in 2015-16. The surplus is gone—evaporated; toes up; it no longer exists. And, in 2016-17—using, again, the forward price of the market, as opposed to the government's inflated phantom revenue projections—there is a $4 billion black hole. What we have there is the same thing as last year: phantom revenue, predicted, spent, but ultimately unlikely to eventuate. It is exactly what we said last year. Nothing has changed. Compare these two examples of phantom revenue with the way this bill was done on a cooperative basis with industry and across the chamber. There should be more examples such as the offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage amendment bill and fewer examples of phantom revenue for political purposes which is spent in advance and which ultimately evaporates. 10:28 Mr GRAY 8W5 Brand I rise to sum up this debate on the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Compliance Measures No. 2) Bill 2013. In so doing, I want to pay tribute to my predecessor, the member for Batman, for the work that he did in dealing with the immediacy of Montara and then the outstanding public administration work that has given rise to this piece of legislation. It is impossible to make that statement without giving due credit and acknowledgement to the opposition and, in particular, the shadow minister, the member for Groom, for his tremendous insight and support of good industry practice, leading to good environmental regulation and a safer and better offshore working environment for Australian workers and for this extremely important growing industry. This bill amends the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 to strengthen the offshore petroleum regulatory regime, continuing the Australian government's work to implement the lessons learned following the uncontrolled release of hydrocarbons from the Montara wellhead platform in August 2009. Recent incidents such as the tragic accident on the Stena Clyde rig in the Otway basin located in the Bass Strait which resulted in the deaths of two employees, one a 32-year-old man from the Northern Territory and the second a 60-year-old, during drilling operations in August of last year further emphasise the need for a strong, effective regulatory framework to promote and encourage the safe best practice that we have in our industry and the continuous improvements in the operations of the offshore petroleum industry. The amendments in this bill help to achieve this goal by introducing a range of alternative compliance and enforcement tools to strengthen the ability of the regulator and the courts to enforce critical safety and environmental management requirements, including adverse publicity orders, injunctions, infringement notices and continuing offences to help protect the Australian offshore workforce and the marine environment. The bill also inserts a new polluter pays provision in the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 to both impose an express statutory duty on titleholders to respond to an escape of petroleum as well as provide a legislative guarantee that all costs of responding to an escape of petroleum, including clean up, remediation of the environment and environmental monitoring, will be met in full by the polluter should they fail to fulfil their statutory duty. A number of additional policy and technical amendments in this bill will also strengthen the operation of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006, including enabling NOPSEMA inspectors to issue environmental prohibition notices and environmental improvement notices to require titleholders to remove significant threats to the environment and to require NOPSEMA to publish environmental and occupational health and safety prohibition and improvement notices issued by inspectors so that lessons from offshore inspections can be shared across the offshore petroleum industry in support of continuous operational improvements and improved occupational health and safety and environmental outcomes. I commend this bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Inbound Cargo Security Enhancement) Bill 2013 3371

Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Inbound Cargo Security Enhancement) Bill 2013

Second Reading 3371 10:33 Mr TRUSS GT4 Wide Bay The bill before the House makes two unrelated amendments to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004, the bill which governs our aviation security arrangements in Australia. Following the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 the former coalition government took action to improve aviation security regulations in Australia. The coalition announced a complete restructure of the aviation security system in December 2002 and over time we implemented further amendments to modernise the act to better respond to emerging threats and new technologies. Developments in aviation security have largely received bipartisan support and the coalition has previously supported sensible changes to aviation security arrangements proposed by this government. The current bill is no exception and will receive the coalition's support. Turning to the amendments contained within the bill, the bill makes two different changes, one to correct a drafting error and one substantive change designed to strengthen our aviation security regulatory arrangements and to supervise their operation. To deal firstly with the technical amendment, the drafting error, the bill before the House corrects a drafting error contained within a 2011 amendment to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004. This earlier bill incorrectly amended paragraph 65(3)(b) of the act instead of paragraph 65(3)(c). The more substantive amendment contained within the bill will introduce provisions to allow the minister through disallowable instrument to prohibit the carriage of certain types of cargo into Australia on aircraft. This change will enhance Australia's ability to respond to ongoing threats in aviation security. In October 2010, terrorists operating from Yemen concealed improvised explosive devices inside printers and sent them as air cargo consignments to the USA. Thankfully, intelligence information led to the successful interception of the packages in the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates, and they never reached their intended recipient. In Australia, the government responded by increasing security requirements for cargo from Yemen and Somalia using a special security direction issued to regulated air cargo agents. This required the screening of all inbound air cargo arriving from the Middle East. Later, special security directions were used to ban the carriage of cargo from Yemen and Somalia altogether. However, special security directions were designed as a measure to deal quickly and efficiently with new security threats. They were not intended as a means by which the government could address the longer term, ongoing threats to Australia's security. For this reason, special security directions have a maximum duration of six months. Under current arrangements, the ongoing prohibition of air cargo consignments from Yemen and Somalia has required all aircraft operators to amend their transport security programs. This entailed each aircraft operator manually amending their security documentation, which was then assessed and individually approved by the department. This is a cumbersome task and not suited to a timely or cohesive response to a serious ongoing national security threat. To address this concern, the bill will introduce a new mechanism whereby the minister can propose a disallowable instrument to prohibit the carriage of certain types of cargo into Australia. The instrument may be so broad as to prohibit all air cargo entering Australian territory or be limited to a particular type of cargo or types of cargoes, depending on the nature of the threat proposed. As the minister noted in his second reading speech, the disallowable instrument could cover cargo originating from a particular country or countries, cargo packaged in a particular way or cargo weighing between particular amounts. The bill also creates a strict liability offence for failing to comply with an instrument made by the minister under this mechanism and imposes a penalty of $17,000 for individuals and $34,000 for aircraft operators. As a general principle, I am concerned that the current government has developed a propensity to introduce strict liability offences in aviation and I do not consider this to be best policy. But I have come to the view that, even though I have some concerns about that from a philosophical perspective, to delay the bill and to seek a better way to deal with any breaches of the legislation would in fact delay it unnecessarily. This amendment will ensure that current and future governments are able to respond appropriately to emerging but also ongoing security threats and would reduce the administrative burden on industry. For these reasons, the coalition will support the bill. 10:38 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina The Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Inbound Cargo Security Enhancement) Bill 2013 makes two different amendments to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004, the bill which governs aviation security in Australia. After the terrible terrorists attacks of 9/11, the Howard-Anderson coalition government took the necessary and prompt action to strengthen aviation security regulations in Australia. The coalition announced a complete restructure of the aviation security system in December 2002. Over the course of time, the government has implemented further amendments to modernise the act to respond faster and more effectively to new technologies and emerging threats. Developments in aviation security have generally received bipartisan support, as they should, and the coalition has previously supported very necessary changes to aviation security proposed by the Labor government. The current bill is no exception to that. As you have just heard from the shadow transport minister, this will also receive coalition support. The bill makes two unrelated changes: to correct a drafting error and a substantive alteration which is meant to strengthen our aviation security regulatory arrangements. To deal with the technical amendment initially, the bill before the House remedies a drafting error which was contained within a 2011 amendment to the Aviation Transport Security Act as you just heard from the Nationals leader. The earlier bill incorrectly amended subsection 65(3)(b) of the act instead of 65(3)(c), so it is obviously necessary to alter that. The other more substantive amendment contained within the bill will introduce provisions to allow the minister of the day, through disallowable instrument, to stop the carriage of certain types of cargo into Australia on aircraft. This is obviously very necessary because of emerging technologies and because of the ever present danger as there are many mad and bad people out there who would threaten the security and peace of Australian society. In October 2010, terrorist operating from Yemen concealed improvised explosive devices inside printers. There is no stopping these people. They sent them as a cargo consignments to the United States of America. Fortunately, intelligence information led to the successful interception of these packages in Great Britain and the United Arab Emirates, and they never reached their intended destinations, their targets. They were meant to maim and kill people and it was necessary to stop them, and fortunately that did happen. In Australia, the government responded by increasing security requirements for cargo from Somalia and Yemen using a special security direction issued to regulated air cargo agents. This was absolutely essential. This required the screening of all inbound air cargo arriving from the Middle East. Later special security directions were used to ban the carriage of cargo from Somalia and Yemen altogether. However, special security directions were formulated as a measure to deal efficiently with new security threats and, as we know, they are ever present. They were not meant to be a way by which the government could address longer-term ongoing threats to Australian security, because the special security directions have a maximum time frame of just six months. Under present arrangements, the ongoing prohibition of air cargo consignments from Somalia and Yemen has required all aircraft operators to amend transport security programs. This entails aircraft operators to manually amend security documentation to be assessed and individually approved by the department. This is an onerous task and it is not suited to a timely or fast response to a serious ongoing national security threat which obviously needs to be nipped in the bud instantly. To address this concern, the bill will introduce a new provision whereby the minister can propose a disallowable instrument to prohibit the carriage of certain types of cargo into our country, and obviously our security is paramount. The instrument may be so broad as to prohibit all air cargo entering Australian territory or be limited to a particular type of cargo or types of cargo depending on the nature of the posed threat. As the minister noted in his second reading speech, the disallowable instrument could cover cargo originating from a particular country or countries, cargo packaged in a particular way or cargo weighing particular amounts. The bill also creates a strict liability offence, as we heard from the member for Wide Bay, for failing to comply with an instrument made by the minister under this mechanism, and imposes a penalty of $17,000 for individuals and $34,000 for aircraft operators. This amendment will ensure that current and future governments are able to respond appropriately and necessarily to emerging but ongoing security threats and will reduce the administrative burden on industry, and therefore they are supported by the coalition. Airport security in regional areas is also obviously of paramount importance. If you fly from Wagga Wagga on a Rex plane, you do not go through security measures but if you fly Qantas then you do. This has caused a bit of a problem for the Griffith community, which has lost its connection to Melbourne. The President of the Griffith Business Chamber, Paul Pierotti, has hit out at Dubbo City Council's decision to charge all users of the regional airport security screening fees, describing it as short sighted in the extreme. Mr Pierotti said Griffith was desperate to get a Melbourne flight link after Rex closed its service in June. He said Rex flew between 60,000 and 90,000 passengers a year to Sydney but closed its Melbourne service because of cost pressures within the company. It was unfortunate to lose the service because many people in Griffith need to fly to Melbourne for business and other purposes. Hopefully, a resolution can be forged between the Griffith and Dubbo councils and hopefully that will be soon. It does concern airport security. It is a necessary thing for the people of Griffith and I urge the minister to do whatever he can to help that process along. 10:45 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the members for their contribution and I thank the fact that this legislation will receive the unanimous support of the House. The introduction of the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Inbound Cargo Security Enhancement) Bill 2013 is an important step in strengthening Australia's air cargo security measures. The attempted cargo bomb plot on 29 October 2010 involved improvised explosive devices hidden in printers on air consignments sent from Yemen to the United States. I was in London at the time and, with my officials, had briefings on the incident from the appropriate British authorities. There was a concern that the consignments potentially could explode over British air space. The incident clearly demonstrated the potential for terrorists to stage attacks using the global air cargo system. In responding to the Yemen incident, my department issued special security directions to prohibit air cargo originating in or transiting Yemen or Somalia from being carried to Australia. Upon the expiration of those directions, the prohibition was continued, with my department directing relevant aviation industry participants to vary their transport security programs. Although this additional measure achieved the desired affect, varying security programs is cumbersome and creates an excessive administrative burden for both industry and government. The new powers conferred by this bill change that. The ability for the minister to prohibit certain inbound cargo from entering Australia through the use of a disallowable instrument provides the government with a mechanism to respond effectively and efficiently on a national basis to security threats. In preparing this bill my department consulted extensively with other government agencies to ensure that all security, trade and foreign affairs issues were explored. No decision to prohibit inbound air cargo will be taken without consultation with the ministers for foreign affairs and trade, and that is appropriate. Additionally, a disallowable instrument created under this legislation is subject to an appropriate level of scrutiny, transparency and accountability by the parliament. The government is committed to ensuring the safety and security of Australians and Australian interests. We wish that this did not have to occur but we have to deal with the world as it is rather than as we would like it to be. There are threats to our security and the consequences for our economy of a security incident on an Australian aircraft mean that we need to put in place measures which ensure diligence, which ensure appropriate overview and which ensure a legislative framework that gives confidence to the Australian public that the government ensures their safety is the first priority. The passage of this bill will provide the government with a sound, transparent and effective legal basis to mitigate specific threats that may arise in the global air cargo system. I thank all members who participated in the debate. I thank the House for its support for this important legislation, which I commend to it. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment. Court Security (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013, Court Security Bill 2013 3375

Court Security (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013

Court Security Bill 2013

Second Reading 3375 10:51 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling I rise to talk on the Court Security Bill 2013 and Court Security (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013. The bills seek to implement a new framework for the security arrangements of all Commonwealth courts, including the Family Court of Western Australia and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It removes the courts and tribunals currently covered by the provisions of the Public Order Act and replaces it with an updated security framework. The Court Security Bill 2013 responds to concerns raised by the heads of jurisdiction of the federal courts. The current Public Order Act does not meet the security needs of the modern court environment. The bill aims to ensure that the courts are able to reduce the risk of security incidents where possible and, if needed, respond appropriately to incidents as they arise. The consequences from a breach of security in these circumstances are a serious issue and it is vital that all cases before these courts are heard without fear, intimidation and/or violence. The Court Security Bill 2013 seeks to amend the current legislative framework for the Commonwealth court and tribunal security arrangements as would expand the range of powers available to security officers and authorised court officers. Current security at most of the federal courts and tribunal premises has been provided through security guards, but under current legislation it assumes that there is a presence of police officers on the court premises, which is most often not the case. As a result, security officers are uncertain of their powers to temporarily detain people of concern or confiscate certain materials. The current legislative framework does not contain an appropriate range of powers and the necessary safeguards when exercising these powers. The bill seeks to implement a comprehensive framework which will enable the federal courts and tribunals to manage a wide range of security issues that they face. The courts will be able to appoint security officers and authorised court officers and clearly establish the powers that these officers are able to exercise. The powers outlined in this bill include search and screening powers, powers to give directions and limited powers to use necessary and reasonable force. However, only appropriately trained and licensed security officers will be able to use force in clearly defined circumstances as outlined in this bill. As well as the safeguards of appropriate training and licensing, this bill also provides safeguards in the form of identification requirements, complaints mechanisms and oversight by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The bill allows that for times when security officers are not present at all courts—especially the case at regional courts—the court officers may exercise a limited range of basic security powers when necessary. The range of powers that may be exercised differs between security officers and authorised court officers. Only security officers will be able to exercise the broader range of powers. The bill prescribes certain offences related to noncompliance with the exercise of the powers of security officers and authorised court officers. Security officers are provided with the power to escort people to and from court premises as a protective measure. Given the different security needs of the courts and tribunals, this bill seeks to implement flexible security arrangements to cover a range of different guarding arrangements. The bill balances a person's right to enter and remain upon court premises with the rights of judicial officers, court staff and members of the public to a safe and secure environment. The Court Security (Consequential Amendments) Bill replaces the current security framework for federal courts and tribunals under the Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971. The current framework is outdated and does not meet the security requirements of our current courts and tribunals. The bill allows for the implementation of this new framework, and will achieve this by removing the existing provisions in the public order act, in order to prevent the provisions from overlapping with the court security bill. The government contends that the bills have been developed in consultation with the Commonwealth courts and tribunals. As I have previously noted, concerns have been raised by the heads of jurisdiction of the Commonwealth courts that the existing framework for court security does not meet the needs of the modern court environment. It is unclear how frequently security incidents are arising on court premises and how adequate are the current security arrangements. However, the consequences of a breach of security in the circumstances are very serious issues, and the measures proposed in the bill seem reasonable and proportionate. It is important that cases are heard without fear, intimidation or violence. These bills provide the necessary powers so that the security needs of the modern court environment are now sufficiently clear. These bills ensure that our courts and tribunals are safe and secure places for members of the public to have their disputes heard, and they are therefore worthy of support by this House. 10:56 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I rise to support the words of the shadow minister, most importantly, as he stated, that the existing framework for court security does not meet the needs of the modern court environment. That was a concern raised by the heads of jurisdiction of the Commonwealth courts, following consultation with the government in relation to this bill and in relation to the provisions of current court security arrangements. Certainly, our courts are the hallmark of our democracy—as is the parliament—and the people working in those courts, whether they be officers of the Crown, police officers, or whether they be defendants or people involved in cases, need to have proper security and adequate security measures. They need to know that when they attend court they can do so in a safe environment. This bill goes part of the way, or all of the way, towards helping to improve these arrangements so that people can have that safety and security in the knowledge that they can attend court in a safe environment. The consequences of a breach of security in these circumstances are a serious issue, and the measures proposed in this bill seem adequate and proportionate. It is important that cases are heard, as the shadow minister just related, without fear, violence or intimidation. The powers that appointed security officers and authorised court officers may exercise in respect of screening, giving directions or removing a person from court premises appear, according to this bill, reasonable and necessary to enhance the security of the federal courts. Furthermore, the measures proposed in the bill may go part of the way to providing court users—particularly those who reasonably fear attending court proceedings and unfortunately that is a great number of people—with improved certainty that their case will be heard in a safe and secure environment. The Court Security Bill 2013 and the associated consequential amendments bill make substantive alterations to security provisions by the Commonwealth courts and the tribunals. Unfortunately, it is a necessary bill that we need to implement. It seeks to implement the current legislative framework for Commonwealth court and tribunal security arrangements, and would expand the range of powers available to security officers and authorised court officers, who need to know that their work is important and that the important work they do can be conducted in a safe environment. The new security arrangements will be uniform across all Commonwealth courts, including the Family Court of Western Australia and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Family courts, as we all know, are places where tempers can rise. They are places where there is a lot of emotion and sometimes emotion boils over into fear, intimidation and violence. Hopefully, this bill will make it a far more secure and safe environment for all those people attending the court whatever the necessity. Presently the legislative framework for security at Commonwealth courts and tribunals is contained in part IIA of the Public Order (Provision of Persons and Property) Act 1971. This legislation is outdated. It needs to be improved upon. It needs to be regulated such that it brings it up to speed with 2013 expectations. This bill and amendment do just that and the coalition therefore supports it. Mr NEUMANN HVO I thank honourable members for their contribution to the debate. The measures contained in the Court Security Bill and the accompanying Court Security (Consequential Amendments) Bill help to make sure that federal court and tribunal premises are safe and secure for people to resolve disputes. Those people using courts are often under stress and in distress. Court processes can be daunting and financially costly, particularly for those matters involving family law. I can say, with more than two decades of practice in the jurisdiction of family law, that you see from time to time the stress, anger and hostility that people face in the courts. Everyone who goes to court should go there without fear of intimidation, violence or abuse. This right forms a critical part of any civil society and is also important in ensuring the integrity of the court processes. I stress that these security arrangements and enhancements will not quite make court buildings or rights of entry more difficult or arduous for members of the public, rather they are there as a necessity to ensure that people, even in the most trying of difficult circumstances, can be confident that they can go to the courts and have their disputes resolved in a safe and amiable environment. This Court Security Bill is a product of the government's close consultation with the federal courts and tribunals to identify a more effective security framework. That framework established by this piece of legislation is comprehensive. It will support the federal courts and tribunals in making sure that any serious security issues they face across the various locations across Australia are addressed. They will be flexible enough in different security arrangements to deal with those. The enhanced powers conferred on security officers and authorised court officers by the bill will prevent security incidents from arising on those premises. Where they arise, they ensure that those particularly appointed officials and officers can deal with them expeditiously and appropriately. The bill includes important safeguards and accountability mechanisms. These include: licensing, training and identification requirements. These safeguards are important. They ensure that the powers authorised by the bill are used responsibly in appropriate circumstances by people with good training, appropriate skills and education. The courts will still call on the police, as they should, in the most serious situations. However, given that security incidents can arise with little warning, almost a moment's notice, and can erupt very violently with tremendous anger and abuse, it is important that the courts have security and safety at the forefront, and ensure that the safety and security of the premises are secured before the police arrive on the premises. The bills appropriately modernise the legal framework for the courts and tribunal security arrangements. They ensure that those accessing our courts and tribunals can be confident in the safety and security of the premises they attend to have their cases heard and can have their arguments heard before a court without abuse, intimidation and violence. I commend the bills to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Court Security (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013 3378

Court Security (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013

Second Reading 3378 Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2013 3378

Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2013

Second Reading 3378 11:06 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling I rise to speak on the Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2013. I think I am the only speaker on this; I suspect that as future generations pore over the Hansard they will understand that this is probably not one of the more interesting or contentious bills that the parliament has dealt with today. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to incorporate the measures contained in the tariff proposal which took effect on 1 March 2013. These amendments were recommended by both industry and through departmental feedback on the customs tariff bill that passed the parliament last year. The bill revises certain items in schedule 4 of the act by replacing them with clearer definitions and correcting typographical errors. Schedule 4 lists a variety of goods and circumstances for which concessional rates of import duty are granted. Following a review of schedule 4 by the Better Regulation Ministerial Partnership, the Customs Tariff Amendment (Schedule 4) Act 2012 was passed by the parliament in 2012. This bill will incorporate minor amendments that were contained in a customs tariff proposal that was tabled in the House of Representatives on 14 February 2013. The items to be amended in schedule 4 are items 20, 21, 27, 30 and 35. The bill makes technical amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to specifically reference goods as part of a batch repair process in item 20, to remove reference to industrial processing in item 21, to remove reference to 'value' and 'amount' in item 27, to reinsert 'wheelchairs' and remove reference to 'invalid carriages' in item 30; reinsert 'tons' and remove reference to 'tonnes' in item 35. The bill also streamlines the assessment of concessional duties in relation to goods imported for industrial processing and subsequent export. The proposed amendments will alter wording and fix typos in the bill so it is consistent with the intentions of schedule 4. This bill makes necessary minor amendments to the Customs Tariff Amendment (Schedule 4) Act 2012, and the coalition supports these amendments as uncontroversial. 11:09 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I thank the member for Stirling, who did his best to make this bill Dickensian, Austenian or Shakespearean. I thank him for speaking on the bill. The Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill will amend schedule 4 of the customs tariff. Schedule 4 delivers a wide range of tariff concessions which have the effect of reducing or removing the normal rate of customs duty that would otherwise apply for imported goods. Following a review of the schedule by the Better Regulation Ministerial Partnership, the Customs Tariff Amendment (Schedule 4) Act 2012 was passed by the parliament in 2012. This act sought to simplify the schedule and to consolidate items with similar coverage. Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2013, tabled in the House of Representatives during February 2013, gave effect to minor amendments to five items: 20, 21, 27, 30 and 35 in the revised Schedule 4. These amendments were necessary to ensure that the scope and duty rates of the concessional items were preserved. The Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2013 will formally incorporate these amendments into the Customs Tariff Act. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. National Measurement Amendment Bill 2013 3379

National Measurement Amendment Bill 2013

Second Reading 3379 11:11 Mrs MIRABELLA 00AMU Indi In rising to speak on the National Measurement Amendment Bill 2013 I note that the government is arguing that the principal reason for the introduction of this legislation is to correct deficiencies, obviously identified during the first two years of operation of the national trade measurement system. Assuming that that truly is the intent, the coalition is prepared to provide support for the bill. On the face of what is being presented to us, through the bill and the associated explanatory memorandum, we do not have a problem with the six sets of changes listed on pages 4 and 5 of the explanatory memorandum, and if the changes that the government proposes to legislate through this bill do genuinely overcome a number of unforeseen problems, and in fact improve the practical operation of the act, then naturally those are outcomes that we support and that are completely uncontroversial to us. However, I do want to point out that it is now nearly three years since the introduction of the national trade measurement system and it is therefore something of a concern that we are still having to consider multiple changes to the provisions that accompanied its introduction—not to mention that this is not the first time that this has happened. But I suppose we should not be particularly surprised about that! When the coalition asked very specifically, through a Senate estimates question on notice in 2011, about what problems and unforeseen consequences had arisen following the transfer of state responsibilities to the national level through the new trade measurement system, we did not receive a clear answer to that question at all. Instead, we got what now seems to pass as a largely meaningless, stock-standard estimates answer from this government that completely avoided the question, albeit that I suppose we should probably have felt privileged to have even received an answer at all, given that, from the most recent estimates round, there are something like 150 out of 184 questions that still have not been answered after around three months of waiting. And it is not as if the government has been preoccupying itself and the bureaucracy with good policy and a vision for this country. But hopefully the Australian people will be relieved of the burden of the worst administration at the national level since Federation. But going back specifically to the question at hand, that answer back in 2011 to question B1-85 was: 'A report on the transition to a national scheme has been prepared by the NMI in consultation with other Australian, state and territory officials. The report, which covers all aspects of the transition, was released in July'—that is 2011—'and is available on the website at www.measurement.gov.au.' In other words, the department and the government were not interested in going anywhere near answering the direct question of whether there were specific problems with the rollout of the system. Reading between the lines of that answer, it was not hard to draw the conclusion that the problems clearly were being experienced at that time, but it is only much later down the track that we are learning exactly what they are. It is very poor that the government was not up-front with us back then—again, no surprise. If there are further problems that have not been identified as part of this bill or a predecessor version at the end of 2010, now is the time for the government to finally stop hiding from scrutiny and publicly spell out some of these issues. And it should be very clear about how and why some elements of the system have not been working. In closing, let me restate my earlier comment that the coalition will support changes that genuinely eradicate unforeseen problems and improve the practical operation of the act. But I am increasingly concerned, each time a bill such as this is presented to the House, that we can be completely sure that that is the case or that there is not a range of other problems that are also still waiting to be addressed even after three years. 11:16 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I rise this morning with pleasure to support the National Measurement Amendment Bill 2013, which deals with an area of our economy that does not get much newsprint attention but that is a deeply important area for the way Australia works. I will deal with the specifics of the bill first. This is a bill that deals with a number of technical amendments to the National Measurement Act, specifically through clarifying the offence and noncompliance approaches associated with ensuring the application of particular offences being directed to appropriate persons. To clarify, at the moment it is an offence to adjust or repair an instrument in a way that affects its measurement accuracy without also obliterating its verification mark. This amendment will separate the offences so that the offences will apply separately to the person who carries out the adjustment and to the person who causes the adjustment to be made. It is a technical measure but important nevertheless. The bill will also better empower trade measurement inspectors so that they are able to deal with and resolve minor issues by providing, under the act, 28-day periods in which traders can resolve the issues that have been raised by the inspectors. It also empowers inspectors to deal with vehicles, for example, and have them moved to particular locations. There are also a number of definitional alterations in this bill. For example, the definition of 'use for trade' will be amended to embrace the determination of fuel tax credits under circumstances to be prescribed in regulations following consultation amongst the Treasury, the ATO and the National Measurement Institute. Also, the definitions of 'reference standard of measurement', 'certified reference material' and 'certified measuring instrument' will be altered to bring them into alignment and to clarify the period for which the standards are in effect. Having articulated the significance of this particular bill in the context of our framework around national measurement, I will make the point that this occurs as a result of a COAG process that was undertaken by this Labor government to simplify the measurement framework of this country by taking eight trade measurement systems that used to exist under the state systems and bringing them down into one. Trade measurement is at the heart of $4 billion worth of trade in Australia's economy every year. As we have sought to reduce regulation in this country, sought to reduce red tape and sought to harmonise our system of laws, this has been an unsung measure but one that has brought enormous benefit to people throughout the economy so that they are now dealing with one system of trade measurement throughout Australia. The amendments today are important technical amendments associated with that bigger push that was achieved back in 2009. Weights and measures are at the foundation of our economy. In this context I would also like to say something about the National Measurement Institute, the agency that oversees trade measurement in this country and our system of weights and measures. The National Measurement Institute is the custodian of deep science. For example, it is the National Measurement Institute that houses Australia's three atomic clocks, which are Australia's contribution to the very definition of time in this world. It is the National Measurement Institute that houses Australia's kilogram, which is based on the original kilogram in Paris and is the fundamental measurement of weight in Australia. It is interesting to note that the measurement of a kilogram is the only significant measure that exists in the world today that is still based on an artefact—that is, on a reference point of the original kilogram. There is an international effort to try to redefine mass based on a constant of the universe, such as the speed of light. In this case a couple of approaches are going on, one of which is to try to define precisely Avogadro's constant. It is all very scientific, and it is all work that is being undertaken by the National Measurement Institute and which forms part of the international collaborative effort to try to redefine the very nature whereby we define mass. If you go to the laboratories of the NMI you see dedicated Australian scientists undertaking fantastic work, and you realise the significance of that entity as well as just how important the National Measurement Institute is to the science infrastructure of our country. You can see it in an esoteric way, if I can put it like that, when you look at the person—and I met him—who goes to work every day to try to work out Avogadro's constant; he has a great job. And you see it in the way, as this bill talks about, the National Measurement Institute oversees trade measurement, which is absolutely fundamental to our economy. When you go to the supermarket and you measure the weight of your vegetables, the weight of your apples or the weight of your bananas and when you go to the petrol station and take out a volume of fuel, all of these involve measurement instruments that form part of our trade measurement system. That is what we are talking about when we say we have unified all those systems of trade measurement into one national system, and that is what this particular amendment seeks to do in relation to that. In commending this particular bill to the House, I would also like to commend the harmonisation of trade measurement laws in this country that has been undertaken by this Labor government. I would also very much like to commend the fantastic work undertaken by the National Measurement Institute. I commend the bill to the House. 11:23 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina It is always good to follow on from my parliamentary colleague the shadow minister for innovation, industry and science—who, I might add, was in Wagga Wagga on 11 April at a manufacturing forum with business leaders of the region discussing their problems, their concerns and their issues. It is always important that parliamentary secretaries, shadow ministers and indeed ministers hear the words from the mouths of those business leaders who—let's face it—are the engine room of the Australian economy. The National Measurement Amendment Bill 2013 might not sound important in the scheme of things but indeed it is, because, as consumers, we need to know, when we go to the supermarket or when we go to a hardware store, that what we are purchasing is in fact the right size and does in fact weigh the right amount. It is very, very important. This bill makes a series of uncontroversial changes to the National Measurement Act 1960 to correct deficiencies identified during the first two years of operation of the national trade measurement system. The amendments will provide discretion for trade measurement inspectors to permit measuring instruments which do not meet the strict requirements of the act to remain in use for a limited time of up to 28 days, provided there will be no material detriment to any affected person, generally the consumer. It will introduce a new offence to ensure trade measurement inspectors can access business vehicles to undertake inspections in accordance with the intent of the legislation; clarify the offence of not obliterating an existing verification mark if an instrument is repaired or adjusted in such a way as would affect its performance; clarify the definition of 'use for trade' to include instruments which may be used to determine a tax, regardless of whether it is the imposition of a tax or determination of a tax credit; ensure that where goods are purchased based on measurement the purchaser either can see the result of the measurement or is provided with a written statement identifying the actual measurement; make other minor and technical amendments to facilitate the working of the act; and importantly, and finally, allow trade measurement inspectors to carry out investigations in public areas without first announcing their presence to the proprietors of the business. On that last point I add a word of caution. We have seen all too often in the past that sometimes people—bureaucrats, even, dare I say, union officials—could barge into businesses and workplaces around the country and halt production in order to carry out their business. Often this was with good intent, but all too often we saw business people's production stopped and people downing tools because these people were on their premises without the business owner's knowledge. I air a word of caution that that provision of this bill will need to be spelt out very correctly and finely in the final detail of the bill to ensure that we do not see bureaucrats, bovver boys and people without good intent coming into business places and stopping production just to ensure that they tick their boxes and fill out their time sheets to make sure that they are doing what they are doing. We need to make sure that businesses are advised and are aware. Obviously, we cannot afford to have dodgy businesses and dodgy operators selling people materials that are underweight or under measure, but we certainly need to ensure that business is able to carry on with the great job that it does on behalf of this nation. 11:27 Mr COMBET YW6 Charlton I thank all of the members for their contributions to the debate on this amendment bill concerning national measurements. The government is very pleased with the progress of the national system of trade measurement since it came into operation in July 2010. Obviously, that was an important and common-sense reform, because moving from eight trade measurement systems to one national system is an important business regulation reform. It makes it simpler for business and more straightforward and sound for consumers. The advent of the new national system has removed the previous inconsistencies in trade measurement and has reduced costs to companies operating nationally. The National Measurement Amendment Bill 2013 will amend the National Measurement Act 1960 in order to correct some minor issues identified since the commencement of the trade measurement provisions under the Commonwealth legislation, so that the bill, as we have heard in a number of the contributions and in the second reading speech that I gave in introducing the bill, will facilitate the work of trade measurement inspectors in dealing with cases of noncompliance with the act. It will clarify the controls an inspector can use to ensure that businesses do comply with the act and its regulations and how the inspector can go about determining whether a business is compliant or not, under the act. There will in fact be greater flexibility in allowing businesses to resolve minor infringements in a reasonable time frame, which addresses the concerns raised by some of the previous speakers on the other side. This will especially benefit remote communities with few retail outlets, without detriment to consumers. It allows more flexibility in the sorts of constituencies that the previous speaker was referring to. The bill will also amend several minor or technical definitions of the act so as to clarify its interpretation and streamline the operation of some of its provisions. In summary, the National Measurement Amendment Bill 2013 brings legislative certainty to aspects of the trade measurement inspector's role. It will increase the effectiveness of the operation of the national system of trade measurement and its flexibility. I commend the bill to the chamber. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Military Compensation Review and Other Measures) Bill 2013 3384

Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Military Compensation Review and Other Measures) Bill 2013

Second Reading 3384 11:31 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden This bill implements the adopted recommendations of the Campbell review of military compensation arrangements. The review was a 2007 Labor election commitment. Regrettably, it has taken six long years—or 120 days until the election—for Labor to conclude this. Clearly, veterans are not a great priority for this government. The review made 108 recommendations and the Labor government has adopted 94 of them. A further two will be enhanced. The total package is worth about $39 million over the forward estimates, at a net cost to the Commonwealth of about $17.4 million. There are 16 schedules, 13 of which deal directly to 13 recommendations of the review that require legislative amendments. The Campbell review was chaired by former secretary of the Department of Veterans' Affairs Mr Ian Campbell PSM. It principally investigated compensation arrangements for the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, the MRCA. By way of background, regrettably, in March 1996 outside of Townsville an Army training accident involving a Blackhawk helicopter led to the death of 18 personnel and the serious injury of a further 12. At the time it was found that the death and ancillary compensation arrangements for peacetime training accidents were inadequate. It followed the Tanzer review, which recommended a new modern compensation scheme be adopted for military personnel wounded, injured or incapacitated during their Defence service. The previous coalition government consulted extensively about the legislation. It was tabled in parliament in 2003. At the time of its introduction former Minister for Veterans' Affairs Ms Vale said that the new bill combined the very best elements of the older Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, the VEA, and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. The new legislation placed a heavy focus on rehabilitation, encouraging those able to do so to re-enter the workforce following acceptance of conditions under the legislation. Unlike the older VEA, which pays a pension for life, the MRCA gave affected ex-service personnel and their families the choice of a lump-sum payment or enabled a mix of a lump-sum and weekly payments. Under this legislation eligible ex-service personnel continue to have their health care covered at Australian government expense. That is the history. That is where we came from. In the election campaign in 2007 Labor promised to review the MRCA. However, despite their good intentions in 2007, suffice to say that the process has been slow. The review process began in 2008, and in February 2011 the government was handed the outcome. They did not formally respond until the May 2012 budget, and the introduction of the legislation in March 2013, five sitting weeks before the scheduled dissolution of parliament, is disappointing in the extreme. When asked about the government's proposed time line, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Senator David Feeney told Senate estimates that the pursuit of a non-existent budget surplus was more important than delivering improvements to military compensation sooner. It is disappointing for everyone. We are pleased to see the review and that it has found that MRCA is operating soundly and is in need of only minor improvements. The improvements being made in this legislation are important. They have our support. Following the introduction of the legislation the coalition quite rightly initiated a Senate inquiry to ensure that the veterans and ex-service community, and indeed the wider community, had an opportunity to comment on this important legislation and its review. The wider the comment, the sounder the outcome. That is a lesson we should all learn. Submissions acknowledged that the proposed legislation mirrored the recommendations adopted by the government and for the most part supported its passage. Our concerns—and they should be tabled—are that it has taken the government until now to partially adopt recommendation 25.1 regarding the extension of non-liability mental health care treatment to veterans and ex-service people. We also note that this entitlement will not be available until 1 July next year. Recommendation 25.1, and the position preferred by the Department of Veterans' Affairs, by Defence and by the independent analysis from Peter Sutherland, said that the government should consider providing non-liability health cover under MRCA for certain psychiatric conditions to all former members of the ADF and part-time reservists who have served after 1 July 2004. Typically, Finance, Treasury and DEEWR preferred a wait-and-see approach, saying that more information was required before a final decision was taken. You have had only six years: how much more information do you want? This occurred over the last 12 months and resulted in an announcement on 3 May in the Defence white paper of a limited increase in entitlements back to 1994, but only when the ex-service personnel had a minimum of three years equivalent full-time service. This $14.6 million extension, whilst welcome, is at odds with the original recommendation from DVA and Defence, and further information will be sought through the Senate estimates period coming up shortly. Similarly, the budget does not provide any funding for additional advocacy funding support, which unfortunately continues Labor's neglect of grassroots veterans advocacy in the community. Labor's decision two years ago to strip $4 million from the BEST funding will only make it more difficult for younger veterans and their families to access independent advice and support for making claims. The government's announcement of additional taxpayer funds to reduce administrative process times in the department is surely an admission that their cuts to the BEST program and advocacy funding have had an impact on the timely determination of compensation claims, and I fail to see how it can be taken any other way. The gaping hole in this budget was, however, the lack of commitment by this government to fair indexation. It is a fair point and it should be made. For those veterans and ex-service personnel and their families listening to this or reading it, let me reaffirm the coalition's commitment: we will deliver fair indexation in the coalition's first budget. The Leader of the Opposition has signed that pledge twice, first at the Bendigo RSL and second at Queanbeyan only one or two months ago, where I joined him for the signing, and personally signed myself to it. If there is a change of government, the unfair, unjust and inequitable indexation arrangements facing DFRDB and DFRB military superannuants aged 55 and over will also change. This can only happen with a change of government. If elected on 14 September, in next May's budget we will deliver fair indexation—no ifs, no buts. Under our changes, on 1 July next year the pensions of those in DFRB and DFRDB will increase by the same factor as age and service pensions. Having gone through the history of the bill and some of its flaws, and having reaffirmed the coalition's position on the indexation of military superannuation, it is important to look at the 16 schedules, 13 of which relate to adopted recommendations of the review. As I said at the start of this, the coalition will provide the minister with support for the bill. Schedule 1 is on rehabilitation and transition management. The amendments enhance rehabilitation services and transition management. Chapter 7 of the review dealt with transition management between Defence and DVA. It found that a greater consistency in transition across the services is more likely if the CDF was coordinating transition rather than leaving it, as is the case, to the chiefs of each individual service. The amendments will also give part-time reservist personnel access to transition management assistance for the first time under any legislation, which is a good thing. These amendments will redesignate the responsibility of the service chiefs for the rehabilitation of our soldiers, sailors and airmen and airwomen to the CDF. Schedule 2 is on compensation for permanent impairment. The amendments in schedule 2 make the date of effect for periodic impairment compensation to be on the basis of each accepted condition rather than all accepted conditions and to incorporate a lifestyle factor in the calculation of interim permanent impairment compensation. Under the current arrangements, compensation is paid only once all claims for compensation have been assessed. This has been found to be a somewhat lengthy process. By paying compensation from the date at which liability for each condition is accepted, compensation will flow to members and former members of the ADF presumably much sooner. The schedule also relates to compensation offsetting arrangements. This amendment will grant those already assessed under the old offsetting formula the ability to have their compensation reassessed under the new compensation offsetting formula methodology. This is supported by the veteran and ex-service community and clearly by the coalition. Schedule 3 will see expanded lump sum options for wholly dependent partners. The amendments expand the options for lump sum compensation for wholly dependent partners of deceased members. Chapter 9 of the review dealt with the death benefit provisions of MRCA. It recommended the simplification and streamlining of current arrangements. Currently, where a member's death is service related his or her wholly dependent partner is eligible to receive a lifetime periodic payment, a war widow or war widower pension, an additional death benefit, a repatriation health card for all conditions—let us call it a gold card—and a range of other benefits, depending upon their circumstances. This amendment simplifies the payment arrangements by combining the current age based lump sum, an actuarial calculation of the war widow or war widower pension against life tables and the additional death benefit to create a new combined lump sum, making the package simpler and demonstrably easier to understand. It will also give partners a choice of converting their pension into a lifetime lump sum or into 25 per cent, 50 per cent or 75 per cent as a lump sum, with the balance a weekly pension. Schedule 4 is about weekly compensation for eligible young persons. The amendments put in place a one-time increase in the rate of periodic compensation payable for dependent children so that the rate aligns with similar payments under SRCA. In 2004, the rates of payment under MRCA were the same as those under SRCA. However, changes made in 2008 to SRCA broke this nexus, if we can call it that, and they increased dramatically. Currently, SRCA payments are about $130.89 a week, whereas the MRCA payment is about $87.57 a week. Aligning these makes sense. Schedule 5 is about compensation for financial advice and legal advice, with the new limit rising to $2,400. In schedule 6, the amendments expand the eligibility rate for special rate disability pensions. The expanded criteria will include a person who would otherwise meet the criteria in section 199 of MRCA except for the person having received a lump sum incapacity payment under section 138 or for the person receiving a nil rate of incapacity payment because the amount of the incapacity payment is fully offset by Commonwealth superannuation. Schedule 6 does not relate to a specific recommendation of the review but rather an observation found in paragraph 11.43. The ex-service community strongly endorses these changed arrangements and they certainly make some sense. The amendments in schedule 7 make changes to certain superannuation provisions so they apply equally to both serving and former members and amend the definition of 'Commonwealth superannuation scheme'. Chapter 12 of the review considered the interoperation of military superannuation and the military compensation arrangements. The committee noted that this was not an in-depth analysis but 'did note the complexities of administration of invalidity and death benefits' and recommended an analysis across government of how to streamline the administration of these arrangements. The government accepted this recommendation. But no information about the progress of this analysis has been forthcoming. Suffice to say, Minister, we will further examine it at Senate estimates. I ask the minister for further details on the progress on this particular recommendation. Schedule 8 is about the remittal powers of the Veterans Review Board. They provide the Veterans Review Board with an explicit power to remit a matter to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission for needs assessment and compensation. The streamlining of the claims appeals process is certainly welcomed by the veteran and ex-service community. It will make it easier for veterans to appeal decisions about their compensation and give veterans with claims under MRCA largely the same appeals system as those under the VEA. Schedule 9 amendments increase the membership of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission from five members to six. We note that the review recommends that the additional appointee be someone like the Director of Joint Health Command. Our view is that this would be for the most part a sensible appointment and we look forward to the government confirming this particular appointment to the compensation commission. The amendments in schedule 10 require all claims for conditions accepted under the VEA and aggravated by Defence service after 1 July 2004 to be determined under the VEA rather than there being a choice offered between the VEA and MRCA, which is currently the case. We agree with all of that. The amendments in schedule 11 will enable the issuing of repatriation health cards for specific conditions to part 11 Defence related claimants under SRCA—let us call them white cards. This initiative is intended to achieve consistency in treatment arrangements for all former Defence Force members. SRCA members with an injury accepted under SRCA as being related to SRCA—let us call that a SRCA related injury—will be entitled to treatment for a SRCA injury either under MRCA or the VEA in accordance with arrangements established under those various acts. This change is supported in principle. Concerns have been raised about the operation of these proposed new arrangements. Similarly, providers are worried that they will be forced to charge lower rates for services that they are currently providing at higher rates. DVA has informed us that the consultation with the industry is ongoing and this will be pursued at Senate estimates, Minister, to alleviate our concerns on exactly how this would operate. It sounds all right. The devil, as in many cases, will be in the detail. The amendments in schedule 12 define Defence members undergoing career transition, personnel holding honorary ranks and authorised representatives of philanthropic organisations as members under MRCA. That is fair enough. The amendments in schedule 13 clarify the appropriation of costs for certain aged care services between VEA, the Australian Participants in Nuclear Test Treatment Act and MRCA and the Aged Care Act 1997 and the Aged Care (Consequential Provisions) Act 1997. That is fair enough. The amendments in schedule 14 will extend the entitlements for travelling expenses to the partner of certain eligible persons under certain conditions. The VEA currently only provides for the veteran to be paid a travelling allowance when attending medical appointments to treat accepted conditions. In circumstances in which the veteran's attendant, a carer, needs to accompany the veteran, travelling expenses may be met. The amendments in schedule 15 will clarify and streamline the administrative arrangements for the payment of pensions, compensation and other pecuniary benefits under the VEA and the MRCA into appropriate bank accounts. The amendments in schedule 16 include a minor and consequential amendment to the Social Security Act 1991 that clarifies which payments made under MRCA are excluded income for the purposes of the Social Security Act. Suffice to say, the coalition is happy to support the passage of this legislation through the House. It will go to the Senate and be further considered at the end of June. We will not in any way seek to hold up the passage of the legislation, which we believe provides benefits to veterans, ex-service personnel and their families. We look forward, Minister, to the swift passage of the legislation through the House and the Senate, noting that there are only four and a little bit weeks left, of which two weeks are for the Senate estimates, which literally leaves only two weeks for legislation to be passed in the Senate. I will leave that to you, Minister, to sort through. 11:49 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan I rise to speak on the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Military Compensation Review and Other Measures) Bill 2013. This bill is a further step in implementing the recommendations of the Campbell review of military compensation agreements. It has taken two terms of this Labor government to conclude. That review was commissioned to investigate compensation arrangements under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. The last coalition government tabled the legislation as a measure to improve previous legislation that covered military compensation—namely, the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, the VEA; and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. The then coalition government consulted extensively about the legislation, which was tabled in parliament in 2003. At the time of its introduction, former veterans' affairs minister Danna Vale said that the new bill combined the very elements of the older Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. The new legislation placed a heavy focus on rehabilitation, encouraging those able to do so to re-enter the workforce following acceptance of conditions under the legislation. The most recent review process began in 2008 and has been very slow. In February 2011, the government was handed the outcome but did not respond formally until the May 2012 budget. I understand that the total package of amendments is worth over $39 million over the forward estimates, with a net cost to the Commonwealth of $17.4 million. This bill contains 16 schedules, 13 of which deal directly with the 13 recommendations of the review that require legislative amendment. I have spoken several times before in this House on many issues that affect the veteran community. Although today's bill comprises mainly minor amendments, it is worthy of our consideration. I note that this particular bill was only introduced on 20 March 2013 and the coalition initiated a Senate inquiry to ensure that the veteran and ex-service community and the wider community had an opportunity to comment on the legislation. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the many constituents in my electorate who work tirelessly with ex-service organisations to get a better deal for veterans. This has been an ongoing issue for the veteran community across several ministers. For more than 12 years, Roderic Thompson in my electorate has held voluntary positions within both the RSL and the Veterans Support and Advocacy Service Australia. He has been a level 4 practicing advocate and has held the national executive position of National Entitlements Officer for the Australian Peacekeeper and Peacemaker Veterans Association. One important measure is the adoption of recommendation 25.1 of the Campbell review regarding the extension of non-liability mental health care treatment to veterans and ex-service people, which will not be available until 1 July next year. In relation to today's bill, I know that Rod continues to have concerns about how we treat veterans who may fall under different versions of veterans compensation legislation—for example, whether a service man or service woman falls under MEA, SRCA or MRCA. This relates to recommendation 25.1 regarding the consideration of providing non-liability health cover under MRCA for certain psychiatric conditions to all former members of the ADF and part-time reservists. Today I want to reaffirm my commitment and that of the coalition to fair indexation. The Leader of the Opposition first announced our commitment to fair indexation on 27 July 2010, more than two years ago and prior to the last election. Since then, the coalition in the Senate has introduced legislation so that we could finally and effectively deal with this issue. That was on 18 November 2010. On 16 June 2011, in what can only be called a day of disgrace for the Senate, the Labor Party and the Greens combined to vote down the coalition's fair indexation legislation. On that day, the Australian Labor Party and the Greens demonstrated that they do not care about the lives of military superannuants and their families. Since then, the coalition has maintained its strong commitment to fair indexation. Last year, I signed the coalition's pledge to deliver fair indexation. This pledge has also been signed by the Leader of the Opposition on two occasions, the shadow minister for veterans affairs and many other members of the coalition, including my colleagues here today. That pledge says: 'The coalition will ensure DFRB and DFRDB military superannuation pensions are indexed in the same way as age and service pensions. All DFRB and DFRDB superannuants aged 55 and over will benefit.' This a firm coalition commitment and will occur in the first term of any incoming coalition government. The coalition will support the passage of this legislation through the House of Representatives. It will then go to the Senate and be further considered at the end of June. The coalition does not seek to hold up the passage of this legislation because it provides benefits to veterans, ex-service people and their families. I therefore commend the legislation. 11:55 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina It is always a pleasure to follow the member for Ryan, who I know has such a passion for and commitment to Defence people, not just within her electorate but also of all other electorates. I commend her for her work with the Boer War memorial commemoration. I know she is a descendant of a Boer War soldier, and full credit to her for pursuing that very noble cause. And her son is coming back from Afghanistan today, she tells me. That is wonderful news, and we wish him all the very best as he returns to Australia after such important work on behalf of our nation. I rise to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Military Compensation Review and Other Measures) Bill 2013. This bill implements the adopted recommendations arising from the Review of Military Compensation Arrangements. The review, a 2007 Labor election commitment, was finalised in early 2011 and the government responded in the 2012-13 budget. This is important, because our defence is critical to our nation. As the minister is here, I would like to note the $25 million in last night's budget for health services for veterans. That provision is for returned servicemen and women, for peacekeepers as well as for people engaged in humanitarian relief efforts. It is very important that the government has set aside $25 million to help meet this need in the 2013-14 budget. That is commendable. Not commendable is the fact that in last year's budget $5½ billion was stripped out of the military, and I know what effects that had in my electorate. I come from the tri-service city of Wagga Wagga, where every soldier recruit goes through the Blamey Barracks at Kapooka. We also have a Royal Australian Air Force base at Forest Hill at which there is also a Navy base, even though we are a good 350 kilometres from the nearest drop of seawater. It is a very important naval institution and training base, working in coordination with the very important Army and Air Force bases in Wagga Wagga. May their work long continue. As I said, in 2007 Labor promised a thorough review of military compensation arrangements, specifically focused on the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. This review, which was chaired by the then Secretary of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, Mr Ian Campbell PSM, found that 'the objectives of the MRCA are sound.' It also confirmed that the unique nature of military service justified rehabilitation and compensation arrangements specific to the needs of the military. The military is a unique organisation; it is a unique sector, as we all know. The review made 108 recommendations, of which 94 were adopted in full or with modification enhancement, with a further two recommendations replaced with favourable outcomes. Nineteen of the recommendations need legislative amendment and are covered by 13 schedules in this bill. The bill has a net cost of $17.4 million. The total package of reforms will cost $39.6 million, offset by savings of $22 million through the provision of treatment cards to SRC Act clients. The coalition supports this. We did, however, insist that a Senate inquiry into the legislation be conducted. The coalition requested that all members of the Ex-Service Organisation Round Table be contacted about the review and invited to make a submission, because we felt that was necessary. We also know that all too often this Labor government rushes legislation through this parliament without the proper consultation of industry, without the proper consultation of stakeholders. The committee has reported to the Senate. Submissions were received from the Royal Australian Air Force Association, the Returned and Services League of Australia, the Australian Peacekeeper and Peacemaker Veterans Association, the Defence Force Welfare Association, the Department of Veterans' Affairs, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, the Financial Planning Association of Australia, Slater & Gordon Lawyers, KCI Lawyers, Mark Raison and John Goldsworthy. So, the stakeholders have been consulted; the committee has reported to the Senate; the coalition is giving in-principle support; and, finally, while the minister is present and whilst I have acknowledged that there is $25 million for the mental health welfare of returned servicemen and women, and others, I would again implore this government in the weeks and months remaining to look at a fair indexation legislation for our returned veterans. They put their life on the line for this nation. They are not being properly indexed. The coalition has said that it will properly and fairly index DFRB and DFRDB recipients. They need to be indexed to the same level as aged and service pensions. They are not at the moment. It is a disgrace—indexation is necessary. I know how much Robert Bak, who lives in Bethungra in my electorate—he is the head of the Integrated Service People's Association of Australia—wants this particular fairness to be enacted for the veterans who he serves. And I know how passionate he is—like the member for Ryan—about our veterans and the efforts they have gone to on behalf of this country. All too often when they return to Australia the financial aspect of their life is ignored by this government. We look forward to a coalition government, hopefully after 14 September, which will properly index those veterans' superannuation entitlements. 12:02 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari I thank all of those who have made a contribution to this debate. I know that there is uniform support for this legislation—I will go to the comments on military indexation at a later part—but I want to make an observation about the reference to the Senate committee. There was a very extensive consultation around the review and during the course of the review. DVA met with the ESAs in March of this year to discuss the outcome of the review and this legislation. There has been considerable discussion through the process and whilst we have no difficulty with having a Senate committee, in terms of the requirement for additional consultation, it is not necessary. Having said that, the measures in this bill, as others have said, will enhance the repatriation system in providing access to compensation and health care for our Australian Defence Force members, former members and their families. The bill will achieve this mainly through amendments to the Military Rehabilitation Compensation Act 2004 otherwise called, in short, the MRCA. The MRCA provides rehabilitation and compensation for injuries, diseases and deaths caused by all types of military service on or from 1 July 2004. These amendments will ensure that the MRCA, as the act covering all contemporary defence service, continues to best meet the needs of our members and former members now and into the future. These amendments are the result of an extensive Review of Military Compensation Arrangements and involve comprehensive consultation with the defence and veterans communities. The report concluded that the objectives of MRCA are sound. Importantly, it also confirmed that the unique nature of military service justified rehabilitation and compensation arrangements specifically to the needs of the military. The initiatives in this bill form part of the government's response to the Review of Military Compensation Arrangements. The introduction of a repatriation health card for specific conditions, known as the white card, will benefit former members of the Australian Defence Force with conditions accepted under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, or SRCA, needing long-term treatment. SRCA members issued with a white card will no longer need to claim reimbursement for treatment costs related to their SRCA injury or ask their healthcare provider to invoice the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This measure will streamline arrangements for treatment for SRCA members and will result in a consistent method of access for all former members of the Australian Defence Force with long-term treatment needs. The bill will give wholly dependent partners of deceased members more flexible options for the compensation payments provided under the MRCA. Instead of a single choice between receiving ongoing compensation payments or a lump sum payment, from 1 July 2013 wholly dependent partners will be able to choose to convert 25 per cent, 50 per cent, 75 per cent or indeed 100 per cent of their periodic compensation amount to an age based lump sum payment. This increased flexibility will enable a wholly dependent partner to better meet their immediate and long-term financial priorities and applies to the future partners and existing partners who are yet to make their choice as to how to receive their compensation. The amount of compensation paid for financial advice will be increased for those persons who are required to make a choice under the MRCA about the nature of the benefits they receive. The maximum compensation available will increase from $1,592 to $2,400 and legal advice related to that choice can be also covered within the new limit. There will be a one-off increase to the rate of ongoing compensation for eligible young persons under the MRCA to match the rate payable for a dependent child under the SRCA—an anomaly we are pleased to have fixed. Rehabilitation and transition management services under the MRCA will be enhanced to improve consistency across the three branches of the Defence Force and increase flexibility and rehabilitation management. Improved consistency will be achieved by giving the Chief of the Defence Force overarching responsibility for rehabilitation of serving members, which we think is fundamental. Transition management services will also be made available to part-time reservists. The bill will allow payment of compensation for permanent impairment for claimants with more than one condition accepted under the MRCA. Additionally, DVA will make greater use of the payment of interim permanent impairment compensation and will be able to include a payment for an imputed lifestyle effect when determining the level of interim compensation payable, which will result in increased compensation payments. From 1 July 2013 the eligibility criteria for special rate disability pension under the MRCA will be expanded to include certain persons who are not currently eligible because the person converted their incapacity compensation payments to a lump sum or because the incapacity payment is fully offset by Commonwealth superannuation. As a result of this measure, the person will also be entitled to additional benefits that are associated with the eligibility for special rate disability pension including a gold card, education assistance for eligible young persons and a MRCA supplement. Amendments in the bill will simplify the claims process for conditions accepted under the Veterans Entitlement Act that are aggravated by service covered under the MRCA. Currently, a person must choose whether to claim the aggravation under either the VEA or the MRCA. If this sounds complicated, it is. Currently, they must make a choice. The existing process is complex, resulting in confusion for clients and is administratively resource intensive. From 1 July 2013 a simplified arrangement will be introduced resulting in all such claims being determined under the VEA. The initiatives in this bill are the result of a comprehensive review of our modern repatriation system and will result in improved outcomes for many in the defence and veteran communities. They clearly demonstrate the Australian government's support and high regard for our Defence Force members. It is a credit to successive governments that the review concluded that our repatriation system required only relatively minor legislative adjustments to meet the ongoing needs of veterans and serving and former members and their families. These changes will continue this country's proud tradition of caring for those who served and the families of those who have fallen. Briefly, I will refer to the comments which have been consistently made about indexation of military pensions. The first observation is that people are linking a superannuation payment—an entitlement as part of their employment—to income supplements or income support payments as a pension, which they are not. They are in no way equivalent to a pension; they are a superannuation benefit. I think people are either deliberately obfuscating or confusing the two issues. I am not going to go to the merits of the arguments because I do not agree with them, but I do want to make one observation. I think the member for Riverina gave the impression that this proposal for indexation was about the impact on the lives of people who are currently serving. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. This will not impact at all on at least 150,000 serving men and women who are under the current MSBS superannuation scheme. They will not be impacted at all. I had a meeting quite recently with a senior, very venerable returned serviceman who was in discussion with a very venerable serving man who has recently come from Afghanistan. The retired veteran said to me, 'What are you doing about our pensions?' I said, 'We're not doing anything about your pensions.' He said, 'Well, you need to.' I said, 'Why?' He said, 'It's all about these young blokes.' This young serving veteran said, 'No, it's not. It has no impact upon us at all.' Let us understand what is happening here. This is about dealing with a retirement benefit which people could take after 20 years of service. Many took it in their early 40s, got a lump sum and an annuity for the rest of their lives, and they are now asking the Commonwealth to index that lump sum to the equivalent of a pension, which it is not. Let there be no confusion here. I am surprised at the dishonest way in which this debate has been repeated around the country by some elements of the returned services community and promoted by the opposition as if in some way it is going to impact upon current serving veterans. It is just really dishonest. I would say to them: I have no problem with you having the argument but let us be clear about the intent, who it is meant to address and who it is going to exclude. We do not agree with you. You have got every right to promote your view, but let us do it in a way which actually demonstrates very clearly who you are talking about rather than confusing the discussion about this indexation as if it is going to impact upon people who are MSBS members because it will not. That is all I have to say, and I am pleased that the opposition has chosen to support the legislation. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Aboriginal Land Rights and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 3394

Aboriginal Land Rights and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013

Second Reading 3394 12:14 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies I rise to speak on the Aboriginal Land Rights and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. The bill makes amendments to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act to allow the township of Jabiru, two parcels of land near Jabiru, as well as a parcel of land near Tennant Creek to be included in schedule 1 of the act and to be granted an inalienable Aboriginal freehold title, subject to a 99-year lease back arrangement being put in place. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 12:14 to 12:36 12:36 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies Prior to the division in the chamber, I was indicating that this bill makes amendments to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act to allow the township of Jabiru two parcels of land near Jabiru as well as a parcel of land near Tennant Creek to be included in schedule 1 of the act and to be granted as inalienable Aboriginal freehold title subject to 99-year leaseback arrangements being in place. The bill also amends the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to ensure that the World Heritage natural and cultural values of the Kakadu National Park continue to be protected with respect to Jabiru. The bill will provide security of tenure to business and landowners in Jabiru. This will further provide Energy Resources Australia security to continue operations and investment in Jabiru and the Ranger mine. All interested parties support this legislation. My colleague the shadow minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Nigel Scullion, has consulted with the Mirarr people, traditional custodians of the land, as well as the mining company which currently holds the lease in that area. In line with the long-held practice of Aboriginal land grants, given that the relevant parties agree, the coalition will support this bill. In this case the local traditional owners, the Kakadu Land Trust, Northern Land Council, Energy Resources Australia and the Northern Territory government all agree that these parcels of land should be scheduled. In the case of the township of Jabiru, land tenure issues will be resolved because a requirement would be leaseback of the land to the Northern Territory government and others prior to the handover taking place. Finally, it has always been the coalition's approach to encourage land tenure reform on Indigenous townships in the Northern Territory to support home ownership and business. Accordingly, the coalition will be supporting this bill. 12:38 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari I first say that I am pleased that the opposition is supporting this legislation. It does, as the honourable member has said, add to existing Jabiru town and certain adjacent portions of Northern Territory land in schedule 1 of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976. It also provides a further parcel of land for the Patta around Tennant Creek to schedule 1 of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976. Five portions of land known as Patta in the Northern Territory were previously scheduled by legislation in 2010. This new amendment will enable the further parcel of land to be granted to the relevant Aboriginal land trust, something which I very strongly support. I do, however, want to concentrate my remarks on the bill adding to the existing Jabiru town land and adjacent portions of Northern Territory land to schedule 1 of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976. You would know, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Murphy, that both the Patta land trust and the land trusts around Jabiru are part of my electorate of Lingiari and this legislation and its passage underscore again the government's commitment to reconciliation with Australia's first peoples and rights a historical wrong put in place over three decades ago—that is what I think is fundamentally important. By adding this land to schedule 1 of the Land Rights Act, it allows for the land granted as Aboriginal land to be handed back to the traditional owners, the Mirarr people. There has never been any question that the Mirarr people were the traditional owners and are the traditional owners of Jabiru. Their connection to this country goes back many, many thousands of years. In fact Australia's oldest human occupation site, you might be interested to know, known as Malakunanja II, is the traditional lands of the Mirarr, as is of course the Ranger uranium mine and the site of the proposed Jabiluka uranium mine. The Mirarrs' native title claim to the traditional lands at Jabiru is one of Australia's oldest native title claims. The Mirarr have always indicated that their ultimate aspiration to own the traditional country to be recognised and that aspiration was entirely lost—indeed, one might say ignored by the previous coalition government. It has been the Australian Labor Party that has listened to the Mirarr people, initially under then Attorney-General Robert McClelland, who was here earlier this morning, and Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin, and later progressed further by other colleagues, and in 2009 a solution was arrived at to the long-running native title claim. The solution recognised—and it was very important that it did this—Aboriginal ownership and averted years of disputation in the Federal Court and possibly High Court of Australia. They took the view that native title existed and that what we should do is sit down and negotiate rather than try and affirm or have you prove, in the case of the Mirarr, your rights to that land in the courts. It also gives government and business security, security of tenure and security for future planning and further investment. The solution from the Labor government was to schedule Jabiru as Aboriginal land under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act in exchange for the withdrawal of the Mirarr native title claim and the issuing of a long-term lease for Jabiru township under section 19A of the Land Rights Act amongst other things. This is very important. They have used the Land Rights Act as a vehicle to deal with an issue around native title and give people absolute certainty in a form of inalienable freehold title about ownership of that land—it is very, very significant. All the surrounding lands, including Kakadu National Park, are inalienable freehold title and that parkland has been leased back to the Commonwealth for the purposes of a national park. Once the offer was made, all parties, including the Northern Territory government, set out to make it a reality. I want to acknowledge the former Labor government in the Northern Territory for its strong participation and support for this program. During the negotiation process, the Mirarr people came to a common understanding as to Jabiru's future. That is in itself significant. As a consequence, and flowing directly from that ALP government's initial 2009 offer, a new settlement was proposed whereby the land once branded Aboriginal land will be leased to the Northern Territory government. In both scenarios the land at Jabiru remains part of the Kakadu National Park and will be managed in sympathy with the World Heritage natural and cultural values the park is famous for. What we have really done is spread the impact of that Kakadu National Park across the whole region. The settlement at Jabiru that this amendment facilitates is not just a practical form from a political, community and economic perspective; it is just the right thing to do. In the 1970s—it is worth knowing this, and I was around the Northern Territory at the time—the Ranger uranium environment inquiry or the Fox inquiry's very famous report recommended that Jabiru not be made Aboriginal land for the stated reason that the customary development veto enjoyed by traditional owners and all other land rights cases in the Northern Territory be denied the Mirarr in the case of the Ranger proposal. This was a way of overcoming the rights of Aboriginal people to ensure the future of the development of the Ranger site. This has led us, ultimately, to the Ranger mine. On this basis, Commissioner Fox said on pages 270 and 271, 'If the whole clan area becomes Aboriginal land, the Northern Land Council will have the right to refuse consent to the regional centre Jabiru as proposed. They could in this way stop the mining project.' The direct intention here was to override the interests and rights of Aboriginal people for the purpose of ensuring the development of the Ranger uranium mine. Recognising this threat to the development, the commissioner recommended that the area remain Crown land and become part of a national park. So, as I said, the reason that Jabiru was not recognised as Aboriginal land in that instance and scheduled in the Land Rights Act is an absolute historical anachronism and an indictment of the then government for proceeding in this way, because Ranger has now been operating since 1980. This fact was entirely lost on the Fraser and Howard governments, as was the moral dimension in this case. I commend the bill to the House because it establishes a certainty, genuinely engages with Indigenous aspirations, is good for the community, good for business and paves the way for an ongoing effective dialogue between the Mirarr, as the traditional owners, other local Aboriginal people, government, business and industry. I might just say for the purpose of this discussion that the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, passed as it was by the Fraser government in 1976 and originally drafted by the Whitlam government prior to their demise, is a really significant piece of legislation. It is the strongest piece of law in this country to recognise Aboriginal rights to land. It transfers to them, once recognised, land in an unalienable freehold title—it cannot be sold. It can only be secured, but it can be leased for the purposes of commercial development under section 19. This is very important, and as they have done here in the case of the Jabiru town. For many, many years it has been seen as an impediment to development, because people wanted to see it as an impediment to development. It is not an impediment to development. There are now many commercial arrangements with Aboriginal people for Aboriginal land and the development of that land as a direct result of their capacity under the land rights act to negotiate. That means that there are commercial opportunities which are being developed by non-Aboriginal and non-Torres Strait Islander interests in this case; for their own benefit, but sharing the benefits in some way or another—directly or indirectly—with Aboriginal people. That is a really positive thing. I am very pleased to be supporting this legislation. Debate adjourned. Sitting suspended from 12:48 to 15 : 59 Social Security Legislation Amendment (Disaster Recovery Allowance) Bill 2013 3397

Social Security Legislation Amendment (Disaster Recovery Allowance) Bill 2013

Second Reading 3397 15:59 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling Over the last several years, Australia has witnessed a number of momentous and devastating natural disasters. Local communities in every state and territory have faced physical, emotional and financial struggles in the aftermath of these disasters, with the pressures themselves exacerbated by a government that all too often focuses on its own political agenda in complete disregard of disaster resilience investment. The coalition understands the importance of ensuring disaster assistance not only reaches those individuals and communities affected by disaster for clean-up and recovery purposes but also reaches workers, employees, employers, small businesses and farmers who have lost income as a result of the devastating event. Whilst constitutional responsibility for disaster prevention, preparedness, response and recovery is primarily vested with the states and territories, the significant detrimental effect large-scale disasters have on communities, households and individuals often calls for the provision of further assistance from the Commonwealth government. The coalition does not take disaster assistance mitigation or resilience measures likely. We will help small businesses get back on their feet more quickly after a natural disaster by providing the additional support they need. The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Disaster Recovery Allowance) Bill 2013 will establish a new payment, the disaster recovery allowance, by replacing the current disaster income recovery subsidy. The bill amends the Social Security Act 1991, the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to implement the assistance. The disaster recovery allowance consists of a short-term fortnightly income support payment for an individual whose income has been affected by a major disaster whether natural or otherwise. If passed, the measure will come into effect on 1 October this year. The disaster recovery assistance package seeks to formulate the payment of ongoing assistance following a major disaster, which has until now been done by way of ex gratia payments and is separate from the Australian government disaster recovery payment. It is intended that either or both disaster recovery assistance and the Australian government disaster recovery payment could be activated in the event of a disaster, depending on the nature and effect of the particular event. The disaster recovery assistance is payable for a period of 13 weeks. If a person is still in need of income support after this date, they will need to qualify for another payment such as special benefit or Newstart allowance. At this point, I would like to note the coalition's plan for small business emergency assistance. The coalition's plan recognises that small business, with the local community, plays an essential role in the recovery from natural disasters. There are three crucial aspects to our plan. Under our plan, a small business that has not experienced physical damage as a result of a natural disaster but still suffers a loss of income as a consequence will be eligible for a loan up to $100,000. Eligible businesses will be able to pay back these low-interest loans over a period of up to seven years at an interest rate of four per cent, consistent with the existing commonly used guidelines. The second aspect of this plan is that the coalition will provide a GST and pay-as-you-go tax holiday to small businesses in disaster affected areas. Under current arrangements, small businesses are required to provide quarterly business activity statements by set dates each year. Instead, these businesses should have the option of a three-month extension for filling their business activity statements and not be required to remit their GST and pay-as-you-go payments until that time. The third aspect of this plan is that a coalition government will waive, for a period of six months, any penalty interest for disaster affected small businesses failing to estimate their pay-as-you-go obligation accurately. This plan will help to stop viable and profitable businesses going bankrupt and keep local people employed. These are practical steps to assist disaster affected areas get back on their feet. We certainly look forward to having the opportunity to implement that plan to help small business if we do win the forthcoming election this year. I am about to conclude my contribution, which makes me think that the Labor Party might want to get a speaker in here at some stage in the not-too-distant future. This particular bill is worthy of our support and it receives it. We look forward to being able to enhance disaster recovery assistance, in particular for small business, should we get a chance to form the next government after the election. 16:05 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I rise to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Disaster Recovery Allowance) Bill 2013. I thank the member for Stirling for his contribution and also the opposition for the bipartisan support for this piece of legislation. As a Queenslander, I say that it is important that there be bipartisan support. My electorate of Moreton was particularly heavily hit in the 2011 floods. I saw the damage that occurred. Literally, the water was at the end of my street. I had over 5,200 properties affected. Many small businesses in my electorate were affected back in 2010. In fact, I have 19,000 small businesses and arguably all of them suffered economic loss, so that is a $1.9 billion commitment that the member for Stirling has just made for the future if there were a similar disaster. Remember, the water in the 2011 floods in my electorate was one metre lower than the 1974 floods. The member for Stirling has introduced this new financial commitment where businesses that suffer economic loss can access up to $100,000 in loans locked in at four per cent. Obviously that is a significant financial commitment and I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing tomorrow night the offsets for such a financial commitment. The reality is Queensland is one of the states that are more prone to disasters, particularly when you get above the Tropic of Capricorn. We had that double whammy 2½ years back: there were floods in Toowoomba, the Lockyer Valley, Brisbane and other areas—my home town of St George, Emerald and many others were hit by floods—and then we had Cyclone Yasi as well, a category 5 cyclone that crossed over the coast near Tully and Mission Beach. It ripped through North Queensland leaving significant economic damage. If you have your entire banana crop wiped out, $100,000 will not be the compensation; it will not set you up for that. Nevertheless, I will be interested to see what happens tomorrow night when the Leader of the Opposition does respond. The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Disaster Recovery Allowance) Bill 2013 is a piece of legislation that has bipartisan support for a number of reasons. The purpose is to create a new income support payment for individuals affected by major disaster. It is certainly a very Australian response and I note the member for Mallee, who would have had people go through his— Mr Forrest interjecting— Mr PERRETT HVP I remember, I think we went to your electorate when we were looking at insurance problems that flowed after these disasters. He well knows the problem with too much water coming down the river, or no water coming down the river if it is a drought. We need to get these disasters right. We are a sunburnt country, a land of floods and too many droughts. The problem with Australia is we do have a range. It is hard to get insurance right and it is hard to get the compensation right. But a good government that makes decisions in the national interest looks at the payments that are available to people after a major disaster, and that is what we have done. I did indicate the support of the opposition for this. At the moment there are two types of payments. The first is the lump sum payment known as the Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment. I particularly commend Centrelink for the great work they did in my electorate after the floods. They were on the ground, basically, with mud on their feet, making sure that people had money. They learnt a horrible lesson from the Victorian bushfires when they realised that some of the identity safeguards mean nothing if your house has been washed away or burnt to the ground. The Centrelink personnel did a great job. There will always be the odd crook, but I do not think we should respond to natural disasters by treating everyone as a crook. The second response is by way of ex gratia payments made on an ad hoc basis to those requiring ongoing assistance following major disasters. The new income support payment, the disaster recovery allowance, the DRA, will formalise the payment of ongoing assistance following major disasters, which have until now been by way of ex gratia payments, and is separate from the AGDRP. It is intended that either or both the DRA and the AGDRP could be activated in the event of a disaster, depending on the nature and effect of the particular disaster. It is a piece of legislation that is supported by both sides or the chamber. I see the member for Blair, the parliamentary secretary, here in the chamber. His electorate was particularly hard hit. He was on the same committee as me. It looked at insurance response after disasters, so we have been all around the nation looking at how people were treated, insurance-wise, but we also incidentally received evidence on the various government responses. This is long overdue and I commend the legislation to the House. 16:11 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I thank the honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Disaster Recovery Allowance) Bill 2013. I particularly thank the member for Moreton. He was the chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs. It looked at the response of the insurance industry and other organisations to natural disasters around the country. We went around and looked at floods in Western Australia, cyclones in North Queensland, floods in Victoria and bushfires in Western Australian in relation to this. We went all round the country. This is important legislation. The member for Moreton and I have seen the benefit of financial assistance that the federal government provides for disaster management—not just to councils but also for income support. Passing this Social Security Legislation Amendment (Disaster Recovery Allowance) Bill 2013 will ensure that there is legislative backing—support—available to individuals whose incomes are temporarily affected by disasters over the coming seasons, whether they be fire, cyclone or flood. The disaster recovery allowance, the DRA, will replace the ex gratia Disaster Income Recovery Subsidy, known as the DIRS. Australia is a disaster-prone country, vulnerable to bushfires. We have had disasters in South East Queensland and about 17 major floods in the Brisbane-Ipswich area since 1840. The ex gratia Disaster Income Recovery Subsidy has been highly successful and provides valuable support to employees, business owners and farmers whose livelihoods are threatened by disaster. This summer alone, the Disaster Income Recovery Subsidy was activated across 35 local government areas in response to four natural disaster events. The federal Labor government is committed to protecting the jobs and businesses of Australians and to the recovery of communities that have been impacted by natural disasters. No Australian should lose their income or be forced to permanently close their business because of bushfire, flood or cyclone. Legislating the DRA will greatly improve the quality of disaster assistance that the Australian government is able to provide. It will ensure more efficient and responsible governance and economic management of the Australian government disaster recovery. It will ensure consistency, with clear eligibility criteria and activation processes. It will allow for review processes to be applied to other social security payments that are not currently available for an ex gratia payment. It will also allow for fraud- and debt-recovery processes in the Social Security Act to apply to those very few who try to take advantage of this sort of assistance. Passing this bill will ensure support is delivered to disaster victims quickly and effectively. Natural disasters are devastating, unpredictable and inevitable. The full impact of any disaster is not felt straightaway, particularly the economic impacts, and recovery is a very complex process. Disaster assistance provides support to where it is instrumental to community recovery. The federal Labor government consistently tries to improve the disaster recovery assistance it provides. This bill represents a very significant step to improving support to communities affected by disasters. The DRA will ensure that people whose income has been hit by a disaster will not need to worry about putting food on the table or whether they will be forced to end their hard-built small business. The DRA will assist not only individuals but also entire communities in getting back on their feet and putting their lives back together. By debating and voting on this legislation now we ensure that all preparatory work done by the Attorney-General's Department federally and the Department of Human Services is completed in time for the 2013-14 summer and that the payment is ready for when Australians will need it most. I take this opportunity to thank the Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer, the member for Lilley; the Minister for Human Services, Senator Jan McLucas; the Minister for Families, Community Services, Indigenous Affairs, the Hon. Jenny Macklin MP; and their departments for their invaluable assistance in the preparation of this bill. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. MOTIONS 3401 MOTIONS Forced Adoption 3401 16:17 Ms KING 00AMR Ballarat I am very proud as the member for Ballarat and a member of this parliament, which has recognised and apologised on behalf of the Australian people for the shameful policies and practices of forced adoption. I have heard from a number of my constituents who have been affected by these practices. All were moved by the apology and particularly by the very heart-felt words of our Prime Minister. For many, it provided a time to share their grief in the open without the stigma of the past and to begin a process of healing. Nothing will ever make up for the hurt, betrayal and loss caused by these practices. But, as a nation, this acknowledgment speaks to our common humanity and to our moral obligation. I do not think anything can be more powerful than the words of those mothers, particularly, who have been directly affected. So I would like to take the opportunity here to use most of my contribution to read to the chamber a letter handed to me by one of my constituents, Lyn Kinghorn, who details her own heartbreaking story, a story that is replicated many, many times across this country. I quote from Lyn's letter: In 1963 I was single, 16 and pregnant. My parents bullied my child's father to stay away. My mother put pressure on me to have an abortion. They were willing to pay £400 for this. I refused and a place was found for me at Berry Street. I was happy to go to Berry Street and continually thought my boyfriend was coming with his Mum to rescue me, only to find out years later—he was threatened with jail if he came near me. My beautiful daughter was born on 24/12/1963. I took care of her for the week that I was in hospital. I had free access to spend all of my time with her. On 31/12/1963 a nurse was sent from Berry Street to the Women's Hospital to collect me. I begged and screamed for help not to be separated from my daughter. I was told to go home and be a good girl. When I got back to Berry Street distraught and screaming – the Matron came out and said in a cruel voice "I hope you have learnt your lesson." I certainly did, no way would I ever get into such a situation again. I married and two members of the family I married into had been single mothers in the decades before me. I believed I had been weak and something was wrong with me that I had been unable to be a Mum like they both had … I am shocked and distressed to learn the role the medical profession took to separate me from my child. Between the mid-1950s to mid-1970s the policy was that the medical profession, in its bid to heal infertility forcibly — removed babies from single Mums. What became of Doctor/patient care and relationship?? The medical profession used me and other Mums like me as a cure for strangers. Why was their need more important than mine?? I have been profoundly injured by this policy that is now known as Forced Adoption. I strongly expose this as ABDUCTION for adoption. My human rights were abused. I was forced to sign consent 8 days after separation, as I was told I would never see her again and if I refused to sign she would be raised in an orphanage. By this time I had turned 17. I was unable to vote, get a loan or a drivers licence, but without an advocate present - able to sign consent to lose my child. My first child after I married was stillborn — another daughter. I was heartbroken - but was able to move on from that without the continued trauma of loss the abduction has caused throughout my life. I am so blessed to have had 4 more children and 4 step-children. My next daughter recently said "Mum, this has consumed your life." I do wonder how this abduction has directed my life as a wife and mother. Many years spent involved with numerous groups trying to understand and uncover this truth. So hard to believe in Australia, this crime was committed against more than 200,000 Mums and babies. Yet in the previous decades — care and protection was the usual outcome. I thank you for the opportunity to tell a small part of my experience. I do not think any of us can imagine the incredible hurt that Mrs Kinghorn must feel but, because of her strength, resilience and determination, and the determination of the many mothers like her not to let this go, we can be here today to have this apology. We can also ensure that we understand what happened, say sorry for what happened, acknowledge all of the people affected and never again preside over policies and practices that will cause such unbearable hurt to families. Whether it is the mothers, the fathers, the children who were taken or their siblings, they all were and continue to be deeply affected by what happened to them. Hopefully some in later years have, at the very least, had the opportunity to find out what happened and to meet some of their family members. Many simply will just never know. For all of that heartbreak, it is fitting that we offer, as this parliament, the most heartfelt apology. We are sorry. 16:23 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling Thank you to the minister for sharing that story. I think it is often the case that, when we are doing things in the parliament, it is the personal stories that people bring in here that can really frame these issues in our minds, and obviously that story is one of the ones where we can see just how tough these policies were on people and the enormous human toll that they took. I will not use all of my time but I just want to take the opportunity to add my voice to the national apology for forced adoptions and removals. It is astonishing to find, when we look back, that it is actually not that long ago and how cruel these policies were for the people who were involved. For the parliament to come together, as we did in the last sitting period, and offer an apology on behalf of the people of Australia for what occurred is a very important thing that this parliament has done. I will confess that, in the past when the parliament has come together to issue some of these apologies, I have sometimes been a bit, I suppose, cynical about the benefits of them. But when you see the effect they have on people who have been affected by the policies, and the effect that the national apology can have, any of those thoughts are dispelled. I must admit I felt the same way about the national apology that was given by former Prime Minister Rudd on behalf of the country to Aboriginal people in Australia. To see the effect that had on the people and what it meant to them I think would dispel even the most cynical of thoughts about the importance of the national parliament taking these stands and saying on behalf of the nation that we are sorry for some of the things that have happened in our nation's past. When we are talking about forced adoptions we are really talking about policies which, certainly to our eyes today, seem unimaginably cruel, and the institutionalised nature of the fact. We need to understand that the standards were so different back then. Even though it is not that long ago, the way people were treated was different. If you were a single mother in the 1950s and 1960s social stigma was attached to that. There was inability really to have any power over the situation. If you were a single mother it might be that your family would not want you to have contact with the father, perhaps the father just refused to take any responsibility and there was nothing at the time to ensure fathers would be forced to face up to the consequences of their actions. You could certainly impregnate somebody and then disown your responsibilities, and that happened to a lot of women, unfortunately, during those times. Then the stigma attached to them by society for being single mothers was crushing. A lot of families would not have anything to do with a daughter who found herself in this situation. They had so few options because it was not the case back then, as it is the case today, that you could rely on the social security system for support, for instance. If you were a single mother and you found yourself in these circumstances, your options for how you would support yourself and support your family would be incredibly limited. Obviously, for mothers facing these circumstances it was incredibly difficult. I join with the parliament and say that I think this is the right motion on behalf of the country. I think it is good that the parliament has come together to apologise for forced adoptions and I add my voice to the parliament's motion. I think it is a very worthy thing for the parliament to have done. 16:27 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin What a privilege it was to be in the Great Hall on 21 March when the Prime Minister issued the national apology for people affected by past forced adoptions. To be in that room and to have the privilege of the people nearby to share their experiences with you was incredibly moving. They were so resilient, but you could see that the pain and the sadness affected every single one of them, and that was just people who were able to be there on that day. No doubt the experience of the past adoption practices affected them very deeply. It was a very long journey indeed for many of these people to make it to Parliament House to hear that apology, which acknowledged the past wrongs and the dreadful hurts which were caused. That we are here today acknowledging this terrible hurt is testament to the courage, persistence and determination of many but particularly the mothers who fought for so long to have their voices heard. Saying sorry is such a vital first step towards recognising the trauma we caused and beginning the journey of healing. However, it equates to just hollow words unless there is also swift and tangible action to accompany it. That is why immediately following the apology the Prime Minister announced that the government would fund measures of $11.5 million over four years. We know that there were approximately 150,000 forced adoptions in Australia. The constant message during the consultations on the forced adoption apology was that unless the apology was backed up with specific practical measures it would be just words. Almost all of the people consulted wanted counselling by appropriately trained staff, with an emphasis on mental health services. They wanted a cost-free, one-stop shop for searches for birth certificates, deaths and marriages and to ensure hospital records were preserved and available to be searched without cost. Another frequent request was for a lasting commemoration. The government, of course, responded. Our response was: $5 million for improved access to specialist support services, $5 million for training and guidelines for mental health professionals and $1½ million for the National Archives to deliver the Forced Adoptions History Project. The Attorney-General's Department will progress resolution of the issues relating to integrated birth certificates and will investigate the harmonisation of and access to judicial birth, death and marriage registers. The package of measures also includes an immediate investment of funds for the Access to Allied Psychological Services program, where, through their GPs, people who were affected by past forced adoptions will have priority access to a mental health professional. The package also includes funding to develop guidelines and training for health professionals to increase awareness of forced adoption issues. Awareness of this shameful chapter in Australia's history among the broader population is also paramount. For this reason we will be funding the National Archives of Australia for a public education and awareness exhibition and a website which will allow people affected by past forced adoptions to give voice to their experience. But we know that people who have lived through the trauma of past forced adoptions need much more than this. They need services to support them to gain access to the information which tells their experience—the information from hospitals, maternity homes and other places where records are held. We also know that people affected by past forced adoptions need peer and professional support to help them with their journey of understanding and healing. We need to design services that strengthen, complement and enhance what is already available to ensure we can meet their needs and expectations. This means making sure that people who have experienced past forced adoptions have a voice in the development of these services. I will soon be announcing a process to ensure we have representation from these people—including mothers, fathers and adult adopted persons—so that their experiences can positively contribute to an improved system. If we are going to make a lasting impact on people's lives by helping in the process of healing from the terrible injustices which have occurred, we must take the time to get this right. We need to find out what currently exists; where there are strengths, weaknesses and gaps in services; and how a system of support can best meet the needs of people affected by forced adoptions. Through these measures, the government is committed to ensuring that the voices of those affected are heard and continue to be heard, and that those people are supported throughout the difficult process of healing. We are sorry. 16:32 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I start by congratulating the previous speaker for her speech. This is obviously a subject which is very difficult for people, and she gave an excellent speech. On that note, I also congratulate the member for Swan for his speech in the chamber on this issue. For those people who did not have the privilege of hearing the member for Swan in the chamber when we last sat, which was, I think, seven weeks ago, it was one of the best speeches that has been given in this term of the parliament. I commend that speech to anyone with an interest in this issue. As someone who lived through the reality of this issue, the way that he clearly, concisely and emotionally dealt with the issue was an absolute credit and testament to him. In that regard also I think credit is due to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, who also spoke extremely well on this issue. Both sides of the parliament came together to recognise this issue and to work in a bipartisan way to make sure that there was a national apology for forced adoptions and removal policies and practices. By making that apology, we were able as a parliament to recognise the errors that occurred. It is absolutely vital for those who have suffered to have the reassurance that the national parliament has recognised that what went on was wrong and that it has been prepared to do the right thing, admit that and make this apology. The government has also put revenue towards trying to help deal with the situation, and I commend the government for doing that. Obviously that was supported by the coalition, rightly, and hopefully those policies which have been put in place as a result of this national apology can help those people who are still dealing with this issue and in many cases have had to deal with it for most of their lives. I would like to go back to the member for Swan's speech because, having not lived through this, I think it is difficult to understand what the consequences would be. He talked about being reunited with his brother and the emotion of that and also what his brother and he had had to live through until they were reunited and until, slowly, other members of the family were also reunited. I think it is extremely telling. As someone who grew up as one of six children, I cannot imagine what it would have been like to discover members of your family when you were at the age of 45 or 51, as was the case with the member for Swan. I commend all members of the House for the national apology, and I commend all those who have made statements on it. I think there have been some very moving speeches from our two leaders and, most importantly, from someone who has lived through this and to whom this meant so much. It is an honour for me to stand here to support this apology and to commend those who have also done so. 16:37 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I am pleased to speak to the motion moved by the Attorney-General in the House of Representatives on Thursday, 21 March, to formally apologise for past practices and policies that forced the separation of mothers from their babies. These policies and practices are a shameful part of our past and resulted in such sadness, pain and suffering for so many mothers, fathers and children as well as brothers, sisters and extended family. I am pleased that the government and the parliament in a bipartisan way is taking responsibility and formally apologising for these practices. I hope that this apology will be a step in the healing process for many Australians who have had their children forcibly removed from them and for the children who grew up not knowing their parents. When listening to the experiences of mothers who had their children forcibly removed, it struck me that they not only experienced and continue to experience the grief and trauma of losing one's child and not only were denied the fundamental rights and responsibilities to love and care for their child but they were also treated so badly—being shamed and shunned by our society. One of these mothers is Roslyn Sponheimer. In 1963 Roslyn fell pregnant at the age of 17 and was immediately made to feel shameful. Her parents and GP mapped out her future, which she had no say in. She was to resign from her work and lie to her friends and family, saying that she was leaving to work in the country. Instead, she was to enter the Kate Cock's Home for Unmarried Mothers in Brighton, Adelaide, under a false name. She was to live there until the baby was born and then return home, leaving her baby behind. When Roslyn reflects back to her time at the home she says that there was no concept of informed consent and it was just accepted that after giving birth mothers were to leave their babies behind. No alternatives were ever discussed. In Roslyn's words: So there we were. A bunch of society outcasts, brainwashed into submission and suffering feelings of such low esteem and low self worth that I can say it has impacted on every decision I have made in life since. After a long and difficult birth, Roslyn was able to see her son for five minutes. She recounted that she could still remember every detail of his face as he looked up at her. After the birth Roslyn was sedated and confined to bed for five days as a result of toxaemia. On the seventh day, when she was able to get up and move around, Roslyn recounts: … the Deaconess called me into the waiting room. She said, 'I have a form for you to sign.' She then asked me if there was any request I had of the adopting parents. All I could think to say was, 'Don't make him learn the piano if he doesn't want to.' She then asked me if I wanted to name the baby. I said I didn't want to remember a name, thinking it would somehow be easier if she named him instead. She said she would name him after her own husband. She then handed the form to me to sign. After two weeks in hospital, Roslyn was given tablets to dry up her milk and told to go home. Roslyn's family never mentioned the birth of her son, and for a long time Roslyn went along with that silence. She said that it was only when she had her daughter and son later on that she understood what had been stolen from her. Roslyn said: To survive mentally, I had to put it to the back of my mind. Due to the laws of our land, I couldn't search for my son until he turned eighteen and so I just had to grieve in private. Even my husband didn't seem to have any understanding of what I was going through. Roslyn attempted to search for her son when he turned 18, but to no avail, as there was not any support to do so. Despite a desperate search she found only dead ends. To add insult to injury, a social worker from the Department of Community Welfare at the time called Roslyn to inform her that there had been a complaint from the Methodist mission which had been responsible for the adoption, and that she had to stop looking for her son. After 22 years, Roslyn was able to locate her son via a government department and was reunited with him in 1986. Since the reunion, however, Roslyn has attended various counselling sessions but has been unable to completely come to terms with the loss of her baby. Even though her son is now 49, is married and has his own children, it has taken most of the 27 years since her reunion with her son for her to feel that she could be herself around him. Looking back on what happened to her, Roslyn feels that she was denied the opportunity to express normal feelings of anger, hurt and emotional pain and that she has been left with an aching void which will never be filled. Unfortunately, Roslyn's story is one of so many mothers around the country who had their babies forcibly removed. Approximately 150,000 to 250,000 babies of unwed and mostly teenage mothers were forcibly removed from the 1950s to the mid-1970s in Australia. These mothers and fathers were betrayed by a system that gave them no choice and subjected them to manipulation, mistreatment and malpractice. These actions deeply damaged not only the mothers, fathers and families but also the children. The motion before the House also apologises to the children who were adopted or removed who were led to believe that their mothers had rejected them and who were denied the opportunity to grow up with their family and community. These children grew up not knowing how much they were loved, and many still report a constant struggle with their identity, uncertainty and loss and feel a persistent tension between loyalty to one family and a yearning for another. One of these people is Annette from Aldinga in my electorate, who was taken from her unmarried mother in 1954. Born out of wedlock, Annette was a child of the forced adoption policy. Annette finds solace in the fact that her mother hung on to her and refused to sign the forms to release her from her custody for six weeks. Annette says that what happened next has impacted her entire life. After being separated from her mother, Annette was adopted in 1954 by a family that needed more hands on their farm, and she spent her time after school not relaxing or socialising with her peers but performing manual labour for her adoptive family. At the age of five, Annette was given a book titled The Chosen Baby, but Annette did not feel lucky for being chosen, as she said she had to deal with the grief of believing that she was not wanted by her biological mother and of having an unhappy childhood with her adoptive family. As Annette grew older she attempted to conduct research into where she had come from, to heal the pain she had from not belonging. But as if to rub salt into the wounds, Annette was incredibly upset that she was made to pay for any information that you could find in the state records. Everything that happened to Annette as a child still affects her today. But she worries also for her own children, who, because of the lack of a family—they have no uncles, aunties, grandparents or cousins—will not appreciate the role the extended family plays. Because of the forced adoption policies that removed Annette from her mother, her children have been denied the opportunity to have a family network. They lack the support that an extended family provides. These are just two stories from my electorate, but I know there are many more right around a country. We can never make up for the trauma, pain, loss, disconnection and separation that has been caused by the forced adoption processes, policies and procedures. We have heard from the Prime Minister that the government, and indeed the parliament, is committed to doing what we can to help those affected by forced adoption practices, to help families reconnect and to help adoptees find their families. The government will provide funding towards support services and recognition of the people affected by forced adoption policies and practices. This includes the Allied Psychological Services Program, which will give families high priority in accessing important mental health services, and funding for the National Archives of Australia to undertake a history and recognition process for those affected by forced adoption policies. The government is also establishing a Past Forced Adoption Practices Implementation Working Group, whose members will represent the mothers and fathers of the children of past forced adoptions. This group will perform a key advisory role to the government on the implementation of services and projects. It will also provide a platform for national consultation and communication between the government, advocacy groups, peak bodies, non-government organisations and service providers in the time leading up to implementation. We all expect the right to determine our own direction in life, and part of that is enabling us to nurture, care for and love our children. But during this dark period our society has deliberately denied many this opportunity. While we can never fully make up for what has happened to these families in the past, we will make sure that these practices are never repeated. To Roslyn, Annette and all those who have been affected by these practices, we say sorry. 16:47 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I thank the member for Kingston for her moving speech. I know how passionate she is about these issues, and we could see the emotion in her face as she related to us so very well that harrowing story about Roslyn, which we would all concur is a rather tragic tale. I also commend the member for Swan for his 21 March speech to the House of Representatives on this subject. I think you could have heard a pin drop while he was speaking, and that is a rarity in the House of Representatives. The words he expressed and the emotion he showed that day were a lesson for all of us about how important this is, how wrong the practice was and how far we have moved as a society. Adoption emerged in Australian legislation in the early 20th century. In the early stages it was generally an open process and often involved the adoption of older children, as opposed to infants. After World War II, society changed its perception of adoption, and the idea of the adoption of infants became more acceptable. Adoption was seen as the solution to the societal stigmas of infertility and illegitimacy, and also spared these children from spending their childhood in institutions. In the 1950s, adoption legislation was amended throughout Australia to remove the openness of earlier legislation and ensure adoptions occurred through a closed process. It was thought at the time that this would help the adoptive parents to ensure that they were seen as, and felt like, the natural parents of their babies. This was referred to as the 'clean break theory', which was developed by Sigmund and Anna Freud. It was seen as the best outcome for both the birth mother and the baby. Furthermore, those who supported this theory believed it was important in ensuring that the bonding between the adoptive mother and the child was not interrupted. Whilst many women willingly placed their babies up for adoption with religious organisations, adoption agencies and through other measures, the sad and shocking reality is that a number of women were forced to place their babies up for adoption usually because they were unmarried. Young women and their families, and indeed society, felt they were not fit to take care of their children. The Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs released a report in 2012, entitled 'Commonwealth contribution to former forced adoption policies and practices' after an extensive inquiry into former forced adoptions in Australia's history. The report states it was incontrovertible that forced adoption was common, but it was not possible to estimate the number of forced adoptions that had taken place as statistics from the era do not indicate why a child was placed for adoption, nor whether the parent or parents had willingly consented. Previous parliamentary inquiries into past adoption practices have been undertaken by the New South Wales and Tasmanian parliaments. Both parliaments found such practices had caused a considerable amount of pain and suffering, especially for parents who had been pressured to place their child up for adoption. The New South Wales report went as far as to say there had been a number of practices which were unethical and even unlawful. Forced adoption occurred in Australia for more than 50 years, from 1930 until 1982; however, most of these adoptions took place from the 1950s to the 1970s. Society at that time held different views than those of today. White, married couples with a secure income were seen as the ideal family unit and regarded as the most capable of providing the necessary care for children. On the other hand, having a child out of wedlock and the lack of financial support for single mothers meant there was a widespread view that adopting the babies of these unmarried women was in the best interests of the child. There are numerous reports of women who were forced to pass their baby up for adoption gaining access to their hospital records later in life to find their file had been automatically stamped 'BFA'—baby for adoption—due to their being an unmarried woman, before they had even given birth or signed any adoption papers. Lina Eve was one woman who discovered her files have been stamped. She said: My medical records have “BFA” stamped on them...even though I had said from the start I wanted to keep my baby. So its clear to me they had the adoption of my child as their intention all along. Most mothers were unmarried at the time they gave birth and were sent to maternity homes for all or some of their pregnancy, a decision usually made by their parents. Many did not have pleasant experiences in these homes, having their possessions removed and being prevented from having any outside contact with supporters they had. They were made to work without pay and were subjected to pressures to put their babies up for adoption. Ann Allpike made a submission to the Senate committee stating: The emphasis was always on adoption being what was ‘best for the child’—‘if you love your baby then you will give it up for adoption’. … I was not treated as an expectant mother but rather encouraged to think of my baby as not being mine but belonging to some perfect deserving married couple. The experience of giving birth was also not pleasant for many women who were considered to be putting their babies up for adoption even if they had not already given consent. Women recall being medicated, strapped to the bed and ignored or abused by medical staff. Jan Kashin stated to the Senate committee: Certainly by 1963 the practice of hiding the baby from the mother giving birth was well established. The sheet went up on cue. The drugging was mandatory for unmarried women, as was … the shackling to the labour ward bed. Babies from unmarried mothers were quickly whisked away, with most never touching and many never seeing their baby. It was remarkably traumatic for a woman who had been shunned by society and quite likely by her family to not be allowed to have contact with the child she had been carrying for nine months—the reason she had been shunned in the first place. Medical staff at the time, and indeed midwives and nurses who submitted evidence to the Senate committee, believed it was kinder to remove the baby from the start than to allow the mother and baby to bond before the baby was removed from the mother at a later date, which would have caused further and, in some people's opinion, 'unnecessary' distress. Following the birth of their child, these women were left to get on with their lives as if nothing had happened. Many returned home and were treated as if they had been on vacation, but described having a strained relationship with their parents often for the rest of their parents' lives. Others started over somewhere new, holding what they felt was a shameful secret inside. No matter what, all these women got on with their lives still longing for the baby they knew had been wrongfully taken from them. The effects of forced adoption are immeasurable. This practice affected not only the mothers and babies but also the fathers of these children and the families which these people have gone on to have later in life. While some women shared their past with husbands, partners and children, others have held onto this secret for a lifetime. Indeed, some women stated to the committee that their submission was the first time they had spoken about their past since the incident had occurred. For some women the pain of their past was too much to live with and, sadly, they have taken their own lives. How tragic is that! For some, searching for their lost children has consumed their lives. For others, the trauma of what they went through has caused strain on relationships and family dynamics. Some women have lived normal lives but held this pain inside for a long, long time. No two women have dealt with their grief in exactly the same way. In the same way, no two people deal with grief in exactly the same way. No matter what, though, all these women have had to deal with a horrific experience to which they should never have been subjected. The Senate committee reported that they received a number of submissions regarding how adopted people felt about their adoption. An overwhelming majority described unhappy childhoods—being placed in abusive families and struggling with their self-identity and a need to know who they were. Whilst they were in the minority, submissions were received by the committee from people who held no bitterness towards either their birth mothers or their adoptive families. I also read a comment from Kristene Wood, a child who was placed into forced adoption, on the Facebook page of my parliamentary colleague the member for Dawson, George Christensen. Ms Wood wrote: I am a child of forced adoption, and I wouldn't have had it any other way. I was lucky. I have biological brothers and sisters who were not so lucky. And in saying this, I do not take away from them the love that they have for their/our mother but as a result of circumstances they grew up as products of the system, in orphanages, foster homes and the abuse that entailed ... I thank you for the beautiful parents I received, for their love and support throughout my life. Although they are now both dead, I wish that I could have them back every day. I was lucky I was able to thank my biological mum before she too passed away ... Ms Wood was lucky to be able to meet her biological mother and pass on her eternal gratitude. And I am sure there are many children from this era who would also want to let their mothers know that they have had a good life and are grateful for the life they have lived. This does not excuse the fact that these children were taken away from their mothers, but I hope knowing their child still received a happy and loving upbringing can bring their mothers some comfort. On 21 March this year, the Prime Minister apologised for the 'policies and practices that forced the separation of mothers from their babies, which created a lifelong legacy of pain and suffering'. This apology was issued following one of the recommendations of the Senate committee's report. And, whilst it cannot change the past and it will not take away the anguish and trauma of these events, hopefully this formal recognition can assist in the healing process for all those affected by forced adoptions. Barbara Maison said in her submission: We need to be respected in this country's history as mothers who had their babies taken forcibly from them for no other reason than to satisfy the ideals of others. We need to be respected in this country's history as mothers who were unjustly abused, betrayed and punished by all governments, hospital staff, welfare workers, religious hierarchies and society because of their inhumane, obscene prejudice towards us. To Ms Maison I say: we do respect you and all the other mothers who went through similar experiences to yours. This apology will help ensure your part in Australia's history is acknowledged and recorded as you would like it to be. May it help to ensure nothing of this nature occurs again. As the Leader of the Opposition stated: Whenever adoptions take place, they have to be chosen and they have to be for the right reasons. People have a right to make choices and they deserve our love and respect whatever choices they make. Whilst there can be no excuse for forced adoptions in the past, before I finish I would like to note that not all adoptions were carried out under such circumstances. I was contacted by a constituent from a small town in my electorate, who requested I do not use her name so as to ensure her family's privacy is protected. She wished for me to make this point clear. This constituent and her husband adopted children during the 1970s—two children who have grown up knowing about, as she put it, their natural backgrounds. When they approached the adoption agency it was made clear to them that the agency would be looking for parents deemed to be most suitable for the children and not the other way around. They were extensively interviewed, and filled out countless forms, which required answering a number of very personal questions—rightly so, as this ensured children were only going to be placed in loving, caring homes. My constituents were overcome with joy when they found out that they had been successful in gaining approval to be adoptive parents to two children they love and cherish. I am sure these constituents are not alone in wishing to be acknowledged as parents who gave their children a loving home. Not all adoptions which occurred during a certain period of the Australia's history were carried out through unethical measures. 17:00 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt I was certainly privileged to attend the national apology for forced adoptions in the Great Hall on 21 March in the company of many of those who had undergone a forced adoption experience. It was certainly a very humbling and touching event. I am glad that we, as a parliament, had come together in a truly bipartisan way to support this apology. We saw the same happen with the apology to the stolen generation. I think it is very important that we do reconcile some of these less compassionate periods of our history. At times there was a different thinking. I believe that many of those involved in these particular events genuinely in their own way believed that they were doing the best for both the child and the parent. Clearly, with the benefit of hindsight, we know that this was absolutely not the case, as we have seen in this particular initiative. As we have seen, as a result of the policy of the day there were literally hundreds of thousands of Australians adopted. In many of these situations the mothers had no meaningful choice and, even worse, were absolutely and totally denied any choice at all in what occurred with their child. We as a society have been left with that legacy—hundreds of thousands of mothers who never knew their children and those same children were left not knowing who their mothers or fathers were. As opposition leader, Tony Abbott, said in his address, this is a tragedy for them. It is also a tragedy for our nation and we must atone for it. I hope for those affected by the forced adoptions, whether they are the mothers, the fathers or other family members, that the apology has helped to provide some level of healing and some level of closure. I do accept, however, that these issues and impacts surrounding forced adoption are complex and for some will never be resolved. For mothers having their babies that they have loved and nurtured, carried for nine months and given birth to, taken from them without even a look or a touch would be truly heartbreaking. Surely a cry from the child at this point must echo with them for the rest of their lives. The children, who were often taken so young that they did not know any different, still had to come to terms with the knowledge later in life that they were adopted. Even the most loving stable childhood—and I have to congratulate those adoptive parents who provided this—could not prevent feelings of disconnection for many of those children. This is an issue that is very close to my heart. I would like to highlight two special people that have their own stories to tell. Rae Whitbourne is a grandmother from my region who featured recently in the Cairns Post, the local newspaper, on the day before of the national apology. Her story is not unusual amongst forced adoptions but that does not make it any less distressing. Rae fell pregnant at a young age after running a bit wild in country Victoria. She was taken to a Church of England home in Melbourne where there were a number of other girls in a similar condition. As their due date drew near, the girls were transferred to the Queen Victoria Hospital where Rae said that they were treated with near contempt by the staff. There was a stigma around them that they were 'bad' and that they had 'got into trouble'. Rae was just 14. After a dramatic delivery, she gave birth to a son, James. She wanted to hold him, but he was whisked away. 'I could hear him crying and I wanted to go to him, but I wasn't allowed,' she recalled. Rae was very vulnerable and certainly very confused and she did not know how to resist the next day when authorities came and forced her to sign adoption papers, saying it was 'best' for the boy. More than two decades later, when her youngest child was 16, Rae eventually told her other children about their older brother. The long journey started in trying to track him down—writing to different organisations, but always coming up against a brick wall. Luckily, her son was also looking for his mother. They eventually reunited and now have a positive relationship. Rae was fortunate in that she had the opportunity to eventually meet her son. But for others, the failure to connect with their roots is frustrating and very heart-rending. Peter Gries is a constituent of mine in Cairns. He was born in 1956 to a 16-year-old unmarried mother in a country town. While waiting for her due date, his mother was put into a home for unmarried mothers. In Peter's words: 'My adoptive parents were phoned a couple of days before my mother was due to give birth and were told "The next one's yours." My birth mother was not allowed any contact with me, whatsoever.' He is one who had a very happy childhood with his adoptive family. When, at the age of about five, he asked his parents where he had come from, they celebrated the fact that he was adopted. He said, 'With my adoptive parents I was made to feel very special. They said they had me because they really wanted me'. He recalled: 'I had a brother four years older, who was adopted in the same circumstances. But different people handle things differently. I felt I was very special but my brother had very strong feelings of abandonment.' In later years, Peter did feel a void when it came to his family history. When he went to his local doctor and was asked if he had a history of heart trouble or other genetic diseases he had to answer that he just did not know. He registered with Jigsaw, the post-adoption support organisation, but found it very limited in the amount of information he could access. Unfortunately, at the time, information-sharing was only possible if both sides had registered with the organisation. Peter's brother also had no luck in finding his mother. It has certainly had an effect on him and on his experiences as a parent. Peter told me that after receiving no information through Jigsaw or other agencies he had 'hit a brick wall'. He said, 'I tried to put it out of my head and forget about it—but then the apology brought it all back to the surface.' Recently he contacted my office. He asked: 'Now that the adoption apology has been made, what assistance will be given to those desperate to make contact but who have been met with closed doors? At 57 years of age there cannot be much time to connect with the birth mother I was taken from.' He was desperate for help. Peter would like to see more accessibility for people wanting to find out about their families. 'I wish there were a helpline that could guide me in the right direction—a mediation service or something like that,' he has reflected. This is a very important point for us to recognise. Given that the apology may have brought these repressed feelings to the surface, I certainly urge this House to make sure that as a society we are providing an appropriate level of support for those affected. This includes not just emotional support but also help to reconnect these families that have been divided for so long. I understand that this apology is just one step in a long journey to healing, understanding and getting those affected families back in touch with each other. Nevertheless, I have to say that I am very pleased to be able to stand here today offering my very, very strong support for this motion for those in our community who have been affected so adversely and profoundly by these forced adoption practices of the past. Let us learn from this dreadful experience and make sure this type of thing does not happen into our future. 17:10 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland It is with a heavy heart that I rise to join the previous speakers to speak on this motion in relation to the national apology on forced adoptions and, on behalf of the people of Gippsland, get our voice to the people affected by the forced adoption policies of the past. In doing so, I do not intend to quote the entire apology, but I think it is worthwhile to quote a couple of the extracts. I quote: Today, this Parliament, on behalf of the Australian people, takes responsibility and apologises for the policies and practices that forced the separation of mothers from their babies, which created a lifelong legacy of pain and suffering. We acknowledge the profound effects of these policies and practices on fathers. And we recognise the hurt these actions caused to brothers and sisters, grandparents, partners and extended family members. …   …   … We say sorry to you, the mothers who were denied knowledge of your rights, which meant you could not provide informed consent. You were given false assurances. You were forced to endure the coercion and brutality of practices that were unethical, dishonest and in many cases illegal. …   …   … We offer this apology in the hope that it will assist your healing and in order to shine a light on a dark period of our nation’s history. …   …   … We resolve, as a nation, to do all in our power to make sure these practices are never repeated. In facing future challenges, we will remember the lessons of family separation. Our focus will be on protecting the fundamental rights of children and on the importance of the child’s right to know and be cared for by his or her parents. As a personal message to the many people in my community who have contacted me in relation to this national apology I simply assure them: 'You did nothing wrong. You had the misfortune of living in a severely judgemental era of our nation's history and you did nothing wrong.' The background to the national apology on forced adoptions is important. In February last year, the Senate Community Affairs References Committee released its report into those practices, and the report found that the policies and practices that resulted in forced adoptions and the removal of children were widespread throughout Australia, particularly during the mid-twentieth century. The Senate committee inquiry received submissions from hundreds of individuals who had suffered from the effects of forced adoptions and found that there were many different ways in which these forced adoptions occurred. The accounts provided in that report are shocking and graphic for anyone who has read them. They range from experiences of mothers being drugged and physically shackled to beds, to social workers failing to advise mothers of government payments that may have been available to support them to keep their child. These forced adoption practices impacted a large number of Australians and caused significant ongoing effects for many people, particularly the mothers and also the fathers and the adoptees themselves. The report concluded that it is impossible to know the exact number of people who have been affected by these forced adoption practices but that it does number in the tens of thousands of Australians. While I accept that an apology, no matter how well framed, how well meant, how well intentioned and how well supported by members of this place, cannot undo suffering that has been experienced by those who have been affected by forced adoptions, I hope that the apology will be accepted in the way that it has been offered by members in this place in the hope that it will provide a significant step in the healing process for the mothers, the fathers, the adoptees and their extended family members who were adversely affected by these practices. It is a great example of this parliament at work when we have such bipartisan support for an issue of such importance, and I do commend the leaders of our two major parties, the member for Warringah and the member for Lalor, on their speeches in the Great Hall. It was a great occasion, befitting the Great Hall. I will quote the Leader of the Opposition, who said: But hundreds of thousands of Australians have been adopted, often, because their mothers had no real choice or were denied any choice and that means that there are hundreds of thousands of mothers who hardly knew their children and hundreds of thousands of children who hardly knew their mothers. He went on to say: We were hard-hearted and we were judgmental and that’s why we should apologise. We did inflict pain on those we loved and on those we had a responsibility for. For some, we turned what should been the wonderful experience of new life into something filled with shame. Instead of love, there was reproach; Instead of support, rejection; Instead of celebration, silence; And instead of justice, there was wrongdoing. And from the Prime Minister: Today’s historic moment has only been made possible by the bravery of those who came forward to make submissions to the Senate Committee and also of those who couldn’t come forward but who nurtured hope silently in their hearts. Because of your courage, Australia now knows the truth. I will talk about the courage of one brave woman in my electorate, a woman by the name of Brenda Coughlan, who has been a fearless supporter and campaigner for people who have been affected by the policy of forced adoptions. Brenda has helped to lead the fight for this apology. Her baby was taken from her without her consent when at just 17 she fell pregnant and delivered her baby. Even though she was in a loving relationship with the child's father she was coerced into giving up her child for adoption. In her evidence provided at the Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Organisations held by the Victorian parliament's Family and Community Development Committee, Brenda said: My body was forcibly examined without consent, not by 1, not by 2 but by up to 12 male medical students at a time — different hands, without consent, brutally and cruelly thrust inside my body one after the other, over and over again; at the same time, strangers’ hands cruelly pulling at my breasts, pushing at my stomach, with the excuse given that … it was just part of medical students’ training. She went on to say: I was eventually able to train my mind to visualise on an item in the cubicle so that the pain and the trespassing on my body by a group of males could be endured. I was barbarically and criminally tied down with shackles. I was torturously treated during labour. I was entrapped. I was defenceless. I was petrified and frightened. I make no apology for the graphic nature of the evidence, because it needs to be told. The hurt, anger and disillusionment with the medical profession resulting from that treatment obviously lingers with Brenda today. Brenda is not someone who has pursued this case for any material gains—she is not interested in compensation—but she wants to make sure that such atrocities never occur again. She said to me during a recent discussion in my office: This is not about money, because my daughter was never for sale. Money can never compensate me for the pain and loss my daughter and I have endured. It is a remarkable tribute to Brenda that in addition to working so hard campaigning for victims of forced adoptions she has found the energy within herself to open her heart to orphans in Asia and has actually organised ongoing practical support for those less-fortunate children. I must say that Brenda has been through an emotional roller-coaster, and it is fair to say that she was disappointed with some aspects of the national apology. It was an intensely emotional time for all the people involved in this issue. She was disappointed because she was concerned it did not include a specific reference to the mistreatment that I have just highlighted in relation to the medical profession. I wrote to the Attorney-General, Mr Dreyfus, on her behalf to raise her concerns in relation to the failure of the apology to identify that specific reference to the medical profession. I thank the Attorney-General for his most recent reply, which I will put on the record: Although the national apology did not specifically mention the treatment of mothers in Victorian hospitals, it did acknowledge the manipulation, mistreatment and malpractice that many mothers experienced as a result of forced adoption policies and practices. It also acknowledged that many mothers were denied their rights, given false assurances and forced to endure coercion and the brutality of practices that were often unethical, dishonest and in many cases illegal. Not including references to specific situations ensured that the apology included the widest possible range of people affected by forced adoption practices. The Attorney-General went on to point out that there has been a formal statement of apology from the Victorian government and that Melbourne's Royal Women's Hospital and Queen Victoria Memorial Hospital issued apologies on 23 January and 20 March this year for their involvement in forced adoption policies. I think it is important that it is on the record, because, for people like Brenda, the abuse and the violence that she endured will live with her for the rest of her life. The national apology for forced adoptions is obviously not the end of the story for the people who were hurt by these policies. We cannot, by any stretch, pretend in this place that we can take away the pain or the suffering that they endured and that was inflicted on our fellow countrymen and countrywomen, but we can resolve to ensure that such atrocities are never repeated and to support those broken-hearted souls during the remainder of their lives. I do hope that through this apology, through the extraordinary support across both sides of politics, we can give some comfort to people like Brenda as they continue their life's journey. I commend the apology to the House. 17:21 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga I am very pleased to join all the speakers on this very important motion. Like many contributors to this discussion, I joined Prime Minister Julia Gillard on 21 March this year when she apologised on behalf of the Australian people for the policies and practices that forced the separation of mothers from their babies. As we have heard so much, these policies and practices did create a lifelong legacy of pain and suffering for the mothers, the fathers, the daughters and the sons. As a government, we recognised and acknowledged the profound effects of these policies and practices, and offered the apology in good faith and with very deep humility. I saw firsthand how moved people were to hear the Prime Minister's deeply held and deeply felt words, recognising the wrongs that happened in the past and committing to ensuring they do not happen again in the future. To redress the shameful mistakes of the past, we are ensuring that all those affected get the help that they need, including access to specialist counselling services and support, the ability to find the truth in freely available records and assistance in reconnecting with lost family. Following the national apology, we tabled our response to the recommendations of the Senate inquiry and announced $11½ million in concrete measures and actions the government will be taking to assist those who have been affected. This includes $5 million so that mental health professionals can better assist in caring for those affected by forced adoption. It includes increased investment in the access to allied psychological services—a program in the Department of Health and Ageing—to make sure that people are connected to mental health professionals. To make sure that the survivors of forced adoptions can receive the support to cope with past pain and hurt, this increased availability to psychological services has already started and people can access this service through their general practitioner. To support those affected towards healing and recovery, the government have also invested $5 million to improve access to specialist services and supported records tracing. We will also work closely with state and territory governments to consider how best to invest the government's support to complement and enhance services. It is vital that current and future generations are made aware of this terrible chapter in Australia's history. To address this matter, we have provided $1½ million for the National Archives of Australia to develop an exhibition and a website to share and raise awareness of the experiences of those affected by forced adoption. That way this chapter in our nation's history will not be marginalised or forgotten again. We plan to launch the website on the first anniversary of the apology in 2014 and the exhibition on the second anniversary in 2015. The involvement of the people who have been most affected—the mothers, fathers and the now adult children—is critical in informing our approach to these measures. We are establishing a Past Forced Adoptions Implementation Working Group to give advice to the government on rolling out these measures and also the other actions in response to the recommendations of the Senate inquiry. The government wants to develop these important support programs and so avenues will be made available for people to have a say about each of them. Through the national apology we have acknowledged the shameful mistakes of the past and the importance of people speaking out about these past injustices. Through the strength and resolve of those affected, the time of neglect is over and we can now look forward to healing. 17:26 Dr STONE EM6 Murray On 21 March 2013 I sat down next to one of the victims of the forced adoption policies in the Great Hall of this parliament. We had a while to wait for the commencement of the ceremony and so we talked about his life, the sad life that he has had. He has had even more tragedies visited upon him since the initial trauma of his removal from his mother as a newborn. It seems that this incredibly courageous and stoical man, now in his fifties, was one of the many who, perhaps because of diminished responsibility or care, became one of the great many who were subject to medical experimentation, and so he now has serious ongoing health problems. Michael explained that a series of invasive procedures and the administration of dangerous and, as it turned out, sometimes contaminated drugs left him sterile, stunted and with prostate disease. This he developed when he was still a teenager. He has also had cancer since he was 25. He has suffered, and continues to suffer, a great deal. This very special man, who has given me permission to use his name and pass on his story, has been advocating for proper compensation for himself and his fellow sufferers who were also used as medical guinea pigs in the 1960s and 1970s. More than 200 boys were subject to these treatments, usually prompted by them being short. It was then referred to as 'a failure to thrive'. Michael O'Meara was born to his then unwed mother in 1961 at the Royal Women's Hospital in Melbourne. His mother wed a few months later. Michael did find and meet his mother in 1989, but tragically she died of cancer shortly after. When his mother was in labour delivering Michael, she was administered LSD as a sedative. This further complicated the birth and affected the baby's kidneys. Michael was recruited into the growth hormone clinic at Prince Henry's Hospital in 1972 when he was just 10 years old. He was subjected to deep sleep therapy in April 1972. At this time he was administered the human growth hormone using products from cadavers. It has since been found that some of this material was contaminated, with a number of young recipients subsequently contracting and dying of the deadly Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, or CJD. On Monday, 16 June 2008 the Hon. Fran Bailey MP put a private member's motion into the House calling on the government to recognise the 'unapproved' recipients of hormone treatments, including the young men and boys like Michael, who received the human growth hormone treatments between the 1960s and the mid 1980s. The motion acknowledged that the report commissioned in 1993, known as the Allars inquiry, found that approved female patients receiving the same treatment, but for infertility, suffered similar negative effects and as a result of that report received compensation from the Commonwealth. Finally, Ms Bailey's motion called for the compensation of the male victims, both 'approved' and 'unofficial', who received the same hormone treatment but usually for growth stimulation purposes. During the decades of this extraordinary period of medical experimentation on vulnerable young people, some were officially recognised and therefore were designated as 'approved' recipients of the drugs and procedures. Others, however, and that would seem hundreds, were not officially approved victims who received, however, the same treatment by medical practitioners. These unapproved recipients now have great difficulty obtaining their medical records or proper regard for their plight and their need for compensation. The disease CJD, one of the deadly consequences of experimentation with the human growth hormones, has a long incubation period which may extend for years. When it manifests itself, the dementia progresses rapidly until the patient dies a terrible death. It is one of the most terrible of human diseases. There is no easy test other than a brain biopsy that can confirm CJD. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 17:30 to 17:57 17:57 Dr STONE ( EM6 Murray ) ( ): There is no easy test other than a brain biopsy that can confirm CJD, so these young boys—now men in their 40s and 50s—live with a time bomb, suffering this uncertainty at the same time that they suffer from the other health impacts of the treatments they received years before. In Michael's case he must spend many dollars each month buying medication that treats his conditions. Surely it is time that these injustices are recognised. The 800-page report of the Allars inquiry made a very clear case for compensation for victims. I refer to the remarks of Dr Mal Washer MP, who participated in the 2008 debate on the Fran Bailey private member's motion. He highlighted how the Allars inquiry had identified … failures in the production of product, including the collection of pituitary glands; failures in supervision of the product and programs by government agencies, including the health department, the National Biological Standards Laboratory and the Human Pituitary Advisory Committee, or HPAC; and failures of appropriate action undertaken by the department following suspension of the program in 1985. There were inadequacies in tracing the recipients, the information provided, the epidemiological studies, and blood and organ donation. Successive governments have failed to take up the cause, although Fran Bailey's motion received bipartisan support at the time. It is Michael's view that his status as an adopted child born of an unwed mother made him more vulnerable to this careless use of his young body. As well as being treated with human growth hormone, an unknown number of pre-pubertal and adolescent boys who were short were treated with synthetic androgens or steroids to accelerate their growth after being primed with human growth hormones. This causes prostate disease for some and sterilised an unknown number of these boys. Many of these boys fell into the 'unapproved' category of patients, given that they were treated by medical practitioners who did not officially record all the details of the children they treated. I was deeply moved by the story told to me by Michael O'Meara in the Great Hall on the day of the formal apology for survivors of governments' forced adoption policies in our country. I am in awe of Michael's dignity and patience as he strives to bring justice for himself and his fellow victims. No doubt Michael will continue to suffer as no human should because our nation failed in its duty of care in regard to his wellbeing. Sadly for Michael, he did not only suffer the ultimate tragedy of separation at birth from the woman who was his mother and who undoubtedly would have loved him. She was drugged and she could not ever know the struggles of her newborn just to draw his first breath. But her baby went on to suffer as a child and then as a man because governments failed to do the right thing by him. I call on the government to revisit the Allars inquiry and offer the same support and compensation as that which was offered and gratefully accepted by the women who were treated at the same time. Obviously Michael's story is just one of the many human tragedies that make up the thousands of stories that deal with the forced adoptions that took place in Australia over many decades in the 20th century. I think the official apology we gave was long overdue. It was magnificent in the way that it was addressed, I believe, in the appropriate ceremony and with very carefully chosen words from both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott. I stand by that apology, as I think most Australians would. Let us hope that that episode in our history is never repeated in any form and that we never again treat some children as less valuable or their mothers as having less value simply because of their marital status. I very much commend this motion to the House. 18:01 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I rise to speak on the national apology for forced adoptions. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition both spoke on 21 March this year in relation to forced adoptions and removal policies and practices, and the member for Swan gave us a very personal insight into these practices. Today I join our nation in apologising, and in so doing I would like to put on record the story of my friend Sue, who did not find out that she was adopted until much later in life after both her adoptive parents had passed away. As I speak today I will use the words 'birth mother' and 'mother' because those are the words that Sue uses. Shortly after Sue's mother passed away her brother told her that she was adopted. Hearing those words irrevocably changed Sue's life and she began questioning who she really was. Everything that she had known about her biological identity or thought she had known was now changed. It was different and it was false. Sue embarked on the task of finding out who her birth mother and father were—a long and arduous process that took many years. Eventually she did meet her birth mother but her father had passed away, so she did not meet him. She has also met one of her brothers and a cousin. She still knows very little about the circumstances of her birth but she does know that her birth mother was an Ipswich teenager who was sent to a home for single pregnant women in Brisbane, where she gave birth to Sue. Sue's birth mother signed the papers for her adoption and they were not to meet again for about 40 years. In the time I have known Sue the circumstances of her birth and adoption have weighed heavily on her mind and I am not sure that she will ever be totally at peace. In her words, she carries the shame of her adoptive parents in not talking to her and telling her that she was adopted. When I have asked her what she meant by that, she said that she never had the opportunity to ask her parents why they adopted her, whether they were not able to have children. But she does know that they hid her adoption from her and she does not fully understand why. After finding out that she was adopted Sue spoke to an aunt, as it turned out that most of the family knew that she was adopted. The aunt said that Sue's mother just turned up one day with a baby. When the aunt asked whose baby it was, Sue's mother said, 'Mine.' When the aunt asked Sue's father when he would tell Sue that she was adopted, her father replied, 'Never, she'll never know.' Sue talks about the adoption triangle of the birth parent, the adoptive parent and the adoptive child. She makes the point that it is not just the pain of the relinquishing parent that needs to be acknowledged; it is also the pain of the adoptive child and adoptive parent. Sue has pushed the issues of her adoption to the side. But, again, in her words, 'There is a little scar in her heart.' Her wish is that her adoptive parents were still alive so that she could hug them and tell them that she loved them. To Sue, and everyone else affected by forced adoption, I say: sorry. 18:05 Mrs MARKUS E07 Macquarie I rise today to speak about a time in our nation's history that cannot be simply forgotten. Forced adoption policies and practices were widespread throughout Australia during the 1950s and on to the early 1970s. The practice of forced adoption affected many members of society. It was not restricted to a particular class, race, region or area. This was a time when many women were made to relinquish their children, a step that went against every instinct within them, breaking one of the most precious bonds that we have, that between parent and child. This was a time of deep distress and confusion for many young women. I stand here today saddened, particularly for those men and women whose lives were marked by this practice and the impact that it had not only on them but, particularly, on their children. For many, the grief has impacted their lives to this day. We know the role played by a mother and a father is invaluable, often setting the platform and foundation for a child's future. More important, it allows a child to understand where they come from, who their mother and father are. Many who have been impacted by forced adoption have questioned whether they were loved, whether they were wanted. A nation now understands the ripple effect of policies which did not put the needs of children first. The experience of every mother and child who endured this heartbreak was unique and very personal. We have heard some of those stories in this chamber today. All of us were touched and impacted to the depths of our being when we heard the stories, particularly throughout the Senate inquiry. We heard from mothers who were stigmatised and disempowered. Many mothers were shunned by the very people who should have been protecting and supporting them. I am sure the secrecy, the shame and the confusion was overwhelming for many at times. Of course we also heard the stories of children who, after years of struggling, asked the question, 'Why?' We heard about their questions of identity and their struggle to accept themselves and their past. In my own electorate of Macquarie there are quite a few brave people who have been touched by this issue. I would like to relate the story of one such man, a man by the name of Erik Spinney. Many of us know him. He is better known by his tribal name of Standing Bear. Erik was adopted as a baby through the forced adoption practices and he gave evidence at the Senate inquiry as well as writing several submissions. I have met Erik many times and have spent some time talking with him, not only in my office but over coffee. Last year I was touched by his own story. I was touched by his determination to reach out to others who have had the same experience. He spoke about the resulting emotional, physical and psychological effects for those who were part of forced adoption. Erik speaks weekly with people who have gone through the same experience. He mentioned to me that he has been in the position where he has had to talk down several people, mothers of adopted children and adoptees, from committing serious self-harm. While living in Canada for a few years Erik became ill but was unable to access his family medical history. This added complications to his treatment. These are just some of the ramifications for those men and women who were impacted by forced adoption. Erik's message to me was that we must ensure people do not fall through the cracks. We must ensure that every story counts. It is pleasing that one of the recommendations of the inquiry was that an exhibition be commissioned documenting the experiences of those affected by former forced-adoption practices and policies. The Australian government is funding the National Archives of Australia, over three years, to deliver a forced-adoptions experience history project. We all know that the national apology to those involved in forced-adoption practices is only a beginning of the healing process. We need to be diligent to ensure that the proper support services are available to the thousands of men and women in our electorates across this nation who have been affected by former forced-adoption policies. They need to continue to be given a voice. I echo the sentiments of the Leader of the Opposition in honouring those who have borne the hurt of the mistakes of this era. I wish to honour the parents who have always loved their children. I want to honour the parents—including the fathers— who have always loved their children and were so hurt by the decisions taken out of their own hands and made for them. It is important also to mention those adoptive parents who have tried to do the right thing by the children who were placed in their care. It is also important to honour and acknowledge all the children who have tried, in their own ways, to find their own place in a less-than-perfect world. That has, particularly at the instance of their birth, let them down. I congratulate and acknowledge their bravery and courage, and hope that their journey of healing does move closer towards wholeness. 18:11 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I rise to add my comments to the national apology on forced adoptions. I commend both our Prime Minister and our opposition leader for their very wise and thoughtful words on that day. I will quote a few paragraphs from the Prime Minister's speech. She said: We deplore the shameful practices that denied you, the mothers, your fundamental rights and responsibilities to love and care for your children. … … … To you, the fathers, who were excluded from the lives of your children and deprived of the dignity of recognition on your children’s birth records, we say sorry. We acknowledge your loss and grief. … … … To each of you who were adopted or removed, who were led to believe your mother had rejected you and who were denied the opportunity to grow up with your family and community of origin and to connect with your culture, we say sorry. … … … We offer this apology in the hope that it will assist your healing and in order to shine a light on a dark period of our nation’s history. … … … To redress the shameful mistakes of the past, we are committed to ensuring that all those affected get the help they need, including access to specialist counselling services and support, the ability to find the truth in freely available records and assistance in reconnecting with lost family. Finally, the Prime Minister said: We resolve, as a nation, to do all in our power to make sure these practices are never repeated. In facing future challenges, we will remember the lessons of family separation. Never to be repeated. But the root cause of those problems and past mistakes was an over-reaching state, well-meaning bureaucrats engaged in social engineering, who struck at the most primal and sacred bond there is—that between a mother and her child—and the bullying arrogance of meddling bureaucrats who believed that they knew best. While we say the words 'This should never be repeated', I would like to use this opportunity to highlight two situations in our society where those mistakes of the past are being repeated. The first is in our child protection agency. Currently, we have over 39,000 children who are in the care of the state. In Australia today we have more children who have been removed from their parents than we have people in prisons. This has developed into a $3 billion industry. Currently there is a child protection inquiry in Queensland, conducted by Commissioner Tim Carmody. I think some of his comments are very enlightening. Commissioner Carmody has accused some child protection officers of 'over-reacting', by taking children away from parents instead of giving families the help that they need. Commissioner Carmody said: There are some children in very dysfunctional homes but the answer is not to just take them out. Removing a child at any age from a loved environment—even if it is inadequate or even risky—can give long term problems to that child. The impact on some children will be the same as the stolen generation. Commissioner Carmody went on to criticise an 'over-reaction' in reporting cases of neglect and abuse and said that our child protection system should not be about 'social engineering' or supposedly 'giving them a better chance in life'. He said the 'system is over-responding to over-estimated risks' and said that children must be removed if there is a danger at the home, but he criticised removal on so-called 'emotional abuse'. Commissioner Carmody noted that in Queensland today 70 per cent of children removed from their homes are removed due to so-called neglect or emotional harm. He said that the definition of 'emotional harm' was subjective and that there is not even consensus among child welfare professionals. Commissioner Carmody concluded: If the answer is taking that child away from a loved parent, even if it's a violent home, and putting them with someone they don't know in someone else's home, how is that the right answer? We seem to have lost the point of the emotional harm that is caused to a child who is removed from their family—from their mother or from their father. Child protection agencies seem not to consider the emotional harm that is done to a child who is taken from his or her parents. I have had many cases of parents coming to my office and telling me stories of child protection officers chasing children like common criminals through the street, catching them and locking them up as though it was something from a Starsky and Hutch movie. I have heard stories about child protection officers telling children that their parents had abused them, alienating the child from their parents. We need to take a close look at this. Our children are most special and they must be protected. But if we today have more children being taken from their families than we have people in prisons I say that we have something drastically wrong and we need to look at it. The second area is in our family courts. I know the family courts sometimes need the wisdom of Solomon to work out how to handle disputes between parents. But many cases have come to me in my office from both mothers and fathers, and I think that our family courts are failing badly and that we are making those same mistakes that our Prime Minister said should not be repeated. I would like to make a little comparison. There is a strict interpretation of Islamic Sharia law where, if a female alleges that she is raped, when she goes before the courts she must produce four male eyewitnesses. Of course, when going to the courts and making the allegation of rape they are in fact making a statement that they have engaged in a sexual act. Unless that person is able to provide the four adult male witnesses, the case is reversed on them. They are shown to have made it up, to have fabricated it. And then, because they have made an admission of sexual intercourse, they face being charged with adultery if they are married or with fornication if they are not married, which in itself carries the punishment of death by stoning. We nod our heads and say what a travesty of justice such a situation is. According to the National Commission on the Status of Women, an estimated 80 per cent of women currently in jail in Pakistan are there because they failed to prove rape charges and were consequently convicted of adultery. We say that is wrong but we have a similar situation occurring today in our family courts. What is happening in our family courts is if a parent makes an allegation that their child has been the victim of abuse, and that can be either a mother or a father—it is not about mothers' rights or fathers' rights but about the rights of children—when they go before our family law courts the bar is so high it is impossible to prove. So we are seeing a similar situation to what we see under Islamic sharia law, where the burden of proof on the parent who the child has made the allegation against is reversed, and the courts find that the child has been coached to say those things. Without the evidence, the parent that has through good intentions been concerned about the child being abused and often sexually abused finds the courts are turning against them and they are having their child taken from them. This is not an isolated incident. I have many cases. I have spoken to Emeritus Professor Freda Briggs, who brought this to my attention. We do have a serious problem with the way our laws are being interpreted in the family courts. It is something we need to have a close look at because we do not want to be here in this parliament in 10 or 20 years time making the same apology after seeing the hardship and suffering that has been inflicted upon many parents of children in our society. We do not want to be making that same apology again. We must learn from our mistakes in the past and ensure that we honour the Prime Minister's words—that we resolve as a nation to do all in our power to make sure these practices are never repeated—and make sure they come true. Debate adjourned. BUSINESS 3425 BUSINESS Rearrangement 3425 18:23 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Throsby by leave—I move: That business intervening before order of the day No. 3, committee and delegation reports, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 3425 COMMITTEES Migration Committee 3425 Report 3425 18:24 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Multiculturalism is one of Australia's greatest assets. It is something the western half of my Riverina electorate is built upon. It is important that we as a parliament acknowledge this as one of our nation's strengths. I commend the committee and I note the presence in the chamber of the member for Makin, who sat on the committee which produced this report, Inquiry into Migration and Multiculturalism in Australia. The committee was chaired by the member for Calwell. I commend the committee on its report into migration and multiculturalism in Australia. The report we are discussing tonight has 32 recommendations which seek to highlight what Australia is doing well and where we can improve. These recommendations range from the antiracism framework and multiculturalism to religious diversity and the nation's social inclusion agenda. The coalition supports these recommendations and working with communities to ensure Australia remains a vibrant and inclusive multicultural society. Multiculturalism is vital and is something we must continue to support, but the cost of implementing programs is something that requires restraint from the government. In my electorate the city of Griffith is a great example of a multicultural community. At Griffith High School, where I recently visited to award my Anzac writing competition certificates and a prize, there are many different ethnicities and nationalities. One hundred flags proudly fly at Griffith's annual Australia Day ceremony. An article in this morning's Area News highlights that immigration figures have more than doubled in Griffith over the past 12 months as migrants choose the lifestyle Griffith and surrounds offers. A citizenship ceremony in Griffith just last week highlighted that some 148 new migrants have moved to the city, an increase from 61 in the period of 2011-12. As an irrigation community established prior to World War I, Griffith is now a proud city. The Murrumbidgee irrigation area is built on migration, multiculturalism and water. Today, Griffith and surrounds has a population of 27,000 and encompasses people from many nationalities and ethnicities, with Italian, Indian, Pacific Islander, Middle Eastern and Sudanese populations well represented. Most recently, the Filipino population is growing the most. With each of these communities comes a range of skilled and unskilled workers who make the Murrumbidgee irrigation area's economy prosper further. Mr Deputy Speaker Windsor, I know you visited Griffith. You were very welcomed there. You would have noticed the number of different nationalities. You would have also noticed the vibrancy that city has and the important part it plays in our economy and our nation. I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be welcomed back anytime, because— The DEPUTY SPEAKER E09 I thank the member for Riverina for his invitation. Mr McCORMACK 219646 You are welcome anytime. Members will know from my speeches that the farmers and communities in the MIA are producers in the nation's greatest food bowl. I have no hesitation in saying that. I say it proudly. I know we have many food bowls in this nation but none better than the Riverina, none better than that around Griffith. The food bowl we rely on every day is aided incredibly by migration and multiculturalism and this is why I support the report's recommendations. Margaret King, who is the Griffith City Council's cultural services projects officer, told the Area News that such migration is 'critical to the economic development of Griffith'. 'Without it,' she said, 'our farmers would be in dire straits. Who would pick the oranges, for example?' And Mrs King is right. That is why the government's current stance on 457 visas is, I believe, misguided. For communities throughout the western half of my electorate, it is migration and multiculturalism—the very notions this report commends—that help farmers in the Riverina with picking and harvesting; 457 visas underpin Australia's regional economy. We heard in the chamber today a very passionate address about 457 visas and the need to always make sure that Australians get the jobs first. I agree. However, where Australians cannot or will not take up those jobs on offer, particularly in the busy fruit-picking and harvesting seasons, we need to rely on 457 visas to fill the gap. Certainly there are some jobs which require migrants on 457 visas to fill that gap in Australia. The government needs to understand the needs of regional people and their communities, especially as far as 457 visas are concerned. Farmers, horticulturalists and local business owners are concerned what impact the government stance on 457 visas partnered with the Murray-Darling Basin Plan will have on the economies of Griffith and the MIA. I share their concerns, because 457 visas are vital to Griffith's economy as well as to towns such as Leeton, Coleambally, Hillston and Narrandera and all the other towns within the MIA. Any move to take them away will place the nation's food bowl in further jeopardy. The people of Griffith are strong and resilient, as you would well know, Mr Deputy Speaker. Their city is vibrant and multicultural. They are what this report seeks to highlight: inclusive communities of many ethnicities and nationalities, living and working together harmoniously for the greater good. Multiculturalism is what makes Griffith, the MIA and this nation great. It is a community I am proud to represent and values which I commend here today. That is why my coalition colleagues and I support the report's recommendations. 18:30 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin I welcome the opportunity to speak on the report of the inquiry into migration and multiculturalism in Australia. At a time when the movement of people around the world has never been greater, when religious differences are causing conflict in so many places, when global refugee numbers continue to rise, when population sustainability is a topic on the national agenda, the report's findings are timely. For Australia, the intake of people from new countries has always been, and continues to be, a cause of anxiety. Not surprisingly, submissions to the committee very much reflected the cross-section of views that I believe today exist throughout Australian communities. It is important, however, that perceptions and opinions are based on facts and not misinformation. By most measures, Australia has managed its migration program and cultural diversity issues well. Resettlement of new migrants has not, however, been without problems. Nor should we assume that today's migration is the same as the post-war World War II migration when some three million people came to Australia between 1945 and 1975. Australia today is a much different place than it was in the years immediately after World War II, when the Australian population was only 7.5 million and Australia was embarking on a major growth phase. It was a different era. Being part of the post-World War II migration, I can speak with personal experience about the post-World War II migration and how that migration has contributed to shaping Australia today. Whilst heavily influenced by its British heritage, Australian culture uniquely reflects the collective characteristics of the new settlers who have come to Australia since 1788 and their adoption to the physical and climatic conditions of the Australian landscape. It was during the post-World War II years that Australia changed most, both in population and in physical construction. These were the years that transformed Australia and this is the period I will focus my remarks on. In doing so, I acknowledge the Australians who were already living here and who had, through their own toil and hardships, opened the way for the people who followed. They were the pioneers whose place in our history will never be diminished. It is often said that citizenship is a common bond which unites all Australians. For the people who came to Australia after World War II, it was much more than citizenship which united them. They had a common dream and a common interest in seeing Australia prosper. Not only had they mainly left war-torn Europe and were seeking a better life for their families but also their personal future was dependent on Australia's future. They shared a common desire to make Australia a better country. Regardless of where they originated, people saw each other as equals and the emerging national identity was equally owned by all of them. They came at the invitation of those already here and were grateful for the opportunity to do so. Their future was very much dependent on their right attitude and their commitment to Australia's national interest. They clearly understood that. They came with nothing, they asked for nothing and, having left the poverty and devastation of World War II, they were thankful for the opportunity to work and to live in peace. For them, there was a light on the hill. They embraced their new homeland and the spirit enshrined in recommendation 1 of the committee's report, which reinforced Galbally's vision of multiculturalism as 'an inclusive policy which respects diversity and fosters engagement within Australian values, identity and citizenship within the framework of Australian laws'. I particularly emphasise the phrase 'within the framework of Australian laws'. That is a point that I will come back to later if time permits. People chose to come to Australia and in doing so were appreciative of the rights and protections Australian law afforded them. They were people mainly from the European region with significant numbers coming from the UK, Greece, Italy, Macedonia, Poland, Hungary, Serbia, Croatia, Malta and the Netherlands. In Australia, their hard work, their skills and their resourcefulness were welcomed by the broad Australian community. They did any work that was available and quietly and respectfully made their contribution to Australia's productivity. When at times they were confronted by racism they turned the other cheek. Over time, the people who came to Australia earned the respect of the Australians who preceded them. It was this wave of migration that made Australia a multicultural success story, that was first acknowledged by the Whitlam government with the abolition of the White Australia Policy in 1973 and, subsequently, the enactment of the Racial Discrimination Act in 1975. In truth, however, it is not laws which matter most. Laws may force a change in behaviour but they do not change the inner character or prejudices of a person. That comes from life experiences which, in turn, lead to a change in attitude and mindset. It is only then that prejudice, racism and discrimination are truly eliminated. In embracing their new Australian identity, at no time did the new arrivals turn their backs on their heritage. The region I was raised in and which today I have the privilege of representing in this place is a shining example of a multicultural success story. People from most parts of the world now live within the region and new settlers have integrated into the community remarkably well whilst remaining proud of their heritage and their homeland. Over time, they established their respective cultural and sporting facilities. Today, many of those facilities have become important community resources for the broader community. The Para Hills Community Club and the many sports facilities in the Para Hills Paddocks area are a credit to the British migrants of the 1960s. The Campania Club at Modbury, built in the 1970s and recently expanded and modernised, is an initiative of the large Italian community in the region. Similarly, the Croatian Sports Centre at Gepps Cross, the Dutch Club at Greenfields, and the Greek club, Florina, at Ingle Farm are all testaments to their respective cultural identities. In more recent years the Vietnamese people established their much-needed community facilities at Pooraka. The Maltese, Polish, Serbian, Hungarian, Macedonian and other communities with significant numbers in my region have established similar facilities in other places in Adelaide. I have no doubt that similar stories of cultural settlement can be found in most places in Australia. One of the very visible benefits of Australian multiculturalism is that it has enabled Australians to experience international culture without having to travel overseas. By way of example, in recent weeks I have attended cultural celebrations of food, customs and entertainment at events organised by the Middle Eastern, Vietnamese, Italian, Greek, Indian and Dutch communities of Adelaide. In South Australia, hardly a week goes by without a cultural event being held somewhere in the state, and events such as the German Schutzenfest, the Italian Carnevale, the Greek Glendi festival, the Indian Mela festival and the Croatian food and wine festival are now major annual events on South Australia's community entertainment calendar. Of course, one of the important economic benefits arising from Australian migration has been the trade and business links set up by new settlers to Australia with their homelands. Having personal links and a knowledge of both countries has proven invaluable for enterprising people from both sides of the trade. Earlier in my comments I referred to recommendation 1 and the Australian law, and I will follow up my earlier comments with some comments about recommendation 6, which links into recommendation 1. Recommendation 6 states: The Committee does not support legal pluralism and recommends that the Government promote the message that multiculturalism entails both a respect for cultural diversity and a commitment to the framework of Australian laws and values which underpin social cohesion. This is an important recommendation because it goes to the heart of Australian values. The laws of Australia, or of any democratic country for that matter, reflect the values of the people and the standards which all people of that country are expected to adhere to. Not all laws are agreeable to all people, but they nevertheless express majority sentiment. Where they do not, public opinion will eventually cause a change to them. Our laws also seek to ensure that the virtues of justice, fairness and equality are the bedrock of Australian beliefs. Our cultural freedoms arise from those laws, but cultural freedom should not extend to the point where behaviour is clearly in breach of Australian law. The post World War II migrants who came to Australia respected and accepted that view, and that is what made Australia's migration program a multicultural success story. In the moment I have left, I will take the opportunity to commend the members of the committee from all sides of parliament in this House who worked together and cooperatively in trying to bring to the House a committee report that truly reflects the issues that are relevant to this parliament and to the nation in respect to the multicultural nature of our society today, and I believe that the report and its 32 recommendations pick up on the matters that we ought to be aware of and perhaps as a parliament at some point need to address. I also thank the secretariat for the terrific work that they did in assisting the committee with its work. I also want to thank the chair of the committee, the member for Calwell, for her leadership in guiding us through what were sometimes touchy subjects and touchy areas of debate. But we got through it together and have presented what I believe is a bipartisan report that does justice to the work of the committee. Debate adjourned. CONDOLENCES 3430 CONDOLENCES Wilson, Hon. Ian Bonython Cameron, AM 3430 18:40 Mr RUDDOCK 0J4 Berowra I wanted to be associated with this condolence motion in relation to Ian Wilson, known as the Hon. Ian Bonython Cameron Wilson, AM. Ian was a friend. I last saw him on 5 March at his home in Burnside. Very tragically, he was dying of cancer. On 2 April, that took his life. Ian, interestingly, was first elected to this parliament in 1966. He held his seat for only three years. What I remember of him is the campaign he undertook in 1972 in the election that Gough Whitlam won and Bill McMahon lost to regain the seat of Sturt. That was a very memorable campaign. I joined the parliament in September of 1973. I went to the Old Parliament House and was assigned an office. The office was at the back of the building in what was ostensibly the new block, where you had the largest rooms. But they were shared with three others. Ian Wilson had the window, David Hamer had the middle of the room and I was left closest to the door. What I know is that he was a great mentor, albeit having only been in the parliament for a relatively short time. He was an extraordinarily intelligent man. He had been a Rhodes scholar, a barrister and a solicitor. His achievements in the law were considerable. I remember his ministerial career, but I will not regale people about that. I also remember the extent to which he spoke—and if people take the time to go through the notes the Parliamentary Library has prepared they will find the press comments on this—about issues that he took up personally. He was very much involved in the arguments in relation to income splitting in families. All of that has budgetary implications. But he was one who was out there running the arguments very positively when it was not necessarily the most popular thing to be doing. Given some of the matters we are discussing today, I will also mention that he was involved in debate about whistleblower protection, which I thought was another fascinating area of activity in which to be involved. He was one of those who, when I make a judgment about my own political career, I know was on the same side. The most difficult time for me was in 1988 when I crossed the floor and voted for a motion moved by Bob Hawke affirming that Australia's immigration programs should be non-discriminatory. I am not going to go into the nuances of the debate. But Steele Hall, Peter Baume, and I were very strongly of the view that, regardless of what selection criteria you might use, country of origin, race or religion should never be a determining factor. On those matters, Ian Wilson and Michael MacKellar also saw fit to make known their concerns and they were not prepared to vote on that issue—they abstained from it. When I look at that time when I served in the parliament, I served with a person that was a friend. I am glad I had the opportunity to be at his funeral. It was, in a sense, a celebration of his life. For me and my family there were other aspects of his life that brought us together, and they are recorded in the material that is before you. In 1999 he was the foundation chairman of the May Gibbs Literature Trust. With his wife, he worked as part of a team that saved and restored May Gibbs' home, Nutcote, in Neutral Bay. Where the Ruddocks became involved was that my wife Heather was invited to serve on the committee relating to the literature trust and involved in Nutcote and its continuing use. They were able to give awards to numerous young people for writing. The literature trust was about encouraging young people who wanted time and a secure location to be able to think about the issues that they were involved in and to be able to produce their works. This, I think, was a great credit to Ian and his family and was a great opportunity for him in his post-political career to contribute positively. I have not mentioned all the matters raised by the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition. I do not want to repeat them. I just want it to be known that Ian Wilson was a friend, that he was a considerable contributor to this parliament and that he was a man of principle. To Mary, who was a great host to me on 5 March when I last saw him, to his sons Keith, Richard, James and Nigel and their families: you should be very proud—and I know you are—of what he was able to achieve. He was a great Australian. 18:47 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I rise as well to convey my condolences on the passing of the Hon. Ian Wilson AM, and, perhaps more importantly, to pass on the condolences of Noel Hicks, the retired member for Riverina, who served with the Hon. Ian Wilson during his time in parliament in the House of Representatives. Mr Hicks, who lives in Griffith, wanted me to pass on his very best wishes to Mr Wilson's family and to record his reminisces of Mr Wilson. I was very interested to hear the member for Berowra talk about the way that Mr Wilson commanded respect in debates and certainly got his point across. Mr Hicks's recollection of Mr Wilson was of a quiet, reserved man who got things done in a very good fashion, who got things done because he knew there was a piece of legislation that needed his expertise and who knew that his constituents needed something to be done—and he certainly was in there fighting for them, sometimes in a very unassuming fashion but in a very effective fashion, as Mr Hicks wanted the parliament to know in his condolences remarks. Mr Hicks remembered Mr Wilson as a gentleman, a thorough gentleman and a true gentleman, and somebody who was, as he said, really nice. That comes from a person who was also regarded by this parliament as a gentleman. Mr Hicks certainly is a gentleman, and I am sure the two of them had many a great discussion on policy, on legislation and on the way that the nation should go forward. Mr Wilson retired from politics in 1993, having held the seat of Sturt from 1966 until 1969 and then losing the seat and regaining it again despite the overwhelming tide of the Whitlam election. He then held the seat until his retirement. He was the Minister for Home Affairs and the Environment. He was also the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in 1982, and he held that position until the coalition was defeated at the 1983 election. In 1993 Mr Wilson retired. Certainly, whilst he has passed from this life his efforts in this House and in this parliament are not forgotten. I commend the father of the parliament for his eloquent words, and I know that the fine words of my other two South Australian colleagues, who are due to speak in a moment on Mr Wilson, will also bring some comfort to the family of Mr Wilson. He did a great and honourable job, not just for his electorate and for this state but indeed for this nation. 18:50 Dr SOUTHCOTT TK6 Boothby I, also, would like to speak on this condolence motion for Ian Wilson. I would like to put some other perspectives, without focusing on his parliamentary career. I first met Ian Wilson when I was on a trip to Canberra as a school kid. It was a year 7 trip, and we visited Old Parliament House. Ian spent some time with us; it would have been a small part of his day, but I remember him keeping the attention of 11-year-old school boys. At the end of it he gave us loose-leaf Hansards, as well. We were a pretty rowdy group and we found this thing called 'parliament' fascinating. Some of his sons were at the high school that I attended and I remember, during the 1980 campaign, one of them—Richard—plastering 'Wilson for Sturt' stickers all over the prefects' year 12 room at St Peter's College. So I was certainly familiar with Ian Wilson. The book Liberal Movement Story has an excellent chapter about the 1972 campaign. As the previous speaker said, Ian lost the seat of Sturt in 1969 to Norm Foster. In 1972, while there was a swing to the Labor Party and the Whitlam government came in, Ian retook that seat. The seat of Sturt was a different seat to the one it is now. I think it incorporated parts of Modbury, so it went into what is now the seat of Makin. So that was a tremendous political achievement, and it was through a lot of very hard work using all of the resources that the Liberal Party had to throw at it, the best of campaigning techniques and lots of visitors. Other people have touched on Ian Wilson's parliamentary career, and I will leave that to others. My involvement with Ian Wilson and my getting to know him happened after he left parliament. I often saw him at various functions. The father of the House mentioned May Gibbs, and I remember seeing Ian Wilson at functions involving children's literature. He also had a long involvement and long interest in the area of aged care and retirement villages. Ian's faith was very important to him, and he had an involvement, I think, with St Matthew's Church at Kensington. I last spent a fair bit of time with him about 18 months ago, at a meeting of the Pioneers Association of South Australia. Ian had just come from a commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the sixth trip of John McDouall Stuart, who I think was also one of his forebears. That sixth trip was the successful trip, which crossed the Australian continent from south to north and back again. Ian was a good attender of functions in the electorate of Boothby—as was his mother, Lady Wilson. Most recently he had an involvement with us in taking up our consignment of wine. And we were very pleased to receive, in return, the Wilson wine, which was called Kerijani after the first two letters of the names of each of his four sons. I probably knew Nigel best when I was at school and I had a number of mutual friends with Nigel. But in more recent times, I have got to know Keith really quite well. His daughter and my son have been in the same class. His daughter and my daughter have been in the same softball team. So I have got to know Keith, the oldest son, and his wife, Sheree. I was very pleased to attend the funeral at St Peter's Cathedral. It was a tremendous celebration of Ian's life. Baden Teague and Jennifer Cashmore spoke at the funeral—both retired politicians who had been involved with Ian from the start. There were many people there, including Pam Oborn, someone who was involved in setting up the Young Liberals in South Australia with Ian. Each of his four sons spoke. I would like to, again, give my condolences to Mary, Keith, Sheree, India, Richard, James and Nigel. I will miss Ian Wilson. He was a true gentleman and his contribution should be recognised. 18:56 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I am very pleased to join my colleagues the member for Boothby, the member for Berowra and the member for Riverina in speaking on the condolence motion to my predecessor, Ian Wilson. I knew Ian Wilson very well since I was a child. In fact, my mother and father were members of the branches in Sturt, the seat that I represent. I grew up knowing the Wilson family, the legacy of his father, Sir Keith, and his mother, Lady Wilson, and the contribution that the Wilson family, the Bonython family and the Bray family have made to South Australia since 1836. I have a very high regard for the Wilsons and all of their relations—anyone who has been associated with that amazing strain that have had such an indelible impact on my great state. In fact, we are distantly related. John McDouall Stuart led an expedition across Australia and one of the members of that expedition was a man called Stephen King. Stephen King and the Wilson family were related. Stephen King is a forebear of mine as well. That is the nature of South Australia of course. The relationship is so distant that it barely bears repeating, but it did mean that we were both members of the John McDouall Stuart Society. Only relations of those on the expedition were able to be members of the John McDouall Stuart Society. I joined the Liberal Party when I was 17 and I joined the Burnside branch and I joined the Young Liberals—both in Sturt. I was president of the Young Liberals and president of the Burnside branch. I was treasurer of Ian's Sturt federal electorate council, or committee as it was called then. I was his campaign manager in 1990 and I was also the vice president of the Sturt federal electorate committee. I worked on every campaign in Sturt from 1987 onwards, which was the first opportunity that I had to run. I defeated Ian Wilson in preselection in 1992 and became the member for Sturt in 1993. Ian Wilson and I had a very close relationship because of the fact that I followed him in Sturt. We had a very chequered relationship. I think it is fair to say that I certainly was not the flavour of the month in the Wilson household for about 21 years, but I was pleased to attend his funeral and honour his commitment to public service. His commitment to public service was one that he inherited from his family and it was a very genuine one. He was a very good Liberal, in the small 'l' sense, and contributed to making sure that our party is a party that represents both the conservative and the liberal strains of political thought in this country. He was also a courageous man in politics, and one of the things that was not mentioned in any of the eulogies given at the funeral was that he crossed the floor against the party—with the member for Berowra, in fact—to defend a non-discriminatory immigration policy in Australia, which did not make him popular with the powers that be in the party. But Ian Wilson was a man who put principle before preferment, in the great tradition of the small-L liberals in South Australia, who have had a real impact on our party for 60 years. I am sorry that Ian Wilson's and my relationship never recovered from a bruising preselection—that is the nature of politics. I bear him and his family no animus. Can I say that his greatest achievements were his four sons and his marvellous marriage. His wife, Mary Scales, and his four sons, Keith, Richard, Nigel and James, gave marvellous speeches at the funeral. It spoke volumes for the kind of father, parent and husband that Ian had been that he has produced for remarkably great sons and South Australians, and I was pleased to be there to witness it. I thank the House for indulging me of this condolence motion on Ian Bonython Cameron Wilson. 19:01 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Throsby I did not know the Hon. Ian Wilson personally, but I certainly knew him by reputation and by the history of his family. It is a great privilege for me to have sat and listened to the contributions of the honourable members in this debate, particularly—at the risk of singling one out—that of the father of the House, the member for Berowra. It is never appropriate for anyone to say that they enjoyed a condolence debate, but it is certainly a great thing for me, as a relatively new parliamentarian, to sit and listen to the stories and histories of those who have come before us. As parliamentarians I think we are enriched by learning about the lives of the stories of those who preceded us, whatever the political party they have come from, or none. What can be said about an individual can certainly be said about the entire parliament. 19:03 The DEPUTY SPEAKER E09 I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— The DEPUTY SPEAKER E09 I thank the chamber. 19:03 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Throsby I move: That further proceedings be conducted in the House. Question agreed to. ADJOURNMENT 3434 ADJOURNMENT 19:03 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Throsby I move: That the Federation Chamber do now adjourn. Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19 : 03