2013-05-29 43 1 9 House of Reps 0 0

Wednesday, 29 May 2013

The SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ) took the chair at 9:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

 

STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 4213 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 09:01 The SPEAKER 83S I am making a statement in reference to a matter of privilege referred to in the report of the Standing Committee on Regional Australia. I apologise; it is rather long. On 16 May 2013, the honourable member for Bendigo, on behalf of the Standing Committee on Regional Australia, presented the committee’s report on its investigation into a possible contempt of the House arising from a newspaper article and an editorial in the West Australian which contained details of an unpublished committee report. The chair of the committee, the honourable member for New England, had advised the House on 11 February 2013 of a possible matter of privilege and indicated the committee would undertake its own investigation of the matter. In undertaking such investigations committees are asked to: determine whether the matter has caused substantial interference with its work, with the committee system or with the work of the House; and seek to ascertain the source of the unauthorised disclosure. On the first point, the committee has reported that, as its deliberation on the report had concluded, the unauthorised disclosure did not interfere with its work on the direct matter. However, there were other effects which, the committee concluded, are likely to cause substantial interference with its future work. It also noted the impact on the committee system more widely. On the second point, the committee identified that a member of the committee had confirmed that he had consulted with a third party in the course of considering his dissenting report but he had not made a disclosure to the journalist who wrote the article in the West Australian. The member for Wannon apologised to the committee. While I note the committee’s view that there are wider implications of such disclosures on its work and the work of other committees, I also note its conclusion that the disclosure did not interfere with its immediate work. There is an important principle that the penal jurisdiction of the House should be exercised with self-restraint. I believe this principle is reflected in the practice of the House of having committees themselves conduct a preliminary investigation of unauthorised disclosures rather than such matters being referred directly to the Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests. In considering whether precedence should be given to refer a matter to the Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests a prima facie case of substantial interference with the work of a committee or the committee system needs to be made out. In particular, the Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests has suggested that there should be special circumstances such as the protection of sources or witnesses such as to warrant a reference to it. However the Committee on Regional Australia did find the issue would cause substantial interference with future work and negatively impacted on the reporting of the inquiry. I note that the Committee on Regional Australia identified the source of a disclosure and that the member who was involved has apologised. I would hope that the committee’s report will provide caution to all members about the importance of preserving the confidentiality of committee information that has not been authorised by a committee. I note the comments by the committee about the preparation of the article by the journalist involved and its publication, and the publication of an editorial, in The West Australian. The committee was astounded to find that whilst the journalist knew of the rules prohibiting publication of confidential reports, he firmly believed that he had not breached these rules and was not in contempt. I share the committee’s concern with the media’s disregard for the privileges of the House. I refer the press gallery to the comments made by the Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests in relation to such matters, most recently in August 2012—the report is on the website. Finally, I note the Committee on Regional Australia also has recommended that the House adopt the resolution proposed by the Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests to give guidance to the House and its committees in dealing with unauthorised disclosures and to better inform the parliamentary press gallery about the prohibition on the publication of unauthorised disclosures. I thank the Regional Affairs Committee for its report on these important matters. The unauthorised disclosure of a draft report of a committee prior to presentation to the House is contrary to standing order 242, and such matters can be pursued as matters of contempt. Having regard to the committee’s investigation of this matter and the recommendation it has made to the House in its report, I am however not prepared to give precedence to a motion for this matter to be referred to the Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests, as the committee found the disclosure did not immediately interfere with its work. This incident does however present a great concern and it demonstrates the need for all members and all media representatives to understand that unauthorised disclosure can be a contempt that can be punished by the House. 09:05 Mr WINDSOR 009LP New England Speaker, I would just briefly respond as chair of the committee that made the two recommendations to you. I understand what you have said, Speaker, in terms of the committee's report not being impugned by the release of information during the draft stage, and the committee is aware of the apology that has been given by one of its members and understands the circumstances in which the breach may well have occurred in an inadvertent sense. The issue, though, still revolves around the media's misuse of the rules, and in this particular case—and, in fact, upon his own admission—the journalist has actually admitted that he knew what the rules were and had decided that in view of his readership et cetera, and the issue of fly-in fly-out and the importance of that issue in Western Australia, essentially to ignore those rules and go to print. I do understand the position that you are placed in, and I recognise that the Father of the House and others are here, who were involved with the Privileges Committee. Having been on the committee as well and looked at a similar issue in relation to another journalist in the not-too-distant past, I do understand that there are significant issues here of actually getting something through the Privileges Committee in terms of contempt at the journalistic level. But the one thing that I would say is that we are seeing too many examples of this. I understand that with this current parliament coming to its conclusion it would be almost impossible to get a resolution through the Privileges Committee in that time—and who knows what will happen after 14 September? But I think that the media really need to recognise that they cannot operate not only in contempt of privileges but in contempt of the rules that they understand to be there. I think that the parliament—and there have been various recommendations in the past on this that have essentially been ignored by the parliament—needs to look very closely at what this issue is about and how these circumstances can be avoided in the future. I will not get into the significance of those reports, but I would ask you, Speaker, if in fact the due processes could be put in place where we revisit some of the recommendations of the past, look at how we can make sure that we do have the freedom of the press and, in this case, I agree with your comment that I do not think the breach has in fact impacted on the report at all. It was a breach at the draft stage so there would be some argument if it did in fact go to the Privileges Committee that they would not make a finding against. I think the very important fact still remains that we need to address this issue. Some of the recommendations that have been made in the past go part way to doing that. The parliament itself has not been of a mind to do something and we get this continual referral to the Privileges Committee to do something, and the privileges committee does very little. I am not being critical of that committee—it is the way that processes have worked. The journalists have wised up to the arrangement and they are, in fact, thumbing their noses at the parliament and the various privileges that they and we have. It is something that does need to be addressed. The journalists themselves are well aware—the senior journalists in this parliament—of the rules. I know there are some briefings that take place from time to time. It is beholden on them to educate the younger ones as to what the rules are about. In conclusion, Speaker, the committee accepts your finding not to make a recommendation to go to the Privileges Committee, but I would ask that you do whatever is in your power to make sure that this issue has further airing, both within the House and within the media circles. The SPEAKER 83S I thank the member for New England for his constructive comments and for the way the committee conducted itself during its inquiry. BILLS 4215 BILLS International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 2013, Statute Stocktake (Appropriations) Bill 2013 4215

International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 2013

Statute Stocktake (Appropriations) Bill 2013

Reference to Federation Chamber 4215 09:11 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I move: That the bills be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration. Question agreed to. International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Cape Town Convention) Bill 2013 4215

International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Cape Town Convention) Bill 2013

First Reading 4215 Second Reading 4215 09:12 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill is part of the government's national aviation policy white paper commitment to maintain a vibrant Australian based aviation industry. The purpose of the bill is to facilitate Australia's accession to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment and the associated protocol on matters specific to aircraft equipment. Together, these are known as the 'Cape Town convention'. The Cape Town convention is an international legal system that protects secured lenders of aircraft objects such as aircraft, airframes, engines and helicopters and reduces the risk and cost associated with financing these objects. The Cape Town convention creates an international registry for lenders to register their interest in an object so that, in the event a borrower is unable to repay a loan, the lenders' claim has priority over any other claim registered thereafter. It also outlines internationally-consistent remedies available to the lender in the event of default or insolvency. They include the right to take possession of the aircraft without needing to seek approval of the courts. This reduces the time it takes for a lender to be recompensed in the event of a default. Registering a security interest under the Cape Town convention is voluntary, so if parties to a transaction don't want the Cape Town convention to apply, they need not register their interest. Of course, with the security that the convention and protocol provides, most parties are expected to register. The Cape Town system allows countries to make declarations under both the convention and the protocol. These declarations help determine how the Cape Town convention will apply in a particular country. In Australia, for example, by making certain declarations, our airlines will be eligible for a discount of up to 10 per cent on their export finance arrangements for the purchase of an aircraft or aircraft object. Actual savings will vary depending on the credit rating of the borrower and the purchase price of the aircraft, but it is estimated the airlines could save in the order of $2.5 million on the purchase of a new Airbus A380 or $330,000 on the purchase of a new ATR72 aircraft (similar to that which currently operates by Virgin Australia from Sydney to Canberra). Regional airlines and the general aviation sector will benefit too. The Cape Town convention applies to aircraft carrying as little as eight passengers or 2,750kg of goods, meaning that the discounts would be available to purchasers of many smaller aircraft and second-hand aircraft. As industry has noted, these discounts will ultimately enable airlines to accelerate the upgrade to safer, more fuel-efficient fleets. Fifty-one countries have signed up to both the convention and the protocol. By acceding, we follow in the footsteps of countries such as New Zealand, Canada, and the United States of America. This bill is required in order to make the benefits of the Cape Town convention a reality. Its primary function is to give the Cape Town convention force of law in Australia. This will include any declarations that we make under the convention or the protocol. To ensure that Australia qualifies for the export financing discount, the Cape Town convention will have precedence over other Australian law, to the extent that any inconsistency applies. This approach also ensures harmony with Australia's domestic securities framework, the Personal Property Securities Act, meaning that the benefits of both systems will be available to parties involved in a transaction. The bill will permit the minister to make rules in order to give effect to the Cape Town convention. It is intended that these rules will be used to introduce a new function for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority—the recording of an Irrevocable Deregistration and Export Request Authorisation or IDERA. The IDERA is akin to a prenuptial agreement between the lender and the borrower. The borrower agrees to lodge an IDERA with CASA in favour of the lender. In the event of a default, the lender will be able to exercise the IDERA to secure deregistration and export of an aircraft. This ensures that an aircraft cannot legally be flown to another country to avoid recovery of the asset. The bill confers jurisdiction on the Federal Court of Australia and the supreme courts of the states and territories. These are the appropriate courts for considering Cape Town matters. The financial impact of the bill will be minimal. Individuals or companies seeking to register their security interests on the international registry will need to pay a $200 set-up fee and $100 to register. In introducing this bill to the House, I note that our colleagues in the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties have recently tabled a report recommending we take binding treaty action in relation to the Cape Town convention. I also note the favourable responses from the airline industry and state governments to our consultation papers in 2008 and 2010, seeking comment on whether Australia should accede to the convention. In summary, this legislation means that Australia would join the international community in having an internationally recognised legal framework for aircraft assets that mitigates risks inherent with international aircraft finance. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Cape Town Convention) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013 4217

International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Cape Town Convention) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013

First Reading 4217 Second Reading 4217 09:18 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill supplements the International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Cape Town Convention) Bill. The purpose of the bill is to make minor changes to the Air Services Act 1995, the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Personal Property Securities Act 2009. These changes are necessary to help facilitate Australia's accession to the Cape Town convention and protocol. The Air Services Act 1995 provides for unpaid service charges from Airservices Australia to be recorded as a statutory lien against an aircraft. These statutory liens have priority over a claim registered with Australia's Personal Property Security Register if the statutory lien was recorded first. The statutory lien also has priority over any other claims over the aircraft. The proposed changes to the Air Services Act 1995 preserve this priority ranking system. The statutory lien will have priority over interests registered under the Cape Town convention, provided that the statutory lien was recorded first. That is, where a statutory lien has been recorded under the Air Services Act before a party registers its security interest under Cape Town convention's international registry, the statutory lien will have priority. This approach is consistent with treatment of these charges under the current personal properties framework. Amendments to the Civil Aviation Act 1988 will allow functions to be conferred on the Civil Aviation Safety Authority in relation to the operation of the Cape Town convention. Specifically, CASA will be requested to record, remove and exercise irrevocable deregistration and export request authorisations, which is one of the remedies available under the Cape Town convention. The IDERAs will ensure that an aircraft cannot legally be flown to another country to avoid recovery of the asset. Lastly, the bill will include a provision in the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 to note that the Cape Town convention will prevail over the PPS Act to the extent that an inconsistency applies. When the PPS Act was first established, it was intended as a 'one-stop shop' for the creation and enforcement of security interests in personal property. By including a provision in the PPS Act, we're increasing transparency for holders of a security interest in an aircraft asset to let them know that the Cape Town convention exists and that it has primacy over the PPS Act. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Parliamentary Service Amendment (Freedom of Information) Bill 2013 4218

Parliamentary Service Amendment (Freedom of Information) Bill 2013

First Reading 4218 Second Reading 4218 09:22 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Parliamentary Service Amendment (Freedom of Information) Bill 2013 amends the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 to restore the previously understood position of three of the four parliamentary departments in relation to the operation of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act). The bill does not affect the Parliamentary Budget Office which the parliament has already designated as an exempt agency under the FOI Act. Historically, the parliamentary departments were excluded from the application of the FOI Act. The Senate committee that examined the original bill saw no great justification for exempting the parliamentary departments in full, but found it difficult to draw an appropriate boundary between information that should normally be accessible and that which, if disclosed, would interfere with the ability of the Houses, their committees and their members to carry out their functions. Accordingly, the parliamentary departments continued to be outside the coverage of the FOI Act, an exclusion which was confirmed by later amendments affecting the Public Service. When a separate parliamentary service was created in 1999, it is now apparent that the FOI-exempt status of the three parliamentary departments was inadvertently removed. The parliamentary departments have over a long period of time cooperated with the spirit of the FOI Act by providing access to administrative information, but this was done on a voluntary basis and without the legal protections that would have been available under a scheme tailored to the needs of the parliament. As a result of the inadvertent removal of their exemption, it is now apparent that the parliamentary departments are now subject to an act which was not designed to take into account the constitutional position of the parliament. In introducing this bill, I emphasise that it is an interim measure to preserve the right of the parliament to make a deliberate decision about the FOI status of the Department of the Senate, the Department of the House of Representatives and the Department of Parliamentary Services. This step has been prompted by concerns expressed by the Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Library about the library's ability to continue to provide individual members and senators with research and advice on a confidential basis in an environment where FOI access decisions are ultimately made by agents of the executive government and by the courts. The potential for such decisions to undermine the rights of parliament and its members is considerable. There are alternative approaches in the FOI Act which may provide a solution. In relation to the courts, for example, the separation of powers is respected by the application of the FOI Act to documents of an administrative character only. A comparable arrangement applies to the Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General. Major FOI reforms agreed to in 2010 included provision for a review of the changes and related issues after a period of two years. The Presiding Officers welcomed this review as an opportunity to re-examine the application of the FOI Act to the parliamentary departments, and the basis on which the act might appropriately apply in future. This bill seeks to restore the status quo, pending consideration of the review’s recommendations. Application of the FOI Act to the parliamentary departments should be on a basis that takes into account the constitutional separation of the Houses and the unique functions of their members. I commend the bill to the House. 09:25 Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP SE4 Mackellar I would like to concur with the remarks made by the minister who introduced the Parliamentary Service Amendment (Freedom of Information) Bill 2013, and again state that the aim of the bill is to restore the exclusion from the Freedom of Information Act the parliamentary departments and office holders under the act. I would like to add some remarks, particularly about the library and the difficult position that the librarian has been placed in. Indeed, it has been a long-held and common-held view that the parliamentary departments were exempt from the FOI legislation. But in the case of the library, the determination by the information commissioner to the contrary—that is, saying that they are covered by the FOI Act—has placed the librarian in a very difficult position indeed. Indeed, the librarian is conflicted by that determination because it is in contradistinction to the provisions of the Parliamentary Services Act, notably section 38B and sections 45 and 46. In January 2003 the librarian took the initiative, an important one, to write to all members and senators and other interested parties, pointing out the degree of difficulty she was placed in. And I would quote section 38B, which says: (1) The functions of the Parliamentary Librarian are: (a) to provide high quality information, analysis and advice to Senators and Members of the House of Representatives … …   …   … (2) The Parliamentary Librarian must perform the function mentioned in paragraph (1)(a): (a) in a timely, impartial and confidential manner; … She went on to say that although the commissioner thought this was too broad to cover everything, a senator's or member's request for advice and the librarian's response may qualify to be exempt under the act, particularly and notably under section 45, which was a breach of confidence provision, and section 46, which was about infringing the privileges of parliament. Indeed, she felt that other exemptions may be available. I think it may be necessary, therefore, to place these matters beyond doubt. The librarian said: I would like to assure you that, should I receive an application for access to client service under the FOI Act, my starting point would be that, in accordance with my statutory functions, information, analysis and advice provided by the Library to its clients is confidential. Unless I have evidence that something has taken place that demonstrates that none of the available exemptions apply, I would consider the advice to be exempt and refuse access to the document on this basis. I would also consider information relating to the making and timing of the request confidential. Accordingly, I think it is vital that the parliament put the question beyond doubt and legislate to protect the librarian and uphold her duties under her relevant act. And should there be considered at any time in the future the need for legislation to be made to say specifically that certain things should be subject to the act, then that can be decided on its merits. So the opposition supports the legislation. 09:29 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the opposition for their assistance in facilitating passage of this important legislation, the Parliamentary Service Amendment (Freedom of Information) Bill 2013. I am pleased to be able to move this legislation as the Leader of the House of Representatives and with the support of all the members of the House of Representatives and, I am sure, of all senators as well. Speaker, we had a discussion before about privileges matters relating to a committee and that should have served as a reminder of the fact that, for this parliament to conduct its business appropriately, the House of Representatives and its processes, the Senate and its processes and the very vital role that the Parliamentary Library plays in providing confidential advice to members of parliament must be sacrosanct. It would literally be an undermining of democracy and of the ability for the parliament to perform its important functions if this legislation was not carried and the position made clear. Hence, this is very much a sensible, practical change to restore the status quo pending the consideration of the Hawke review recommendations. The process was led by the Presiding Officers, and I thank you, Speaker, and the President of the Senate as well as the parliamentary departments for coordinating this process. The process does highlight the cooperative way that we operate in this building more often than most people realise. It is important that the parliament and our processes be respected. This legislation does that and I commend it to the House. The SPEAKER 83S I thank the Leader of the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 4221 09:32 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. The SPEAKER 83S The member for Scullin is very cheekily trying to get my attention. 09:32 Mr JENKINS HH4 Scullin I thank the Speaker and I indicate to the Leader of the House that I will be very, very short. Can I thank the executive government for bringing forward this bill. I think it is very important. On this occasion I find myself in agreement with the member for Mackellar—I will go and have myself reassessed! I think the principles involved are very important and I congratulate all those who were involved in rectifying this oversight. 09:32 The SPEAKER 83S I also thank the member for Scullin for his work on this issue. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 2013 4221

Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 2013

First Reading 4221 Second Reading 4221 09:33 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 2013 is a bill to amend section 96 of the Australian Constitution to make specific provision in relation to the granting of financial assistance to local government bodies. It will make a small but important change to the Constitution to reflect the modern structure of government in Australia. Our Constitution has served Australia well for over 100 years. But many people would be unaware that the role of local government is not specifically referred to in the document—even though most Australians have daily contact with the services provided by their local council, through child care, sporting fields, swimming pools, libraries, local roads and more. When our Constitution was drafted, Australia was a very different place. A local council's responsibilities covered only basic services like keeping streets clear of rubbish and the roads well graded for horses and carriages. In 2013, local councils provide an enormous range of services. There are childcare and employment services, aged-care hostels, disability programs, arts festivals and galleries, business incentive schemes, tourist centres—the list goes on and on. Many of these council services are provided in partnership with the Commonwealth government, which has been common practice for a long time. In just the last five years, the Commonwealth has partnered with local government to deliver over 6,000 community projects such as libraries, indoor and outdoor sporting facilities, pools, walking trails, roads and bridges, in every single community. This is in addition to the repair and upgrade work that has taken place on many thousands of roads across the country under the Roads to Recovery program. In this Constitution Alteration Bill, we are proposing a modest and common sense change to our Constitution to reflect this modern reality. This is about saying ‘yes’ to important community benefits from the partnership between federal and local spheres of government. The change will not diminish the role of the states with regard to the administration of local government. Recognition in the Constitution does not alter the fact that local governments are created by and are accountable to state governments. The modest change that we are putting forward to the Australian people is based on advice that the government has received from the expert panel led by the Hon. James Spigelman AC QC, and subsequently endorsed by a parliamentary joint select committee chaired by the member for Greenway, and former Deputy Mayor of Blacktown City Council, Michelle Rowland. Local government would be recognised in the Constitution by inclusion of an express statement that the Commonwealth can grant financial assistance to local government. This would include assistance for community and other services. Through this proposed alteration, the government and this parliament will ask the Australian people to support a change to our Constitution so that the existing practice of federal government support for local communities is formally recognised in our Constitution. The constitutional amendment mechanism established by section 128 of the Constitution requires majority support nationally, and majority support in a majority of states. States and territories have been consulted on the wording of the draft bill and explanatory memorandum, as has the federal opposition. The explanatory memorandum addresses in detail the issues that have been raised through this process, including some elaboration of points in the draft released publicly on 16 May 2013. In their authoritative commentary on the newly enacted Australian Constitution in 1901, John Quick and Robert Garran were alive to the constitutional balance that needs to be struck between stability and development. They observed that a constitution should not be lightly or inconsiderately altered. However, they also recognised that a constitution which does not contain 'provision for its amendment with the development, growth, and expansion of the community which it is intended to govern, would be a most inadequate and imperfect deed of partnership'. From this statement, it seems clear that Quick and Garran would be surprised that the Australian Constitution has only been amended eight times in the intervening 112 years. To remain relevant, the Constitution must be a living document that reflects the realities of modern Australia. The Australian Constitution, and our system of federal relations, has supported one of the world’s most stable, prosperous and longstanding democracies. But the fact we have a durable system is not a reason to stop considering reasonable, sensible reform. Local governments play an increasingly important role in Australian government relations and our daily lives. The fact they receive no constitutional mention, and that there is no express provision for local government bodies to receive financial assistance directly from the Commonwealth, is increasingly difficult to reconcile with the very document guiding government scope and powers. The government recognises that proposals to recognise local government as a third sphere of government in the Constitution have twice been rejected at a referendum, in 1974 and 1988. The Constitution Alteration (Local Government Bodies) 1974 sought to give the Commonwealth parliament powers to borrow money for, and to make financial assistance grants directly to, any local government. The Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 1988 sought to give constitutional recognition to the institution of local government. However, the current proposal is different in important respects from those which preceded it. In August 2011 the Australian government appointed an Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government to identify options for the constitutional recognition of local government. The expert panel was chaired by the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales the Hon. James Spigelman AC QC. In December 2011 the expert panel presented its final report to the Australian government. A majority of panel members concluded that financial recognition by amendment of section 96 of the Constitution was a viable option within the 2013 time frame indicated by the panel's terms of reference. On 1 November 2012 the Commonwealth parliament established a Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government, chaired by the member for Greenway, to inquire into and report on the majority finding of the expert panel. The joint select committee presented a preliminary report on 24 January 2013 and a final report on 7 March 2013. In both reports the committee recommended, consistent with the findings of the expert panel, that a referendum on financial recognition of local government be held at the 2013 federal election. This follows the government's commitment to hold a referendum on constitutional recognition of local government in the 43rd Parliament. The proposed constitutional alteration would amend section 96 of the Australian Constitution to make specific provision in relation to the granting of financial assistance to local government bodies. It involves changes to the existing wording of the heading and of the section itself. It would add four words to the heading and 13 to the section. Clause 1 of the bill states that the proposed law to alter the Constitution may be cited as the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 2013. Clause 2 states that the alteration would come into force on the date the act receives the royal assent. Clause 3 would alter the Constitution in accordance with schedule 1. Item 1 of schedule 1 would alter the heading to section 96 of the Constitution by including at the end the words 'and local government bodies'. Item 2 would alter section 96 by inserting, after 'to any State', the text set out in the schedule. As amended, section 96 would state that the parliament may grant financial assistance to any state, or local government body formed by a law of a state, on such terms and conditions as the parliament thinks fit. As the alteration of section 96 would specifically state that the Commonwealth may grant financial assistance to local government bodies formed by a law of a state, the Commonwealth would no longer need to rely on other sources of power for that purpose. The amendment would not enable the Commonwealth to interfere with the creation or regulation of local government bodies by the states. It would form part of an existing provision—section 96. Section 96 does not involve any grant of power to the Commonwealth beyond the ability to provide financial assistance on terms and conditions. The financial assistance must be optional. Recipients have the option of rejecting the proposed financial assistance and the terms and conditions. The alteration has been designed specifically to avoid any suggestion that it might permit interference by the Commonwealth with the creation or regulation of local government bodies by states. It has also been designed specifically to avoid any suggestion that the Commonwealth could compel local government bodies to accept funding, or terms and conditions. The Commonwealth could not provide financial assistance on terms or conditions that local government bodies could not meet under state law. This reflects the way in which section 96 grants to the states currently operate. Currently, financial assistance cannot be provided to states on terms and conditions which they cannot meet. Further, states would not be prevented from changing their systems of local government should they wish to do so. States could change their systems of local government to prevent expenditure by local government bodies, or other activities, in particular areas. No reference to bodies formed by a law of a territory has been included. Such a reference is unnecessary because grants of financial assistance to the territories and bodies formed by territory laws may be made under section 122 of the Constitution, a provision which the expert panel was not called on to consider. This bill is part of a truly democratic process. It will give the people of Australia the opportunity to decide whether 17 words should be added to our Constitution. These 17 words will recognise the modern reality that the Commonwealth grants financial assistance to local government for a variety of important community and other services. I commend this constitution alteration bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Crimes Legislation Amendment (Law Enforcement Integrity, Vulnerable Witness Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2013 4224

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Law Enforcement Integrity, Vulnerable Witness Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2013

First Reading 4224 Second Reading 4225 09:46 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Law Enforcement Integrity, Vulnerable Witness Protection and Other Measures) Bill delivers on the Gillard government’s continuing commitment to combating corruption and to protecting and supporting the victims of serious Commonwealth offences such as slavery and human trafficking. The bill also includes a range of measures which strengthen existing laws and ensure that the criminal law in this country is responsive to emerging threats. This Labor government is committed to a safe and secure Australia. That means making sure that we have the right laws and processes in place and that law enforcement agencies have the right tools to fight crime and corruption. The bill will improve and clarify aspects of Commonwealth criminal law including: amendments to support victims and witnesses in proceedings for federal offences during prosecution and sentencing amendments relating to the investigation, prosecution and sentencing of people-smuggling offenders amendments to ensure the effective operation of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity amendments to facilitate assistance to the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals procedural amendments to the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, to facilitate the provision of services by the Australian Federal Police in the external territories and ensure that proceeds of crime proceedings are not impeded in particular circumstances, and amendments to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 to reflect the Victorian Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011 and the Victorian Inspectorate Act 2011. I will address each of these measures in turn. This Labor government is committed to looking after the vulnerable in our society. We understand that victims of crime are among the most vulnerable and they need support and assistance to seek the justice they deserve. That is why we established the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and passed legislation earlier this year so that people could share their experiences with commissioners in private sessions. The government recognised that relating these traumatic experiences is difficult and that special provisions need to be put in place so that the voices of these people can be heard. In the same way, the government recognises that victims of particular Commonwealth offences need to feel properly supported and to give evidence of the horrific crimes that have affected their lives so deeply. Historically, Commonwealth offences were, for the most part, offences where the victim was the Commonwealth, such as social security or tax fraud. However, more recently, Commonwealth offences have come to encompass some of the most inherently traumatic offences against the individual—slavery, slavery-like and human trafficking offences. In addition, the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Slavery, Slavery-like Conditions and People Trafficking) Act, passed by the government earlier this year, introduced new slavery-like offences with individual victims, including forced marriage and forced labour. While the Crimes Act currently provides vulnerable witness protections for children in proceedings for sexual offences, there are no similar Commonwealth protections for adult victims of slavery, slavery-like and human trafficking offences, nor any specific protections for witnesses who may be vulnerable due to a particular characteristic—for example, a witness who requires support or alternative arrangements to effectively give evidence due to a disability or their cultural background. This bill will provide protections for vulnerable witnesses giving evidence in proceedings for Commonwealth criminal offences and provide a scheme for the use of victim impact statements in the sentencing of federal offenders. These protections will ensure that witnesses can present their best testimony in court, without intimidation, re-traumatisation, fear for their safety or undue public embarrassment. A scheme allowing the use of victim impact statements will benefit victims by providing catharsis, vindication and healing. It will also promote the rehabilitation of offenders by confronting them with the impact of their offending behaviour. This bill also contains measures to strengthen the ability of the Integrity Commissioner to prevent, detect and investigate corruption. The government is committed to fighting corruption. Even though Transparency International consistently rates Australia as one of the ten least corrupt countries in the world, we must not be complacent. The government has already introduced a number of measures to make law enforcement agencies a more hostile environment for corruption. These measures include targeted integrity testing for Australian Federal Police, Australian Crime Commission and Customs officers suspected of engaging in corrupt conduct. The government has also doubled the number of law enforcement agencies under the jurisdiction of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity and doubled the resources available to the commission to oversee Customs. This bill includes two amendments which will assist the Integrity Commissioner in its oversight capacity. One of the agencies that will come under the jurisdiction from 1 July this year is AUSTRAC. This bill will amend the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act to ensure that the Integrity Commissioner is able to access all information held by AUSTRAC when it is relevant to a corruption investigation, and grant appropriate protections to that information. The bill will also amend the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 to allow the Integrity Commissioner to second employees of the Australian Federal Police and other police forces who are not sworn police officers. These officers often have important technical skills which can be of assistance to the Integrity Commissioner in undertaking his or her functions. This bill will also amend areas of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 to enable more expeditious review of AUSTRAC decisions, harden existing offences, enable AUSTRAC to engage industry secondees, enhance privacy protections, and strengthen financial intelligence by adding the Commonwealth Clean Energy Regulator and the Integrity Commission of Tasmania as designated agencies. The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Law Enforcement Integrity, Vulnerable Witness Protection and Other Measures) Bill also contains amendments to improve the investigation, prosecution and sentencing of people-smuggling offences in Australia. This government has always been of the view that minors do not belong in adult jails. And that is why the former Attorney-General, the Hon. Nicola Roxon MP, ordered a review of people-smuggling cases where age was in doubt. Twenty-eight cases were re-examined, following requests from the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Indonesian Government, using improved age determination processes that were not available when age was raised in these cases. As a result of the review, 15 crew were released early from prison on licence as there was a doubt they may have been minors on arrival in Australia, two crew were released early on parole, three crew completed their non-parole periods and eight crew remain to serve their sentences, as there was no evidence supporting suggestions they were minors at the time of their arrival. Consistent with the view that wrist X-rays are no longer an adequate means of determining age, the bill will remove wrist X-rays as a prescribed procedure for determining whether people-smuggling crew are minors. Further, by amending the Migration Act, this bill will specify that the prosecution bears the onus of proof in establishing age. This is consistent with current practice and ensures that there is no ambiguity on who bears the onus of proof, where age is contested during a prosecution. These amendments will implement recommendations made by Senate committee inquiries and the Australian Human Rights Commission inquiry into age determination of people-smuggling crew. This bill also introduces amendments to the evidentiary process for people-smuggling trials. It will enable uncontested facts, such as the location of a people-smuggling vessel and number of persons on board people-smuggling vessels, to be presented to the court through the use of an evidentiary certificate. This will reduce delays in people-smuggling prosecutions and ensure that Navy and Customs personnel can focus on protecting Australia's borders. This bill ensures that courts are able to take time spent in custody for people-smuggling offences, and time spent in immigration detention, into consideration during sentencing for people-smuggling offences. The bill also ensures that Australia can fulfil its responsibilities as a good international citizen by continuing to support international criminal law through assisting international criminal tribunals. The bill contains proposed amendments to the International Transfer of Prisoners Act 1997 and the International War Crimes Tribunals Act 1995 to recognise the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, which was established by the United Nations Security Council to complete the residual work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. These amendments will ensure that Australia can provide the same level of assistance to the new International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals as it can currently provide to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. This bill will also amend the Australian Federal Police Act. Currently, the Australian Federal Police Commissioner has delegated his powers, functions and duties as a proceeds-of-crime authority to the Manager of Proceeds of Crime Litigation. The manager leads a team of specialist litigation lawyers that take proceeds-of-crime action on behalf of the commissioner. These amendments ensure that the delegation applies to an Australian Federal Police employee performing the duties of the Manager of Proceeds of Crime Litigation while that person is on leave. These amendments also ensure that, when the Manager of Proceeds of Crime Litigation takes leave and another Australian Federal Police employee performs their duties, the lawfulness of any decisions is not open to challenge. Additionally, under the Australian Federal Police Act, arrangements for the provision of policing and regulatory services by Australian Federal Police staff in the external territories can only be entered into between the minister responsible for the Australian Federal Police and the administrator of that external territory. The proposed amendments will extend this provision to allow these arrangements to also be entered into with the minister responsible for the administration of an external territory, in addition to the administrator. An exception is provided in the case of Norfolk Island, where arrangements will continue to be entered into with the administrator in recognition that the territory is self-governing. Not all external territories have an administrator and, in those which do, the duties and responsibilities of the administrator vary significantly. This amendment will allow greater flexibility in establishing arrangements for policing and regulatory services and better reflect the current governance arrangements in some of the external territories, particularly in Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Island. In 2012 the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act was amended to recognise new public sector anticorruption arrangements in Victoria. Victoria has recently renumbered the relevant legislation and this bill will amend cross-references in the interception act to ensure that it correctly refers to the Victorian legislation. In conclusion, the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Law Enforcement Integrity, Vulnerable Witness Protection and Other Measures) Bill contains important measures that will ensure that Commonwealth criminal law remains up to date and effective, particularly in combating corruption and protecting the vulnerable victims of serious Commonwealth offences including human trafficking and slavery. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Privacy Amendment (Privacy Alerts) Bill 2013 4228

Privacy Amendment (Privacy Alerts) Bill 2013

First Reading 4228 Second Reading 4228 0:00 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The introduction of the Privacy Amendment (Privacy Alerts) Bill 2013 is the next key step in the government's major reform of Australia's privacy laws. It is a long overdue measure that was recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission in 2008. It will introduce a new consumer privacy protection for Australians that will keep their personal information more secure in the digital age. It will also encourage agencies and private sector organisations to improve their data security practices. In its 2008 privacy report, the Australian Law Reform Commission found that, as government agencies and large companies collected more and more personal information online, there was an increasing risk that this could become subject to data breaches. There were studies to show that the frequency of data breaches was increasing and their consequences were becoming more severe. This trend has continued. For example, in recent years, there have been a number of high-profile data breaches in Australia and in other countries. Customers of large, well-respected businesses have had their personal information compromised as a result of hacker attacks, poor security or just plain carelessness. As recently as February this year, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) revealed that the personal details of almost 50,000 internet users had been exposed online after the ABC's main website was hacked. This followed large-scale breaches in recent years at Telstra, Medvet and Sony Playstation. A data breach can severely affect individuals whose personal information has been compromised. Individuals can lose money when personal information relating to their finances finds its way into the wrong hands. They can be exposed to the risk of fraud and identity theft. And they can suffer embarrassment and distress when information contained in medical records is publicly revealed. The government believes that individuals should know when their privacy has been interfered with. That is why the government is introducing this bill. Currently, there is no requirement for agencies and organisations to notify affected individuals or the commissioner when they have suffered a data breach. The commissioner has voluntary guidelines encouraging notification, but is concerned that many data breaches—perhaps a majority—are going unreported. The bill stops the gap in Australia's privacy laws. Australia is not the only jurisdiction to introduce a notification requirement. Almost every state in the United States has introduced data breach notification laws. Canada has legislation in parliament. The European Union is developing a new directive that requires notification of data breaches. New Zealand is considering a similar law reform commission recommendation to introduce a mandatory notification scheme. Australia should be a global leader in privacy protection as we grow our digital economy and more and more personal information goes online. The bill provides that when an agency or organisation has suffered a serious data breach, it must notify the affected individuals and the Australian Privacy Commissioner. Prompt notifications will allow individuals to take action to protect their personal information. Individuals will be able to reset passwords, cancel credit cards, improve their online security settings, and take other measures as they see fit. The notification requirement will provide an incentive to businesses to store information securely. No business wants a reputation for not keeping its customers' personal information safe. Agencies and organisations will only have to provide notification of serious data breaches. A requirement to provide notification of all data breaches would impose an undue regulatory burden on businesses, and it would unnecessarily alarm many customers. The notification must include information such as a description of the breach, the kinds of information concerned, recommendations about steps that individuals should take, and contact details of the entity. The bill provides that the commissioner may direct an agency or organisation to provide affected individuals with notification of a data breach. This is a necessary measure in cases where an agency or organisation is recalcitrant or has simply made the wrong decision. The bill also contains public interest and law enforcement exceptions. These are necessary where there are countervailing interests that outweigh the need to inform individuals about the data breach. Where there is a failure to comply with a notification requirement, all the commissioner's enforcement powers to investigate and make determinations will be available. This could result in personal and private apologies, compensation payments and enforceable undertakings. In the case of serious or repeated noncompliance with notification requirements, this could lead to a civil penalty being imposed by a court. The bill is part of the government's ongoing commitment to the right to privacy. Last year, the government introduced the most significant reforms to privacy law in Australia since the Privacy Act commenced in 1989. This bill will complement those new reforms, and that is why we intend to commence the bill at the same time in March 2014. One of last year's major reforms was the creation of the Australian privacy principles, which will apply to both government agencies and many private sector organisations. Australian privacy principle 11 provides that entities regulated by the Privacy Act must have adequate security measures in place to protect personal information that they hold. The data breach notification requirement will complement Australian privacy principle 11 by requiring notification if there has been unauthorised access or disclosure, or loss, of that personal information. Privacy is an important human right, and its continued protection in the digital era is becoming a major challenge for governments everywhere. The right of an individual to control what happens with his or her personal information is an important aspect of the right to privacy. The data breach notification requirement helps return control over their personal information to individuals. The ALRC believed Australia's privacy laws needed this change in 2008. The evidence since that time has been building and it is now clear that this reform is well overdue. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Public Interest Disclosure (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013 4231

Public Interest Disclosure (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013

First Reading 4231 Second Reading 4231 10:08 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I am pleased today to introduce the Public Interest Disclosure (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013. This bill will amend a number of acts in support of the scheme in the Public Interest Disclosure Bill 2013, which I introduced into the House of Representatives on 21 March 2013. The Public Interest Disclosure Bill is the first stand-alone whistleblower protection scheme at the federal level. It will establish a comprehensive scheme to support disclosure of wrongdoing in the Commonwealth public sector, and to make sure that reports of suspected wrongdoing are properly investigated and responded to. Public officials who report wrongdoing in accordance with the scheme will have robust protections so that they do not suffer adverse consequences for making a report. The Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will have oversight functions for the public interest disclosure scheme. Amendments proposed in the Public Interest Disclosure (Consequential Amendments) Bill will support this oversight function. The Ombudsman will be able to investigate a public interest disclosure made to the Ombudsman where the wrongful conduct relates to an agency that is not an intelligence agency or the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. The Ombudsman will also be able to investigate handling by agencies of public interest disclosures. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will be able to investigate a public interest disclosure made to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security where the wrongful conduct relates to an intelligence agency. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will also be able to inquire into the handling of public interest disclosures by intelligence agencies. The Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will be able to undertake these investigations under their establishing legislation. These investigative functions are complemented by other measures in the Public Interest Disclosure Bill. The Ombudsman will assist agencies and public officials on the operation of the scheme, including through the conduct of educational and awareness programs. It is very important that agencies and officials have a clear understanding of how the scheme works in order for it to operate effectively. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will be able to assist intelligence agencies and public officials who belong to those agencies. The Ombudsman will be able to determine standards addressing procedures for dealing with public interest disclosure, the conduct of investigations and the preparation of reports. Agencies will also need to give the Ombudsman certain information about public interest disclosures, which will be published in an annual report. Consistent with the intention to create a single comprehensive scheme to promote inquiry and investigation into wrongdoing in the Commonwealth public sector, amendments proposed in this bill will repeal existing provisions in the Public Service Act 1999 and the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 dealing with whistleblower protections. The scheme will allow a public official to make a disclosure within their agency, to the Ombudsman, to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, if the conduct relates to an intelligence agency or to a prescribed investigative agency. Upon being prescribed, statutory office holders with investigative powers, such as the Public Service Commissioner, the Merit Protection Commissioner and the Commissioner for Law Enforcement Integrity, will be able to conduct investigations where they have existing power to do so. The scheme will be flexible, allowing for disclosures to be transferred to agencies that are best placed to investigate them. Amendments in the bill will preserve a function for the Public Service Commissioner and the Merit Protection Commissioner to inquire into public interest disclosures relating to alleged breaches of the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct. A similar amendment is proposed to preserve a function for the Parliamentary Service Commissioner and Parliamentary Service Merit Protection Commissioner to inquire into public interest disclosures relating to alleged breaches of the Parliamentary Service Code of Conduct. I foreshadow that I intend to introduce government amendments to the Public Interest Disclosure Bill shortly. I also welcome the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, following its inquiry into the Public Interest Disclosure Bill, which was tabled by the member for Moreton yesterday. I will be considering their report carefully. This bill, together with Public Interest Disclosure Bill, will serve to strengthen the integrity and accountability of the Australian government public sector. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Social Security Amendment (Supporting More Australians into Work) Bill 2013 4232

Social Security Amendment (Supporting More Australians into Work) Bill 2013

First Reading 4232 Second Reading 4232 10:14 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Social Security Amendment (Supporting more Australians into Work) Bill 2013 will support the participation of unemployed Australians and parents with caring responsibilities by increasing the amount they are able to earn and keep, smoothing the transition to paid work and providing extra assistance to undertake study and training. The Gillard government believes that everyone who is able to work should be able to benefit from the economic security and dignity that having a job brings, which is why we are introducing this bill to help more unemployed Australians to transition into work. Having a job is essential in ensuring that all Australians can share in the benefits of Australia's economic strength and receive the promise of a long, good life that comes with being an Australian. In particular, we want to avoid the entrenched disadvantage that can arise from long periods of joblessness. Because the longer a job seeker has been unemployed the more likely their skills will be outdated, their confidence can be eroded and as such it gets harder to find and keep a job. It is important to recognise that long periods of unemployment do erode people's self-confidence. There is also emerging entrenched poverty and intergenerational welfare dependence when parents are jobless for long periods of time. In short, this is about helping job seekers being able to fulfil the potential which exists in all Australians. Australia's income support system has been analysed extensively through the recent Senate inquiry into the adequacy of the allowance payment system which considered the appropriateness of the allowance payment system as a support into work and the impact of the changing nature of the labour market. In particular, the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Committee's report contained complex and diverse recommendations, covering payment design, administration of payments, employment services and additional social services. On behalf of the Gillard Labor government I would like to thank the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee for their report. The amendments included in this bill follow consideration of the recommendations of the Senate inquiry. On this basis the introduction of the Social Security Amendment (Supporting more Australians into Work) Bill 2013 will allow around hundreds of thousands of Australians on parenting payment partnered, Newstart Allowance, and widow, sickness or partner allowance to earn $100 per fortnight, $38 more per fortnight than they currently can, before their income support is reduced. The Gillard government will invest $258 million over the next four years to lift the income-free area. This is the first increase in more than a decade. In addition, the income-free area will, for the first time in Australia's history, be indexed by CPI from 1 July 2015 to ensure the real value of this increase is maintained over time. From 20 March 2014, income support recipients currently earning more than $62 per fortnight can look forward to an average increase in their payments of $19 per fortnight or an average of $494 per year. This practical investment will give people more incentive to stay in or re-enter the workforce while they are on income support by allowing them to keep more of what they earn and helping them build and maintain the skills, confidence and contacts they will need to eventually transition into paid work. This increase to the income-free area supports a majority recommendation from the Senate inquiry into the adequacy of the allowance payment system. Joblessness among families continues to be a significant collective social and economic challenge facing our homeland. Australia has relatively low levels of unemployment compared to other First World nations, this is true, but there are distinct and real pockets of disadvantage, including when parents with dependent children are jobless for longer periods of time. This bill also seeks to continue the government's commitment to provide incentives and support for single parents so that they and their families can share in the benefits of paid work. From 1 January 2014, all single principal carer parents receiving Newstart allowance who take up approved study will be eligible to receive the pensioner education supplement (PES), gaining extra assistance for study and training. The supplement is paid at a rate of $62.40 per fortnight or $31.20 per fortnight for a concessional study load. It is expected that at least 25,000 additional single parents will take up the pensioner education supplement over the next four years. Getting relevant skills and education supports pensioners and single parents to increase their job-readiness and gives them a better chance of leaving income support and returning to the workforce, which is the goal of nearly all pensioner and allowance recipients. Currently, only those single principal carer parents who were in receipt of PES at the time they move from parenting payment single to Newstart allowance are entitled to receive PES until they finish their current studies. But because of this government, from 1 January 2014, all single principal carer parents receiving Newstart will have access to this additional study assistance. Single parents will also receive additional support through this bill through the extension of access to the pensioner concession card. From 1 January 2014 single parents who become ineligible for the parenting payment due to the age of their youngest child and who do not qualify for any other income support payment due to their earnings, will retain their pensioner concession card for up to 12 weeks. The pensioner concession card allows holders and their dependants to receive benefits including bulk-billed GP appointments, reduced out-of-hospital medical expenses and medicines listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme at the concessional rate, in addition to concessions offered by state and territory local governments. Currently access to benefits under the pensioner concession card ceases for these parents immediately once they no longer receive parenting payment. This amendment will smooth the transition off income support and into paid work for around 2,000 single parents a year. In combination, the measures contained in this bill amend the social security law to provide around $300 million to improve the incentive for income support recipients to work, support them in the transition to work and provide extra assistance to engage in study and training. This package, which I support wholeheartedly, represents the very strong advocacy of government MPs, including the member for Canberra, the member for Page, the member for Chifley and the member for Throsby, amongst many others. I also acknowledge the advocacy of the council of single mothers. This package delivers on the Gillard government's commitment to support single parents who are moving off parenting payment so that they and their families can share in the benefits of paid work once their children become older. The Gillard Labor government believes that everyone should benefit from the dignity, challenge, experience, social acceptance and camaraderie that come from having a job, especially people who have been trapped in a cycle of entrenched disadvantage for too long. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Superannuation Laws Amendment (MySuper Capital Gains Tax Relief and Other Measures) Bill 2013 4235

Superannuation Laws Amendment (MySuper Capital Gains Tax Relief and Other Measures) Bill 2013

First Reading 4235 Second Reading 4235 10:22 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 amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to ensure default members of superannuation funds are not adversely affected if their account balances are compulsorily transferred to a MySuper product in another fund as a result of the MySuper reforms. Where superannuation funds do not offer a MySuper product, the MySuper provisions will require them to transfer their default members' account benefits to a fund offering a MySuper product by 1 July 2017. This measure allows the superannuation fund to transfer any tax losses and defer an income tax liability for assets transferred to the other entity. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Schedule 2 amends the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973 to make consequential changes to enable the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation—the trustee of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits scheme—to release a lump sum for the purposes of meeting a debt account discharge liability; and to reduce the benefit as a consequence of that payment. These changes are part of the sustaining the superannuation contribution concession, which effectively reduces the superannuation tax concession on contributions received by individuals whose income exceeds $300,000 from 30 per cent to 15 per cent. This ensures the tax concession received by higher income earners is more closely aligned with the concession received by average income earners. This will improve the fairness of the taxation of our marvellous superannuation system. These changes to the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits scheme will ensure beneficiaries of this scheme are not disadvantaged in comparison to members of other Commonwealth defined benefit schemes and can have their benefits adjusted to meet their liability under the sustaining the superannuation contribution concession measure. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Social Security Legislation Amendment (Public Housing Tenants' Support) Bill 2013 4235

Social Security Legislation Amendment (Public Housing Tenants' Support) Bill 2013

First Reading 4235 Second Reading 4235 10:25 Mr BUTLER HWK Port Adelaide I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill will implement a Housing Payment Deduction Scheme to help reduce homelessness for public housing tenants (including state or territory owned or managed Indigenous housing) who are in serious rental arrears that could lead to eviction or housing abandonment. The new scheme, to be implemented in 2014, responds to concerns from the community and all levels of government about property abandonments, evictions and homelessness due to rental arrears. Each year, hundreds of public housing tenants, including families with children, are evicted or abandon their homes because of arrears. As public housing is generally the most affordable housing option available, these people may end up in specialist homelessness services, staying with family or friends, or sleeping rough. Clearly, this is stressful for the individuals and families involved. It is also disruptive and costly for governments and welfare groups, and can lead to long-term homelessness. When vulnerable families are involved, it can also place pressure on child protection services. Welfare organisations sometimes end up paying rent for public housing tenants so they do not face eviction—money that could be freed up for other welfare purposes. People with complex problems such as gambling, substance abuse or mental health issues may require support services to help them address personal problems which can lead to nonpayment of rent. This scheme is designed to work alongside government funded financial counselling and other available support services, to ensure that tenants continue to be housed safely and affordably while they get the help they need to sustain their tenancy. For people who have problem levels of public housing arrears, the new scheme will allow rent and utilities legally required to be paid under their public housing leases to be deducted from their welfare payments and paid directly to their public housing landlords. Existing systems do not always address the problem of eviction due to nonpayment of public housing rent. The voluntary Rent Deduction Scheme, which is already in place for some payments made by the Department of Human Services, gives public housing tenants the choice of having their rent and other costs automatically deducted from their payments. This service is used by most public housing tenants. However, as it is a voluntary arrangement, tenants may cancel their deductions—and those tenants often go on to accumulate arrears which risk their tenancies. The Housing Payment Deduction Scheme made possible by this bill will help prevent high levels of arrears from being accumulated. It will reduce evictions and property abandonments from public housing. This carefully considered initiative flows from commitments made by the Australian government and state and territory governments in the National Affordable Housing Agreement, as well as the Australian government's white paper on homelessness, The road home: a national approach to homelessness. The legislation introduced today has also benefited from valuable comments made on the bill during a recent exposure draft process, and the government places on record its gratitude to the many state and territory agencies, community organisations and individuals who contributed their views and expertise in this important area. The new scheme will be implemented through amendments to the social security law and the family assistance law, supplemented by legislative instruments on some matters of detail. This will make the scheme more flexible and responsive, while allowing for scrutiny by parliament, as legislative instruments can be disallowed by either house of parliament. The scheme is a preventative measure to stop the build-up of arrears, leading to eviction, and has been designed so it will not be used to undermine sound tenancy management processes that exist in states and territories. Importantly, the bill will allow the minister to have oversight of how the scheme is administered by states and territories. Before a public housing lessor is listed in a legislative instrument as being able to participate in the scheme, the minister will need to be satisfied that there are appropriate processes in place in those jurisdictions for reviewing decisions and in dealing with matters relating to leases. The factors which the minister must take into account are listed in the bill, and go to ensuring that decisions are transparent, that reasonable action has been taken to recover arrears, that tenants' individual circumstances are taken into account, and that they are informed of their rights and available advice and support services. The minister will also have the power to revoke approval of a public housing lessor under the scheme if the conditions are no longer being met. Not all tenants of public housing will be put onto the scheme. Before a person who is a leaseholder in public housing can be put onto the scheme, there will have to be more than a specified amount owing. The specified amount owing, to be set out in a legislative instrument, will be four weeks rent. To avoid the possibility of deductions for a person starting and stopping repeatedly each time they repay their arrears, the bill allows for a public housing lessor to make a subsequent request to apply for a limited period of 12 months after a person's arrears have been repaid. This will give the person more time to get the help that they need to re-establish a pattern of regular rent payments once compulsory deductions have been discontinued. The recent exposure draft of this bill contained a provision which allowed for people who had a history of rental arrears to be included in the scheme as a preventative measure. In response to stakeholder concern that this provision could be unfairly used to include tenants whose personal circumstances had changed, this basis for requesting deductions under the scheme has been removed from the bill as introduced. Housing costs which can be deducted are limited to rent, rent arrears and household utilities where included under the lease. Maintenance debt incurred as a result of property damage will not be included in response to stakeholder concerns that these debts can be contentious and may cause hardship, particularly for victims of domestic violence. Requests will only be able to be made after reasonable action has been taken by state and territory lessors to recover rental arrears. This will require, as a minimum, that the tenant has been given appropriate notice as well as advice on their rights of review and available support services. Deductions under the scheme can only be made from payments (as set out in a legislative instrument) that include a rate component for recipients' housing costs. Lump sum special purpose payments such as the clean energy and pension supplements will not be available for deductions, to ensure tenants receive the full benefit of these payments. The bill contains important safeguards to protect the interests of tenants. These include a fixed cap on the proportion of a person's welfare payment that can be deducted. This cap includes the component for rent plus an amount for arrears up to a maximum of 35 per cent of the welfare payment. The purpose of the cap is to provide an upper limit on the amount that can be deducted to ensure the majority of the person's payment is available to meet their other needs. The cap will operate alongside other provisions in the bill, ensuring that public housing lessors have in place processes that take into account tenants' individual circumstances and give them an opportunity to be heard before a request is made. Deductions under the scheme will stop as soon as the person has paid their arrears (plus an additional 12 months) or when they no longer lease public housing. We have sought to introduce efficiencies by assigning responsibility for aspects of the scheme to the government agency which is best placed to undertake it. Centrelink will administer the 35 per cent cap on how much of a person's welfare payment can be deducted and accept requests from public housing lessors that are in the proper form. It will be up to state and territory housing authorities to ensure that the legal requirements in relation to the making of a request have been met and to review any decisions about leases. This will build on the existing systems of state and territory housing authorities—who, because of their tenancy management responsibilities, are best placed to understand the individual circumstances of the tenant—with the added oversight by the Commonwealth of tenancy management and review processes at the state or territory level. To ensure the consistent operation of the Housing Payment Deduction Scheme with the income management regime, if a request is made under the scheme in relation to a person who is subject to income management, the secretary will be able to take action under the income management provisions to meet the request. This bill takes a significant step towards addressing the problem of evictions and homelessness among Australia's public housing tenants, by providing a means by which arrears can be managed. The scheme strikes the right balance between achieving that objective, and ensuring that appropriate tenancy management practices are upheld and tenants being given the right supports to help maintain their tenancies. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill 2013 4238

Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill 2013

First Reading 4238 Second Reading 4238 10:34 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This is the sixth tranche of anti-dumping legislation introduced by this government into the parliament in the past two years. Tranche 1 which passed the parliament in November 2011 imposed a time limit on ministerial decision making and anti-dumping in countervailing cases. It clarified that all appropriate and relevant factors which may indicate material injury to an Australian industry specifically listed as factors to which the minister may have regard and clarified that parties with a clear interest in anti-dumping matters are expressly given an opportunity to participate in anti-dumping investigations. Tranche 2 which passed the parliament in February last year established a new appeals process, the anti-dumping review panel, to replace the existing appeals mechanism established in the legislation and established the International Trade Remedies Forum in legislation. Tranche 3 removed a limitation to the inclusion of profit when constructing a normal value of a good and removed the need for a separate review of anti-dumping measures and a continuation inquiry when they occur in close proximity to one another. Tranche 4 better aligned the anti-dumping and countervailing system with the systems of our WTO counterparts. It introduced provisions designed to address the circumvention of trade measures and strengthened the ability of the anti-dumping system to address parties non-cooperation during the investigation process. Tranche 5 which passed the parliament in March this year established the Australian Anti-Dumping Commission. Tranche 1 is now operational. Tranches 2, 3 and 4 will come into effect next month. This includes the anti-dumping review panel to provide timely and appropriate merits review of anti-dumping decisions. Today I can announce the three individuals who have been appointed to the panel: The Hon. Michael Moore, a former Federal Court judge; Ms Joan Fitzhenry, a lawyer specialising in anti-dumping cases; and Mr Graham McDonald, former Presidential Member of the Federal Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Stephen Skehill, the outgoing Trade Measures Review Officer, for his dedication to this role over the past two years. He has set the precedent for thorough and reasoned review that is inherent in a truly independent review process—and I expect the panel will follow his good work with their own. Tranche 5 established the Australian Anti-Dumping Commission. It will start its work on 1 July. I expect to be in a position to announce the appointment of the Anti-Dumping Commissioner shortly. The new Anti-Dumping Commission will start work with significantly more funding. In December the Prime Minister, the Minister for Industry and Innovation and I announced an additional $24.4 million for the administration of our anti-dumping system. That money was included in the budget delivered two weeks ago. These bills, the Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Measures) Bill 2013 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 2013, represent the next step in the government's anti-dumping reforms. Together these bills do three key things: First, they remove, in certain circumstances, the need for the minister to consider the lesser duty rule; Second, they clarify the application of existing retrospective duties provisions; and Third, they introduce a new type of anti-circumvention inquiry to address 'sales at a loss' cases. I will now step through each of these in detail. Removal of the mandatory consideration of the lesser duty rule These bills will remove, in certain circumstances, the minister's mandatory consideration of the lesser duty rule. This means that the minister will have discretion to consider the desirability of fixing a lesser duty, in certain circumstances. These circumstances are where: 1) In dumping cases, there is a finding of a particular market situation for the goods in the country of export; 2) In subsidy cases, the country of export has not complied with obligations to notify subsidies, as established under the WTO; and 3) In any type of case, the Australian industry producing like goods consists of at least two small-medium enterprises—whether or not that industry consists of other enterprises. In these complex cases, where injurious dumping or subsidisation has been found, the minister will be given the discretion to impose the maximum permitted duties. Clarification of the application of retrospective duties The bill makes changes to the retrospective duties provisions to align the legislation more closely with the relevant WTO agreements. The amendments also make it clear that the relevant minister is the 'decision maker' for certain elements required to be established in the process of applying retrospective duties. The bill will also make a number of amendments to the existing retrospective duties provisions to improve their structure and consistency. The retrospective duties provisions are currently very difficult to understand, indeed, they have never been used. We are making these reforms to improve the accessibility of the retrospective duties provisions and clarify their application. We are also revising the guidelines on the application of these provisions to make their operation clearer. Introduction of a new type of anti - circumvention inquiry to address 'sales at a loss' cases Thirdly, this bill introduces a new type of anti-circumvention inquiry to address 'sales at a loss' cases. Last year we passed legislation to introduce an anti-circumvention framework into Australia's anti-dumping system. The reforms in this bill will take that framework one step further by addressing situations where anti-dumping measures have been ineffective. A new type of anti-circumvention inquiry will be able to be conducted faster than other inquiries, taking 100 days, instead of 155 days. This type of inquiry can be initiated following an application from an Australian industry where there is evidence that prices of the imported goods have not increased in line with the imposition of the duties. The minister will also have the power to commence this type of inquiry. The bill will also make a complementary change to the present provisions of the legislation that will allow more rigorous treatment of transactions where evidence suggests that the price is influenced by a commercial or other relationship between the parties. This will allow 'sales at a loss' situations to be addressed at the outset, in both establishing the existence of dumping, and in setting an appropriate level of measures. Conclusion In developing these reforms, the government has consulted closely with members of the International Trade Remedies Forum. The forum has played a substantial role in providing advice to the government on the operation of our anti-dumping system—and on options for reform. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all members of the forum members for their input to date, much of which has found its way into these tranches of legislation. I will continue to work closely with the forum and I expect it will continue its vigorous discussion and input on policy development. This bill is not the last word on anti-dumping reform. There is a lot more work to be done—and I look forward to working with members of the International Trade Remedies Forum, and others, on this important task. I commend this bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 2013 4241

Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 2013

First Reading 4241 Second Reading 4241 10:43 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I am pleased to present this bill, the Customs Tariff (Anti-dumping) Amendment Bill. This bill, together with the Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Measures) Bill 2013, will give the minister discretion to consider the desirability of fixing a lesser duty, in certain circumstances. The legislation sets out the three circumstances where the minister is not required to, but may, consider the desirability of fixing a lesser amount of duty. In these complex cases, where injurious dumping or subsidisation has been found, the minister can impose the maximum permitted duties. I commend this bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Charities Bill 2013 4241

Charities Bill 2013

First Reading 4241 Second Reading 4241 10:44 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Charities Bill 2013 introduces a statutory definition of charity that applies to all Commonwealth legislation. The Gillard government is dedicated to supporting a strong, vibrant, diverse and independent not-for-profit sector. As part of this commitment, in the 2011-12 budget the government announced that it would introduce a statutory definition of charity. The meaning of charity and charitable purpose has not been previously comprehensively defined for the purposes of Commonwealth law. It has been administered on the basis of principles derived from the common law. The common law meaning has developed over 400 years, largely based on the preamble to the Statute of Charitable Uses, which is an English statute from 1601. The development of the definition of charity and charitable purpose through case law since that time has resulted in charity law that is in some areas unclear or inconsistent, or that does not adequately address matters relevant to the contemporary Australian charity sector. A statutory definition of charity and charitable purpose is a reform with a strong evidence base. It was first recommended in the report of the 2001 Inquiry into the Definition of Charities and Related Organisations and in later reports including Australia's Future Tax System Review in 2010. The Productivity Commission recommended in its 2010 report, Contribution of the not-for-profit sector, the introduction of a statutory definition in accordance with the recommendations of the 2001 inquiry. Charities are such an important part of the Australian community and deserve a modern regulatory framework which will support them as they grow into the future. Having a definition of charity set out in legislation will provide greater clarity and certainty for charities, the public and regulators in determining whether an entity is charitable. It will cut down on compliance costs for those wishing to establish charities and make the definition more accessible and easier to understand for the community. The definition aims to preserve common law principles, with some minor variations. The definition is informed by the 2001 inquiry, which identified principles underlying the common law. The definition also takes into account the findings of more recent judicial decisions that further clarify the meaning of charity, including the Aid/Watch decision which extended charities' ability to advance public debate. Importantly, the definition retains the flexibility inherent in the common law that enables the courts, as well as parliament, to continue to develop the definition within the statutory framework. This will ensure that the definition remains appropriate and reflects modern society and community needs as they evolve over time. The bill sets out the key principles for an entity to be a charity, including that it must be not for profit and have only charitable purposes except for any ancillary or incidental purposes that further or aid the charitable purpose. The charitable purposes must be for the public benefit. A purpose that an entity has is for the public benefit if the achievement of the purpose would be of public benefit, and the benefit from the purpose is available to members of the general public or a sufficient section of the general public. The nature of the benefit may be tangible or intangible. In limited circumstances there are exceptions to this principle. These apply to the purpose of relieving the necessitous circumstances of individuals or small numbers of individuals. It also applies in the case of open and non-discriminatory self-help groups and closed or contemplative religious groups. One departure from common law principles relates to entities with native title or other traditional rights in connection with the land. These entities, which might fail a public benefit test because they provide benefits only to indigenous individuals who are related, or have some other special relationship with the other potential benefit recipients, are treated as being for the public benefit in particular circumstances. Consistent with the common law, the statutory definition retains presumptions of benefit for certain charitable purposes. These purposes are the relief of poverty, distress and disadvantage of individuals or families; preventing and relieving sickness, disease or human suffering; the care and support of the aged and individuals with disabilities; advancing education; and advancing religion. The bill extends the presumption to the whole of the public benefit test for these purposes. Also consistent with the common law, the presumption ceases to apply where there is evidence to the contrary. The bill lists categories of charitable purposes. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather identifies purposes that have strong recognition in the common law. The bill reflects the Aid/Watch decision that charities may have a purpose to generate public debate about a charitable purpose. It allows for an entity to have a charitable purpose, including a sole purpose, of promoting or opposing a change in the law or government policy relevant to another charitable purpose. Another area where the bill extends common-law principles relates to the purpose of assisting rebuilding, repairing or securing assets after a disaster, in furtherance of the purposes of exempt entities within the meaning of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. This purpose is included within the charitable purpose of advancing social or public welfare. The effect of this is to extend existing charitable purposes to include re-establishing not-for-profit community assets after a disaster, independently of the relief of individual distress. Any benefits of a commercial or private nature must be only incidental or ancillary to re-establishing the community assets, and the assets must not be government assets. Given the destruction we have witnessed in recent years caused by natural disasters, this is a timely change to support rebuilding and reconstruction after a disaster. Under the bill, a purpose of engaging in, or promoting, activities which are unlawful or contrary to public policy is a disqualifying purpose. The bill clarifies that public policy in this context refers to matters such as the rule of law, the constitutional system of government of the Commonwealth, the safety of the general public and national security. Political parties are not charitable, and a purpose of promoting or opposing a political party or candidate for political office is a disqualifying purpose. This relates to direct partisan political engagement, and the bill provides that this does not apply to the purpose of distributing information or advancing debate about the policies of political parties or candidates for political office. By their nature, policy debates involve engagement with the political process, and the bill makes clear that charities are free to engage in policy debates by assessing, critiquing, comparing and ranking the policies of political parties and candidates for political office. The not-for-profit sector has been widely engaged in the development of the definition, with over 200 submissions on a public consultation paper in 2011 and further consultation on the draft bill. The government has been very responsive to issues raised during the consultation process, including in the most recent consultation on the draft bill. The government appreciates the extensive and significant contribution of the sector to the development of the definition and thanks all stakeholders for their valuable input. Their contribution will help ensure the definition supports and facilitates the important and significant contribution that charities make to the Australian community. Further details are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend this bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Charities (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 4244

Charities (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013

First Reading 4244 Second Reading 4244 10:53 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Charities (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 accompanies the Charities Bill 2013. It gives effect to the expanded number of categories of charitable purpose, includes transitional arrangements for streamlining registration of the subtypes of entities with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, and makes clear that the charitable status of certain entities that were charitable before the introduction of the statutory definition is preserved. The bill also makes consequential amendments to other legislation to ensure that the Commonwealth law operates as intended when the Charities Bill takes effect. I commend this bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Competition and Consumer Amendment Bill 2013 4244

Competition and Consumer Amendment Bill 2013

First Reading 4244 Second Reading 4244 10:55 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay (): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill will amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to enable regulations to be made to provide exemptions from the single pricing requirements in the Australian Consumer Law. The purpose of these amendments is to allow an exemption to be made for restaurant and cafe menu surcharges on specific days. The bill acts on a 2010 Productivity Commission recommendation to reduce the regulatory burden for small businesses in the restaurant sector. Restaurants and cafes are an important part of the Australian economy. As submissions on the draft bill noted, there are around 38,000 restaurants and cafes in Australia, generating more than $29 billion per annum. It is important that these businesses are not subject to any unnecessary regulatory burden. The single pricing requirements in the Australian Consumer Law prohibit businesses from stating a price that is only part of the cost, unless they also prominently advertise the single price for the good or service. The exemption will ensure that restaurants and cafes no longer need to provide a separate menu for days when they choose to apply a surcharge, such as on public holidays and weekends. The government is mindful of the need to ensure price transparency for consumers while also minimising compliance costs for small business. The amendments will achieve a reduction in the regulatory burden for small business while still ensuring that consumers have protection and clarity when ordering from restaurant and cafe menus. The positive impact of these amendments will be significant for small business and will enable many venues that are open on weekends and public holidays to continue to provide valuable service to consumers in major cities and regional areas. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 2) Bill 2013 4245

Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 2) Bill 2013

First Reading 4245 Second Reading 4245 10:58 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 system. Schedule 1 amends the tax lawsto require large entities in the pay as you go instalment system to make their instalments monthly, instead of quarterly. This change does not increase the tax liabilities of an entity, merely the frequency with which instalment amounts must be remitted to the Australian Taxation Office. These reforms will make Australia's tax system more responsive, efficient and consistent by better matching tax collections with the economic conditions faced by traders. It is the next step in the process to reform the timing of businesses' tax payments that began in the 1980s. Tax entities will migrate to the new system in four stages. Corporate tax entities with a turnover threshold of more than $1 billion will move to monthly instalments from 1 January 2014 and corporate tax entities with a turnover of more than $100 million will make the transition from 1 January 2015. Corporate tax entities with a turnover of $20 million, and all other tax entities with a turnover of $1 billion, will move from 1 January 2016. In the final stage, all other entities in the pay as you go regime with a turnover of more than $20 million will move to monthly instalments from 1 January 2017. The turnover test will apply to the current measure of income for pay as you go instalments: base assessment instalment income. To ensure that comparable entities receive the same treatment, entities in the taxation of financial arrangements regime will use an adjusted base assessment instalment income calculation. It will be based on their gross TOFA income, rather than their net TOFA income. Entities that do not report GST monthly will not be required to migrate to the monthly pay as you go system, unless they have turnover above $100 million or are the head company of a consolidated group. This reflects our aim of aligning large entities' pay as you go instalments with their GST reporting cycle. To further reduce compliance costs, the Commissioner of Taxation will have the power to develop alternative methods of calculating instalment income. The government will continue to work with the business community to identify options to simplify the pay as you go instalment regime and reduce compliance costs. Schedule 2 amends various taxation laws and the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008 to introduce a tax loss incentive for designated infrastructure projects. This measure will encourage private sector investment in nationally significant infrastructure such as roads, rail and ports. It will do this by preserving the value of infrastructure project losses over time and exempting these losses from utilisation tests that normally apply. Infrastructure Australia will play a critical role in designating infrastructure projects that will benefit from this new measure. Examples of projects that could benefit include the transformational Brisbane Cross River Rail, Sydney Motorways and Melbourne Metro projects. I note that the government announced significant contributions to both of these projects in this year's Budget, and this measure will help attract private sector support. This is another Labor government initiative which builds on our impressive infrastructure record. Already, we've allocated more than $60 billion for nation building infrastructure, and delivered major reforms to the way the nation plans, finances and builds infrastructure. Schedules 3 and 4 amend the Tax Agent Services Act 2009 to bring entities that provide tax agent services in the course of providing advice of a kind that is usually provided by a financial services licensee or a representative of a financial services licensee within the regulatory regime of the Tax Practitioners Board. This ensures the appropriate regulation of all forms of tax advice, whether it is provided by a tax agent, a BAS agent or an entity in the financial services industry. I note that the Tax Practitioners Board has been working closely and consulting with relevant entities, including the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, about how it would administer this new regulatory regime to minimise compliance costs for those in the financial services industry. Schedules 3 and 4 also amend the Tax Agent Services Act2009 to correct a range of anomalies identified in the act. Schedule 5 amends the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to increase the transparency of Australia's business tax system. There is growing concern—in Australia and globally—that many of the key rules of international taxation may not have kept pace with the evolution of the global economy. The apparent ease with which some large corporate entities can shift taxable profits and erode a country's tax base is a shared concern for this government, the G20 and most OECD countries. Policy makers and the Australian public should have more transparency around the levels of tax being paid by large and multinational businesses in Australia to allow for an informed debate about the efficiency and equity of our tax system. This is particularly the case when there are increasing demands for the government to provide evidence about the challenges that base erosion and profit shifting present to the sustainability of our corporate tax system. By increasing the transparency of our business tax system, the government will ensure that the public is well informed about the contributions made by large corporations. This is also intended to discourage aggressive tax minimisation practices by large and multinational businesses. The amendments in this schedule impose a duty on the Commissioner of Taxation to publish certain information obtained from the tax returns of corporate tax entities that have an annual total income of $100 million or more. The Commissioner will have a separate duty to publish the amount of an entity's Minerals Resource Rent Tax or Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) payable as reported by the entity, regardless of its total income. Schedule 5 also allows for the publication of periodic aggregate tax collection information irrespective of whether the number of corporate entities paying a particular tax may be small. In addition, schedule 5 enhances information sharing between government agencies in relation to decisions under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act1975 and Australia's Foreign Investment Policy. Schedule 6 amends the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act 1987 to provide certainty to industry following the full Federal Court's decision in Esso Australia Resources Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation. The amendments ensure that PRRT taxpayers are able to deduct legitimate expenditures, consistent with the policy intent of the PRRT regime. These amendments will: ensure the capacity for taxpayers to apportion expenditure consistent with the PRRT's policy intent; allow PRRT taxpayers to deduct expenditure incurred under contracts for project services or operations where the taxpayer is unrelated to the contractor, consistent with past administration; but preserve the requirement to look through contract arrangements where the contractor is a commercially or operationally related entity. These amendments ensure that the PRRT continues to operate as a profits-based tax. Schedule 7 amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to remove eligibility for the 50 per cent discount on capital gains accrued after 8 May 2012 by foreign and temporary resident individuals on taxable Australian property, such as real estate and mining assets. The discount is not necessary to attract investment from foreign and temporary resident individuals into these assets, which are immobile. Removal of the discount is consistent with the findings of Australia's Future Tax System review on the taxation of immobile capital. Foreign resident individuals will still be entitled to a 50 per cent discount on discount capital gains accrued prior to 8 May 2012 (after offsetting any capital losses), provided they choose to value the asset as at that time. Schedule 8 exempts from income tax payments made to individuals under the Defence Abuse Reparation Scheme. The government's intent is to recognise, by way of a reparation payment, persons who have made plausible allegations of being subjected to sexual or other forms of abuse in Defence. This recognises the fact that abuse in Defence is unacceptable and wrong. Exempting these payments from tax will ensure that recipients will receive the full benefit of the payments. The income tax exemption will also ensure that the reparation payment does not reduce peoples' social security payments, such as parental leave, family assistance and child support payments. Exempting these payments also ensures consistency with the approach taken by the government in relation to the Deseal/​Reseal Payment Scheme in 2006. Schedule 9 amends the GST law to establish the framework for making certain services and other things supplied to a participant as part of the National Disability Insurance Scheme under the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 GST-free. The amendment will provide certainty for providers of services to National Disability Insurance Scheme participants by allowing the disability services minister to make a determination specifying certain supplies to be GST—free when they are included in the participant's National Disability Insurance Scheme plan, allowing for flexibility as circumstances change. These amendments will apply in relation to supplies made on or after the commencement of section 37 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013, subject to State and Territory agreement to the making of the necessary determination. Schedule 10 amends the list of deductible gift recipients identified by name in Division 30 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. Donations made to organisations with deductible gift recipient status are income tax deductible to the donor and therefore deductible gift recipient status will assist the listed organisations in attracting public support for their activities. This schedule adds five new organisations to the act, namely, Aurora Education Foundation Limited, United Way Australia, Australian Neighbourhood Houses & Centres Association (ANHCA) Inc., The Australia Foundation in support of Human Rights Watch Limited and Layne Beachley—Aim for the Stars Foundation Limited, and extends the time period for listing of The Charlie Perkins Scholarship Trust and the Roberta Sykes Indigenous Education Foundation. Finally, schedule 11 to this bill makes a number of miscellaneous amendments to the taxation and superannuation laws. The government often progresses miscellaneous amendments schedules, such as this, to give effect to its long-standing commitment to the care and maintenance of the taxation and superannuation systems. Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Banking Amendment (Unclaimed Money) Bill 2013 4248

Banking Amendment (Unclaimed Money) Bill 2013

First Reading 4248 Second Reading 4248 11:11 Mr RIPOLL 83E Oxley (): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Schedule 1 of the bill amends the Banking Act 1959 to exclude 'reactivated accounts' (accounts that have been assessed unclaimed but are transacted prior to be transferred to the Commonwealth) from being transferred to the Commonwealth and to allow the Commonwealth to return moneys collected unnecessarily to authorised deposit-taking institutions (ADIs). The government provided a transitional arrangement to ADIs assisting them to implement the legislative changes made late last year, which allow them to choose an assessment date between 31 December 2012 and 30 May 2013 for unclaimed bank accounts. I am advised that some ADIs have implemented the changes on the basis of an assessment date that has already passed but have subsequently allowed transactions on accounts which were unclaimed as at the assessment date. The holders of these accounts may think that they have reactivated their accounts and consequently they would not be transferred to the Commonwealth. However, under the current legislation, ADIs are required to report and transfer unclaimed moneys, including reactivated accounts, to the Commonwealth as at the reporting date. The legislation amendments will allow ADIs to exclude reactivated accounts from their reports and transfers of unclaimed moneys to the government. This will ensure reactivated accounts are not transferred to the government unnecessarily. The amendments will also allow the government to provide refunds directly to ADIs for moneys collected unnecessarily. Full details of the amendments in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. DisabilityCare Australia Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013 4249

DisabilityCare Australia Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013

First Reading 4249 Second Reading 4249 11:14 Mr RIPOLL 83E Oxley I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The DisabilityCare Australia Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013 will give effect to the DisabilityCare Australia Fund Bill that was passed by parliament in the sitting week of 13 May 2013. These consequential amendments ensure that the government's commitment to provide the funding for DisabilityCare Australia through an increase to the Medicare levy can be put into operation. On 1 May 2013 the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Disability Reform announced that the government would increase the Medicare levy by half a percentage point from 1.5 to two per cent of taxable income. The establishment of the DisabilityCare Australia Fund requires a number of consequential amendments to other pieces of legislation to establish the effective operation of the fund. The DisabilityCare Australia Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill will amend the COAG Reform Fund Act 2008, the Future Fund Act 2006 and the Nation-building Funds Act 2008. The matters dealt with by the bill are largely to include the DisabilityCare Australia Fund into those acts. It will enable reimbursements to the states and territories through the COAG Reform Fund and also facilitate the management of the DisabilityCare Australia Fund by the Future Fund. This DisabilityCare Australia Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill should be supported as it facilitates the operations of the DisabilityCare Australia Fund, which is endorsed by this parliament. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 4250 COMMITTEES Public Accounts and Audit Committee 4250 Report 4250 11:16 Mr OAKESHOTT IYS Lyne On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit I present the following reports: Report 436: Review of the 2011-12 Defence Materiel Organisation major projects report; and Report 437: Review of Auditor-General's reports Nos 2 to 10 (2012-13). In accordance with standing order 39(f) the reports were made parliamentary papers. Mr OAKESHOTT IYS by leave—The first report I have tabled today is the committee's Review of the 2011-12 Defence Materiel Organisation major projects report. This was the fifth annual major projects report to be produced by the audit office and the DMO. This year's report covers 29 projects with a combined budget of over $47 billion. The committee's aim in reviewing the MPR is to help to maximise transparency and accountability in the Defence acquisition process. The committee has made a range of recommendations directed towards this. Out of courtesy, the committee's deputy chair will shortly seek leave to make some additional comments on this report and its recommendations. I will focus my comments on the review of the Auditor-General's reports on the Indigenous programs. The committee reviewed three audit reports on government programs and services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians—the second report that I have tabled today. These are important days for Australia as we try to reconcile many issues for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and how Australian public policy does or does not deliver. Want for better is strong, and effort is commendable. Despite more success stories in recent times in service delivery and community empowerment, the frustrations of failure remain unacceptably high. On reviewing nine reports presented to the parliament by the Auditor-General between August and November 2012 the committee concentrated its detailed scrutiny on an audit of the Australian government coordination arrangements for Indigenous programs. The committee extended the scope of its inquiry to include two other audit reports tabled by the Auditor-General earlier in 2012 which were similarly focused on the delivery of services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The committee chose to focus on this topic due to: firstly, our responsibility to verify that the large amounts of government spending in this area are efficient and effective; secondly, the need to make sure public policy is helping to empower Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in the best way possible; and, thirdly, the fact that the focus on coordination issues gets to the heart of what needs to be done to improve the availability and accessibility of services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. A key message from the committee's review of the three audits was the need for stronger, clearer and more effective leadership across government. This requires a lead agency for Indigenous affairs with authority, and a clear mandate to oversee expenditure, monitor outcomes, define priorities and drive actions at a whole-of-government level. FaHCSIA has made commendable progress recently in approving the level of coordination between government agencies. However, the committee was not convinced that the current arrangements provided the authority needed to drive outcomes as effectively as possible. With this in mind, the committee has recommended that the Prime Minister commission a review of leadership and collaboration arrangements for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs, with a goal of strengthening the authority of the lead agency to drive outcomes across departments. The committee has also recommended an explicit, whole-of-government strategy for: capacity development to overcome the current, piecemeal approach to this issue; improvements to the availability of location based data on Indigenous expenditure and outcomes; updates on efforts to measure outcomes in priority remote service delivery communities; and options to be pursued for improving Indigenous representation in decision-making processes. Of course, what matters most is results. As a nation we are progressing on a long road of correcting open wounds of the past and finding ways to walk together in the future. For all of us, an Australian culture celebrating 40,000 years has so much more strength than one confined to 200-odd years. Finding ways to achieve this under, within and around existing Crown law is our great challenge. I am pleased that there have recently been signs of real progress being made in some areas. Sustained efforts to improve leadership and coordination in Indigenous service delivery will be central to this progress being built upon into the future. On behalf of the committee I sincerely thank the organisations and individuals who participated in this inquiry for their time and their valuable input. I also thank the committee secretariat once again for its very good work in putting up with all committee MPs. I commend the reports to the House. 11:22 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra by leave—As the chair of the committee has just mentioned, the 2011-12 Major Projects Report was the fifth to be produced by the Defence Materiel Organisation in conjunction with the Australian National Audit Office. Over the past five years, the report has grown into a valuable tool for enhancing the transparency and accessibility of information available on Australia's largest defence projects. The committee's review of the 2011-12 MPR consisted of a public hearing attended by the DMO and the Audit Office, and a range of written questions to the DMO. This year's Major Projects Report included the results of a survey of external stakeholders, commissioned by the DMO, on the use by and value of the report. Although the response rate to the survey was low, the results indicate that the MPR is generally seen as a valuable asset for improving the accessibility of information. However, the results also suggest that more can be done to improve the transparency, clarity and accuracy of information in the report. Improving these aspects of the report was the focus of the committee's recommendations in the report tabled today. The committee's review also examined the presentation of financial information in the report; project schedule slippage; and DMO governance and business processes. The committee has made recommendations aimed at: supporting the development of meaningful project financial assurance statements; disclosing information on the expenditure of project contingency funds; improving consistency in the application of project 'maturity scores'; and taking a more strategic approach to business systems improvements. The committee also examined the issue of enhancing the existing level of public reporting on the DMO's sustainment of capability functions. This is an area I am particularly interested in. Sustainment is expected to take up more than 50 per cent of the DMO's budget in 2013-14, yet the current level of reporting on sustainment is limited to a small amount of high-level performance and expenditure information on the DMO's top 20 sustainment products. Following questions from committee members, the DMO has now agreed to increase its reporting to cover the top 30 sustainment products. However, the committee remains concerned that, while this proposal may increase the breadth of reporting, it does nothing to increase its depth. The committee has recommended that the Department of Defence report back to it, prior to the final sittings of the 43rd Parliament in June, on how it intends to increase the transparency of sustainment information. There are examples, I understand, of other defence agencies throughout the world which provide a greater depth of information on sustainment elements of projects, acknowledging the sensitivity of these areas and the fact that quite often we are in operational environments here and so it is particularly important that we balance those sensitivities with the need for greater transparency. In closing, I would like to sincerely thank agency representatives who were involved in this inquiry for their cooperative approach in support of the committee's role of scrutinising the spending of public money. 11:25 Mr OAKESHOTT IYS Lyne by leave—I present executive minutes on reports Nos 430 and 431 of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. BILLS 4252 BILLS Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 1) Bill 2013 4252

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

Second Reading 4252 11:26 Mr TONY SMITH 00APG Casey I rise on behalf of the shadow Treasurer to speak on this Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 1) Bill. The bill has three schedules. Firstly, it seeks to strengthen integrity rules for scrip-for-scrip rollover in relation to small business and other concessions. Secondly, it seeks to provide tax exemption status for certain ex gratia payments for natural disasters. Thirdly, it seeks to extend tax deductibility status to ethics education. In relation to the third schedule the coalition has a number of reservations in relation to the broad drafting, and in the consideration in detail stage we will seek to remove this schedule from the bill. This was foreshadowed yesterday by our shadow Assistant Treasurer, Senator Mathias Cormann. First, let me deal with the first two schedules. The first schedule seeks to amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to ensure that certain integrity rules in the small business concessions and the scrip-for-scrip rollover apply to life insurance companies, superannuation funds and trusts in the same way that they apply to other types of entities. Scrip-for-scrip rollover is where a company is allowed to defer a capital gains tax gain until a later CGT event happens with its shares. The connected entity test in the small business entity provisions ensures that assets and turnover of related entities are taken into account in determining whether the limits for access to the relevant small business concessions have been exceeded. The significant in-common stakeholder tests contained in the CGT scrip-for-scrip rollover are designed to ensure that an entity that has a sufficiently high level of ownership in both the original and acquiring entity cannot use the rollover to defer tax indefinitely on the disposal of the underlying assets of the original entity. The changes contained in schedule 1 of this bill seek to ensure that the small business connected entity test and the CGT scrip-for-scrip rollover stakeholder tests apply on the basis of who owns relevant interests in the entity rather than who benefits from those interests. Schedule 1 to this bill ensures that these integrity rules and the capital gains tax provisions more generally are applied as if absolutely entitled beneficiaries, bankrupt individuals, companies in liquidation and security providers are the owners of relevant assets. That is, in these provisions the nominal owners are looked through to the underlying owners of such assets. These changes are largely integrity measures, as the coalition recognises. The scrip-for-scrip rollover integrity provisions that apply to individuals and companies also apply to trusts, superannuation funds and life insurance companies. Some trusts, superannuation funds and life insurance companies consider the integrity provisions do not apply to them because, as the stakeholders, they own the interest for the benefit of others—that is, the beneficiaries—rather than for their own benefit. The government claims this was never the intended interpretation of the integrity provisions. Following the release of the government's 2013-14 budget, which showed a marked deterioration in budget settings, the coalition announced that we reserve the right to accept all savings put forward in previous budgets that were yet to be legislated. This falls into that category. The integrity rule changes are retrospective and align with the date these changes were announced—being 10 May 2011—and, from the 2011-12 budget, to transactions that occur from the time of that announcement. The look-through treatment provisions were announced on 8 May 2012 as part of the 2012-13 budget. The look-through treatment provisions, whilst potentially retrospective, do not disadvantage taxpayers as they are optional until the commencement of these provisions. The measures are worth $220 million in additional revenue for the budget over the forward estimates and, as stated at the outset, the coalition will not oppose these changes. Schedule 2 to the bill also amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to exempt from income tax the disaster income recovery subsidy for people who have lost income as a result of disasters occurring across Australia during the period 3 January this year to 30 September this year. The coalition is of course supportive of the schedule. Schedule 3 seeks to add a new deductible gift recipient category to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. It seeks to extend tax deductibility to donations to public funds established solely for providing education in ethics in government schools in Australia as an alternative to religious instruction, where the ethics education to be provided is in accordance with state or territory law. Currently, the tax laws contain a deductible gift recipient general category for organisations which provide religious instruction in government schools but there is no category for ethics classes. As I foreshadowed at the outset, as drafted, the coalition has reservations in relation to this schedule of the bill. As the shadow Assistant Treasurer, Senator Cormann, said yesterday, the coalition has no philosophical objection to ethics classes, but we do not think that it is appropriate at this point that a whole new category be created. The coalition believes that the government's proposal to introduce an entire new general category of deductible gift recipients in relation to ethics education is too rushed—as has often been the case—and too broad. At present there is one provider of relevant services nationally, Primary Ethics, who provide services in one state only, and that is New South Wales. There is a method available under the current income tax laws now to provide DGR status to that organisation if the government chose to specifically propose the listing of that organisation. Given that there is only one provider who sought such a listing and was rejected by the government, it would seem more appropriate to consider these requests on a case-by-case basis rather than open up a whole new category at this point in time. In this context, the implications of starting a whole new category, instead of approving the one listing requested, need more careful consideration. For that reason, the coalition will move in the consideration in detail stage to excise this schedule from the bill. In conclusion, as stated at the outset, we will not be opposing the bill. We acknowledge the integrity measures put forward by the government within schedule 1 in relation to the integrity rules for scrip-for-scrip in its application to life insurance companies, superannuation funds and trusts in the same way they apply to other types of entities. We also welcome tax exemption for natural disasters, contained in schedule 2 of this bill. For the reasons that I have outlined, the coalition will be seeking in the consideration in detail stage to move an amendment to remove schedule 3 from the bill. 11:34 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay I would like to thank the member for Casey for his contribution to the Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 1) Bill 2013, although I will take issue with a number of the things that he said in his contribution. 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. I now turn to subsidy payments made in response to the natural disasters occurring in Queensland, New South Wales and Tasmania during early 2013. In the wake of recent disasters it is important that these payments are tax free. Exempting these payments from tax maximises the value of the payments so that people can get on with the job of cleaning up after the floods and fires. Exempting these payments from tax also ensures consistency with previous disaster relief payments that were also tax exempt. In addition, the tax exemption of all future disaster income recovery subsidy payments for natural disasters occurring up until 30 September 2013 will ensure that such payments receive a consistent tax treatment. From 1 October 2013, the disaster recovery allowance will replace the current disaster income recovery subsidy payment. This will establish a permanent means-tested solution to providing disaster assistance to workers, small business people and farmers who experience a loss of income as a direct result of a future disaster. Schedule 3 to the bill extends the general deductible gift recipient categories in the gift provisions in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to include public funds established solely for the purpose of providing ethics education in government schools as an alternative to religious instruction where ethics education is in accordance with state or territory law. The amendment will allow taxpayers to claim an income tax deduction for donations made to these funds that are endorsed by the Commissioner of Taxation and will assist these entities in attracting donations. The opposition has said that they will propose an amendment that removes schedule 3. They prefer an approach whereby every organisation which is seeking deductible gift recipient status to support the provision of ethics classes in government schools would need to apply to be specifically named in the tax laws. This is a complex and time-consuming process involving a parliamentary amendment every time a new organisation is specifically listed. Perhaps that is exactly what the opposition want—to make it harder for new providers of ethics classes in government schools to be established and to obtain donations. Perhaps there is some sort of hidden agenda here. What we are proposing is a better, simpler and more principled way of providing DGR status to eligible organisations. Under our approach, eligible organisations would make an application to the ATO rather than having to try and secure a parliamentary amendment. This will be important as new organisations are established over time to teach ethics classes in government schools. The Liberal Party claims to be a party that supports choice, but again they have demonstrated that these are just empty and hollow words with no basis in fact. This announcement that they will be amending the bill to pull this schedule out has one very real impact, and the real impact that it will have is to deny organisations that provide ethics-based instruction in our schools from the ability to raise funds with donations that are tax deductible. That is the principle that is at stake here. It is an important principle, because the organisation that has come to the government seeking that this matter be addressed is Primary Ethics, operating in New South Wales and permitted under New South Wales law to ensure that parents who have children in government schools, who do not wish to participate in scripture-based or religion-based instruction, have the choice. They have the option of allowing their children to participate in ethics-based instruction. The application made was for specific listing. But one of the key considerations that the government must take into account when considering any application for specific listing is the precedent value of that decision. Indeed, every person that has sat in the Assistant Treasurer's chair in the past, and no doubt every person that will get the opportunity to do so in the future, will know that whilst it is always open to a government to come into this place and to specifically amend division 30 of the Income Tax Act and to specifically identify an organisation, that should be a process of last resort, because obviously the tax act cannot be filled up with every single organisation seeking to have the benefit of DGR status. I note that the shadow Assistant Treasurer was asked about this on radio today, and before I come to the comments that he made on radio, I make this point. Under division 30 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, we currently have a category available for people to bring forward organisations and obtain the benefit of DGR status, a category that is addressed towards the provision of religious instruction in schools. So any organisation that complies with the requirements of a category can go to the Taxation Commissioner and ask to be endorsed as a DGR entity and from that day forward all of the contributions will be tax deductible. That assists organisations to raise funds. That is already in the law. Indeed, when the New South Wales government took the decision to allow ethics instruction to occur, they made this point: they would not be providing one dollar of assistance to that organisation, Primary Ethics, because no money was provided to religious organisations that were carrying out religious-based instruction in schools. So the New South Wales government took the view—and the former New South Wales government was endorsed by the O'Farrell government when they came into office—that there should not be a different set of rules for religious-based instruction as there are for ethics-based instruction, and that is precisely what we are doing. That is the principle that is at stake and that is the principle that this parliamentary amendment will enshrine. When the shadow Assistant Treasurer was asked about this on 702 ABC this morning, he said, 'In principle I support that we put ethical education on the same footing as other similar providers, for sure.' If that is his sentiment, he should be supporting this parliamentary amendment, this bill. He should be supporting it because this is not just about Primary Ethics, this is about organisations who are seeking to provide ethics-based instruction in our schools. It is a very tightly and narrowly targeted provision that we are seeking to put into the tax act so that this will not be exploited by organisations willy-nilly. I find it incomprehensible that the opposition can assert that they support that principle of extending the opportunity for ethics-based instruction in our schools, yet they come in here and they are proposing to take a schedule out of this bill, leaving the currently existing organisation, Primary Ethics, without the benefit of DGR status and we know that the organisation has been on the public record saying that the funding arrangements they currently have are threatening their existence. They need this support to continue to be able to provide ethics-based instruction in our schools, and the proposal from the opposition is, 'We do not think that we should deal with it at this point in time.' All of those hardworking volunteers and all of the parents whose children are beneficiaries of the work of Primary Ethics need to understand that what the Liberal Party is proposing is tantamount to bringing to an end the existence of this organisation that is doing some good work in our community and in our schools. I make the point that if indeed the opposition are committed to supporting the principle that ethics based instruction organisations should be afforded the same treatment as other organisations—that is, religious organisations that currently obtain the benefit of DGR status—then there is absolutely no reason why they should do anything other than support the bill that is before the House. If members opposite have concerns about organisations that they think might be slipped in under this category, then they should detail them. Let us understand what your concerns are. Let there be no doubt that, in taking the course of action you are taking, you will be denying Primary Ethics the ability to obtain DGR status and you will be killing off an organisation that is doing wonderful things in schools in New South Wales. I look forward to consideration in detail of this bill, because I am eagerly awaiting some indication from the member for Casey of these nefarious organisations that he has concerns about, that he fears might be able to come in under the new category and that would be funded. Which are the organisations that he believes will somehow get the benefit of DGR status that we are not currently aware of? It is very simple: they are organisations that are providing ethics-based instruction. If the Liberal Party are opposed to ethics-based instruction in our schools, they should just say so. They should not come in here, hiding behind a Mickey Mouse amendment that will effectively kill off an organisation that is doing some fantastic work in our community and in our schools, simply because they have some ideological objection to the work that they are doing. The truth is that, if you go down the path of specific listing, every single ethics based instruction organisation that wants to obtain the benefit of DGR status and that so-called equal treatment—and Senator Cormann said the principle was equal treatment for similar organisations—they need to lobby the government of the day to move an amendment to the law. Those other organisations do not need to do that. It is an administrative process where they go to the tax commissioner and, if their documentation and their bona fides stack up, they get the tick of approval and are a DGR status organisation. This is just ridiculous and incomprehensible, and I call upon the member for Casey in consideration in detail to detail in full his concerns about which organisations he believes the benefit of DGR status will be extended to and which ones he objects to. If he cannot detail them, then he should withdraw the amendments that he is proposing to move and support the government's bill. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail 4257 11:47 Mr TONY SMITH 00APG Casey by leave—I move coalition amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit the table item. (2) Schedule 3, page 11 (lines 1 to 10), omit the Schedule. As I outlined in my speech on the second reading, the coalition is moving to excise schedule 3 from this bill. Amendments (1) and (2) give effect to that. Let me reiterate a couple of things for the benefit of the shadow Assistant Treasurer, and I will deal with some of the points he made. As he articulated, this legislation seeks to introduce a whole new general category. Currently, there is one provider nationally in Australia and that is Primary Ethics. We note that the explanatory memorandum to the bill provides that New South Wales example as the only one, with no reference to any other state or territory. As I previously stated, this one provider has sought a listing and it was rejected by the current government. As Senator Cormann outlined yesterday, the coalition has no philosophical objection to ethics classes but did not think it was appropriate that we have this whole new category created at this point without proper consideration of all the issues. I want to point out a few things to the Assistant Treasurer regarding what he said in his long speech of rebuttal to our position on this. He first said that Mathias Cormann, our shadow Assistant Treasurer, had confirmed that we have no philosophical objection and yet he accused him of having a philosophical objection. The Assistant Treasurer will, quite predictably, cast any aspersions on any scrutiny but, when it comes to his conduct of tax laws amendment bills, he is the Captain Chaos of Assistant Treasurers. We have seen time and time again—and I deal with a lot of these tax laws amendment bills— Mr Bradbury interjecting— Mr TONY SMITH 00APG I did interrupt you once or twice but, I think, on a tax laws amendment bill— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 140651 Order! Please speak through the chair and can we come to the amendments, in particular. Mr TONY SMITH 00APG Madam Deputy Speaker, I am trying to do that, but I would point out that the Assistant Treasurer is interjecting when we are dealing with something as serious as a tax laws amendment bill. I think it would be a lot better for the House and for him if he actually concentrated, instead of yabbering on while we are dealing with the amendments. I am going to deal with a couple of issues that he raised. I am going to repeat what I said in my speech on the second reading. The coalition think it is more appropriate to consider these requests on a case-by-case basis rather than to open a new category at this point. There is one provider. That one provider has been rejected by the government. This government's track record of getting things wrong in tax laws amendment bills is endless. I deal with a lot of these tax laws amendment bills and, in bill after bill, there are schedules correcting this minister's previous mistakes. He says that if this general category is not created, the one provider— Mr Bradbury HVW Name them. Mr TONY SMITH 00APG The more you interject— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 140651 Order! Speak through the chair, and the minister will refrain from interrupting. Mr TONY SMITH 00APG Thank you, Deputy Speaker. As to that provider, it is not the case that, if this general category is rejected, that provider cannot be listed; they can be listed on a case-by-case basis; they can come forward to the government. On this point, the Assistant Treasurer would have you believe that a listing of this nature on the DGR is as rare as a Labor surplus. I dealt with a tax law amendment bill yesterday that listed six organisations. I do not think he knows a lot about tax law but I will say this: he knows, because he introduced the bill, that there would not be a tax law amendment bill—or if there were it would be very rare—that does not list a number of organisations, and we would deal with six, eight or 10 tax law amendment bills each year. Yesterday, just in one day, six were listed. So he should not come into this House with this absolute furphy that because there is one provider seeking listing he has to create a whole new category because it is too hard to list one organisation and it might be too hard for him to list another one in the weeks or months ahead— (Time expired) 11:53 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay As I said earlier, there is a principle involved, and the principle is quite simple. It is a principle that Senator Cormann in an interview today confirmed he supports. If he supports the principle, he and his party should support the bill. If I look in division 30 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, it refers to one of the categories being a public fund established and maintained solely for the purpose of providing religious instruction in government schools in Australia. If the principle is that the same entitlements available to religious instruction in schools should be extended to ethics-based instruction, then it should not matter whether there is one or 1,000 organisations providing ethics-based instruction. As a matter of principle a new category should be established, and that is what we are proposing. As to this furphy about the specific listing, let me make this point: if the member for Casey is suggesting that the way we deal with all DGR applications is for government to make a case-by-case decision, then presumably he is going to repeal every category that currently exists in the act. We create categories. They are policy decisions that government takes so that you do not have to come into this place and move an amendment to the law to give DGR status to an organisation that fits within certain parameters. We allow that to be done as an administrative matter by the Commissioner of Taxation. We are achieving equity between organisations. We are determined to do that, because we think that these organisations are doing good work that should be supported. It is a policy decision we have taken: we think that organisations of this sort, provided they tick the boxes and their bona fides are approved by the Commissioner of Taxation, should be able to raise funds that are tax deductible. If the opposition do not support that principle, fair enough. What that means is: they do not support the principle of providing DGR status to organisations that provide ethics-based instruction in our schools. They should say that. But that is not what Senator Cormann said in his interview today. We heard all the huff and puff from the member for Casey, but I defy him to tell me about all these tax bills that I have introduced that he reckons have a problem. If there is a problem, the problem is that he votes against these bills when we are trying to crack down on loopholes. Big businesses are ripping money out of the tax system, eroding our base, and shifting profits, and they sit over there, idly, on their hands, allowing multinationals to fleece the Australian tax base. Because, if there is a rort, a rip-off or a loophole, the Liberal Party will be there, holding hands with the exploiters; that is what they do. We are out there cracking down on them. And if the member opposite suggests that somehow the bills that I have brought into this place— Mr Tony Smith 00APG Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There are two points: (1) the minister is not speaking to the bill; and (2) I ask that he withdraw his last, despicable, accusation that we on this side of the House are siding with— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 140651 The member for Casey will take his seat. The minister will withdraw, to assist the House— Mr BRADBURY HVW I withdraw, to assist the House— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 140651 and return to the amendments. Mr BRADBURY HVW but the voting record of those opposite is clear for all to see. I make the point that, if you seriously do not have an objection to organisations offering ethics-based instruction in schools obtaining the benefit of DGR status, then why do you want to make every single organisation that might exist in the future have to go through the hurdles? These processes take months, if not years. This application from Primary Ethics has been in the system for years. And all specific listing applications take a period of time to progress. Those opposite say they are the party of deregulation and of removing regulatory burdens. Why on earth must this be a process that the parliament has to deal with on a case-by-case basis? Is the member for Casey honestly suggesting that there is something so insidious about these types of organisations that we should have to scrutinise them in this place one by one? Doesn't he trust the tax commissioner to do that? Frankly, this is ridiculous. For those opposite, it is for whatever ideological reasons, and if it is not ideology it is just their commitment to being negative about everything, because there is absolutely no justification for this ridiculous position that they have taken. I will just conclude by making this point. If the opposition's amendment gets up, Primary Ethics—the only organisation providing ethics-based instruction in schools in the country—will be denied DGR status. And the opposition have not given any indication of whether or not, in government, they would even provide a specific listing. That, of course, at the very earliest, is not going to be for several months. This organisation needs deductible gift recipient status in order to continue to be viable. To do what you are doing is to destroy Primary Ethics. 11:58 Mr TONY SMITH 00APG Casey Let me just reiterate a couple of points. Let me firstly deal with the Assistant Treasurer's broad-ranging, uncontrollable attack on everything the coalition stands for. I think it does him no service at all and just confirms that, when it comes to the detail of these tax law administration bills, he is incapable of clear-headed assessment of these matters; he is certainly incapable of consultation. But I am going to reiterate, for the benefit of the House and if not for his benefit—and I am still hopeful—that we have articulated very clearly that we have no philosophical objection to ethics classes. We have also said that with only one provider in the country it is better these be considered on a case-by-case basis rather than by creating a whole new category at this point in time. I am going to amplify what I said before about the regularity of GDR status listings in tax law administration. Mr Bradbury interjecting— Mr TONY SMITH 00APG I apologise; I am sorry, Assistant Treasurer. We're concentrating so that's a start! As I said, there were six yesterday. I would guess there would be 30 to 40 each year. Some tax law administration bills have a few; some have a dozen. As to his point about the one organisation that exists, there is one and it can be considered on a case-by-case basis at this point. We are not going to accept his false motives. We are not going to accept the fact that he will always resort to political attack, rather than look at the specifics of an issue. There is one organisation and it can be considered on a case-by-case basis. Everything he says about the implications of excising this particular schedule is false. He knows that. When he talks about the listing process, he signs off on the bills with the listing and, if I am correct—and he will be able to inform me whether I am correct—I think that new organisation that is up there in the press gallery and is with the universities, The Conversation, was listed this week. Wasn't it, Assistant Treasurer? The DEPUTY SPEAKER 140651 Through the chair if you can, Member for Casey. Mr TONY SMITH 00APG I will assume it was. I think I saw it on the list there yesterday, and that is an organisation that has been running a few months. At this point in time we have made it clear it should be done on a case-by-case basis. I am sorry the minister resorts to false motives. We have made our position clear. It is for those reasons that we have moved to excise this schedule from the bill. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 140651 The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

The House divided. [12:06]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)

 70 AYES Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Baldwin, RC Billson, BF Bishop, BK Bishop, JI Briggs, JE Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Cobb, JK Coulton, M (teller) Crook, AJ Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Fletcher, PW Forrest, JA Frydenberg, JA Gambaro, T Gash, J Griggs, NL Haase, BW Hartsuyker, L Hawke, AG Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Jensen, DG Jones, ET Katter, RC Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Ley, SP Macfarlane, IE Marino, NB Markus, LE Matheson, RG McCormack, MF Mirabella, S Morrison, SJ Moylan, JE Neville, PC O'Dowd, KD 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 Wyatt, KG 71 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 Crean, SF Danby, M D'Ath, YM Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Ferguson, LDT Ferguson, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Garrett, PR Georganas, S Gibbons, SW Gray, G Grierson, SJ Griffin, AP Hall, JG 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 Roxon, NL Rudd, KM Saffin, JA Shorten, WR Sidebottom, PS Smith, SF Smyth, L Swan, WM Symon, MS Thomson, CR Thomson, KJ Vamvakinou, M Wilkie, AD Windsor, AHC Zappia, A 4 PAIRS Abbott, AJ Gillard, JE Hockey, JB Combet, GI Somlyay, AM Snowdon, WE Washer, MJ Emerson, C

Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 Third Reading 4261 12:11 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. Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Increased Concessional Contributions Cap and Other Measures) Bill 2013, Superannuation (Sustaining the Superannuation Contribution Concession) Imposition Bill 2013 4262

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

Superannuation (Sustaining the Superannuation Contribution Concession) Imposition Bill 2013

Second Reading 4262 12:12 Mr TONY SMITH 00APG Casey Let me say at the outset the coalition will not oppose these bills, even though they contain a tax increase on superannuation. The coalition made it clear in response to Labor's budget that while many of its measures are objectionable, the coalition reserves the right to implement Labor's measures if needed as part of our pathway back to surplus. Australia cannot keep running up record debt and deficits. There is a fundamental difference between the coalition and Labor. We believe that governments, like families and businesses, have to live within their means. We will have a commission of audit so that government is only as big as it needs to be to do what people cannot do for themselves. At least for the first term, until we are on an honest path of not just a surplus but repaying debt, an incoming coalition government will resist new spending commitments that are not fully funded—nearly always by offsetting expenditure reductions. Our funding commitments stand in contrast to Labor's record of broken promises to Australian families. These bills contain a tax increase on superannuation that the coalition would not wish to see in place, but due to years of mismanagement we have been left with little choice. The bill also makes technical changes to the low-income super contribution, a payment this government cannot afford because they have linked it to the failed mining tax that has not raised any meaningful revenue. The original resource superprofits tax was estimated to bring in $37 billion over a four-year period; the minerals resource rent tax was estimated to bring in $22.5 billion over the same period. These estimates were then revised down further in both the 2012-13 budget to $13.4 billion, then the 2012-13 MYEFO to $9.1 billion over the same four-year period. Now, in the latest budget, the government's revised estimates of mining tax receipts are down even further to just $3.3 billion over the same four-year period. This tax has gone from collecting, supposedly, $37 billion to collecting just $3.3 billion over a four-year period—a $33.7 billion write-down. As I said, the coalition will not oppose these bills based on the budget emergency, which our nation faces. I now turn to schedule 1 of the bill. That schedule increases concessional caps to $35,000 for the over 60s from July this year and for the over 50s from July 2014 from their current limit of $25,000. Concessional contributions are concessionally taxed and include all employer contributions, including the salary sacrifice and personal contributions for which an income tax deduction can be claimed—for example, self-employed individuals. Labor had previously promised to increase concessional contributions to $50,000 for the over-50s with balances of less than $500,000. This is yet another broken promise from the government. After promising no changes before the 2007 election—crystal-clear promises in the days leading up to the election from the member for Griffith, the then leader, that there would be no changes to superannuation at all, not one jot, not one tittle—Labor have now made a number of adverse changes and promises in relation to concessional caps. Labor have a very chequered history on this subject. In the 2009-10 budget, Labor reduced the concessional contribution cap from $50,000 per annum to $25,000 per annum, including indexation, to take effect from the 2009-10 financial year. They reduced from $100,000 per annum to $50,000 per annum the transitional concessional contributions cap applicable to individuals aged 50 and over for the 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 financial years. Then in the 2010-11 budget, the government promised that the concessional contribution cap for those over the age of 50 with less than $500,000 in total superannuation benefits would be permanently raised from $25,000 to $50,000 per annum from 1 July of last year. The commencement date was then deferred in the 2012-13 budget to 1 July 2014. In the 2012-13 midyear update, Labor announced that the indexation of concessional contribution caps would be paused for one year in 2013-14. The government's promises on superannuation caps clearly cannot be trusted, as can be seen from this snapshot of their history and the bill currently before the House. The coalition have already committed to revisiting the level of concessional caps when the budget is back in surplus, once the budget is back in a strong enough position. Labor's poor record on superannuation has seen $9 billion ripped from the superannuation of Australians through tax increases over five budgets after promising no change—not one jot, not one tittle. This bill also has some technical amendments regarding the low-income super contribution and they are contained in schedule 2. The low-income superannuation contribution is a payment to those with a taxable income below $37,000, calculated as a rebate on tax paid on concessional contributions to a maximum of $500. These technical amendments allow the tax commissioner to use an estimation process to determine eligibility for the low-income superannuation contribution where there is insufficient information to make a determination under existing tax law as well as making a range of other amendments. The coalition have opposed the low-income super contribution because it is one of the many measures linked to the government's failed mining tax. The mining tax, which was going to bring in all these billions of dollars to pay for measures like this, has not brought in any of the money to any extent, as I outlined earlier, yet the government has persisted with them. It is unaffordable in the current budgetary situation. However, given these are technical amendments, they will not be opposed by the coalition. Schedules 3 and 4 of both bills together increase the tax paid on concessional contributions by 15 per cent for those earning over $300,000. The bill also includes a tax for those in defined benefit schemes. This measure was announced in last year's budget but is only being implemented now and is due to apply from 1 July this year. So much for certainty—yet another example of leaving it to the last minute from this government on superannuation. The key threshold at which this tax will apply is when an individual's income exceeds $300,000, as assessed for the Medicare levy surcharge purposes, including certain superannuation contributions. In general, a tax of 15 per cent will be applied to amounts above the $300,000 threshold, irrespective of the type of fund that the individual holds. Some exceptions to this general principle include some superannuation payments made to federal judges, state judges and temporary residents departing Australia. The timing of the payment of the additional tax will be determined by the tax commissioner but, generally, it will be shortly after the end of the income year to which additional the tax relates. The schedule includes special provisions for the salary package contributions to constitutionally protected funds by state higher level officeholders. Constitutionally protected funds are operated by some state governments. Under a High Court ruling, following the superannuation changes enacted in 1997 by the former Howard government, it was found that the Commonwealth could not impose a contributions tax on constitutionally protected funds. The Commonwealth cannot impose tax on non-salary package contributions. These measures exclude Commonwealth justices and judges due to the provision of the Constitution that prohibits the remuneration of a justice or judge being diminished during their term in office. This tax provides a gain to the budget of $1.747 billion over the forward estimates. Whilst the coalition would in normal circumstances be opposed to yet another tax increase by Labor, as the Leader of the Opposition outlined in his budget reply speech, given the state of the budget the coalition will not oppose this schedule. After having introduced their sixth budget to this parliament, Labor have not delivered one surplus after promising until they were blue in the face that they would. On more than 500 occasions this government promised the budget would return to surplus this year, but that promise, like their promises on superannuation and tax, has been broken. There will not be a surplus this year, next year or the year after, and now the government expect the public to believe that they will return to balance in 2016 and finally in 2017, four full years away, their forecasted surplus. In just six months the budget bottom line has deteriorated by $60 billion over four years. The surplus promised on over 500 occasions for 2013 has become a deficit of $19 billion. The surplus promised for 2014 has become a deficit of $18 billion. The government keeps on borrowing more and more money, and borrowings are forecast to increase in every year of the forward estimates. The face value of government securities on issue will exceed the $300 billion limit in the next four years. Labor, as we know, has already raised it on four occasions to $75 billion, to $200 billion, to $250 billion and now to $300 billion. The budget papers make it clear that the legislated limit on the amount of money the government can borrow will need to be increased again. The government does not have a revenue problem; it has a spending problem. In 2014 revenue will be $80 billion more than the last year of the coalition government but spending will be $120 billion higher, and so it goes. When a budget misses the mark by that much it is understandable that the Australian people hold grave doubts about its competence. As I have stated, whilst the coalition ordinarily would be taking a different position, for the reasons outlined because of the state of the budget we will not be opposing this measure. 12:24 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest I thank the member for Robertson, who is opposite. The member for Casey has outlined the coalition's position on these superannuation bills extremely well, so I will settle on his remarks. I really want to talk about the fact that the government has eroded confidence in superannuation in this country. As we know, superannuation is one of the most important issues facing both the Australian economy and individual taxpayers. It is one that has become more important for the majority of working Australians as their superannuation balances grow. They are now watching over their planned retirement nest eggs very closely, particularly self-funded retirees right at this moment. What they have been and are desperately looking for is consistency and certainty—the confidence that their accumulated funds are safe. What they do not want to see is constant change, and that is what they have seen from this government, a government that has constantly played with this superannuation system and constantly changed the laws. Unfortunately, uncertainty is exactly what they have been getting. The Gillard Labor government obviously sees superannuation as a golden goose—the national money reserve or perhaps the Labor government's own piggybank that it can raid at will to prop up its budget and hide its fiscal incompetence, which we have seen in great depth in the latest budget. Superannuation account holders know this and they are worried. These people talk to me on a daily basis and are desperately worried, but the government does not understand that. They actually know that Labor is constantly playing games with their superannuation, with their nest eggs. They say to me, 'What is the government going to do next?' They have no idea what the government is going to do to them next. If you are a self-funded retiree, this is a very important issue. We see the tax increases included in the bills before us. Superannuation was set up to fund people's retirement in their senior years, not to be a mechanism that Labor constantly changes and uses to prop up, as we have seen, wasteful spending, debt and deficits. We have seen all of the changes that have been made. Taxes on superannuation have increased by more than $8 billion. They have predominantly targeted low- and middle-income earners, despite the pre-election promises of there being absolutely no changes—'not one jot,' as we heard, 'and not one tittle'. The changes included the $3.3 billion Labor cut to super co-contribution benefits for low-income earners, reducing the co-contribution benefit from $1,500 to $500. We saw changes to the concessional caps. They went from $50,000 down to $20,000 but now they are back to $35,000. Who knows what is next? Financial advisers and accountants tell me that they no longer know how to advise their clients appropriately. They tell me that their advice has to be provided on the laws as they are today, but how do they help people plan when the changes are so constant? It is probably time that we have a debate that the government has not had about what superannuation is meant to achieve and whether the current system is actually achieving those goals. It is widely considered that compulsory superannuation introduced by the Hawke-Keating governments was well designed in the goal to replace the government-funded retirement pension of the majority of working Australians with a self-funded one through superannuation contributions. As a worthy cause, the question still remains about who funded it. It was sold on the premise of gradually increasing the superannuation contributions being paid by Australian businesses which were to be partially offset by a reduction in wages growth. This way both employers and employees were to contribute to that. In some cases this applied but in many others wages growth continued unabated and once again the employers had to shoulder that additional burden. The impact the changes have on those who are currently at retirement age or nearing retirement age is really a critical issue. We know that compulsory superannuation began in 1992 and the majority of workers have perhaps accumulated only half of a working life of superannuation. Every time the government attacks superannuation it affects those people. For those who are nearing retirement without significant voluntary contributions, those relying on employer contributions, the benefits are going to be very moderate indeed Every time the government changes the rules and, as we see, takes an additional tax from this, it affects those people. There are those as well who have been affected by the changes to the contribution caps. Many will attempt to retire with under $200,000 in superannuation, which would only offer a small contribution to their retirement income. They may take $10,000 to $15,000 a year without impacting on their capital, but it is hardly sufficient. They will require a part pension just to survive. Their alternative is to eat into their capital and run out of super at around 70 years of age, relying on the pension from then on. It is that group who need to catch up on their super who are directly impacted by the bill before the House. The intent of super is being interfered with by the government under this bill. The goal of superannuation to save the government welfare expenses is the worthy value of self-responsibility that is enshrined in Liberal philosophy, and that is one issue. However, if the goal is to provide a certain level of retirement comfort, what is that level at the time of retirement? That question needs to be discussed. Are we creating expectations beyond the impending average reality? This is a question the current government should be answering but has failed to address. At a basic level, Australians save for two main long-term goals and a number of shorter term goals. If you talk to them, often these goals are different. Their long-term goals often involve buying the family home and saving for their retirement. Those are often the most basic things that they say they are saving for. These goals cannot be held in isolation, because both of them impact on the retirement lifestyle of older Australians. Those in the worst position have no lifetime savings and do not own their own home, which leaves them in a vulnerable position. To have one or the other is also problematic. Many retirees currently use part of their superannuation to pay for a house or to pay off their mortgage. While it might seem a secure option, it often leaves the super fund without enough capital to fund retirement living. In such cases, a part pension ends up being required. In fact, in many cases it is not only an undesired outcome but part of how people plan. Unless we address the need for both housing stability and financial independence, we will never properly manage the retirement needs of our community. The answers to these questions would guide the debate on the current bill, which highlights Labor's agenda to tap into super for the government's own benefit. But this agenda does little to address the benefits for superannuants. According to the explanatory memorandum, schedule 1 to the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Increased Concessional Contributions Cap and Other Measures) Bill 2013 amends the existing legislation to increase the concessional contributions cap temporarily to $35,000 for the 2013-14 financial year and to $35,000 for the 2014-15 financial year and later financial years for individuals aged 50 years and over. The temporary cap will cease when the general cap indexes to $35,000. We should all remember that it was the Labor government that dropped the concessional cap in the first instance for superannuation from $50,000 to $25,000 during its first term in government. The result of this was to slash the capacity of the average Australian to top up their super—those who were working hard, taking responsibility for their retirement, especially those in the later years of their earning capacity with fewer years to accumulate superannuation. Instead of allowing more self-determination, which as I said is coalition philosophy, the Labor government has reverted to its natural position of success envy and someone else always being responsible. In this case, as in most cases, that someone ends up being a combination of small- and large-business owners and the government. Concessional contributions are defined as those contributions which are included in the assessable income of a super fund and include employer contributions and tax deductible personal contributions. They in effect share the load of the contribution between the superannuant themselves and the government, which forgoes some revenue as its contribution. The result of applying caps is to limit the amount of money an individual can contribute to superannuation, which is taxed by concession, thus limiting the government contribution by limiting the tax forgone. Thus increasing the cap in the current bill to $35,000 for those aged over 60 years this financial year and those aged over 50 years the following financial year, as proposed in this bill, will assist them to fund their own retirement. That is not what Labor has previously promised the Australian people on the record. As we know, breaking promises, unfortunately, is core business for Labor. In 2010 Labor promised that that concessional cap for people over 50 with less than $500,000 would be permanently raised to $50,000. This has turned into another broken promise. Of course, we know that the only thing they can be relied on to deliver is uncertainty. I wanted to touch on the issue as well of the impact that people have had in relation to penalties—the aggressive and punitive approach to the accidental overpayment of contributions and the massive penalties. I have had many people affected by this. There has been example after example, and mostly of an inadvertent overpayment into super funds. The penalties have been absolutely crippling for some people—up to 93 per cent. Overpayment, as we know, can happen as easily as a misjudgement of the timing of an employer payment, pushing one payment from the financial year planned into the next one. In some instances this has been known to push the total over the cap, resulting in just the most punitive and massive penalties—as I said, up to 90 per cent of the overpayment disappears in penalties and taxes. The government's penalty system has been unfair and outrageous, and let us acknowledge it for what it really is: it has been nothing more and nothing less than another government cash grab, and people have known this for a fact. What we will see is that for the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 financial years, the cap for all individuals will be $25,000. In later financial years, the bill will see the cap indexed annually in full-time adult average weekly ordinary time earnings published by the Australian Statistician. Through this measure, it will one day hit $35,000 from the current $25,000. But this is going to take time, and it was $50,000. Schedule 3 of the bill before the House amends the law to reduce the tax concessions that individuals with income above $300,000 receive on their concessional superannuation contributions from 30 per cent to 15 per cent by imposing tax under division 293. Concessional contributions are subject to a flat tax rate of 15 per cent regardless of the income of the individual contributor. It is true to say that if those individuals had instead had the concessional super contributions included in their salary and wages or business income, the high-income-earning individual would have been taxed at this income at a marginal tax rate of around 45 per cent. The result is a 30 per cent concession on the super contributions of those otherwise hitting the top bracket. It is expected that around 1.2 per cent, or 129,000 people, contributing to super will be affected by the reduced superannuation concession. It just simply continues Labor's attack on those it considers to be wealthy, and it continues the unfortunate class warfare we have seen so much of. As I said, the issue of the aggressive and punitive approach that the government took to the accidental overpayment of contributions and the massive penalties has had a major impact on people in my electorate. 12:38 Ms O'NEILL 140651 Robertson I rise to speak on the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Increased Concessional Contributions Cap and Other Measures) Bill 2013 and the Superannuation (Sustaining the Superannuation Contribution Concession) Imposition Bill 2013, which I am obviously going to commend to the House. The reality is that in these four schedules, in which we are dealing with matters regarding superannuation and about which a number of points have been made by those who spoke before me, we are continuing the good work of this Labor government. We are the party of superannuation. I spoke briefly in the Federation Chamber yesterday, and I want to put on record again in this place today that growing up in my family 'superannuation' was not a word that we ever heard. It was a concept that was not a part of the life of many, many Australians. The fact that we can have quite a sophisticated debate about superannuation on a regular basis now, and can explain to 15-year-olds when they are starting the job that part of the money that they are earning is going to be put aside for their retirement, is testimony to the significant cultural and financial changes that this Labor government has led by introducing superannuation in the first place. In this particular piece of legislation there are four schedules that do some very important work in making sure that we enhance the outcomes for those Australians that we are here to represent. In the first instance I speak to schedule 1, which will introduce a $35,000 contribution cap for older individuals. This was announced by the government on 5 July earlier this year and I note that it was very much welcomed by people in my electorate of Robertson over the age of 60 and those who are aged over 50 as well. For individuals aged over 60, from July this year they will be able to put another $10,000 into their superannuation than was the case before this legislation was proposed. That will come into effect on 1 July this year. For someone trying to build up their savings at age 60, the reality is that the superannuation system did not really exist when they started their working life. For women who have returned to the workforce, their capacity to put in extra super in the later part of their career when they return, often after parenting responsibilities have been fulfilled, makes a big difference to the way they can look at the future of their retirement. This really does strike a very good balance between affordability for the federal government and allowing older workers to top up their superannuation; we know that because of the hit that we took during the GFC, while it is recovering now, workers are much more aware of putting money into their super to advantage them. This particular schedule within the bill will advantage 171,000 Australians. That is no small number—171,000 Australians aged over 60 on 1 July will be able to put $35,000 into superannuation, an increase of $10,000. The great news for those over 50 is that from 1 July 2014 there will be 363,000 Australians who will be able to take advantage of what this legislation is seeking to put in place. In terms of schedule 2—and I would like to make some significant comments on this—the low-income superannuation contribution is a point of significant difference between this government and those opposite. We believe that if someone is earning under $37,000 they should not be paying a 15 per cent contribution tax on their superannuation contributions. We believe, in fact, that $500 should go into the superannuation package of all those people under $37,000—and, for the record, that amounts to 3.6 million Australians. Many Australians who earn under $37,000 will be eligible for this low-income superannuation contribution adjustment of $500 to their advantage. There are 2.1 million Australia women who will fall into this category. Many women working part-time, many of them my own colleagues in the teaching profession who return part-time while they are undertaking parenting duties, will be significantly advantaged by this part of the legislation that is before us today when it is enacted. With regard to schedule 3, there have been extensive comments made by those opposite, who articulate through most of their speeches a complete opposition to these changes and improvements that the government proposes, but close with the comment that, 'The coalition would normally oppose this legislation'—that is, oppose the advantage to 171,000 Australians who stand to benefit from schedule 1 this July; oppose the advantages that would be available to 363,000 Australians as 1 July 2014; oppose giving some of the lowest paid workers in this country, those on incomes of $37,000 or less, $500 extra in their superannuation. But they conclude with a very quick sentence at the end, saying, 'But we are going to agree with it today. Really, this two-faced type of argument that we are seeing consistently from the opposition at the moment reveals the fact that it is the Labor Party that is looking after workers, particularly those low-paid workers who are earning less than $37,000 who will be advantaged by schedule 2 of the bill. Schedule 3 effectively reduces the superannuation tax concession on contributions received by individuals who are in a very different category of wage earning. It affects those who earn over $300,000, who currently would be paying, as the member for Forrest said, about 45c in the dollar in tax. But, for the money that they put into super, they are actually getting a 30 per cent contributions advantage. This will bring the contributions advantage to that money put into super, obviously a very important thing to invest in, back to 15 per cent, which then aligns much more with the contributions being made by others. The reality is that, while the coalition have stated their opposition to increasing tax on superannuation contributions, we are very uncertain about what they will do if they are ever in the position of actually having to look after superannuation. If we go on their form, we would have to say that delaying superannuation, opposing superannuation, making an advantage out of superannuation for those on the highest incomes and taking money away from superannuation for those who are in the most vulnerable position on the lowest pay is the pattern that we have seen from them to this point in time. In conclusion, I would like to commend this legislation to the House. It continues the very important work of Labor governments before this, and in this 43rd Parliament, to ensure that superannuation delivers great outcomes for all Australians and that it does so in an affordable and manageable way but with a keen eye to looking to those who are the most vulnerable in our community. When we look to their retirement, we understand that, in this instance, 3.6 million Australians, who really deserve a bit of an advantage in saving for their retirement, are going to have an enhanced retirement because of the changes that we are bringing in. I commend this legislation to the House. 12:47 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan I rise to speak on the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Increased Concessional Contributions Cap and Other Measures) Bill 2013 and associated bill. These bills contain three main measures. Firstly, they increase the concessional caps from $25,000 to $35,000 for those aged over 60 from July 2013 and to $35,000 for those aged over 50 from July 2014. There are also technical amendments regarding the lower income super contribution, as well as the imposition of a 15 per cent tax increase on concessional superannuation contributions for those earning $300,000 or more. The coalition support increasing the concessional caps to $35,000 for those aged over 60 from July 2013 and to $35,000 for those aged over 50 from July 2014. This is an increase from their current limit of $25,000. These concessional contributions include all employer contributions, which encompass salary sacrificing and personal contributions on which someone claims an income tax deduction such as for self-employed individuals. These are only slight increases after a litany of broken promises and policy reversals from this Labor government when it comes to superannuation policy. At the 2007 election, the Labor Party, under the leadership of the member for Griffith, promised that there would be no changes to superannuation. Since Labor formed government, they have increased taxes on superannuation by more than $8 billion, including by reducing concessional caps, by reducing the government's super co-contribution scheme and by increasing fees on self-managed super funds. In the 2009-10 budget, the Labor government halved the transitional concessional contributions cap applicable to individuals aged 50 and over from $100,000 to $50,000. The Labor government also reduced the general concessional contributions cap from $50,000 to $25,000 per annum. In the 2010-11 budget, the Labor government promised they would permanently increase the concessional contributions cap for those over 50 with less than $500,000 in total superannuation benefits from $25,000 to $50,000. In November 2011 they then broke yet another promise by pausing the indexation of contribution caps for one year. Then, in the Labor government's 2012-13 budget, they deferred by two years a previous budget measure to increase the concessional contributions cap for individuals over 50 years of age from July 2012 to July 2014. These broken promises are symptomatic of this Labor government's inability to plan long term. This is a government that has accrued $192 billion of debt, and every year the Labor Treasurer breaks previously made promises while he increases taxes on superannuation and makes it harder for Australians saving for a self-funded retirement. The Labor government promises tax cuts and reductions in regulations before an election and then after the election does the opposite, as did the Prime Minister in 2010 when she promised there would be no carbon tax under a government she led. Whether or not the Labor government says publicly they will not tax super further, the Australian public cannot trust them. Australians could not trust Labor on the carbon tax, Australians could not trust Labor on the mining tax, and Australians cannot trust Labor on their superannuation policies. Schedule 2 of the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Increased Concessional Contributions Cap and Other Measures) Bill includes technical amendments to the operation of the low-income super contribution, which is a payment made to those with a taxable income below $37,000, calculated as a rebate on tax paid on concessional contributions up to a maximum of $500. The change will allow the Tax Commissioner to use an estimation process to determine eligibility for the LISC where there is insufficient information to make a determination under the existing tax law—that is, where there is no tax return. Furthermore, it will require the Tax Commissioner to provide the minister with quarterly and annual reports on the LISC for tabling in parliament, as well as other minor changes, including reducing the minimum amount of the LISC from $20 to $10. The financial impact of these changes is expected to be $5 million for the period between 2012-13 and 2016-17. The coalition will not oppose these technical amendments. However, I do note my reservation to the LISC. The LISC is in unfunded promise which Labor has linked to the failed mining tax and is unaffordable in the current budgetary situation. Last year the government said the mining tax would bring in $3 billion in revenue. This year the Treasurer confirmed that net receipts from the mining tax are less than 10 per cent of what they originally announced—only $200 million this year. At the same time, the Labor government has cut super co-contribution benefits for low-income earners by more than $3.3 billion. They reduced that benefit for eligible low-income earners from $1,500 a year to $1,000, and more recently have announced that they will cut it back again to just $500 a year. During MYEFO last year the Treasurer announced the annual regulatory levy on self-managed super funds, regardless of the level of contributions or account balance, would increase by 36 per cent. This was supposed to raise an additional $320 million over four years. This tax change hurts more than 480,000 self-managed superannuation funds across the country. All of these increases in taxes on superannuation and incremental changes undermine consumer confidence in the superannuation sector. The President of the Association of Financial Advisers, Mr Michael Nowak, said that if the government wants Australians to fund their own retirement by making voluntary contributions to their superannuation funds, they need confidence and certainty about the future of superannuation. Mr Nowak said: If consumer confidence falters, Australia will have nothing more than a mandatory superannuation system which offers insufficient incentive for additional voluntary contributions. Constant broken promises from this Labor government, including cuts to the super co-contribution scheme and increasing fees for self-managed super funds, do nothing to provide that confidence. Lastly, schedules 3 and 4 of the two bills implement announcements from the 2012-13 budget, which will increase the tax paid on concessional contributions for those earning above $300,000 by 15 per cent. These changes can be complicated, depending on the type of superannuation funds that an individual holds. For an individual with an accumulation superannuation fund where annual earnings on superannuation payments are transparent, the application of the additional tax is relatively straightforward. However, for the defined benefit schemes, where benefits are set independently to the level of an individual's contributions, special rules are required to determine the value of certain annual superannuation contributions so that the $300,000 threshold can be applied. I understand that these rules will be set separately in regulation, and will likely be very complex to legislate and, indeed, to administer. Again, introducing further complicated changes to superannuation undermines confidence within the superannuation sector. Complex changes reduce the efficiency and reduce the ease of implementation of superannuation policy within the industry. The coalition's approach to superannuation is that we must be considered, we must be measured and we must, above all, be honest. Should the coalition form government at the next election we will revisit concessional superannuation caps and super co-contribution benefits when the budget is in a strong position. The Leader of the Opposition has already announced that there will be no more unexpected detrimental changes to superannuation. This is because we support all Australians who want to make responsible savings for their retirement. We do this, not just because it makes sense for every Australian but because it makes perfect sense for the future affordability of serving older Australians in the years ahead. It is absolutely crucial that we get every aspect of our retirement income system functioning as efficiently and sustainably as possible. Encouraging voluntary savings is an integral part of that. We must make sure that the system of compulsory contributions to superannuation that employers pay—not government, employers—is as straightforward as possible. We must also ensure that there is sufficient incentive for workers to contribute above and beyond the compulsory contributions. The coalition is committed to the most efficient, transparent and competitive superannuation system and that is what we will keep working towards. We will restore hope, reward and opportunity to Australians who are saving for their retirement because Australians deserve a government that will protect the future for all Australians. 12:57 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong Firstly, I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate. Even if I did not agree with all of the member for Ryan's remarks, she certainly put her case strongly. Schedule 1 amends the tax law to introduce a higher concessional contribution cap of $35,000 for older individuals. This increase in concessional caps was announced by the Gillard Labor government just under two months ago, and now it is a step closer to be law. The increased cap will apply to people aged 60 and over from 1 July 2013, and to individuals 50 and over from 1 July 2014. The Gillard government is increasing the concessional contributions cap because we have listened to what people have said and because we believe in helping those nearing retirement to build up their savings and to take pressure off the aged pension. The higher cap will be of particular assistance to working women, who may have had interrupted patterns of work and not had the opportunity to put aside all that they would like to have to create an adequate superannuation nest egg. We understand that in the cycle of life some Australians in their 30s and 40s will be paying off a mortgage and will be educating the children, and might not have the cash available to put into superannuation. But certainly by their 60s—and by their 50s also, we hope—people in the nature of the financial demands upon them will have more money to put aside for concessional caps. So this is unreservedly good news. In fact, it is good news for an estimated 171,000 Australians aged over 60 as of 1 July. And it will be unreservedly good news for about 363,000 Australians aged 50 and over from 2014-15 onwards. Half a million Australians will benefit by this government initiative. Schedule 2 of this bill makes a number of technical amendments to the low-income superannuation contribution so this payment operates as intended. The low-income superannuation contribution will see up to $500 put into superannuation accounts of 3.6 million workers every year. This will help low-paid workers have the opportunity, have the aspiration, have the reasonable ambition to have more money available to them in retirement than they otherwise would. Under these amendments, the Commissioner of Taxation will be able to estimate eligibility for the low-income superannuation concession for individuals where there is insufficient information to make a determination of their eligibility under the standard processes. This will lower the red-tape burden on individuals, as the Australian Taxation Office will do the paperwork for them. There are also other technical amendments so that the LISC is administered effectively and according to its sensible policy intent. Schedule 3 of this bill will reduce the tax concession for individuals with incomes in excess of $300,000. The concession they receive will go from 30 per cent to a still very significant 15 per cent. This will be more closely aligned with the concessions received by most income earners, which will improve the fairness of the taxation and superannuation system. This was an initiative announced in the 2011-12 budget. At this point, I would like to extend my thanks to the Department of the Treasury, the Australian tax office, and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel who have worked very hard to progress these reforms. The Gillard government is making the right choices for Australia's future retirement incomes by boosting the superannuation savings of hardworking Australians. We are doing this in a number of ways. The first, and arguably the most significant, is the commitment to gradually, reasonably, sensibly and modestly press on with the superannuation guarantee rate rising from nine to 12 per cent. The first increase is eligible to be paid from 1 July 2013 and the last increase in staggered amounts will be paid on 1 July 2019. This measure will boost the retirement savings of more than 8.4 million Australian employees. Secondly, what we are doing to help people is to provide the low-income superannuation contribution for people earning up to $37,000, and we have done this already from 1 July 2012. This will provide 3.6 million workers on low and modest wages, including 2.2 million women, with a tax cut in their superannuation contributions of up to $500 a year—3.6 million winners under a Labor policy which is already in place. It does not make sense, if the effective marginal tax rate of people earning up to $37,000 is up to nine per cent on their take-home pay, to have them pay 15 per cent on the income which is compulsorily saved in superannuation. It is an unfair arbitrage which disadvantages the compulsory savings of lower paid Australians. Our third measure is to abolish the superannuation guarantee maximum age limit from 1 July this year—yet again more good news for older Australian employees. This will enable workers, employees, aged 70 and over to receive the superannuation guarantee for the first time. And why shouldn't they? If you go to work, regardless of your age, you should get paid superannuation. Indeed, we estimate that at least 51,000 Australians over 70 are still contributing to the economy and still helping to make ends meet. They have a right to make sure they have the most decent possible retirement, and we are removing an act of age discrimination and replacing it with an act of fairness. Our fourth measure we think lines up with increasing the superannuation from nine to 12 per cent, abolishing the concessional tax on people who earn less than $37,000 on their superannuation contributions, and abolishing the age discrimination for people aged 70 and over. It is the increase in concessional contributions for people aged over 60 from $25,000 to $35,000. If this law is passed it will benefit 171,000 Australians. It will also allow 363,000 Australian employees aged over 50 to take advantage of putting aside more into their super from July 2014 by lifting the concessional cap for that age group from $25,000 to $35,000. Labor's plan—and only Labor's plan, I might add for the benefit of the members of the House—will boost the national pool of superannuation savings by over half a trillion dollars by 2037. I have, for the information of the House, some figures about what the nine to 12 per cent, as timetabled by Labor, will contribute to ordinary Australians. For a 30-year-old on average full-time wages, the Gillard Labor government's changes will add $127,000 to their superannuation by the time they retire at 67. That is right: $127,000. That is provided we stick to the timetable which Labor legislated on and which the coalition earlier this year committed to keep to. A 32-year-old construction and mining labourer earning around $70,000 who retires at age 67 will get an extra $110,000 in retirement savings. A 30-year-old plumber earning around $68,000 would retire at the age of 67 with an extra $119,000 in retirement savings. A 29-year-old receptionist currently receiving about $45,000 would retire at the age of 67 with an extra $83,000 in retirement savings. A 20-year-old hairdresser earning only $37,000 would retire at age 67 with an extra $111,000 in retirement savings. A 27-year-old hospitality worker earning around $46,000 would retire at age 67 with around an extra $96,000 in retirement savings. These are significant benefits courtesy of Labor's policy. In speaking to this important improvement to people's retirement incomes, I have to report to the House that the Leader of the Opposition has already broken his promise—and he has not even formed a government—not to make any unexpected detrimental changes. The member for Ryan said, 'We in the coalition don't want to make detrimental changes.' What is not detrimental about reinstalling a 15 per cent tax on the superannuation of people who earn less than $37,000? What is not detrimental about denying people improved incomes in their retirement years? In addition, the Leader of the Opposition broke a promise on national television, in his reply to the budget, when he shocked and awed ordinary Australian workers by saying that they are going to delay—in coalition speak—for at least two years the increase from 9¼ per cent to 10 per cent. What makes that statement all the more remarkable is that he and some of his opposition frontbenchers attended a secret meeting of the superannuation industry where they said they would go to 12 per cent on the timetable that we have put in place. The mob opposite cannot even keep promises they make in private to people. John Brogden, leader of the Financial Services Council, has described the coalition's propositions on superannuation as 'a bitter disappointment and a blow to the retirement savings of Australians'. Those opposite can never be trusted to increase superannuation. They will never increase superannuation. After all, the Leader of the Opposition said at a press conference on 23 March 2012: We have always as a Coalition been against compulsory superannuation increases … There you have it, members of the House. The opposition was saying in February-March: 'We'll keep to Labor's timetable so people have got more money to retire on.' Now they say they will delay it. What will come next, I predict—London to a brick—is that they will say: 'We can't advance the increases in superannuation.' The question is not whether or not we should increase superannuation; the question is why didn't it happen in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s? Then the current generation of baby boomers would have more to retire upon. There is no doubt in my mind that by costing 30-year-olds now, even with the delay, $20,000 of what they will have in retirement—and, if they go further, as they did when they were elected in 1996 when they broke their promises on superannuation, they will just freeze superannuation and trap it in some sort of conservative coalition Rip Van Winkle freeze-frame for as long as they are in government—we are jeopardising the retirement security of millions of Australians. There is a clear choice on superannuation at the election. You have the mob opposite, who say that they will never do anything detrimental and then, as soon as the words have flown out of their mouths, say: 'Except we're going to delay it. Except we're not going to let 3½ million people keep the tax cut that Labor has given them on superannuation.' This is a mob who can give the biggest mining companies in the world tax back, but they will put new taxes on 3.6 million people in their own country whom they want to represent. They will put new taxes on them but keep large mining multinationals happy. Their priorities are all wrong. There is very clear choice on superannuation at the election. There are these people, who say, 'No detriment,' when in fact they mean the exact opposite. Or there are us, who keep doing good things in superannuation: going from nine to 12 per cent; cutting the tax paid by low-income earners on their superannuation contributions; MySuper reforms forcing downward pressure on fees and charges in superannuation; setting up a charter of superannuation rights, with independent custodians, to make sure that superannuation policy in the future, regardless of who is in power, is depoliticised; increasing the concessional caps by $10,000 for people aged 50 and above; and getting rid of age discrimination. We are the party who have the runs on the board when it comes to superannuation. We make superannuation stronger and smarter. We make it fairer. We stand for jobs. We stand with working employees in Australia. We do not favour mining companies over 3½ million low-paid workers. The opposition do not like compulsory superannuation. The Leader of the Opposition called it a con job in 1994; last year he said he did not support increases; and this year, true to form, the honey dripped from his mouth but he said, 'By the way, we're going to stop increasing superannuation.' Detriment, by anyone's definition, means doing something negative to people. The opposition say there is no detriment in their policies. Ask 3.6 million Australians who will have a new tax put on them if that is detrimental. I know what the word 'detriment' means, and detriment is defined by Liberal policies on superannuation. I have only one message as I encourage people to support this legislation, and that is: the opposition should keep their hands off people's superannuation. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Third Reading 4276 13:12 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. Superannuation (Sustaining the Superannuation Contribution Concession) Imposition Bill 2013 4276

Superannuation (Sustaining the Superannuation Contribution Concession) Imposition Bill 2013

Second Reading 4276 Third Reading 4276 13:13 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. Aboriginal Land Rights and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 4276

Aboriginal Land Rights and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013

Report from Federation Chamber 4276 13:13 The DEPUTY SPEAKER HW8 The question is that the amendments be agreed to. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading 4277 13:14 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 2013 4277

International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 2013

Report from Federation Chamber 4277 Third Reading 4277 13:15 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Statute Stocktake (Appropriations) Bill 2013 4277

Statute Stocktake (Appropriations) Bill 2013

Report from Federation Chamber 4277 Third Reading 4277 13:16 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 1) Bill 2013 4277

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

Second Reading 4277 13:17 Mr BILLSON 1K6 Dunkley This composite bill, the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 1) Bill 2013 deals with a range of changes to the taxation and superannuation system. I can state at the outset that the coalition has reservations about a number of specific schedules contained in this bill. We will be moving to excise these schedules from this bill and, if our amendments to remove these schedules are unsuccessful, we will vote against the passage of this bill. Schedule 1 of the bill contains amendments which relate to the government's ill-thought-through MYEFO budget measure which changed time limits on the transfer to the government of unclaimed moneys held in lost bank accounts of individuals and companies, as well as lost superannuation accounts, in order to keep alive the illusion of a budget surplus just that little bit longer. This was a significant revenue measure for the government, bringing in more than $750 million over the forward estimates. The change in the schedule seeks to implement one of the recommendations made by the committee inquiring into this bill, which was to make the interest paid by the Commonwealth on unclaimed moneys from 1 July 2013 exempt from income tax. Schedule 2 of the bill seeks to improve consistency across the fringe benefits tax law and to also reduce complexity of the law. Currently the taxable value of airline transport fringe benefit is its value less the employee contribution. For domestic flights this is broadly 37.5 per cent of the lowest publicly advertised economy air fare charged by the provider or a carrier where relevant at or about the time of travel over that route. For international flights this is broadly 37.5 per cent of the lowest fare published in Australia as charged by any carrier for travel over that route in the 12 months preceding the end of the year of tax. Under the changes put forward in the schedule, the taxable value of an airline transport fringe benefit would be aligned with the in-house benefit valuation method. This would be calculated at 75 per cent of the standby airline travel value of the benefit less the employee contribution. Where the transport is on a domestic route the standby airline travel value is 50 per cent of the carrier's lowest standard single economy air fare for that route as publicly advertised during the year of tax. Where the transport is on an international route the standby airline travel value is 50 per cent of the lowest of any carrier's standard single economy air fare for that route as publicly advertised during the year of tax. These changes are technical and should act to simplify this particular area of taxation law. Schedule 3 of this bill allows participants in the Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure Program to choose to make payments received under the program free of income tax, including capital gains tax. If this choice is made then expenditure related to infrastructure improvements under the program is non-deductible. Alternatively, the participant can decide to stay under the current rules—that is, the payments will continue to be taxed in the year they are derived but expenditure incurred on relevant works will be tax deductible only in future years. This program provides funding to irrigators to improve water efficiency. Some of the resulting water savings are then transferred to the government to be used for environmental watering. The current arrangement results in a cash flow gap between the timing of the tax liability and tax deductions. If chosen, the new arrangements remove this cash flow gap. The coalition has indicated that it is supportive of this change which was originally announced in February 2011. Schedule 4 is where the coalition has a number of reservations. This schedule seeks to amend the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 to prescribe requirements for the acquisition and disposal of certain assets between self-managed superannuation funds and related parties. Where an underlying market exists, the proposed changes require that the transaction should be conducted through that market. Where such a market does not exist, a value must be sought from an independent qualified valuer. These changes seem to be an unnecessary regulatory burden. The government have not made the case about the evil they are supposedly trying to prevent with this measure. The Self-Managed Superannuation Funds Professionals' Association of Australia, for example, is concerned that the drafting is not clear regarding the evaluation of hard-to-value assets, such as frozen assets or assets for which there is not a readily available market. If these assets cannot be disposed of to a related party, for example a self-managed super fund member, then it is likely many SMSFs will not be able to be wound up. In the evidence provided by SPAA to the inquiry it said: … there are many types of assets held by SMSFs (many types of collectables for example), where no individual has the specific knowledge, experience and judgement necessary to be considered a qualified valuer. In these scenarios, the absences of a qualified independent valuer may result in the SMSF being unable to dispose of the asset which may then prevent the SMSF from being wound up even if it is clearly in the member's best interest to do so. This would result in the ATO being required to still administered numerous legacy self-managed superannuation funds that have no functional purpose. This change is yet another example of the Gillard government's constant undermining through badly drafted regulation of the flexibility and the effectiveness of SMSFs. For example, in its submission SPAA stated that it was: … concerned that the requirement to acquire listed securities from a related party (or to dispose listed securities to a related party) in a prescribed manner is limited to transactions involving SMSFs. Off-market transfers of listed securities also occur in the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority (APRA) regulated sector of the superannuation industry, where they buyer and seller of the securities is essentially the same entity. This would suggest that similar integrity concerns regarding off-market transfers and the manipulation of transfer prices of listed securities would similarly arise in the APRA sector. These changes, as drafted, are unnecessary regulatory burdens. The government have not made the case about the evil they are supposed to be trying to prevent. The coalition does not support this schedule and will be moving amendments to excise it from the bill. If our amendments to excise this schedule are not successful then the coalition will vote against the bill. Schedules 5 and 6 of this bill seek to implement the loss carry-back for small and medium enterprises. This expenditure is linked to the proceeds of the government's ill-fated minerals resource rent tax. This measure will cost the budget $700 million over the forward estimates. This is the failed mining tax that is fundamentally flawed and has raised next to no revenue. The coalition opposes all elements of the MRRT, including all measures linked to and supposedly funded by the MRRT. The exception is the increase in compulsory superannuation, which we continue to support with a delay to the increase by two years, given the budget emergency which we face in light of the deficits delivered a fortnight ago. The government cannot afford to implement costly measures supposedly paid for by the MRRT that raises next to no revenue. The original resources superprofit tax was estimated to bring in $37 billion over the next four-year period, from 2012-13 to 2015-16. The redesigned mining tax, which was then rebadged as the minerals resource rent tax, was estimated to bring in $22.5 billion over the same four-year period, a $14.5 billion write-down. These estimates were then revised down in the 2012-13 budget, with a forecast to bring in $13.4 billion over the same four-year period. Again, in the 2012-13 MYEFO a further write-down to $9.1 billion over the same four-year period was booked. Then in the budget handed down for 2013-14 the government revised the mining tax receipts down even further, to just $3.3 billion over the same four-year period. This tax went from supposedly collecting $37 billion to $22.5 billion to $9.1 billion and then to just $3.3 billion over a four-year period. That is a $33.7 billion write-down since its inception. The government negotiated the design of the MRRT exclusively and in secret with the managing directors of Australia's three biggest mining companies. As well as excluding any other mining industry stakeholder and state governments, they also excluded all Commonwealth officials from the negotiating process. The coalition has said for some time that Labor's MRRT was a fiscal train wreck in the making. Treasurer Wayne Swan overestimated the gross revenue from the MRRT and underestimated the costs of the various concessions he and Prime Minister Gillard made in their MRRT heads of agreement with the three mining executives. The government has spent all the money that they expected to raise from the mining tax and more, much more, through the linking of various expenditure measures, including loss carry-back to the mining tax. The government simply cannot afford to continue adding to the $192 billion in accumulated deficits over the last four years with another large budget deficit forecast for 2012-13. In any case, the government's change to allow loss carry-back ignores the fact that only one-third of small- and medium-sized enterprises are actually incorporated and therefore two-thirds are not able to benefit from this measure. This is because only businesses with franking accounts can avail themselves of this measure. Unincorporated businesses that must compete with those using carryback will be handed a competitive disadvantage by this measure. The government seem to persist in overstating the benefits of this measure. I draw their attention to comments from the Institute of chartered accountants whose Yasser El-Ansary said: The institute estimated that while there are 2.8 million small businesses, only 400,000 were incorporated and even fewer would swing from profit to loss in the way needed to gain the carry back benefit. He said: The likelihood that there are going to be an awful lot of businesses that benefit from this is very, very slim. The coalition will be moving amendments to exclude schedules 5 and 6 from this bill. Schedule 7 of the bill makes miscellaneous amendments to taxation laws, almost all of them in relation to and attempting to fix problems with the government's failed mining tax. In fact, of the 48 pages in this schedule, 39 comprise amendments that correct 'minor technical errors'—which is clearly an understatement of some significance—in what has proven to be substandard drafting of the MRRT law. Only nine of these pages are devoted to correcting minor amendments in other parts of the tax law. As stated, the coalition will be moving amendments to excise schedule 4, which relates to related party transactions between self-managed super funds, as well as schedules five and six, which relate to the government's underfunded tax measure of tax carry-back losses. If the government amendments to excise these three schedules are not successful then the coalition will oppose the bill's passage through the parliament. We will move our amendments in detail at that stage of debate, but I ask the parliament to consider those thoughtful contributions to the debate on this measure. 13:30 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta I am pleased to speak on the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 1) Bill 2013. I am pleased to follow the member for Dunkley, who gave his thoughtful views in such a civilised manner. I shall attempt to do my bit the same way—sometimes the behaviour in parliament is quite reasonable. The tax and superannuation laws amendment bill 2013 is one of the bills known as TSLABs. It has a range of changes to tax and superannuation, all included in the same bills. There are seven schedules in this bill that cover issues such as unclaimed money, airline transport fringe benefits, how irrigators apply the law in relation to their Commonwealth sustainable rural water use and infrastructure program, and the rules for self-managed superannuation funds trustees and investment managers, as well as introducing a refundable tax offset to corporate tax entities, known more generally as the loss carry-back. The final schedule makes a whole series of miscellaneous technical amendments to taxation law. It is quite an interesting bill that covers a range of areas that will be of interest to a broad range of people. Schedule 1 refers to the interest on unclaimed money. In the 2012-13 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook the government announced that from 1 July this year the government would preserve the real value of unclaimed moneys, such as lost superannuation, by paying interest on those moneys. This is part of the package of reforms to end unclaimed money and lost superannuation announced in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook that will help people reunite with their lost money sooner. Exempting interest payments paid on unclaimed moneys from income tax will help ensure that these amounts maintain their real value for the benefit of the owners. As you would know, Deputy Speaker Scott, there is a very large number of accounts out there both in superannuation and in other forms which seem to have lost contact with their owners, and the government has been working very hard over a number of years now to reunite some of those lost dollars with the people who have ownership of them. This is an important part of that change, as it maintains the real value of those lost moneys while we are finding ways to reunite them with their original owners. Schedule 2 amends the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 in response to concerns raised by the airline industry that the methodology for valuing standby airline travel is no longer relevant. In particular, the industry was concerned about the amount of time spent and costs required to calculate the taxable value of the benefit, and the fact that the industry had evolved a great deal since the time the revisions were introduced in 1986. The industry views also reflected a need to update the application of the provisions, as the concept of standby travel, while still available to employees of airlines and travel agents, is no longer offered by airlines commercially to members of the public, with airlines now using discounted pricing as a means to optimise passenger travel. Anyone in this House who is my age or over would well and truly remember heading off to the airport for one of those standby tickets but, as we all know, they are not quite as common now as they used to be. The government undertook targeted consultation with the major airlines on the drafting of this section of the bill to address concerns raised after the budget announcement, and to ensure the reforms were consistent with airline practices. The reforms also bring the airline industry into line with recent changes introduced into the parliament to the concessional treatment of other in-house fringe benefits in other industries. Schedule 3 concerns sustainable rural water and infrastructure programs. The Commonwealth makes payments to irrigators under this program to help upgrade rural water infrastructure to improve the efficiency and productivity of rural water use. Some of the resulting water savings are transferred to the Commonwealth for environmental activity. This measure benefits irrigators receiving payments under the Commonwealth's sustainable rural water use and infrastructure program, and it is designed to encourage take-up. Irrigators can choose to apply a new treatment that ignores the payment for income tax purposes and makes their corresponding expenditure on upgrading their water infrastructure non-deductible. This allows irrigators to avoid the need to find funding to pay their tax if they derive the payments before they can fully deduct the expenditure. It is very much in response to a cashflow issue and gives flexibility to irrigators in the way they receive their payments under this program. It is in response to concerns raised in consultation, mainly from small irrigators. People who believe they are better off under the current law can continue to apply it instead of the new treatment. Schedule 4 relates to the self-managed superannuation funds and related parties. Schedule 4 of the tax and superannuation laws amendment introduces specific rules for self-managed super fund trustees and investment managers in acquiring assets and disposing of assets to related parties. A trustee's or investor's management of a self-managed superannuation fund must not require an asset from a related party of the fund except subject to certain conditions. These exceptions are based on the transactions being conducted by reference to an underlying market or supported by evaluation from a qualified, independent valuer. This measure will ensure the acquisition and disposal of assets between self-managed superannuation funds and related parties is transparent, and not open to manipulation to illegally benefit the parties involved. The amendments will provide greater transparency to related party acquisitions and disposals. This will enhance the integrity of the self-managed superannuation fund sector by allowing approved SMSF auditors, and the Commissioner of Taxation as regulator, to monitor these transactions more effectively. This recommendation, by the way, came from the super system review—it is recommendation 8.13 of that review. It is an important part of maintaining transparency and efficiency of self-managed superannuation funds. Schedule 5 introduces loss carry-back for corporate tax entities. Entities that meet the requirements to be able to carry back their losses will be entitled to a refundable tax offset. This introduction implements recommendation 31 of the 2010 Australia's Future Tax System Review, which stated that companies should be allowed to carry back a revenue loss to offset it against the prior year's taxable income, with the amount of any refund limited to the company's franking account balance. It also acts on the recommendations of the Business Tax Working Group, which found that loss carry-back would be a worthwhile reform in the near term. I recall the member for Dunkley saying that the opposition will seek to excise this schedule from the bill. I point out to the opposition that it is actually a recommendation of both the Future Tax System Review and the Business Tax Working Group. When I attended the tax summit a couple of years ago in the Great Hall as a previous small-business owner who is well aware of some of the difficulties small business have been facing as they adjust to the higher dollar and increasing savings rates for consumers, I clearly saw that there were a number of people in that room calling for just this measure as an extremely important reform of the tax system for small business. The amendments provide a refundable tax offset to corporate tax entities that make a loss where the entity chooses to carry that loss back to either of the two preceding years. The reform will encourage companies to adapt to changing economic conditions and take advantage of new opportunities through investment. This measure is part of the government's reforms to boost productivity by helping business invest, innovate and take sensible risks. The amendments will enable corporate tax entities to carry back their losses to either or both of the two preceding years. There are some transition measures. In the 2012-13 income year the loss can only be carried back one year to the 2011-12 income year. The refundable tax offset will be the lesser of the tax liability of the preceding year or years to which the loss is being carried back or the franking account balance as at the end of the tax year in which the offset is being claimed. The maximum loss that can be carried back is $1 million, so applying the current corporate tax rate of 30 per cent the maximum refundable tax offset for an income year is $300,000. This measure will encourage business to invest and adapt and will mean that companies in the slow lane can use their tax losses now when they need to rather than in the future when their businesses are performing better. Treasury estimates that the loss carry-back will benefit around 110,000 companies in its first four years. Furthermore, 90 per cent of these will be in small business and one in six are expected to be manufacturers. Again I note that the opposition will seek to excise this schedule but it is an incredibly important one for businesses that find themselves in a particular set of circumstances and one which was called for in the Australia's Future Tax System Review, by the Business Tax Working Group and in the tax summit, which I note the opposition did not attend and did not send representatives to, where there was quite an extensive calling for just this measure. I would strongly suggest to this House that when the business sector calls for such a thing perhaps the opposition should in fact listen. Schedule 7 deals with miscellaneous amendments to the taxation laws. The government periodically makes miscellaneous amendments to the taxation laws to correct technical or drafting defects, to remove anomalies, to cover unintended outcomes in the tax legislation. Progressing such amendments gives priority to the care and maintenance of the tax system, as supported by the 2008 recommendation from the Tax Design Review Panel. This package of proposed miscellaneous amendments addresses minor technical deficiencies in the minerals resource rent tax, petroleum resource rent tax, income tax assessment, income tax rates and tax administration legislation among others. These deficiencies have been identified by industry, Treasury and the Australian Taxation Office. They are a practical demonstration of the government's commitment to the care and maintenance of the taxation system. These amendments address minor technical issues which have been identified across the taxation laws, including the minerals resource rent tax, petroleum resource rent tax, income tax assessment, income tax rates and tax administration legislation. The government consulted publicly on the amendments last year and a number of the concerns raised were in fact addressed in this bill. I am aware that there is about three minutes remaining before the 90-second statements and I know the next speaker is there, but if he prefers I will continue until 1.45 so that he does not have to do just a couple of minutes. This is an important piece of legislation. It is one that includes seven schedules that have had wide consultation. They cover areas that we know are of concern to the community or the business sector. Ensuring that interest is paid by the Commonwealth on unclaimed money is particularly important and is part of an ongoing reform to link unclaimed money and lost money with the people who own it. It is incredibly important that money retains its value while it is in that lost state. The bill implements some changes to the airline transport fringe benefit arrangements, again at the request of the airline industry that no longer finds that the law relating to their standby rates is particularly relevant. It is an important change sought by the sector and there has been wide consultation on that. It allows irrigators greater flexibility in relation to the Commonwealth Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure Program. They now have one of two ways to apply the law to their payments, which again gives them greater flexibility and allows them to avoid the timing mismatch that can arise when payments are assessed before the expenditure is fully recognised. This is incredibly important for cashflow management, and those of us who have been involved in small business know that cashflow can bring you undone sometimes even if your profit and loss would actually be just fine. It introduces specific rules for self-managed superannuation fund trustees, important reforms. The bill introduces the loss carry-back for business, something that was requested by the business sector, in two major reforms and something which I know the small-business sector in my community has been calling for and will welcome. It is a particularly important reform and I am greatly disappointed to see that the opposition will try and excise that schedule today. I understand the point that the opposition is making, that the loss carry-back will not be able to be applied by every business at every time, nor should it. For a start, you have got to be making a loss, and one would hope that the number of businesses that could actually apply this would be less than those that cannot. But 110,000 businesses, including one in six in manufacturing, is an incredibly large number. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 Order! It being 1.45 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member for Parramatta will have leave to continue her remarks at a later hour when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 4284 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Petition: Far West Community Legal Centre 4284 13:45 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I would like to take this opportunity to present a petition from residents in my electorate of Farrer—more specifically in the far west of New South Wales. The petition read as follows— To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives This petition of the citizens who live in or support the communities of Far West New South Wales, including Broken Hill, Wilcannia, Wentworth, Ivanhoe, Menindee and other centres, draws to the attention of the House of Representatives the critical funding shortfall affecting the Far West Community Legal Centre (FWCLC). The community is concerned that this financial shortfall will result in an acute reduction, or cessation, of localised and outreach legal service provision. The removal of face-to-face legal services places unnecessary strain on persons already suffering from disadvantage; the removal of such services would be devastating for remote and isolated residents of the Far West. In order to continue with the provision of such services, the FWCLC seeks recurrent, annual funding of $433,000 as part of the Commonwealth Community Legal Service Program (CLSP). We therefore ask the House to consider the face-to-face legal needs of the communities of Far West of New South Wales and to pledge that sufficient funding levels are provided for the continuation of appropriate service provision by the Far West Community Legal Centre. from 772 citizens Petition received. Ms LEY 00AMN These 772 signatures essentially seek to ensure sufficient ongoing funding is provided to the Far West Community Legal Centre for it to perform a vital role in our community. The petition asks us to re-accept a very important right which both the Law Foundation and this parliament already formally recognise, and that is that all persons, regardless of means, have access to high-quality legal services or effective dispute resolution mechanisms to protect their rights and interests. This right is being taken away by chronic underfunding which is not enough to meet the yearly local demand on the centre's small number of staff. It is a demand which comes from a community ranking among the highest in New South Wales for people living in relative socioeconomic disadvantage. This includes people on a disability support pension or Centrelink benefit, those accessing social housing. It is also a region that suffers from a high percentage of domestic violence. After writing to the federal Attorney-General in February this year, earlier this month the minister granted a one-off funding injection of $215,000 in order for the legal centre to continue its face-to-face and outreach services. On behalf of our community I want to recognise the Attorney's announcement and thank him for making up the temporary shortfall. This petition, which commenced before that stop-gap funding, asks us to now take the next step—to ensure there is a sufficient combination of Commonwealth and state funding. (Time expired) Media Diversity 4285 13:47 Mr SLIPPER 0V5 Fisher I am a strong supporter of media diversity in our country, and I am concerned by the domination of News Limited, Fairfax and Seven West. Of course, in recent times we have been fortunate to have independent media, online media, occurring more and more, such as Independent Australia, Crikey, New Matilda, Vexnews and so on. But today in the chamber I would like to applaud the launch of Guardian Australia. This will bring a new level of diversity. Already Guardian has 1.1 million subscribers in Australia. As Katherine Viner, the editor and chief of the Australian edition said: Our research indicates that Australians are looking for an alternative that is truly independent, both global and local, which offers serious reporting and lively commentary, and is all-embracing in its use of everything that the digital sphere has to offer. Guardian Australia has been fortunate enough to be able to secure the services of some very senior journalists, such as David Marr, Lenore Taylor and Katherine Murphy, and no doubt others will join Guardian Australia. I think that diversity is important. I have been appalled at the attacks on the government, particularly by News Limited—even though I am an Independent member of the House—and I just think that the Australian people do deserve the opportunity of balanced news and the opportunity to make an informed decision at the election on 14 September. Live Animal Exports 4285 13:48 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I rise to raise an issue of significant concern to my constituents, namely live animal exports. Like many in Kooyong I continue to be deeply shocked and angered by the graphic footage of animal cruelty in Indonesia, Malaysia and Egypt. Such inhumane treatment of any animal, in any country, is completely unacceptable, and our nation should do all that it can to prevent such behaviour occurring again. However, of the 109 countries that engage in live animal exports, only Australia invests heavily in ensuring robust animal welfare standards in destination countries. If we were to abandon the trade, our export quota would be quickly filled by countries with lower animal welfare standards than we have, including Argentina, Hungary, South Africa and India. We must also recognise that the live animal export trade is an important part of our economy, earning more than a billion dollars in export revenue and providing employment to more than 13,000 people—many of whom are Indigenous—and fulfils an important role populating our north. Unfortunately frozen meat exports are simply not an alternative, as many parts of South-East Asia, particularly regional areas, do not have access to refrigeration. Further, religious customs also often determine that the processing take place in the destination country. We must ensure that improvements to animal welfare continue to be made, particularly through the Export Supply Chain Assurance Scheme, which has strengthened the accountability and traceability mechanisms. I say to my constituents and the parliament I am committed to doing my part to ensure robust and proper standards for the treatment of animals are enforced as a matter of urgency. National Broadband Network 4286 13:50 Mr LYONS M38 Bass I rise in the House today to welcome news that homes and businesses in Launceston will be able to reap the benefits of the NBN, with construction now underway. The NBN maps show that fibre is being rolled out to approximately 2,600 households in Launceston. This will allow residents access to faster, affordable and more reliable broadband. Under Labor, connection to the NBN is free. Everyone should have the right to access fast, affordable broadband—and that is what is happening and being delivered to the residents of Launceston. As the member for Bass, the only complaints I get about the NBN is that people cannot get connected fast enough. I have had constituents move from Western Australia to Scottsdale in North-East Tasmania, simply to get access to the National Broadband Network and improve their lifestyle. Only a Labor government will deliver high-speed, affordable broadband to all Australians. This is in stark contrast to the opposition's 'fraud-band' plan, which will see a significantly slower, copper-to-the-home internet connection, costing families and small businesses up to $5,000 to connect. This plan will leave Australia with the broadband equivalent of the Sydney Harbour Bridge with only one lane, and I believe that Australians deserve better than this. That is why I am so pleased that Northern Tasmania is one of the first regions to reap the benefits of Labor's NBN: fast, affordable, and reliable broadband, delivered to every home and business in Australia. Forde Electorate: Keeping the Spirit Alive, Forde Electorate: Get Set for Learning 4286 13:51 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde It is with great pleasure that I rise this afternoon to acknowledge a wonderful achievement by a young lady in the electorate of Forde. Amie Jessop of Tanah Merah recently penned a poem commemorating our brave soldiers who landed at Anzac Cove in 1915. Amie won the first prize in the Keeping the Spirit Alive competition. She is now part of a small select group of individuals who will travel to Gallipoli in 2015 to commemorate the 100th anniversary of those landings. It is great to see young people remembering the brave men and women who fought for our nation so many years ago. I would also like to acknowledge the continuing work of the Beenleigh PCYC who have been assisting youth in the community with the new and improved truancy program called Get Set for Learning. This program is helping kids who have been absent from school for a period of time and assists them particularly in the areas of maths and English. Senior Constable Matt Massouras believes this program helps youths with teambuilding and self-esteem and says it has already had a dramatic impact for those involved. I strongly support the efforts of the PCYC to see the program funded through the local community and have met with local businesses in an effort to ensure its continuation each year. Gambling 4287 13:53 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Throsby Sports fans around the country have voiced their outrage at the proliferation of gambling advertising in our sports broadcast. I have been one of the MPs who have been pushing for reform. I welcome the Prime Minister's announcement to introduce new rules that restrict sports bet advertising. It is a big step in the right direction, which sends a clear message to the broadcasters, the sporting codes and corporate bookmakers. From the beginning of the game to the end, promoting live odds is canned. The TV bookies have been kicked out of the stadium. The banners and logos and other promotions will no longer flash across our screens. Some of these measures go further than my private member's bill which was focused on advertising during children's viewing times. This is welcome. It may well not be the last word on the matter. Bookmakers and broadcasters must make these changes happen immediately or parliament will step in. Of course if we want to see sport on free-to-air TV, we have to have some advertising. But corporate bookies, broadcasters and professional codes are now on notice. Gambling and professional sport can coexist but we cannot have a model professional sport or free-to-air broadcasting that is dependent on gambling revenue for its viability. The greatest threat is not from government but from viewers. If broadcasters fill the remaining slots during the broadcast with gambling ads, they will see sports fans walking away from their TV sets. If that happens, other advertisers will wonder why they are paying good money for empty chairs seats. Brisbane Electorate: Fortitude Valley 4287 13:54 Ms GAMBARO 9K6 Brisbane I rise today to welcome and congratulate the Brisbane City Council on their plans to upgrade the Brunswick Street Mall in Fortitude Valley to promote a greater daytime economy in this suburb. Currently the daytime economy is being kept alive by a few food stores and small retailers catering to tradesmen and office workers in their lunchtime breaks. In May 2012 a survey of business showed Brisbane was not maximising either its night or day economy. Robin Maini, President of the Valley Chamber of Commerce and Co-chair of the Fortitude Valley Economic Development Board, said today that major anchor tenants had already been identified to set up shop in the revamped mall to help boost the daytime economy. Current businesses located in the mall would be asked to make improvements particularly to awnings, advertising signs and their facades and they will be offered new leases based on the revamped mall proposals. The bronze plaques honouring bands of generations past—the Saints, the Go-Betweens, Blowhard, Regurgitator, Powderfinger right through to the Hungry Kids of Hungary—will be temporarily removed and then returned after the changes. This is a great plan by the Brisbane City Council which will make sure that we are making the most of the area both during the daytime and night-time, as currently it is an underutilised space in the inner-city Brisbane area. By doing this, we will be able to revitalise the old image of the Fortitude Valley, particularly from the era of the 1980s and 1990s as grungy, dirty and seedy to an upcoming economic hub of the inner-city Brisbane. (Time expired) Parramatta Female Factory 4288 13:56 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta I rise today to speak again about the importance of the Parramatta Female Convict Factory, a building commissioned by Governor Macquarie, designed by Greenway and built by Watkins and Payten with convict labour and completed in 1821. It is not the first time I have spoken about the convict factory in this place and I do so again today because its value to our nation cannot be overstated, and it has not as yet received the recognition and protection that national heritage listing would provide. I hope that this will soon change, that this iconic building, nestled in the cradle of modern Australia on the banks of the Parramatta River will be listed for national heritage assessment. In saying this, I am echoing the concerns of my local community in Parramatta, from Western Sydney and across Australia, the thousands of people who have signed petitions over the years calling for this site to be recognised and protected. And I echo the concerns of the tireless and passionate advocates of the factory, people like Gay Hendriksen of the Female Factory Friends, Bonnie Djuric of Parragirls, local historian June Bullivant, Phil Bradley of the Parramatta Greens, Jack Mundy the former New South Wales member for Parramatta, Tanya Gadiel and countless others who have poured so much effort and so many hours into advocating for this magnificent place over the months and years in the past. The Parramatta Female Factory's nomination to be among the next places assessed for national heritage is currently being considered by the Australian Heritage Council. I have asked the minister, and I have asked him strongly, to recommend that the factory be added to the places for national heritage assessment. I believe its time has come. (Time expired) Macarthur Electorate: Macarthur Acts of Kindness 4288 13:57 Mr MATHESON M2V Macarthur Today I would like to take this opportunity to speak about a special initiative that has been launched in my electorate called Macarthur Acts of Kindness. Inspired by the stories of kind Macarthur residents that I hear on a daily basis, this initiative celebrates those people who have gone out of their way to assist a friend, neighbour or stranger in the local community. Acts of kindness come in many forms and are one of the greatest gifts that we can give someone else, especially without expecting anything in return. Macarthur Acts of Kindness is an important initiative because it gives everyone in our community a chance to thank someone who has performed a selfless act of kindness towards them and it lets people know that the little things do count. Each month those nominated received a surprise certificate in the mail thanking them for their act of kindness and they are invited to my office for a special afternoon tea so I can thank them for making the Macarthur community such a fantastic place to live. The program was launched last week and already four local people have been nominated for their kindness—Melissa Schriever, Jodie Stephens-Fripp, and Mark and Jean Holyoake. Not only have these members of my community been kind to those around them, but they have also set a good example, inspiring others to practise kindness and pass it on. Whether it be an individual helping a stranger to cross the street or making a meal for their neighbour when they were not feeling well, in my opinion it is often these small acts of kindness that have the biggest impact on making a positive difference in the lives of other people. I am proud to stand in parliament today and acknowledge these Macarthur residents for their acts of kindness because every act makes a difference and helps make Sydney's Macarthur region such an amazing place to live. Canberra Centenary 4289 13:59 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra I am quoting here: I cannot honestly say that I liked Canberra very much; it was to me a place of exile; but I soon began to realize that the decision had been taken, that Canberra was and would continue to be the capital of the nation, and that it was therefore imperative to make it a worthy capital; something that the Australian people would come to admire and respect; something that would be a focal point for national pride and sentiment. Once I had converted myself to this faith, I became an apostle … Those are the words of Sir Robert Menzies, a self-confessed apostle of Canberra. Menzies, through a series of bold and ambitious decisions, established Canberra as the thriving city we know it as today—as a great national capital, with a consolidated Public Service. Now, some 60 years after the crucial establishment of the National Capital Development Commission, the party that Menzies— (Time expired) The SPEAKER 83S Order! In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members’ statements has concluded. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 4289 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:00 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I advise the House that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, and Minister for Indigenous Health will be absent from question time today as he is undertaking ministerial business in the Northern Territory. The Minister for Defence will answer in relation to veterans' affairs, defence science and personnel. And the Minister for Health will answer questions in relation to Indigenous health. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 4289 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE National Security 4289 14:01 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm Senate committee evidence that ASIO has reduced its overseas presence and reduced its foreign engagement for training and capability purposes as a result of funding pressure? Does the Prime Minister still dispute the member for Holt's conclusion that these agencies have effectively been sequestered from funding to perform their tasks? 14:01 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I refer the Leader of the Opposition to my answers yesterday and refer him, again, to the increased funding provision for ASIO. I refer him to the 2013-14 budget: a 10 per cent increase. I refer him to the fact that, over the life of the government, our funding has increased by 27 per cent. I also refer him to the fact that the average staffing level for ASIO has increased 32 per cent over that period. 14:01 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I ask a supplementary question. I take the point that the Prime Minister made about funding and staffing but I again ask: does she accept evidence given to a Senate committee that ASIO has reduced its overseas presence and reduced its foreign engagement? And I again ask: does she still maintain that the member for Holt is wrong? (Time expired) 14:02 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor As I understand the Leader of the Opposition's words, he has resiled from every assertion made by the opposition yesterday in question time about the funding for ASIO. He has accepted the facts that I have just laid before the parliament, and not a moment too soon, because the facts are the facts and they are exactly as I have outlined them. The SPEAKER 83S The Leader of the Opposition on a second supplementary. 14:02 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I quote from Senate committee evidence: ASIO has (a) reduced its overseas presences and (b) reduced its foreign engagement. Can the Prime Minister confirm that these are facts? 14:03 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor What I can confirm, contrary to all of the assertions made by the opposition yesterday, is that ASIO is resourced to do the job the nation needs it to do and its resources have been increasing. Economy 4290 14:03 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the Australian Jobs Bill, which passed this House last night? How will this bill give Australian workers and local businesses in my electorate and around the country the chance to benefit from major investment projects? 14:03 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I thank the member for Corio for his question. Of course, his focus is on jobs and growth in his electorate, in the community that he serves. I understand that, because I am working with him and the member for Corangamite and also with Maria Vamvakinou, our local members in this House who represent the communities of Geelong and the broader region, and Broadmeadows. Of course, these communities are very focused on future sources of jobs and growth, following Ford's announcement. Across the government's ranks we are continuously focused on jobs and growth, standing up for manufacturing workers, making sure that around the country manufacturing continues to be a source of strength in our economy not only in Geelong and Broadmeadows but around the nation. We are standing up for jobs and growth now, the way we have stood up for jobs and growth across the life of the Labor government. As a government we worked hard to protect jobs and growth during the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression: the global financial crisis. And, through working in partnership with industry and unions, we did ensure that, compared to other nations around the world, we protected jobs, which is why when we compare ourselves to other nations around the world we see that, unlike other countries, we are continuing to grow and, unlike other countries, we are continuing to create jobs. We want to ensure that there are more jobs and growth for the future, which is why last night we were proud to bring to the House a bill that will focus on Australian jobs, linking local businesses to new business opportunities, supporting Australian businesses and making sure that local companies get a fair go to win contracts for major projects in infrastructure and mining. The bill requires that major projects worth more than half a billion dollars have to adopt Australian industry participation plans setting out how they will give local companies a chance to win contracts—that is, a chance for jobs and a chance for growth. Put simply, this means extra work and extra jobs for Australians. We brought the legislation to the parliament because it is worthy of the parliament's support. I am very pleased that our proposition, the legislation that we brought to the parliament, was passed by this House yesterday. I regret that it was opposed by the opposition. I believe this parliament should be united in focusing on jobs and growth. The government will always be focusing on jobs and growth because we understand how important it is to modern families around the nation that people have the benefits that come with work, and we will continue to work to create jobs. National Security 4291 14:06 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt My question is to the member for Holt under standing order 99. I remind the member for Holt that, as Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, he recently tabled the report Review of administration and expenditure No. 10. In the light of his committee's report, does he believe that our security agencies' capacity to perform their tasks has been sequestered from the necessary funding to execute their role adequately? Mr Byrne 008K0 Madam Speaker— The SPEAKER 83S I have not given the member the call. The question is not in order. Mr PYNE 9V5 Madam Speaker, if standing order 99 is to mean anything at all, this question has to be in order. I will just take you through it briefly. Standing order 99 allows questions without notice to any member relating to the business of a committee for which the member asked is responsible. I would point out: the member for Holt is the chair of the relevant committee. A question to a committee chair asking when a report will be tabled has been permitted. But that is not the case on this occasion. A question asking if a committee had been requested to inquire into a certain matter has not been permitted. That is not the case on this occasion. The Speaker has ruled out of order a question to a chair which asks that the committee examine certain matters. We are not asking that on this occasion. Questions concerning statements by a committee chair are not permitted. We are not asking about the statements that the member for Holt made in the tabling of his report; we are asking him if he still believes, in the light of his committee's report, which he was responsible for, that our security agencies' capacity to perform their tasks— The SPEAKER 83S The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Mr Albanese R36 Speaker, on a point of order— The SPEAKER 83S The Leader of the House will resume his seat. I will refer you to House of Representatives Practice, pages 552 to 553, in the anticipation that this question may arise. While the questions have been asked over time, given that a view is being sought from the chair of the committee, the question is out of order. Mr PYNE 9V5 Madam Speaker, I would point out that the member for Holt is enthusiastically wishing to answer the question. He wishes to do so. I would also point out that opportunities to ask questions about committee business are restricted by standing order 100(e) which prevents questions referring to: … proceedings of a committee not reported to the House. In this case, the committee has reported. The member for Holt is the chair. It does not contravene any of the rules in the standing orders. And, if he is not able to answer this question, standing order 99 might as well be removed from the standing orders. Mr Albanese R36 Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This question is, indeed, out of order. As soon as the Manager of Opposition Business used the term 'view', he knocked himself out. Mr PYNE 9V5 I didn't use the term 'view', you stupid person. The SPEAKER 83S Order! The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business will withdraw— Mr PYNE 9V5 I withdraw, Madam Speaker, but I point out— The SPEAKER 83S and I was— Mr PYNE 9V5 it was a completely false statement. The SPEAKER 83S Order! The Manager of Opposition Business! Mr Oakeshott IYS Speaker, on a point of order. If you recall events of yesterday, I explored standing order 99 in detail because it was important to try and get on the record various views on the science of man-made climate change. What I needed, if I was to use standing order 99, was something before the House on climate change. I could not find anything from the Liberal-National party on that and, therefore, actually endorsed the point that the Manager of Opposition Business is making— The SPEAKER 83S The member for Lyne will resume his seat. Mr Hockey DK6 Why aren't you sitting him down? The SPEAKER 83S I am asking him to. Ms Julie Bishop interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S Oh! How dare you! How dare you! I am sorry: the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will withdraw that comment. Reflecting on the chair— Ms Julie Bishop 83P I withdraw. The SPEAKER 83S is one of the gravest breaches of these standing orders—one of the gravest breaches. The Manager of Opposition Business: if you would like to rephrase the question then I will consider it, because I think standing order 99 should be observed. Mr Albanese R36 Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S Yes, this is federal parliament; occasionally, some of you would like to remember that. The Leader of the House has the call. Mr Albanese R36 I fully expected this today. If the Manager of Opposition Business could not get his act together, over two days, to phrase a question in order, we should move on and have a question from this side. The SPEAKER 83S The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business will restate the question, without seeking the views of the member. Mr PYNE 9V5 Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the member for Holt, under standing order 99. I remind the member for Holt that, as chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, he recently tabled the report,Review of administration and expenditure No. 10. In light of his committee's report, does he confirm that the committee found that our security agencies' capacity to perform their tasks had been sequestered from the necessary funding to execute their role adequately, and does he agree with the findings? The SPEAKER 83S The Leader of the House? Mr Albanese R36 He almost got there, Speaker. He almost got there, but in the end bit he blew himself out of the water. The question is out of order. The SPEAKER 83S The last part of the question was out of order. 14:12 Mr BYRNE 008K0 Holt I have nothing further to add to the statement that I have made, but I do flag a concern here. I take my job as chair of the parliamentary joint intelligence committee very seriously. What I have observed, and what concerns me, with respect to the conduct of the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition in the past couple of days is this: that committee report was a joint report. It was a unanimous report. It was a report by consensus on two sides. I have never seen in this place, in my entire time, with one exception, national security just thrown around like it is a political plaything. And I accuse you, opposition leader, of doing so. You are the least qualified opposition leader to talk about matters of national security since Mark Latham. As to your stunt with the former director-general, Paul O'Sullivan— Opposition members interjecting— Mr BYRNE 008K0 Did you ask questions that breached the Intelligence Services Act? I think I would be treading very carefully if I were you. The next question would be— The SPEAKER 83S The member for Holt will resume his seat. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S Order! The member for Corio has the call. Mr Cheeseman HW7 Corangamite, Madam Speaker. The SPEAKER 83S Corangamite; my apologies. I was getting confused about Geelong; my mind was elsewhere! Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S Order! The member for Corangamite has the call, and has the right to be heard in silence, especially from his own colleagues. Employment 4293 14:14 Mr CHEESEMAN HW7 Corangamite My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the government's plans to make our workforce stronger and support jobs today and into the future? 14:14 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley I do thank the member for his question. Every day this government is driven by the desire to support Australian jobs and to support Australian workers and, of course, we did that during the global financial crisis when we put jobs first for Australian workers. And we have done it again during our recent budget in the face of revenue write-downs. We have put jobs and growth first for Australian workers, so much so that there have been 950,000 jobs created since this government came to power. That is why we are so serious in meeting the challenges of the future particularly in terms of our jobs plan for Australia, which was voted against by those opposite in the House yesterday—a groundbreaking plan particularly to assist manufacturing industry and to create the conditions for the jobs of the future. We are not just concerned with jobs now. We are also concerned with the retirement plans of all Australian workers, and nothing is more important to the Australian workforce over and above their job security than what they are going to do in retirement as to their dignity in retirement and their living standards in retirement, which is why the Labor Party invented national superannuation, a system which is the envy of the world. It has played a very important part in supporting jobs, particularly during the global financial crisis, and it has strengthened our economy for the future. We are putting in place some very important superannuation reforms and from today Australians are able to get an update of how much better off they will be from Labor's superannuation reforms. They can go now and log into moresuper.gov.au to find out how much better off they will be from an increase in the superannuation guarantee from nine to 12 per cent. They can log in if they are a low-income worker and find out how much better off they will be from the $500 contribution which is going to low-paid workers. Of course, there is an alternative approach to superannuation in this House and that comes from those opposite because they have announced two policies which will attack the retirement incomes of over eight million Australian workers. In particular, there is their desire to slow the implementation of the increase in the guarantee. We know what that really means because the last time that happened it did not proceed at all. The impact there would be for someone on an average income—a 30-year-old—that they could lose $127,000 in their retirement. We know that will happen. We know that the Leader of the Opposition has said that superannuation is a con job. Now he did say that some time ago, but there is one thing he said down in Geelong only a year ago. He said this: Well, we strongly oppose the superannuation increase. We have always as a Coalition been against compulsory superannuation increases. I think what that indicates to the Australian people is a savage attack on the retirement savings of Australian workers. (Time expired) National Security 4294 14:18 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt My question is to the Prime Minister. In light of the member for Holt's statement that he stands by his report and the statements he made about it, does she still maintain the member for Holt was wrong when he said that our security agencies' capacity to perform their task has been degraded? The SPEAKER 83S The Prime Minister has the call. 14:18 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor Thank you very much and to the member for Sturt: I think the member for Holt gave a very elegant answer to the parliament. In addition to that very elegant answer, let me remind the member for Sturt that, as I said in this parliament yesterday, the review tabled by the member for Holt related to the 2010-11 budgets of the Australian intelligence community. The information that I have given the parliament yesterday and today is the most recent budget information. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition, in his supplementary question, conceded that these are the facts; he conceded that I was giving the parliament facts. And the facts are as follows, that in the 2013-14 budget from 1 July there is a 10 per cent increase in funding for ASIO. Mr Pyne 9V5 On a point of order, Madam Speaker: the Prime Minister cannot be relevant to the question unless she admits the fact that she is claiming the member for Holt is wrong— The SPEAKER 83S The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Mr Pyne 9V5 in the statement that he made. The SPEAKER 83S The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Mr Pyne 9V5 No amount of changing the question— The SPEAKER 83S The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat! It is an abuse of the standing orders. The Leader of the House. Mr Albanese R36 I was going to make that point, Speaker. Mr Pyne interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S I am warning the Manager of Opposition Business. Ms GILLARD 83L The member who asked the question may be bored about the facts relating to national security but I think the Australian nation is entitled to the facts, as are members of parliament who are thinking through these questions seriously rather than dealing with them as political playthings. So for people who are seriously interested in national security and consequently seriously interested in the facts, the facts about ASIO are these. Since coming to government in 2007, this government has increased funding for ASIO by 27 per cent. Over the same period the average staffing level for ASIO has increased 32 per cent. I have had the opportunity now to lay those facts before the parliament on a number of occasions in answer to questions from the opposition. Their campaign here is one that is being pursued in defiance of the facts, and that means that it is a campaign being pursued for base political reasons not in Australia's national interest. Distance Education 4295 14:21 Mr WINDSOR 009LP New England My question is to the minister for education. The minister would be aware, from correspondence, of the New South Wales government's decision to axe the Dubbo-based years 11 and 12 School of Distance Education program to the central schools Ashford, Emmaville and Bundarra in my electorate. Minister, given the extraordinary success of this program and the potential overlap in relation to the current national partnerships agreement and the Gonski reforms, can the Commonwealth assist in any way to maintain this program in the interim? 14:21 Mr GARRETT HV4 Kingsford Smith I thank the member for his question. I know that he has an enduring interest and concern about the provision of education in his electorate and through regional New South Wales. I am aware of the matter that the member refers to, although I have not been privy to the details of the reporting of that matter. What I am advised is that it is a matter that concerns the enrolments of the schools in question. I am happy to take that part of the member's question on notice and seek clarification from the New South Wales department in respect of that matter. What I would additionally say though is that under the National Plan for School Improvement, we would expect to see additional resources going to schools in the member's and equivalent members' electorates where students are drawn from a lower socioeconomic background as may be the case in regional and rural Australia. And it is my expectation that those additional resources that are delivered to schools are intended to support the performance of the students in those schools, including in the schools that the member referred to. It makes perfect sense for programs of that kind to continue in that way. Superannuation 4295 14:23 Mr MURPHY 83D Reid Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Will the minister update the House on how the government is standing with working people to build a stronger economy today and to provide them greater financial certainty in retirement? Minister, what other policies are there, and what would be their impact? 14:23 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I thank the member for Reid for his question. I can inform him and other members of the House that this Gillard Labor government is doing much to improve retirement income savings of all Australians. The list bears repeating. We are increasing compulsory superannuation from nine to 12 per cent. We have abolished the 15 per cent tax that 3½ million people were paying on their superannuation contributions if they earned less than $37,000. We did that on 1 July last year. This is on top of us putting downward pressures on fees and charges in superannuation. This is on top of us abolishing the 70-year-old age discrimination bar against people over 70 getting super. This is on top of us today, barely an hour ago, lifting the concessional caps for people over 60 and 50. We are a government getting on with the business of looking after people's superannuation, and we have announced our plans to further depoliticise the long-term issues of superannuation from the day-to-day hurly-burly. But the member for Reid did ask me about other policies which are in existence in this place. I regret to inform the House and those listening that 16 May this year was a dark day in the history of Australian superannuation. It was the day that the Leader of the Opposition said he would freeze, he would jam, he would halt the increases in superannuation at 9¼ per cent and not increase them to 10 per cent. What do those opposite have against 8½ million Australians getting a better retirement income? It gets worse than that. The industry knows it is a problem. John Brogden, the leader of the Financial Services Council called the opposition's announcement 'a bitter disappointment, a blow to the retirement savings of all Australians'. But unfortunately, member for Reid, it gets worse. This mob opposite cannot keep their hands off superannuation. They are proposing to put a great big new tax on low-paid people's superannuation. They want to say, 'How stupid is that policy?' If you have take-home income, if you earn less than $37,000, your effective tax rate is 9½ per cent. But the brains trust opposite want to lift the tax on the super, which you cannot access, to 15 per cent! The effective tax rate is 9½ per cent that people earning under $37,000 pay on their take-home pay, but that mob opposite want them to pay more on compulsory savings. Whoever invented that idea should get the boot. But it is also stupid because those opposite want to put more pressure on the age pension. If the average Australian does not have money saved, then we are going to need to pay more in taxes. Despite the blandishments of the opposition, there is no free lunch when you are in government; you have got to do the right thing. But worst of all—not only do I not trust them to just freeze super; they will never increase super—this mob opposite would give money back to Rio Tinto and Gina and rip-off 3.6 million people with their great big new tax on superannuation. 14:26 Mr MURPHY 83D Reid Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. In view of the minister's unsettling assessment of the coalition's superannuation policies, I am prompted to ask him: how critical are superannuation policies for our male and female workers and what else is the government doing to support both working men and women? 14:27 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong Let me reassure the member for Reid, who is rightly concerned by what the mob opposite would do because they cannot keep their hands off the workers' superannuation. There are four things that come to mind instantaneously of what Labor is doing to look after working women. We want to make sure that low-paid women workers in Australia—there are 2.2 million of them who earn less than $37,000—do not pay a great big new tax on superannuation. But it gets better than that. We all know that Australians do not have enough money for their retirement. That is why we want to raise it from nine to 12 per cent, but that mob opposite would rip off the average worker 8½ million. They have never seen an employee they did not want to kick! But we are doing more than that. We have paid parental leave. It is not the Rolls Royce scheme for 'women of calibre', which I know some in the opposition like. And what is more, when you look at everything we are doing for working women—paid parental leave; we have lifted the tax-free threshold to $18,000—I tell you what: if you are a working woman in Australia and you are not rolling in income, the best bet on 14 September is vote Labor to look after your conditions if you are a working woman in Australia. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 4297 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:28 The SPEAKER 83S I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a Pacific Parliaments Climate Change Study visit sponsored by the United Nations Development Program. We have members from Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Samoa and Tonga who are visiting our parliament. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to the members. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 4297 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE National Security 4297 14:29 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister that she told the parliament yesterday that last Monday's Four Corners report alleging a cyberattack against ASIO was unsubstantiated and inaccurate. Does she stand by that statement?   14:29 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor To the member, I stand by my complete statement to the parliament yesterday, not the member's paraphrase. I stand by the statement in full that I made to the parliament yesterday. Family Payments 4297 14:29 Ms SMYTH 172770 La Trobe My question is to the Minister for Families, Community Services, Indigenous Affairs and Disability Reform. Will the minister update the House on the clear choices the government is making to support Australian families? What would be the impact of other policy choices when it comes to fairness for families? 14:30 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga I thank the member for La Trobe very much for that question because this government is all about building a fairer future for Australian families. It was this government that delivered Australia's first national Paid Parental Leave scheme and 280,000 Australian families have already benefited. It is this government that has delivered the school kids bonus and that of course is helping more than one million Australian families. Making the right choices on this side of the parliament compared to those opposite, we know that those opposite want to abolish the schoolkids bonus. That would take $15,000 out of the pockets of an ordinary family over the life of their schoolchildren, while this Leader of the Opposition wants to give $75,000 to a wealthy woman to have a baby, while they rip $15,000 out of the pockets of ordinary families. That is what those opposite are offering families. At the moment, we are holding our breath to see whether or not the position of those opposite on the baby bonus is going to last through the afternoon because we have seen so many different positions from those opposite on the baby bonus. The Leader of the Opposition said that the baby bonus was a signature policy, that he did not like our changes to the baby bonus. The shadow Treasurer said that he did not agree with that. He rolled over the Leader of the Opposition and made it clear that he was going to oppose our new family payment for newborns. That was until he got rolled. The member for North Sydney likened the government's changes to the baby bonus to China's one-child policy. But that was of course until the member for Menzies rolled the member for North Sydney. The member for Menzies is now saying that they are going to support everything that the government's proposing on the baby bonus. We have had every single policy possible from those opposite on a baby bonus—complete and total chaos from those opposite when it comes to supporting families. On their paid parental leave scheme, we have seen the member for Mitchell say that their paid parental leave policy does not pass the fair-go test. The member for Moore says that the Labor Party's scheme is quite good. We have had Senator Joyce, the member for Gippsland, Senator Williams, all of them, say that the Leader of the Opposition— (Time expired) Asylum Seekers 4298 14:33 Mrs GRIGGS 220370 Solomon My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister of the admission yesterday from immigration officials that 63 asylum seekers have escaped from immigration detention in the last year and 25 are still on the run. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that all these people had undergone comprehensive ASIO security checks prior to the escape into the community? 14:34 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor We are clearly back to the kinds of tactics that the opposition was engaged in yesterday. To the member who asked the question, Australia has operated a mandatory detention policy for some time now. The member was not here during the days of the Howard government, but if she had been she would recognise that during those days there were occasions when people left immigration detention, not in an authorised way—there were, in fact, a number of quite big break-outs under the former government. Under this government, we of course have worked on detention policy. Obviously from time to time there are some issues, but to ply this low road and to try to increase community concern and fear is truly a despicable thing to do. What the government do of course is engage with detention policy in a way that means we have security managed detention centres and we have security assessments for asylum seekers. The member asking the question should know that, and I would once again counsel her not to engage in this dreadfully low politics. Education Funding 4298 14:35 Ms O'NEILL 140651 Robertson My question is to the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth. Will the minister update the House on why we need to invest in the National Plan for School Improvement? What other support is there for this investment and what is the government's response? 14:35 Mr GARRETT HV4 Kingsford Smith I thank the member for Robertson for her question. She is a great advocate for education in both her electorate and abroad. The reason we must invest in the National Plan for School Improvement is that we want to set up the country well for the future. The fact is that education is a great enabler—and I have heard the member herself say that. Every member wants to see support going to the students in their electorates who need it. We also understand that it is not good enough to have students in our country being left behind by students in high-performing school systems in our region. We want to invest in quality learning, quality teaching and more school leadership. We get it. I am asked about other support for this investment. In fact, the New South Wales Minister for Education was in Canberra yesterday, as I understand, reportedly making a presentation to National Party colleagues on why we need the National Plan for School Improvement. Interestingly, the presentation was headed 'Benefits of school funding reform'. It says that there are persistent gaps in education outcomes that need additional investment to close those gaps. One can imagine it: the putative leader, Senator Joyce, sitting up the front, very keen; the current leader drafting a question for 'Albo'; the member for Calare ripping through a copy of The Land; and up comes the slide presentation, which says, 'Why is the current funding model broken?' because funding does not follow the students with the highest levels of educational need. The SPEAKER 83S The minister will desist from using the prop. Mr GARRETT HV4 There has never been a more eloquent statement as to why National Party members in this House ought to be supporting our National Plan for School Improvement. Here is a presentation given by a National Party education minister of a state to make that very point. The presentation went on to out the shadow minister's, the member for Sturt's, campaign of misinformation on indexation and funding growth to schools. The slide reads—and I am happy to show you for a moment—'The full funding reforms provide higher levels of funding to all school sectors in New South Wales from 2014'. The SPEAKER 83S The minister will desist from using the prop. Mr GARRETT HV4 It goes on to say that states stand to receive billions of dollars in additional investment under the National Plan for School Improvement. So what are we left with here? A federal coalition that has been exposed by a state coalition education minister because of their campaign for misinformation. I guess the rest of us can only be left with some pretty clear conclusions. If you are a teacher, they want to sack one in seven of you. If you are a parent, they want to cut the extra support that your child needs. If you care about the future of our country, they want to cut education from now and into the future. We will deliver a National Plan for School Improvement. Asylum Seekers 4299 14:38 Mr BRUCE SCOTT YT4 Maranoa My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister of revelations that more than 10,000 asylum seekers have been released into the community without any comprehensive ASIO checks. Is the Prime Minister prepared to guarantee to this House that no further individuals will be released into the community without first undergoing comprehensive checks? 14:39 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor Once again on a day when the opposition could have focused on jobs and growth in this parliament— Mr Hartsuyker interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S The member for Cowper is warned! Ms GILLARD 83L and perhaps sought to explain why they oppose the government's billion-dollar plan for jobs and growth and growth in manufacturing, on a day when they could have chosen to do that, instead they have gone down the low road of trying to provoke fear in the community— Mr Pyne 9V5 Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order clearly on the issue of relevance. The Prime Minister has been asked about national security issues and she is suggesting that they are not important and we should focus on other matters. The SPEAKER 83S The Prime Minister has the call and will refer to the question before the chair. Ms GILLARD 83L I wholly reject the assertion of the member for Sturt at the dispatch box. In relation to the member's question, we are now in the second day of the opposition going down a very low road of trying to stir up fear in the community. It is grossly unacceptable. When the opposition have gone down this path before, members of the opposition themselves have stood up to it because they have found it offensive. I can understand why those members of the opposition who have stood up to it have found it offensive. What I can say in response to the member's question is that the government will continue to pursue the policy that it has now, including the security assessments that are undergone. Trying to raise fear about this really is, as I said earlier, going down a very low political road. Vocational Education and Training 4300 14:41 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin My question is to the Minister for Higher Education and Skills. How is the government working to make sure that thousands of trainees, apprentices, students and workers have the skills and training they need to get better jobs and build a stronger economy? 14:41 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham I thank the member for Makin for his question. I have had the great opportunity over many years to have conversations with the member for Makin about how important education and training is in his electorate and I am well aware of the understanding that he has about how significant it is for the people of Makin. In fact, only recently I was able to visit the University of South Australia with the member for Makin. We were there to announce additional funding for the Australian Indigenous Mentoring Experience, which is a tremendous organisation. They are going to be providing 750 Indigenous students across South Australia with mentors. The member for Makin and I were able to join their initial session and to see the great program roll out. I know the member for Makin will be continuing to stay in contact with those students, who were very enthusiastic about the opportunity. It reflects the fact that Labor governments have always understood the critical importance of providing quality vocational education and training and higher education to people to enable them to get quality, secure jobs. And it is indeed a particularly important focus as we go into the Asian century and we seek to make sure that the people of our nation have the opportunities that will arise out of those growth opportunities in our region. It does mean that the demand for high-skilled jobs will be driving a need for us to continue to focus and invest in the sector. I want to report to the House that one of the important ways that this government partners with business is through the National Workforce Development Fund. It is $765 million over six years, and it works with businesses, coinvesting to help them upskill their workforce. Over 30,000 workers have enrolled already and, to give you an example, there are 10 at Haigh's in South Australia doing a certificate IV in manufacturing and there are 30 staff at Morshead Home for veterans here in Canberra, who are training to help older Australians with mental health issues. And, as at 26 April, business and industry have invested $124 million in upskilling their workers in partnership with this government. We also partner with them through the Workplace English Language and Literacy Program. I must say I have visited with the member for Scullin an aged-care facility in his area that is doing some great work in providing language and literacy training to its workers. I would point out that people may be interested to know what the Leader of the Opposition has to say on skills and education. They often say, 'Judge us not by what we say but by what we do.' Sadly, I have to report that they do not say anything, so it is difficult to look to the statements that have been contributing to the debate about skills and education, but, if you look at what they do in government—both in previous federal and state governments—I think you would be very worried about what the agenda for the future will be. (Time expired) National Security 4301 14:44 Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP SE4 Mackellar My question is to the Prime Minister. Given the Prime Minister's assertions that she takes national security seriously, why when she was Deputy Prime Minister did she not attend all meetings of the National Security Committee and instead send her bodyguard? 14:45 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor Clearly, the opposition now has shown what it thinks of national security: it thinks it is a joke. Because they think it is a joke they are showing they are unfit for government. The Leader of the Opposition, in sanctioning that question, is showing he is unfit to lead. The SPEAKER 83S The member for Greenway has the call. The member for Greenway will resume her seat. The member for Mackellar is seeking to table a document? Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP SE4 I am indeed, Madam Speaker. I seek leave to table a report from the Australian bodyguard deputised for Gillard, with photographs. The SPEAKER 83S The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. The Leader of the House has the call. Mr Albanese R36 No. Child Support 4301 14:45 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood and Childcare and Minister for Employment Participation. How is the government helping working parents with the cost of raising children and what would be the impact if this were removed? 14:46 Ms KATE ELLIS DZU Adelaide I thank the member for Greenway for her question and for her very hard work to support the working parents of her electorate. I know that she, like me, would be incredibly proud that in this month's budget our government has once again provided record levels of financial assistance to help parents with their childcare costs. We know how important the sector is; we know how critical the assistance is; and we are prepared to put our money where our mouth is. In this budget we are investing over $22 billion in direct childcare assistance to Australian families, which is almost quadruple the amount of funding that was provided by the former government. We know that these measures are important and we know that they are working. In fact, families are clearly valuing this assistance because this week I have released figures showing that, for the first time in our nation's history, in one quarter the number of children in childcare services has hit one million. It has never been bigger and it has never been valued more by our community or by the Australian government. We are a government that made the choice to raise the Child Care Rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent. We made a choice to increase the cap on that Child Care Rebate from $4,354 per year up to $7,500 per year. We are a government that will not cap the number of places or the number of children that we fund and support. We know how important these payments are. We know how important it is for parents as they juggle work and family. Under us, Australians can be comfortable in knowing exactly what levels of record assistance they can rely on, something that is obviously critically important when you are making decisions about your family. Yet the same cannot be said of those opposite. Those opposite hope to sneak to an election without revealing the savage cuts that they have in mind for childcare assistance. They tried to adopt the Campbell Newman style of 'trust us: we'll tell you after polling day just exactly what it is that we will do'. When asked directly if he would slash family childcare support, the shadow Treasurer could not and would not rule it out. So the coalition can no longer hide behind this post-election review of child care because it is now absolutely clear to everybody that the Child Care Rebate is on their chopping block and they are sharpening the axe as we speak. We also see reports of the Leader of the Opposition now crab-walking away from his Rolls Royce paid parental leave policy. We know that we have a very clear commitment to working parents in Australia and that there is a clear choice between families around Australia—a choice between our government, which is making record investments in child care, record investments in support, and that side opposite which would cut this assistance back the moment they got the chance. (Time expired) Asylum Seekers 4302 14:49 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that the New South Wales Police Commissioner has asked the Australian government, through the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, to provide the location details of people released into the community on bridging visas who have arrived illegally by boat? Will the government reverse its current position and provide this information to the police of New South Wales so they can do their job? Mr Melham interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S Order! The member for Banks is warned. 14:49 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor In answer to the member's question, as I said to the parliament yesterday, if police request information then, of course, police requests are answered, absolutely. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S Order! And people opposite do not realise the standing orders actually apply to them. Consumer Protection 4303 14:50 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. How is the government standing up for a fair go for hardworking families and small business and what other approaches are there? 14:50 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay I thank the member for Moreton for his question. This government has a plan to make sure that hardworking Australians get a fair go. As part of this plan we have been strengthening our consumer protection laws. We have introduced for the first time a national consumer law. We have introduced unit pricing and unfair contract terms. We have been cracking down on unconscionable conduct and we have also been cracking down on the unscrupulous activities of door-to-door selling. We have criminalised cartel conduct, something that when the coalition was in government they were advised to do and refused to do it. Today I have asked the Commonwealth Consumer Affairs Advisory Committee to identify ways of cracking down and ending some of the unfair credit card surcharges that are slugging consumers. In fact, a survey released today by Choice indicated that a family of four flying to Bali could be stung with surcharges of up to $100 on top of their airfares. These practices are unacceptable. Whilst, of course, we will await the report from the council, our government stands ready to act and to end these rip-offs. Just as we have been standing up for hardworking Australians by shining a light on these unfair practices slugging consumers, equally we have been shining a light on unfair practices of multinational companies engaging in profit shifting. That is why in this year's budget our government handed down a package of measures, $4 billion worth of measures, to crack down on corporate tax loopholes. These tax loopholes give large multinationals an unfair competitive advantage over Australian businesses that are paying their fair share, but equally if the most profitable companies in the world are not paying their fair share of tax that means that hardworking Australians and small businesses are left to foot the bill. Do not expect those opposite to stand up for a fair go for hardworking Australians. In fact, they would rather give a free kick to the tax avoiders. That is what we have seen in recent times. I saw the shadow Treasurer, when giving his budget reply speech at the Press Club, saying: 'We're going to break up the ATO and water down its powers.' At a time when right around the globe revenue authorities are seeking to crack down on profit-shifting activities of multinationals avoiding paying their fair share of tax, the shadow Treasurer's answer is to go soft on them. They will go soft on tax avoiders. Only Labor will stand up for hardworking Australians. Asylum Seekers 4303 14:53 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook My question is to the Prime Minister. In light of the Prime Minister's previous answer, can the Prime Minister explain why the government has explicitly refused to provide the specific information sought by the New South Wales police, as confirmed by DIAC officials at estimates, and give her reasons why? 14:54 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor To the member's question, as I said in parliament yesterday, as I have said today, if our authorities and agencies in any area get legitimate requests from the police then of course they are responded to. To the member for Cook, where he is obviously alluding to is the proposal that he had some time ago about blanket protocols that was rejected by the opposition. Mr Morrison E3L Speaker, I rise on a point of order on specific relevance. I was asking about the New South Wales Police Commissioner's request for specific information which the government has refused. Why? Ms GILLARD 83L I have answered the member's question. I say to the member once again—and I think the reason he got up so quickly to the dispatch box is he does not want to be reminded that in this area he put out a policy that members of the opposition backbench were disgusted by. Opposition members interjecting— Mr Morrison E3L You're a hypocrite! The SPEAKER 83S Order! The member for Cook will withdraw. Mr Morrison E3L I withdraw. Aged Care 4304 14:55 Ms HALL 83N Shortland My question is to the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, the Minister for Social Inclusion and the Minister for Housing and Homelessness. Will the minister update the House— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S Order! When I have quiet. The member for Herbert should not be a dibber dobber. Ms HALL 83N Will the minister update the House on the passage of the government's historic aged care reforms through the House this week? How will these reforms make sure older Australians get the support they deserve? 14:56 Mr BUTLER HWK Port Adelaide I thank the member for Shortland for her question, certainly not a dibber dobber. This week the House passed five bills which give legal effect to the government's living longer, living better aged care reform package. This legislation has been the subject of very detailed work with the aged-care sector, and follows the delivery already of a number of key elements of the reform package. These include things like the design and the release of new home-care packages that are due to commence on 1 July, provided legislation passes through the other place. There are also programs that will kick in this year to provide much better support to families living with dementia, as well as better linkages between the aged-care system and the broader healthcare and palliative care sectors. There are also determinations by the new Aged Care Financing Authority about how providers will qualify for increased accommodation payments from the government, as well as a fairer and more transparent system of accommodation charges for consumers themselves. This element featured in many of the contributions on this debate from those opposite, who were concerned apparently that greater choice about how consumers will pay their accommodation charges will impact the viability of some providers. The Aged Care Financing Authority is obviously—I hope this goes without saying—alive to these questions of viability. This is a highly qualified group which independently provides advice which, for the first time, is transparently published on the government's website. Indeed, the Aged Care Financing Authority commissioned advice from KPMG particularly on this question of viability. This advice has been released recently on the website, last week, I think. I table this report for the benefit of the House. After the release of the advice, the Aged Care Financing Authority wrote to me providing advice on that advice. They concluded: 'The Authority supports the overall findings of the analysis that the reforms can be expected to have a significant positive impact on the overall level of refundable accommodation deposits and revenue for the industry.' I table that correspondence from the authority as well. These reforms will undoubtedly provide greater choice, control and flexibility for older Australians about their aged care and support needs. These reforms provide much greater emphasis on the ability of older Australians to stay at home for as long as possible, as well as responses to emerging pressures like the increasing prevalence of dementia in our communities. The government looks forward to debate on these bills in the other place, following receipt of the Senate inquiry into the bills, and then being able to get on with the job of providing the best possible care and support to Australian seniors. Ms Gillard 83L I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper, that being the right number. Opposition members interjecting— Mr Pyne 9V5 Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under standing order 34, which is the Order of Business, question time is specifically supposed to finish at no later than 3.10. I explain to the members and to people listening that it is not even three o'clock yet today. The agreement that we made in good faith at the beginning of this very long parliament indicated that 3.10 would be the time. For the Prime Minister to cut question time off before it is even three o'clock does not do her any credit, nor the parliament. We have had this debate before, and last time— The SPEAKER 83S The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Mr Albanese R36 Speaker, on the point of order: is there no element of productivity improvements that the opposition supports? The fact is, we have got through the 20 questions in an efficient way—an example of the efficient way that this parliament has been run. The SPEAKER 83S The Prime Minister has asked for further questions to be placed on the Notice Paper. I will not engage in any more debate. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 4305 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Member for Batman 4305 15:00 Mr MARTIN FERGUSON LS4 Batman I speak on indulgence. I wish to advise the House that I have today informed the leader of my party, the Australian Labor Party, that I will be leaving the parliament at the next election. Colleagues, this is a personal decision. It is not a decision that I have taken lightly; however, I feel that that the timing is appropriate and in the best interests of my party and my family. It has been an absolute privilege and pleasure to serve as the member for Batman since 2 March 1996. In fact, this is my first and last speech as a backbencher. Up until my resignation from cabinet on 22 March this year I have had the honour and privilege of serving continuously as the shadow minister in a variety of economic portfolios, and as the Minister for Resources and Energy and the Minister for Tourism. I thank the Australian Labor Party and the constituents of Batman for the opportunity, especially the heart and soul of the party: the local branch members who have supported me in my time in this place. When I look back on my career, firstly at the Miscellaneous Workers Union, then as ACTU president and finally as a member of parliament, my main motivation has been to get Australians into decent, well-paying jobs. This is what the Labor Party means to me: helping those less fortunate in life by providing new jobs and opportunities to achieve a better quality of life. Creating opportunities by working with business is not the same thing as pointless class rhetoric. In essence, we need to grow the pie to share it. As I said in my maiden speech to parliament on 2 May 1996: The people of the electorate are working people whose priorities for their families are better job opportunities, better housing opportunities, better educational opportunities, better health opportunities and support for the aged. During the 1980s and 1990s this involved some genuinely tough decisions with people like Simon Crean, Bill Kelty and, of course, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating. We knew the economy had to be restructured, which would involve closing down old industries and creating efficiencies and new opportunities. This meant that jobs were lost in many industries with members that I and other unionists had represented for decades. Colleagues, they were hard decisions to take, but they were taken in the knowledge that they would provide the basis of a better Australia for all of us. Let me tell you, standing at the factory gates with people who had just lost their jobs, all for the greater good of reforming our economy, was not easy. At the same time, as President of the ACTU I was proud to be involved in negotiating the accord with the Hawke and Keating governments. The accord led to rises in family payments targeting low-income families, higher school retention rates, increased welfare benefits for pensioners, tax cuts for lower- and middle-income workers, compulsory superannuation and proper training for the unemployed based on the all-important principle of a reciprocal obligation. This is a proud legacy for the union movement and for the Labor Party. On my watch as minister for resources I am proud to have helped facilitate the biggest pipeline investment in our resources sector this country has ever seen. Perhaps more importantly, if we focus our attentions on the fundamentals of attracting further investment, including getting costs under control and achieving regulatory reform, we had the capacity as a nation to secure a second pipeline of investment, especially in the LNG sector, which will set up Australia for the 21st century. My friends, we have had 21 years of continuous growth in this country, and we as a nation should never forget that. When other countries faced recession during the global financial crisis, Australia continued to grow. In my opinion, this and the apology to the stolen generations are major achievements of Labor governments since 2007. I am also delighted that we are now finally moving towards a national disability scheme, a further chance to look after the less privileged in our society. Australia's recognition as a member of the G20 is also a fitting recognition of the constructive role we play internationally. It is fair to say that many seek to demonise the resources industry, but we should never forget that it accounts for 60 per cent of our export wealth, wealth that has meant we could take better care of our community, improve the lives of Australians and give opportunities to those who never thought that they could do the things they now do in that sector. As minister for energy I am proud of the microeconomic reform process I continued to deliver in the energy sector, competition reforms established under the Keating government. I am proud that I have stayed true to the market principles underpinning the sector, delivering an efficient and reliable essential service to the community. I want to acknowledge the cooperation of fellow energy ministers from the states in supporting me as chair of the ministerial council, where together we set up the next tranche of future energy market reforms that will ensure that the long-term interests of consumers continue to be at the centre of energy market reform. While many may be surprised, I am also especially proud of the establishment of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, ARENA, and the appointment of a highly experienced and talented group of people to sit on its board and invest in deploying and developing Australia's renewable technologies. Our green jobs in the 21st century will be at the high end, focusing on research and development and innovation. As Minister for Tourism I am also proud of the growth we have achieved in difficult circumstances in Australia's largest services export sector, employing over half a million Australians and directly contributing $35 billion to our economy. Huge market opportunities exist in Asia and it has been a focus of mine to boost investment in the tourism sector so that Australia can capture these opportunities in the future. Tourism 2020 is about that very objective. I would like to conclude by firstly thanking all the staff and those who support us to make this parliament the wonderful institution it is. Thank you. Members should also never forget that, irrespective of who is in government, they must properly resource and protect the independence of the Parliamentary Library. It is an exceptionally valuable resource making a major contribution through its research capacity to the strength of our democracy. I also make special mention of parliamentary committees. I thoroughly enjoyed participating in a variety of parliamentary committees. They were a great learning opportunity for a young member. It is also where friendships are formed across the political divide. To my former department, the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, I personally want to thank you for the invaluable advice you provided me as a minister. We went through a lot together and I have the utmost respect for the department and the quality of the work done by its officials. It was a thankless task. I have also been fortunate to have wonderful staff and I am pleased to note that some of them are here in the gallery this afternoon, both past and present, ministerial and electorate. My success has been your success and many of you are part of my extended family. Finally, my parents, Jack and Mary Ferguson, who were here for my swearing-in as a member in 1996, have now passed on. Thank you for the wonderful start you gave me in life and the love and support you gave me throughout my life. My wife Tricia, to Benjamin and Clare and my daughter-in-law Meghan, thank you. As I said in my first speech, life has never been easy with me due to long hours and lengthy periods away from home. The last decade has been especially challenging as Tricia has virtually managed the health challenges of one of our children full-time. I thank her. I thank you, Tricia, Ben and Clare, for your encouragement and support. Without that I would never have been part of the achievement of the labour movement, both industrially and politically, that I have spoken about today. I thank the House for the opportunity. 15:11 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor Speaker, very briefly, on indulgence, I had the opportunity to speak with the member for Batman earlier today and he advised me that he would be making this statement to the House. It has been a privilege to sit and listen to him and to reflect on those times and his contribution to this parliament and to the Australian nation more broadly. Obviously in our own Labor way and on another occasion we will spend time honouring the member for Batman and his service both to the Australian Labor Party and to the trade union movement. But I know personally the sacrifices the member for Batman has made across his working career. I understand the toll that has taken from time to time on his family. I have had the opportunity over these years to meet and know members of his family, to know Tricia, to know Ben and to know Clare, and I know that he will very much value time with them. From our point of view, he can leave this parliament knowing that he has been a part, indeed a pivotal part, of a number of great Labor achievements—great Labor achievements in the Hawke and Keating modernisation of our economy where the trade union movement was such a willing and such a vital part; great Labor achievements in the period of this government since our election in 2007. When the worst hit in the form of the global financial crisis it was all shoulders to the wheel amongst the Labor team to make sure that we were keeping our economy going, and certainly the member for Batman played his part in that. He also has played his part very strongly in harnessing and nurturing our resources sector. I know that that is appreciated both by the companies in that sector and by the thousands of working people who rely on that sector for their living. The member for Batman has had to negotiate some incredibly complex changes in energy policy. I know I have worked with him on some. The level of detail is not for the faint-hearted. But he is respected nationally, including by state energy ministers, for his expertise and for his contribution to Australia's energy security. On tourism, such a vital industry which has been under so much pressure given the strength of our Australian dollar, the member for Batman in his very tough-minded way has worked with the industry to chart a very clear course for the future. So it is a very proud track record of achievement. I am very pleased that the House as a whole had this opportunity to hear the words from the member for Batman. He will obviously go with the thanks of the Labor team. We will make that very clear in our own way but I am glad that we had the opportunity now for the House to make it clear as a whole. Honourable members: Hear, hear! 15:14 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words in response to the member for Batman. This House has just heard a heartfelt statement from deep in the Labor tradition. It is a sad day for the parliament, a sad day for the Labor Party and a sad day for the country that someone of the member for Batman's stature is choosing to serve our country in a different capacity. The member for Batman, if I may say so, is not simply another member of this parliament; he is steeped in this parliament, he is steeped in the traditions of service, he is steeped in the traditions of parliaments around this country. If I may use the phrase, the member for Batman is Labor Party royalty. I have in times past somewhat slightingly referred to the 'hereditary peers' of this parliament. I regret on this occasion that I did so then. I should not have made light of the tradition which the member for Batman represents—the tradition of service to party and country which the member for Batman and his family have represented for several generations. The member for Batman spoke with considerable emotion. He respects the party he served. I should say from this side of the parliament that we too respect the party he has served. Over the years, the Labor Party has made a monumental contribution to this country. The Labor Party, at its best, has been a nation-building party, and the member for Batman has always harkened to the best traditions of the Australian Labor Party. I regret that he feels unable to stay in the parliament. I regret that he felt unable to remain in the current government. The government, his party, the parliament and our country will be the poorer for his absence. Well may we shed a tear for things which were, which should be but which are not. From this side of the political trench I salute an honourable opponent and a great Australian. Honourable members: Hear, hear! DOCUMENTS 4309 DOCUMENTS Presentation 4309 15:17 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 document listed. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 4309 COMMITTEES Selection Committee 4309 Report 4309 15:18 The SPEAKER 83S I present report No. 81 of the Selection Committee, relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday, 1 June 2012. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today and the committee's determination will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table. The report read as follows— Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business 1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 28 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, 3 June 2013, as follows: Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon) COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS Presentation and statements 1 Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade: Australia ' s trade and investment relationship with Japan and the Republic of Korea. The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 10.20 am. Speech time limits— Ms Saffin — 5 minutes. Next Member speaking—5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins] PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Notices 1 MR BANDT: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, and for related purposes. (Broadcasting Services Amendment (Advertising for Sports Betting) Bill 2013) (Notice given 28 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. 2 MR KATTER: To present a Bill for an Act to maintain Australian ownership of Australian agribusiness and land, and for related purposes. (Australian Ownership Bill 2013) (Notice given 28 May 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. Orders of the day 1 MS SMYTH: Resumption of debate (from 29 October 2012) on the motion of Ms Smyth—That this House: (1) recognises the reliance of many families and individuals across our community on penalty rates as a key component of their income, particularly our lowest-paid workers; (2) acknowledges that work-life balance is important to the health and welfare of workers, families and our community; (3) recognises that penalty rates often compensate workers for time they may otherwise spend with family; and (4) opposes measures that would remove or undermine penalty rates. Time allotted—60 minutes . Speech time limits— All Members—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 12 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day. Notices - continued 3 M R OAKESHOTT : To move: That this House expresses full confidence in the: (1) Department of the Treasury, and Department of Finance and Deregulation; (2) Treasury Secretary, Dr Martin Parkinson and Finance Secretary, David Tune; and (3) following words by Treasury Secretary, Martin Parkinson: 'I can say on behalf of David Tune, the Secretary of the Department of Finance and myself—and get this right—were PEFO [the Pre‑Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook] to have been released on the 14 May, it would have contained the numbers that were in the budget.' (Notice given 28May 2013.) Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon. 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. Items for House of Representatives Chamber (8 to 9.30 pm) PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Notices - continued 4 M S MARINO : To move: That this House: (1) acknowledges that: (a) cyber-bullying and inadequate cyber-safety poses a significant threat to the welfare and security of all Australians, especially young people; and (b) this threat will increase with new technology and greater connectivity; and (2) calls on the Government to enhance cyber-safety education in all Australian schools. (Notice given 12March 2013.) Time allotted—50 minutes . Speech time limits— Ms Marino — 10 minutes. Next Member speaking—10 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 + 6 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day. 5 M R BOWEN : To move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) the Assyrian population of Iraq continues to suffer persecution ten years after the fall of Saddam Hussein; and (b) in 2003 there were nearly 1.4 million Christians in Iraq, but due to deaths and forced emigration, this figure has fallen to around 500,000; (2) calls on the Government of Iraq to establish an autonomous province in the Nineveh Plains region to provide a haven for Assyrians and all other historically Christian people, for the continuation of their linguistic, cultural and religious traditions. (Notice given 27May 2013.) Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 9.30 pm. Speech time limits—    Mr Bowen—10minutes. Next Member speaking—10 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 + 4 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 Orders of the day 1 VOICE FOR ANIMALS (INDEPENDENT OFFICE OF ANIMAL WELFARE) BILL 2013: ( Mr Bandt ): Second reading ( from 27 May 2013. ): Time allotted—20 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. Notices 1 M r Ruddock : To move: That this House: (1) recognises that: (a) Christian Assyrians, a minority religious and racial group in Iraq, are subject to ongoing violence, intimidation, harassment and discrimination on religious and ethnic grounds; (b) on 31 October 2010, 58 Christian Assyrians were killed in an attack on a church in Baghdad, in an act of violent extremism targeting this minority group; (c) Christian Assyrians are actively discriminated against by having their land illegally occupied and transferred to squatters; (d) 600,000 Christian Assyrians have now fled Iraq, including many thousands to Australia; and (e) Assyrians remaining in Iraq are denied many basic human rights and subject to ongoing harassment, intimidation and discrimination; (2) condemns violence, intimidation, harassment and discrimination on religious and ethnic grounds wherever it may be found, including in Iraq; and (3) calls upon the Australian Government to raise the significant human rights concerns of Christian Assyrians with the Iraqi Government. (Notice given 27November 2012.) Time allotted—50 minutes . Mr Ruddock — 10 minutes. Next Member speaking—10 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins + 6 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day. Orders of the day - continued 2 MS PARKE: Resumption of debate (from 17 September 2012) on the motion of Ms Parke—That this House: (1) commends the Government for its four year commitment to provide $50 million to support the global eradication of polio; (2) notes: (a) that in February 2012, India was removed from the list of countries where polio remains endemic, proving that eradication strategies are effective when they are fully implemented and that polio can be eradicated even in the toughest circumstances, and there has not been a single reported case of polio in India since January 2011; (b) that polio eradication should, wherever possible, be part of routine immunisation efforts to improve population immunity for all priority, vaccine preventable childhood illnesses; (c) that there are now only three countries in the world where polio has never been stopped, namely Afghanistan, Pakistan and Nigeria, and unless the polio program is fully funded and emergency plans are implemented as planned, polio could make a comeback in countries that are currently polio-free; (d) estimates show that global re-infection over time could result in as many as 200,000 children per year being paralysed; (e) that the Global Polio Eradication Initiative currently faces a funding shortfall of US$945 million for the full implementation of its 2012‑13 Emergency Action Plan, and this has caused immunisation campaigns to be cancelled or scaled back in 33 countries in Africa and Asia, leaving more children vulnerable to the disease and increasing the risk of the international spread of polio; and (f) the recent landmark resolution by the Sixty-fifth World Health Assembly declaring the completion of polio eradication, a programmatic emergency for global public health, with member states highlighting the feasibility of eradication in the near-term, while expressing concern at the ongoing funding gap threatening success; and (3) encourages the Government to continue to support efforts to deliver a polio-free world and to encourage other countries to do likewise. Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to approx. 1.30 pm. First 2 Members speaking—10 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 + 10 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 2 MR L. D. T. FERGUSON: To move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) 14 February marked two years since the outbreak of the 2011 period of major unrest in the Kingdom of Bahrain; (b) the 2011 unrest in Bahrain has been characterised by a mass protest movement calling for constitutional, political and election reform; (c) since the beginning of the protest movement in Bahrain, there have been reports of ongoing human rights violations against opposition figures, demonstrators and medical practitioners at the hands of the authorities, including fatalities and arbitrary political arrests; and (d) there have been reports of acts of violence against the State, resulting in injury and, in some cases, fatalities; (2) welcomes the resumption of Bahrain's National Dialogue on 10 February 2013 as a positive step towards political and related reform and reconciliation, and urges all parties to commit fully to the process and to reject violence; and (3) calls on the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain to: (a) follow through on its commitment to full implementation of the recommendations of the November 2011 report of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry on human rights violations during the 2011 unrest; (b) release political prisoners who were arrested arbitrarily, investigate new reports of human rights abuses and bring the perpetrators to justice; (c) respect the human rights of its people including the right to freely protest and the right of medical staff to give unhindered treatment to those injured while protesting; and (d) commit to genuine reform that addresses the legitimate concerns and aspirations of the people of Bahrain. (Notice given 13March 2013.) Time allotted—30 minutes . Mr L. D. T. Ferguson — 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. 3 Mr Christensen: To move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) the Australian sugar industry is one of the world's most efficient and innovative producers and exporters of sugar and the leader in the adoption of sustainable farming practices; (b) Australia is the third largest exporter of sugar in the world; (c) there are some 6000 cane growers in Australia with more than 4000 farms growing sugar that operate along Australia's eastern seaboard; and (d) the sugar industry directly and indirectly supports 40,000 jobs in Australia, underpinning the economic stability of many coastal communities, and is the social fabric that has woven itself through the development of coastal townships up and down the coast; and (2) expresses concern about claims that sugar is 'toxic'; and (3) rejects calls for a tax based on the content of sugar in a particular food product. (Notice given 19March 2013.) Time allotted—40 minutes . Mr Christensen — 10 minutes. Next Member speaking—10 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 + 4 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day. Orders of the day—continued 3 MS HALL: Resumption of debate (from 11 February 2013) on the motion of Ms Hall—That this House: (1) acknowledges that the Government has a positive reform agenda for older Australians and is delivering enormous commitment and investment in aged care and promoting positive aged care issues by: (a) increasing the aged pension; (b) reforming the aged care system; and (c) helping older Australians stay at work longer; and (2) calls on all Members to support the reforms and guarantee support for older Australians. Time allotted—50 minutes . All Members—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day. 4 M ARRIAGE EQUALITY AMENDMENT BILL 2012 ( Mr Bandt ): Second reading—Resumption of debate (from 27May 2013.) Time allotted—20 minutes . All 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. 5 M ARINE ENGINEERS QUALIFICATIONS BILL 2013 ( Mr Wilkie ): Second reading—Resumption of debate (from 27May 2013—Mr Fitzgibbon, in continuation). Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 9 pm. All Members—5 minutes. each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 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— Tax Laws Amendment (Disclosure of MRRT Information) Bill 2013 (Mr Hockey); Proposed East West Link in Melbourne (Mr Tudge); Chemotherapy Drugs (Mr Dutton); University Funding (Mr Bandt); and Fair Work Amendment (Tackling Job Insecurity) Bill 2012 (Mr Bandt). STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 4314 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Member for Batman 4314 15:18 Mr OAKESHOTT IYS Lyne I acknowledge my political and legal adversary, the member for Batman. I take this opportunity to apologise if I have ever offended him over the last couple of years, and I look forward to a beer after a hard-fought match in the 43rd Parliament. I certainly wish him well. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 4314 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Climate Change 4314 15:18 Mr OAKESHOTT IYS Lyne by leave—I move: That this House expresses full confidence in the work of Australia’s science community and confirms that it believes that man-made climate change is not a conspiracy or a con, but a real and serious threat to Australia if left unaddressed. Yesterday was a significant step forward. We finally have on the record both party leaders in this chamber in a bipartisan way expressing full confidence in the science community of Australia and their accepted advice on man-made climate change. At times it has been like pulling teeth—and I fully respect that, within the ranks of both major parties there are differing views—but it is important, if we are going to establish certainty for the future of policy and an economic debate that hangs off those foundations of acceptance of the very best advice from the very best scientists in this country, that this House, regardless of who has the government benches, accepts with confidence the advice that man-made climate change is real.   Both party leaders yesterday confirmed their belief in man-made climate change science. But I do raise with some hesitation some taunts that were made during events of yesterday from colleagues around me. When I did raise the opportunity for both leaders to answer the question around the science, two different members threw up the words, 'Ask us when we are in government!' and 'Wait and see when we are in government!' I hope that is not the position held by colleagues in this chamber. I hope that everyone is being fair dinkum about their belief in the science and the science community, their agreements around the minimum targets that have been agreed upon by 2020 and that everyone is being fair dinkum about the different views on economic responses that are coming forward. Personally, I am sick of public servants and science being picked on, denied and accused, often when they are not in positions to defend themselves—and all for political expediency. Most, if not all, the people in the science community are lifelong committed scientists doing the very best they can in the most objective way they can and falling wherever the facts and the evidence take them. It is not the role of any of us to accuse them of cons or conspiracies but to accept the advice from the vast majority of scientists—the very best we have in the field—and to listen to it, so that when they say, 'Australia, we have a problem,' we should listen very closely to that and then respond. In my view, we have spent way too much time pretending that the science of climate change is in dispute. We have spent way too much time pretending that the science of climate change is not bipartisan. As we saw clearly in this chamber yesterday in the middle of question time, the Prime Minister and the alternate Prime Minister reached bipartisan agreement on the climate science. By all means, we are going to have a wrestle over economic policy and the response, but there is bipartisanship on the science itself. So, for anyone wanting to vote sceptically at the ballot box in four months time, I think there is only one option, and that would be the party of my friend next to me—if he were here, my imaginary friend—Bob Katter's Australia Party. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S Order! Members will refer to members by their appropriate title. Mr OAKESHOTT IYS The member for Kennedy. I think that he is the only one in this chamber—what is Peter Slipper's seat? An honourable member: Fisher. Mr OAKESHOTT IYS I am not sure where the member for Fisher stands on all of this, but the member for Kennedy is the only member in this chamber who, I understand, has a policy platform that is sceptical of the science. Everyone else in this chamber is locked and loaded—the science is confirmed. We have got shakings of the head by members whose own party leaders are saying that the science is real. We have members shaking their heads—members who are going to the ballot box with a party platform in response to the science that they are shaking their heads about. Mr Dutton 00AKI This is nothing about climate science. It is all about you, as per usual! The SPEAKER 83S Order! The member for Dickson is warned! Mr OAKESHOTT IYS I hope Hansard has recorded that. I hope Hansard has recorded a senior shadow minister in a rage about bipartisanship on climate science, a position confirmed by their leader yesterday—today there is shaking of heads, rants and interjections. The position of party leaders is clearly not settled within party rooms. That is exactly why I think it is important for this House to call the bluff and see where some bums land when we actually have a vote in confidence on the science community and on the science of man-made climate change. It is real in our minds or it is not. We accept the science or we do not. It is time we actually tested that on the floor of the House and then we will have our arguments around how we respond to that science. It is wrong to accuse scientists, including a former Australian of the Year only five years ago, of being con artists and wrapped up in some global conspiracy. It is wrong. That should not be Australia in 2013. By all means, argue the toss over policy but, when we go the man, when we go the personality, that is a step too far. Again I see sneering from the front bench from senior shadow ministers—shaking their heads at a very simple point being made obviously cuts deep. Opposition members interjecting— Mr OAKESHOTT IYS You can whisper it all you like but, in the end you are going to be asked to vote in confidence for the science of man-made climate change. I would ask you all to consider your positions. Opposition members interjecting— Mr OAKESHOTT IYS Again we have further interjections. This should be a fairly simple point that should not have to be made in this chamber. But it is obviously cutting deep into the heart of a position that is being taken to the ballot box—to 'repeal the carbon tax' without telling the full story. That is not a repeal policy, it is a replacement policy. It is a replacement of something that is going to cost taxpayers more. A true liberal believes in markets. A shadow minister for the environment would arguably believe in markets. We can get into the economics of that on the back of this debate, but we are talking now about the science and seeing who votes where, who abstains, who has the courage of their convictions—if they have run around electorates saying that this is all a global conspiracy—and seeing how closely linked they are to talkback radio hosts and to billionaires who are sceptical. Let us see how people vote and whether they trust the advice that has been given to them from the vast majority of the very best scientists in Australia. Mr Keenan E0J Good grief! Mr OAKESHOTT IYS And, again, we have an interjection, saying, 'Good grief!' I look forward to this vote. On the back of this vote we can then start having a sensible discussion about the replacement policy, which is somehow going to cost less and do more than a market-based approach and which is somehow going to deny the very best of economic advice. It is one that I look forward to on the back of this vote. The most offensive part of this debate to date is the policy process itself that is being challenged—not about climate science but how we as policymakers develop policy. When it is best delivered in all its forms, surely, regardless of where you start in this chamber, you rely heavily on the very best advice you can find. You rely on the experts in the field. We are kidding ourselves if we run around this chamber, saying, 'We know everything about everything; we are the absolute experts on all topics.' We are not. We are jack-of-all-trades and, in most cases, masters of none. We are generalists in the work that we do but, if we invest in the policy process, we have plenty of resources in the field and expert advice. We rely on that. Sure, we test it on the way through and challenge it but, in the end, if it is solid we do what we can in this chamber to turn that good advice into actual law and legislation. The offensive part of this debate to date is that that has been lost. The very best scientists are saying: Australia, we have a problem. They are saying that there is clear evidence of man-made contribution to climate change and climate science. That seems to be denied by too many. At the next level, beyond this vote, we then listen to the very best economists in the field to find a response. We can do nothing. We can say: 'It's all a hoax and a con' and leave it as a risk for future generations. That is one of the options that is a risk too far for this chamber, if we accept the science. We could choose another path, which is not actually what we did—that is, to introduce a tax bill through this chamber that is akin to increasing the GST, putting a direct cost on consumers and then using that money to kick money to clean up pollution. That is another model for introducing a carbon tax. Your leader, who was on YouTube talking about carbon tax as a real option, is the only one in this chamber I heard actually talk about a carbon tax as a model that could be a response. The third option, Shadow Minister, is a market-based response, as per a very good PhD that everyone talks about. Mr Hunt 00AMV You twerp, you undergraduate. You are a bleeding idiot and dishonest— Mr OAKESHOTT IYS You will have a go. A market-based response seeks the lowest cost for the highest return. That is the Liberal philosophy of supporting a market. That was the Liberal approach until 2009. That is what former Treasurer Peter Costello took to cabinet in 2001. That is what former Prime Minister John Howard took to the ballot box in 2007: lowest cost for highest return, a market-based approach. So here is the test—I do not need the full time—we either vote for it or vote against it. We can hear about all this carbon tax repeal stuff without talking about a replacement plan all you like. But, in the end, the test of this vote is nothing beyond whether you confirm, with confidence from this House, that the science community is right: that Australia has a problem. Let us see where the bums land, from all members of parliament, in support of the very best advice in the science community. Let us stop picking on them, accusing them of being part of a global conspiracy and being part of a con. The advice is real and the question for the House today is whether or not we accept it. 15:34 Mr WINDSOR 009LP New England Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 15:34 Mr BURKE DYW Watson The motion that is before the House, moved by the member for Lyne, aims to do away with the first part of the argument that sometimes makes its way back and forth through the media and elsewhere in terms of determining what is the view of this House on the science itself. And it accepts that there has been a secondary debate, where one side of the House finds itself backing a market and the other side of the House takes a different view, but this is where we deal upfront with the starting principle of the science of climate change itself. There is no doubt in the discussion of responding to climate change and carbon trading as a method that the debate in the public arena has been mixed up with a debate about whether we are responding to anything that is real. The references here go to the different scientific work that has been done generally. I will now talk very specifically about some work that is done by Australian scientists. As part of the role of the environment minister of this country you look after the Antarctic Division. I will never forget— Mr Hunt 00AMV You don't have any flights! Mr BURKE DYW I even offered for the shadow minister to go. The work of our scientists down there is extraordinary and the work that they do with ice cores is probably some of the most telling work that exists in dealing with the science of climate change. Effectively, these ice cores are time capsules for the history of our planet. The depth at which they are found tells us how old they are. The quality of the water particles within them tells us about the temperature of the period and the snowflakes, as they have fallen, have trapped tiny little bubbles which give us an exact time capsule record of what the atmosphere was like at the time. The story is a simple one and found consistently with ice core records across the globe. It is this: that at the same time that the industrial revolution occurred, the level of carbon in the atmosphere massively increased, by proportion to what would have been natural levels and, at the same time, an increase in temperature. The science of climate change is that simple. People say, 'There have been other periods in our history; you can go to geological records and there were other periods when the globe has got warm.' That is true—it is true that there have been other times when the globe has got warm, but we are talking about a spike, unprecedented, that has coincided exactly with an increase in pollution going into the atmosphere. I also, on this, refer to an argument offered by some sceptics where they say, 'Actually, carbon dioxide is a completely natural gas.' Most forms of pollution occur, in some way or other, naturally. They are called 'pollution' when you get them in massive concentrations beyond what would occur naturally. That is why we refer to 'carbon pollution'. That is why we refer to carbon dioxide being a pollutant when it is occurring at levels that would not ordinarily be natural. What about when you have an oil spill and you have oil going into the ocean? Oil itself occurs naturally, but the spill means that you get an environmental outcome which would otherwise be unprecedented. In the same way, the fact that carbon dioxide occurs naturally does not change for one minute the fact that we are dealing with a form of pollution when we are dealing with it in these sorts of levels. There have been a number of members of this House who have chosen, on different occasions, in interviews and elsewhere, and quite publicly, some of them, to have a view that is quite contrary to the contents of this resolution. I hope they vote in accordance and consistent with those views when this comes to a vote in a few moments time. I am noticing a few of them currently are absenting themselves from the chamber, and I will see whether they are here— Mr Hunt 00AMV How many are there over there? Mr Ruddock 0J4 I can only count one. Mr BURKE DYW I do not think those opposite understand that, when we are talking about sceptics, you do not find them on this side of the chamber at all. But over there, you could go to the different members, such as the member for Tangney; you could go to the people who have said that the solution to climate change is to use giant shadecloth as a way of dealing with it. People on the other side of the chamber have referred to it as a hoax or have referred to the science of climate change using the term 'crap'. Those opposite—I will go for the full 20 if that is what you want— Mr Morrison E3L Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, I note the lack of government members on that side of the chamber, and I draw your attention to the state of the House. The bells having been rung— The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 Mr Vasta! The member for Bonner will return to the chamber. The member for Bonner was in the chamber. You cannot leave during a count for a quorum. (Quorum formed) Mr BURKE DYW And, as to those who come in, I just hope that the member for Tangney comes in during the discussion of this. I just hope that those who have gone out into the electorate and who have said that they do oppose the science of climate change have the courage to stand in this parliament and vote the way they say. There are those who have been so brave on talkback radio—who have had all the bravery in the world in being willing to say that they are opposed to the science and that they reckon all of this is rubbish and some global conspiracy. I say to those members of parliament: 'Walk in now,' because now is their chance. Now is their chance to let it be known whether or not they are going to vote the way of their official party platform, or whether they have any integrity in the views that they put out there publicly, because there will be a moment where this is put to a vote on the voices and there are no sceptics on this side of the House. There is no-one on this side of the House who would be voting no. But we will only divide if the sceptics on that side have the courage to be in the room for the vote. It is only if they have the courage to come in and put voice within the parliament to what they have been willing to say outside the parliament that will determine whether or not we have the division. And that is something that they will not be able to hide behind anymore. I welcome the fact that the member for Lyne has brought this debate on. I welcome the fact that, much to the surprise of many members of the opposition, the Leader of the Opposition decided to grant leave to have this. I welcome the fact that we are able to have the discussion upfront on the science of climate change. To those members of parliament who, up until now, have sought to hide within the parliament but make all sorts of extraordinary claims outside the parliament, I say: if you believe that there is anything that backs up the global conspiracy theory on the science of climate change, walk into this chamber now. 15:43 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders On the positive side, at least we should welcome the fact that the member for Lyne's speech was only 14 minutes this time. Let me be very clear, because it has been the position for a very, very long time: we accept the science, we accept the targets and we accept the need for a market mechanism; we just happen to clearly, absolutely, fundamentally disagree over the choice of those mechanisms. They chose a carbon tax, they chose an emissions trading scheme, they chose to increase electricity prices, they chose to increase gas prices and they chose to increase refrigeration prices but they did not choose to tell the Australian people that that was what they would do. Well, we challenge every member of the ALP to come clean with a very simple proposition: if the coalition does win the trust of the Australian people, if the coalition is given the opportunity to form government, will the members of the ALP respect the mandate given by the Australian people to repeal the carbon tax? That is a very simple test: will the members of the ALP respect the mandate of the Australian people, if we are successful, to repeal the carbon tax? This is not a debate about science although let me say this: every person in Australia has a right to their views, every person should be able to speak without fear or favour, every person in a democracy should be able to give their views. Now I—and we—come down on a particular side, that there is a case to deal with, but everybody should be able to speak without fear or favour and express their views. That is what democracy is about. If there are members of the ALP who want to clamp down on people's rights to express their views then that is something which they should out themselves on. So let us go back to a very simple proposition: whilst we agree on the science, we agree on the targets and we agree on the need for markets, we disagree absolutely and fundamentally on their market mechanism of a carbon tax which is the highest in the world and which is about to become the most volatile in the world after 1 July 2015. I do want to make one point about market theory here because we hear a lot of tripe from the government and from some who should know better about that. There are different types of market mechanisms. Three Nobel economics laureates, all of whom accept the science of climate change and all of whom are amongst the world's most pure and most eminent market economists—Finn Kydland, Thomas Schelling and Vernon Smith—ranked 15 different approaches to reducing emissions. Of those 15, there were three carbon tax mechanisms. The 15 included technology and work on forests but the three which they ranked as the worst and least efficient means of addressing the problem were the three forms of the carbon tax and as the price got higher you went from 13 to 14 and to 15. Finn Kydland, Thomas Schelling and Vernon Smith—three of the world's Nobel economics laureates from the last decade and all climate change believers and all pure market economists. So when we hear that there is only one way, perhaps—just perhaps—the government members and the crossbenchers may want to go and speak with three of the world's great Nobel economics laureates. So the answer is very simple: we agreed on the science, we agree on the targets and we agree on the market but we could not disagree more on the choice of market mechanism. For these reasons we are happy to let your motion pass but we will fight right up to election day to take away your carbon tax. 15:48 Mr WINDSOR 009LP New England I second the motion of the member for Lyne and support the comments in relation to the scientific community and climate change. I think even thus far this debate has been quite significant and important because it has been allowing people to reaffirm their confidence in the scientific community. One of the great tragedies I think I have experienced in this particular parliament was the way in which we had—and some people in this chamber at the moment, some of whom have just been speaking, participated in this process—persecution of the scientific community. The one thing that we should be very proud of in a democracy, particularly on the Australian continent, which has a very proud background in terms of scientific contributions on a whole range of levels, is that members of the scientific community are allowed to express their views and not be persecuted as if they were political representatives. Our job is to cop the heat occasionally, both from our own colleagues and from the broader community, and I think we all accept that. But we ask our scientists to go out to look for—and source, as the member for Lyne said—the information. We do not know it all. Some of us may think we do, but we do not know it all and we need people who are prepared to give us their objective information so that we can base decisions upon that information. I saw what happened in terms of some of the people who were involved with the Independent Panel on Climate Change. I saw the persecution that went on of some of our people within the scientific community and I know some personally that were bitterly upset with the way in which they were treated. Some people were not prepared for the persecution that took place. I know a lot of it was aided and abetted by the Alan Joneses of this world and some of the nay-sayers who present that soup each morning so people can feel bad by the end of the afternoon. So I know they were out there but there were also people in the political process that were actually encouraging and inciting them and gaining kudos through participation with them. Mr Schultz interjecting— Mr WINDSOR 009LP I do agree with the member for Hume that there has been a degree of guilt on both sides of the radio microphone. As to the Prime Minister and the formation of this parliament and whether I am re-elected or not at the next election, one of the proudest things that I will remember about my participation in this parliament will be that I have actually been involved in something that has some long-term significance for Australians and the human race. Some members of this parliament have been so focused on the short term, the short term being the destruction of the government or the parliament of the day within days or weeks. On a continuing basis we have seen this profile gone through that 'It won't last till Christmas,' 'I'll be in the Lodge by Christmas,' 'It won't last for a year ', 'It won't last'. Well, it has lasted. So we have had the continuation of this constant bombardment by some within the parliament, and by many outside it, about this so-called lie that the Prime Minister told. I have put it on public record before: I went to the last election on the basis of climate change. I proposed legislation in 2008—it was not supported by either side of parliament—that actually had the options of a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme built into it similar to the English legislation, where there was bipartisan support on this issue. And until the start of this particular parliament, there was bipartisan support of this issue in Australia, and I was very proud of that. During the Howard years, for instance, there was to be a price on carbon. I think John Howard was obviously aiming to have an emissions trading scheme, but he was aiming to establish the institutional framework. The same applied to Malcolm Turnbull during his term as leader of the Liberal Party. There was a period of time where, to get the institutional framework in place, there would have to be a fixed price on carbon—a fixed price. Now in economic terms, I am sure a Nobel laureate would know, a fixed price essentially means a tax. Most of the people on the opposition side of the parliament, including the member for Hume, a very good friend of mine, participated in the parliamentary processes and their party processes to support a fixed price on carbon—for one year in one case, I think it was the Howard case, and two years I think in the Turnbull case. But nonetheless it was a fixed price, which was essentially supporting a carbon tax to get the institutional framework in place and then morph that into an emissions trading scheme or a floating price connected to global markets et cetera. This was not a tax. It could be exactly the same price, but technically it was not a tax. That is exactly the same as the current parliament is doing. This fixed-price carbon tax, as people refer to it, will be morphed into an emissions trading scheme and it will engage with the international marketplace. I think that is in July 2015. So we have seen all sides of parliament agree to the same process. One of the most disappointing things in my view is what we saw when the numbers were so tight in relation to the formation of this parliament. If there is any blame to be handed out about having a price on carbon, I would like to take my share of it because I am proud to have been associated with it. I would like future generations to actually look back as we have, and there are a number of members in here who have looked at the Murray-Darling and participated—I thank the minister at the table, Minister Burke, for his involvement, and I thank the opposition members for their involvement in that committee process that I was involved in as well, and many others in various other forms. What we found was an issue that had been out there for 100 years: majority parliaments were unable to solve it; too much politics, state and federal. We at last engaged in a process, and the opposition and the government of this day should be congratulated for the way in which they addressed that particular process. So in 100 years time people will look back and say: 'Well, at least they addressed it. They may have addressed it a little bit late. They could've addressed it earlier. There were warning signs out there for decades, but at least they've addressed it. It wasn't perfect but it was a start.' I would like to think that the climate change debate is of a similar nature. It is about the long term. It is not about us. It is not about who the next prime minister is or who the last one was. It is not about whether we are having a tax or a floating price or a fixed price, and that is what the bumper sticker politics has been about here. It is about the long term. It is about future generations. It is about people who have not even been born yet. It is about making a contribution to their futures, to the future generations. It is about the precautionary principle. What if the climate scientists are right? What if they do happen to be right? I hope the majority of members in this parliament endorse the motion of the member for Lyne, but what if the climate scientists are right and we have done nothing? Do you think it would be cute to be on the Abbott side of the debate, where it is all 'no, no, no' for a short-term advantage so that you can get rid of the Prime Minister and a few other people and take short-term advantage of that? Do you think we will look back and be proud of that particular moment and say: 'We could've done something, but it was more important that we get rid of people, that we persecute people who were involved in the hung parliament. And on the way through, we'll just persecute a few scientists.' We did that with soil science many years ago. The member for Hume may remember that. The member for Groom would remember it too. A lot of the soil scientists were taken out and dispatched because they could not give results in agriculture that were politically saleable in the short term. And what do we have now? Suddenly soil is back on the agenda. Why is it back on the agenda? Because someone said something about humus and organic matter and soil carbon. The shadow minister and the opposition leader have been talking about soil carbon and the relationships with the water cycle and the carbon cycle et cetera and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. All of those things have suddenly come back into vogue—not because they are particularly interested in them, but because they are different to having a price on carbon. A price because of a statement that the Prime Minister made. Part of the formation of government process—and I spent time with Ross Garnaut; I spent time with various international people. I actually went to France a few years ago and talked to the IPCC people about the economics of trying to do something about climate change. Mr Schultz interjecting— Mr WINDSOR 009LP The member for Hume, in one of his classic interjections, is talking about the flatulence of kangaroos. You can hop off now, Alby. I spent time with those various global experts and many other scientists prior to the election. One of the terms and conditions of the formation of government was that this parliament, this government, address climate change. And it is one of the reasons why Tony Abbott was not selected. It is one—it is not the only one, but it is one of the reasons. He was not serious about this particular issue. With this motion, the member for Lyne is actually finding out who is serious about our scientific community not only on this issue but on many issues where we ask scientists to put in years and years of work and academic research to find out various things that we need to know as a population. I am proud to have put pressure on the Prime Minister. I think the member for Lyne is as well. And there are others in the parliament who put pressure on the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition during that 17-day period to do something constructive about this particular issue. If the Prime Minister had had a majority in relation to this issue, she probably would not have had a carbon tax. Institutionally, she would have been required to have one for a period of time to get the economic framework and the financial framework in place. But, after that, it would have morphed into an emissions trading scheme—and, potentially, she could do that today, or within a short period of time, if in fact that was an objective of government. It was a demand of the formation of government that climate change be addressed and that a market focus be part of addressing that particular issue. The member for Lyne, myself and others were on the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee that spent many, many months examining how to put the institutional framework et cetera in place. During that time, I argued on a number of causes in terms of agriculture, soil science et cetera and on how to progress some of those issues. Through the various clean energy funds, some of the money has been pumped into soil science, some has been pumped into some biodiversity issues, some has been pumped into encouraging the adoption of no-tillage and various technologies involved in encouraging the development of humus and organic matter in our soils, and some has been pumped into encouraging the water cycle to work more effectively and hence have an impact on atmospheric carbon dioxide. There are a number of things that have come through as a result of this particular parliament. In my electorate at the moment, we see that the meat-processing sector are taking up some advantages out of the clean energy funds. They are not only reducing their carbon emissions below the carbon taxation levels; they are reducing their unit costs to process the animals. One of the things that was said at the time when all of this came out, 'the dreadful carbon tax', was that we would be uncompetitive internationally in the meat industry and in other sectors of agriculture. That is absolute rubbish. The major city in my electorate, Tamworth, is looking at putting in biodigestion processes to grow biomass from its waste material and turn it back into biogas and CO2 for internal glasshouses et cetera. There are win-win situations in this. I am proud and I think we can all be proud of what the scientific community have done to identify what we should do as individuals and as a nation. It is not just us. The question has always been why we should do something when everybody else is doing nothing. That is absolute rubbish as well, and I think Greg Combet has covered that quite well in many of his contributions. The Chinese and the Americans are out there with a whole range of emissions trading schemes and variations on the theme. The shadow minister is correct in saying that there are variations, but let us not denounce our scientific community for the sake of some paltry, short-term political debate. (Time expired) 16:03 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I congratulate the member for Lyne on moving this motion and I want to put on the record my support for the motion. I particularly concur with the comments of the member for New England, who just very clearly articulated why the responsibility to act on climate change is a responsibility of not just this generation but future generations. There is the cost of anthropogenic climate change. The cost is due to carbon being emitted into the atmosphere. That has a cost just like other forms of pollution have a cost. And there is a cost from past pollution in an electorate such as mine. For a long period of time, the Cooks River—which I share with the electorates of the member for Watson and the member for Reid—was used to pump rubbish into, because the water was free. The rubbish disappeared, according to some people. They thought it did not have an impact. Along that river, industries such as the sugar mills of Sydney pumped pollution into the atmosphere. That had an impact over a period of time whereby the river became one of the most polluted rivers. The costs of that pollution are now being borne by today's generation, who are spending more money to clean up that river than if an appropriate exercise had occurred then and there had been some foresight in the latter parts of the 19th century and the early parts of the 20th century. I see human induced climate change as a very similar principle. The earlier we act the better. We know this. Reports such as the Stern report and all the reports from the United Nations and from every serious economist who has looked at this issue say that the cost of acting now is far less than the cost of delay. Common sense tells you that that is the case. The question is: is climate change happening? Yes, the scientists tell us it is. When there are discussions on this, allegedly about the science, we know that on most scientific questions an overwhelming consensus can be regarded as 80 per cent, 85 per cent or 90 per cent, but on this issue the figure is much higher. You can virtually name the scientists who are sceptical about the impact of carbon pollution on our climate. The question is then the method of action. The member for Flinders said that he supports markets, except that he does not. He does not support the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which was negotiated in the last parliament—negotiation that included the member for Groom, who played an honourable role in that process. An agreement was reached between the major political parties about introducing a carbon pollution reduction scheme using a market based mechanism to drive down emissions as the most efficient way to do it. Indeed, not only was the coup in the conservative party room responsible for the fact that that did not get through; on the second occasion some conservatives of principle in the Senate voted with the government in favour of the CPRS. If the Greens political party senators had just got off their seats, walked across and voted to put a price on carbon, we would have had one operating much earlier, but they chose not to. In many ways the CPRS was broader in its impact than the current system that has been adopted by this parliament. For example, it applied in transport in a much wider way. What we have now though is a system whereby we have a fixed price which will transition to a market based mechanism, using the power of the market to drive down emissions. We know that it is actually working. In the first nine months, emissions in the national electricity market fell by 7.7 per cent. During this same period renewable energy output was up nearly 30 per cent. So it is working. It is doing what we said it would do. What is more, the campaign saying that the coal industry was going to shut, that whole towns like Whyalla and Gladstone were going to disappear off the map, that people would not be able to buy a leg of lamb for their roast dinners on Sundays and that it would have this economic catastrophe has proven by experience, by fact, to be nothing more than a fear campaign. While it was coming up we saw angry, hostile and violent—both in language and demeanour—campaigns and demonstrations such as occurred out the front of that office, this parliament and my office. I well recall and will never forget the member for Indi speaking at the rally outside my electorate office in Marrickville next to a sign that said 'tolerance is our demise'—in multicultural Marrickville that went down really well!— the coffin that was brought outside my office and the threats and intimidation that occurred outside my office. Fear was being whipped up in the deliberate and misleading campaign that people such as the Leader of the Opposition were prepared to be associated with. What we have now with this motion is an opportunity for the parliament to confirm that it believes in the science. It is also an opportunity for members, such as the member for Paterson, the member for Durack, the member for Hume and the member for Tangney, to put on the record their opposition to this. It is one thing to say it at a rally out the front, it is one thing to say it at a rally outside my office, it is one thing to say it on the Alan Jones program, but they should come in here and vote on this motion. They should at least have the courage of their convictions. There is a lot of nonsense with regard to the alternative plan. Indeed, this week departmental officials told Senate estimates that the Carbon Farming Initiative was expected to achieve just under four million tonnes of emissions reductions. They said that it would produce 85 million tonnes of reduction. Don't worry about the science and what the evidence is before Senate estimates about the impact of their own so-called direct action policy, they will just use magic to deliver 20 times the abatement that is realistically achievable. Based on the latest research by CSIRO, a body of scientists, they would have to reserve up to two-thirds of Australia's entire landmass for their soil carbon magic to achieve the bipartisan emissions targets that are established. I note the member for Lyne very clearly indicated in parliament yesterday the bipartisan commitment—five per cent from both sides of the parliament is the commitment. How do you get there? You get there by using market based mechanisms. What concerns me is that not only are there climate change sceptics on the other side of the parliament; there are also market sceptics on the other side of the parliament. I support the motion moved by the member for Lyne. I think it is quite sad that people who were supporters of the CPRS, such as the member for Flinders, who argued it was going to wreck the economy because the price was too high now are arguing that it appears to be that the price is too low. You cannot have it both ways. What you do is have a market based mechanism that adjusts over time to achieve a positive outcome based upon the science and based upon our responsibility to future generations. I commend the motion to the House. Question agreed to. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 4325 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE National Security 4325 16:14 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook We have seen this afternoon an attempt by the government and the crossbenchers to delay getting to this matter of public importance because they would rather talk about anything than their own failures in national security. National security is the poor policy cousin within this government. That has been on display today as we have just seen. It has been on display by this Prime Minister when she was Deputy Prime Minister and did not go to National Security Committee meetings, instead sending her bodyguard. Perhaps, when we have been seeking to ask questions of the Prime Minister on these national security matters, given she is unable to understand the questions let alone answer them, we should submit those questions in writing to her bodyguard. Also, we have seen the Prime Minister today deride the opposition for putting national security on the agenda in this place and holding her government to account for their failures on serious national security matters. This Prime Minister, talking about national security, said the opposition was taking the low road. That is her assessment of having a discussion and a debate and, most importantly, being held to account on national security matters. I think this speaks volumes about the Prime Minister's sense of the importance she places on these matters within her government. National security is just descended in the pecking order of issues that should be under the attention of this government. There is no greater responsibility of any national government than national security and if the Prime Minister does not believe that that is a topic—national security that she should be asked questions about in this parliament—then she is in the wrong job. But later this year the Australian people will have the opportunity to remedy that. They can put a government in place that will make national security a top priority, as it should be for every national government. The Prime Minister is oblivious—I think because of her ignorance of these matters and her lack of appreciation of their importance—of the impact and damage that is being done by her own policies. That is no greater than in the area of this Prime Minister's own failings on border protection policy. No area of failure better demonstrates how this government does not work, how their policies do not work, than the impact of their policies on Australia's national security interests. Every month, more than 3,000 people are turning up illegally by boat to this country—an average of over 2,000 per month this financial year—up from an average of just two per month when Labor came to government all those years ago. Twenty-three thousand people who arrived illegally by boat are now in the system in detention or somewhere else. Nineteen thousand are yet to even be processed, have their asylum applications received or assessed—19,000. By the time we get to the election in September of this year it is likely that we will have in the vicinity of 30,000 people in the system, the vast majority of whom—likely to be over 25,000—will have not had any assessments done on their claims whatsoever. What a legacy caseload that will leave to whoever forms government after the next election! That is no surprise, but I will come to that later. This government has form on dumping the problems that they cause in one term and passing them off to the other side of an election. Fourteen-and-a-half thousand visas have been denied to people applying offshore in some of the worst places you can imagine because under this government visas have been given to people who arrived illegally by boat. More than 6,000 children have come on boats under this government's policy—a record. And, of course, the record blow-outs in costs have sucked the resources from our national security agencies, whether they be the Australian Federal Police, ASIO, Customs—my colleagues will talk about that today, I am sure. These have gone from $85 million in immigration alone—that is where it started in 2007-08—to $3 billion on these matters in the budget a few weeks ago for immigration. Mr Hunt 00AMV How much? Mr MORRISON E3L Three thousand million dollars—with blow-outs since 2009-10 of more than $10 billion, and counting and running. Labor's failures here have crashed the detention network—totally crashed it. That was in evidence again last night on the 7:30 program when we were reminded of those incidents on Christmas Island and reminded also of what followed at Villawood. The detention network under this government has become chaotic because, prior to the last election, the then minister, Senator Evans, ignored advice after advice of brewing tension within the detention network. He decided to do nothing, not to expand the detention network, and pushed decisions off to the other side of the election. By the time his successor, Minister Bowen, came to the job it was all too late. Night followed day, and riots followed the inaction of this government. You might want to understand what happened to those who were involved in those riots, and those who seek to act up, to get a bit of a sense of this government's commitment to national security matters. Minister Bowen said that there had been 'hundreds' of people involved in those riots. He spoke tough at the press conference, saying that the government would use not just the criminal character provisions of section 501 of the immigration act to come down toughly on these people but also the general provisions. You would think out of hundreds of people that this government might have got tough. This is what happened: of several hundred of those who were involved, 22 were charged and seven were convicted. Of the seven persons convicted, four are in the community having been granted a protection visa—that is pretty tough—one is in the community on a bridging visa E, one is in the community on a removal pending bridging visa, and one has been removed from Australia. Just one person was denied a protection visa because of their involvement and conviction as a result of those riots. Just one! That gives a pretty good idea of where this government sits when it comes to those matters. After grinding the detention network into the ground and filling it to the brim, this government's next step was to just let people out, not because of any great doubt and compassion, which the government members might pretend when they go to their branch meetings, but because it was full. Left with no other option, in their view, and certainly they were unwilling to countenance the return to the Howard government's measures, they decided simply to let people out. Since the decision of the government to let people out into the community—at the time they let them out with work rights although we warned the government if they let them out with work rights that would make a bad situation worse—we have gone from an average rate of arrivals over the four years prior to that of 288 per month to now an average of over 1,600 per month. That is what happens when the government decides to continue to weaken the measures and arrangements that are put in place to protect our borders and our national security. Labor's bridging visa policy is a dumping policy. It is not a compassionate policy. This government is just dumping people into the community, out of sight, out of mind, with virtually no thought attached to that process. People are just dumped out there because there is nowhere else to put them. You might think if you are going to let people out into the community you should probably find out who they are and you should probably find out whether they are a security risk to Australia. In May 2012 in Senate estimates Senator Cash asked a series of questions about how people are assessed before they are released on bridging visas. Senator Cash said: Do they have preliminary ASIO security clearance? Mr Moorhouse, one of the deputy secretaries, said: Whilst I do not want to go into detail … if we are looking at a temporary or bridging visa for a person— this is in relation to the ASIO assessment in his words, not mine— it is a lighter touch. There are light-touch ASIO assessments for those released into the community under this government because the detention centres are full. They would be in detention centres, as single adult males—and the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship would know this. They would be in detention and not in the community, single adult males who had arrived illegally by boat, if the government had not so badly stuffed up on the borders and let them be overrun and let our detention centres fill to the brim. Being forced into the situation of letting people out, the ASIO assessment that is provided is a 'light touch'. Mr Irvine from ASIO, who was questioned on these matters, said, We check the name against our records.' If someone gives a false name, has a false identity, and they provide that name then that is the check, that is how it is done. That is the light-touch ASIO protection of national security under this government's policies. When you go to the other end of the process—that is only if the government has even referred the matter to ASIO through DIAC—you have DIAC officers making a preliminary assessment as well, based on what has never been precisely clear. We have a light-touch ASIO assessment of people who are put out into the community. Why is this a problem for those who have come illegally by boat? Why does this pose a greater risk? I wonder if the government is aware of these figures. Between 2010-11 and 2012-13, the average rate of negative assessments and qualified assessments of people who came by boat as opposed to people who did not come by boat was 20 times higher. The chance of someone getting a qualified or negative ASIO assessment if they have come by boat, as opposed to the other assessments that ASIO conducts through the immigration process is 20 times higher. You would think with that type of rate, 20 times greater risk, regardless of the actual incidence, you would put a bit more care into the decision and the process. But as usual this government decides to do what it wants to do and does not think through its actions or the consequences. At the end of the day we all end up paying for it one way or the other. This is a government that has had a litany of these issues, whether it is Captain Emad who we in this place all remember well. He continues to roam around the world, courtesy of this government. He was let in as a people smuggler and then let out as a people smuggler, with agencies not even speaking to each other and probably ministers not even speaking to each other. Then we have the case of Sayed Ali. When we asked the DIAC officials about him, they know nothing. They do not know anything about this bloke, despite the fact that he was reported in the Australian media. Then we have the red notice issued against a suspected terrorist who was held in a low-security detention facility in Inverbrackie. Then we have the Sri Lankan accused of murdering his girlfriend who was put on a bridging visa under this government. Then we have those who are charged with serious criminal offences and are waiting to go to court, and this minister leaves them in the community. He leaves them in the community with serious criminal charges pending to be addressed in the courts. This government's attitude and approach to our borders betray a lack of interest. When it comes to our borders and when it comes to our national security, this government's heart is just not in it. It is not serious enough for this government. It is not a core issue. It is not the reason the government is here. It would seem members of the government are here for other reasons. They are certainly not here to protect our borders and they are certainly not here to put national security as the key and first priority of the national government. That is something the Prime Minister has demonstrated and it is something this government has demonstrated by its own actions. There is an alternative to all of that, and that alternative sits on this side of this House. That alternative is represented by a party that will put back the measures that worked and that this government has rejected. It is an alternative that will actually use section 91W of the Migration Act to deny an outcome for people who we reasonably believe have discarded their documentation. They will not get the benefit of the doubt under a coalition government, but they do under this government. They do under this government because that is this government's view, and the Australian people know it. That is why we have seen myriad failed solutions from this government, whether it is the East Timor solution or the Malaysian people swap. I note that at Senate estimates DIAC has confirmed that the Malaysian government has given no indication that it will support the Houston panel recommendations in relation to your own agreement. The Malaysian people swap in its current form has been rejected by the Houston panel. The Malaysian government does not sign up to the change they recommended, so the Malaysian people swap is an excuse to do nothing under this government. This government will do nothing other than blame everyone else for its own lack of interest in national security issues. The solution people are looking for in border protection and national security is an election solution, and it comes on 14 September. (Time expired) 16:29 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I rise to speak on this matter of public importance. Firstly, I can assure the House that I will not be taking lectures on compassion from the member for Cook, who chose to suggest that we should not have allowed a child to go to his father's funeral in Sydney. I will not be taking any lectures from the member for Cook on how we deal with people compassionately. I certainly will not be taking lectures from the opposition on national security when the opposition, for the entire period of this parliamentary term, have done everything they possibly can to avoid listening to the experts in relation to border protection, refugee settlement and diplomacy. We brought together three eminent Australians—the former Chief of the Australian Defence Force, appointed by the Howard government and, indeed, appointed by our government; the eminent diplomat, the former secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and former High Commissioner of Britain, Michael L'Estrange; and someone who has had over a quarter of a century of understanding in refugee settlement, Paris Aristotle—to come from different perspectives to forge some recommendations so that we could reduce the chances of and deter people endangering their lives by getting on unseaworthy vessels, leading, as we have seen in many cases, to maritime tragedies. What we would expect from an opposition on matters of national security—if this is a matter of national security, and I believe it is—is a level of bipartisanship that we have not seen to date. For that reason, the Leader of the Opposition will, I believe, go down in history as the most relentlessly negative opposition leader we have ever seen. The opposition leader in this place will do anything and everything if it is in his political interests, and he has shown that time and time again. How can you possibly refute and refuse to accept the experts' evidence on how we should approach these things? Even if there is any doubt on the other side about some of these matters—even if they have some doubts, for example, with respect to the Malaysian arrangement—why would they not allow it to be implemented to see what would happen, given the tragedies we have seen subsequently? It seems to me that the opposition will say anything and do anything that is in its own interests. Just as it failed to respond to the experts during the global financial crisis by rejecting decisions made by government, it is now refusing to listen to the experts in relation to this very complex area of public policy; experts like the former Defence Force chief. If as the Immigration minister I have to take advice in relation to these matters I will be taking advice from Angus Houston, not from the member for Cook, if you do not mind. The problem is that that Leader of the Opposition seems to be taking advice from the member for Cook, and that is a tragedy. We can talk all we like about what we will do with people in our community—and what we have chosen to do in the detention network is ensure people are detained either on bridging visas or in community detention—but, ultimately, we need to find a long-term, sustainable, regional solution to what is a complex problem. The first point of call has to be the Bali process so that we have countries of origin, transit and destination involved. The second is trying innovative approaches like the in-principle agreement we had with Malaysia, so we could see what would happen if we had a capacity to return or transfer arrivals to the transit country. It is quite extraordinary that the opposition leader effectively says yes to a country that says no—Indonesia—and says no to a country that says yes—Malaysia. Why would he do that? Why, if someone were offered a solution to transfer arrivals to a transit country, would they say no when that country says yes? Why would they say yes to a country like Indonesia that says no to receiving people by returning back the boats? Why would they do that? Because they do not want to see something succeed. What they want to see happen is more boats. What the member for Cook and the opposition leader want to see, as they rub their hands, is more boats arriving in our waters. That is why they have chosen to not accept the recommendations by the expert panel in relation to these matters, including the Malaysia arrangement. It is the height of cynicism and negativity to go down that path. If this were some simple municipal matter, some small domestic reform or initiative, then that would be something we could perhaps accept in the partisan nature of our parliamentary process. But this is a matter of national interest. This is a national security matter. Yet the opposition leader thinks it is entirely proper that he refuse to accept the way in which the government should proceed as advised by our national security and law enforcement agencies, and by the expert panel convened by this government. This will never be forgotten, I can assure you, Deputy Speaker, by those who will look back and say: 'What an extraordinarily reckless opposition leader. What an extraordinarily dishonest opposition that refuses to accept the advice of those experts.' It is extraordinary behaviour to refuse to accept such advice. In relation to the other efforts made by the member for Cook to demonise and vilify certain people, to scare our communities by making all sorts of wild allegations about people on bridging visas, this is the lowest of the low we could ever see in this place. When they start to demonise and vilify people and scare our community, we can see this is an opposition that wants to run a fear campaign and frighten our community. I have not forgotten the member for Cook's efforts to scare people by saying we needed a register of people in our community. Notwithstanding the fact that these have gone through identity, security and health assessments, we need a register! I remember Senator Abetz following that commentary by the member for Cook, saying, 'It is not exactly the same as child sex offenders, but we need a register.' Fancy comparing people on bridging visas—in many cases genuine asylum seekers—with sex offenders! That is the level of the debate that has been conducted by the opposition in relation to these matters, and the opposition should collectively hang their heads in shame. It is a disgraceful act, it is a disgraceful form of behaviour. Is it any wonder that there are members opposite who are ashamed of the way the opposition are conducting themselves in relation to these matters. This is a very important area of public debate but it goes to what really can be done and what really can be committed to by the opposition. We recall that before the last election the opposition leader had 'Stop the boats' as his slogan; that was his policy. That is all he had and he has had it for three years. But as we get closer to the election and he sees a chance that he may win the election—in fact he is already celebrating that he has won the election—he is trying to work out how he is going to stop the boats with a slogan. How can we stop the boats with a slogan? Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Order! There are too many interjections on my left, and some members are not in their seats. Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 What we have watched in recent times is the opposition leader and the member for Cook and indeed the member for Stirling walk away from this commitment. First it was three months. Fran Kelly in 2010 asked the Leader of the Opposition: 'So if you have not stopped them in three months?' He said: 'Oh, I think in three months we will make a very big difference.' Then it was between six and 12 months in October last year when he was asked: 'Can you be more specific? Would that be 12 months or six months?' The opposition leader said, 'Well, within those time frames.' Then it was 'a few months' again on 21 February this year. Then the member for Cook could not say when or how they would stop the boats. He said on 13 March in an interview on 2GB: 'I believe we can get back to the outcome that the Howard government achieved. I do not put any time frames on it and I am not about to. I am not about to make such forecasts. I would like to see it happen as soon as possible.' This is the new slogan of the opposition—it is 'Stop the boats as soon as we possibly can' or 'Stop the boats but I can't put a time frame on it' or 'Stop the boats because we would just like to do so'. The fact is that they have walked away from their slogan because as they get closer to the election they realise they have nothing in place to stop the vessels and they have not listened to the experts and they have not engaged with the region effectively. As I talk about engagement with the region, let us think about what the shadow minister, the member for Cook, has done in his dealings with the region. Can you imagine a person who wants to be minister for immigration—although I am told he may not want to be minister for immigration; I hear that he is pleading to get out of the portfolio just in case they win. But just imagine this if we can. Let us imagine that you want to be minister for immigration and you need the region's support. Why don't you fly to a foreign country like Malaysia, stand on Malaysian soil, call a press conference and abuse the reputation of that country? That is effectively what the member for Cook did. He thought, 'What is a good idea? How do I get a regional solution to this regional problem? I think I'll fly to Malaysia, call a press conference and abuse of Malaysian government.' That is effectively what the member for Cook did when he visited Malaysia. And what did the opposition leader do in relation to Indonesia? He has got a 'turn back the boats' policy. He meets the president of Indonesia, and does he raise the issue? He did not even ask the question: will you accept turning back the boats? Do you know why he did not ask the question, Deputy Speaker? Because he knows the answer is no. So here you have an opposition leader who says no to the country that is yes and yes to the country that says no. Why does he do that? Because he wants the policy to fail, he wants to see more boats because he works on his base political interests, motivated for personal gain—not motivated in the national interest, motivated for the wrong reasons, for the wrong purposes. Indeed, the opposition has shown its disregard for the national interest the entire time of this parliamentary term. There must be a point where the opposition has to come clean about its policy, because stopping the boats ain't enough. All the qualifications and inconsistencies they come up with, all the assertions they make, they have absolutely no basis for putting them forward. The member for Stirling talks about stopping the boats. He may say that but you actually have to explain it. Let us think about it. We have no regional architecture in place; we have abused the Malaysian government— Mr Keenan interjecting— Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 The member for Stirling will get his go in a minute. Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Order! The member for Stirling will have his opportunity. It is far too noisy in this place, from both sides of the chamber. Mr Keenan interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The member for Stirling will stop interjecting. Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 The fact is that this opposition has done everything it possibly can to stymie the expert advice that was provided to the government in order for us to see a reduction in people dying at sea, people coming to our shores, people getting onto vessels in circumstances where they should not. That is the most important element of all. It seems to me that when the consequences are so tragic then it really is incumbent upon the parliament to come together. We have had an opportunity on a number of occasions in this parliamentary term for the parliament to come together to reduce the chances of people dying at sea—men, women and children perishing at sea. It seems to me that we can talk about fiscal costs, and they are important, and we can talk about all sorts of costs. But what about the human cost of not stopping these vessels? Therefore, it seems to me entirely proper that the parliament—that is, the opposition and the government—rely upon the expert advice that has been provided to us and try that approach. Even if the opposition in some cases does not agree with all the recommendations or even if the opposition thinks that this may not be entirely effective, why would they not give it a go? This is in the end about not only whether we can protect our borders but whether we can protect people, particularly children, endangering their lives at sea. I call upon the opposition to rethink its position in refusing to support eminent Australians' views about these matters. I think it is absolutely critical that we do that. The fear-mongering that is continuing to be conducted by the opposition should cease. It is not leadership to scare the community, it is not leadership to frighten people in their homes, it is not leadership to demonise vulnerable people. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Order! Before I call the member for Stirling, I would say to the member for Indi and the member for Braddon that, if they wish to continue their private discussion, they can continue it outside the chamber, not across the chamber. 16:44 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling Do not wish that on the member for Indi, Mr Deputy Speaker! We have just heard everything that is wrong with the Gillard government. The minister who is actually responsible for doing something about these problems got up for 15 minutes and did nothing more than rant about the opposition's policies. It is not leadership when all you can do is complain about the opposition when you have completely failed to control our borders and when Labor's border protection failures are, without a doubt, their most significant policy failure in the life of this parliament. This MPI today focuses on the very significant implications for our budget and the significant national security implications of Labor's border protection failures. I want to particularly focus on the national security dimensions, given that the member for Cook has already outlined some of the budgetary problems that are associated with this failure. Firstly, I want to talk about what this is doing to our national security establishment. The national security agencies are the agencies that are tasked with cleaning up Labor's mess. We have got the wrong immigration policies. That is encouraging people smuggling and it is encouraging people to take this dangerous journey, and the national security agencies are the ones that are forced to deal with the consequences. Secondly, I want to talk about what happens when you lose control over who comes here and the fact that undesirable people will seek to take advantage of that. We have been talking in question time today about ASIO and the cuts that ASIO have had to their budget. This has been confirmed to the opposition by government responses to Senate estimates questions. ASIO have had significant cuts in the life of this government, both the Rudd and the Gillard governments. By this stage they were supposed to have 1,860 people. That was the goal of the Howard government, which was adopted by the Rudd government and was recently abandoned by the Gillard government, who have frozen ASIO staffing at 1,730. This is occurring at a time when ASIO are being asked to make security assessments on the upwards of 42,000 people who have arrived here courtesy of a people smuggler. They have been asked to conduct 34,000 security assessments, and the drain on their resources is enormous. When people arrive here on a people-smuggling boat the chances of them having identity documentation are very slim, because they are told by the people smugglers to destroy it. So I think people in this chamber can appreciate how difficult it would be to properly establish somebody's identity. In fact, with the resources at their disposal, it is impossible for them to do a comprehensive security assessment on the sheer volume of people who are arriving here, so they do what is called a light-touch assessment. That means that you come in and you say to the Australian authorities, 'My name is Bill Bloggs,' and then they go and check the name 'Bill Bloggs' against their intelligence holdings and they come back and say, 'Well, we don't have anything on Bill Bloggs, so that is all fine.' They do not have the resources at the moment to properly establish someone's identity and they are forced to accept the identity that is given to them by the person who they are supposed to be vetting. Clearly this is an unsatisfactory situation. It means that there could be people coming to Australia who, quite frankly, we do not want here. Astonishingly, in light of the fact that ASIO's workload has gone up so much and their budget has been cut, one of the budget cuts that was inflicted on them by the Labor Party was a $6.9 million cut to the budget that ASIO have to conduct these security assessments on asylum seekers. ASIO, our national security establishment, are not alone in being subject to, firstly, very significant cuts by the Labor Party and, secondly, having their resources diverted away from other things that they should be doing to deal with Labor's border protection failures. The Australian Federal Police have been the subject of very significant budget cuts since the Labor Party came to office. In every single budget they have had both funding and personnel cuts—to the point where they are clearly struggling to fulfil their responsibilities, as the Australian public expect of them. At the same time, they are forced to divert an enormous amount of resources to, firstly, tracking down people smugglers and, secondly, dealing with some of the consequences of the fact that we have a detention network that is literally falling apart. The AFP's public order specialists—basically the federal government's riot squad—have been forced to sit at Christmas Island to deal with any unrest that might occur. That is enormously expensive. To prosecute people smugglers is also enormously difficult and expensive and it takes an enormous amount of Federal Police resources—resources that could of course have been used to go after other criminals rather than people smugglers if that trade had not been reinvigorated by the Labor Party's failed border protection policies. Customs and Border Protection have been dealt savage blows by the Labor Party since they came to office. Under the Howard government, Customs had 5,850 officers; under the Labor Party, their workforce has been reduced by over 15 per cent and they now have 5,000 officers. Customs have enormous challenges in dealing with the increase in cargo that is coming into Australia and in dealing with the reinvigorated people-smuggling trade through Customs and Border Protection Command. Customs have had to divert an enormous amount of their resources to deal with Labor's border protection crisis, and this has occurred in an agency that has been savagely attacked by the Labor Party for six years—to the point where the opposition has serious concerns about whether Customs have the resources that they require to stop contraband and other goods from coming into Australia. There are consequences when your national security agencies are having their resources attacked, when they are having their personnel numbers stripped and when they are having to divert an enormous amount of their time and energy to deal with Labor's self-induced border protection crisis. One of those consequences is that it is virtually impossible for the national security establishments to make a sensible judgement about the sheer volume of people who are arriving here and whether they pose a threat to the Australian community. Under the Labor Party's failed border protection policies, 42,500 people have arrived here illegally. We know that upwards of 60 have failed security assessments and we are hearing now through the media—not through the government, because they refuse to come clean about these things—about particular cases that have caused enormous concern for the opposition. One case in particular was somebody who was the subject of an Interpol Red Notice, the highest form of alert that the international policing organisation can issue. It is the equivalent of an international arrest warrant. Somebody who arrives in Australia who is the subject of such a notice should have immediately rung alarm bells within both our law and order community and our national security community. Instead, what happened was that the Labor Party placed him for almost a year in the low-security detention centre at Inverbrackie in the Adelaide Hills, a detention centre they promised the locals nobody remotely dangerous would be placed in. If you are the subject of an Interpol Red Notice, you are a serious person of interest to another law enforcement body, in this case, presumably, the Egyptian government, and you are not somebody who should be appropriately detained within a detention centre that is effectively surrounded by a pool fence. When the government was alerted to this—and I do not know when they were first aware of this—they kept the guy in Inverbrackie for almost a year. They did not do anything about it until it was raised in a newspaper, and when it was raised in the media they moved this individual to Villawood, which is a higher security environment. It is not even clear that the government was aware of who they were keeping in Inverbrackie until they were alerted by the media, and they have failed to explain why it took the media exposing what had occurred before they took some action to put this person in a more appropriate detention environment. In the case of another man who has come in via people smugglers, somebody who is accused of murdering his girlfriend, what happened was even worse. He was released into the community on a bridging visa as an accused murderer. Government members interjecting— Mr KEENAN E0J Now the government is interjecting, but can anybody seriously stand up on the government side and say that they believe this is an appropriate way to deal with people who are accused of the most serious crimes? I challenge anyone—and the government has a couple of speakers coming up in this debate—to get up and tell the Australian people that there are no other cases like this within the 42,500 people they let into Australia courtesy of people smugglers, because they are failing in their serious responsibility to protect Australia's borders. Mr Champion interjecting— Mr KEENAN E0J And there are consequences of that. There are budgetary consequences—over $10 billion blown out and wasted, $10 billion that could have been spent on other priorities for the Australian people—and there are national security consequences, that we have highlighted here today, for our agencies that are already being stripped of resources by the sustained attack on them by the Labor Party since they have come to office. 16:55 Mr DANBY WF6 Melbourne Ports Since I have been in this parliament, like many other people, I have taken the view that we should treat intelligence matters in a bipartisan way. We all acknowledge that the security services must be allowed to do their work, subject of course to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, without being made the subject of partisan bickering. Most parliamentarians feel that the security of the Australian people is more important than politics. During the years of the Howard government, we on this side gave steadfast support to the government's changes to our security laws in the wake of the 9-11 attacks and the Bali bombings. We did this despite considerable criticism of the government from the media and academia, who thought we should have opposed those measures. But we took the responsible view and supported them in the national interest. In contrast today we have heard the intellectually lamentable performance from the member for Cook who conflated the increase in boat arrivals with national security. Of course there is not one person convicted of a major terrorist crime who has arrived in Australia by boat. As part of the bipartisan concern that I think we should evince on security matters, senior members of the opposition are given briefings by the security agencies so that they are fully informed of developments. That privilege afforded to us when we were in opposition is now afforded to the current opposition. The confidentiality of those briefings has always been respected. A significant breach of this convention has taken place in recent days. Comments of the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, appear to reveal information he was given as part of a briefing from ASIO. I am not going to compound that breach by repeating what he said, or by commenting on it. I respect the senator for Queensland, the would-be Attorney-General, a person who would be in charge of our national security, but he ought to know better. In a further breach of the tradition of bipartisanship in national security matters, the opposition in question time yesterday and again today have tried to claim that funding to our national security agencies has been cut under this government. It is easy for an opposition to make these allegations, as it was easy for the member for Stirling to talk about the man who came here from Egypt, based on press cuttings. Does he think the government knows nothing else? Of course they do. But the government cannot respond because it cannot reveal confidential information. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition and Senator Brandis should have spoken to the honourable member for Berowra, a former Attorney-General and a man for whom I have a great of respect on security issues despite our other party differences, before they embarked on this reckless course these last two days. Moreover, as the chair of the intelligence committee, the honourable member for Holt said in answer to the own-goal question from the Manager of Opposition Business today, 'The Leader of the Opposition is as unqualified on national security matters as the former member for Werriwa, Mark Latham.' The Leader of the Opposition's spurious campaign, the essence of it, can be very easily dealt with, and the Prime Minister dealt with it very effectively yesterday when she explained there had been no cuts to our security services. Since this government came to office, there has in fact been an increase of $18 billion in national security funding. In this budget ASIO gets an increase of $32 million. Since 2007, ASIO's funding has risen by 27 per cent and ASIO's staffing has risen from 1,349 to 1,778, a 32 per cent increase. I think all members of this House regard this expenditure on security as justified. Since the murder by Jamaah Islamiya of 88 of our fellow Australians in Bali, there have been no successful attacks on mainland Australia. That is to the great credit of the security services and to the non-partisan support for them and their activities by both sides of politics. So the hysteria about national security and alleged decreases in the budget and their effects by the members for Stirling and Cook have no real basis in fact. We in this country are very lucky that there have been no killings of Australians on mainland Australia. Until my elevation to parliamentary secretary, I was a member of the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security, chaired by the honourable member for Holt. In the years I served on that committee I never heard our able national security agencies say they were unable to fulfil their tasks because of a lack of resources. Without revealing any of the confidential information that was given to the committee when I was a member of it, I can say that the efficiency of our intelligence services has not been affected by funding considerations. Of course, no government agency can expect a blank cheque in the context of any budget. But this government, like previous governments, has given a very high priority to the safety and security of the Australian people and has funded our agencies accordingly. In recent weeks we have seen shocking confirmation of the security challenges facing Western democracies, with a spread of Islamist terrorism: in Boston with the killing of innocent bystanders at the end of the marathon and also a police officer; the cold-blooded murder of a British soldier in the streets of London; and a similar event in France. Fortunately, we have seen no such attacks in Australia. It is not a matter of luck; it is a matter of the highly competent and highly effective response by our national security agencies, funded by this government and previous governments. Since 2003, there have been 35 prosecutions of terrorist related charges, resulting in 26 convictions. However, it is proper to note that some of those convictions are still subject to appeal. Each of those convictions represented a real threat to our national security, not some of the nonsense that was talked about by the member for Stirling, and they were thwarted by our security services. These security services would not have been able to do that unless they were properly funded, staffed and resourced and, indeed, unless they had people who were there with the spirit of Australia to protect their fellow Australians. This line of attack from the Leader of the Opposition, in my view, is very hollow when we know that he and his shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for North Sydney, are publicly committed to cutting $70 billion from government spending. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to give a commitment that security agencies will be exempt from Public Service cuts here in Canberra, I would be pleased. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to be taken seriously on national security, then he will come into this House and direct the honourable member for Wentworth that he will not allow the Chinese telecom Huawei permission, against the explicit advice of the security services—the security services they have been lauding and talking about so effusively over the last few days—to bid for the NBN. The security services of Australia have advised the Australian government and the Australian government has followed their advice that Huawei will not be allowed to bid for the NBN. That is not supported by the opposition spokesman on communications. If the Leader of the Opposition is really serious about national security and concerned about these kinds of issues, I call on him to follow the advice of the security services and to come into this House and explicitly tell the Australian people that he will follow their advice and not that of the spokesman on communications. The Leader of the Opposition has also committed himself to sacking 20,000 public servants. Has he given an undertaking that these cuts will not affect the security services? Again, unless he is prepared not to cut ASIO staff, his comments over the last few days on national security will be seen as humbug, because that is what they really are. You cannot cut the security services and promise that you will do that, not offer them any exemptions, and then come into this place and go around the country railing about the effects on national security. All in all, this has been a sad day for those of us who really care about national security and who have tried to take a bipartisan line on these issues. We have seen the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Attorney-General play some of the cheapest, most dishonest kinds of politics with these matters. I think it is a disgrace and I think it is harmful to our real national security. I hope that the opposition will pull back from this reckless and irresponsible course and take the counsel of people such as the member for Berowra. 17:04 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson Threats to national security are very important to any nation. But we are faced with this Labor government that simply cannot grasp the serious nature of the issue that is before us right now. The Australian people have watched on as the government took a perfectly good solution—the border protection measures that were put in place by the Howard government—and dismantled it. They tore it down. They threw away a perfectly good solution and created for themselves and for the nation a problem, an escalating problem—a problem that is so out of hand that the very issues that were actually raised in this place by way of an MPI a couple of weeks ago pose a serious threat to the Australian public. The budget, as we all know, is in crisis. The $5 billion border protection blow-outs in the budget, resulting from this government's poorest border policy, are a threat to the Australian people. It is the taxpayers who have to fork out for this waste and this largesse. It is the taxpayers who have to stand by and watch their government open the doors and windows and invite terrorist threats into their country. Every time someone gains illegal entry into Australia without documentation, without identification, without knowing who these people are and what their background actually is, we open the door to a potential national security threat. When we open the door to two of those unauthorised entries, that threat is doubled. If three illegal entries sneak through the back door, then it is tripled. The reality is that, in the last week alone, 900 security threats entered through the doors. And that is this government's legacy. Since November 2007, when the term of the last government ended and this government came to power, we have seen over 42,000 illegal immigrants arrive on Australian shores. The population of the Whitsunday Regional Council in my electorate is smaller than that! The sheer scale of Labor's border protection failure now surpasses the population of most towns in my electorate of Dawson. And people in my electorate have genuine concerns about their country throwing its doors open to economic refugees, to people smugglers, to human traffickers and, potentially, to terrorism threats. We have had 22,000 illegal arrivals come to this country so far this financial year. That is a figure that the department of immigration has admitted could blow out to 25,000 by 30 June. Yet we have the government pretending in their budget that somehow they are going to get it down to 13,200. That is simply not going to happen. This month is the second consecutive month in which more than 3,000 people have arrived by boat in Australian waters. That is going to continue as long as this government remains in power. But, as I said, people in my electorate have genuine concerns about this issue and about the potential security threat. And so they should because, in the post 9/11 world, we see airport security getting tighter and tighter and tighter, and we see all of these measures in place, but we see border security, under this government, getting looser and looser and looser. When I warned of potential security threats to our country when I spoke on the last MPI, it was not just my view. This is what the Australian Federal Police have to say about illegal entrants gaining access to our country. They say it raises serious security and criminal concerns. It raises quarantine and health issues. It costs, obviously, time and money in processing. Most importantly, they say, illegal immigration infringes on Australian sovereignty, giving us less control over our own borders. As I said, they are not my claims; they are statements found on the Australian Federal Police website in relation to people smuggling. The Gillard Labor government, not content with having the worst border security crisis in the history of our nation because they dismantled the policies that actually worked, are now trying to pull the rug out from under our national security agencies. These are the agencies that are charged with the responsibility of ensuring that those who are coming illegally to our shores do not pose a risk to this nation. This is what the Labor Party wants to do about those agencies. At the start of this month, on 1 May, there was a report on Radio National headed 'Labor backbenchers pressure government on ASIO assessments' in which we heard: The Federal Government says it's considering calls by its own backbench for increased scrutiny of the way ASIO makes adverse assessments of asylum seekers. These guys—and I presume there are some backbenchers over there who are amongst them—are upset because 55 asylum seekers are being detained by ASIO because they are security threats to the country. They want them released into the community. So, far from recognising the security threat to this nation, the Labor Party wants to ignore what our national security agency, ASIO, is saying, and just let them in. Mr Champion HW9 You voted to let them in. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Order! The member for Wakefield will have his opportunity in three minutes. Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for defending my honour! The member opposite will get his opportunity. But I have to say that he and every other member of the government ignores the advice of ASIO at its peril. I am reminded of a story which was printed in The Australian on 4 September 2001. That was fortuitously one week before the infamous 9/11 attack on the World Trade Centre. That report was titled 'Bin Laden code red in Jakarta'. It said: INDONESIAN and foreign military and government officials are concerned the organisation of notorious international terrorist Osama bin Laden is looking to Indonesia as a potential springboard for terrorist operations. It quoted the then US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, James Kelly: Mr Kelly said the flow of illegal immigrants from South Asia and the Middle East into Indonesia was a further source of concern. “If it’s easy to move people under strange identities around that’s a capability that terrorists who we know exist can then use.” That is what he said. Speaking about these issues, earlier this month the world watched in horror as scenes unfolded in the UK of the brutal slaying of a British soldier in the middle of London. There are two suspects in this barbaric atrocity, Michael Adebowale and Michael Adebolajo, both Muslim converts of African descent. Intelligence agencies warned of copycat attacks. But the intelligence services themselves have actually come under fire over in the UK for allowing these two men to slip through the net in the first place. According to reports, both of those men were on the radar of intelligence agencies but were not considered to be serious security threats. A similarly revolting attack unfolded earlier in the year at the Boston Marathon where the accused perpetrators were family members of men granted asylum in the US. Russia had strongly opposed the US's decision to grant those people asylum, but America had ignored the warnings. The Adelaide Advertiser reported yesterday that a suspected terrorist wanted by Interpol had lived in Inverbrackie with his family for about nine months, in a detention centre with the equivalent of a pool security fence. He was able to go out into the community, to go out to the local mosque, I assume, and on trips to the library—that was the level of security around that fellow. We cannot go on ignoring these warnings. We cannot continue to expose our citizens to unnecessary elevated risk. The Liberal-National coalition has a plan to restore the borders, but I fear that the crisis that this government has created means that we are actually going to have to go much, much further than the Howard government went. Mr Champion interjecting— Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Adult governments need to take the concerns of their citizens seriously. Adult governments need to take the most important concerns and the important responsibility of national security seriously, because a nation without a border is like a house without walls; a house without walls is not a house, and a nation without borders is not a nation— (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY I call the member for Wakefield. 17:14 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I apologise for my indulgences taken while you were in the chair. There can be no greater threat to the nation's security than a political party that puts its short-term political interest ahead of the national interest. That is what we have seen from this opposition, who only a year ago came into this House and voted against giving the government the power to do the Malaysian transfer agreement. They sat in this House with the Greens party, over on that side of the chamber, and voted against giving the government the ability to implement the Malaysian transfer agreement that may have prevented people coming through regular maritime arrivals. This has been a long debate. It has been going on since the seventies. In the seventies you had Mick Young and Ian Macphee—those two fine gentleman of this House—sit down, in the wake of the terrible war in Vietnam and in the wake of 1,700 boat people arriving on our shores, and come to an agreement to bring refugees to our country in a safe way. That was part of bipartisan consensus, and it was a great tribute to Mick Young. The Labor Party at the time could have played the same grubby, short-term politics that the opposition today play. We could have done that, but Mick Young didn't—and Ian Macphee didn't. In the eighties and the nineties the Hawke and Keating governments implemented agreements with countries from which asylum seekers had fled from, like China and the rest, to prevent such arrivals and they implemented mandatory detention. It was the Labor Party which implemented that. It was the Labor Party which first said that we should manage the borders in that way. Now we come to the noughties, in particular 1999 and 2001. We often hear the opposition crowing, in a sanctimonious way, about how John Howard solved this issue but they neglect to tell you that it is an issue that they presided over. In 1999, when John Howard was Prime Minister, 3,700 people arrived by boat. In the year 2000, when John Howard was Prime Minister, 2,939 people arrived by boat. In 2001, 5,516 people arrived by boat. An issue was resolved on his watch that he presided over. Mrs Mirabella 00AMU He resolved it. Bring yourself to that. He stopped the boats. Mr CHAMPION HW9 But here's the thing—I hear the interjections and I am reasonably gracious towards the former Prime Minister—and here is the difference. He had a parliamentary majority, he had an opposition that actually supported him—just like Mick Young and Ian Macphee. But what do we have today? An opposition that puts its own dark partisan interest ahead. They come in here with all this talk about national security and they talk about matters they frankly know nothing about. They are at a dangerous level of ignorance, and ignorance is what we heard from the member for Dawson. We hear this dark partisanship repeated over and over again at this point. We had the member for Stirling come in here and give us a lecture about national security. Last year, in the debate over the Malaysian transfer agreement, he blubbered; he had tears up there at the dispatch box. That is what we had from Joe Hockey, the shadow Treasurer. Now we get this lecture. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot come in here last year and frustrate the government's ability to act by voting with the Greens party in a sickening marriage of convenience—after all the lectures about how the Greens party are evil they came in here and voted with them—and then, a mere eight months later, roll in here with this sort of dark partisanship. It is reminiscent of the reds under the bed. Oh, they're coming to get you! I will be quite plain with the House. I do not want people arriving by boat to this country. I will be quite plain that zero would be the primary number that I would like, so zero people arriving. I am not against refugees coming to this country and settling appropriately if they are good citizens and if they are good Australians. That is what we have been doing since the fifties. But what I am against is people taking a dangerous journey, a journey that endangers their lives and the lives of ADF personnel and Customs officials. I am against that because frankly we get these issues. That is why I pushed in my party for a long time for mechanisms like the Malaysian transfer agreement. That is why it was so galling and stunning to come into this House and see the Liberal Party, who beat their chests relentlessly about this, go over there and vote with the Greens and frustrate the government's ability to act. The truth is we will never know what effect the Malaysian transfer agreement might have had. It might have prevented the sorts of arrivals that we had. It might have prevented the 6,000 Sri Lankans who decided to try and come here by boat, of which 1,100 or so have been removed back to Sri Lanka by the government, so sent back home. We do not know what effect the Malaysian transfer agreement might have had. It might have had the effect of dissuading people from making irregular maritime arrivals. I think it is a great misfortune for this country that not only did the opposition vote against it but they have trashed this option by trashing the Malaysian government in the process in their vindictive dark partisanship— Mr Danby WF6 Short-termism. Mr CHAMPION HW9 Yes, short-termism. So they trashed the Malaysian transfer agreement and the option to do transfer agreements with other countries. They trashed that option and trashed a key part of the Bali process. Then what did they do with the expert panel? I can tell you what they did with the expert panel. They said from the outset of the expert panel, 'Well, the expert panel can do what it likes but we'll ignore it. We've got our own solution.' That brings me to their own solution. The minister alluded to this, that they have got one big promise—'We're going to stop the boats. We're going to turn back the boats.'—but I can tell you that this is a very, very dangerous high-risk policy. We had an un-named Navy officer quoted in the Australian on 23 January 2012 saying: “They'll see us and they'll burn their boats,” … "They'll do that to stop us repairing them." Then we had Vice-Admiral Ray Griggs, the head of the Navy, in Senate estimates—a serious forum—saying: … there were incidents during these activities, as there have been incidents subsequently, which have been risky. There have been fires lit, there have been attempts to storm the engine compartment of these boats, there have been people jumping in the water and that sort of thing … yes, there are obviously risks involved in this process. That is a terrible, terrible risk to take. You hear the Navy telling us that this is a dangerous option to pursue and yet Tony Abbott, what is his response? On Sky News on 21 April this year he said: It's not easy and we've had various naval officers tell us that it is tough, and that people don't always like it. I'm not saying that it's not difficult, under certain circumstances, it might even be dangerous … So even the Leader of the Opposition acknowledges that this option might be dangerous. And not just dangerous for asylum seekers, but it is also going to be dangerous for ADF personnel. That is who it is going to be dangerous for. And anybody who has been up and seen the important work that those people do would not put them in danger. And yet that is what the Leader of the Opposition, this armchair general sitting here in Canberra, is going to do. He is going to give them orders to turn back boats to a country that has made it clear—Indonesia has made it clear that it is not amenable to this policy. So they have trashed every option. They have trashed Malaysia and they are in the process of trashing our relationship with Indonesia. It is a disgrace. We have an opposition that are so brazen. They think they have the election won and they are so brazen that they would come into this House and talk about national security, and in their ignorance display their idiocy—the member for Dawson, who is a fool, displays his ignorance—but the truth is that they use this issue as an incense burner for their vanity and for their lust for office. They will regret it in the long run because in their short-termism they have betrayed the national interest—not betrayed the government, but betrayed the Australian people. 17:24 Mrs GRIGGS 220370 Solomon I was just gathering my thoughts as I was listening to the member for Wakefield. I understand he is very emotional and he is upset because his party trashed the Howard government policies that worked, and that has had a significant impact on him because the Labor brand is trashed and it is going to impact on him in his seat come September. This matter of public importance focuses on national security and the budget. We have heard members on both sides talk about the impacts on the budget and national security. I would like to take a bit of a different stance: I will talk about the budget implications, but I will also talk about my electorate that I proudly represent. I spoke on this issue a couple of weeks ago, and the boats just still keep coming. I guess that is why I thought it was really important that I speak again on this very important issue. Managing Australia's borders is about balancing the need of those who flee their homes and embark on an often dangerous journey to travel here with the needs of the Australian community, and the detriment that this budget overkill has had on the Australian economy. I have said many times in this place that it is of great concern to me that people smugglers exploit the vulnerable, and I remind the House that the Gillard Labor government is implicit in this because it removed the border protection policies of the former Howard government that were proven to work. The Gillard Labor government has had opportunity after opportunity after opportunity to fix the border protection chaos that this has created, but it has done nothing except continue to give the people smugglers a product to sell. The Gillard Labor government's policies have left our hardworking border protection, Customs and Defence personnel overworked and understaffed. And we now know that ASIO personnel are also under pressure because there is a backlog of security checks that need to occur because of the spike in arrivals. Earlier today I asked the Prime Minister in question time: I remind the Prime Minister of the admission yesterday from immigration officials that 63 asylum seekers have escaped from immigration detention in the last year and 25 are still on the run. And I asked the Prime Minister could she: … guarantee that all these people had undergone comprehensive ASIO security checks prior to the escape into the community Well there is probably no surprise here, but there was no direct answer from the Prime Minister—the one who is responsible for laying out the carpet for the people smugglers, giving them a product to sell. But do you know what? The Australian people want answers, and they want this problem that Labor created fixed. They are sick of it. We now know from Senate estimates that around 25,000 people are expected to arrive here on boats. The member for Wakefield said in his contribution that he wants the boats to stop; he does not want the boats here. We on this side also do not want—we want the boats to stop; we do not want people coming here illegally. As I said, we now expect 25,000 people to arrive here on boats this financial year, and we know already that there have been 148 boats carrying more than 10,000 people this year courtesy of the people smugglers and the Gillard Labor government. People from my electorate ask me what is the cost, and that is a very good question—one that I think many Australians will be interested to know. The Gillard Labor government's failed border protection policies have cost taxpayers $10 billion, with $5 billion of that $10 billion being spent this year alone. I can only dream of what $10 billion could do in my electorate and my colleagues' electorates. It would just be amazing. Imagine having money to spend on improvements in health, education, community safety, housing and child care. I could do a lot with $10 billion, what about you guys? Opposition members: Very much so, yes. Mrs GRIGGS 220370 But instead this money is being spent on a policy that is clearly not working. Last time I spoke on this issue a couple of weeks ago, I outlined the boats that are targeting the Top End waters. There have been some new arrivals. I think it is only appropriate to give the facts because we like to deal with facts in this place. About 30 minutes after my last speech, there was another boat that arrived in Top End waters. So I will just go through the list again. On 1 January this year, HMAS Armidale intercepted a boat west of Darwin carrying 43 people. On 28 February, HMAS Launceston intercepted a boat north-west of Darwin carrying 33 people. On 20 March, HMAS Pirie intercepted a boat west-north-west of Darwin carrying 78 people. On 24 March, HMAS Pirie intercepted a boat north-west of Darwin carrying 41 people. On 27 March, HMAS Pirie again intercepted a boat, south-west of Darwin, carrying 147 people. On 3 April, HMAS Bundaberg intercepted a boat north-west of Darwin carrying 41 people. On 9 April, HMAS Ararat intercepted a boat north-west of Darwin carrying 73 people. On 17 April, HMAS Childers intercepted a boat west-south-west of Darwin carrying 78 people. On 21 April, HMAS Maryborough intercepted a boat north-west of Darwin carrying 67 people. On 23 April, ACV Ocean Protector intercepted a boat north-north-east of Darwin carrying 65 people. On 26 April, HMAS Maitland intercepted a boat west-north-west of Darwin carrying 75 people. On 3 May, HMAS Albany intercepted a boat west-north-west of Darwin carrying 160 people. On 4 May, ACV Botany Bay and MV OMS Endurance intercepted a boat north-west of Darwin carrying 105 people. On 13 May, HMAS Glenelg intercepted a boat at Cobourg Peninsula carrying 11 people. On 14 May, ACV Triton intercepted a boat west of Darwin carrying 42 people. And, on 17 May, HMAS Armidale intercepted a boat north-west of Darwin carrying 80 people. That is 16 boats targeting Darwin carrying almost 1,200 people. On top of these boats, we have another 310 people being transferred to Darwin for processing since 14 May. On 14 May we had 49 people transferred. On 16 May we had two people transferred. On 19 May we had 76 people transferred. On 22 May, 85 people were transferred. On 23 May, 98 people were transferred. Is it any wonder that Territorians are asking me questions about the cost of the Gillard Labor government's failed border protection policies? It is also the additional pressure that is put on my electorate with the service providers. It is already hard enough to get service providers in the Northern Territory, but having extra people has put pressure on my electorate. We all know very well that every dollar spent on border protection policies is money not being spent on or in our communities. The people of Darwin and Palmerston, in my electorate, are telling me that they are tired of the Gillard Labor government's failed border protection policy. They want it fixed and they want it fixed now. Let me finish by saying that there is an alternative for the Australian people. We have a choice, and that choice is to vote for the coalition come 14 September because the coalition has a plan, an alternative, to mitigate the disastrous impact that the Gillard Labor government has had on border protection policy. We have stopped the boats before and we will stop them again. The coalition will restore what the Labor Party abandoned, and that was a strong border protection regime developed by the coalition as a priority to protect our nation's borders. The coalition will reintroduce offshore processing of illegal boat arrivals as part of a series of measures to stop the boats and protect our borders. We will prevent this problem by minimising the numbers coming from both initial countries of origin and first asylum countries. We will disrupt the business of people smuggling and intercept the boats when safe to do. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The discussion has concluded. COMMITTEES 4345 COMMITTEES Education and Employment Committee 4345 Report 4345 17:04 Mr SYMON HW8 Deakin On behalf of the standing committee on education and employment, I present the committee's advisory report, incorporating a dissenting report, on the Australian Education Bill 2012, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. Mr SYMON HW8 by leave—on 29 November 2012 the House Selection Committee referred the Australian Education Bill for inquiry and report. The reason for the referral was to enable the committee to consult with school communities regarding the development and implementation of the National Plan for School Improvement. The bill articulates the government's aspirations for school education in Australia. It also provides the foundation for a legislative framework that seeks to put an excellent education for every child at the heart of how Australia delivers and funds schooling. The purpose of the bill is: to articulate and acknowledge the government's aspirations for schooling; set goals for Australian school education that address those aspirations—namely, to provide an excellent education for all students, to be highly equitable and for Australia to be placed in the top five countries in reading, science and mathematics in quality and equity in recognised international testing by 2025; to commit to a national plan for improving school performance and student outcomes; to itemise the reform directions for a national plan that will achieve the government's aspirations and goals; and, to make agreement to implement a national plan for education authorities a prerequisite for receiving a Commonwealth government funding for schools with grants based on outlined principles. The bill incorporates core recommendations made by the Gonski review to implement a dollar per student resource standard and various dollar loadings for disadvantage, regardless of the type of school the student attends; and, a National Plan for School Improvement. The inquiry received 53 submissions and conducted public hearings in Canberra, Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne. Evidence was taken from a wide range of stakeholders, including principals, unions, Catholic and independent schools, teachers, parents, educators and academics. The committee made five recommendations, including that the House pass the bill with the amendments outlined in its advisory report. The explanatory memorandum to the bill stated the government's intent to move amendments to the bill following the conclusion of negotiations with states, territories and the non-government school sector. The two amendments give effect to any funding model agree to and address the legal enforceability of the final act. Stakeholders discussed at length the possible content of the funding formula, and some stakeholders expressed concern regarding clause 10 and the 'legal unenforceability' of the bill. On the funding formula it must be emphasised that the committee was not tasked with reporting on proposed amendments to the bill. Rather, it was the bill at hand. To enter into speculation on what the government ought to agree is beyond the terms of the referral to the committee and possibly deleterious to the confidential negotiations between the Commonwealth, state and territory governments, and non-government education authorities. On clause 10 the committee was advised by the DEECD departmental lawyers that this type of provision, whilst not common, is not without precedent and there are examples of similar provisions in other Commonwealth statutes. Moreover, both amendments are likely to occur before the final passage of the bill. The Australian Education Bill foreshadows fundamental reforms to education in this country—reforms that are overdue and vital to the future of our children and the nation's prosperity. I would like to thank all those who provided evidence to the inquiry; the previous chair of the committee, the member for Kingston; my committee colleagues who participated in the public hearings and report consideration; and the committee secretariat. I commend the report to the House. 17:34 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey By leave—the coalition members of the committee are in broad support of the aspirational goals of the Australian Education Bill but are of the opinion that it is not good process to recommend to the House that the House of Representatives pass a bill when the committee has not been able to ascertain what implications the final bill will have for Australia. At the end of the inquiry coalition members were asked to support a recommendation that the bill be passed. It became apparent throughout the inquiry that in fact the bill was incomplete and cannot operate without quite serious amendment, particularly to the last clause, which the chair just referred to, clause 10, which of course says that the bill is non-legally binding. It occurs to the members of the coalition that to recommend that the House pass a bill when we do not know what the effect of that bill will be—what impact it will have on education, what impact it will have on schools throughout Australia—is reckless. But we are not prepared to recommend that the House not pass the bill. What we suggest is that the bill be returned to the House. The government should make the appropriate amendments to allow that bill to function, and then it should be re-referred to the Standing Committee on Education and Employment to provide some guidance to the House as to whether the bill is likely to function in the way in which the government proclaims that it should. Quite a number of contributors raised the issue with us that there was a lack of detail. One contributor said that they had 16 different variations of the funding model. The independent schools association of Australia said that they thought it was more like 30. At that stage, they had no idea where the negotiations were likely to settle. Given that we have been finding out more in the press about this process than we actually found out in the committee, it seems to me and to the rest of the coalition members that we should have another chance to review the bill when that negotiation is complete. At this stage, this is an aspirational bill and, as I said earlier, the aspirations are in fine order. So I look forward to the ensuing debate that is likely to come—perhaps even in the next few hours—and I look forward to seeing what amendments the government is going to put forward to facilitate the operation of this bill throughout Australia. The schools and the schooling systems in Australia need to know how this bill and the new regime will affect their funding model just for next year, because this is due to be implemented from 1 January 2013. At this stage, unless something has happened behind closed doors in very recent times, I understand there is no certainty at all surrounding those issues. So we look forward to the debate and we look forward to the government's amendments. I hope in the end that we will be able to support them. BILLS 4347 BILLS DisabilityCare Australia Fund Bill 2013, Family Trust Distribution Tax (Primary Liability) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013, Fringe Benefits Tax Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013, Income Tax (First Home Saver Accounts Misuse Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013, Income Tax Rates Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013, Income Tax (TFN Withholding Tax (ESS)) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013, Medicare Levy Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013, National Disability Insurance Scheme Legislation Amendment Bill 2013, Superannuation (Excess Untaxed Roll-over Amounts 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, 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, Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Inbound Cargo Security Enhancement) Bill 2013, Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Dividend) Bill 2013, Customs and AusCheck Legislation Amendment (Organised Crime and Other Measures) Bill 2013, Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012, Foreign Affairs Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Bill 2013, Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Reform of Self Managed Superannuation Funds Supervisory Levy Arrangements) Bill 2013 4348

DisabilityCare Australia Fund Bill 2013

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

Fringe Benefits Tax Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013

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

Income Tax Rates Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013

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

Medicare Levy Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013

National Disability Insurance Scheme Legislation Amendment Bill 2013

Superannuation (Excess Untaxed Roll-over Amounts 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

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

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

Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Dividend) Bill 2013

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

Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012

Foreign Affairs Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Bill 2013

Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Reform of Self Managed Superannuation Funds Supervisory Levy Arrangements) Bill 2013

Assent 4348 Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 1) Bill 2013 4348

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

Second Reading 4348 17:43 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright This composite bill, the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 1) Bill 2013, deals with a wide range of changes to taxation and superannuation. They present themselves in seven different schedules to the bill. The coalition support some of the measures in the bill, but there are some that we are opposed to. We will be seeking to excise those parts that we cannot agree with, and for good reason. I will give evidence on behalf of the coalition as to why we cannot support schedules 4, 5 and 6. I will first run through an overview of each of the schedules, which will give clarity as to the reasons why the coalition have this position. Schedule 1 speaks about interest on unclaimed money. This schedule ensures that income tax is generally not payable on interest paid by the Commonwealth on unclaimed money from 1 July 2013. Late in 2012, the Gillard government was desperate keep the illusion of a budget surplus alive for just a little bit longer. Hasn't history been a cruel tool for the Gillard government? In the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook released in October—which, I might add, was somewhat earlier than we would normally see the MYEFO, but they were grasping for revenue and, ultimately, trying to bring expenditure into that period much earlier than usual—the government promised a wafer-thin surplus of around $1 billion, a surplus which history has shown did not materialise, a surplus close on $19 billion. There seems to be a trend where this government just gets it wrong by about $20 billion as a regular occurrence. But I am not advocating that this government is dishonest; I do not think that. I think they come here with a heavy heart. I think they come here with all good intentions. But, as they do consistently, they missed the budget figure by roughly $20 million—sorry, $20 billion. See how easy that slip is? We seem to have morphed as a parliament from saying 'million' to saying 'billion', with little or no consequence. I dread the day that we start making the same transition from 'billion' to 'trillion'. Three-quarters of that promised surplus was going to come from the unclaimed money bill. You may remember that it was around the time when the Prime Minister took the opportunity to speak about the devastation in Cyprus when the banks started taking money out of people's bank accounts, and proclaimed that as horrible. She did not know then that the same practice would become common amongst the hardworking businesses and families of Australia. Over the first six months of this year, 2013, the government expected that this measure would raise over $760 million in additional revenue. The break-up is $550 million from lost super, $109 million from the lost bank accounts and almost $100 million from the lost bank accounts of companies. I have personal knowledge of that. We had a myriad companies, and one day I will get a team of lawyers onto it and we will go and try and recover some of that money which I know sits in those accounts. It would go a long way towards paying my kids' school fees. Under pressure during the consideration of the unclaimed money bill, the government advised the Senate Economics Legislation Committee of its intention that this interest be exempt from tax. The rushed implementation of these changes was driven by nothing other than a desperate need for more cash to plug yet another government budget black hole. The financial impact of this measure is nil, as the government claims that they never budgeted for tax from interest payments. It suggests that this was another oversight in the rush to implement yet another policy thought-bubble by this government. It seems to me that, in the legislation coming before the House, there are more and more bills that do not have regulations attached to them. When they are put up, we see less and less regulation in them, as a result of them being rushed through. The other day, I had the opportunity to speak with one of my colleagues who has been here longer than me, and I asked the question: 'Did we do that when we were in government? Did we not give the regulations—is this just payback?' The honest answer was: 'Yeah, there were occasions when we did do it, but scoreboard is inequitable now.' The amount of legislation that comes before this House with no regulations just shows the rushed and brash way in which this government is managing business. Schedule 2, airline transport fringe benefits, is meant to improve consistency across the fringe benefit tax laws and reduce the complexity of the law. Currently, the taxable value of an airline transport fringe benefit is its value less the employee contribution. For domestic flights, this is broadly 37.5 per cent of the lowest publicly advertised economy airfare charged by the provider, at or about the time of travel, over that route. For international flights, it is broadly the same figure: 37.5 per cent of the lowest fare published in Australia as charged by any carrier for travel over that route in the 12 months preceding the end of the tax year. The new measure contained in this bill is such that the taxable value of the airline transport fringe benefit will be aligned with the in-house benefit valuation method. Without boring you with the detail, it is predominantly a different way of calculating it. We are quite content that the financial impact of this measure is unquantifiable, and the compliance cost on it, as advised, is nil. As a result, the coalition supports that measure. Schedule 3 allows participants in the Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure Program to make payments received under the program free of income tax, including capital gains tax. If this choice is made, then expenditure related to the infrastructure improvements under the program is simply non-deductible. The financial impact of this measure is around $45 million over the forward estimates. The coalition has previously been supportive of the change, which was originally announced in February 2011. As a result, we will continue to be so. Schedule 4—moving right along—is 'Self-managed superannuation funds and related parties'. This is one of the bits we have a problem with. Schedule 4 to this bill amends the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 to prescribe requirements for the acquisition and the disposal of certain assets between self-managed superannuation funds and related parties. The proposed changes require that, where an underlying market exists, the transaction should be conducted through that market, and that makes sense. Where such a market does not exist, a valuation must be sought from an independent, qualified valuer. This measures yet again targets with additional unnecessary red-tape costs those Australians doing the right thing by saving to achieve a self-funded retirement. It is also clear that the drafting of the measure creates further unnecessary uncertainty. SPAA, for example, is concerned that the drafting is not clear regarding the valuation of hard-to-value assets such as frozen assets or assets which do not readily have an available market—antiques, like Nanna's teapot; hard-to-value assets. Of course, in the absence of a market, you would refer back to a qualified, independent valuer. But then some of the valuation principles of a valuer would be based on market value, and in the absence of a market I am not too sure where that ends up, because there are many different valuations you can give. You can give market value, inherent value or perceived value. That is not the reason we are opposing it, but I just bring it to the attention of the House and the legislators behind that with reference to 'qualified, independent valuer' and what type of valuation we are actually looking for there. If these assets cannot be disposed of to a related party, it is likely that SMSFs will not be able to be wound up and they will lie dormant. This would result in the ATO being required to still administer numerous legacy SMSFs that have no functional purpose. These changes are yet another example of the Gillard government's constant undermining, through badly drafted regulations, of the flexibility and effectiveness of SMSFs. We do not support schedule 4. Schedules 5 and 6 relate to loss carry-back and consequential amendments. For those trying to get their head around what a loss carry-back is: if you run your business and make $100,000 worth of profit this year, and then next year you have a loss, a loss carry-back then allows you to write those losses off and make a claim back against the $100,000 profit as an expense in future years or thereabouts. Schedule 5 implements a loss carry-back for small business and medium-sized businesses linked to the mining tax, and schedule 6 includes the necessary consequential amendments. Why would a businessman, why would someone from the Liberal Party, why would someone from the coalition—the party for business—be opposing such a tax measure? It is a good thing. But in order to do it you need to have funds, and this loss carry-back measure is being funded, we are led to believe, by the mining tax revenue. I will share with you what some of the mining tax revenue forecasts were and what has actually been realised on the books. As a nation, as a responsible government, should we be pursuing tax cuts and paying for them with money that simply does not exist on that side of the ledger where the offset was expected from? The measure applies to assessments for the 2012-13 and later income years. It does not go back any further than that. A transitional one-year carry-back applies for the 2012-13 income year. If the loss carry-back conditions are satisfied, a corporate tax entity can get a refundable tax offset for the losses it chooses to carry back. The tax offset the entity can get is the lowest of the value—oh, don't worry about that stuff! A government member: I was enjoying that bit! Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Thanks! The provisions in the bill only take into consideration the interests of the corporates; it excludes small business. Those were the three points that my learned colleagues were hanging off their seats to hear! That is another reason we oppose the bill—because, by measure, it only applies to the corporate sector. These two schedules—schedules 5 and 6—implement the government's announced loss carry-back measures, measure, a measure linked to and supposedly funded by the government's minerals resource rent tax. The money just does not exist. Remember that the RSPT was supposed to generate $37 billion over the forward estimates. Then it was revised, and the MRRT was to generate $22.5 billion over the forward estimates. That was never going to be. More recently it was revised from $13.4 billion to $9.1 billion and now to a measly $3.3 billion over the forward estimates. With spiralling debt, we cannot support this measure, we cannot support this bill, because the nation just cannot afford it. We have record debt—$191 billion. It would be impractical and less than prudent for someone to go and commit funds to a schedule like this in a bill that simply cannot be afforded. We support the bill but we want to excise schedules 4, 5 and 6— (Time expired) 17:58 Dr JENSEN DYN Tangney I rise today to speak on the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 1) Bill 2013 as a conduit for the voice of small business enterprise and industry in my electorate of Tangney in Western Australia. I have been contacted by authorised members of the Financial Planning Association of Australia and the SMSF Professionals' Association of Australia. These important stakeholders in our community and policy experts should and must have their concerns heard. My message here today is clear and simple: I want to see the removal of schedule 4 of the aforementioned bill. The tax and superannuation laws amendment bill 2013 was introduced into the House of Representatives on 13 February 2013. Schedule 4 of the bill seeks to limit the ability of self-managed super funds to dispose of or acquire assets from a related company. The bill prohibits the sale of listed securities, such as shares, from a related party to an SMSF unless certain conditions are met. Schedule 4 of the bill intends to address concerns by the super system review relating to the acquisition and disposal of assets between related parties and self-managed super funds. This involves a situation where the buyer and seller of the asset are in effect the same person. The most controversial aspect of schedule 4 will have the effect of prohibiting an SMSF from acquiring listed securities, such as shares listed on the ASX, from related members via an off-market transfer from 1 July 2013. Although schedule 4 does not impose a ban on off-market transfer, it facilitates regulations that will prevent SMSFs from acquiring listed securities from a related party via an off-market transfer. This has significant implications for the SMSF sector. Transferring listed securities via an off-market transfer is a common and cost-effective way of allowing a superannuation fund to acquire publicly available investments to support the person's retirement savings. Forcing SMSF members to go on market in these situations will substantially increase the cost of this transaction, given the need for a stockbroker to execute both sides of the trade, with no true benefit to the SMSF involved in the transaction. I see this as placing SMSF members at a significant disadvantage compared to members of large superannuation funds, who will still be permitted to undertake off-market transfers without the cost of brokerage. In addition to concerns over the off-market transfers of publicly listed securities, there are other aspects of schedule 4 which remain a concern. These include the requirement to obtain a qualified independent valuation for an unlisted asset which is being acquired from a related party or disposed of to a related party. This will create difficulties, and will likely have undesirable consequences for SMSFs. There may be scenarios where an SMSF will be forced to remain in place after most of the fund assets have been disposed of. This would occur where the SMSF trustees are not able to find a qualified independent valuer to value one or more of the fund assets. SMSFs with a collectable investment are an example. Even in situations where a qualified independent valuer can be found, the requirement to obtain a qualified independent valuation may result in little benefit or provide no transparency, and may result in unnecessary transaction costs being incurred by the SMSF. Units held by an SMSF in a widely held unit trust are an example, where in the vast majority of cases there is an easily obtainable market price. As the SMSF trustee already has access to a qualified valuation of the units, it would seem necessary for the SMSF trustees in this scenario to obtain a further qualified independent valuation when selling units to a related party. I believe the amendments in schedule 4 will result in higher and unnecessary transaction costs for many common SMSF transactions, and have other undesirable consequences as outlined. This bill is so very typical of the current Gillard government. It is another unnecessary piece of legislation that gets in the way of business. Not only that: this bill would disadvantage responsible SMSF participants. The coalition is, at heart, about creating wealth and adding value to the economy. This measure as it stands does neither and is emblematic of all that is wrong with the Gillard government. Our country is failing to excel in the competitive index because of measures like this, where useless third parties are mandated to a deal. This is simply creating a job that never needed to be done. But, then again, Labor is hardly renowned for its perspicacity and predictive performance; more for the overbearing confidence—nay, arrogance—of this government. Why else would the government table this attack and attempt to end SMSFs as we know them? The SMSF sector remained the largest sector of the Australian super industry, with 99 per cent of the number of funds and 31 per cent of the $1.4 trillion total super assets as at 30 June 2012. At 30 June 2012, there were around 478,000 SMSFs holding $439 billion in assets. There were also approximately 913,550 members in the SMSF sector, almost eight per cent of roughly 11.6 million members in Australian super funds. The data confirms that the SMSF sector responds to changing economic circumstances. This was evident by changes in the level of growth in SMSFs, contributions made to the sector and shifts in asset types held. SMSFs are both flexible and resilient in their ability to concentrate or diversify asset portfolios. Why make it more difficult and expensive? The trend continued for members of new SMSFs to be from younger age groups than those from the total SMSF population. The majority of SMSFs, 64 per cent, are solely in the accumulation phase; however, there is a clear shift for more recently established SMSFs to start pension payments earlier. SMSFs directly invested 78 per cent of their assets, mainly in cash and term deposits and Australian listed shares—a total of over 60 per cent. While smaller SMSFs tended to favour cash and term deposits, larger SMSFs had a greater tendency to invest in listed shares. The estimated SMSF average operating expenses in dollar terms increased in 2010-11, particularly for SMSFs solely in the accumulation phase. This is the phase where most SMSF holders are, so it is just to add more expense upon their shoulders. This is the reality of the situation we are dealing with. How can we trust Labor with such an important industry? Classic Labor myopia and vainglorious endeavour jeopardise our SMSF sector and super industry today and tomorrow. It is incumbent upon the House to reflect on the import of the sector and the potential irreversible damage of unintended consequences. I think credence must be paid to the old adage: 'If you don't know what you're doing, don't do it.' The message is clear: Liberals are on the side of SMSF holders and will not build barriers of red tape. With Liberals in government, the SMSF holders in my electorate will have certainty that government is on their side and that, once more, hope, reward and opportunity will return to our land. 18:09 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay Firstly, I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate on the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 1) Bill 2013. Schedule 1 amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to clarify the tax treatment of interest paid on unclaimed moneys of superannuation funds, bank and first home saver accounts, life insurance policies and companies from 1 July 2013. This is part of the government's reforms to reunite people with their lost money sooner. Schedule 2 amends the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 to update the calculation method for the taxable value of airline transport fringe benefits, given the current business practices of the sector. Also, as part of the reforms, airline transport fringe benefits are being reclassified in the FBT law as a type of in-house benefit. Schedule 3 is a measure to benefit irrigators who derive payments under the Commonwealth Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure program. The measure allows them to choose between the existing income tax treatment for those payments and making the payments non-assessable, non-exempt income. A corresponding treatment applies for their matching expenditure to upgrade water infrastructure. Making the choice will ensure that they incur no funding gap between the time they would otherwise be assessed on the payments and the time they would otherwise have fully deducted the expenditure. This measure will encourage irrigators to sign up for the program and therefore will improve the efficiency and productivity of rural water use, making more water available for environmental activities. The government will be proposing an amendment to remove schedule 4 from this bill. Schedule 4 contains specific rules for trustees and investment managers of self-managed superannuation funds in relation to acquiring assets from and disposing of assets to related parties. The measure is a response to a recommendation of the Super System Review which was undertaken in 2010. Since the time of the review, the government has made significant reforms to the superannuation system, including to the SMSF sector. Further consultation with industry has indicated that the concerns the measure is seeking to address are not as pressing as they were at the time of the review. Schedules 5 and 6 insert division 160 into the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, which will allow corporate tax entities to carry back their losses by establishing a refundable tax offset. The government recognises that many businesses in Australia's patchwork economy may be struggling to adapt to the changing economic circumstances. This reform will encourage companies to adapt to changing economic conditions and take advantage of new opportunities through investment. It will do so by providing a cash injection at the time when they need it most. Furthermore, reducing the tax system's bias against corporate risk taking can be expected to increase the quantity and the quality of investment, improving the allocation of resources across the economy. This should have positive flow-on effects for productivity, which in turn will support growth in real wages and employment. The independent Business Tax Working Group, in its final report on the tax treatment of losses, provided the impetus for this measure. To ensure the policy intent of this measure is achieved, the government will propose a minor technical amendment to schedules 5 and 6 to ensure the measure operates effectively in respect of new corporate entities. Finally, schedule 7 includes some minor technical and machinery amendments to the taxation laws. The government regularly advances schedules like this to ensure our taxation laws continue to operate as intended. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Consideration in Detail 4354 18:14 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I seek leave to move government amendments as circulated together. Leave granted. Mr BRADBURY HVW I move government amendments (1) and (2) on sheet AP242 and (1) and (2) on sheet CJ279: (1) Schedule 5, item 2, page 36 (line 5), after "earliest year", insert "(disregarding any period when the entity was not in existence)". (2) Schedule 5, item 2, page 36 (line 8), at the end of subsection 160‑25(2), add "(disregarding any period when the entity was not in existence)". (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 6 and 7), omit the table items. (2) Schedule 4, page 24 (line 1) to page 30 (line 19), omit the Schedule. As introduced, the bill requires that an entity be a corporate tax entity throughout the year spanned by the carry-back, including throughout the year to which the loss is carried back. This raises the possible interpretation that an entity cannot have been a corporate tax entity throughout the year during which it comes into being because it did not exist as an entity for the whole of that year. Under the amendments, any part of a year before the entity came into existence is to be disregarded in deciding if it was a corporate tax entity throughout the year. This will ensure that otherwise eligible entities are not precluded from carrying tax losses back to the year they came into existence and is consistent with the intention of the measure. 18:15 Mr BILLSON 1K6 Dunkley We have just received the government amendments—it was an exercise tracking them down. As I understand the minister, the self-managed super funds and related parties, the stuff you are seeking to excise, cover the amendment we were seeking to move. The other relates to a technical amendment. We have had no opportunity to consider these amendments that have been moved, but we will take them on face value as they have been described. We will not oppose them and, hopefully, there might be some reciprocity and the government will embrace our amendments when they are moved—but I will not hold out for that. I acknowledge that the government has embraced one of the coalition's amendments dealing with the self-managed superannuation funds. The government now seems to have accepted our evidence that it has been hard to identify what the actual mischief is that the measure seeks to address, and there were some practical concerns about how you would gain access to the relevant expertise to meet the market principle or the valuation principle. We certainly welcome that excision from this bill. Question agreed to. 18:17 Mr BILLSON 1K6 Dunkley by leave—I move opposition amendments (1), (3) and (4) circulated in the name of my friend and colleague the member for North Sydney: (1) Clause 2, pages 2 and 3 (table items 6 to 14), omit the table items. (3) Schedule 5, page 31 (line 1) to page 53 (line 13), omit the Schedule. (4) Schedule 6, page 54 (line 1) to page 65 (line 11), omit the Schedule. It is good to see that the amendment the coalition put forward in relation to the self-managed super funds and related parties has now been embraced by the government, and we welcome that. So there is no need for us to move our amendment (2). Amendments (1), (3) and (4) deal with the other schedules that I had identified on behalf of the coalition as containing some concerns. Schedule 7 of the bill makes miscellaneous amendments to taxation laws and almost all of them relate to the mining tax. That is not the real issue of our concern. Our concern focuses on schedules 5 and 6. These schedules seek to implement the government's loss carry-back tax expenditure initiative. That initiative, as we canvassed in the debate, was linked to the government's failed mining tax. We all know that the mining tax has hardly raised anything near the funding that was anticipated. In my earlier address, I explained the diminishing returns from the mining tax and the significant impact that the negotiated arrangements the Prime Minister entered into have had on the robustness of the budget position. The government spent all of that forecast revenue they thought they would raise but that did not arrive, and then some, on various expenditure measures, including loss carry-back from what was supposed to be the revenue stream from the mining tax. This measure will cost the budget $700 million over the forward estimates with next to no offsetting revenue. The government simply cannot afford to continue adding to the $192 billion in accumulated deficits over the last four years, with another large deficit likely in 2012-13. In my earlier address, I pointed to some of the concerns about the very limited reach of this measure and how the government has been grotesquely overselling this measure. Many tax and small business advisory experts have pointed out that only a fraction of the small business community is structured as companies and fewer still are in any position to derive any benefit from this measure. On that basis and on the unaffordability of it when contrasted with the revenue stream that is supposed to finance it, I commend the opposition amendments which excise those schedules from the bill. We have circulated the amendments and I hope the Assistant Treasurer will see merit in what we are putting forward—as he did with our reasoned proposition around the self-managed superannuation funds. The SPEAKER 83S The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

The House divided. [18:24]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)

 67 AYES Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Baldwin, RC Billson, BF Bishop, BK Briggs, JE Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Cobb, JK Coulton, M (teller) Crook, AJ Dutton, PC Entsch, WG 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 Smith, ADH Southcott, AJ Stone, SN Tehan, DT Truss, WE Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX 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 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 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 Roxon, NL Rudd, KM Saffin, JA Shorten, WR Sidebottom, PS Slipper, PN Smith, SF Smyth, L Swan, WM Symon, MS Thomson, KJ Vamvakinou, M Wilkie, AD Windsor, AHC Zappia, A 5 PAIRS Abbott, AJ Gillard, JE Bishop, JI Combet, GI Fletcher, PW Gray, G Somlyay, AM Snowdon, WE Washer, MJ Emerson, C

Question negatived.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.

 Third Reading 4357 18:30 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. BUSINESS 4357 BUSINESS Rearrangement 4357 18:31 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I move: That business intervening before Order of the Day No. 11 Government Business be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. BILLS 4357 BILLS Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 4357

Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013

Second Reading 4357 18:31 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga The Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 makes changes to the baby bonus, announced in the 2012-13 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. I will shortly be moving government amendments to add to this bill two measures affecting families that were announced in the 2013 budget package: a more sustainable family payment system. Since coming to government we have worked hard to modernise the family payment system. We have restructured and improved assistance to deliver more help to low- and middle-income families when the cost of raising children put the most pressure on the family budget. We have delivered Australia's first national paid parental leave scheme and increased the child care rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent of out-of-pocket costs up to $7½ thousand per child per year, the schoolkids bonus to help families with the cost of their children's education, higher payments for families with teenagers to encourage them to stay at school, family payment increases as part of our Household Assistance Package and tax cuts to millions of working families. We have made responsible decisions over a number of budgets to better target family payments while also delivering record levels of assistance to low- and middle-income families who need it most. The savings from these budget reforms will be redirected to deliver the government's A National Plan for School Improvement to benefit our classrooms, teachers and kids for generations to come. As announced in the 2012 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, the baby bonus for second and subsequent children who come into a family from 1 July 2013 will be reduced to $3,000 but will continue to be paid at the rate of $5,000 for a family's first child. New family payment arrangements to be introduced through government amendments will mean the baby bonus will cease from 1 March 2014. In place of the baby bonus families who are eligible for family tax benefit part A who are not accessing the paid parental leave scheme will receive an additional loading on their payment to help with the upfront costs of having a new baby. The extra family tax benefit part A payment will be $2,000 for a family's first child and for each child in a multiple birth and $1,000 for second and subsequent children. It will be paid as an initial instalment of $500 with the remainder rolled into normal fortnightly payments over a three-month period. Payments for parents of a stillborn child will be delivered in full as a lump sum. This decision delivers on a recommendation from the 2010 Australia's Future Tax System Review, known as the Henry review, which found the baby bonus provides more assistance than is necessary to cover the cost associated with the new child and recommended that assistance be restructured when the government delivered a national paid parental leave scheme. We are also making changes to the work test under the paid parental leave scheme, making it easier for working mothers with children born close together to qualify for parental leave pay for subsequent children. These changes will allow parents to count periods of parental leave pay as work under the work test just as employer-funded parental leave entitlements can be counted under the current rules. These amendments also reduce the claim period for family assistance lump sum claims. Families choosing to wait until the end of the financial year to claim their family tax benefit or child care benefit entitlements will now have a grace period of one year instead of two years in which to claim. This change will start from the 2012-13 entitlement year, meaning families will have 12 months from the end of that year until 30 June 2014 in which to claim their entitlement. Families will also have one year in which to lodge their tax returns if they are to receive the end-of-year family tax benefit supplement and meet immunisation and health check requirements linked to the end-of-year family tax benefit part A supplement. The vast majority of families already meet the new claim period and will not be affected. Families will be affected by this change only if they wait longer than 12 months to claim family tax benefit or child care benefit for the previous financial year or to lodge their tax return. Families will be able to access extensions in special circumstances, similar to arrangements for tax returns. This change brings family payment claims periods more into line with time limits for lodging tax returns before penalties may be imposed and with the policy intent of the family assistance program to assist parents with the day-to-day costs of raising children. The original bill also included minor amendments which were outlined in my second reading speech. The government is pleased that the opposition has decided to support the bill and the amendments. I am surprised that the opposition has expressed opposing views on each of these changes over the course of the last few weeks, but nevertheless I am pleased to see that the amendments will go through. We have seen the shadow minister railing against changes to the baby bonus. He was then rolled by the shadow Treasurer, but then we saw the shadow Treasurer railing against the increase to family tax benefit part A payments for families with newborns before being rolled by the shadow minister. All of this comes from a party room still being part of an ongoing revolt against their leader's unfair and costly paid parental leave scheme which rewards wealthy women and leaves ordinary women behind. By contrast, this government is making sensible changes to our family payment system to make sure that every Australian gets a fair go, not just those who can afford it. We are making the responsible decisions that will see better schools and DisabilityCare have long-term funding certainty. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Consideration in Detail 4359 18:39 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. By leave—I move: Government amendments (1) to (8) as circulated together. (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit "items 1 to 3", substitute "items 1 to 3B". (2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 6), omit "items 10 and 11", substitute "item 11". (3) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 9), insert: (4) Schedule 1, heading, page 4 (line 1), omit the heading, substitute: Schedule 1—Reduction of baby bonus from 1 July 2013 (5) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (lines 17 to 19), omit the item, substitute: 3 Subclause 3(9) of Schedule 4 (heading)    Omit ", 1July 2013 and 1July 2014", substitute "and 1July 2013". 3A Subclause 3(9) of Schedule 4    Omit ", 1 July 2013 and 1 July 2014", substitute "and 1 July 2013". 3B Subclause 3(9) of Schedule 4 (note)    Repeal the note. (6) Schedule 1, item 10, page 6 (line 30) to page 7 (line 7), omit the item. (7) Page 9 (after line 8), after Schedule 2, insert: Schedule 2A—Replacement of baby bonus from 1 March 2014 Part 1—Newborn supplement for Part A rate of family tax benefit A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 1 Subsection 3(1) (at the end of the definition of family tax benefit )    Add "(and includes any amount under section 58AA)". 2 After section 58    Insert: 58AA Newborn upfront payment of family tax benefit if newborn supplement added into Part A rate (1) If, under Division 1A of Part 5 of Schedule 1, an amount of newborn supplement is added in relation to an individual and an FTB child of the individual, then the individual is entitled to be paid, as an amount of family tax benefit, $500 in respect of the FTB child. Note: The amount is to be paid as a single lump sum: see section 24A of the Family Assistance Administration Act. Exceptions (2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to an individual and an FTB child of the individual if another individual has received an amount under this section in respect of that child while the individual and the other individual were members of the same couple. (3) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to an individual and an FTB child of the individual in the circumstances prescribed in a legislative instrument under subclause 35A(12) of Schedule 1. One amount only in respect of FTB child (4) An individual cannot receive more than one amount under this section in respect of an FTB child of the individual. 3 Clause 3 of Schedule 1 (after paragraph (b) of step 1 of the method statement)    Insert:    (ba) the individual's newborn supplement (if any) under Division 1A of Part 5 (clauses 35A and 35B); 4 Clause 24N of Schedule 1 (after step 2 of the method statement)    Insert: Step 2A.   Work out the individual's newborn supplement (if any) under Division 1A of Part 5 (clauses 35A and 35B) for FTB children of the individual in respect of whom the individual, or the individual's partner, is entitled to apply for maintenance income from the maintenance payer. 5 Clause 25 of Schedule 1 (after paragraph (b) of step 1 of the method statement)    Insert:    (ba) the individual's newborn supplement (if any) under Division 1A of Part 5 (clauses 35A and 35B); 6 After Division 1 of Part 5 of Schedule 1    Insert: Division 1A—Newborn supplement 35A Eligibility for newborn supplement (1) Subject to this clause, an amount of newborn supplement is to be added, for a day, in working out an individual's maximum rate under clause 3, or an individual's Method 2 base rate under clause 25, if subclause (2), (5) or (7) of this clause applies for that day in relation to the individual and an FTB child of the individual. Parent of child (2) This subclause applies for a day in relation to the individual and an FTB child of the individual if:    (a) the individual, or the individual's partner, is a parent of the child on that day; and    (b) the child is aged less than one on that day; and    (c) if this subclause were to apply for that day, the individual's Part A rate, disregarding reductions (if any) under clause 5 or 25A of this Schedule and disregarding section 58A and subclauses 38AA(3) and 38AF(3) of this Schedule, would be greater than nil on that day; and    (d) that day occurs in the period of 13 weeks beginning on the first day that paragraphs (a) to (c) are satisfied; and    (e) if the individual is, under a law (the registration law) of a State or Territory, responsible (whether alone or jointly) for registering the birth of the child in accordance with the law—the Secretary is notified, or becomes aware, at any time before the end of whichever of the following periods is applicable, that the birth registration requirement is met:       (i) the first income year after the income year (the relevant income year) in which occurs the last day on which paragraphs (a) to (d) are satisfied;       (ii) if a further period in respect of the individual's claim for payment of family tax benefit in respect of the child was allowed under paragraph 10(2)(b) of the Family Assistance Administration Act and that claim is for a past period falling within the relevant income year—such further period (if any) as the Secretary allows in special circumstances. (3) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(e), the birth registration requirement is the requirement that:    (a) the birth of the child has been registered in accordance with the registration law; or    (b) the individual, or the individual's partner, has applied to have the birth of the child registered in accordance with the registration law. (4) Any further period allowed by the Secretary under subparagraph (2)(e)(ii) must end no later than the end of the second income year after the relevant income year. Child entrusted to care of individual or individual ' s partner (5) This subclause applies for a day in relation to the individual and an FTB child of the individual if:    (a) neither the individual, nor the individual's partner, is a parent of the child on that day; and    (b) on or before that day, the child became entrusted to the care of the individual or the individual's partner; and    (c) the child is aged less than one on that day; and    (d) if this subclause were to apply for that day, the individual's Part A rate, disregarding reductions (if any) under clause 5 or 25A of this Schedule and disregarding section 58A and subclauses 38AA(3) and 38AF(3) of this Schedule, would be greater than nil on that day; and    (e) that day occurs in the period of 13 weeks beginning on the first day that paragraphs (a) to (d) are satisfied. (6) However, subclause (5) does not apply, and is taken never to have applied, in relation to the individual and the FTB child of the individual if the child is not an FTB child of the individual for a continuous period of at least 13 weeks beginning on the first day that paragraphs (5)(a) to (d) are satisfied. Adoption (7) This subclause applies for a day in relation to the individual and an FTB child of the individual if:    (a) on or before that day, the child became entrusted to the care of the individual or the individual's partner; and    (b) it is an authorised party that entrusts the child to the care of the individual or the individual's partner; and    (c) the authorised party does so as part of the process for the adoption of the child by the individual or the individual's partner; and    (d) if this subclause were to apply for that day, the individual's Part A rate, disregarding reductions (if any) under clause 5 or 25A of this Schedule and disregarding section 58A and subclauses 38AA(3) and 38AF(3) of this Schedule, would be greater than nil on that day; and    (e) that day occurs in the period of 13 weeks beginning on the first day that paragraphs (a) to (d) are satisfied; and    (f) that day occurs before the end of the period of 12 months beginning on the day the child became entrusted to the care of the individual or the individual's partner. Exceptions (8) This clause does not apply, and is taken never to have applied, in relation to the individual and the FTB child of the individual if parental leave pay is payable to the individual for that child. (9) This clause does not apply, and is taken never to have applied, in relation to the individual and the FTB child of the individual if:    (a) parental leave pay is payable to a person (other than the individual) for that child; and    (b) the person and the individual are members of a couple for:       (i) if the person's PPL period is 13 weeks or more—at least 13 weeks of that PPL period; or       (ii) if the person's PPL period is less than 13 weeks—the whole of that PPL period. (10) If:    (a) under this clause, an amount of newborn supplement is added in relation to an individual and an FTB child of the individual for a period of 13 weeks; and    (b) the individual is a member of a couple throughout that period; then this clause does not apply in relation to the other member of that couple and that child. (11) An amount of newborn supplement is not to be added under this clause for a day or days in relation to an individual and an FTB child of the individual in the circumstances prescribed in a legislative instrument under subclause (12). (12) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, prescribe circumstances for the purposes of either or both of subsection 58AA(3) and subclause (11) of this clause. (13) The circumstances, in relation to an individual and an FTB child of the individual, must relate to one or more of the following:    (a) the payability of parental leave pay to another individual for that child;    (b) the addition of newborn supplement under this clause in relation to another individual and that child;    (c) the individual being a member of a couple or a former member of a couple. Definition (14) In this clause:    parent includes a relationship parent. 35B Annualised rate of newborn supplement General rule (1) Subject to this clause, the amount of newborn supplement for an individual in respect of an FTB child is as follows:    (a) if subclause 35A(2) applies and the child is the first child born alive to the woman who gave birth to the child—the amount worked out using the formula:       $1501.50 x 365/91    (b) if subclause 35A(5) applies and the child is the first child that becomes entrusted to the care of the individual or the individual's partner—the amount worked out using the formula:       $1501.50 x 365/91    (c) if subclause 35A(7) applies and the child is the first child that becomes entrusted to the care of the individual, or the individual's partner, in the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs 35A(7)(a) to (c)—the amount worked out using the formula:       $1501.50 x 365/91    (d) otherwise—the amount worked out using the formula:       $500.50 x 365/91 Note: The amount of the newborn supplement added under this Division forms part of the calculation of an individual's annual rate of family tax benefit, which is then converted to a daily rate of family tax benefit: see subsection 58(3). That daily rate, to the extent it relates to the newborn supplement, is paid for a maximum of 13 weeks: see clause 35A. Multiple children cases (2) If subclause 35A(2) applies in relation to an individual and 2 or more children born during the same multiple birth, the amount of newborn supplement for the individual in respect of each child is the amount worked out using the formula:       $1501.50 x 365/91 (3) If subclause 35A(5) applies in relation to an individual and 2 or more children who become entrusted to the care of the individual, or the individual's partner, as part of the same entrustment to care process, the amount of newborn supplement for the individual in respect of each child is the amount worked out using the formula:       $1501.50 x 365/91 (4) If subclause 35A(7) applies in relation to an individual and 2 or more children who become entrusted to the care of the individual, or the individual's partner, as part of the same adoption process, the amount of newborn supplement for the individual in respect of each child is the amount worked out using the formula:       $1501.50 x 365/91 7 Clause 2 of Schedule 4 (after table item 7) Insert: 8 Subclause 3(1) of Schedule 4 (after table item 7) Insert: 9 Subclause 3(7) of Schedule 4    Omit ", the FTB income limit (B) and the baby bonus income limit", substitute "and the FTB income limit (B)". 10 Subclause 3(9) of Schedule 4    Repeal the subclause, substitute: First indexation of newborn supplement and newborn upfront payment (9) The first indexation under subclause (1) of the newborn supplement and the newborn upfront payment is to take place on 1 July 2014. A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 11 Section 5    Before "The", insert "(1)". 12 At the end of section 5    Add: (2) A claim is not required for an amount of family tax benefit under section 58AA of the Family Assistance Act. 13 Section 24 (heading)    Repeal the heading, substitute: 24 Payments of family tax benefit for a past period or by single payment/in substitution because of the death of another individual 14 After section 24    Insert: 24A Other payments of family tax benefit (1) If an individual is entitled to be paid an amount of family tax benefit under section 58AA of the Family Assistance Act, the Secretary must pay the amount to the individual in a single lump sum, at such time and in such manner as the Secretary considers appropriate. (2) This section is subject to Subdivision CA of this Division, Part 4, Division 3 of Part 8B and sections 225 and 226. 15 Section 219TA (after paragraph (c) of the definition of relevant benefit )    Insert:    (caa) family tax benefit under section 58AA of the Family Assistance Act; or Part 2—Stillborn baby payment A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 16 Subsection 3(1) (definition of baby bonus )    Repeal the definition. 17 Subsection 3(1) (paragraph (b) of the definition of family assistance )    Repeal the paragraph, substitute:    (b) stillborn baby payment; or 18 Subsection 3(1) (paragraph (c) of the definition of FTB child )    Repeal the paragraph, substitute:    (c) in relation to stillborn baby payment—has the meaning given in Subdivision A of Division 1 of Part 3; and 19 Subsection 3(1) (definition of primary carer )    Repeal the definition. 20 Subsection 3(1)    Insert:    stillborn baby payment means the payment for which an individual is eligible under Division 2 of Part 3. 21 Division 2 of Part 3    Repeal the Division, substitute: Division 2—Eligibility for stillborn baby payment Subdivision A—Eligibility of individuals for stillborn baby payment in normal circumstances 36 When an individual is eligible for stillborn baby payment in normal circumstances (1) Subject to this section, an individual is eligible for a stillborn baby payment in respect of a child if:    (a) the child is a stillborn child; and    (b) had the child been born alive:       (i) the child would have been an FTB child of the individual at birth; and       (ii) the individual, or the individual's partner, would have been the primary carer of the child at birth; and    (c) either:       (i) the individual would have been eligible for family tax benefit in respect of the child, at any time within the period of 26 weeks starting on the day of the child's delivery, assuming the child had not been a stillborn child; or       (ii) the individual would have been so eligible on the assumption described in subparagraph (i) except that the individual's rate of family tax benefit, worked out under Division 1 of Part 4, is nil; and    (d) the claim for payment of stillborn baby payment contains an estimate of the sum of:       (i) the individual's adjusted taxable income; and       (ii) if the individual is a member of a couple on the day the claim is made—the adjusted taxable income of the individual's partner;       for the period of 6 months beginning on the day of the child's delivery; and    (e) that estimate is less than or equal to $60,000 and the Secretary considers that estimate to be reasonable. (2) Paragraphs (1)(c) and (e) do not apply if on any day during the period of 52 weeks beginning on the day of the child's delivery:    (a) either:       (i) a determination under section 16 or 17 of the Family Assistance Administration Act is in force in respect of the individual; or       (ii) a determination under section 18 of the Family Assistance Administration Act is in force in respect of the individual because the Secretary is satisfied that the individual is eligible for family tax benefit under section 32 of this Act; and    (b) the individual's rate of family tax benefit, worked out under Division 1 of Part 4 but disregarding reductions (if any) under clause 5 or 25A of Schedule 1 and disregarding section 58A and subclauses 38AA(3) and 38AF(3) of Schedule 1, consisted of or included a Part A rate greater than nil. Estimate of adjusted taxable income (3) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(d):    (a) a reference in Schedule 3 to an income year is taken to be a reference to the 6‑month period mentioned in that paragraph; and    (b) disregard subclause 2(2) and clauses 3 and 3A of that Schedule. Exception (4) This section does not apply, and is taken never to have applied, in relation to the individual and the child if parental leave pay is payable to the individual, or the individual's partner, for the child. 37 Only one individual eligible for stillborn baby payment in respect of a child       If the Secretary determines that an individual who is a member of a couple is eligible for a stillborn baby payment under subsection 36(1) in respect of a child, the Secretary must not determine that the partner of the individual is eligible for a stillborn baby payment in respect of that child. Subdivision B—Eligibility of individuals for stillborn baby payment where death occurs 38 What happens if an individual eligible for stillborn baby payment dies       If:    (a) an individual is eligible for a stillborn baby payment (the subject payment) in respect of a child; and    (b) the individual dies; and    (c) before the individual died, the subject payment had not been paid to the individual (whether or not a claim had been made under Part 3 of the Family Assistance Administration Act); and    (d) another individual makes a claim under that Part for payment of a stillborn baby payment because of the death of the first‑mentioned individual, stating that he or she wishes to become eligible for the subject payment; and    (e) the claim is made:       (i) within 52 weeks after the death; or       (ii) within a further period allowed by the Secretary in special circumstances; and    (f) the Secretary considers that the other individual ought to be eligible for the subject payment; the other individual is eligible for the subject payment. No‑one else is, or can become, eligible for or entitled to be paid that payment. 22 Division 2 of Part 4    Repeal the Division, substitute: Division 2—Stillborn baby payment 66 Amount of stillborn baby payment General rule (1) Subject to this section, the amount of a stillborn baby payment for an individual in respect of a child is as follows:    (a) if the child is the first stillborn child of the woman who gave birth to the child—the amount worked out using the formula:       Higher newborn supplement amount + Newborn upfront amount (b) otherwise—the amount worked out using the formula:       Lower newborn supplement amount + Newborn upfront amount Multiple children case (2) If 2 or more children are born during the same multiple birth and there is at least one stillborn child, the amount of stillborn baby payment for an individual in respect of each stillborn child born during that birth is the amount worked out using the formula:       Higher newborn supplement amount + Newborn upfront amount Definitions (3) In this section:    higher newborn supplement amount means the dollar amount mentioned in the formula under paragraph 35B(1)(a) of Schedule 1 (including that amount as indexed).    lower newborn supplement amount means the dollar amount mentioned in the formula under paragraph 35B(1)(d) of Schedule 1 (including that amount as indexed).    newborn upfront amount means the amount mentioned in subsection 58AA(1) (including that amount as indexed). 23 Subsection 85(1)    Omit "(1)". 24 Subsection 85(2)    Repeal the subsection. 25 Clause 2 of Schedule 4 (table items 17AD and 17AE) Repeal the items, substitute: 26 Subclause 3(1) of Schedule 4 (table items 17AD and 17AE) Repeal the items, substitute: 27 Before subclause 3(5) of Schedule 4    Insert: First indexation of stillborn baby payment income limit    (4A) The first indexation under subclause (1) of the stillborn baby payment income limit is to take place on 1 July 2017. A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 28 Subsection 3(1) (definition of early claim day )    Repeal the definition, substitute:    early claim day, in relation to a claim for payment of family tax benefit by instalment, means the day occurring 97 days before the day that, on the day the claim is made, is the expected day on which the child to whom the claim relates will become an FTB child of the claimant. It does not matter whether the child becomes such an FTB child on the expected day. 29 Subsection 3(1) (paragraph (c) of the definition of TFN claim person )    Omit "baby bonus", substitute "a stillborn baby payment". 30 Subsection 3(1) (paragraph (c) of the definition of TFN substitution person )    Omit "baby bonus", substitute "a stillborn baby payment". 31 Division 3 of Part 3 (heading)    Repeal the heading, substitute: Division 3—Stillborn baby payment 32 Sections 36 to 38    Repeal the sections, substitute: 36 Need for a claim       The only way that a person can become entitled to be paid a stillborn baby payment is to make a claim in accordance with this Division. 37 Who can claim       The only persons who can make a claim in accordance with this Division are individuals. 38 How to claim (1) An individual (the claimant) may make a claim for payment of:    (a) a stillborn baby payment in normal circumstances; or    (b) a stillborn baby payment because of the death of another individual. (2) A claim is not effective unless:    (a) the claim:       (i) is made in a form and manner; and       (ii) contains any information; and       (iii) is accompanied by any documents;       required by the Secretary; and    (b) in the case of a claim for a stillborn baby payment in normal circumstances—the claim contains an estimate of the sum of:       (i) the individual's adjusted taxable income; and       (ii) if the individual is a member of a couple on the day the claim is made—the adjusted taxable income of the individual's partner;       for the 6‑month period mentioned in paragraph 36(1)(d) of the Family Assistance Act; and    (c) in the case of a claim for a stillborn baby payment in normal circumstances—the tax file number requirement in section 38A has been satisfied in relation to the claim; and    (d) in the case of a claim for a stillborn baby payment because of the death of another individual—the tax file number requirement in section 38B has been satisfied in relation to the claim. Estimate of adjusted taxable income (3) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(b):    (a) a reference in Schedule 3 to the Family Assistance Act to an income year is taken to be a reference to the 6‑month period referred to in that paragraph; and    (b) disregard subclause 2(2) and clauses 3 and 3A of that Schedule. 33 Section 38A (heading)    Omit "baby bonus", substitute "stillborn baby payment". 34 Section 38B (heading)    Omit "baby bonus", substitute "stillborn baby payment". 35 Section 39    Repeal the section, substitute: 39 Restrictions on claiming " Normal circumstances " entitlement must not already have been determined, or be awaiting determination, on a previous claim (1) A claim for payment of a stillborn baby payment in normal circumstances is not effective if the claimant has previously made such a claim based on the same circumstances (whether or not the claim has yet been determined). Timing of " normal circumstances " stillborn baby payment claim (2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), a claim for payment of a stillborn baby payment in normal circumstances is not effective unless it is made before the end of the period of 52 weeks beginning on the day of the birth of the stillborn child. (3) If the Secretary is satisfied that the claimant was unable to make a claim for payment of a stillborn baby payment in normal circumstances because of severe illness associated with the birth of the stillborn child, the Secretary may extend the period of 52 weeks mentioned in subsection (2) to such longer period as the Secretary considers appropriate. (4) If:    (a) the claimant, or the claimant's partner, made a claim in accordance with Part 2‑4 of the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 for parental leave pay for the child to whom the claim for payment of a stillborn baby payment relates; and    (b) the Secretary notifies the claimant, or the claimant's partner, under section 24 of that Act that parental leave pay is not payable for the child; and (c) the notice is given:       (i) after the end of the period of 52 weeks mentioned in subsection (2) of this section; or       (ii) during the last 13 weeks of that period of 52 weeks; subsection (2) of this section does not apply if the claim for payment of a stillborn baby payment is made within the period of 13 weeks after the day on which the notice is given. " Bereavement " entitlement must not already have been determined, or be awaiting determination, on a previous claim (5) A claim for payment of a stillborn baby payment because of the death of another individual is not effective if the claimant has previously made such a claim because of the death of that individual (whether or not the claim has yet been determined). 36 Section 41    Repeal the section, substitute: 41 Secretary must determine claim (1) If a claim is effective, the Secretary must determine the claim in accordance with this section and sections 42 to 44. If the claim is not effective, it is taken not to have been made. Information to be taken into account (2) The Secretary is to make the determination:    (a) having regard only to the information in the claim (and any accompanying documents or information required by the Secretary); or    (b) having regard to the things in paragraph (a) and also to any other information or documents (whether or not provided by the claimant). Deferral of " normal circumstances " stillborn baby payment determination pending resolution of parental leave pay (3) If:    (a) the claim is one for payment of a stillborn baby payment in normal circumstances; and    (b) the claimant, or the claimant's partner, has made a claim in accordance with Part 2‑4 of the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 for parental leave pay for the child to whom the claim for a stillborn baby payment relates; the Secretary must not determine the claim for a stillborn baby payment until one of the following occurs:    (c) if the Secretary determines under that Act that parental leave pay for the child is payable:       (i) the PPL period applying to the individual who made the claim for parental leave pay starts; or       (ii) the Secretary revokes the determination under section 25 of that Act;    (d) the Secretary determines under that Act that parental leave pay for the child is not payable;    (e) the claim for parental leave pay is withdrawn under section 61 of that Act. 37 Sections 42 to 47AB    Repeal the sections, substitute: 42 Determination of " normal circumstances " entitlement claim       If:    (a) the claim is one for payment of a stillborn baby payment in normal circumstances; and    (b) the Secretary is satisfied that the claimant is eligible for a stillborn baby payment in accordance with Subdivision A of Division 2 of Part 3 of the Family Assistance Act in respect of the child to whom the claim relates; the Secretary must determine that the claimant is entitled to be paid the stillborn baby payment and must determine the amount of the payment that the claimant is entitled to be paid. 43 Determination of " bereavement " entitlement claim       If:    (a) the claim is one for payment of a stillborn baby payment because of the death of another individual; and    (b) the Secretary is satisfied that the claimant is, in the circumstances covered by the claim, eligible for a stillborn baby payment in accordance with Subdivision B of Division 2 of Part 3 of the Family Assistance Act; the Secretary must determine that the claimant is entitled to be paid the stillborn baby payment and must determine the amount of the payment that the claimant is entitled to be paid. 44 Determination that no entitlement       If the Secretary is not satisfied as mentioned in section 42 or 43, the Secretary must determine that the claimant is not entitled to be paid a stillborn baby payment in respect of the child to whom the claim relates, or in the circumstances covered by the claim, as the case requires. 45 When determination is in force       A determination comes into force when it is made and remains in force at all times afterwards. 46 Notice of determination (1) The Secretary must give notice of the determination to the claimant, stating:    (a) whether the claimant is entitled to be paid a stillborn baby payment under the determination; and    (b) if the claimant is entitled—the amount of the stillborn baby payment and how it is to be paid; and    (c) that the claimant may apply for review of the determination in the manner set out in Part 5. (2) The determination is not ineffective by reason only that the requirements of subsection (1) are not complied with. 47 Payment of stillborn baby payment (1) If the claimant is entitled to be paid a stillborn baby payment, the Secretary must pay the amount of the payment to the claimant in a single lump sum:    (a) on the day that the Secretary considers to be the earliest day on which it is reasonably practicable for the amount to be paid; and    (b) to the credit of a bank account nominated and maintained by the claimant. Payment not to bank account (2) However, the Secretary may direct that an amount that is to be paid under subsection (1) is to be paid in a way other than by payment to the credit of a bank account nominated and maintained by the claimant. A direction has effect accordingly. Interaction with other provisions (3) This section is subject to Part 4, Division 3 of Part 8B and sections 225 and 226. 38 Paragraphs 47A(1)(b) and (2)(b)    Omit "baby bonus", substitute "a stillborn baby payment". 39 Subsection 47A(3)    Omit "baby bonus", substitute "a stillborn baby payment". 40 Sections 47B and 47C    Repeal the sections. 41 Paragraph 66(1)(c)    Repeal the paragraph, substitute:    (c) stillborn baby payments; 42 Paragraph 71(1)(a)    Omit "baby bonus", substitute "stillborn baby payment". 43 Subsection 93A(6) (paragraph (a) of the definition of family assistance payment )    Omit "baby bonus", substitute "stillborn baby payment". 44 Section 219TA (paragraph (d) of the definition of relevant benefit )    Repeal the paragraph, substitute:    (d) stillborn baby payment; or Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 45 Section 11 ‑15 (table item headed " family assistance " ) Omit: 46 Section 11 ‑15 (at the end of the table item headed " family assistance " ) Add: 47 Section 52 ‑150    Omit "baby bonus", substitute "stillborn baby payment". Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 48 Section 4    Omit: (c) not have returned to work; and (d) not be entitled to baby bonus.    substitute: (c) not have returned to work. 49 Section 6 (definition of baby bonus )    Repeal the definition. 50 Section 30    Omit: (c) not have returned to work; and (d) not be entitled to baby bonus.    substitute: (c) not have returned to work. 51 Paragraph 31(2)(e)    Omit "Division 7); and", substitute "Division 7).". 52 Paragraph 31(2)(f)    Repeal the paragraph. Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 53 Section 123TC (paragraph (e) of the definition of category I welfare payment )    Omit "baby bonus", substitute "stillborn baby payment". 54 Section 123TC (paragraph (p) of the definition of category Q welfare payment )    Omit "baby bonus", substitute "stillborn baby payment". 55 Section 123TC (paragraph (c) of the definition of category S welfare payment )    Omit "baby bonus", substitute "stillborn baby payment". 56 Subsection 123XJA(3)    Repeal the subsection. 57 Subsection 123XJA(4) (heading)    Omit "—instalments of other category I welfare payments". 58 Subsection 123XJA(4)    Omit "(other than baby bonus under the Family Assistance Act)". 59 Subsection 123XJC(3)    Repeal the subsection. 60 Subsection 123XJC(4) (heading)    Omit "—instalments of other category I welfare payments". 61 Subsection 123XJC(4)    Omit "(other than baby bonus under the Family Assistance Act)". Part 3—Counting previous PPL period etc. for work test Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 62 Section 30    After "(for a secondary claimant).", insert "A previous PPL period and previous DAPP period of the person may be taken into account in working out whether the person satisfies the work test for a subsequent child.". 63 At the end of section 32    Add: Note 3: If the person performs qualifying work on a day because of paragraph (c) or (d) of the definition of qualifying work in subsection 34(1), see section 35A to work out the hours of qualifying work the person is taken to have performed on the day. 64 Subsection 34(1)    Repeal the subsection, substitute: (1) A person performs qualifying work on a day if at least one of the following applies on the day:    (a) the person performs at least one hour of paid work;    (b) the person takes a period of paid leave of at least one hour; (c) the day is in the person's PPL period for a previous child;    (d) the day is in the person's DAPP period for a previous child. 65 After section 35    Insert: 35A Hours of qualifying work on a day in a PPL or DAPP period If person does not perform paid work or take paid leave in previous PPL or DAPP period (1) For the purposes of step 5 of the method statement in section 32, if a person performs qualifying work on a day only because the day is in the person's PPL period or DAPP period for a previous child, the person is taken to have performed on that day:    (a) 7.6 hours of work, if the day is a week day; and    (b) no hours of work, if the day is a Saturday or Sunday. If person performs paid work in previous PPL or DAPP period (2) For the purposes of step 5 of the method statement in section 32, if a person performs qualifying work on a day because both:    (a) the person performs at least one hour of paid work on the day; and    (b) the day is in the person's PPL period or DAPP period for a previous child; the person is taken to have performed on that day the greater of:    (c) the hours of work the person would be taken to have performed if subsection (1) applied; and    (d) the number of hours of paid work performed by the person on that day. Note: Paid work for a permissible purpose could be performed during a person's PPL period or DAPP period for a previous child (see Division 7 of this Part and Division 7 of Part 3A‑3). If person takes paid leave in previous PPL or DAPP period (3) For the purposes of step 5 of the method statement in section 32, if a person performs qualifying work on a day because both:    (a) the person takes a period of paid leave of at least one hour on the day; and    (b) the day is in the person's PPL period or DAPP period for a previous child; the person is taken to have performed on that day the greater of:    (c) the hours of work the person would be taken to have performed if subsection (1) applied; and    (d) the number of hours of paid leave taken by the person on that day. 66 Section 115CA    After "nominated start date for dad and partner pay.", insert "A previous PPL period and previous DAPP period of the person may be taken into account in working out whether the person satisfies the work test for a subsequent child.". Part 4—Application and transitional provisions 67 Application and transitional provisions—Parts 1 and 2 (1) Despite the amendments made by this Schedule, the Assistance Act and the Administration Act, as in force immediately before the commencement of this item, to the extent to which they relate to baby bonus, continue to apply on and after that commencement in relation to an individual if the following circumstances exist:    (a) for subsection 36(2) of the Assistance Act—the child was born before 1 March 2014;    (b) for subsection 36(3) of the Assistance Act—the child was born before 1 March 2014;    (c) for subsection 36(4) of the Assistance Act—the child was born as a stillborn child before 1 March 2014;    (d) for subsection 36(5) of the Assistance Act—the child was entrusted to care before 1 March 2014. (2) Subclause 35A(2) of Schedule 1 to the Assistance Act, as inserted by this Schedule, applies in relation to a child who is born on or after 1 March 2014. (3) Subclause 35A(5) of Schedule 1 to the Assistance Act, as inserted by this Schedule, applies in relation to a child who is born on or after 1 March 2014. (4) Subclause 35A(7) of Schedule 1 to the Assistance Act, as inserted by this Schedule, applies in relation to a child who is entrusted to care on or after 1 March 2014. (5) To avoid doubt, for the purposes of paragraph 35B(1)(a) of Schedule 1 to the Assistance Act, as inserted by this Schedule, in working out whether a child is the first child born alive to a woman, take into account children born alive to the woman before, on or after 1 March 2014. (6) To avoid doubt, for the purposes of paragraph 35B(1)(b) or (c) of Schedule 1 to the Assistance Act, as inserted by this Schedule, in working out whether a child is the first child entrusted to the care of an individual, or the partner of an individual, take into account children entrusted to the care of the individual, or the partner of the individual, before, on or after 1 March 2014. (7) Paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Assistance Act, as inserted by this Schedule, applies in relation to a child who is born as a stillborn child on or after 1 March 2014. (8) To avoid doubt, for the purposes of paragraph 66(1)(a) of the Assistance Act, as inserted by this Schedule, in working out whether a child is the first stillborn child of a woman, take into account children born as stillborn children of the woman before, on or after 1 March 2014. (9) Despite the amendments made by this Schedule, section 52‑150 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (as in force immediately before the commencement of this item) continues to apply on and after that commencement in relation to payments of baby bonus made before, on or after that commencement. (10) Despite the amendments made by this Schedule:    (a) paragraph (e) of the definition of category I welfare payment in section 123TC of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (as in force immediately before the commencement of this item); and    (b) paragraph (p) of the definition of category Q welfare payment in that section as so in force; and    (c) paragraph (c) of the definition of category S welfare payment in that section as so in force; and    (d) sections 123XJA and 123XJC of that Act as so in force;    continue to apply on and after that commencement in relation to payments of baby bonus made before, on or after that commencement. (11) Despite the amendments made by this Schedule, paragraph 31(2)(f) of the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 (as in force immediately before the commencement of this item) continues to apply on and after that commencement in relation to working out eligibility for parental leave pay for a child before, on or after that commencement. (12) In this item:    Administration Act means the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999.    Assistance Act means the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999. 68 Application and transitional provisions—Part 3 (1) The amendments made by Part 3 of this Schedule apply in relation to a person's eligibility for parental leave pay and dad and partner pay for a child born on or after 1 March 2014. (2) The following provisions of the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 apply in relation to this item as if this item were a provision of that Act:    (a) section 275 (which deals with how that Act applies to an adopted child);    (b) section 276 (which deals with how that Act applies to claims made in exceptional circumstances);    (c) section 277A (which deals with how that Act applies to claims for dad and partner pay made in prescribed circumstances). (8) Page 9, after proposed Schedule 2A, insert: Schedule 2B—Time periods Part 1—Amendments A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 1 Paragraph 35UB(2)(b)    Omit "second income year after the income year in which the bonus test day occurs", substitute "first income year after the income year in which the bonus test day occurs or of such further period (if any) as the Secretary allows". 2 After subsection 35UB(2)    Insert:    (2A) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(b):    (a) the Secretary must not allow a further period unless:       (i) the Secretary is satisfied that there are special circumstances; and       (ii) a further period in respect of the individual's claim for payment of family tax benefit in respect of the FTB child was allowed under paragraph 10(2)(b) of the Family Assistance Administration Act; and       (iii) that claim is for a past period falling within the income year in which the bonus test day occurs; and    (b) any further period allowed by the Secretary must end no later than the end of the second income year after the income year in which the bonus test day occurs. 3 Subsection 35UD(1)    Omit "second income year after the income year in which the bonus test day occurs", substitute "first income year after the income year in which the bonus test day occurs or of such further period (if any) as the Secretary allows". 4 After subsection 35UD(1)    Insert:    (1A) For the purposes of subsection (1):    (a) the Secretary must not allow a further period unless:       (i) the Secretary is satisfied that there are special circumstances; and       (ii) a further period in respect of the individual's claim for payment of family tax benefit in respect of the child was allowed under paragraph 10(2)(b) of the Family Assistance Administration Act; and       (iii) that claim is for a past period falling within the income year in which the bonus test day occurs; and    (b) any further period allowed by the Secretary must end no later than the end of the second income year after the income year in which the bonus test day occurs. 5 Paragraph 61A(2A)(a)    Omit "second income year after the income year in which the FTB child turned 4", substitute "first income year after the income year in which the FTB child turned 4 or of such further period (if any) as the Secretary allows". 6 Paragraph 61A(2A)(b)    Omit "second income year", substitute "first income year or of the further period (if any)". 7 After subsection 61A(2A)    Insert:    (2AA) For the purposes of paragraph (2A)(a):    (a) the Secretary must not allow a further period unless:       (i) the Secretary is satisfied that there are special circumstances; and       (ii) a further period in respect of the individual's claim for payment of family tax benefit in respect of the FTB child was allowed under paragraph 10(2)(b) of the Family Assistance Administration Act; and       (iii) that claim is for a past period falling within the income year in which the FTB child turned 4; and    (b) any further period allowed by the Secretary must end no later than the end of the second income year after the income year in which the FTB child turned 4. 8 Subsection 61A(3)    Repeal the subsection, substitute: Death of the FTB child (3) Subsections (1), (2) and (2A) do not apply if the FTB child dies before the end of:    (a) the first income year after the income year in which the FTB child turned 4; or    (b) the further period (if any) allowed by the Secretary under paragraph (2A)(a). 9 Paragraph 61B(3)(a)    Omit "second income year after the income year in which the FTB child turned 1, 2 or 5 (as the case requires)", substitute "first income year after the income year in which the FTB child turned 1, 2 or 5 (as the case requires) or of such further period (if any) as the Secretary allows". 10 Paragraph 61B(3)(b)    Omit "second income year", substitute "first income year or of the further period (if any)". 11 After subsection 61B(3)    Insert:    (3A) For the purposes of paragraph (3)(a):    (a) the Secretary must not allow a further period unless:       (i) the Secretary is satisfied that there are special circumstances; and       (ii) a further period in respect of the individual's claim for payment of family tax benefit in respect of the FTB child was allowed under paragraph 10(2)(b) of the Family Assistance Administration Act; and       (iii) that claim is for a past period falling within the income year in which the FTB child turned 1, 2 or 5 (as the case requires); and    (b) any further period allowed by the Secretary must end no later than the end of the second income year after the income year in which the FTB child turned 1, 2 or 5 (as the case requires). 12 Subsection 61B(4)    Repeal the subsection, substitute: Death of the FTB child or eligible individual (4) Subsections (1), (2) and (3) do not apply if the FTB child, or the individual mentioned in subsection (1) or (2), dies before the end of:    (a) the first income year after the income year in which the FTB child turned 1, 2 or 5 (as the case requires); or    (b) the further period (if any) allowed by the Secretary under paragraph (3)(a). 13 Subsection 65B(4)    Omit "second income year after the income year in which the bonus test day occurs", substitute "first income year after the income year in which the bonus test day occurs or of such further period (if any) as the Secretary allows". 14 After subsection 65B(4)    Insert:    (4AA) For the purposes of subsection (4):    (a) the Secretary must not allow a further period unless:       (i) the Secretary is satisfied that there are special circumstances; and       (ii) a further period in respect of the individual's claim for payment of family tax benefit in respect of the eligible child was allowed under paragraph 10(2)(b) of the Family Assistance Administration Act; and       (iii) that claim is for a past period falling within the income year in which the bonus test day occurs; and    (b) any further period allowed by the Secretary must end no later than the end of the second income year after the income year in which the bonus test day occurs. A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 15 Paragraph 10(2)(b)    Repeal the paragraph, substitute:    (b) the period does fall wholly within one income year (the relevant income year) but the claim is made after the end of:       (i) the first income year after the relevant income year; or       (ii) such further period (if any) as the Secretary allows, if the Secretary is satisfied that there are special circumstances that prevented the claimant from making the claim before the end of that first income year. 16 After subsection 10(2)    Insert:    (2A) The further period referred to in subparagraph (2)(b)(ii) must end no later than the end of the second income year after the relevant income year. 17 After section 14    Insert: 14A Restriction on determining claim where income tax return not lodged (1) If, in relation to a claim for payment of family tax benefit made by an individual:    (a) the claim is for payment of that benefit for a past period; and    (b) the past period falls in an income year (the past period income year) that is one of the 2 income years before the one in which the claim is made; and (c) either or both of subsections (2) and (3) apply; then the claim is taken never to have been made. (2) This subsection applies if:    (a) the claimant is required to lodge an income tax return for the past period income year; and    (b) the claimant has not lodged the return before the end of:       (i) the first income year after the past period income year; or       (ii) such further period (if any) as the Secretary allows, if the Secretary is satisfied that there are special circumstances that prevented the claimant from lodging the return before the end of that first income year. (3) This subsection applies if:    (a) at the time the claim is made, a person is the claimant's partner, and that person was the claimant's partner at any time during the past period; and    (b) that person is required to lodge an income tax return for the past period income year; and    (c) that person has not lodged the return before the end of:       (i) the first income year after the past period income year; or       (ii) such further period (if any) as the Secretary allows, if the Secretary is satisfied that there are special circumstances that prevented the person from lodging the income tax return before the end of that first income year. (4) The further period referred to in subparagraph (2)(b)(ii) or (3)(c)(ii) must end no later than the end of the second income year after the past period income year. 18 Paragraph 28(3)(c)    Repeal the paragraph, substitute:    (c) if each of the taxpayers involved lodged an income tax return with the Commissioner of Taxation:       (i) before the end of the income year after the cancellation income year; or       (ii) within such further period as the taxpayer is allowed under Subdivision D of Division 1 of this Part;       the recalculated amount; or 19 Paragraph 28(4)(a)    Omit all the words after "couple", substitute "during the further period that the Secretary has allowed, under Subdivision D of Division 1 of this Part, within which the ex‑partner may lodge an income tax return". 20 Paragraph 28(4)(c)    Repeal the paragraph, substitute:    (c) if the claimant was required to lodge an income tax return for the cancellation income year:       (i) the claimant has lodged an income tax return for the cancellation income year before the end of the first income year after the cancellation income year, or of the further period that the Secretary has allowed, under Subdivision D of Division 1 of this Part, within which the claimant may lodge an income tax return; and       (ii) an assessment is or has been made under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 of the claimant's taxable income for the cancellation income year; 21 Subsection 28(5)    Omit all the words after "entitled to be", substitute "paid the recalculated amount". 22 Paragraphs 32C(1)(a) and (b)    Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:    (a) the first individual was a member of a couple throughout the same‑rate benefit period; and    (b) the first individual or the other member of the couple is or was required to lodge an income tax return for the relevant income year; and    (c) the first individual continues to be a member of the couple until the end of the latest of the following:       (i) the first income year after the relevant income year;       (ii) such further period (if any) as the Secretary allows for the first individual to lodge the return, if the Secretary is satisfied that there are special circumstances that prevented the first individual from lodging the return before the end of that first income year;       (iii) such further period (if any) as the Secretary allows for the other member of the couple to lodge the return, if the Secretary is satisfied that there are special circumstances that prevented the other member from lodging the return before the end of that first income year. 23 Subsection 32C(2)    Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) If only one member of the couple was required to lodge an income tax return for the relevant income year, the relevant reconciliation time is the time when an assessment is made under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 of the member's taxable income for the relevant income year, so long as the member's income tax return for the relevant income year was lodged before the end of:    (a) the first income year after the relevant income year; or    (b) such further period as the Secretary allows for that member under subparagraph (1)(c)(ii) or (iii), as the case requires. 24 Paragraph 32C(3)(b)    Repeal the paragraph, substitute:    (b) each member of the couple lodged an income tax return for the relevant income year before the end of:       (i) the first income year after the relevant income year; or       (ii) such further period as the Secretary allows for that member under subparagraph (1)(c)(ii) or (iii), as the case requires; 25 At the end of section 32C    Add: (4) The further period under subparagraph (1)(c)(ii) or (iii) must end no later than the end of the second income year after the relevant income year. 26 Subsection 32D(2)    Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) The relevant reconciliation time is the time when an assessment is made under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 of the first individual's taxable income for the relevant income year, so long as the first individual's income tax return for the relevant income year was lodged before the end of:    (a) the first income year after the relevant income year; or    (b) such further period (if any) as the Secretary allows, if the Secretary is satisfied that there are special circumstances that prevented the first individual from lodging the return before the end of that first income year. 27 At the end of section 32D    Add: (3) The further period referred to in paragraph (2)(b) must end no later than the end of the second income year after the relevant income year. 28 Subsection 32E(2)    Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) The relevant reconciliation time is the time when an assessment is made under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 of the first individual's taxable income for the relevant income year, so long as the first individual's income tax return for the relevant income year was lodged before the end of:    (a) the first income year after the relevant income year; or    (b) such further period (if any) as the Secretary allows, if the Secretary is satisfied that there are special circumstances that prevented the first individual from lodging the return before the end of that first income year. 29 At the end of section 32E    Add: (3) The further period referred to in paragraph (2)(b) must end no later than the end of the second income year after the relevant income year. 30 Subsection 32F(4)    Omit all the words after "relevant reconciliation time", substitute: is whichever is the later of the following:    (c) the end of the designated date in the next income year;    (d) the time when an assessment is made under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 of the first individual's taxable income for the relevant income year. 31 Subsection 32F(6)    Repeal the subsection (including the note), substitute: (6) If:    (a) the other member of the couple lodged an income tax return for the relevant income year before the end of the designated date in the next income year; and    (b) the first individual is or was required to lodge an income tax return for the relevant income year, but did not lodge an income tax return for the relevant income year before the end of the designated date in the next income year; the relevant reconciliation time is whichever is the later of the following:    (c) the time when an assessment is made under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 of the other member's taxable income for the relevant income year;    (d) the time when an assessment is made under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 of the first individual's taxable income for the relevant income year, so long as the first individual's income tax return for the relevant income year was lodged before the end of such further period (if any) as the Secretary allows. Note: For designated date, see section 32R. (7) The Secretary must not allow a further period under paragraph (6)(d) unless the Secretary is satisfied that there are special circumstances that prevented the first individual from lodging the return before the end of that next income year. (8) The further period referred to in paragraph (6)(d) must end no later than the end of the second income year after the relevant income year. 32 At the end of subsection 32G(1)    Add:    ; and (e) if the first individual is or was required to lodge an income tax return—the Secretary is satisfied that there are special circumstances that prevented the first individual from lodging the return before the end of that next income year. 33 Subsection 32G(2)    Repeal the subsection (including the note), substitute: (2) If the first individual is or was required to lodge an income tax return, the relevant reconciliation time is the time when an assessment is made under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 of the first individual's taxable income for the relevant income year, so long as the first individual's income tax return for the relevant income year was lodged before the end of such further period as the Secretary allows. (3) If the first individual is not or was not required to lodge an income tax return, the relevant reconciliation time is the end of the designated date in the next income year. Note: For designated date, see section 32R. (4) The further period referred to in subsection (2) must end no later than the end of the second income year after the relevant income year. 34 Paragraphs 32H(1)(a), (b) and (c)    Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:    (a) the first individual was a member of a couple throughout the same‑rate benefit period; and    (b) the first individual is or was required to lodge an income tax return for the relevant income year; and    (c) the first individual ceases to be a member of the couple during the period:       (i) beginning just after the designated date in the next income year; and       (ii) ending at the end of such further period as the Secretary allows for the first individual to lodge the return, if the Secretary is satisfied that there are special circumstances that prevented the first individual from lodging the return before the end of that next income year. 35 Subsection 32H(2)    Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) The further period referred to in subparagraph (1)(c)(ii) must end no later than the end of the second income year after the relevant income year.    (2A) If the first individual ceased to be a member of the couple before the time when an assessment is made under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 of the first individual's taxable income for the relevant income year, the relevant reconciliation time is the time when the assessment is made, so long as the first individual's income tax return for the relevant income year was lodged before the end of such further period as the Secretary allows. 36 Section 32R    Repeal the section, substitute: 32R Designated date       The designated date is 30 June. 37 Paragraph 49J(2)(b)    Repeal the paragraph, substitute:    (b) the period does fall wholly within one income year (the relevant income year) but the claim is made before the end of the relevant income year or after the end of:       (i) the first income year after the relevant income year; or       (ii) such further period (if any) as the Secretary allows, if the Secretary is satisfied that there are special circumstances that prevented the claimant from lodging the claim before the end of that first income year. 38 After subsection 49J(2)    Insert:    (2A) The further period referred to in subparagraph (2)(b)(ii) must end no later than the end of the second income year after the relevant income year. 39 Paragraph 65KD(2)(b)    Repeal the paragraph, substitute:    (b) the period does fall wholly within one income year (the relevant income year) but the claim is made after the end of:       (i) the first income year after the relevant income year; or       (ii) such further period (if any) as the Secretary allows, if the Secretary is satisfied that there are special circumstances that prevented the claimant from lodging the claim before the end of that first income year. 40 After subsection 65KD(2)    Insert:    (2A) The further period referred to in subparagraph (2)(b)(ii) must end no later than the end of the second income year after the relevant income year. 41 Paragraph 65KI(2)(b)    Repeal the paragraph, substitute:    (b) the claimant has not lodged the return before the end of:       (i) the first income year after the past period income year; or       (ii) such further period (if any) as the Secretary allows, if the Secretary is satisfied that there are special circumstances that prevented the claimant from lodging the return before the end of that first income year. 42 Paragraph 65KI(3)(c)    Repeal the paragraph, substitute:    (c) that person has not lodged the return before the end of:       (i) the first income year after the past period income year; or       (ii) such further period (if any) as the Secretary allows, if the Secretary is satisfied that there are special circumstances that prevented the person from lodging the return before the end of that first income year. 43 At the end of section 65KI    Add: (4) The further period referred to in subparagraph (2)(b)(ii) or (3)(c)(ii) must end no later than the end of the second income year after the past period income year. 44 Paragraph 65KP(3)(a)    Repeal the paragraph, substitute:    (a) the individual is required to lodge an income tax return for the past period income year, but the individual has not lodged the return before the end of:       (i) the first income year after the past period income year; or       (ii) such further period (if any) as the Secretary allows, if the Secretary is satisfied that there are special circumstances that prevented the individual from lodging the return before the end of that first income year. 45 Subparagraph 65KP(3)(b)(iii)    Repeal the subparagraph, substitute:       (iii) that person has not lodged the return before the end of the first income year after the past period income year, or of such further period (if any) as the Secretary allows if the Secretary is satisfied that there are special circumstances that prevented the person from lodging the income tax return before the end of that first income year; 46 After subsection 65KP(3)    Insert:    (3A) The further period referred to in subparagraph (3)(a)(ii) or (3)(b)(iii) must end no later than the end of the second income year after the past period income year. 47 Paragraph 95(4A)(a)    Omit "(the later income year) that began 2 years after the beginning of", substitute "after". 48 Subparagraph 107(3A)(b)(i)    Omit "second income year after the income year in which the FTB child turned 4", substitute "first income year after the income year in which the FTB child turned 4 or of the further period (if any) allowed by the Secretary under paragraph 61A(2A)(a) of that Act". 49 Subparagraph 107(3C)(b)(i)    Omit "second income year after the income year in which the FTB child turned 1, 2 or 5 (as the case requires)", substitute "first income year after the income year in which the FTB child turned 1, 2 or 5 (as the case requires) or of the further period (if any) allowed by the Secretary under paragraph 61B(3)(a) of that Act". 50 Subparagraph 109D(4)(d)(iii)    Omit "second income year after the income year in which that FTB child turned 4", substitute "first income year after the income year in which that FTB child turned 4 or of the further period (if any) allowed by the Secretary under paragraph 61A(2A)(a) of that Act". 51 Subparagraph 109D(4)(f)(iii)    Omit "second income year after the income year in which that FTB child turned 1, 2 or 5 (as the case requires)", substitute "first income year after the income year in which that FTB child turned 1, 2 or 5 (as the case requires) or of the further period (if any) allowed by the Secretary under paragraph 61B(3)(a) of that Act". 52 Subparagraph 109E(3)(d)(iii)    Omit "second income year after the income year in which that FTB child turned 4", substitute "first income year after the income year in which that FTB child turned 4 or of the further period (if any) allowed by the Secretary under paragraph 61A(2A)(a) of that Act". 53 Subparagraph 109E(3)(f)(iii)    Omit "second income year after the income year in which that FTB child turned 1, 2 or 5 (as the case requires)", substitute "first income year after the income year in which that FTB child turned 1, 2 or 5 (as the case requires) or of the further period (if any) allowed by the Secretary under paragraph 61B(3)(a) of that Act". Part 2—Application provisions 54 Application provisions—schoolkids bonus (1) The amendments made by items 1, 2, 13 and 14 apply in relation to working out eligibility for schoolkids bonus on bonus test days occurring on or after 1 January 2013. (2) The amendments made by items 3 and 4 apply in relation to working out eligibility for schoolkids bonus on bonus test days occurring on or after the commencement of those items. 55 Application provision—health check requirement and immunisation requirements    The amendments made by items 5 to 12 and 48 to 53 apply in relation to an income year referred to in subsection 61A(1) or (2) or 61B(1) or (2) of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 that is the 2012‑13 income year or a later income year. 56 Application provisions—family tax benefit (1) The amendments made by items 15 to 21 apply in relation to a past period falling in the 2012‑13 income year or a later income year. (2) The amendments made by items 22 to 36 apply in relation to a relevant income year referred to in subsection 32A(1) of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 that is the 2012‑13 income year or a later income year. 57 Application provision—child care benefit    The amendments made by items 37 and 38 apply in relation to a past period falling in the 2012‑13 income year or a later income year. 58 Application provision—single income family supplement    The amendments made by items 39 to 46 apply in relation to a past period falling in the 2012‑13 income year or a later income year. As I have indicated, these amendments make changes to our family payment system to make sure that government assistance is targeted to those who need it most. I will not go through these amendments again. I have just outlined in my summing-up speech the purpose of the amendments and I commend them to the House. They indicate the commitment of the government to make the responsible decisions needed so that we can fund our schools and DisabilityCare reforms. 18:40 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies What the government is effectively doing is reducing the baby bonus from $5,000 to $2,000 for a first child and to $1,000 for second and subsequent children. Technically, the government is abolishing the baby bonus but then introducing a payment under the family tax benefits regime. Effectively, the net result is a reduction from $5,000 to $2,000 for the first child, and from $5,000 to $1,000 for second and subsequent children. In addition to that, the threshold at which the baby bonus cuts out is being reduced under this legislation. This is part of what has been a long-term attack on the baby bonus by the Labor government. In the MYEFO statement on the bill now being amended, the baby bonus was being reduced from $5,000 to $3,000. Before that, we had measures taken by this government to cut the indexation of the baby bonus. This is consistent with the attitude of the government towards the baby bonus. Why in the space of a month or so has the government decided to reduce it not just to $3,000 but to $2,000 for the first child and to $1,000 for second and subsequent children? The reality is this is about saving money for the government. The savings under this measure add up to about $1.3 billion over the forward estimates. In other words, this government is taking $1.3 billion from Australian families who would otherwise have qualified for the baby bonus. This should more fairly be called the 'Labor debt baby bonus reduction bill'. I go back to why the coalition introduced the baby bonus in the first place. There is a lot of talk these days about middle-class welfare. The reality is that this measure was introduced as a result of the first Intergenerational Report which said that this country needed to do three things in order to ensure its future prosperity: the country needed to ensure that the population continued to grow; we needed to ensure that participation in the Australian economy was there for as many people as possible; and we needed to increase productivity. Population, participation and productivity were the three key levers for economic prosperity as identified in the Intergenerational Report when it was first released by former Treasurer Mr Costello. Why is population important? For a couple of reasons. One is that at that stage the fertility rate, the birth rate, in Australia had fallen to 1.7 children per woman on average. The replacement rate is about 2.1. Analysis and research around the world show that when a country's population rate falls to about 1.5 or less it becomes virtually impossible to lift it again. Why is that important? It is not important just for any social private good that comes from having children; it is good for future economic prosperity of a nation. About a quarter of economic growth, not just in Australia but historically across the world, has been shown to come from population growth itself. A country like Australia, which allows its population not to grow and its fertility rate to drop, is therefore in danger, by that measure alone, of reducing its economic growth. So this is not just a measure, as it is sometimes portrayed, about welfare. This is a measure put in place to ensure that the fertility rate increased and, as a result of this measure, according to experts such as Peter McDonald, the demographer at the Australian National University, this was the main reason the population birth rate jumped from 1.7 to 1.9. It had a positive impact, and that is what this government, in its short-termism of now having to deal with the debt, is putting in jeopardy. It is putting in jeopardy aspects of economic growth in Australia. This measure is going to most impact upon single-income families. For those families where a partner is in the workforce the parental leave scheme was introduced. Those people who qualify for the parental leave scheme do not qualify for the baby bonus. Some of the funding that was originally there for the baby bonus now goes towards the parental leave scheme. But those on a single income, those with stay-at-home mums, for example, are going to be the ones who cop the brunt of this $1.3 billion decrease in funding to families over the forward estimates. This is not a measure that the coalition would have taken. The coalition put in place the baby bonus for the very real economic and other reasons which I have briefly outlined in my contribution this evening. We would not have taken this measure, yet we now find ourselves in a very difficult situation. Since this legislation was introduced we find that we have yet another major deficit from the government. We have yet more increase in the Commonwealth debt and, therefore, we have to take a responsible position in relation to these matters. That is why we reluctantly accept these measures. That is why we are not opposing them; not because this is what we would have done had we been in government and had better control over the management of the finances of the Commonwealth of Australia, but because of the very difficult economic situation that this government leaves this country in at this time. For those reasons, we will not oppose these measures. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading 4381 18:47 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. Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2013 4381

Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2013

Second Reading 4381 18:48 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I rise to speak on the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2013. Increasing the legislative appropriations for the period 1 January to 30 June 2014 allows for an adjustment to the education components of the Stronger Futures Northern Territory national partnership. Specifically: the school nutrition program which enables nutritious breakfasts, lunches and snacks to be provided to some 5,000 students in over 65 target schools across remote Northern Territory communities; the additional teachers initiative, as the government has committed to providing funding for 200 additional teachers in the Northern Territory; and new funding for the Achieving Results Through Indigenous Education, or ARTIE, project which will be administered through the Sporting Chance Program funded under this bill. The ARTIE Academy uses sporting programs and cultural activities to help encourage Indigenous students to stay in school through participation, and is expected to involve 21 schools and over 1,600 students. This will provide the opportunity for students to achieve a level of academic achievement and assist them in striving for desired career goals. While the extended appropriation for a further year for these three initiatives is welcomed, this will now be the third time that Labor has provided a short-term extension to selected IETA funded programs. The coalition is fully committed to closing the gap to ensure the lives of Indigenous Australians are improved, and most importantly to provide better opportunities for Indigenous children. We as a nation have committed to ending the disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians across six measures. The cornerstone of any improvement in all of these fields is education. We need to both lift the achievement of our best and brightest students and improve outcomes for the most disadvantaged students if we are to reverse this gap. Under the Labor government the education gap is widening. In last year's budget Labor cut some $22 million of the Indigenous Youth Leadership Program, a program that was succeeding in closing the gap, sending the best and brightest Indigenous youth to the nation's best boarding schools. Individual non-government schools have recently made representations confirming that no further funding was going to be provided beyond the end of this year for the Indigenous Youth Leadership Program. Under this program the not-for-profit sector administers scholarships to Indigenous students, particularly those from remote areas, to attend high-performing secondary schools or universities and promote leadership development opportunities. The Indigenous Youth Mobility Program provided residential facilities in major centres to accommodate young people from remote areas while they undertook a trade or traineeship. Yet, in a shameless ploy this week, after a year of hard work and intense pressure from my colleague in the other place Senator Scullion, the Minister for School Education has had the audacity to trumpet a $22 million investment in the same programs he cut a year before. This bill provides a temporary cover—it will keep a handful of programs going for a short period. This generates uncertainty and puts pressure on service providers and, unfortunately, does not close the gap. What Indigenous people of this country need is not a temporary quick fix but a genuine commitment to closing the gap in education. Longer term funding and therefore future planning for successful programs is now being held hostage to Labor short-term budget fixes. A recent government report shows that closing the gap indicators for Indigenous education are going backwards and the results in remote and very remote areas are nothing short of a disgrace. In 14 of the 20 National Assessment Program in Literacy and Numeracy—NAPLAN—indicators the gap has widened in 2012 compared to 2011. The previous Labor NT government was in power for over a decade and, along with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Families and Community Services at a federal level, presided over these terrible results. These results are yet another wake-up call. The cost of continuing to do nothing is simply too high. A legacy of future generations of poorly educated First Australians is unacceptable and the consequences of such a failure would be profound. Education will be at the centre of our approach to Indigenous affairs if we win government. Improving the standard of education provided to Indigenous students and making sure children attend school will be absolute priorities for us. I commend this bill to the House. 18:53 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this important legislation tonight. The Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2013 enables the delivery of programs that complement mainstream schooling, programs that encourage and reward improvements in school attendance and behaviour, academic achievement and effort. I have witnessed firsthand in my own electorate of Canberra the significant impact of targeted complementary programs. In my electorate there is a wonderful school called Richardson Primary School and 20 per cent of the students at Richardson Primary are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. This is the highest number of Indigenous students at any school in the ACT. The community of Richardson Primary proudly celebrates its Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander identity and culture, as does the whole of the Canberra electorate. There are many schools in my electorate which have a range of celebrations every year to honour and celebrate their Indigenous connection. Richardson Primary embraces the inclusion of all Indigenous Australians in the school community and supports their hopes and aspirations. Richardson Primary School works in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parents, students and staff to address disadvantage and injustices through equality education practices and practical strategies. One of the practical strategies that has been implemented by the school in partnership with the Canberra Institute of Technology is an adult literacy program designed for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parents in the Richardson Primary community. It is very much a community at Richardson Primary. It is surrounded by the shops and it is in a way the centre of the community, and people from throughout the whole of Richardson suburb congregate at that school every day. The school community identified that improved literacy and numeracy within the parent community would have significant benefits for the students at the school. With increased parental literacy, parents are better able to help students with their homework, their reading and their storytelling and can engage in their children's curriculum. Many of the parents who participate in the program were jobseekers and as a result of their improved literacy and numeracy skills several have found employment since completing the program. It is a great program. The benefits of this target program have been immense. So far the program has been run twice and the Richardson Primary School community look forward to running similar programs in the future. The programs that will be funded by this legislation we are debating tonight will not be run in my electorate. However, I know, having seen the success of the Richardson Primary School program, that programs that complement and support the goals of school education do have a significant impact. One such program that will be funded by this bill is the school nutrition program, a part of the education components of the $583 million Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory national partnership. Just last week I had the honour of addressing the national conference of dietitians and it was really interesting talking to them about how important it is to have decent nutrition, a decent diet, for success in life, success in education, success in careers and success in health and wellbeing. The school nutrition program will provide daily meals to 5,000 students in 67 targeted Northern Territory schools. Countless pieces of research, again underscored by the dietitians last Friday, have proven that starting the day with a good breakfast is key to the success of a student, so we know this program will have a positive impact in the Northern Territory. Like you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have spent a lot of time in schools and have been to a number of the breakfast clubs that operate throughout Canberra. People often see Canberra as being a well-educated community, a wealthy community, but there are real pockets of disadvantage. I have spent my time here in parliament trying to communicate the fact that there are pockets of disadvantage in Canberra that need to be supported, and these schools highlight that. I have been to a number of schools where the Salvation Army and the school have joined together to run breakfast programs for these students, mainly primary school students but I have been to other meal programs that are run in secondary education. These breakfast programs are great for bringing the kids together not just for a meal, a breakfast in the morning to get them going and keep them awake throughout the day and alert so that they can learn. But also children who do not have much time with their parents have the people from the Salvation Army there, they have people from the general community there, highlighting the fact that there is a community to support them. Another program that will be funded by this bill is the ARTIE Academy, or Achieving Results through Indigenous Education, which is named in honour of the proud Indigenous State of Origin legend Arthur Beetson and run by the Queensland Former Origin Greats organisation. The ARTIE Academy provides Indigenous students attending selected Queensland secondary schools with the opportunity to participate in a program that encourages and rewards improvements in school attendance, behaviour, academic achievement and effort. Moreover, ARTIE promotes the importance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural identity and awareness amongst participants. It is strictly important to have a connection to your history, your culture, your language and your people. The ARTIE program has adopted the motto 'Inspire, encourage, succeed', which forms the basis of strategies to improve the schooling endeavours of participating students, to ensure they complete year 12, very important, and help them along their chosen career path. The ARTIE Academy kicked off in 2009 with six secondary schools focused on mentoring, tutoring and cultural understanding and support for participating students across South-East Queensland. In 2010 the academy targeted 500 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, which increased to 1,500 in 2011-12. In 2012 ARTIE helped a total of 1,630 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students complete their education—a fantastic achievement. The additional funding provided to ARTIE will allow for the implementation of the program in three primary schools in South-East Queensland. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 4384 ADJOURNMENT Drugs in Sport 4384 19:00 Mr BRIGGS IYU Mayo Australia is often described as a sporting nation. For a country of 23 million people, we match it with some of the largest countries in the world and in many cases beat them. We are a proud sporting nation. It was therefore a massive shock to the nation when the heads of the five major sporting codes and two ministers stepped out on 7 February this year to release the Crime Commission's report entitled Organised crime and drugs in sport. At that press conference we were told by the Minister for Home Affairs that 'the use of prohibited substances including peptides, hormones and illicit drugs, is widespread amongst professional athletes'. We were also told that 'organised crime is involved in the distribution of these drugs', which 'exposes players to the risk of being co-opted for match fixing' and that investigations had found at least 'one possible example of' match fixing. The home affairs minister went on to say: The findings are shocking and they'll disgust Australian sports fans. …   …   … … we're talking about multiple athletes across a number of codes, we're talking about a number of teams. He went on to say: It's cheating, but it's worse than that, it's cheating with the help of criminals. Not surprisingly, the next day's headlines across the country included: 'Blackest day in Australian Sport'—TheAge; and 'Dirty rotten cheats'—the Herald Sun. If the government's aim was to create a media circus, they had achieved it. Of course, if there are allegations of criminality or criminal activity in sport then they must be dealt with forcefully. Anyone found to have done the wrong thing should be dealt with by the law. The coalition, however, has long been concerned that the Gillard government saw the Crime Commission report as an opportunity to divert attention away from their political troubles and leadership tensions at the time. Let us remember what was going on at that time. Just a week earlier, two cabinet ministers had decided to resign and, of course, we all knew that the member for Griffith and his allies were circling the Prime Minister. The report was an opportunity to give the Prime Minister some clear air. So the decision was made—presumably by the guru 457 visa holding communications adviser in the Prime Minister's office—to summon all sporting code heads to Canberra and to release the report. The press conference was, for lack of a better word, a farce. Two of the five sports chiefs who attended the conference had been in their jobs for less than a week. We have now learned through an FOI request that the AFL had not even seen the final ACC report the night before the press conference. In an email to the Minister for Sport's office dated Wednesday, 6 February 2013 at 8.13 pm an ALP official said: 'Are we any closer to seeing a final version of the report and possibly a draft media statement tonight?' This strips bare the chaos and dysfunction of the Gillard government. It is clear that the press conference was arranged in haste—the FOI shows that. It is also clear that the press conference was designed to create a sense of crisis. Why else would they summon the heads of Australia's major sporting codes to a Canberra press conference and have ministers use rhetoric like, 'It's cheating, but it's worse than that, it's cheating with the help of criminals'? Sports minister, Kate Lundy, did her best to weigh in, proclaiming, 'We are well on the way to seeking out and hunting those who will dope and cheat.' Today we have heard, and read in a report in The Sydney Morning Herald written by Jonathon Swan, that cabinet ministers have criticised the Minister for Home Affairs for using 'overblown rhetoric'. But it also appears that this overblown rhetoric and timing of the report's release have put investigations at risk. We understand that senior police, including one Crime Commission board member, hold serious concerns about the timing of the press conference and the nature of the release. We understand the government's announcement has been described by high-ranking police officers as 'circus-like', 'crazy' and 'with the potential to impact adversely on the broader investigation'. There is now little doubt that the government put its own interests ahead of Australian sportspeople and their fans, but in doing so, have also put the broader investigation at risk. The Gillard government has damaged Australia's proud sporting reputation, left our athletes guilty by association and potentially put ongoing criminal investigations at risk. This was described as the 'blackest day in Australian sport'. It should now be described as another black day for the Gillard government. I call on the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Sport to apologise to the many thousands of innocent sportspeople they have unfairly smeared and apologise for putting an ongoing investigation at risk simply because their government needed political cover for a drowning Prime Minister. (Time expired) Vietnam Vision Project Australia 4386 19:05 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler Last Friday, together with my wife, Bernadette, I attended the Vietnam Vision charity dinner. The purpose was to raise funds to enable a group of doctors and dentists and other volunteers to travel to Vietnam and conduct free eye operations, free dental checks and deliver humanitarian aid to an underprivileged population there. Vietnam Vision Project Australia has been organising annual cataract operations in Vietnam since 2003 and to date they have conducted more than 5,000 operations. The team of doctors, dentists and volunteers plans to depart in July this year to spend another two weeks in the disadvantaged provinces of Khanh Hoa and Lam Dong, providing free treatment to 500 visually impaired people and 1,000 dental patients. While a need for dental treatments is common around the world, including in Australia, certainly blindness is a particularly major issue in Vietnam, and it is mainly caused by cataracts. There are currently more than 500,000 people suffering from total blindness in Vietnam while close to a million have blindness in one eye. The majority of people affected live in rural areas and are very poor. There are simply not enough resources to cater for the large and growing demand for eye surgery in Vietnam. As of 2009, more than 120,000 cataract operations were performed each year in Vietnam; this does not match the 170,000 new cataract patients that appear annually. There are many individuals whose hard work and dedication have made this important work by Vietnam Vision Project possible. Dr Phuoc Vo, OAM, is the chairman and medical supervisor of the team. He is a highly-respected member of our community in South-West Sydney. He is also the distinguished leader of the Vietnam Vision Project. The program is also supported by Dr Le Duc Hong, the vice-chairman, and Dr Hien Tran, the program fundraising officer, and many other doctors, dentists and dedicated volunteers who donate their valuable time in an effort to raise funds to undertake the important work of Vietnam Vision programs in Vietnam. The program has had strong support and assistance from the Rotary Club of Liverpool West, led by President Shann O'Connell, and also the Combined Rotary Clubs of Liverpool and the Rotary Australia World Community Services, and this has continued over many years. This is one of many demonstrations of the Rotary Club's commitment to serving the local community and also to providing international cooperation and making a difference for humanity. Rotary members truly do put service above self. As we are on the topic of eye care, I would like to remind everybody that this week is Macular Degeneration Week. Last week I met with Dr William Trinh, an optometrist in Cabramatta in my electorate, who is one of the doctors lending his support to Vietnam Vision Project. Dr Trinh and I discussed the importance of local residents having their eyes examined to ensure their macular is in good condition. Macular degeneration is the name given to a group of degenerative diseases of the retina that cause progressive loss of central vision. It is also the leading cause of blindness and severe vision loss in Australia. It affects one in seven people over the age of 50, with increasing incidence with age. The disease can greatly affect a person's quality of life, level of independence and overall wellbeing. Dr Trinh, an award-winning optometrist, also stresses the importance of regular eye examinations. Although we cannot be immune to eye health issues here in Australia, it is certainly fortunate that we do have the opportunity in this country and the resources to allow for early detection and are able to take appropriate treatment. However, many people around the world are not as fortunate, and that is why the work conducted by Vietnam Vision project is so critical. I would like to thank Dr Vo and his organising committee of Vietnam Vision Project 2013 for making me a part of their initiative. I would also like, once again, to praise the efforts of the doctors, dentists, the other medical practitioners and all the various volunteers involved in this program and wish them all the very best for their next humanitarian trip to Vietnam. BILLS 4387 BILLS Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013 4387

Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013

Reference to Federation Chamber 4387 19:10 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler by leave—I move: That the bill be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration. Question agreed to. ADJOURNMENT 4387 ADJOURNMENT Electorate of Indi: SBS in Corryong 4387 19:10 Mrs MIRABELLA 00AMU Indi I rise to speak about an important issue to the community of Corryong in the Upper Murray region of my electorate. Corryong is a town of some 1,300 people. It is by no means one of the smallest communities in my electorate, but it is perhaps the only one without access to SBS television. I have had contact with many locals from the Corryong community who are perplexed about why they do not have access to this government-funded service. It goes without saying that in 2013 you would ordinarily expect a service such as this to be available to all communities regardless of their size. Yet I am told that SBS does not have sufficient funding to guarantee service to towns with a population of fewer than 3,000 people. The point is interesting in itself, because there are many towns in my electorate with a population of fewer than 3,000, all of which have access to SBS television. For example, the towns of Bright, Yea, Tallangatta, Bonegilla, Alexandra and Yackandandah, just to name a few—and of course there are many more—all have populations of fewer than 3,000 as at the 2011 census. So it is becoming an increasing source of frustration to my constituents in Corryong, and understandably so. I first raised this matter in July last year and it was met with enthusiasm of course by locals. I have since written to the communications minister, Stephen Conroy, as well as the Managing Director of SBS, Mr Michael Ebeid. I recently received a response from Mr Ebeid and I am encouraged by his strong interest in expanding SBS services to more rural locations across the country. I think this is an important mission for SBS. This is a taxpayer service and it should be readily available to all Australians. It is simply inequitable to deny taxpayers in a small town a service for which they pay, especially when the technology is available at relatively small cost to facilitate this. In a response I have received from the minister's office, it has been suggested that the Corryong community should simply make an application for a self-help tower. I do not believe that it is fair or reasonable to expect the Corryong community to take responsibility for the ongoing maintenance of a broadcasting facility when that facility is provided to the rest of Australia without that same responsibility, and particularly when we consider the following fact. The thing that frustrates the Corryong community most is that the basic infrastructure is already in place. The broadcasting tower was recently upgraded to provide for digital signals so the provision of an additional transmitter for SBS would surely not be that difficult or costly. So locals in Corryong quite rightly raise the issue: if the government can provide access to ABC television, surely they can provide the same access to SBS television. I want to take this opportunity to thank the Managing Director of SBS for his ongoing dialogue with me on this very important matter. I look forward to meeting with Mr Ebeid to discuss this matter further in the near future and I can only hope that Minister Conroy is as enthusiastic to expand SBS coverage as Mr Ebeid is. This is important. It is important not only because my constituents in Corryong have been asking for this important service; it is also important to show our smaller communities across the country that they are not forgotten. So often, it is a case of out of sight, out of mind. The further away that a community or a town is from the capital city in a relevant state, the more isolated they are and out of sight from the authorities. I feel very passionate about my electorate and I feel particularly passionate about standing up for some of the smaller communities. It is not just about, as some politicians would have it, going to where the big votes are; it is about representing all of the electorate and doing everything you can to fight on their behalf. I tell my constituents in Corryong that I will continue to fight for them, including continuing to fight for them to get SBS coverage, and I look forward to the day when that can happen. Bowman, Mr Donald 'Don' John 4388 19:15 Ms HALL 83N Shortland I rise to pay tribute to the first state member for Swansea, Don Bowman, who was born on 25 May 1936 and died on 30 April this year. He was elected to the Legislative Assembly in New South Wales in 1981 and he served there until 1988. When he lost the election over the Swansea Bridge issue—he was defeated by an Independent—he came back in 1991 and was the member for Swansea until 1995. When he retired in 1995, I followed him. Don was a mentor; he was a fantastic guy. He was very active in the Labor Party right up until when he became ill. He was a councillor on Lake Macquarie Council and he remained there until 1980 before he was elected to the state seat of Swansea. He won that very easily and then was re-elected in 1984. As I said, he lost the seat in 1988 but came back in 1991. It was always a partnership, Don and his wife Maggie. They worked together and they were both very active in the party. They were totally dedicated to their community. Don embodied the ideals of the Labor Party. He believed in fairness, equity and social justice and lived his life in accordance with those values. He was one of the most decent people I have known in my life. He was a straight talker and one of the most honest, loyal people I have ever met. He taught me the importance of maintaining these values. He was a clear thinker and presented logical argument—and he loved to argue! His intellect will always be remembered by everyone who knew him. He knew the importance of serving and he did this as an elected representative. He was a member of service groups and community groups, and worked as a volunteer. He also had a wicked sense of humour. Don Bowman stood for preselection for the seat of Shortland in 1970. There was a lot of controversy around this preselection. He put together what I would say would be the first racing guide that has been put together in a preselection ballot. The introduction reads: There was a close finish in 1970 with one horse appearing to win by a half head. Naturally a photo was called for but somehow the print was never developed. Despite several enquiries the stewards failed to come up with a decision. In 1971 there was a re-run on the Sydney track. This time another horse was declared the winner but connections of two horses protested and there were many hostile demonstrations by rank and file Shortland punters. Following a decision of the F.R.C.C— the Federal Racing Club Committee— the event will now be re-run at Shortland Park on 5th February 1972 … And that led to my predecessor Peter Morris being elected. He wrote a form guide on all the contenders. He said of himself: Ran greenly first time in tending to pull early and run-wide. Shows some class and bred to stay. Don Bowman stayed and became the state member for Swansea. In talking about Peter Morris, he said: Little more than a pony and not a brilliant galloper but a proven stayer and has had a solid preparation … Just failed to get up in Sydney when blocked … and expected to win well. That showed his unique sense of humour and the way that he looked at things. He will be deeply missed. In his first speech, the most poignant moment was when he said: When the tumult and the shouting has died and today's captains and kings of the legislative endeavour have departed the scene, few will remember any clever words they may have uttered. No penetrating questions or brilliant ripostes at question time are likely to be in the newspaper headlines ten years hence. What will continue will be the physical state of the people of the electorate of Swansea and other people in New South Wales. The air, the earth and the water where they live will be the better or the worse for our efforts now. I think that is something that we in this parliament should remember. (Time expired) Member for Batman: Communications 4389 19:20 Mr BRUCE SCOTT YT4 Maranoa Before I talk about the issue of communications I would just like to say that, in listening to the former Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson's first and last, as he said, backbench speech in the House today after question time, it was not only heartfelt but obvious that he has been, in my view, and in the view of a very large resource company which spoke to me recently, regarded highly in the resource sector. This company, which has a global reach in the energy sector, believes that he would be regarded as the best resources minister in the world. I want to talk about a very successful program that was run under the Howard government, and that was the mobile phone black spots program which provided funding to bring mobile phone coverage where the market would not provide it. Whilst we were in government we spent some $147 million on extending mobile phone coverage through that black spots program where the market would not normally have commercially provided it. You just cannot put a price on a life and, sadly, near Eromanga a lady passed away in a vehicle accident in the last 12 months because she was in an area where there was no mobile phone coverage, on a rural road in a remote part of my electorate. The person she had with her had to walk several kilometres to get help. She blistered her feet, so that slowed her passage to get help; she did eventually get help, but it was too late. In times of emergencies like that, the first port of call would be to communicate with a doctor to get medical help. In that case, it would have been the Royal Flying Doctor Service, but that was not able to be contacted because there was no mobile phone coverage in that area. There are so many communities in my electorate and in many parts of rural Australia that have been left behind. Whilst we hear about the wonderful speeds that the NBN will bring to many communities in capital cities and regional towns, with high-speed internet with the rollout of optic fibre cable, these communities would like an extension of mobile phone coverage as the first step towards improving communications opportunities in their area. Last year, I wrote to Telstra and said: would they provide mobile phone coverage in Eromanga? All they had to do was to erect a tower in Eromanga, as well as the other equipment, and they would have been able to do so. They wrote back to me and said it would not be possible or commercially viable. According to the statistics from 2011, Eromanga has a population of 400. It also has an oil refinery, right at the eastern hub of the great Cooper Basin, with oil and gas reserves. So it is a very important community, albeit small; it is a very, very important community. There have been people from other areas in my electorate who have called my office wanting to see mobile phone coverage extended into their area. They would rather have mobile phone coverage than optic fibre cable rolled out to them because they believe that that is the next step in communications evolution in their area. The Blackbutt Range in the South Burnett Regional Council area was brought to my attention by a Queensland ambulance officer. They have difficulty getting reports of accidents in that area or of people in need of emergency help from the Queensland Ambulance Service because of the lack of mobile phone coverage in the area. Often it can mean the difference between life and death or, in some cases, people not being able to get timely support or help. It was also very important during the flood periods in the last three years in Queensland, because so many of the emergency calls go out through the mobile phone network. Also, in the last 12 months, there have been massive fires in the west of my electorate. One of those councils, the Paroo Shire Council, came to me and said that they are very worried about their council workers because they are often out in those remote parts of my community in those council areas without adequate communications links back to the base. Mobile phone coverage would give them that. I just want to highlight some of those towns in my electorate. Begonia near Mitchell is one of those towns. There was Eromanga, as I have outlined. Moonie during the floods would have benefited from people being able to communicate with others and issue those emergency alerts when the floods were occurring in that part of the electorate. Also there were Jundah, Windorah, Texas and Barcaldine. Kogan was another one of those. Muttaburra recently has had mobile phone limitations in the area. All of those communities would have benefited from black spots mobile phone coverage, if only this government had addressed that issue— (Time expired) Coal Seam Gas 4391 19:26 Ms SAFFIN HVY Page Tonight I want to give an account of our community campaign to have the North Coast CSG mining free. Our community is deeply concerned about this issue and its harmful impact on our water, farms and prime agricultural land, our fishing and tourist industries and our way of life. No-one wants to wake up one morning and see, to start with, over 1,000 coal seam gas mining wells littering our lands. The member for Richmond and I have a petition calling on the New South Wales coalition government to make the North Coast CSG mining free. Yet the local state National MPs and the federal National members—Senator Joyce, Senator Nash, Senator Birmingham, and, now, joining them, the coalition resources spokesperson—support it and support its expansion, as does their leader. The Liberal-National coalition have shown, without a doubt, that they are just paying lip service on coal seam gas issues until the election. The coalition in the Senate is trying to weaken the government's water trigger legislation with an amendment that would hand environmental assessment powers to the states. The coalition let it slip through here but they are now seeking to put an amendment that would weaken these protections by allowing the Commonwealth to refer scientific assessments back to the states. Senator Birmingham, the shadow parliamentary secretary for the environment, has told the Senate that the coalition does not like the legislation but, because of community concerns, they will not oppose it. But they are clearly working hard to wind back water protections. It is there in Hansard in black and white, with the senators saying they will not oppose it because that would let the government politicise the issue. But Senator Birmingham said: We will work to fix these issues should we succeed later this year. It is duplicity, and Senator Birmingham is clear about the parts of the legislation he does not like. The coalition does not believe that water protection should apply to the exploration phase or drill test site, and they do not want the bill to apply in any areas being assessed—so, no scrutiny whatsoever. To take the cake, today on local radio Senator Nash downplayed local concerns about the coal seam gas industry in our region, and I was stunned to hear her say that. Whenever Senator Nash makes comments from her base in southern New South Wales, she shows how little she knows about the Northern Rivers. She does not understand the enormity of the coal seam gas mining threat to our region. She does not get why plans for 1,000 wells across the Northern Rivers would be environmental vandalism of the highest order. She does not get the threat to water, farms and the beautiful environment, to the fishing and tourism industries, to real estate values and to our way of life. While communities across the Northern Rivers are screaming out that the industry is not welcome here, Senator Nash and her Nationals colleagues are not listening, and their coalition leader, the member for Warringah, is pushing New South Wales to get cracking with expanding the coal seam gas mining industry. The Nationals candidate, Kevin Hogan, has grabbed onto CSG as a campaign issue and has said he would not want it near his farm, but what has he done about it? Nothing. He clearly has not made an impact on his state or federal colleagues who are clamouring to expand it and who support it and want to wind back the protections that we have introduced. When the state government announced CSG exclusion zones for Hunter Valley wineries and horse studs but left our area unprotected, what did we get from Mr Hogan? A fawning letter to the editor praising our local state National Party MPs. This is not the sort of issue on which you can just pop up and say a few words and sit back down again. This is one where you need to get in and fight for your community. I have been working hard for years on this issue, researching the science and the state and federal laws on water protection, lobbying for legislative change in Canberra, talking to lots of farmers and working with lots of farmers and community members actively campaigning on the issue. The federal government has moved to protect our communities' water from the harmful impacts of coal seam gas mining by amending the national environment law, the EPBC Act. Mr Hogan is asking people to vote for the federal coalition, the same coalition that has vowed to wind back these environmental protections, streamline the coal seam gas mining approval process and 'unlock huge gas reserves' in New South Wales. Mr Hogan needs to decide whether he is with the Knitting Nannas, who sit outside the state member's offices protesting against CSG, or on the inside as one of the Nationals. My colleague the member for Richmond said that this election would be like a referendum on this issue, and I agree with her. National Security 4392 19:31 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong Earlier this week, Anthony Byrne, the Chairman of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Intelligence and Security and the Labor member for Holt, exposed the Gillard government for its failure to protect Australia's national security. He said it was 'disgraceful' and 'astonishing' that the intelligence agencies tasked to protect our country have had their budgets slashed by this government. It could not have come at a worse time. In recent weeks we have seen terrorist incidents in Boston and London and we are all too familiar with the carnage that followed previous bombings in London, Madrid, Bali and Jakarta. We have had the director-general of ASIO, David Irvine, warn of the dangers posed by the radicalisation of up to 200 Australians who have volunteered to fight in Syria, many on the side of the jihadist group Jabhat al-Nusra, and we have seen ASIO, in their written submission to a parliamentary inquiry, say: We are likely to see the emergence of new domestic extremists in 2013, either individually or in small groups. ASIO's chief David Irvine has said, in a speech to a Security in Government conference in September last year, that his organisation 'is currently managing around 200 active counterterrorism investigations of various urgency and significance.' This is a high number by any standard. And we have the National Security Strategy released by the Prime Minister earlier this year confirming that in Australia four terrorist plots have been disrupted and 23 people convicted of terrorism related charges since 2001. We are all too familiar with the foiled attacks on Sydney's Holsworthy army barracks and Lucas Heights nuclear reactor but there are clearly others. In light of this disconcerting strategic environment, I therefore cannot for the life of me understand why the Gillard government have significantly cut funding to our national security agencies, but that is what they have done. ASIO's submission to the parliamentary inquiry states, at page 9, that 'revenue from government in 2011-12 was $328.1 million, a decrease of $16.8 million from the 2010-11 financial year'. It goes on to say: ASIO's budgetary situation will continue to place pressure on our ability to meet the expectations of Government and the Australian public. As a result ASIO is looking at a series of options including 'reducing our overseas presence'; 'reducing our foreign engagement for training and capability development purposes'; and 'reducing the amount of domestic and overseas travel undertaken by ASIO officers'. What is more, due to funding constraints ASIO is unable to increase its full-time staff by 130 to 1,860, the number identified in the Taylor review as optimal for the agency. Again in the words of the submission, 'overall staff growth has been deferred indefinitely'. The government clearly does not get the reality of today's terrorist threat. When releasing the National Security Strategy, the Prime Minister described a 'post 9/11 era' where in her words 'the behaviour of states, not non-state actors, will be the most important driver and shaper of Australia's security thinking'. But this would seem to be at odds not only with recent statements by security chiefs but also with the mounting evidence of the international and domestic terrorist threat. What concerns me even more is that ASIO is not alone in having its budget cut. The Australian Federal Police, which was increased from around 2,000 officers to 6,000 under John Howard, lost $133 million last year and another $45 million from this year in their budget. Australian Customs have lost more than $61 million and 120 staff. The Australian Crime Commission have lost nearly 200 staff, or 40 per cent of their current numbers. And the quantum of money actually delivered by the Prime Minister to counter cyberwarfare, an area of real concern, has fallen significantly short of what was promised. One can add to this list the woeful record of the government's border protection policies, which have seen more than 40,000 unauthorised arrivals in the last few years swamping the security agencies' ability to conduct sufficiently comprehensive or effective security checks. Indeed, in recent days we have learnt that a suspected Egyptian terrorist was held in a low-security detention facility. Fancy the irony of taking tens of millions of dollars away from ASIO but having to find $6½ billion to fund a border protection blow-out, a problem that was created by this government. On top of this there are the government's shameful cuts to Defence of nearly $25 billion. This government's record on national security has been extremely disconcerting. We know the election will be fought on the economy, but national security is equally important. (Time expired) Egypt's Coptic Community 4394 19:36 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon Tonight I wish to raise in the House of Representatives the plight of the Copts of Egypt. Copts make up between five and 10 per cent of Egypt's population, but they are suffering persecution and they are suffering violence as a growing concern. Copts have always been a group in Egypt who has been at risk but now we are seeing the Coptic community having their property stolen or destroyed, their members harassed and beaten, and their places of worship burnt or demolished. Due to a recent increase in tax, we have seen an estimated 100,000 Coptic people leave the nation of Egypt. Now it is very clear that there is an obligation on every government of every nation of the world to provide protection to its citizens, protection regardless of race or religion. That obligation of protection of citizens falls on the government of Egypt, just as it falls on every other government in the world. We saw perhaps the first spectacular outbreak of violence with the Maspero massacre of October 2011, in which Copts staged a peaceful demonstration outside a local television station. They were protesting against the demolition of a church in northern Egypt. By happenstance I was visiting St Mark Coptic church of Arncliffe the next day, and I recall being briefed on the events in Maspero square the night before—just before I visited the Church of St Mark in Arncliffe—and talking to the congregation of that church about the Australian government's concerns. We saw the deaths of more than 20 Coptic Christians in that massacre and the injury of many, many others. We saw St Mark and Pope Peter church in 2011 being attacked, and more recently we have seen more attacks on the cathedral of St Mark in Egypt. An attack on a cathedral anywhere is an attack on cathedrals and on freedom everywhere. I know that there are many, many people in Australia who are deeply concerned about the situation of Copts in Egypt, as I am, as other members of the House are and as the government is. I know the foreign minister, Bob Carr, is very alive to these concerns. I know he has raised the plight of Copts directly with President Morsi. I know he has also raised the plight of Christians in the Middle East more generally with former Secretary of State Clinton, current Secretary of State Kerry and Foreign Secretary Hague. I also think it is important that Australia uses its role as a member of the UN Security Council to be prosecuting the case for enhanced protection of Christians in the Middle East. I think the plight of Christians in the Middle East is one of the world's crises at the moment that is not receiving enough attention. Clearly the plight of the Copts of Egypt is one of those situations that is not receiving enough attention, and all members of the House and the other place would do well to ensure that it receives more attention. I know that former foreign minister Rudd felt this matter particularly keenly, and he hosted a reception of Copts on his visit to Egypt when he was foreign minister of Australia. It has been my great pleasure to work with many members of the Coptic community, to work with Sayedna Bishop Daniel and Sayedna Bishop Sureil of Melbourne on these issues during my time as both a minister in the government and as the member for McMahon. I have also worked with the Australian Coptic movement. I have attended their rallies, including a recent rally in Sydney at Martin Place. We had hoped that the earlier rallies would be the last. We had hoped that the rallies in 2011 would be the last because we would no longer need to rally for freedom of religion for the Copts of Egypt. But alas we have had to continue to rally. Alas we have had to continue to fight and argue—and we will continue to do so. As I said, it is incumbent on all governments to protect their citizens in every regard. It is incumbent on all governments to ensure that their people can live in peace and freedom and harmony. And the Copts of Egypt are not currently living in peace and freedom and harmony, and it is incumbent on the government of Egypt to ensure that they can. In many cases the revolution we have seen in the Middle East has resulted in poor outcomes, in worse outcomes for Christians. We have seen that in Iraq; we are seeing that now in Egypt. The Arab Spring has turned to an Arab winter for many, many people in the Middle East. Those people in the Middle East, in Egypt, and their friends and relatives in Australia, in my electorate and in electorates around the country need to know they have many friends in the House of Representatives, as indeed they do. Small Business 4395 19:41 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest Small business is a central pillar of the Australian economy, employing almost three million Australians and adding $312 billion to our economy; however small business confidence, profitability, cash flows and employment are all in negative territory according to the April NAB Small to Medium Enterprise Survey. I suppose no-one should really be surprised at this given the Gillard Labor government's mismanagement of the small business sector and its broader mismanagement of the economy. Small business is the engine room of our national economy and should therefore be at the forefront of government's thinking. The fact that Labor has managed to create yet another budget deficit of at least $19 billion and peak net debt of $191 billion means there is no confidence for consumers to spend or small businesses to invest and employ. It also means that the Labor government is competing with small businesses in the borrowing market. It is clear that businesses are losing their confidence because they have little faith in the government, a government that cannot balance its own budget. Small businesses are doing it tough all over Australia. I see it in my electorate. Families are facing cost-of-living pressures and spending less because of the government's mismanagement of the economy and the lack of certainty. Labor has no respect for the small business sector. Over the life of this government, the small business share of the private sector workforce has fallen from 51.3 per cent to 45.7 per cent, and employment in this sector has fallen by 243,000. The revolving door of small business ministers under Labor—we have seen five in 15 months—means that clearly no-one in this government is really understanding or has a real grasp on the issues that small businesses are facing. By contrast, small business will be a cabinet portfolio within the Treasury department under a coalition government, which would put small business front and centre of economic analysis, policy formation and decision making. The coalition was the first to put the small business portfolio in cabinet, and should we be elected we will be the first to ensure that small business policy and concerns are at the epicentre of economic decision making by including it in the key central agency of Treasury. Because Treasury deals with whole-of-economy issues and the key influences on small business success including tax policy, competition laws, fiscal policy, access to finance and COAG reform initiatives, the coalition plans that the rate of small business growth will double as a result of abolishing the carbon tax—a huge cost on small business—by cutting $1 billion worth of red tape, which takes small businesses well into the night to do, and making sure that small business is represented on key economic regulatory bodies. We have also announced that small business people will be either paid on time, or they will automatically receive interest payments under a coalition government. This policy announced by the shadow Treasurer is about leading by example and treating small business people with the respect they deserve. For small business, as we know, cash flow is king, which is why it is important that they are paid on time or at worst compensated for any late payment. Under our policy, all small businesses that provide services to the Commonwealth will be either paid on time or paid interest whether they have a formal contract or not. This is just one part of our commitment to small business to help it not just survive but to grow and thrive. There is no reason why Australia should not able to achieve an annual growth rate in the number of small businesses of around 1.5 per cent. This is the rate of growth achieved under the former Howard government. This would mean adding approximately 30,000 new small businesses each year, double the growth in small business under Labor. Establishing a genuine root-and-branch review of competition laws to ensure that small business can compete equally with big business is another way the coalition will help small business. I have long campaigned for a fair go for small business and the coalition is certainly a key part of that. The very best way to change the fortunes of small business for the better is to change the government. Maronite Community 4396 19:46 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta In a few weeks I will join His Excellency Bishop Tarabay, the newly ordained Maronite Bishop of Australia, and Minister Tony Burke to plant a small tree in the grounds of the Prime Minister's residence, the Lodge. The tree, a Cedar of Lebanon, a rare tree, will commemorate an important event in the Maronite community and will be a symbol of the strength of the Lebanese community that thrives on Australian soil. I have a very strong and vibrant Maronite community in the electorate of Parramatta—great Australians, loyal and hardworking who have built their lives in this country, but who hold Lebanon in their hearts. They brought with them the close-knit loyal village culture of Lebanon. Here, sometimes after generations, we have people who identify with the villages Kfarsghab, Bann, Blouza, Zgharta and Bechara, and they all have their own community centres located around my electorate. But they all come together at Our Lady of Lebanon church in Harris Park, the centre of the cultural and religious life of the Maronite community in my electorate. Since coming together to build the church in 1970, they have accomplished so much, including the establishment of Our Lady of Lebanon College in 1973 which just celebrated its 40th birthday. For the Maronite community, an incredibly important event is unfolding—no less than the ordination and installation of a new bishop for the Australian diocese of St Maroun, a new spiritual leader for all Maronite Catholics in Australia. Father Tarabay, now Bishop Tarabay, was ordained over the weekend on Saturday at the Patriarchal See in Lebanon. For the first time ever, the Australian government sent a representative to attend such an event. The Australian Prime Minister was represented at the ordination by the Hon. Tony Burke MP, a great friend to the Maronites in his electorate of Watson. Next week on Monday, 3 June, we will see the official installation ceremony of His Excellency Bishop Tarabay into his new home at St Maroun's Cathedral in Redfern, a little closer to home than the ordination ceremony and an event that many of us in this place would love to attend if parliament was not sitting on that day. I would like to acknowledge and pay tribute to the outgoing bishop His Excellency Bishop Ad Abi Karam, who will officiate the installation, for his commitment and service to the Maronite community during his years as bishop. Bishop Ad Abi Karam placed education and culture at the heart of his ministry and he leaves the Maronite community stronger and more confident for this work. Bishop Ad Abi Karam and Father Tarabay follow a long tradition in Australia. Way back in 1889 the Maronite patriarch in Lebanon decided to dispatch two priests, Father Abdallah Yazbeck and Father Joseph Dandah from Lebanon to Australia. They established a chapel in Waterloo in 1894 before establishing St Maroun's church in Redfern just a few years later. Some 70 years later, as the Maronite population grew and spread, chapels were established around Sydney, including Our Lady of Lebanon church in Harris Park, which services my community of Parramatta. It was at one of these new chapels, St Charbel's in Punchbowl, that Father Tarabay served before he was appointment as the new bishop to Australia. Bishop Tarabay is only the fourth person to be appointed as the Maronite Bishop of Australia and is the first Maronite Bishop of Australia to rise from the ranks of the Australian clergy, and his appointment by Pope Frances is a testament to his long years of service within the Australian Maronite community. When I learned that Minister Burke would attend the ordination in Lebanon, I suggested to him that it might be appropriate to commemorate such an important event with the planting of a Cedar of Lebanon in Australia to symbolise the Maronite faith growing tall and strong in Australian soil. I have already assisted in the planting of one Cedar of Lebanon in the grounds of Parliament House and I know what the symbol would mean to my local community. I am pleased to report that while in Lebanon, Minister Burke planted a eucalypt in the presidential palace to mark the ordination. He and the bishop will plant a Cedar of Lebanon in the grounds of the Prime Minister's residence at the Lodge. The exchange of the two trees reflects the growing strength of the relationship between the two countries. The two countries of our Australian Lebanese community are forever bound by our people and the love for Lebanon that thrives within so many Australians of Lebanese background. The young tree will symbolise the growth and strength of the Maronite community, growing tall and proud in Australian soil like a Cedar of Lebanon. Flinders Electorate 4397 19:50 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I am delighted to inform the House and to speak on behalf of the people of Flinders, and in particular the Mornington Peninsula, about the Eastern Treatment Plant upgrade, which has now been fully commissioned. This is a major win for the community and for the Clean Ocean Foundation. I am thrilled to have played a small role in that campaign over such a long period. This upgrade came at a cost of $418 million. It would not have happened without an ongoing community campaign led by people such as Peter Smith and Anton Vigenser, and so many others from the Clean Ocean Foundation. The plant will now treat more than 100 billion litres of waste water to a class A recycled water standard each year. It will use a combination of ozone treatment, filters and UV and chlorine disinfection. It has resulted in a major improvement in the quality of water discharged at Gunnamatta Beach. This is what we fought for, this is what we campaigned for and this is what we argued for, and a $418 million result is a brilliant outcome for the community, the environment and the future. The upgrade has produced recycled water that can be used widely for things such as bathrooms, sportsgrounds, golf courses and irrigation. The Eastern Treatment Plant has already begun to supply 22 billion litres of recycled water to users each year. Now our task as a community and as members of parliament in conjunction with the state government is to work to ensure that this water is progressively fully recycled. It is a great step forward, a great achievement. I am delighted that so many people over so long have seen one of the true great local community successes in Victoria, and that is the clean up of Gunnamatta Beach. The second issue is now not so much a success as the next great campaign and fight within the electorate. That is the fight for hospital services and a hospital facility on Phillip Island. I want to reaffirm before the parliament to the people of Phillip Island that I am 100 per cent committed and will not rest, just as was the case in our joint fight for Gunnamatta, to ensure that hospital facilities are re-established on Phillip Island. We will keep going until it is done. The history here is that Warley had struggled but had been supported. In the months leading up to the 2007 federal election, I worked closely with the board on a rescue plan that would have saved the hospital. We were able to secure a $2.5 million pledge during the campaign to save the hospital but the incoming ALP government walked away, it reneged on the deal, and the Warley Hospital died not long after the transition of government. Those funds would have kept it going and would have allowed it a secure future. Despite our urging, the ALP failed to honour what had been made as a government commitment prior to the calling of writs and the funding that was announced during the election period. The task now is to secure the hospital facilities that the island badly needs. My view is that this is a four-stage task to ensure that we have a health hub with round-the-clock GP services. I am not fussed as to what is the right place and way; it is the round-the-clock element for which we have to fight. The second element is to ensure that we have allied health facilities, the third element is palliative care or respite and the fourth element is to get the acute hospital beds back. We will just keep going until that is done. We have federal funding that we announced at the last election. That continues. We have the Warley trust funding. We need to work together with the state government to bring all of these elements into place so we have the beds which will form the basis of hospital facilities on Phillip Island. Just as we had the success with Gunnamatta, we will not rest until there is success with Warley. Melbourne Electorate: Aircraft Noise 4398 19:55 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I have recently met with the East Melbourne Group, a community organisation who have become concerned about aviation noise in their community. East Melbourne is a beautiful and historic part of Melbourne. It attracts many visitors and the community was motivated to live there because of how peaceful it is. In recent years, however, noise from helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft in the area has increased substantially. Both news and leisure helicopters now hover over East Melbourne for extended periods at regular intervals. This includes cases of residents having helicopters hovering above their neighbourhood for periods between 20 and 40 minutes with a frequency of every 45 minutes. Furthermore, there has been a marked increase in flights by small fixed-wing aircraft, which I am informed are very noisy when passing low over the area. Information from AirServices Australia reflects that in one weekend alone of April this year, 200 flights took place over East Melbourne. Residents recall a time when flights had less of an impact on their community because they flew over waterways and highways. Now residents in the area have told me that flights routinely take place over the area without regard for residents, and their number is growing. These problems have now increased to such a degree that they are causing distress to residents. The East Melbourne Group have told me that the noise can be invasive enough to prevent conversations being heard within their homes. Residents also report that the extent of the noise discourages them from spending time outside. The problem is exacerbated because the noise is not confined to certain times of the day, but is described as relentless and ongoing. One resident is woken every morning by a helicopter passing at 10 to six and remains above Hoddle Street for an extended period of time. Others report that hovering over buildings causes the sound to reverberate in a way which is deafening for residents. This issue is clearly one of great concern to the residents of East Melbourne. The community is now collecting a record of locations, frequency of flights and noise levels in order to give an understanding of what this is like for residents. The East Melbourne Group takes no issue with emergency services using the airspace. However, it seems to the group that a balance needs to be achieved between business use and the right of the community to quiet enjoyment of the area. At the moment there is no such balance and as a result residents must endure the constant background noise of aircraft at all hours and throughout the week. I am pleased to support the community in their efforts to preserve amenity in the area and their right to quiet enjoyment. The community is preparing a petition on this issue, which I will table before the House in due course. I am also in communication with aviation regulators to identify how the problem has become so chronic and what action can be taken to limit harm to the community. I will also be raising the issue with the responsible minister to identify ways this peaceful and historic part of Melbourne can be protected for everyone. I thank the East Melbourne Group for the invitation to their meeting and for their work in preserving the value of this area. House adjourned at 19:58 NOTICES 4399 NOTICES

Wednesday, 29 May 2013

The SECOND DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ) took the chair at 09:30.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 4401 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Wide Bay Electorate: Floods 4401 09:30 Mr TRUSS GT4 Wide Bay My electorate was hit by serious flooding in 2011 and 2013. Generally the governments at state and federal level have acted promptly to put emergency assistance in place, and the electorate is very grateful for that. However, a number of anomalies have been identified in the way in which the assistance has been provided. I want to draw attention to some of those today. Under the guidelines of the Australian government disaster payment, someone must be isolated from or stranded at their principal place of residence for 24 hours. If four or five adults are in that property they can claim between $4,000 and $5,000 if their gas or other utility is not available for a period of 48 hours. Those payments are generous and in 2011 they were also interpreted very liberally. But in the 2013 flood, there seemed to have been a radical change in the way in which the same guidelines were interpreted. Whole suburbs that were isolated received assistance in the 2011 flood but in this flood there was a very strict interpretation put on isolation on your property. If you could take one step onto your neighbour's property you no longer qualified, even though that neighbour might also have been isolated. They are many examples like that. For instance, Kay Kelly could get onto her neighbour's property but her neighbour was also isolated so to do that was completely valueless. A person on a farm property could have been isolated for weeks but if they could take one step onto their neighbour's property they did not qualify for these benefits. That seems to me to be grossly unfair and needs to be reviewed. In addition to that there are issues associated with how assistance could be used. For instance, you were able to use the money to repair your shop or to get your business operational but you could not use the money to replant a crop if you received category C assistance. If you got category D assistance, you could. That to me seems to be illogical. Another problem my electorate faced was that your local government area had to be declared to receive the benefits. I have examples of people living just across the border of a local government area who would have qualified for the benefits but got absolutely nothing because of the fact that their shire was not declared. These sorts of inconsistencies need to be addressed. When there are no pending disasters it is the right time to review these criteria. I think it is time. I wrote to the minister about these issues. He has declined every single one of them even though he expressed sympathy to me on these matters. Now is the time to review these criteria. Kingston Electorate: Sport 4401 09:33 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston On Monday of last week I was very pleased to host a local sporting champions grants ceremony where we honoured six local young people in the electorate that have shown great proficiency and great dedication to the area of sport. I have attended a number of these events and this showed that young people are achieving in vastly different areas of sport. I would particularly like to mention Jacalyn Pickering as she was one of the recipients of a grant. She plays volleyball and received the grant for being selected in South Australia for the Australian junior beach volleyball championships. She trains twice a week with SASI as well as training with the state team and playing in her school volleyball team. In the selection process she had to do a two-hour trial event in December in South Australia at Glenelg. She sees beach volleyball as the pathway to competing in the Olympics. She is very keen to get there, and I think she will get there as well. Nick Hutchings participates in baseball. He also received a grant for the Australian under-18 baseball championships. He has a commitment to baseball that is a seven-day-a-week commitment. He plays in four teams and coaches another. He has aspirations and dreams to make it to the major-league baseball. I believe he will make it there. Damon Kerr, who competes in cricket, received his grant for selection in the School Sport Australia 15-year-old boys team. He is very honoured and excited to be playing cricket for his country, which involves touring around the world to play against others in his age group. Joshua Weston participates in bicycle motocross, or BMX. He received a grant for participating in the Australian Bicycle Motocross Championships. His selection was based on the state series result, where he came first for the series, and also the state titles result, where he came second. He has been racing BMX for five years and has proven to be extremely talented. Brittany Miller, who plays indoor cricket, received the grant for her participation in the Australian Junior Indoor Cricket Championships. She hopes to play for Australia. She is dedicated to both indoor and outdoor cricket. She also plays netball both indoor and outdoor. Finally, Gemma Plummer, who participates in athletics, particularly in the 800 meters and the 1500 metres events, has only recently taken up athletics but is already the fastest in the state for her age group and in her chosen events. She is dedicated to her sports, training every day after school, and to competing in the state athletics events. These six local sporting champions are a fantastic example of dedication. They also give back to their sport, which I think is really important. I spoke to many of the young people who received these grants. They not only excel in their sport but coach younger teams. They give back to younger people and develop a really good example for our community. (Time expired) Farmers 4402 09:36 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I rise today to call on the government and the banking sector to do everything they can to help our agricultural producers in these difficult times. We have a lot of farms under stress in south-west Victoria, and of course there are a lot of farms under stress in northern Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia. The government needs to do everything it can to help these farmers with their current plight. I call on the Treasurer and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to get the Farm Finance package sorted out. Make sure you sit down and negotiate with the states and get it ready to be rolled out come 1 July. This is taking too long. There are people who need assistance now, yet you have not finalised it. Sit down with the states and get this sorted out. I call on the Treasurer to talk to the Australian Taxation Office. Make sure that the tax office is being consultative and doing all that it can when negotiating with farmers under stress. When people are falling behind with BAS payments and other forms of taxation payments, I call on you to sit down with them and work through the issues. Have plans put in place to help them through the next difficult three, six to 12 months, while they get their finances in order so that they can continue to produce. I also call on the banks. The banks have readily lent money in many cases to farmers. The farmers are now facing difficult times, and some of difficulties they are facing are not due to what they are doing; it is due to the high dollar; it is due to climatic conditions; and it is due to a lot of other different types of reasons. I call on the banks to be very sensible and very reasonable and to sit down with people to help them work through these difficult times. It is beholden on banks to do that. The best thing for our country and for the various regions like the south-west is for the banks to work with farmers to make sure that they can continue to produce through these difficult times. These farmers will turn their situation around if the banks and the government can work with them. Finally, I call on the government to take some proactive action to get some support and ongoing help for these farmers. Get greater access to markets for them. Work hard on getting a free trade agreement with China, with Japan and with South Korea. Also, work with farmers to help them reduce their production costs. Get rid of things like the carbon tax. Reduce electricity prices for them. Put more flexibility into the workplace so that farmers can employ people to help them lift their productivity. These are the steps that need to be taken, and they need to be taken immediately by the government. Cancer Treatments 4403 09:39 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Throsby I would like to use this opportunity to raise the awareness of parliament of a childhood brain cancer known as Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma. I was made aware of the terrible disease by Ms Penny Michie, a resident of Mount Warrigal and a volunteer with The Cure Starts Now—a childhood cancer awareness program. She was particularly concerned about the way the federal government is funding research into childhood brain cancers. The very rare Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma accounts for around five to 10 out of every 100 brain tumours in children. Penny's interest in funding came after the tragic passing of a young Australian boy named Talin Hawkins from a diffuse pontine glioma. Talin's plight drew a huge amount of interest through social media and really increased awareness of the disease and has inspired activists like Penny to fight for a better deal for kids who are affected by this rare and usually incurable cancer. So Penny came to me with a request. She asked that I raise this matter in parliament to increase awareness and ensure the government is injecting as much funding as we can into the research of childhood brain cancers and diffuse pontine gliomas. Because they are very difficult to treat, the outcome for pontine gliomas is very poor. After diagnosis, the survival time is on average only nine to 12 months. To try and improve the outcome, doctors have used higher amounts of radiation and even chemotherapy to kill the tumour cells—but we need to achieve better results. In an exciting breakthrough last year, oncologists from the Children's Cancer Institute of Australia grew Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma cells in the lab and found a drug that was able to kill them in a test tube. Following this, I wrote to the health minister to ask what we can do to increase funding in the area of childhood brain cancers and make sure this lifesaving research is able to continue. I am happy to report that, through the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian government has made significant investments in the research of childhood brain cancers. During the period of 2000 to 2011, the NHMRC has provided over $33 million for research into brain, eye and nervous system cancers of which $19.9 million specifically targets childhood brain cancer. In 2012, the NHMRC also awarded additional grants as to brain cancer to the tune of $7.1 million. This is a commitment we are determined to see progress as a government and I have been advised by the minister that funding will continue at this level. I have relayed this good news to Penny and hope to keep working with her and other activists to progress the cause and raise awareness and funds in the Illawarra. Parkes Electorate: Small Business, Kidney Health Week 4404 09:42 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes I rise this morning to speak about small business, particularly small business in the Parkes electorate. Over the last few weeks I have been visiting the chambers of commerce and the progress associations in many of the towns in my electorate and meeting with small business owners. I have to say that at the moment they are feeling the pressure. Small business is the canary in the coalmine of the Australian economy, and at the moment small business owners are feeling the squeeze. What they tell me is that there is no confidence. They feel no confidence within the Australian community and therefore a lot of spending has been put on hold, so small business is feeling the effects of the lack of direction of this government. Indeed, there have been five small business ministers in the last 15 months and small business has largely been forgotten by the current Labor government. Small business is also under pressure from imports coming through on internet sales. That is very much so in regional areas where people are turning to online purchases. So that is also having an effect on small business. I have 24 business groups or chambers of commerce in my electorate and within the next couple of weeks I will be visiting all of those and they will be taking some heart from the fact that if there is a change of government small business will be once more at the forefront of the agenda. The shadow Treasurer, Joe Hockey, clearly indicated that in is budget in reply speech in the Great Hall last week, a speech that was purely focused on small business. Changing tack completely, this week is Kidney Health Week and I would encourage everyone this week to think about the health of their kidneys. I have a personal interest in this. Indeed, just over 12 months ago I lost one of my kidneys to cancer. I very much understand that you can have serious issues with the health of your kidneys and have no physical signs of it. Indeed, you can lose 90 per cent of your kidney function before physical signs start to show. One in three Australians will suffer from some form of kidney disease. I encourage everyone this week to think about the health of their kidneys and think about their general health. A lot of things, like obesity, smoking, alcohol and diabetes, can compound to affect the health of your kidneys. With this week being Kidney Health Week, I encourage everyone to have a check-up. (Time expired) Dobell Electorate: Mining 4405 09:45 Mr CRAIG THOMSON HVZ Dobell I rise to speak about the coalmine that is planned to be built under the water catchment area in the Wyong Shire. I start by expressing great disappointment that, at this stage, neither the government nor the opposition is prepared to support my private member's bill to make sure that the Wyong Shire water supply, the water supply for the Central Coast, is secured. I will go through the reasons why this is so important and what the facts are on this. I will give some data that primarily comes from what the coalmine proponents are saying as to the effects of their coalmine on the water supply and the health of the region. They say that over 79 million litres of water will be lost because of the coalmine. This far exceeds the annual rainfall of the Central Coast and the capacity to recharge the aquifers. Professor Pells, who is an expert in mining who consults for BHP and Xstrata, has said, looking at this mine, that there will be 200 metres worth of depressurisation, which will mean that the aquifers under the water supply of the Central Coast will take over 200 years to recover. The Central Coast has been down to 10 per cent of its water. This coalmine is planned for the major area where our water is. It is planned to be at the junction of the rivers in the most crucial spot of our water catchment area. With that amount of water loss, it is almost criminal that we have the mining interests owning the government and the opposition in relation to this issue and that the people of Dobell, the people of the Central Coast, are being totally ignored. But it is worse than that. We can look at the issue of subsidence and what is going to happen. The mining company's own figures show that there will be one to two metres worth of subsidence. They say that no-one will be affected, but, if you go to their documents, at appendix 8, they say that between one and two metres of subsidence will affect 755 rural structures, 420 rural dams and 245 houses. This is from the mining company's own figures about the effects that the subsidence is going to have. The main road that goes through the valleys is going to drop by over a metre. This cannot be done. There are also health issues. The mining company admits that people will die because of the coal dust. They say there will not be that many, but people will die because of the coal dust. So we will have a water supply that is compromised; we will have people's health affected and people dying because of the coal dust; we will have houses that will collapse; we will have roads that will go down. The only way we can do this and make sure that the Central Coast is looked after is to support my private member's bill to make sure that the water supply of the Central Coast is properly looked after. (Time expired) Bennelong Electorate: Epping to Parramatta Rail Link 4405 09:48 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong The people of Bennelong will not have been surprised this morning to wake to the headline that the Gillard government has broken its $2.1 billion promise to fund the construction of the Epping to Parramatta rail link. Just 10 days before the 2010 federal election, the Prime Minister joined with the then Labor Premier, Kristina Keneally, and my predecessor, Maxine McKew, to announce this link. This came despite the fact that the rail project did not exist anywhere in the New South Wales government's 10-year infrastructure plan and the fact that the Gillard government's own experts, Infrastructure Australia, did not consider it to be a priority project. The Prime Minister's promise to the people of Bennelong and Parramatta was shrewdly crafted, as the money was not actually set to start flowing till 2014. However, time always has a way of catching up, and, now the money needs to be accounted for, it is nowhere to be seen. The other condition on this money was that the federal budget would have to be in surplus. As we are all aware, Treasurer Wayne Swan has promised a surplus year after year but has never managed to deliver one—more broken promises. The Chatswood to Parramatta rail link was first announced by the then state government in 1998, at a cost of $1 billion. After inaction and cost blowouts, half of the link from Chatswood to Epping was finally completed in 2009, at a cost of $2.4 billion. The 2010 announcement of $2.6 billion to complete the link meant a blowout of 500 per cent. This is simply not the way to govern our country. The people of Parramatta, of Bennelong and of the nation deserve better. In contrast, the O'Farrell Liberal government in New South Wales was elected in 2011 with a promise to build the north-west rail link. This essential rail infrastructure project was first promised by former Premier Bob Carr in 1998 at a cost of $350 million but was never built. The massive growth in the area and the increase in property values has seen the construction bill skyrocket by $8 billion. This is the cost of inaction and broken promises. Regardless, Premier O'Farrell identified this as a priority piece of infrastructure. He promised the community his government would build it and he is already honouring that promise. Labor governments state and federal have forged a strong reputation for broken promises on infrastructure projects. The Epping to Parramatta rail link is just another to add to this list. Thankfully the people of Bennelong saw through this promise in 2010 and on many occasions I have stood in this place to challenge the government to honour this election commitment. As is their political strategy— Government members interjecting— Mr ALEXANDER M3M and they think it is funny—I have been accused by those opposite of fear mongering. Today's announcement exposes the truth and proves to us all that the only thing left to fear is three more years of this government. (Time expired) 09:51 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta I was going to talk about heritage today but the member for Bennelong's speech draws me to speak about the extraordinary hypocrisy I have just witnessed by the member for Bennelong. The member for Bennelong will know absolutely that the federal government has remained committed to building the Parramatta to Epping railway link and has left the money in the budget. If the money is not in the budget, as he claims, then he might wonder why his Leader of the Opposition has promised to remove the money from the budget for the Parramatta to Epping rail link and use it to build the Pacific Highway. Either the Leader of the Opposition is telling a few fibs about the fact— Opposition members interjecting— Ms OWENS E09 I was silent. I would like to be heard in silence if that is okay. The Leader of the Opposition has promised to take the $2.5 billion that sits there for the Parramatta to Epping railway link and use it for the Pacific Highway. I have sat in meetings with the Liberal Mayor of Parramatta and the Liberal state member for Parramatta and both of them have supported the Leader of the Opposition's plan to take the $2.5 billion out of the budget for the Parramatta to Epping rail link and use it for the North Coast. If the money is not there, then I think the Leader of the Opposition is telling a few porkies. Either the money to build the Parramatta to Epping rail link is there or it is not. You cannot take money that is not there and make a promise to build the Pacific Highway. The member for Bennelong would also know that federal governments actually do not build railways; they provide money for them, but railways are built by state governments. It is the state Liberal government that has refused to build the Parramatta to Epping rail link. The money has sat there for that project until now. Every state Liberal member and federal Liberal member, including the member for Bennelong, campaigned at some point on support for this project and then withdrew their support when their leaders changed their mind or decided on something else—every single member. The state member for Parramatta, Geoff Lee, at one stage supported this project and now does not. The Liberal Mayor, John Chedid, supported this project and now does not. My opponent apparently stood for preselection on his support for building the Parramatta to Chatswood rail link, which is quite extraordinary since at that point his leader had already said he was going to take the $2.5 billion of the Parramatta rail link and put it into the Pacific Highway. So he actually campaigned against his own leader in his own preselection. The hypocrisy of this member standing up here and trying to blame the Labor government, which has been committed to this project, for the fact that the state Liberal government will not build it is quite extraordinary. I am pleased to see though that he does still support it. Perhaps he should start saying so to Barry O'Farrell. He really should do that. Perhaps then we might get the thing. (Time expired) Airds High School: Flag Ceremony 4407 09:54 Mr MATHESON M2V Macarthur Today I would like to praise the students from a high school in my electorate who I believe are a great example of Australian multiculturalism at its finest. I recently attended a flag ceremony at Airds High School and was not only impressed by the calibre of the performances but the attitudes of its students, teachers and parents. The flag ceremony is held each year to recognise the diverse cultural backgrounds of the students and staff at the school. It has become a major community event, with the school encouraging involvement by students and their families. It also recognises the school's unique history. Opening in 1974, Airds High School was the second government high school to be opened in Campbelltown. The student population at that time was predominantly Anglo-Saxon, but by 1986 the school population had changed with a sufficient increase in students with a language background other than English. In 1986 the school developed strategies to pre-empt racial tension and ensure an inclusive environment for all students no matter where they came from. One of these strategies was the annual flag ceremony, the first of its kind in my community. Over the years several schools across the region have also adopted and implemented these ceremonies as part of their school calendar year. This year, it was great to see Briar Road, John Warby, Bradbury and Woodland Road public schools join in the celebrations. The flag ceremony involves the flags of various nations presented by representatives of these countries. The flags then form a permanent display at the school as a visual reminder of its multicultural nature. The flag ceremony also involves multicultural entertainment including dancing, singing and musical performances to enhance the cultural feel of the day. There were some fantastic performances by the students. I was particularly impressed by the traditional dances performed by the students in their country's traditional costume and some very talented vocal performances throughout the morning. While watching the students perform I could see how proud they were of their culture, and it was great to see so many members of the Airds community in attendance to support these students. It was obvious to me that Airds High School takes pride in its multiculturalism and recognises the value of living in a multicultural community. Aside from the flag ceremony, the school encourages many multicultural activities throughout the year involving students, parents and community groups. These initiatives are obviously working; as I watched the flag ceremony and cultural performances last week I could not help but become overwhelmed with pride for these students, their teachers and their parents. The traditional performances show that these students hold great pride in their own heritage. There were many proud parents and family members watching in the audience. Students, teachers and parents from many different cultural backgrounds were cheering each other on. They offered a level of support to each other which I have not experienced before during my time as the member for Macarthur. Not only was the flag ceremony one of the most entertaining school assemblies I have ever been to, it also reminded me of how blessed I am to live in a multicultural country and a multicultural community. I would like to congratulate Principal Max Foord and all of the students, teachers and community members involved in the Airds High School flag ceremony. They should all be very proud of what they have achieved. They are a fine example of what Sydney's Macarthur region is all about. Baluch, Joy AM 4408 09:57 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin I acknowledge the life and passing of Joy Baluch, whose funeral service I attended last week. Joy was first elected as a councillor to the Port Augusta council in 1970. From 1981 to 1993, and then from 1995 until her death on 14 May 2013, she was Mayor of Port Augusta, having served in local government for over 40 years. Port Augusta is about 200 kilometres from Adelaide and sits at the top of the Upper Spencer Gulf. It is a gateway to the South Australian outback, but as Joy would frequently remind others: Proud and fiercely defensive of her region and her city, Joy became Port Augusta's greatest asset. Never one to hold back, Joy did not mince her words and clearly spoke her mind. Nor was Joy timid about taking a stand on controversial and divisive social issues, including the Woomera detention centre, youth curfews and crime and violence issues. However, behind her tough exterior, Joy Baluch was a very decent and compassionate person who drew on her Christian faith and her life experiences in the real world to bring common sense to discussions and decision-making. I came to know Joy during my own time in local government, serving with her for many years on the South Australian local government executive, including during her time as the South Australian local government association president. In South Australia, few people in local government became as well-known as Joy Baluch, and none that I know of served as mayor for as long as Joy had done. She became a champion not only for her city, but for local government, and I know that she would have been looking forward to engaging in the current debate about the recognition of local government in the Australian Constitution. Even when poor health set in several years ago, Joy was not about to give up, and she toughed it out to the end. She was determined that she was not going to let her health get in the way of what still needed to be done. Joy's funeral was held in Port Augusta on Tuesday, 21 May 2013. In acknowledgement of her legendary status, people from across the country—including the member for Grey, Rowan Ramsey, and the member for Hotham, the Hon. Simon Crean, who was also one of several speakers at the service—came to show their appreciation and to say goodbye. It was a very fitting send-off to an extraordinary person, whose name was immortalised on 17 May 2013, only three days after her death, with the naming of the new bridge connecting east and west Port Augusta: the Joy Baluch Bridge. To Joy's family and to her colleagues and staff at Port Augusta City Council I extend my sincere condolences. Joy will be irreplaceable and very much missed, but she will always be remembered by those who knew her. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY I thank the member for Makin. Just before we go on to the next item, I too would like to associate myself with the words of the member for Makin in the condolences for Joy Baluch, being a fellow South Australian and having worked with her for a short time when I was in the state government. BUSINESS 4409 BUSINESS Rearrangement 4409 10:00 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I move: Question agreed to. BILLS 4409 BILLS International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 2013 4409

International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 2013

Second Reading 4409 10:01 Mr ROBB FU4 Goldstein I rise to speak on the International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 2013. This bill amends the International Monetary Agreements Act 1947 to provide a standing appropriation and authority to borrow for payments to meet drawings made by the International Monetary Fund under a bilateral agreement entered into by Australia and the IMF on 13 October 2012. The loan agreement will come into force following royal assent to the bill. The loan agreement will provide for Australia to lend to the IMF, up to the equivalent of special drawing rights, $4.61 billion, or approximately A$6.8 billion. The bilateral loan shall have a term of two years, extendable by the IMF for up to two additional one-year periods for a maximum total term of four years. Australia has had a long association with the IMF. It has been a member since 1947, two years after the IMF came into formal existence in 1945. The coalition fully understands that the IMF advances Australia's interest by supporting stability in the global economy. It does this in four ways. First, it promotes international monetary cooperation. Second, it promotes exchange-rate stability and orderly exchange arrangements. Third, it fosters economic growth and employment. Fourth, it provides temporary financial assistance to members, thereby helping to ease balance-of-payments adjustment. Australia has two current lines of credit with the IMF. The first is its usual quota contribution. This was doubled following a decision by IMF governors in December 2010. The quota commitment increased from just over A$4 billion to A$8 billion in the 2011-12 financial year. The second is the New Arrangements to Borrow. This is a contingent liability of the government to be drawn down on request of the IMF. Last year the government introduced a bill which made three amendments to Australia's credit arrangements with the IMF. The coalition supported these changes. That bill made three changes. First, it reduced Australia's contingent liability under the New Arrangements to Borrow line of credit by $3.2 billion. However, that reduction was conditional on the doubling of Australia's primary quota from A$4.1 billion to A$8.8 billion. Second, it increased the maximum maturity of the IMF drawings under the NAB from five years to 10 years. Third, it reduced the New Arrangements to Borrow for a period of five years commencing 17 November 2012. The loan agreement under the bill currently before the House is in addition to the existing facilities. It can only be used by the IMF if the existing quota and New Arrangements to Borrow are insufficient to support its lending to borrowing member countries. The Treasurer announced this new $7 billion commitment in April 2012. It was part of global efforts to enhance the financial backstop against further international volatility. The proposed agreement is Australia's contribution towards a broad round of global commitments announced at the June 2012 G20 leaders' summit in Los Cabos, Mexico, to temporarily increase the IMF's resources by more than US$450 billion during a period of heightened global financial risks. Other countries who have pledged commitments to date include the United Kingdom, China, France, Germany, Japan, Russia and Indonesia. This additional funding facility for the IMF emerged out of the chaos of late 2011, when it looked as if additional financial support would be required to bail out a failing Europe. At that time there was a great deal of fear that the market disquiet about Ireland, Greece and Portugal would spread to other countries in the eurozone. The IMF wanted to be sure it had the resources to handle any crisis. The trouble was that some of the largest economies had misgivings about providing additional support. The UK Chancellor of the Exchequer said at the time that the UK was prepared to consider additional funds to the IMF, where the funds were used to increase the resources that the IMF makes available to all the countries of the world. But the UK was not prepared to see IMF resources reserved for use only by the eurozone. It was not prepared to contribute to the IMF for the IMF to contribute to the eurozone bailout fund, and the UK made it clear it would not directly contribute money to the eurozone bailout fund. Elsewhere, the US Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications, Ben Rhodes, said there were no plans for the United States to provide additional resources to the IMF. China, at the time, tentatively agreed to participate in the European bailout fund but made it clear that such support would come with some fairly hefty strings attached. The first would be that other countries contribute. The second would be the provision of strong guarantees on the safety of the investment. The third might be a request to Europe to stop criticising China's currency policy. The coalition has always supported the role of the IMF in assisting troubled countries back to financial health and has supported the provision of Australia's share of IMF funds. However, at the time this new facility was first suggested there was debate about the appropriateness of Australia in effect providing support to developed countries who should have had the resources to get their own houses in order. There was also concern that Australia would need to provide any moneys drawn through increasing its own borrowings at a time when the budget was in deep deficit and borrowings were already rising to record highs. The government did not heed these concerns and rushed headlong into promising support, with no consultation with the opposition or the parliament or the Australian people. The coalition believes it is important that Australian funds be used by the IMF only as part of its standard arrangements for assisting countries. That would involve the extension of loans to be repaid with interest, only in conjunction with strict plans for returning the countries to financial health. It would not be appropriate for any Australian funds to be put at risk or for funds to be provided without strict performance benchmarks and repayment schedules in place. I note that if the additional funds were to be used for specific support for Europe the Australian government has imposed no conditions on the use to which the IMF can put these funds. This is an unfortunate position that we have been put in, when we find that the government, despite record levels of increases in Australia's debt, have taken this decision without consultation with the parliament, the opposition or with the Australian people. There is a simple lesson that must be learned from the current financial stresses in much of the Western world: if debt is the problem the more debt is not the answer. The coalition understands this. It is not clear that the government does. The coalition will not oppose this bill; however, we want to place on the record that the government needs to exercise greater caution and prudence before loading Australian taxpayers with further debt to financially support some of the richest countries on the planet. 10:09 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I rise to speak on the International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 2013 and to support the comments made by the member for Goldstein. This bill will see the Australian taxpayer underwrite close to $7 billion worth of funds to the IMF, supposedly as part of the global effort to enhance the financial backstop against further international volatility. This commitment was made in April 2012, at a time when this government had promised that our budget would be returning to surplus. On something like 500 separate occasions the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have given an ironclad commitment that, come hell or high water, the budget would be returning to surplus. However, we know that that promise has been broken and that that commitment to the Australian people has been dishonoured by this Labor government. In this current financial year, we see an expected deficit of $19.4 billion. However, this financial year has not yet come to a close, so there is a very good chance that, by the time we close the books at the end of June, we will see the $19.4 billion deficit rise even higher. And here we have the most bizarre and extraordinary spectacle with this bill. Here we are in Australia laden with debt—already with five budget deficits in a row and with a sixth and a seventh committed to by this government, were they to be re-elected—yet we are going to provide money to an international organisation that produces nothing. They will then loan this money to even more irresponsible countries which have greater debt than we do. Under this bill, we will be borrowing money from countries such as China and lending it to places like Greece, which will use it to pay off the German banks which have financed a generous Greek welfare state. The process and the outcome of such folly cannot be good in the end. We need to realise that the only way these indebted countries can lift themselves up is to ensure that they follow the principles of free markets and property rights and encourage entrepreneurial activity. That is the only way they can create the wealth and activity necessary to lift themselves out of their debt crisis and to rein in their reckless spending. If we are to lend this money to the IMF, we must demand greater accountability. That brings me to one of the loans the IMF is proposing: a $4.8 billion loan which the IMF is currently negotiating with Egypt. The IMF are calling on Egypt to rein back some of their reckless spending and to reduce their debt. I believe the IMF should be doing more than this if they are going to hand the Egyptian government $4.8 billion. Egypt's current problems evolve around lack of security and lack of protection for the Coptic Christian minority. This is why their tourism sector has collapsed and the country is in such strife. This is why investors are staying away from Egypt and why Egypt faces such high interest payments on their borrowings. Only a few short weeks ago, on 4 April, we saw an attack on a Coptic Orthodox Church by a gang of rioters. What was most disturbing was that people dressed in Egyptian police uniforms were filmed joining in and aiding and abetting those rioters. If the IMF is going to loan that money to Egypt, it must make it a condition of those loans that the Egyptian government provide full protection and greater security for the Egyptian Coptic Christian minority. International pressure to protect the Coptic Christian minority in Egypt is the only way that the Egyptian economy has a future. That is where the IMF must play a part, and we here in Australia must demand full accountability from the IMF to make sure that when these loans are being handed out to these indebted countries, countries that have got themselves into trouble through their reckless spending and build-up of debt, they take the steps necessary to actually fix their problems, rather than just continue on the way they are going. The coalition do not oppose this bill, but we say that we here, as the Australian parliament, must assure greater accountability of the spending of these funds. Debate adjourned. Statute Stocktake (Appropriations) Bill 2013 4412

Statute Stocktake (Appropriations) Bill 2013

Second Reading 4412 10:16 Mr ROBB FU4 Goldstein I rise to speak on the Statute Stocktake (Appropriations) Bill 2013. The bill, if enacted, would repeal 84 redundant annual appropriation acts from 1 July 1999 through until 30 June 2010 inclusive. It would also repeal numerous subsidiary laws related to the old acts. The proposed amendments have no financial impact and any minor amounts that may not be redundant require consideration for reappropriation, with all total current expenditure reflected in the current forward estimate forecasts. This forms part of an ongoing housekeeping exercise aimed at reducing the size of the Commonwealth statute book through the removal of unnecessary and redundant legislation. This is the seventh bill since 1934 to repeal redundant appropriation acts, with the previous bills resulting in the repeal of redundant appropriation acts from 1901 through until 1999-2000. The most recent statute stocktake bill was passed in 2012 and was also supported by the coalition. While this initiative is certainly worthwhile, it is a long bow for the government to draw to assert that this forms part of a substantive deregulation agenda. While the repeal of the acts will reduce the size of the statute book, measured in inches, it will not result in any easing of the Commonwealth regulatory burden on business, measured in billions of dollars. It must be remembered that the government made grand promises on the deregulation front. We all remember its 'one in, one out' pledge regarding new regulation. Gosh, do we remember that one! It went on for months and months and months, made a big play and, I think, played a big part in confusing and misleading people in the run-down to the 2007 election. It was a hand-on-heart, one in, one out pledge regarding new regulations—very clear, very precise, very direct, a very firm commitment. Instead we have had a firestorm of new regulation under this government and very little reduction in regulation. In fact, there has been a conveyor belt of regulation going through this place in the last few years, with the cooperation of the Greens in the Senate and, in many cases, debates being truncated and no real opportunity for consultation with the stakeholders. So often there have been reams of new regulations, tens of thousands of new regulations, running through this parliament, against the promise, the absolute firm commitment, of the one in, one out pledge. Last Friday I did my 133rd boardroom since the last election and I have to say that the most consistent and overwhelming concern raised with me by members of companies all over Australia, from all sectors, is the choking regulation that is now becoming such a discouragement to risk and investment. This government has been responsible for a large number of sovereign risk issues with rule changes endlessly going on and, on top of that, with a weight of regulation and reporting requirements which have now got beyond all levels of responsibility and are excessive in the extreme. The carbon tax, the mining tax, child care, contractors, telecommunications, aged care, pharmaceuticals industry, shipping—you name it, they overregulated it. It has happened in Labor's last term of office and it happened in its first term of office. ComLaw register figures show that since 2007 Labor has introduced 21,000 new items of regulation. By comparison, it has repealed a little over 1,100, most of which were redundant items that have no material impact. So 21,000 versus 1100—and this was against a promise of one in, one out. It is disappointing the government did not take this opportunity for more substantive reform. The coalition are committed to an aggressive deregulation agenda. Unlike this bill, we will annually remove Commonwealth regulation costing the community $1 billion. We will have days in the parliament dedicated solely to the removal of regulations that are currently holding back and discouraging any appetite for risk and investment in this country. In a tight fiscal environment, one of the most powerful things we can do for business is to reduce costs. Notwithstanding, I commend this bill to the House. 10:21 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright It is a privilege to stand in order to support the bill that is currently before the house, the Statute Stocktake (Appropriations) Bill 2013, which will repeal 84 old annual appropriation acts, from 1999-2000 to 2009-10 inclusive. I find myself as a regular occurrence standing to support bills, because the reality is the coalition supports 87.3 per cent of bills that come before this House. We do, so it is absolutely farcical— Government members interjecting— Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 It is farcical that we would hear from those opposite who would suggest that all this government does is be negative—'no, no, no'. That is not the fact and we have proved that again today. The reason I want to speak on this bill is so that the truth is not lost. What the other side of this House are very good at is spin, spin, spin. In the lead-up to this bill hitting the House we heard quotes from the finance minister and quotes from the ministry that this bill was going to be a great cost saver to business; that it was going to be a reduction in red tape; that the benefits and the flow-on through to the economy were going to be enormous; that it was this government in action, assisting in cutting red tape. I am going to show you that that is not the case, purely by walking you through this bill and explaining to you in quite simple terms what it is. This stocktake bill, being the seventh since 1934, forms part of an ongoing process to clean up the statute book by repealing legislation that is simply redundant. That is all it does: repeal 84 old annual appropriations acts, as has been done for appropriation acts from 1901 to 1999. The current appropriations bills are being debated in the House at the moment. The previous stocktake bill was passed in 2012 and then, like now, was not opposed by the coalition. The current stocktake bill is not a controversial bill by any stretch of the imagination; it is simply housekeeping. I will run through the bill and explain to you why it is a simple housekeeping bill. Again, I suggest this government would have you believe that it is some prudent government slashing of red tape and the bureaucratic nightmare, when in fact these acts are redundant. The stocktake bill does not appropriate any money; it just seeks to repeal whole existing acts. The amounts appropriated by the old annual appropriations act have been spent or the money has already been exhausted or lapsed or, to a minor extent, will be considered for reappropriation with all the current expenditure being reflected in our current estimates forecast. The stocktake bill also facilitates the repeal of numerous subsidiary laws—in this case connected to the old annual appropriations acts. While this bill is worthwhile and we support the nature of the bill and the removal of those acts from the statute law, again this is tidying up and housekeeping. This bill does not make any changes with regard to the easing of regulatory burden on business as suggested in explanatory memorandum. It can hardly be described as a feature of a meaningful deregulation agenda to remove some appropriations acts that applied over three years some 20 years ago. Things from 20 years ago are some of the things we are tidying up. This bill serves to remind us how the government has failed to honour its key commitment on deregulation. We are all reminded of the government's failure to honour its so-called 'one-in, one-out' commitment. The government said it would be the champion of deregulation. You heard the member before, the member for Goldstein, making the comment that 21,000 new pieces of regulation have come in and 1,000 have gone out. There was a commitment to repeal one piece of red tape of regulation for every new piece introduced. I thought we were going to see some real, fair dinkum, material deregulation that was going to improve the productivity or the performance of the economy after six years of Labor leadership. Yet despite a frantic search of this bill I could find nothing that supports any easing for the business sector. This commitment to repeal one piece of red tape of regulation for each piece introduced is not added to in any significant way through this legislation. According to the Parliamentary Library figures drawn from the ComLaw register, the government has introduced over 21,000 new items, as I mentioned earlier on. This is at complete odds with Labor's original commitment of one in and one out. I want to go now to a part of the explanatory memorandum which speaks about some High Court comments. It says: But the more important thing that I want to bring to the room's attention is the actual acts that are going to be repealed. This schedule ensure seeks to repeal 84 old appropriation acts from 1999-2000 to 2009-10 inclusive. They are still on the statute book. The bill would repeal 84 old appropriation acts comprising of 28 old acts on the ordinary annual service of government, 28 old acts for other ordinary services, 15 acts for the operation of parliamentary departments and 13 acts in relation to supplementary estimates appropriations. What does all that mean? Predominantly at budget time we have appropriations bills 1 and 2. In the middle of the year when we are doing our interim figures, which we refer to as the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, we will refer to those figures as 3 and 4. Then of course there are other appropriations figures. For governments from both sides this is just a procedure for the House. As those in government introduce appropriations bills into the house through the Department of Finance and Deregulation, the term of those appropriation bills will be predominantly for the short term. They will have a life expectancy of three or four years. The linkage to that three- or four-year term will be their reliance on their forward estimates data. That is a bill which is enacted by this House. What this bill seeks to do is go back and repeal or make redundant appropriations act back as far as 1999-2000. So we are repealing appropriations acts no. 1, 2, 3 and 4 for that reporting period. So we are repealing appropriation acts Nos 1, 2, 3 and 4 for that reporting period. The reason I am going into this detail is there is no real benefit to the business sector, in today's real terms, of repealing a budgetary act from nearly 13 years ago, but the government would have you believe something different. There are some other miscellaneous matters in there that are worth noting, just so no-one can get confused that there is any impact on business. There is an appropriations act entitled Appropriation (Drought and Equine Influenza Assistance) Act (No. 1) 2007‑2008. Everyone remembers that drought period when the government spent some money through the exceptional circumstances program to assist. That drought has come and gone and, therefore, the benefits of that particular package have come and gone. I will give you another example. Back in 2004-05, there was an appropriation by the federal government to provide some financial assistance for those affected by the tsunami overseas. That was our contribution. Again, I am just making the point that it was a piece of legislation, an act that was enabled, but the time has come and gone. So it is somewhat—I do not want to be nasty—unfair for the government to claim, as they have, that the repealing of these acts is a cutting of red tape for business. It is not a true statement. There are also a number of water entitlements acts. I think I have demonstrated well and truly for the House that these bills are redundant. There is no direct benefit to the community in having them stay on the register, and it is a matter of housekeeping to tidy these up. Early last month, there was an announcement by the Attorney-General and Minister Penny Wong that the government had slashed red tape. They claimed they had slashed red tape by getting rid of these pieces of legislation. God help Australian businesses if this is the government's idea of helping to slash red tape for businesses, because there is no direct benefit from the bill that we are debating today, and it does nothing to lessen the red tape that exists in businesses out there—in my electorate, in the state of Queensland and across the nation, and across all sectors, whether it be agriculture, small business, large business, the financial sector—as the government claims. There is conclusive evidence. You just need to read the bill to get your head around that. Senator Sinodinos, Chairman of the Coalition Deregulation Taskforce, has called for the government to implement measures that will actually reduce the burden of red tape, and green tape, across the economy. What we are going to do is slash $1 billion of red tape and green tape. Arthur Sinodinos, a good senator, will be heading that up. Senator Sinodinos said of the government's announcement: This is virtually a mirror image of what I have said today about the repeal of this legislation. He went on to say: as we have seen in recent times. The coalition has already announced an aggressive deregulation agenda. The coalition will reduce regulation costs by $1 billion per annum. As Senator Sinodinos said: We support this piece of legislation because we support the diligence of the department in their rotational housekeeping process. It is a good piece of legislation because it does tidy up dormant and ineffective pieces of legislation. What it does not do is cut red tape for the business sector. I have explained that confidently and without question. Anyone from the government who goes out into the public arena without understanding this bill and tries to make any analogy that they are cutting red tape for business, I do not think they are being dishonest, because I do not think anyone in this parliament is dishonest, but it does bring into question their judgement and their capacity to understand the machinations of this parliament and the real cost of red tape on business. Debate adjourned. Aboriginal Land Rights and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 4417

Aboriginal Land Rights and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013

Second Reading 4417 10:36 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga Through this bill the government is continuing its commitment to make sure that Aboriginal people's ongoing connection to their land is recognised by scheduling further parcels of Northern Territory land as Aboriginal land—in particular, by adding the existing Jabiru town land and certain adjacent portions of Northern Territory land to schedule 1 to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 so that this bill will benefit traditional owners, residents and business operators in Jabiru and the wider Kakadu region. Notably the bill will also provide significant economic development opportunities to the traditional owners. These amendments stem from the landmark agreement struck in November 2009 to resolve the Jabiru native title claim, the longest running native title claim in the history of the Northern Territory. This scheduling measure is intended to give effect to the settlement agreement reached between the parties to that native title claim and it recognises the traditional ownership of Jabiru by the Mirrar people. By adding the Jabiru town land and certain adjacent portions of land to the land rights legislation, the amendments will allow the ownership of the claimed land to be transferred from the Director of National Parks to the Kakadu Aboriginal Land Trust, which will hold the land on trust for its traditional owners. As also provided by the bill, the land will not be granted as Aboriginal land until leaseback arrangements for the Jabiru town plan and the two adjacent non-township portions are put in place. The Mirrar traditional owners have already agreed to immediate leaseback of the Jabiru land. This will be done through long-term leases to be granted to the Director of National Parks, the Northern Territory and an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporation nominated by the Northern Land Council. The two adjacent portions of land will also be leased to the Director of National Parks. The newly leased land will remain part of Kakadu National Park and the Kakadu world heritage area and the bill provides for the preservation of Kakadu's world heritage and other natural and cultural values in relation to the town. Amendments are also made to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. These amendments relate to the proper development of Jabiru into the future in accordance with the leases, the management plan for Kakadu and a town plan approved by the Director of National Parks. Jabiru has established itself as a thriving township that services Kakadu National Park as a tourist destination as well as the nearby Ranger uranium mine. However, business operators in Jabiru have expressed legitimate concerns that, given the expiration of the current head lease in 2021, the future tenure arrangements for Jabiru are unclear. As a result, there has been a reluctance to invest in the town. This bill will deliver long-term certainty and security of land tenure for Jabiru. Importantly for current interest holders in Jabiru, this bill ensures that existing leases, subleases and other interests will be preserved following transfer of ownership to the Kakadu Aboriginal Land Trust. We are very pleased to build on this proud record and particularly to advance the resolution of the Jabiru native title claim by introducing this bill. The bill also adds a further parcel of land for Patta to schedule 1 to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. A 2010 amending act previously inserted five portions of land known as Patta in the Northern Territory into schedule 1. This new amendment will enable the further parcel to be granted to the relevant Aboriginal land trust. Since 2007, the Australian government has handed back well over 42,000 square kilometres of land under the Land Rights Act, more than 12 times the area of land handed back between 2002 and 2007. I will shortly be moving amendments to this bill to address the technical issue raised by the Northern Territory government in its submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs. The issue arose from the recent lodgement by the Northern Territory with the Surveyor-General of new survey plans of the parcels of land adjacent to Jabiru. The new survey plans update the road corridors which run through the relevant land. Accordingly, the government amendments will update the bill to refer to the new land descriptions in those survey plans and to clarify the situation in relation to roads within the Jabiru town land. These amendments are consistent with the position reflected elsewhere in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. The land on which there is a road over which the public has a right of way is excluded from the grant. I thank all the contributors to the debate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail 4418 10:42 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and I ask leave of the Federation Chamber to move government amendments (1) to (3) as circulated together. Leave granted. Ms MACKLIN PG6 I move government amendments (1) to (3) as circulated together: As I have just mentioned, these amendments are to address a technical issue raised by the Northern Territory government in its submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs. These matters did arise from the recent lodgement by the Northern Territory with the Surveyor-General of new survey plans of the parcels of land adjacent to Jabiru. What we want to do is make sure that that is reflected in the bill and so the amendments are consistent with that position. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House with amendments. Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2013-2014, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2013-2014 4419

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2013-2014

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2013-2014

Second Reading 4419 10:45 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden I rise to lend some comment on the government's budget and associated appropriation bills. I think it is generous to conclude that the bills show that Labor’s financial and budget management at best are in complete and utter chaos. The budget does nothing for Australian families to deal with the rising cost of living. It does nothing to improve services. It delivers more debt, it delivers more deficit, it has more broken promises, it has greater taxes and there is more uncertainty. This is now six years—this is the sixth budget I have spoken on—of chaos, debt and the associated spin that the Labor Party puts on it. Australians have had a gutful and they deserve a stable and a competent government, and this budget has failed. It delivers a gross debt that will breach the $300 billion ceiling within the forward estimates. This is its fifth record deficit in five years and there are two more deficits to come. Indeed, the nation’s largest deficits in history have all been on this Treasurer’s watch. There is no credible path to surplus. Even Labor’s much promised surplus in three years time is based on carbon price assumptions that are patently ridiculous—that the carbon price will be $25 a tonne in 2017-18, though it is linked to the European scheme, which is currently five bucks. So a 500 per cent increase is how this government is hoping to get back into surplus. The member for North Sydney was right: the member for Lilley, the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, will never deliver a surplus. Labor will never deliver a surplus. It has not delivered one since 1989, since the member for Longman, Wyatt Roy, was born. It will not deliver a surplus, and we are kidding ourselves to think it may. Tax cuts have been scrapped, family payments have been scrapped, there is $25 billion in higher taxes and there is $100 million of spending on government advertising. The hubris, considering the 2007 election commitment on government advertising, is something to truly behold. Last year the Treasurer forecast an underlying surplus of $1.5 billion, and what did he deliver? A deficit of $19.4 billion. Next financial year, 2013-14, a deficit of $18 billion is projected. Every single Labor budget is a massive deficit. It simply cannot be believed. Their surplus coming out to 2015-16 of $800 million is simply and utterly farcical. With gross debt heading towards a third of a trillion dollars and borrowings at almost $50 million a day, it is little wonder that Australians are sick and tired of the mismanagement of this government. The government would have us believe that the situation is parlous because revenues have collapsed by $17 billion. If that were the case—and it is not, but if it were—with a $19.4 billion deficit, you would still be in deficit. The issue is not that revenues have collapsed. The issue is that this government cannot stop spending. Revenue in 2013-14 is $80 billion more than it was in the last year of the coalition government—a fact beyond dispute. The problem is that the spending is $120 billion more. The last budget of the coalition government actually had a $20 billion surplus. This government is delivering almost a $20 billion deficit. The issue is not revenue—$80 billion more revenue. The issue is the government’s poor spending—poorly targeted spending, poorly outlined spending. The government cannot stop spending money that frankly it does not have. Spending as a percentage of GDP remains higher than in the last two years of the coalition government, as it has every year under Labor. It is not a revenue problem; it is a spending problem. The government is not proceeding with family tax benefit A, which it announced in the budget, worth $2.5 billion. Its promised tax cuts have been abolished, reminiscent of the tax cuts under Keating that were l-a-w law—I think we all remember that. The mining tax was supposed to share the benefits of the boom, yet the most poorly designed tax in the history of Christendom has raised literally nothing. Company tax cuts that were to commence in 2012-13 have been cancelled. The blow-out in our borders is legion—blow-out costs of at least $4.7 billion since the last budget, with costs now approaching $10 billion—because this government found a solution and created a problem. Over 40,000 illegal entrants—that is, people who have come without a visa—have arrived because this government has put the sugar on the table. And of course the cost of living, which is killing families, is carbon tax driven in many cases. It is a legacy that the nation is not proud of. It is a legacy that the nation is ashamed of. If we look in my area, defence, the story is no better. The budget committed $25.434 billion to defence next financial year, which is an increase in CPI of 2.25 per cent, up from $24.482 billion. You will forgive me if I do not share the enthusiasm of commentators who go, 'This is great for defence.' No, you have just kept it at CPI. What happened to the much-vaunted phrase that Labor would guarantee a three per cent real increase? Gone, all gone. That they would guarantee two per cent of GDP? All gone. There are modest, at best, increases to DMO's acquisition and sustainment budgets: $400 million to the acquisition budget, and the sustainment budget has gone from $5.095 billion in 2012-13 to $5.63 billion in 2013-14, an increase of $600 million. But, in terms of both acquisition and sustainment, the government has stated in the budget papers that funding will rise by $1 billion for acquisition and $1.7 billion for sustainment by 2016-17. Yet prior to this budget, prior to this small increase in line with CPI, this Labor government, as a statement of fact, has cut upwards of $25 billion from defence in the last five years. I expect that number may increase when Mark Thomson from ASPI brings down his much-anticipated, indeed relied upon, defence budget analysis document. By my calculations, the cuts that this Labor government has made defence endure will be at least $28 billion. It is staggering to think that our national security would be cut by that extreme level. This financial year we are in now has the lowest expenditure in defence in GDP terms since 1938, since prewar, at 1.56 per cent of GDP. It is a national and utter disgrace. DSTO's funding remains relatively flat, with funding next year reducing before going back up again—a major theme in Labor's budget, can I just say. Defence is now in a position where much of its force is hollowed out; where individual units and formations are receiving cuts of up to 30 per cent; where reserve forces do not have enough days to make the minimum mandatory amount of 20 days; and where, for cadets, the single most important youth development activity in the country, cadet instructor days are being cut by 30 per cent. It is a disgrace. The centrepiece of the government's budget, announced in the white paper which preceded the budget by a few weeks, was the acquisition of 12 Growler aircraft. It was hilarious to watch the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence release the defence white paper out at Fairbairn in the hangar. They spent over $150,000 flying in some C17 with some gear on board and some fighters so the setting looked grand—there is nothing like a PM behind a lectern with war-fighting equipment behind it. They cannot find the money to fund it, but they can find the money for a PR stunt—pathetic! The centrepiece was 12 electronic attack Growler aircraft, Super Hornets configured for electronic attack. The budget papers reveal that those aircraft will cost $2.9 billion over nine years. So you would expect the budget to show how that will be paid for—wrong. Do not listen to what this miserable government say; look at what they fund. If you are not talking dollars you are not talking strategy. There is $2.9 billion over nine years and there is an equity injection of $200 million in 2014-15. Where is the other $2.7 billion coming from? Absorbed costs—another way of saying cuts. Defence will have to cut by $2.7 billion to absorb this new capability. To put this point beyond any reasonable doubt, the budget papers themselves state: That is a direct quote from budget paper No. 2, page 288. Defence is being cut by $2.7 billion. That is what this Labor government does. Don't look at what they say; look at what they do—$2.7 billion in cuts, again. What is particularly vexing, what annoys me about this miserable bunch, is that before the 2007 and the 2010 elections they promised there would be free health care for ADF dependants: their spouses and kids, ostensibly wives and husbands, and children that get moved around the country in defence of our nation. Yet it was delayed and deferred last financial year. Nowhere is ADF health care discussed in the budget. Nowhere can I find it in the budget papers. But this morning we find an announcement on the ADF healthcare website saying that that trial has been delayed until December 2013. It is just appalling. You are never going to do it—never. You made a promise to ADF spouses and their kids that you would look after them in terms of free access to health care and you are never going to do it, and you did not even have the courage to come out and say it. You hid it on the Defence health care website. You did not have the courage in the budget. You did not have the courage in media releases. You hid it on the website. It is completely and utterly appalling. There is a better way. In four months time, the Australian people will have the opportunity to exercise their democratic vote for a better way, on a way that does not cut health care for ADF dependants and their spouses, a way that provides certainty in terms of our defence budget and our national security. In a little over 100 days time Australians will have their say on abolishing the carbon tax, on getting rid of a mining tax that does nothing except introduce sovereign risk into our country and on getting substantial relief from costs of living by getting rid of that miserable carbon tax. Australians will have their say in just over 100 days on having income tax cuts without a carbon tax. They will have the choice between a government that cuts, wastes, spends, cannot be trusted and is reckless and a coalition that is promising stability, no surprises, no nastiness and income tax cuts without a carbon tax. Those are fully funded commitments. The offset reductions were announced in the Leader of the Opposition's budget in reply speech. Australians will have the opportunity to have their say. The question will be: do you want a government that is taking you towards a third of a trillion dollars in gross debt or do you want an incoming coalition government that will increase productivity, that will get rid of a billion dollars of red tape and green tape every year, that will get the nation working again, that will increase productivity, and that will begin to get the budget back into surplus and to pay off the crippling debt that Labor has left it. That is the opportunity Australians will have in a little over 100 days. They will have the choice between a strong, prosperous economy and the present economy, where companies and small business are just hanging on. They will have a choice between a government that continues to recklessly spend versus one that will have a commission of audit to look at all the unnecessary expenditure; a government that is addicted to public servants compared to a coalition that will reduce the Public Service by 12,000 personnel through natural attrition. They will have the choice, in 100 days, between a government that is recklessly spending and indebting versus a coalition that is prudent, sensible and growing. Bring on the next 100 days. 11:00 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright I rise to speak on the appropriations bills. These appropriations bills are the formal bills which underpin the 2013-14 budget. They are standard supply bills which allow for the appropriation of amounts from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the services and programs of government and all of its agencies. These three bills, Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2013-2014, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2013-2014 and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2013-2014, will be considered together as a whole, part of a cognate debate. Everyone in this House comes to this place with the best of intentions—everyone does—and I do not believe that anyone in this House is intentionally dishonest. I truly put my hand on my heart and say I do not think that is the case. For me, I believe that the budget of this nation is the most important part of the electoral cycle annually. Outside an election, the budget is what gives a government credibility. It is what you hang your hat on. It is the report card on how you have managed the nation. Colleagues of mine will come to this debate and deliver an absolute bollocking to the government for the way that they have managed the budget. Many of them will say that there are components of this budget that we will keep. As a coalition, we will not oppose this supply measure. We committed early in the parliamentary cycle to not blocking supply. We are true to our word—in this world, sometimes all you have as a human being is what comes out of your mouth: your word and intent. So, for me this bill is about trust and about how the Australian people see this government and the way that they have been treated under this budget. This election will be about trust and, again, I do not believe that this government is dishonest. Is it incompetent? Yes. Is it inept? Yes, it is; it is lacking the basic underlying principles of sound, responsible fiscal management in every quarter. But is it dishonest? No, it is not. I really do not believe this government is dishonest; it is not. It just lacks the machinations of budgeting and the pivotal good that this part of the process can achieve. In saying that, there are parts of the budget which, due to the budget emergency, we will adopt. We need to live within our means in the future moving forward. Anyone can get up and say what they are going to do—but do not judge us by what we say; judge us by what we do. Look at the era of the Howard government. We inherited a $97 billion deficit and we paid that down. We left money in the bank. We paid that down by selling off an asset, a small asset that we had called Telstra. It raised $45 billion. In anticipation of trying to write down the approximately $200 billion of debt, we do not have any big assets on the balance sheet at the moment to draw down. So the task in front of us is somewhat more difficult moving forward. It concerns me when the government says the debt is not high compared to other countries. That is a real concern for me because, when we left government, there was money in the bank. Now, over the forward estimates, we are looking at an interest component of around $37 billion. In economic terms, there is an opportunity cost of having that interest. That means: what would we spend that $37 billion on that, historically, we did not have as a cost item in our budget? What services are we going to go without? What is our nation going to have to sacrifice in order to balance our books? We should not have been surprised that this was coming when we accepted our $900 cheques as part of the stimulus program. It comes back to me that we always get nothing for nothing. There is always a sting in the tail and, giddy-up, this is the sting in the tail. It is the debt-laden government policies which will haunt not only this generation but the next generation and possibly, if we do not turn the ship around quickly enough, the generation after that because of the amount of money that has to be repaid. The government would have you believe that revenue was down. Forecasted assumptions out into the forward estimates were based on terms of trade at record highs. The government would have you believe that the revenue was down. The reality is that their forecasts were incorrect. Revenue was actually up. Evidence for that is in the budget papers for 2013-14, in the appendix. Our receipts were $350 billion, up from $329 billion last year, and our expenditure this year was $367 billion. You just need to look for yourself when you hear that the revenue was down. I looked no further than the revenue papers, the very papers that this government would have you believe are incorrect. The other thing that it is always somebody else's fault—it is Treasury's fault; it is somebody else's fault. What has happened in real terms today is that Labor's spending has increased. That is the problem with this government: they are spending more than they are earning. They are struggling to live within their means. The coalition commit that we will live within our means. As a nation, we have transitioned from structural surpluses—structural surpluses are when you get them in a row: surplus, surplus, surplus, surplus—to structural deficits: deficit, deficit, deficit, deficit. I will help you to get your head around how big these deficits have been. Since Federation we have seen a number of crises. From 1929 to 1932 we had the Great Depression, a scar on the Australian landscape. The last six deficits that we have incurred have been greater than the deficits in that period of time. The Labor Party will try to blame the GFC. They will also blame the Australian dollar: 'It's too high.' Do you know that there were periods in Australian history when the dollar has been at $1.20 against the US dollar, much higher than the exchange rate at the moment? And yet we have businesses today going broke a great rate of knots. This government has written up the biggest deficits—the biggest deficit, the second-biggest deficit, the third-biggest deficit, the fourth-biggest deficit and the fifth-biggest deficit, totalling $191 billion. And guess what. It is not their fault. This government is not dishonest. It is not their fault, they claim. They say it is a revenue thing. I remember when the Treasurer came out and said, 'There's been a $7.5 billion write-down in our revenue.' As he is the Treasurer, you believe him. He is not dishonest. Then a couple of days later the Prime Minister trotted out and said: 'Wayne's wrong. It's not $7.5 billion. It's actually a $12 billion write-down. Because of the economic fallout from the global financial crisis, five years ago'—this is three days after the previous announcement—'our numbers have changed. It's now $12 billion.' They are not dishonest. Then, a week after that, Senator Wong, the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, trotted out and said: 'No, no. The Prime Minister was wrong. The Treasurer was wrong. Treasury was wrong. The write-down now is $17 billion.' It is everybody else's fault. This government is not dishonest. Was this an isolated incident? If it were, it could be forgiven as just a really ugly part of the history of the government's ability to run the books. I thought, 'If it were just the first time that these blokes have made a mistake, you could let them get away with it.' So I went and had a look at last year's forecasts. The easiest way to look at the integrity of the four-year forecasts from a government is to go back four years and see what was budgeted for four years ago and measure it against the real figures today. That was not an isolated incident. Last year's deficit, which was one of those record high ones I spoke about, was $44 billion. Two years prior to that the government forecast that there was going to be an $8-billion deficit in the budget papers. Six months later the revised MYEFO figures forecast it was going to be a deficit of $22 billion. They said, 'We should be able to pull it up there 12 months out.' The MYEFO, six months from the budget, forecast a $6-billion and they delivered a $44 billion deficit. Am I the only one that is starting to see a track record emerging from the incompetence of this government when it comes to dealing with the nation's finances? It would appear at face value if you look at a graph how far these guys are out. They are continually out by about $20 billion. Just think what that money could buy. As a parliament, I think we too easily go from using the word 'million' to using the word 'billion'. It just rolls off the tongue. I really challenge you to stop and think what $20 billion can buy. I hope on the trajectory that we are on at the moment that we do not make the same mistake as the government in adopting the word 'trillion'. We left money in the bank. Our gross debt or credit card limit in 2008 was $75 billion. That was our capped rate. The government said, 'That will get us through the Global Financial Crisis. We will not need any more.' The very next year they said, 'Oh jingos, we have totally underestimated the incompetence of our own selves. We had better bump this out to $200 billion.' A couple of years later in 2012 they were back begging to have this thing bumped out to $250 billion. Today we live under a cap of $300 billion with every chance in the forward estimates period that we will get closer to $400 billion than $300 billion. It scares me as a father, it scares me as a businessman and it scares me as a politician that we are pushing the debt and the hard decisions of today onto the next generation because it is a lot easier to do that than to muscle up and make the hard decisions now. I remind you of the integrity of those on the other side when it comes to managing the fiscal budget. Who will ever forget 'come hell or high water we will deliver a surplus'—the very words uttered by our Treasurer. Just in case that was an isolated incident, the Prime Minister then came out and said, 'If you cannot manage the budget you cannot manage the country.' There have been other comments such as: This was a government boasting about a surplus when they had no idea that they had not even reached a surplus yet. They stuck on the $44-billion deficit. The Treasurer also said: It sickens me. I do not believe this government. It is dishonest. It is inept and lacks the credibility to manage this country's finances. A government should inspire a nation. It is our job to inspire this country to be better tomorrow than what it was today. We need to instil our families with hope. We need to drive a sense of confidence into our business sector so that it will invest and employ people and stimulate the economy. We need to encourage and foster investment into our nation from overseas and internally. To do that you need a robust, sound government that takes away the issues of sovereign risk that hover over the investment sector at the moment. We need to invest in sound infrastructure that gives our nation a return. We need to invest in ports and roads. History will be the judge of the investment decisions of this government. We need to inspire our nation with reference to our agricultural sector so that in future we can produce food and fibre not only to feed ourselves but to feed the globe. We need to make sure that we have a buoyant tourism sector and that we can share the benefits of the resources sector. In closing, this has probably been the single most disappointing part of the budget for this government. They sold the perception that the resources sector was about sharing the boom. It does nothing other than share the debt and discomfort and deceit of this government. 11:15 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth For the past three years the government and the Treasurer pinned their credibility on the claim that they would return the budget to surplus this year. We learnt just before Christmas that they would not do so for the current 2012-13 financial year; instead of the long promised return to the black, Labor would deliver its fifth successive deficit. And then on budget night May 2014 we learnt that not only will this year's budget be in deficit by $19.4 billion, the fifth largest dollar deficit in our history, but barely less emphatic deficits of $18 billion and $10.9 billion are now forecast for the next two years. Altogether over those three fiscal years, where an aggregate surplus of $9 billion had been forecast a year ago, we now see this Labor government predicting it will run deficits of $48 billion. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer claim the reason for this is a shortfall of revenue. Indeed, revenues are now not predicted to grow as quickly over the current year and the period immediately ahead as had been projected and as in previous periods immediately after a recession or slowdown. The reasons for that slow growth in revenue had been widely canvassed. Capital gains tax receipts were at a historically high level prior to the global financial crisis and they are unlikely to recover in the foreseeable future to those levels, particularly given some of the paper losses racked up during the GFC. The high level of corporate tax collections we saw prior to the GFC, which relied heavily on big profits in the resources sector, will now not be matched for some time because of commodity prices which are now significantly below their 2011 peak and the very large depreciation in investment related write-offs against taxable income that were arising in the resources sector due to the $320 billion or so of investment in new projects and new capacity between 2010 and 2014. Of course, the high Australian dollar, off its peak, has nonetheless been a factor in reducing tax collections. Exporters revenues, measured in Australian dollars, are reduced even if the contract currency revenues, typically in US dollars, have remained the same. And of course the Australian dollar cost of exporters, whether of minerals, manufactures or services like tourism and education, cannot be passed on. And finally there is the impact of higher household savings, which since 2006 has been around 10 per cent of GDP, up from negligible levels of net savings in the early 2000s. That is a very welcome development in that it implicitly recognises the level of consumer spending of a decade ago was unsustainable and underpinned by a rising level of net debt. But it has also reduced indirect tax collections and, most of all, the collection of GST. Despite all of this however, revenues in 2013-14 are forecast to be $103 billion higher than in Peter Costello's final 2007-08 budget. That is an increase of 38 per cent in nominal terms, or about 12 per cent in real terms, and that despite the impact of the GFC. The real problem is that spending has surged by $138 billion since Labor came to power in November 2007. That is an increase of 55 per cent in nominal terms, or 25 per cent in real terms. Profligate spending and a habitual disregard for the responsible use of taxpayers' funds has become ingrained. The government says that it has a revenue problem. Saying that the government has a revenue problem is as stupid as saying a person who is a spendthrift and regularly maxes out his credit card has a revenue problem. The government, like any spendthrift, has a spending problem; in other words, it cannot live within its means. Little wonder that almost a quarter of a century has elapsed since Labor's last surplus was delivered by Paul Keating in 1989-90 before the birth of the youngest member of the parliament. The parlous situation that the budget is left in and that we will inherit if the people of Australia give the coalition the reins of government in September is far from being a proud legacy for the Rudd and Gillard governments. It is a shameful legacy for the current Treasurer who will have presided over the six years with the most favourable terms of trade in our modern history and delivered six successive deficits in those years including the five largest dollar shortfalls since Federation. Yet in recent weeks—and particularly since Treasury and the Parliamentary Budget Office last week published their respective opinions regarding the path over recent years of the structural budget balance—there has been a lot of finger-pointing at the Howard government as having contributed to the current state of the budget. By the structural fiscal balance, we mean the position of the budget once the effects of the economic cycle—such as an increase in unemployment benefits when the cycle slows or the offsetting decrease when growth in output and employment are rapid—are abstracted away and other one-time influences—such as the pre-GFC bubble in capital gains tax collections or the temporary fiscal stimulus measures of 2009—are also removed. Let me state unambiguously that, had the Howard government enjoyed the wisdom of perfect hindsight, granted I might say to none of us, and had known then what we know now about the future course of commodity prices and their impact on revenues, no doubt it would have saved even more in its last four years of office than the already prodigious public sector saving it did undertake between 1996 and 2007. Of course, in that world of perfect hindsight, where you could in 2007 cast yourself forward five years and see what the future held, no doubt the many voices calling for the Howard government to save even less would no doubt have been similarly converted to thrift. The saving of the Howard years, let us recall, included paying off the entire public debt inherited from its predecessor and the establishment of the Future Fund which now has accumulated assets of $85 billion to finance the hitherto unfunded public service pension liabilities. But to somehow try and claim a moral equivalence between the Howard government and the current Labor government in responsibility for the current state of the budget is quite absurd. It is nothing more and nothing less than a framing of the issue entirely directed at getting the current government off the hook—providing it with an excuse for its own incompetence, ill discipline and mendacity about fiscal matters. What the Parliamentary Budget Office's publication on the structural position of the budget actually shows is that in those years for which the budget balance has been calculated—which is the period since the turn of this century, the midpoint of the Parliamentary Budget Office's estimated range—was in structural surplus in every year of the Howard government except its last and even in the last year it was broadly in balance. In contrast the structural budget balance under Labor, according to the PBO's work, has been in deficit every year and is projected to remain in deficit until 2017. If that is what actually plays out, there will have been a decade of huge to modest structural deficits, all of them through a period when our terms of trade have been higher and will be higher than they have ever been before in modern times. By the end of all of this, $45 billion in cash at the bank left behind by the coalition in November 2007 will have been turned into net public debt of $191 billion. In reality the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have engineered a permanent increase in the size of government by declining to find offsetting savings for their new programs—some of them no doubt worthy, but all of them costly. Mr Swan and Ms Gillard indulged in this profligacy because they assumed ongoing revenue gains from the resources boom and the record terms of trade of the past few years. But even that rash assumption alone does not excuse their waste and profligacy. We have seen what was plainly going to be a highly-cyclical source of income, namely the mineral resource rent tax, used to justify spreading the benefits of the boom—by which this shambolic government meant locking in a level of structural spending much higher than even the most optimistic projections for the cyclical revenues out of which that spending was supposedly to be funded. Even that assumed Labor was capable of designing and implementing a mining tax that actually raised some revenue. In truth, we now know that the only Labor politician who can claim to have spread the benefits of the mining boom is not Wayne Swan but rather Eddie Obeid—although to be fair he did not spread to the benefits very far, just to his immediate family and friends. Recently we have also heard the canard that, because the Howard government cut income taxes and promised further tax cuts if it were re-elected in 2007, this somehow is the reason for the precarious current state of the budget. What nonsense! The income tax cuts that occurred after 2007 were a choice that the current Treasurer, and the government of which he is a part, made. They claimed all credit for them. They did not say, 'Peter Costello made me do it. John Howard had my arms twisted up behind my back.' It was their choice. If they disagreed with those tax cuts—if they thought they were unaffordable—they should have said so in 2007. If the facts changed, such that they no longer were affordable, why did they continue with them? Or, having implemented them, why did they not repeal them? Every government is responsible for the outcome of its budget. Unlike households that cannot increase their revenue of their own volition, the government can always raise more revenue and reduce spending, so the responsibility must lie with the government of the day; and this government has been presented with terms of trade and economic circumstances that should have seen solid growth in surplus—a rapid return to surplus, given these massive boosts we have had from the terms of trade. But no: they are anxious to blame everyone but themselves. Not only were John Howard and Peter Costello meant to be paragons of fiscal responsibility while they were in power—not only were they apparently meant to have the wisdom of 20/20 vision in both hindsight and foresight while in power, they were apparently supposed to continue to be the adults in the room after they had been voted out of office—by influencing the Labor cabinet in some ethereal manner, no doubt. This is a total abrogation of responsibility—an admission of weakness and lack of judgement. Governments can borrow more easily than most families or businesses, as we have seen, but they ultimately need to live within their means. That is their responsibility. This government has not lived within its means despite the extraordinary advantages and immensely strong fiscal position it has inherited. We are in a situation where we are in a structural deficit and are likely to remain in a structural deficit for many years to come. The position that was inherited from the Howard years was one of a strong budgetary position and a structural surplus—or, as I noted earlier, in the last year, one that was broadly in balance. No matter how the members of this government and some members of the commentariat attempt to frame the issue otherwise, it will be this lack of fiscal responsibility—this sense that the Labor government does not understand the economy it has the charge of managing—that will in large part dictate how the nation votes on 14 September. The big issue in this election is not going to be a particular policy—this policy or that policy; overwhelmingly, it is going to be the question of competence. The fact is that the Treasurer has been unable to deliver a surplus, despite one promise after another. He has promised a surplus on hundreds of occasions but he has been unable to deliver one. All that he can offer us is deficits year after year into the future. This underlines the ineptitude, the lack of managerial capacity and the lack of competence of this Labor government. 11:30 Mrs MOYLAN 4V5 Pearce I think some of the most significant words spoken during the debate about the government's 2013-14 budget came from the Leader of the Opposition when he said in his reply; I wholeheartedly concur with that statement. The electorate of Pearce, for example, is a unique microcosm of the diversity of the state of Western Australia. The people are hardworking, enterprising and innovative. The electorate supports wealth-creating enterprises of broadacre wheat and sheep farming, mining, intensive agriculture, fishing, retailing, education, manufacturing and tourism. I have long encountered the enthusiasm that businesspeople have in the region and, in fact, it was that enthusiasm and those can-do altitudes which were the impetus for my move into politics in 1993. Once elected, I had the task of writing the coalition's small business policy as shadow minister. It became one of the key election platforms of the successful 1996 election for the coalition. The messages coming from the business community then were clear, and they are really clear now. That message was: 'Get off your backs, reduce red tape and manage the economy so we do not have to endure the dramatic highs and lows which interfere with our capacity to forward plan for our businesses.' The Howard government addressed these concerns and freed up business from the shackles of wild swings in the economy, the high interest rates, which were prevalent prior to our taking government, and the credit squeezes and the burgeoning red tape, which had also been features. In fact, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out in his budget speech, And further he said: It was a different era, for sure, but it was nonetheless challenging as the Asian financial crisis threatened a global financial meltdown in 1997. The messages coming from business today, as I said, are not unlike those in 1993. The current administration's profligate spending, increased debt and added burdens of red tape are still causing concern and, indeed, reducing the viability and the profitability of many business enterprises in this country. While I am not one to slavishly follow a doctrine of laissez faire or a totally free market economy, I recognise the wisdom of minimising the interference of government in the operation of enterprise. This principle is essential to the building of a strong economy. A strong economy is, after all, the foundation of 'a smarter nation and a fairer society'—words the Treasurer used in the title of his budget speech. As we witnessed, it is impossible to deliver these laudable elements in a smarter, fairer nation if the nation's financial strength is compromised. In response to the government's claims that they will deliver a surplus, the Leader of the Opposition makes the observation: As he pointed out, 'This year's revenue shortfalls went from $7 billion to $12 billion to $17 billion in just two weeks.' So how can ministers possibly predict a decade ahead? My colleague made some mention of this in his speech just now. There is no doubt that we live in uncertain times, with major changes afoot. The face of retailing, for example, is changing dramatically with the advent of tax-free online trade. Global trade agreements and tariff removal have challenged growers and manufacturers with cheap imports coming from countries that do not pay decent wages, do not have occupational health and safety regulations, do not contribute to employee's superannuation, do not have rigorous rules about what fertilizers and chemicals are put on plants and animals, and do not have strict standards on food handling as those imposed on our Australian producers and manufacturers. One wonders about the partial policies of propping up a car manufacturing industry in this country to the tune of more than $1 billion per annum for the last 10 years, yet when our farmers and our growers seek assistance they are told they must find ways to become more productive and competitive or get out of the business. And by the way, we have cut the government's contribution to research and development in these important areas of agriculture and horticulture, and made it a user-pays system of levies. The Leader of the Opposition's commitments to take a more prudent approach to economic management and to cut red tape does resonate for those engaged in the industries and enterprises that make Australia wealthy in more than just an economic sense. As the shadow Treasurer the member for North Sydney said during his recent press club speech following the budget, 'All the coalition's main policies are designed to make it easier for you, the people, to get ahead, and for businesses to be more productive.' It was refreshing to hear the member for North Sydney's understanding of the difficulties of small businesses when he outlined the deep impact on his cousin, who recently faced a decision to close the doors of his business after 21 years. As the member for North Sydney related: Dare I add, it has probably paid for some savings for their retirement, as well. My own personal experience is that small business not only adds immeasurably to the strength of our economy but also to the social cohesion within our communities. So I personally look forward to the day when government does all it can to remove the uncertainties for businesses, manages to tame the economic volatility and unpredictability, and develops education and training that facilitates the leap to a brave new world of global online commerce. In 1999 my former colleague the Hon. Tim Fischer commissioned a series of projects called Putting Australia on the New Silk Road, Driving Forces on the New Silk Road, and Creating a Clearway on the New Silk Road. They were three very significant reports. His work was prescient as he recognised the challenges ahead for Australian businesses in the early moves towards electronic commerce through the internet. Tim Fischer believed that it presented great opportunities for Australia, including for rural and regional Australia to increase exports and generate well-paying jobs. The series makes for thought-provoking reading. His warning, which has largely gone unheeded, was timely. As he said: I wholeheartedly agree. Our future relies on people having the skills for the development of the technology, its servicing and its efficient and intelligent use. Yet there is little sign that the current administration has any plans for upskilling the workforce through technical trades and education to meet current needs and future demands. Personally, I would like to see a robust policy to ensure that training and education meet the present and future requirements of our business enterprises so that they have the best chance of succeeding in an increasingly competitive world. Whatever our plans for the future, it will be a well-managed, low-deficit economy that will underpin our national interest. The coalition has an outstanding record in this regard. The shadow Treasurer outlined some of those issues that will lead us into a stronger and better economy when he said that, although Labor has left the cupboard bare, which will make it difficult, there is a great need for structural reform in our economic management. That is one of the key elements of the coalition's plan for the future of this country. I conclude by expressing my deep disappointment in the reduction of overseas aid in the budget. Australia does not live in a vacuum. We are a wealthy country in a region that still suffers some terrible poverty. I was pleased to hear Bill Gates yesterday in answering a question here in the Great Hall say that looking after some of the poverty and problems within our own country does not preclude us from looking after people living in deep poverty within the region. At the time of this announcement by the government I actually had an email from one of my constituents, Phil Lindsay, who is a development effectiveness officer at TEAR Australia. TEAR does some amazing work globally to reduce poverty. Phil Lindsay is currently working in the South Sudan. His email conveys just what an impact a small donation from Australia can have on the lives of village women in the South Sudan. I will read it in his words: 'Nyarike has four children. Recently TEAR, with some AusAID funding, supported the construction of a borehole near her village. Previous to the borehole being drilled she used to get up at 2 am each morning, prepare the day's food and then walk five hours to collect water for the day. She then walked five hours back home again to complete her day's tasks. She used to collect water from a river, which meant that she had problems with Guinea worm and dirty water, so diarrhoea and other diseases were prevalent. Now she has water a few minutes from her home she is able to spend more time cultivating land to improve her family's nutrition. There is much less disease and she is much more healthy herself being able to rest properly at night.' I have witnessed many aid projects funded by AusAID in places such as Cambodia, the western provinces of China and Tibet and have seen firsthand the profound impact that these relatively small amounts of money have had on the lives of people living in abject poverty. I have seen some of the positive work done by AusAID in these parts of the world, including Pacific countries. I welcome the coalition's commitment to lift the aid budget to 0.5 per cent of gross national income by 2016-17 once the performance benchmarks that were promised as part of the review into foreign aid programs are established. It is to be hoped that this will be an early achievement should the coalition win the next election. 11:44 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland As tempting as it is today to reflect on the budget crisis, I am not going to talk much about the mess that the Labor Party is leaving our nation in. I am going to focus on the strengths and opportunities which are waiting to be developed by any government which shares my passion for the future of regional Australia. The importance of regional Australia to the future of our nation has never been properly grasped by either the Rudd or the Gillard governments. I have argued many times that to truly understand the hopes and aspirations of regional people, you need to live amongst us. It has been an insult to us that not a single cabinet minister actually lives in regional Australia. This has led to some appalling misjudgements and decisions which have devastated regional communities, like the ill-conceived ban on live exports. It has also led to the ridiculous situation where the minister for regional Australia once claimed that spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a Perth airport link road was a regional project because regional people drive on the road! But all of that is in the past. What we need to do today and in the next few months is look to the future and ensure that regional Australia resumes its rightful place, front and centre of every decision that is made by the federal government, whether it be a coalition government or a Labor government. To start that process we need to have strong voices in the cabinet of the federal government—where the big decisions are made. We need regional voices. We need authentic, regional people prepared to fight for a fair go for regional Australians—for our farmers, for our small-business people, for our children, for our teenagers, for our families, for the elderly and for the Indigenous community. That is one thing the coalition, if elected in the September election, can offer regional Australia on day one,: we can offer regional Australia talented, experienced, senior ministers in cabinet who share our passion for the future of communities outside the capital cities. I am a hopeless optimist and I recognise that we have a budgetary mess to clean up—but I believe the coalition is up to the job. And I sincerely believe that regional Australia's best days lie ahead of us. We already make an enormous contribution to the wealth and prosperity of our nation. But with a better government—helping and not hindering our performance—we can do even more. We need a concerted effort by the federal government to reinvest in the future of regional Australia. We need the federal government to work in partnership with all other levels of government, to work in partnership with our business and community leaders, and to reinvest in the future of regional Australia. We all have some ideas about how this might happen, but we need more than a just a collection of ideas, plans and concepts that individual MPs or others from across the nation might bring to the negotiating table. I believe that regional Australia needs its own white paper. For the sake of clarity, Deputy Speaker, I must stress that this is not a formal policy position of the coalition. It is an issue that I have raised before within the coalition, within the national party room and within the joint party room, and it is something I have talked about before in the media. I believe we need to have a regional white paper to do something that can make a real difference to the lives of regional Australians. The development of a regional Australia white paper would allow for a more holistic approach to government policies on regional development and would provide us with a blueprint for the future. It could be used to highlight the current barriers to regional growth, and to highlight the opportunities for regional Australia to play an even bigger role in our nation's future prosperity. Such a white paper would certainly assist regional MPs, whether they be Labor, Liberal-Nationals or Independents, in arguing the case for government investment in our communities. It would be an objective assessment of our strengths and our weaknesses, and of the opportunities and the threats facing regional Australia. It would provide us with a comprehensive road map for the future. Remarkably, in Australia's history there has not been a white paper specifically on the regions. We have never seen a regional white paper. It is time we developed our own blueprint for the future. We have had the white paper on the Asian century—which depends very heavily on regional Australia making an enormous contribution, but it never actually makes it clear how we are going to overcome some of the challenges facing regional Australia in order to fully integrate it with the Asian century white paper. We need to ask questions—and answer the questions—about how we are going to meet the skills and infrastructure challenges of the future. What can the federal government do to help our regional towns achieve their full potential? Are we ever going to get serious about relieving congestion in our major cities by driving growth in our regional communities through strategic infrastructure upgrades and delivering better services in our towns and our provincial centres? Will we ever drop the one-size-fits-all approach and give regional towns the flexibility to deliver service models that actually work in their own communities? It is about time we trusted the people on the ground in our regional centres to make the right decisions for their community. They are the local experts. We need to invest in the leadership capacity of regional Australia to help young people achieve their full potential and make a long-term contribution to the regional communities where they were born, where they have grown up and where they want to have their future—not be forced to travel away and maybe never return, even though they would prefer to live and work outside our major capitals. There is a great news story to be told about regional Australia. Too often the stories we see in the media are about floods, about droughts, about fires, about population loss and other grim news. We need to get better at selling the story about the extraordinary opportunities which exist throughout regional Australia, the lifestyle advantages we can offer and the career paths which exist for many young people—way beyond the experience they could ever hope to achieve in a metropolitan environment. In an era when we have a constant debate about the work-life balance, where we have time-poor parents in the big cities trying to juggle jobs, trying to do the double drop-off to child care, trying to excel in their chosen career and also be the wonder parents of the year, battling to get to work on congested roads and visiting parks where they dare not walk alone after dark, we have a very positive story to tell about regional Australia. That story is about the quality of life, and it is about the work-life balance that we can offer. It is also about the natural beauty of our extraordinary environment. It is about the access, in many cases, to world-class health services and education services in larger regional centres, which I think would surprise many people in metropolitan environments. We can boast of lower levels of crime. We can also boast of the housing affordability benefits of our regional communities. One of the great things about regional life is of course reconnecting with the community, having a sense that you belong to something bigger than yourself and you are an important part of life through volunteering and other activities. It is about selling the story about the professional opportunities which are often dismissed by city dwellers who have not realised what is available to them in a non-metropolitan environment. There is such an incredible amount of diversity, responsibility and opportunities for rapid promotion in our regional centres that it is sometimes staggering for me to believe that we have a skill shortage in many professions in regional Australia. As regional Australians, we need to get better at selling that message. We need to explain to industry and commerce throughout Australia that we are open for business and we are welcoming to newcomers from all walks of life. We have a job ahead of us in that regard. But governments also need to lift their game in that respect, and I think it starts with a regional Australia white paper. We need to build the case for further strategic investment in critical infrastructure and the key services to drive growth in our regional areas. This week I met with the Regional Cities Victoria organisation, and we talked about a report which is titled Implications of population growth on infrastructure and resources in regional cities. It makes pretty much the same case that I am making here today. Investing in infrastructure in regional areas to help support population growth and take the pressure off our metropolitan areas makes sense at every level: at a social level, economically and environmentally. I know I do not need to tell you, Deputy Speaker Cheeseman. You live in a regional provincial centre, and you understand the benefits that come from the significant growth we have already experienced in regions like Geelong. That trend is expected to continue into the future. But, with the right level of investment from governments at all levels and with the right policy framework, I believe that regional areas can play an even bigger role in our nation's future. We need the bold nation-building initiatives like the Melbourne and Brisbane inland rail. It has been talked about for decades, but we are still waiting for the productivity and the safety improvements it can deliver to our nation. Our regional road network is falling apart, and the local councils throughout Australia are struggling to keep up with the basic maintenance costs, let alone having the capacity to invest in new infrastructure. The NBN bypasses many rural areas, while basic community services in regional Australia vary significantly in quality from state to state and can be a limitation when it comes to attracting skilled professionals. We still have some of the really simple things like mobile phone black spots, and we do not have a policy from the current government to help improve that situation. I believe that a regional Australia white paper could turbocharge the COAG process. It would provide greater focus and would build on the existing 684-word communique which stands as the collaborative approach at the moment amongst the states and the Commonwealth. We need to take a whole-of-government approach and help provide the business case for that strategic investment I talked about and the public spending on new facilities and services while also examining the opportunities for leveraging off private sector investment. When I talk about infrastructure investment, of course I am not just talking about roads, bridges, ports and rail—the really heavy infrastructure that we know is required to drive economic growth. There needs to be a greater appreciation in this place about the soft infrastructure: the swimming pools, the walking trails, the cycle paths, the boat ramps and other recreational facilities that contribute significantly to the quality of life and form part of that complete package of life in rural and regional Australia and also part of the attraction for our tourism sector. Governments are already pouring an enormous amount of public money into facilities in our capital cities—the stadiums, the art galleries, the major events—but can we honestly say that a proportionate amount of public spending is also being delivered to our regional communities? At the moment, many of our major capital cities are hopelessly congested. I would argue that adding a few more lanes on freeways will not solve the problem, while many of our regional centres could actually double in size with little if any impact on the quality of life for many of the residents. Today we are experiencing the productivity losses of people sitting in traffic. We have well-paid employees in traffic jams when they could be contributing to our economy or, perhaps more importantly, relaxing with their own families. I think it is a major concern, and I believe regional Australia is part of the solution. We must stop looking at regional Australia as if it is a problem and start realising that regional Australia is part of the solution. If our nation is going to prosper and achieve its full potential in the 21st century, there needs to be renewed focus on regional Australia. Various governments have toyed with the idea of decentralisation and I note again that Geelong has experienced the benefit of the TAC relocation from Melbourne. We need to get serious about relocating public service organisations which have no need to be anchored to these city locations. A regional Australia white paper could help make that case as well. It could help us out with our thinking in this area. It may well recommend which departments, or which discrete functions within a department, should be moved out. As I said, the TAC has been moved to Geelong; ASIC has been established in Traralgon and it has worked. It has worked very well, and it would be interesting to do a cost-benefit analysis of that as part of a regional Australia white paper to assess what other departments may well benefit from a move to a regional location. I think that a regional Australia white paper could also look at incentives for private enterprise to expand into regional areas. I acknowledge, and I think it is very well accepted within regional development circles, that most of our growth in regional communities will come from existing businesses investing more into their operations— perhaps in partnership, leveraging with government investment; but there may be opportunities to assist other firms to relocate as our cities become too congested and their productivity is jeopardised in the metropolitan environment. A regional Australia white paper could also help to build the case for decent policies to help regional students achieve their full potential by improving the system of student income support. I note the presence of the member for Grey who has been a tireless advocate on behalf of regional students in his electorate, in ensuring we have a decent system of youth allowance in our nation. We are going to need champions like the member for Grey who is prepared to continue to advocate on behalf of the students in his electorate. I know he has spoken before, and I have continued to speak, about the need for a tertiary access allowance which I believe will provide regional students with a genuine opportunity to achieve their full potential by relieving some of the cost burden which exists for country students travelling away to attend university. I am going to continue to advocate for a tertiary access allowance in the lead-up to this year's election and certainly after the election, regardless of which party wins government. I believe we need to fight for a better deal for regional students and their families. Most importantly, when we send our kids away for university or further vocational training, we need to have a better system of bringing them back. We need to make sure that after they have graduated—once they have those skills or have travelled the world, perhaps—they want to come back and help bring those skills back to our regional centres in the future. The time is right for change in regional Australia. I acknowledge that regional Australia does face some enormous challenges but we are also blessed with enormous opportunities. We have resources which are the envy of the world, but I would still argue that the greatest asset we have of all is our people. In my maiden speech I talked about the remarkable community spirit, resilience and determination of the people of Gippsland. Over the past five years I have had the opportunity to travel extensively throughout other parts of regional Australia and nothing I have seen in that five years has changed my mind. The resilience and determination I talked about then still exists and is a common bond that seems to link all of our regional communities. This is not something that is unique to Gippsland—it is unique to our regional communities across Australia. We should be very proud, as regional Australians, that throughout our nation's relatively short history we have contributed such an enormous amount to the economic, cultural and social life of the nation. Many of us in regional Australia are true environmentalists. We are the great environmentalists, the custodians of our land and water reserves. It is regional Australians who join Landcare. It is regional Australians who roll up their sleeves and do the practical environmental work while the inner-city greenies lecture us, pontificate and pretend to care about the environment. It is our people in regional Australia who are the true environmentalists of this nation, not the inner-city Greens. Regional Australia desperately needs a federal government that will work with us. We need a government that recognises the value of rural and regional communities and is prepared to invest in the future of those communities. We need a government that will trust us. It is an important point: we need a government that will trust us to develop local solutions to local problems rather than tie us down with more red tape and the bureaucratic madness that stifles development and destroys innovation. We are on the cusp of a great century in regional Australia. All we need is a federal government that will give us a fair go. 11:59 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt We have heard a lot over the last couple of weeks about the budget—and there is certainly no hiding the fact that Labor's financial and budgetary management is in total chaos. We have heard all the figures: total gross debt to breach the $300 billion ceiling, record net debt of $192 billion and more than $25 billion in higher taxes over the next four years. But, as distressing as these figures are, when considering our country's future, today I want to focus on what they will mean to the people of Leichhardt—what they will mean to our frontline services and what they will mean to growth of jobs in Cairns, Cape York and of course in the Torres Strait. My first area of concern—and I have a number of them to share with you today—is the impact of the budget on education, specifically tertiary education. James Cook University is a world-class facility with campuses split between Townsville and Cairns. The vice-chancellor, Sandra Harding, recently contacted me to outlay exactly how this government's $3.8 billion in cuts will affect universities and student support. Local students already pay more for their education than those in many other countries—more than 80 per cent of full-time undergraduates have to find a job; around 17 per cent said they regularly went without food and other necessities because they could not afford them. These cuts mean greater hardships for students, particularly those from low-SES backgrounds and regional areas such as Leichhardt, at a time when student finances are already under severe pressure. In addition, quality is at the very core of Australia's position as a provider of higher education. To compromise quality is to compromise our third-largest export industry at a time when we should be looking at how Australia can cement its position as an educator for the Asia century. This is particularly relevant to Cairns. We are perfectly positioned geographically for a strong relationship with China and, with the start of direct China-Cairns flights last year, we are now firmly on their cultural and tourism radar. Therefore, tertiary education is not an area that can be compromised. My second concern relates to the controls of our borders. When the coalition left government in 2007— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 12:02 to 12:16 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 I will continue my contribution on my second concerns, about the control of our borders. When the coalition left government in 2007 we had fixed this problem: there were fewer than half a dozen boats over five years. Under Labor, the number of illegal arrivals by boat has increased to more than 2,000 per month. As of 10 May, more than 23,000 people were either in the detention network or on bridging visas in the community. Not only can Labor not control our borders; they also cannot control the detention centres where they are putting these people. The centres are bursting at the seams because of this failed policy. You may have heard over the weekend of an escape of seven detainees from the Scherger Immigration Detention Centre, near Weipa on Cape York, in my electorate. These seven detainees, aided and abetted by five other individuals, were able to escape over the fence of the high-security Scherger detention centre. One made his way to Weipa township, where he was arrested. Six were actually able to board a commercial flight from Weipa to Cairns, where they were arrested after they had booked into the local backpackers. It sounds like a movie plot, but in reality it is extremely serious and illustrates the absolute failure of the Gillard government's immigration policy. On the subject of border security, defence is of course closely tied to it. In the recent defence white paper, Scherger Air Force Base—the site of that detention centre—was identified as being in a prime position to support Joint Strike Fighter operations. It is of little surprise that it was recently revealed that the Department of Defence had vehemently opposed the use of Scherger as a prison farm, if you like. The white paper also revealed plans to replace the Armidale patrol boats and the Navy's two large replenishment ships, which were touted as projects to save Australia's shipbuilding industry, and identified opportunities for closer relations with our Asian and Pacific neighbours. As with the educational opportunities for foreign students, Cairns is perfectly positioned to fulfil these requirements. We have in HMAS Cairns a well-equipped base with potential for expansion. Its commanding officer and the Chamber of Commerce and Advance Cairns are keen to see these opportunities embraced. Unfortunately, as you would have guessed, Mr Deputy Speaker, there is nothing in the budget for these initiatives. Even more unfortunately, the shipbuilding industry that we actually had in Cairns was destroyed under this government. It had actually built patrol boats and hydrographic ships in the past and had serviced them. It was given a contract in 2007, only to have it revoked. As a consequence our shipbuilding capacity was absolutely decimated. My fourth issue relates to the National Broadband Network. No policy has been more overpromised and underdelivered than the NBN. Even as Labor boasts its NBN projects, the 2013-14 budget is an admission that the projects are failing. Look at the rollout schedule. Work has started in south Cairns. In the coastal communities to the north of Cairns work is scheduled to start within three years except for the tourism hub of Port Douglas. I say 'scheduled' because there is more than a degree of scepticism in relation to these commitments. However, the area that has the greatest need of high-speed efficient and reliable broadband, most of Cape York and the Torres Strait, is not even on the schedule. Residents in regional and remote areas of Leichhardt need this. They struggle already with access to reliable telecommunications, radio communications and digital television. Their schools, hospitals and businesses and community groups should not be disadvantaged further compared to their metropolitan counterparts. The fifth area important to mention relates to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We know that Australian needs a new system of support for people with disability where the individual is at the centre and in charge. I have spoken in favour of the NDIS in this place. However, at the end of the day this is an insurance policy and it needs to be paid for. The coalition has supported the government's proposed increase in the Medicare levy but the government must also outline how the remaining 60 per cent funding shortfall will be provided. This budget fails to achieve that. We also continue to wait for more detail about the NDIS—for example, the assessment criteria, the differences between inherited and acquired disability, the lack of support for people over the age of 65. The last one is starting to really raise some serious concerns in my electorate. People over the age of 65 are still expected to contribute through their Medicare levy but they cannot expect to get any services. I find it quite amazing that we are discriminating against people at this time and place on the basis of their age. All these are legitimate questions that currently remain unanswered for people with disability and the organisations that support them. It is interesting that a constituent of mine, Kel Chambers, heard that around 1,000 public servants will be required to administer the scheme from Canberra. Kel is legitimately concerned about the efficiency of this, given the federal government's track record with the home insulation program, better schools program, management of Australia's borders and the like. As for our agricultural industry, after five long years of neglect and anti-agricultural policies and no vision for the sector, Labor's only solutions are band aids. In my region, the northern cattle producers and the dairy industry are all experiencing major profitability issues. Graziers I have spoken to are facing some very challenging options as a result of Labor's knee-jerk banning of live export trade in 2011, compounded by the drought in regional Queensland. We have something like up to two million head of cattle in limbo that have now become either too heavy to be exported or in some cases too emaciated to be moved as they are starved due to lack of feed. The grass growth is now slowing down as we are coming into the colder months and it will not be too long before the 2013 calf drop which is going to exacerbate the problem even further. We certainly do not want to see these cattle being shot in the paddocks as is already starting to happen. Already this is becoming an animal welfare issue of massive proportions in its own right. Unfortunately, all Labor can come up with in the budget is farm finance loans and drought assistance, basically robbing Peter to pay Paul with funds sourced from redirected Caring for our Country. There are no initiatives to improve farm profitability. Despite all of the government's rhetoric for the Asian century, there is no initiative in the budget that will help agriculture capitalise on the trade opportunities in our northern neighbours. Another area that that is highly relevant in my electorate is tourism. You may remember that in last year's budget I was very concerned about the increases in passenger movement charges and the cuts to Customs affecting our visitor processing capacity. We are now seeing the fallout from this. The PMC or tourism departure tax will generate more than a billion dollars a year and nearly 1.4 million visitors will sit in the arrivals hall queue for more than an hour. Is this the way we want to welcome visitors to Cairns international airport? I would have to suggest that the answer would have to be absolutely not. The Gillard government also promised in 2010 to spend $10 million a year on tourism grants. But they are set to break yet another promise because less than $25 million of the $40 million allocated is to be delivered before the election. How many tourism ventures or accommodation houses in Far North Queensland could have benefited from refurbishment or expansion yet have not been able to get access to these funds? What a waste. We need a new approach to tourism, a government that wants to enable not subsidise, a government that sees the value of the marketing our country overseas and a government that does not push tourism down with excessive bureaucracy or burden operators with a carbon tax. Finally, these concerns are very close to my heart. I have to highlight a number of issues under the umbrella of health. You have heard me speak many times in this place about the tuberculosis issue. In this budget the government was given the opportunity to provide Queensland Health with the $24 million it owes the Cairns Base Hospital for the treatment of tuberculosis of PNG nationals and to look at reopening the Saibai and Boigu clinics. Unfortunately there is no funding whatsoever to pay their debts in this regard. The fallout from this government's failure to pay these bills is now being seen with the death for weeks ago of an Australian Torres Strait Islander in Cairns Base Hospital. Twenty four million dollars should have been spent on frontline services, recruitment and retention of qualified and experienced staff and on outreach programs in our regional and remote areas. Unfortunately our health services were denied that opportunity, and I hold Minister Plibersek and Senator McLucas responsible for the death of this Mrs Mareta Wosomo—it was totally preventable and should never have happened. I am also disappointed to see little in the way of support for mental health services. I recently intervened on two occasions where young people with serious mental health challenges were about to be put into a totally inappropriate environment. There is an urgent need for a new approach for the funding and provision of mental health services in Cairns and in Far North Queensland. We have in headspace, Time Out House, the Carers' Hub and the Clubhouse some excellent programs that target different age groups and complement each other perfectly. Many small businesses and operators that I have spoken to are looking for a game changer that will lessen red tape burdens and boost our economy. The coalition certainly has that plan. The words of opposition leader Tony Abbott in his budget reply were: The coalition stands ready to end the chaos of Labor and to provide a strong, stable and accountable government that the people of Leichardt need and certainly deserve. Debate adjourned. International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 2013 4440

International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 2013

Second Reading 4440 12:28 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay I would like to take the opportunity to thank those members who have taken part in the debate on the International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 2013. This is an important bill to ensure the IMF has sufficient resources to continue to support the global recovery and global economic stability. The purpose of the bill is to amend the International Monetary Agreements Act 1947 to bring into force a bilateral loan agreement between Australia and the IMF that was signed on 13 October 2012. The bill provides a standing appropriation for payments that are drawings by the IMF under the loan agreement. The appropriation covers the specific loan agreement only and any amendments to the value or term of the agreement would require an act to be subsequently amended. While the IMF's current resource base is sufficient to meet expected needs, the IMF estimated early last year there is a potential global financing gap if a severe financial crisis were to occur. The IMF may only make drawings under the loan agreement if its existing quota in new arrangements to borrow resources is insufficient to support its lending to borrowing member countries. The maximum amount available to be drawn down under the agreement is the equivalent of 4.61 billion standard drawing rights, around A$6.8 billion. Australia is a small open economy. It relies on strong and stable global growth for its continued prosperity. Continued financial and economic uncertainty in Europe and elsewhere and a weakened economic outlook globally makes the role of the IMF in supporting global economic and financial stability much more vital. Passage of this bill will ensure the IMF has sufficient resources to continue to support the global recovery and global economic stability, which will benefit every country, including Australia. 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. Statute Stocktake (Appropriations) Bill 2013 4440

Statute Stocktake (Appropriations) Bill 2013

Second Reading 4440 12:31 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay I would like to thank those members who have contributed to the debate on the Statute Stocktake (Appropriations) Bill 2013. This is the sixth statute stocktake bill since 1998. The bill follows the Statute Stocktake (Appropriations) Act (No. 1) 2012 as part of the government's ongoing process of cleaning up the statute book. The bill will repeal 84 annual appropriation acts from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2010. The bill does not appropriate any money. Acts proposed for repeal include 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 estimates appropriations. Consistent with the government's deregulation agenda, the bill will enable the repeal of many subsidiary laws made in connection with these old appropriation acts. No agency will be denied access to appropriations from this bill, to the extent that old appropriation amounts may potentially need to be reappropriated through other processes. The government will continue to review appropriation acts to determine whether further appropriations are redundant and can be repealed. Can I respond to some of the suggestions, made by the member for Goldstein and others, that this government has strangled business with more red tape. I remind members of the House that the Howard government made very similar promises to the sorts of promises that are being made by the opposition at present in relation to their aspirations to reduce red tape. The Howard government will go down in the history of this country as being the government responsible for the greatest increase in red tape for business and, in particular, small businesses. The GST, in fact, is the single biggest contributor to the red tape challenge that small businesses face in this country. Mr Hawke interjecting— Mr BRADBURY HVW The member for Mitchell says, 'That's not what they say.' I could take him through reams and reams of ministerial correspondence that flows into my office on a regular basis where they still— Mr Hawke interjecting— Mr BRADBURY HVW I am not going to table a confidential matter, but I am happy to take the member for Mitchell through it, he being someone that I think is sufficiently in touch with his local community to make the point that the coalition's paid parental leave scheme will be very, very damaging for the business community and the Australian economy. He would also know that the GST has imposed an enormous regulatory burden on small business. So I simply make the point that while those opposite say, 'We will reduce red tape,' that probably puts them in line with every other opposition that ever existed in the history of this country. What we will find is that they have form, and if they get elected they will be every bit as zealous in their regulatory wrapping-up of small business as the Howard government was, because we know now that they are very much committed to expanding the range of goods and services that the GST applies to, and increasing the rate. For small businesses operating in areas where they have finally, after 12 years of meeting the regulatory impost of this tax, come to terms with it, they will now face the prospect of having to expand the range of items and to completely redo their accounting systems in order to make sure that they comply. As opposed to that, we have seen this government repealing acts—four of them being repealed here today—and we will continue to do that. We have a strong record when it comes to sensible deregulation but those opposite say one thing in opposition, but if they ever get the chance in government they do exactly the opposite. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2013-2014 4442

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2013-2014

Second Reading 4442 12:36 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2013-2014. Five budgets, five record deficits and then another $20 billion blow-out. This year's budget figures make a mockery of the manipulated and over-optimistic document the Treasurer presented to the parliament 12 months ago. Shifting of expenditure from one year to another was always an insult to the intelligence of the general population and yet the Treasurer persists in blaming everyone but himself. In fact, his latest effort is to blame the Howard government for his mismanagement, and it is plainly pathetic. In case the Treasurer cannot count—and that is entirely possible—let me help him. He has been the Treasurer for almost six years now. He inherited a $20 billion surplus, and $70 billion in net savings. And lately he has taken to blaming Howard and Costello for the situation he finds himself in—the situation we all find ourselves in. Surely, if the Treasurer was so concerned about the state of the books, he could have attempted to do something about it before now. But, no, amazingly, he had not actually spotted the problem before. The member for Lilley has taken almost six years to discover that all of these problems were caused by Peter Costello. Give me a break. Are we expected to believe that rubbish, that tosh? The body language of the government members on budget night said it all. Even they do not believe the Treasurer. In fact, no-one believes the Treasurer any more. He is either completely incompetent or he is deliberately misleading. And the public can take their pick. But there is no doubt that they do not—indeed they cannot—trust the Treasurer to get it right. He claims that the unprecedented deterioration of the last four budgets is due to unforeseeable drops in revenue, even though in the last year revenue has grown by seven per cent, just as it did the year before. He blames Treasury for bungled estimates, and yet all he had to do was to step out into the street last year to know that the economy was struggling, and that estimating a 12 per cent growth in receipts was way out of touch with reality. After all, surely it is one of every politician's first jobs to be in touch with their electorates. Surely, the Treasurer could have got out of his ivory tower and talked to his constituents—and then I am sure he would have got the message that a 12 per cent growth in revenue was clearly overly optimistic. After all, every serious commentator in Australia also believed that the 12 per cent growth in receipts was unachievable. Like a farmer budgeting on a record price and a record crop he could find that it comes off, but it is highly likely that it will not—and certainly not every year. Having lost another $19.4 billion, we are now told to expect more future deficits, more future debt and more broken promises and, unfortunately, the Treasurer seems not to have learned from his past errors and continues to predict a miraculous economic surge. He estimates that the mining tax in its fourth year, for instance, will return 10 times as much as it has in its first, that the carbon price in Europe will increase by 150 per cent over the next three years and that the government will stop the boats with its current policy over the next four years, even though the last five years have plainly been failure after failure on that front. Even if miraculously these events came to pass, the Treasurer's budget predicts that government debt will rise by a further $100 billion to $370 billion gross debt by 2016-17. Quite simply, as the Leader of the Opposition said: this government does not have an income problem, it has a spending problem. The government has made big announcements on the National Disability Insurance Scheme and school funding but they are significantly under-funded, with most of their expenditure coming from beyond the four-year estimates. For instance, the government is selling the Australian Education Bill as a funding revolution for schools when, in fact, spending in the next three years will fall. Somehow we are supposed to trust this government to deliver a surge of funding to the sector in years 5 and 6 of the program. Half way through what would be the fourth term of a Labor government—we haven't even started on a third yet—we are supposed to believe that this Treasurer who has continually missed the mark is going to deliver that extra funding at that time. This is from the mob that told us in October there would be a $1½ billion surplus. In December we were told that a surplus would be unlikely. In late April the Treasurer predicted a $7.5 billion deficit. Two weeks later the Prime Minister told us it would be $12 billion. By the first week in May the finance minister, Penny Wong, told us, 'No, the deficit would be $17 billion' and a week after that, on budget night, the Treasurer informed us the predicted deficit for this financial year is $19.4 billion. It is worth remembering that the financial year is not over yet. On that trend line there is more bad news in the pipeline. On this record, how does the Treasurer expect the education sector or indeed the disability sector to trust him to deliver on the increased funding in five to seven years? How can we believe anything the Treasurer says? Having put the appalling record of this government behind us, it is disappointing to find that the budget presents no overarching plan for Australia. If Australia is to stop increasing its debt and start paying its overdraft it must have a plan to stimulate industry. Worthy as public spending may be on benefits—such as stimulating the education sector and supporting the disability sector, the caring sector—the economic benefits of doing so will be further down the pipeline. What is needed is a fresh push by government to re-invigorate the industry and investment cycle so that it can start to help pay for these projects that are important for Australia. It is worthwhile reflecting that since this budget was delivered we have seen the announcement by Ford Australia that they are closing their manufacturing capability here in this country and that the SPC Ardmona plant at Shepparton has drastically cut production. They join a long list of failures and withdrawals from projects right throughout Australia: from James Price Point to the cancellation of the Port Hedland expansion to the difficulties experienced with the development of the Oakajee Port, and from your state, Mr Deputy Speaker, where Glencore Xstrata have announced the cancellation of the Balaclava Island loading facility to my state, South Australia, where it is best demonstrated by the loss of projects and opportunities like the Roxby Downs expansion and the cancellation of a proposal to build a rare-earth refinery, in Whyalla, by Arafura. Simply put, we cannot as a nation stand to keep losing projects. They are the economic stimulus that will underwrite this nation in the future. It is not borrowed money. It is money that invigorates the economy. It is so important that we get it right. Unfortunately, in this budget there is no signal at all that the government has got the message. Along with the rest of Australia, South Australia has its own economic challenges. That means awakening that capacity in the regions. In most cases, I must gladly report, that is in my electorate of Grey, which covers more than 90 per cent of the land mass. It stands to reason that if you have 90 per cent of the land mass you will have 90 per cent of the resources. In my electorate, aside from the mineral resources, we are, along with Tasmania, the equal biggest aquaculture region within Australian. That is centred around the Port Lincoln region and has been very successful. But in the way of this government, the aquaculture and fishing industries have been presented with some very real challenges through the development and declaration of marine parks. In particular, the abalone industry and the southern rock lobster industry have been badly hit by not only the Commonwealth marine parks but also the state marine park declarations. They have lost much of their most productive ground. At the same time, all of those industries are dealing with extra costs that have been forced upon them by Biosecurity Australia. Deputy Speaker, you would remember that the government made a deal. They said that they would remove some funding from Biosecurity Australia but bring in efficiencies so that it will work better. They said, 'You blokes will be paying for it but it will work that much better that you won't know the difference.' Well, the money has been removed, but that is as far as we have got on that project. We in South Australia are major producers of livestock, cattle and sheep. The ham-fisted handling of the live cattle problem out of the Northern Territory by the current government caused enormous difficulties for the industry not just in the Northern Territory, not just in north-western Australia, not just in Northern Queensland, but right throughout the industry within Australia. These good industries are facing extra penalties every day, penalties engineered by the government. For grain producers, it is pretty much the same story. Last year, the government, in its infinite wisdom, removed the Wheat Export Authority. I have had come to my attention in recent days—and I think that I will be having more to say about it in this place soon—the fact that a major buyer has underperformed in the market to the tune of around $50 a tonne over the last three season and left growers completely out of pocket. I might point out that if you as a wheat grower are getting a price of $300 a tonne you are making pretty good money. If you are getting a price of $220, you are covering costs but 100 per cent of your profit has gone. That is what has happened to these growers. If we look at the resources sector, we have in South Australia enormous resources in iron ore that are largely untapped. We have the birthplace of the Australian iron ore and steel industry at Iron Knob and Whyalla. Over recent years, the Middleback Range has been developed further. OneSteel export around about six million tonnes a year directly from there and another six million tonnes to eight million tonnes from their northern province, which is called Southern Iron and is near Woomera. But this is only scratching the surface. Even with that export capacity, we still do not have a deep sea port in South Australia. That is completely holding up their projects. At this stage, I know of six current proposals to build ports within 200 kilometres of each other on the Spencer Gulf. Clearly, that is preposterous. This needs the government to take a firm hand and put these people in a room together to get them on the same page to develop one port that will provide super efficiency—the same kind of efficiency that we see in Western Australia. We need one port that can deliver the 40 million tonnes to 80 million tonnes a year that this industry is capable of producing. We are also dealing with the copper industry, which has a number of new projects, particularly on Yorke Peninsula. We have had the Prominent Hill copper mine developed in the last 10 years. But that will run out in the next 10. Carrapateena is the next project that is proposed by OZ Minerals. All of those miners, who are looking to expand their operation and build a bigger pool of income for all of the people of South Australia and Australia, are facing new impediments day after day from government. The carbon tax is a very big concern for all of those industries. It impacts on them in a very real way. They are very nervous, always, about this government when it comes to the terms of the diesel fuel rebate. Certainly, the mining tax, while it only on impacts on one miner in South Australia at the moment, and that is RM OneSteel, an exporter of iron ore, it is causing all the other junior iron ore explorers and developers to build that into their future planning and financial models so that they can anticipate when they might have to start paying that tax, should it remain. This requires an investment in accounting so that they can understand at any given point in time just exactly what their operations are worth, what has been invested and what their write-off periods are. It is the kind of restriction that they would not have to face if the mining tax were not in place, because those accounting standards are quite different from standard accounting practices. What we need is a change of government. What we need is a return to coalition government, to sensible and methodical government, where taxpayers' dollars are treated with respect and not wasted on harebrained thought-bubbles like GroceryWatch, pink batts and cash for clunkers. I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is what the public expect. They are not looking for flashy government. They are not looking for the big broad ideas. They want someone sensible to get the books back in order and to give Australia the stability it needs. 12:51 Mr JOHN COBB 00AN1 Calare I rise today to speak on appropriation bills Nos (1) and (2). These bills give effect to measures outlined in the 2013-14 federal budget handed down by the Treasurer on 14 May. I was disappointed on a lot of fronts, but there were two in particular for my electorate of Calare in New South Wales. After five years of neglect, the agriculture budget did not feature at all, despite the fact that we as a government, as a parliament and as a country owe nearly $300 billion, the government are still spending money as though it is something that they do not have to pay back. I think that is borne out by the fact that here we are, as I said, close to the $300 billion debt mark, borrowing $50 million a day. Why? To do things? No. It is to service that $300 billion. Somewhere between $33 billion and $35 billion of that $49 billion to $50 billion a day that the current government is borrowing is simply to pay interest on the $300 billion. As the previous speaker, the member for Grey, just said, people are not looking for us to come out and do wondrous things overnight. They want us to be sensible, prudent managers and to assure them that not only do they keep their job but there is a job that their children and grandchildren can have when their time comes. There was nothing new in the budget at all for the electorate of Calare or for western New South Wales. The government rehashed things that were part of Infrastructure Australia and decided on last year. Suddenly, they were new things for the budget, but they have all been done before. There was no new funding for Calare at all. In their budget, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister tried to soften the blow by resurrecting these old policy announcements. But, no, people in Calare are not that stupid. Furthermore, the Regional Infrastructure Fund has been gutted by $2 billion, which will impact on all rural and regional electorates, not just Calare. It was based on Labor's botched mining tax, which failed to raise any significant funds. Sadly, the fund has been exposed as a cruel hoax on the taxpayer and yet again highlights that regional Australia misses out under this Labor government. Do families suffer? Of course they do. The government's waste and reckless spending is costing Calare residents heavily. Prior to even delivering their budget, the government broke their promise of increased family tax benefit A payments, which will see families in my part of the world and a lot of others miss out on up to $600 of promised funds; and they broke their promise to increase the tax-free threshold to compensate for the carbon tax. That is another $600 that Calare families were promised that will not be delivered. In stark contrast—and I mean this in all sincerity as somebody who has been here for a while and represented the people in my part of the world for a while, in various guises—the coalition will help the families of Calare and Australia, households, retirees and pensioners to get ahead and plan their futures with confidence by scrapping the carbon tax as well as ensuring that tax cuts and fortnightly pension and benefit increases are kept. We will also ensure households get the full benefit of the abolition of the carbon tax by requiring the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to make sure companies do the right thing. On the education front, the Gillard government confirmed that Charles Sturt University, which I am quite sure I am right in saying has the highest number of non-campus students of any university in Australia, is to cop a $20 million hit, which will hurt its campuses in regional areas, in Orange and Bathurst in my electorate and in Wagga in the electorate of Riverina, as well as small businesses and jobs in those communities. Let me tell you, in a town like Bathurst, in a region like central western New South Wales, a university of that size is a very serious contributor to the economy and jobs at a local level. Without a doubt, this decision will result in increased costs for regional university students and their families. We know that cost is one of the key factors that prevent regional students from attending university, and this funding cut presents a major risk to the ongoing participation of regional students at universities. Funding is being pulled out of higher education to pay for Labor's Gonski school reforms. That is without doubt robbing Peter to pay Paul, but who wins at the end of the day? It seems unjust that current higher education students should have to suffer for the betterment of schools. I think we all agree that a better model for school funding can be achieved. However, the idea of cutting higher education to fund massive reforms in schooling, when the purpose of schooling is to prepare students for work and university, is somewhat ironic. This government's track record on regional higher education is appalling. Over the past couple of years, they have tried to block inner-regional students from equitable access to the independent youth allowance. The most recent cuts to universities come on top of the $1 billion that had already been taken out of the system six months ago as part of the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook—or, I should say, the midyear economic and fiscal outlook under this Labor government. Pure politics is driving the policy coming from the government. For example, they are claiming that school funding is the centrepiece of their budget, yet over the next four years the federal government's total investment in school funding will actually decrease—it will actually decrease—by over $300 million. That is hardly something to gloat over. After six years of promises and declining student outcomes, the government are creating more uncertainty within the school sector. And, while the government are crying poor, they are using taxpayers' dollars to spruik their contentious policies, like the Gonski reforms and the NBN. The budget includes up to $100 million in new government advertising, which is a blatant waste of taxpayers' hard-earned money. The key to better schools, at least as far as more money is concerned, is better teachers, better teaching, higher academic standards, more community engagement and more principal autonomy. The coalition will not back a so-called national education system that some states do not support. The NBN is another case in point. The budget reveals the government's planned investment in NBN Co. this year and that in the next two years it has been slashed by $3.5 billion. Less investment in NBN Co. will clearly lead to a reduction in the number of households and businesses which actually receive access to the NBN fibre network. And as if we did not know, this will impact on Calare as areas that were identified to receive some of the NBN Co. services—and I stress there were not many, almost none—will likely be pushed back further into the never-never. We are well aware that our part of the world is hardly on the horizon of NBN. It will be into the 2020s before, it is assumed, there will be much fibre heading out there. The budget confirms what the coalition has warned for some time—that Labor's NBN is unaffordable within the currently claimed budget and undeliverable within the currently claimed schedule. The government and NBN Co. have not come close to meeting any of the targets they have set for themselves and there is no reason to believe they will start meeting them now. The coalition will complete the NBN sooner, more affordably and at less cost to Australian taxpayers. We will aim to ensure that all households and businesses in Australia have access to broadband providing a download data rate of at least 25 megabytes per second by 2016. We will prioritise the areas with little or no or bad broadband rates—we have committed to do that. I go to my own responsibility, the agriculture portfolio. It was certainly disappointing but, I must admit, not surprising that after nearly six years of neglect, anti-agricultural policies and no vision for the sector, Labor's only solutions are a band aid to problems largely created by themselves. Labor's big ticket items in this budget are farm finance loans, drought assistance and the Tasmanian forest agreement package, which are all to rescue struggling sectors with funds sourced from redirecting Caring for our Country money. There are no new initiatives to improve farm profitability. In fact, 'profitability' is something of a dirty word with this Labor government, but there is no mention of it for agriculture and none of the things we need can happen without a profitable sector. On the weekend, the government belatedly released its food plan, after not having an election policy at all last election—sorry, I digress. There was one announced by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Senator Wong, who said that they would look into the efficiencies of the way in which the APVMA was run, the organisation whose responsibility it is to register and ensure the safe use of chemicals and stock medicines. They announced that they were going to revitalise it and make it more efficient. In fact, they came up with legislation which will make it less efficient and more costly. It is going to cost $9 million a year more to run and they have decided, because of a deal they did with the Greens, that whether they needed it or not, all chemicals would have to be re-registered every 15 years. What a wonderful way to make things more efficient! They should be proud of themselves! So I did make an error—there was one piece of policy last election, which they have pretty much done, making it more costly to run the APVMA. The whole industry told them they are crazy but they have done a deal with the Greens and we all know how important that is. Now, finally, we have that plan, but the glaring omission in that food plan is the key driver. There is a key driver if you want food security, and we do; if you want sustainability, and we do; and if you want a future for agriculture—and I surely hope we do. There is a word that comes into it here. It is called profit. If farmers do not make a profit and if processors do not make a profit, you will not have food security, you will not have sustainability, and you certainly will not have a future for agriculture. Labor has finally come up with some initiatives that make an effort to capitalise on the Asian century, but that does not make up for six years of the Gillard government undermining our export opportunities in Asia. Other countries have priority access to Asia with bilateral trade deals. For example, the US has a tariff advantage in the Korean market for beef exports, currently over 5½ per cent and going to over eight per cent next January. It goes up by over 2½ per cent for every year that this government has sat on its backside and not done deals. Mind you, the government went out of its way to make it very hard to do a deal with Korea by reneging on a trade deal, a defence deal, that it had entered into, so I guess we should not be surprised that Korea is being a little hard to deal with here. New Zealand has tariff advantages into China of up to 20 per cent for some dairy products. Labor has not delivered one single major trade deal that is working for agriculture. In fact, it does not even consult with industry. It does deals for the sake of doing deals rather than working out whether its deals are of any help to anyone. Australia under Labor is seen as unreliable and untrustworthy. They have made sovereign risk an issue. I did not realise it ever had been an issue for Australia, and I do not believe it had until the Gillard government got going. No. 1, they upset Indonesia by banning live exports. They annoyed Korea by reneging on a major defence deal, ditched the Dutch— (Time expired) 13:07 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong The most recent budget of the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, has just been brought down, and now each of us in the opposition has the opportunity to comment on this budget and the government's performance of managing our economy. This is the very core of our government's most serious obligation to those whom they have undertaken the important commitment to govern. It is a time of sober examination. It is a time to deal with facts: facts of history, irrefutable facts. It is the solemn duty of government to caretake for our present needs whilst providing adequate planning and funds to be set aside for future development. The Treasurer has repeatedly promised surpluses and confirmed these in MYEFO updates. The facts are that none of these budget projections have, with the benefit of hindsight, been accurate. During this time the government have lost the trust of the people of Australia. When times were good, the electorate took a risk on the charismatic member for Griffith, Kevin Rudd, who had so much promise but in fact just made promises. Shortly after the Rudd government was elected, the GFC confronted this brilliant young man, and, brilliantly, he had all the answers, some dreamt up on the Prime Minister's private jet at 30,000 feet and meticulously documented on the back of a drink coaster. These tablets of wisdom delivered down from on high were accepted by the devout followers—no time to question; no time to reason; who would dare question him? However, in hindsight it is irrefutable that these commandments should have stayed on the mountain. Waste on pink batts, waste on school halls, waste on failed border protection policies—wasting the hard-earned legacy of the Howard-Costello years, the Rudd government then racked up debt like this country has never seen. There was a change of leader because Kevin had lost his way, but Wayne had not. He continued the borrowing and the waste: carbon tax advertising, NBN advertising, focus groups, the live exports fiasco, the Australia Network tender, the set-top box program—the list goes on and on. In business when you borrow money you have to repay the principal and interest. The enterprise must pay dividends and then some commensurate with its obligations. Government of our economy is big business by anyone's standard. The Treasurer's most recent budget is projecting record deficits of $19.4 billion, $18 billion, $10.9 billion and then, voila, a modest surplus. The fact is that every surplus promised by this Treasurer has not eventuated. It is an irrefutable fact. For the average Australian there is a growing sense, as these irrefutable facts surface, that the government cannot be trusted with the enormous responsibility of taking care of our current needs and furthermore cannot be trusted to govern for our future. This government came to office inheriting a great legacy with abundant opportunities. They have been the beneficiary of the best terms of trade in our history and they have been the beneficiary of high levels of government revenue. Yet this golden opportunity has been squandered with ridiculous schemes wastefully implemented and their legacy is a record debt in excess of $300 billion. These are irrefutable facts. Every dream that we share for the best possible care for those with disabilities, the best health care, the best education for our children, the best of our character, which is generously giving to our neighbours who are in need of assistance—all these things that can be given must be paid for. This takes planning; this takes forward thinking; this takes strength to be true to the promises that you make to the electorate. The same applies for major infrastructure commitments. In 2010 just 10 days before the federal election the Gillard government announced $2.1 billion in funding towards the construction of the Epping to Parramatta rail link. Rather than just make an infrastructure promise, they covered this announcement in caveats—with the corker being that the budget must be in surplus. Many people in this place mock the government's ability to bring our budget into surplus. They were accused of always being negative. However, the facts are irrefutable. The surplus has never come nor will the promised rail link in my electorate. In the 2010-11 MYEFO, shortly after the last federal election, the government listed this project along with eight other infrastructure projects forming the Nation Building 2 program. The $2.1 billion committed to the Epping to Parramatta rail link was the single biggest funding item in this program. Six months later in the 2011-12 budget all eight of the other National Building 2 projects were re-committed to, but the Epping to Parramatta link was nowhere to be found. Over the following two years I have raised this issue in this place, asked questions in writing, forwarded queries to estimates, written to the minister and directly questioned him during the debate on these appropriation bills, asking if this was an attempt by the government to back away from their commitment to the people of Bennelong and Parramatta. The answers given by the minister were always attempts to deflect responsibility, to say that the money was still committed, to blame Barry O'Farrell and to accuse me of fear-mongering. On occasions this even descended into veiled abuse and mockery from the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure which was then leaked to the national media. Yet the truth is now plain and clear for everyone to see from the front page of today's Sydney Morning Herald—'Missing link: PM axes $2b Parramatta plan'. Rail commuters and motorists will have to wait longer for vital infrastructure after the Gillard government quietly shifted $2 billion earmarked for the Parramatta to Epping line into a fund for projects not due to be built until after 2019. Whilst the minister continues his attempts to blame the O'Farrell government for his own broken promise, he fails to recognise the stark contrast in the approach to infrastructure commitments made by these two governments. In 2011 my state Liberal colleagues were elected on a promise to the community to build the Northwest Rail Link. Whilst Premier O'Farrell had expressed a strong desire for federal contributions to this project, they would not use this as an excuse of why not to proceed. Former premier Bob Carr first promised the Northwest Rail Link in 1998 at a cost of $350 million. Thirteen years of inaction and broken promises, combined with huge growth in this area, forced the cost of construction up to $8 billion. Despite this, Premier O'Farrell has kept his word and the infrastructure is being built. The Gillard government could learn many things from Premier O'Farrell's approach to governance and the fact that people need to have trust in their government. This broken model of New South Wales Labor, of announcing projects in election periods and cancelling them at budgets, has become a well-worn path, and the people of Bennelong are not impressed. In his budget reply speech on 16 May, the Leader of the Opposition set out an alternative approach to government—one of being honest with people, establishing a long-term plan for the governance of our country and the administration of our economy, and offering the hope, reward and opportunity that Australians want. Let us not lose our vision of the Australia that we want. In maturity, we learn to live within our means and make provision for our future. The coalition front bench is made up of people who have gained experience in dealing with debt and taking measures to effect legislation to address this mounting problem, and with the experience to implement this program successfully. This is an irrefutable fact. This government has failed us. They have squandered our wealth and opportunities. They have behaved in an immature and irresponsible way. Now the task ahead is to mend this dire situation. It is time for mature, prudent management. It is time for a government that will take care of these most important issues that affect us now and into the future. Our coalition wants to solemnly undertake the role of caretaker and provider for the future. 13:16 Mr EWEN JONES 96430 Herbert The bills before us today are the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2013-2014, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2013-2014 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2013-2014. In doing so, I want to speak about my seat of Herbert and my city of Townsville. I want to speak about our place in our region, our state, our nation and our world. I have based my speech on the question: where to from here? I will be addressing this using five elements that are key to our future in that context, and my speech is pitched towards and beyond the next election. We all know this is a bad government. We all know that this budget is primarily a work of fiction. But, rather than waste too much time emphasising those facts, I will be talking about (1) building a stronger economy, (2) building a stronger community, (3) bringing about a cleaner environment, (4) ensuring our borders and our nation are strongly protected, and (5) building efficient, economy-building vital infrastructure. Let us go to building a stronger economy to start off with. Running a country should really be no different to running a business or a household. Sure, the numbers are bigger, but the principles are the same. If we are to be the next government, if we are to be given that honour, we will have to make some hard decisions. But they are the same hard decisions being made in every business and household across the country every week, fortnight and months. Living within your means is not shutting up shop. All debt is not bad debt. We have to be more precise about what we spend money on, just as every person does. Take the following example of two people who each take out a loan of $100,000. One person invests the money in a business which will provide a return and grow their wealth. The other person spends it on clothes, CDs, movies and shouting their mates out on the town. Both owe $100,000 and both have to make payments to pay it off. But one made a sound decision based on good judgement and did their research before splashing the cash around. The same goes for governments. We have seen this government handing cash out to just about everybody—dead, alive, resident, nonresident—to be used however they want. The taxpayer is now paying the interest on overseas holidays and the like, to the tune of $38 million each and every day. Using the good debt principle, that money could have seen the Bruce Highway flood-proofed and four lanes to Brisbane. It could have seen four lanes on the Pacific Highway. We could have seen all those jobs and all that productivity. But we are now paying, as I said before, $38 million each and every day in interest on the debt racked up to this country. What we as a country have to do is play to our strengths. We have to play to where we are strongest and where we will get the best return. So the first thing we would do if we were the next government is axe the carbon and mining taxes, because the carbon tax is a tax on electricity. As a country we made a decision that we would not be a country of low wages. We would be a country of cheap power. You can have one or the other. You cannot have high wages and high costs of production. The mining tax is a tax on success. We have a tax on business and it is called company tax. They do pay their taxes. Everyone who works there pays their income tax. The problem with the mining tax is not so much the actual tax but that we spent the money that was locked in even though we knew it was a variable. The thing with the carbon tax is that, no matter what happens, the cost of the carbon tax is cascading all the way down to the person who pays last and that is always the poorest and least able to pay. So whilst we have this big money churn going on at the moment and a massive swill of money going around the place, we know that at the end of the day it is going to be the people in the houses that are going to be paying for this. I want to reduce red tape on business. I know a lot of people talk about reducing red tape but if we do not get serious about this we are never going to get ahead of it. In my maiden speech I said that what small business wants government to do is get out of their road and get our hands out of their pockets. We have lost over 200,000 jobs in small business since 2007 and small business in 2007 represented 54.7 per cent of the workforce. Now that is 46 per cent. That, my friends, is a crisis. Small businesses where the jobs are created are where the wealth is created. Small business should be working with their accountants and their solicitors not as compliance officers and tax collectors but as people who advise and build their business and create their wealth and allow them to get through other things. I am 100 per cent behind Tony Abbott when he says that he will do a complete and utter review of tax. If you look at the state taxes that are involved here and the payroll tax and stamp duty and those sorts of things, they are negative taxes. They do not help anyone and they do not do anything for anybody. I think if we gave them a way of getting around that or to get something back, we can get better. We have to make the commitment that we will not leave small business behind to build a stronger community. In my town, as I suppose in lot of towns and cities, youth crime and disengagement from education are a major factor. It is not my place nor my role nor my wish to comment on the policing of the matter or the judiciary that has to do that. It is not my province. What we here in this place deal with is the cause and effect. I get up in the morning and I shave, I go to work. My kids see me do that every day. I watched my father do it and he watched his father do it. We have all watched our parents do it and so it goes down the line. We have generations of people out there who have never had a job. We say to these kids, 'You have to try hard',' but how do we give them aspirations when they go home and only see someone who is never going to get a job no matter how hard they try and no matter what they do. We had a crime forum with the member for Stirling, Michael Keenan, in Townsville. We had it in the Upper Ross where youth crime is very critical. The good thing about the people of Townsville is they knew there was not one cause. They knew that there was not one magical answer and that was the key. This is a big problem that affects everyone. All these boot camps and that sort of stuff do play a role but, if we do not get these kids engaged, we lose them forever. We have to break the cycle. Why are kids out there at 3 o'clock in the morning? That is why I strongly believe that the work for the dole and the Green Army projects that we intend to bring in, should we be the next government, will play a major role in breaking that cycle and giving some kids some actual self-worth, some actual self-respect. If you go to work at 8 o'clock and you go home at 5 o'clock in the afternoon and you are tired, you will go to bed and you will sleep. It is not a panacea. It is not the fillip. It will not fix everything but it will play a role in breaking that cycle. I do support the NDIS. I have since the very day it was announced. But I cannot help but believe that the cart has been placed well and truly before the horse when it comes to the arguments we have had over funding. When it came down to it, we organised funding in a matter of days and they did not even meet. The thing is not even going to start until 2018-19 and we are still arguing. We have it only going to fund 40 per cent but we still do not know what it is going to do. The issue I have with the NDIS is when you speak to parents about what they hate most about the disability sector they say that to get the assistance they need they have to paint the child or loved one in as black a picture as possible. I cannot imagine doing that. We are not having that discussion. We have to have the discussion on where the line in the sand is. A friend of mine in Townsville suffers from agoraphobia and chronic pain. He wants to know whether he will be covered. I had somebody tell me they wear spectacles. Really, if you wear spectacles that is some kind of disability. They flippantly asked if they were covered. We have got to have these questions because there will be a line in the sand. We have to have the discussion over what we say to the person who just falls on the other side of it. What do we say and how do we say it? That is where the discussion should be. Money can happen down the end. It takes three days to figure out the money and we can do that at the end. We have to find out what is going to happen with this thing otherwise it is going to be too late. I am disappointed that the disability sector has not played more of a role in asking these questions. I would like to see more people jump up and down about this and find out what the hell is going to happen here. I am very proud to say that in 2010 we took to the parliament our policy of fair indexation for DFRDB recipients—that is, Defence Force retirement and death benefit recipients. It has always been indexed on the CPI only and has been unfair when other government pensions have also been indexed on the male average weekly earnings and the pensioners and beneficiaries cost of living index. We will, if we are the next government, as one of our first orders of business fix that—well and truly. It has been like that since 1972 and no government is without excuse. Fraser, Howard, Hawke and Keating have all had chances to do it. It is about time. Education has to play a role in stronger communities. I am dreadfully worried about the way the Gonski debate has gone. Gonski has become this all-encompassing thing. Can we just get down to the tin tacks of what happens over the next four years? Gonski says we should have an extra $6 billion a year. We are actually getting a loss, a cut in education over the next four years of $325 million. An honourable member: That is wrong. Mr EWEN JONES 96430 It is not wrong, my man. Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Order! Mr EWEN JONES 96430 Gonski is supposed to have $6 billion a year extra. David Gonski has not come out and said anything about this. So if you in the education sector believe that this government is going to come good with $6 billion a year extra in years 5 and 6 after three more elections then you go ahead and vote for them. The cut to university funding is also shameful. When it comes to university funding, the key to education has got to be good teachers. To cut funding to universities is absolutely ridiculous, I say on behalf of James Cook University, the Australian Institute of Marine Science and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. My side of politics is very serious about the development of the north of Australia. If we are going to be the food bowl of Asia then we have to get our science right. We cannot make the same mistakes with salinity and water that we made over 100 years ago in the Murray-Darling Basin. We have to get it right. The Murray-Darling Basin flows into the Great Australian Bight. That is the only place it flows. We have over 25 river systems in the north of my state and we know what goes into about five of them. We must get our baseline research done and places like James Cook University, Australian Institute of Marine Science and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority must be backed to get that. We must develop our PhD and research fields to make sure that we are getting the best results. When it comes to schools, we must make sure that principals have the autonomy to run their schools like they would their business. We must let teachers teach. And we must get parents involved. If teachers can teach and parents can parent then we will get away with most things. If we could just get fathers to read to their children every night for 15 to 20 minutes most of the problems in this world will go away. We must work on outcomes as opposed to process. We must have our children become risk takers. At the moment we are so risk adverse with our children that we have kids in primary school who cannot climb over a see-saw. We are developing a bunch of children here that do not take risks because every time somebody falls over and scabs a knee there has to be reports done. A part of growing up is to fall over. We must tell the kids now that they must appreciate failure because if you fail it means you have had a go. 'Fail, and fail better', is a better lesson than, 'don't do anything'. So we must make sure we do those sorts of things. I would also like to say that I am disappointed with the Queensland government's decision to raise stamp duty on insurance policies. We are copping it in the north of the state. But again, this does play into the fact that we must do more when it comes to tax reform. Raising stamp duty is probably something that was considered very seriously and would not have been done lightly, but that it has happened at this time hurts a lot of people. Insurance is too expensive in Northern Queensland. The coalition is working on practical expenses. Townsville is perfectly placed for the development of north Australia. We have the north-west minerals province to our west. We are near Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands, and there is real growth in education and cultural exchange, and in services being two-way. We are perfectly placed to have used the north-west Queensland Cowboys in our soft diplomacy with Papua New Guinea, which is the only country in the world where rugby league is the national sport. We must abolish the carbon tax, because the carbon tax does nothing for the environment. We are going to end up spending $3.5 billion per year every year to buy carbon credits from dodgy overseas operators. Direct action is a carrot versus the stick—I do not know how you guys work, but I tell you that when someone is hitting me over the back of the head, we will be fine. We must work with the JCU algae project. We must open up the Coral Sea to recreational fishermen. We must get rid of the Pew foundation, and the GetUp people. We must secure our borders. We have people living in refugee camps in Cambodia and Chad and all those places, people are being pushed to the back of the line and not able to get here. I want to see a whole heap of things but I have run out of time, so I will thank the Deputy Speaker and I will take them up at another time. 13:31 WYATT ROY M2X Longman I will try and pick up where the member for Herbert left off—and I am sure he and I share some clairvoyance on some of these issues! When Australians are crying out for confident and prudent economic stewardship, this federal Labor government budget serves up more turmoil, more debt, more spin and more broken vows. There is nothing in this budget to give hope that tomorrow is better than today. It is as unsightly and ill-defined as a dog's breakfast. It is nothing but nebulous figures—while the local families of my community are left to their own devices to come to grips with costs of living pressures, economic uncertainty and poor services. It should not be this hard. Treasurer Wayne Swan says that this budget is about jobs and growth, but it actually forecasts an increase in unemployment—up to 5.7 per cent per cent— and lower growth—down to 2.75 per cent. By my reading, that is fewer jobs and slower growth. In my community, where there is already higher unemployment, this is intolerable. Last year the Treasurer said in his budget speech, 'tonight I announce four years of surpluses'. This year he has delivered a $19.4 billion deficit and projected a deficit of $18 billion for 2013-14. Labor promised no carbon tax and yet we are living with a carbon tax and record deficits, and in this budget we witness the ditching of tax cuts and family payments. So much of the so-called modelling in this budget is fatally flawed. It is not creating a stronger Australia, and the assumptions and commitments are fundamentally dishonest. Labor is relying on the money tax to prop up its bottom line. This is merely a best guess based on a favourable terms of trade and royalties not being increased by state governments—altogether an entirely implausible and untested proposition. The government is announcing $44 billion of prescribed savings, but of those savings, $25 billion are tax increases. That is almost 60 per cent of the deemed savings as new or increased taxes. The interest bill on our national debt will grow to be $35 million a day and the debt will surge past $300 billion. This is a budget that should have been written in pencil. I reiterate that, if it is fully implemented, this budget will mean total gross debt breaching the $300 billion debt ceiling in coming years, no credible path back to surplus, new borrowings of $49 million every single day, Labor's fifth record deficit in five years and at least two more deficits to come, and more than $25 billion in higher taxes over the next four years, with 99 per cent of these new tax increases starting after the next election. Families and businesses have to live within their means, but this federal Labor government does not bring to bear that wisdom. At the last election the Prime Minister promised that Australia's net debt would peak at less than $90 billion. This budget has revealed that net debt will now peak at more than $191 billion, more than double what the Prime Minister promised the Australian people. Twelve deficits from the last 21 budgets—that is Labor's perfect record. For the last Labor surplus we must hark back to 1989, the year before I was born. It is all due to the fact that Labor has a spending disease, not to a revenue riddle. In fact, revenue in 2013-14 is projected to be $80 billion more than it was at the end of the Howard government, yet the Treasurer has delivered his sixth deficit in a row. Spending in 2013-14 will be $120 billion greater than it was at the close of the Howard government. Australia's climbing terms of trade, the price paid for our exports compared with the cost of imports, have bolstered this nation's wealth. Indeed, the government's own much-trumped Australia in the Asian century white paper, released last October, highlighted how Asia's rapid growth, fuelled by demand for our coal, gas, iron ore and other minerals, has realised Australia's highest terms of trade in 140 years. One would imagine that with these terms of trade still buoyant, 15 per cent higher than at any time during the Howard government, the budget would already be back in surplus. Yet, over the past five years, the government has spent $192 billion more than it has raised. Every year spending as a share of GDP has been bigger than it was in the final years of the Howard government. Labor's latest pledge of a return to surplus is no more dependable than its past forecasts. With it, once more, comes the potential for a crater in future budgets. Flying in the face of current market indications, the claims of surpluses in the two out years relies on the terms of trade sustaining at close to historic highs. This myopic government introduced the mining tax and its splurge of spending initiatives to allegedly spread the benefits of the boom. But it did so just as the boom showed signs of peaking. It was too slow to act and we are paying the price now, and we will feel more pain in the future from its ragged economic projections in the terms of trade as they fall back to a more normalised position. Already, we know that the forecast revenues from Labor's sneakily negotiated mining tax have shrunk, from $22.5 billion to $3.3 billion over its first four years. Mining tax revenue in 2012-13 is an astonishing 95 per cent less than originally forecast by the Treasurer. He missed it by that much. Yet, despite such a comprehensive failure, the Treasurer's 2016 surplus insists on mining tax revenue increasing by 1000 per cent on this year's MRRT intake. Perhaps the only not-so-strange chapter of this sorry story is that references to spreading the benefits of the boom, a package of measures at the centre of Treasurer Wayne Swan's last three budgets, now seem to have evaporated from the budget documents. This Labor government's carbon tax revenue predictions simply defy belief. Confronting a disintegrating EU carbon price, the government continues to forecast receipts of $38 a tonne in 2019-20. While the forecast carbon price for 2015-16 has dropped to $12 a tonne, stripping $5 billion from revenue, it is still grossly inflated, at double the European market forward price for 2015 of just $6 a tonne. In the meantime, as I move around my local community I see the damage a carbon tax is inflicting. I speak to hardworking business owners and managers demanding an end to the impost and relief from this federal Labor government's overregulation and inflexibility in the workplace. One shop owner in Burpengary told me he was coughing up an extra $1,300 a month in carbon tax bills alone. Nearby, a popular coffee shop owner wanted to expand and hire more staff but rising overheads and reams of paperwork were a serious barrier. Another key local business, a manufacturer of heavy machinery components, estimates it will be billed $30,000 extra in electricity charges this year alone as a direct result of the carbon tax. The manager explained an additional shadow of concern over slowing housing and mining and a softening of Australia's economy. With commodity prices dipping, he said, the capital expenditure on infrastructure projects from mining companies was melting. They are just not spending the money. Confidence in the economy needed a boost. He went on to tell how similar businesses to his were 'falling by the wayside'. He also complained of dealing with numerous regulations and compliance documents. 'It is getting more difficult all the time,' he said. Since coming to power this federal Labor government has introduced or increased 26 new taxes including the biggest of them all, the carbon tax. Labor has created more than 20,000 new regulations for the repeal of just over 100. Two years ago, Treasurer Wayne Swan promised there would be half a million jobs created by 30 June this year. So far, with one month left to run out this financial year, he has delivered around half that number—another shattered budget promise. Labor has also lost control of our borders with well over 200 boat arrivals since the last federal election poll on August 21, 2010. The budget papers reveal a blow-out in the management of Australia's borders of at least $4.7 billion in the past 12 months. This week, immigration department secretary, Martin Bowles, admitted to a budget estimates hearing that the department vastly underestimated the number of asylum seekers expected to arrive in Australia this financial year. After last year's projections of just 5,400 asylum seekers landing in Australia in 2012-13, Mr Bowles discovered the staggering truth of more than 22,500 arrivals in the financial year. That is about 2,200 a month or more than four times the initial forecast. What does this government do when caught in the headlights of such a glaring policy failure? It tosses up more dubious accounting in the columns of its latest budget, where it has the audacity to suggest that boat arrivals will: 'phase down over the next four years'. I do not think anyone in the Australian public seriously believes that proposition. By way of contrast with this litany of, at worst, malicious deceit and, at best, false prophecy, I would like to turn to the coalition's road map to prosperity, beginning with the abolition of the carbon tax which, if elected, we will carry out because it will immediately lower the cost of living and the cost of business. Since the election of the Rudd/Gillard government, electricity prices have soared by 94 per cent and gas prices by 62 per cent, but the carbon tax elimination will immediately remove upward pressure on power costs. At the same time, a coalition government will keep income tax and fortnightly pension and benefit increases—that is a tax cut without the carbon tax. In total these steps will allow families, households, retirees and pensioners to make their way again. The end of the carbon tax will also advance the position of Australian businesses relative to their international competitors, instead of flailing businesses with the world's biggest carbon tax. We will reduce emissions with targeted incentives. If elected, a coalition government will abolish the mining tax—the fastest way to support investment and jobs. We will cut red-tape costs by at least $1 billion a year to give small businesses the chance to breathe, grow and innovate; and parliamentary days will be slated for the repeal of laws, not their creation. By cutting taxes and regulation, we will boost productivity which will even up the playing field for Australian manufacturers—essential if they are to remain at the core of a five-pillar economy alongside services, education, agriculture and resources. We will have a once-in-a-generation commission of audit so that government is only as big as it needs to be. As I have stated several times before in this place, the Liberal philosophy is of a hand up, not a hand-out. We will establish a root-and-branch review of competition policy to ensure fairness for small business. Small business will be a cabinet portfolio within the Treasury Department. Under a coalition government, there will be an affordable and responsible paid parental leave scheme; a work for the dole scheme will also be revisited, and we believe people who are capable of working should work—if not for the preferable outcome of a wage, then at least for the dole. Let me conclude by invoking a wonderful facet of my local community: the many veterans who have chosen to call Longman home. I must mention them here because this federal Labor government's budget does not deliver them a fair go. This was the last opportunity before the election for the government to implement equitable indexation of military superannuation pensions. With the handing down of this budget, Labor has categorically failed to do so. As far back as 2007, Labor led people to believe it would provide a fairer deal for ex-servicemen and –women and their families. However, since the 2010 election, the coalition has twice tried to pass legislation through the parliament to achieve rightful indexation for military superannuants. Each time, Labor, the Greens and the Independents have combined to defeat the move. If the Labor government is re-elected in September, veterans will be worse off—denied the indexation they deserve—while the coalition will keep faith with those who have served and protected Australia. A coalition government would ensure that 57,000 DFRB and DFRDB superannuants aged 55 and over have their superannuation pensions indexed in the same way as aged pensions. Our plan is fully costed and we will fund it in our first budget. The upcoming election represents a blunt choice—three more years of broken promises and scrambling excuses from Labor or the sure-footed coalition team with a plan to restore hope, reward and opportunity. Sitting suspended from 13:46 to 15:30 15:30 Mrs MARKUS E07 Macquarie I rise today to speak about the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) for 2013-14. It is clear that his nation is in the middle of a budget emergency. This emergency has been brought about by this government's inability to manage the finances of this nation. This bill shows once again that the government is seeking taxpayer funds to prop up their own fiscal mismanagement and is seeking to further burden the individual Australians and families of this nation. Two weeks ago we witnessed this government's the sixth budget. Let me remind this chamber about what that budget delivered for the people of Australia: a fifth record deficit in five years and at least two more deficits to come; total gross debt which will breach the $300 billion-debt ceiling within forward estimates; record net debt of around $192 billion; no apparent credible path back to surplus; more broken promises, such as the scratched tax cuts and family payments; more than $25 billion in higher taxes over the next four years; an extra $100 million spending on government advertising; and borrowings per day of almost $50 million. The budget was devoid of any good news for families at a time when so many are desperately seeking financial relief and support. It was empty of any good news for small business owners struggling to keep their heads above water. It did nothing to support our ageing population. This budget betrayed the trust of the Australian people because we know, despite promise after promise, that it did not deliver a surplus. The Prime Minister told us that achieving a surplus was, 'the best thing we can do to help families with the cost-of-living pressures'—that was the Prime Minister's own quote. The Treasurer himself has said: Again, a quote by the Treasurer himself. This prediction was correct, and yet the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have once again delivered a budget that makes a mockery of their comments and places additional burdens on Australian families. What families and Australians are asking for every day is stability, consistency and a sense of certainty. They want to know that they can rely on what the government of the day is saying. But what the government says and does are two separate things; and what the government says today is often, and is, very different to what it may say tomorrow, or next week or next month. Again, this budget has delivered chaos, more debt and many words which amount to spin. First there was the broken promise that the indexation of the childcare rebate would recommence in 2014. At a time when childcare costs are increasing for families, this decision will hurt many financially. We also know that families will also be worse off after the government announced an extension to the indexation pauses on income thresholds to family payments and FBT supplement payment until 2017. The decision will impact a staggering 1.5 million families who receive the family tax benefit part A and 1.3 million families who receive the family tax benefit part B. Then, as I mentioned, there is the $25 billion in higher taxes over the next four years. This budget will collect more tax than any other government in history. What is astonishing to me about this budget is the amount of wasteful spending—spending at the expense of everyday Australians. There is $100 million in new government advertising. What a waste. And $5 million of this advertising budget will be used to spruik the NBN. This is while suburbs in the electorate of Macquarie, including Blackheath, Mount Victoria, Hazelbrook, Wentworth Falls, Leura and Katoomba in the Blue Mountains as well as Freemans Reach, Glossodia, Kurrajong Heights, Cattai and Grose Vale in Hawkesbury are yet to receive the commencement date when the NBN will be rolled out in their area. While my constituents are desperate for broadband and reliable telecommunications, this government is more interested in spin and dazzle rather than in any real substance. What this government has failed to recognise is what only the coalition seems to understand: government does not create wealth, people do. Government spending is not a free gift but something that everyone is paying for, now and in the future. This budget also makes me question the government's commitment to infrastructure, especially within the Greater Western Sydney region. The coalition has already committed $1.5 billion to WestConnex in Sydney. This funding will enable an upgrade and an extension of the M4 that will better link Western Sydney with the inner west, the city and the airport, something that is very much needed for people commuting, particularly from the lower Blue Mountains but also from the greater Blue Mountains area and the Hawkesbury, to the city. However, Labor has strings attached to the phantom $1.8 billion it has promised. Of the $1.8 billion Labor has pledged to WestConnex, only $200 million is in the forward estimates over the next four years, which falls far short of $1.8 billion. The bulk of funding, some $1.4 billion, does not kick in under Labor until 2019-20 to 2022-23. With the majority of funding put off for another two elections, this funding is just another Labor mirage. This government's track record is an absolute disgrace, and the blow-outs are continuing. Labor has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Revenue in 2013-14 is projected to be $80 billion higher than at the end of the Howard government, yet the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, plans to deliver this sixth deficit in a row because spending in 2013-14 will be $120 billion higher than at the end of the Howard government. In his budget speech the Treasurer blames the high Australian dollar for having 'savaged' revenues, yet this is the one assumption in last year's budget that was actually right. With Australia's terms of trade still extraordinarily high—15 per cent higher than at any time during the Howard government—the budget should already be back in surplus. But over the last five years the government has spent $192 billion more than it has raised. Expenditure as a percentage of GDP has been higher every year under Labor compared to in the last years of the Howard government. The expenditure is absolutely out of control. The two words that the Treasurer has used to frame Labor's approach are jobs and growth, 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 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 at present. This government has shown time and time again that it lacks the discipline and the courage to make the hard decisions to bring the budget back under control and to do what needs to be done to help, enable and facilitate Australian families make the choices to get ahead. The coalition will not shirk the tough calls. We have the record to prove we are serious. The coalition left Labor with a $20 billion surplus, no net debt and an unemployment rate of around four per cent. The coalition has a positive plan to create a diverse, powerhouse economy that can create 1 million new jobs over the next five years and 2 million new jobs over the next decade. We will offer consistency and stability in government. We will restore sound public finances. We will get rid of waste and get Australia back on a fiscally responsible path. I can reassure families and pensioners that we will also fully retain the income tax cuts and fortnightly pension and benefit increases associated with the carbon tax. This will enable households to plan their futures without anxiety and with a level of confidence. This commitment is fully funded and will be offset by equivalent reductions in government spending. We will restore sound public finances. We will have respect for taxpayers by lowering taxes, starting with the removal of the carbon tax and mining tax. We will boost productivity with our six-point productivity plan in industrial relations and we will restore the 'cop on the beat', the Australian Building and Construction Commission. The growth of government must be displaced by fostering robust growth of our millions of small and large businesses and by restoring consumer confidence to spend. This is what a coalition government will do: we will end the chaos, the debt, and the devastation and take this nation to a brighter future. We will provide a platform for individuals, families and businesses to develop and invest in their visions and plans for the future—to create greater opportunities, not only for themselves and their communities, but for the people they employ, their children and their neighbours. This is an opportunity leading up to the next election for Australians to decide their future. What we are committed to is ensuring that every Australian has the chance to take hold of the opportunities that this nation can provide for them. Australians have the potential to achieve and reach the dreams set before them, but they need a platform of encouragement—a platform where they understand there is a sense of security; a platform that they can leap from, knowing that their investments will reap a reward. 15:44 Mr CROOK M3K O'Connor I rise today to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2013-2014. I would like to not focus primarily on the recent Labor budget and their massive deficit but to express my disappointment about numerous failings of this government, in particular their inability to properly support the backbone and the financial engine room of this country—that being regional Australia and, in my case, regional Western Australia. I have consistently raised these issues in this place and plan on doing so until the end of my tenure which is not far away now. First of all I would like to raise concerns I think are currently being felt by the Australian business sector, particularly the mining industry. My electorate of O'Connor, as I am sure many of you are aware, is one of the largest and probably one of the most diverse electorates across Australia and one I have been immensely proud to serve these past three years. As many commentators mentioned during the budget a fortnight ago, this was not the usual pre-election budget. This government has made cuts and changes all over the place, all in an effort to get Australia back on track and back in the black. However, the government has made cuts and changes that do not support ordinary Australians and that will not return benefits that this Labor government needs. My advice to the government and future governments is to invest in the regions, to invest in mining, agriculture and small businesses in regional Australia. Australia will prosper on the back of it. Businesses will produce a return and continue to do so, as will clearly happen in regional Australia and particularly regional Western Australia. Secondly, I would like to raise the Regional Development Australia fund. I was disappointed but not surprised to see that this Labor budget did not include any extra money towards the Regional Development Australia Fund. I hate to repeat myself but as I have said time and time again in this place the comparison between Western Australia's Royalties for Regions program and the Regional Development Australia fund is laughable to say the least. My electorate however finally has seen some RDA funding under round 3 of the program. I certainly do welcome this $1.5 million investment in O'Connor. One project which has just received some of this funding is the Shire of Esperance and the Esperance foreshore redevelopment project, a very worthy project that will greatly benefit the tourist town of Esperance and south-east coast of my electorate. The Shire of Esperance received $400,000 in round three and yet previously had received approximately $17 million from the Royalties for Regions fund. The difference is astonishing. I acknowledge this government is out of money. That has been clear for a long time now and this budget deficit has once again proved that. However, investing in the regions should still be a priority. This leads me to another point which I have also raised on numerous occasions and that is the minimal return Western Australia receives from the GST. This is an issue very important to me and to my home state of Western Australia. Even though my federal WA colleagues from both sides of this House do not seem to believe that this is an important issue, their state colleagues do. To think that Western Australia's GST return could fall to 42 per cent is just unheard of and totally untenable. When the GST was structured I do not think anybody had any idea that the relativities would get to where they are currently falling to. This needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. It needs to be addressed as a matter of equity and if you want a state like Western Australia to continue to produce for the rest of the nation, which we are more than happy to do, the GST relativity must be addressed. I have acknowledged before in this place that it has not always been like this but there must be a cut-off relativity point so that Western Australia can guarantee their financial return so that they can continue to grow their state and our nation. Last week, the West Australian reported that the WA treasury figures showed that almost $15 billion more in taxes leave WA each year. That $15 billion goes to the Commonwealth. The GST review panel has also previously acknowledged that it is possible that WA could be ruled out of receiving GST returns altogether. In my opinion, these figures and the suggestion that WA might not receive GST returns at all is simply untenable; it is almost unbelievable; and it is something that this parliament simply cannot allow to happen. As some of you may be aware, come September I will not be returning to this place. Therefore, I cannot stress enough that my successor must take this issue on as a matter of priority. Honourable member interjecting— Mr CROOK M3K No, my predecessor did not. WA's economy, while strong and lucky to have the mining industry, has problems of its own, unique to WA, just like any other state across Australia. Excluding WA from GST returns will worsen the situation, and I again call on the WA members in this place to work on this issue as a matter of priority. Another issue, just as important as the GST, that is facing regional Western Australia is the current GP shortage and the provision of health services, including caring for our aged. According to Rural Health West, there are currently 82 vacancies for GPs across WA. Local governments across my electorate and elsewhere in WA are still picking up the slack of what is a federal government responsibility. Providing financial incentives to keep a GP in town is not something that many metropolitan councils do, although there are some. Councils should simply not have to consider this. It is simply not equitable. I am, however, pleased that this government did not cut funding in this budget to rural health care. They did not increase funding to help those local governments, but I will accept the very small win and acknowledge that at least it was not a funding cut. Along with this, I was also extremely disappointed to see the Living Longer Living Better legislation pass through the House earlier this week. This legislation does nothing to practically assist regional aged care service providers in my electorate. These complicated bills have been passed without sufficient time for us to consider the changes, and many of them will impact strongly on regional residential care facilities in my electorate. Rural and regional residential care facilities are being stretched to breaking point, and this new legislation only serves to increase the pressure. The Gillard Labor government has ripped $1.2 billion from caring for the aged and has cunningly redirected it to wages and unionism in the form of the so-called Workforce Supplement payments. The conditions attached to the Workforce Supplement payments are so onerous that nobody in the country will be able to afford to take up these subsidies. As a result, these subsidies will go back into general revenue, leaving regional Australia out in the cold. As an example, a small aged care operation would have to spend an additional $4 on wages and associated costs for every $1 of subsidy money. This equates to a deep erosion in the quality of aged care throughout Australia, which will be felt most deeply in the country. Given the unavailability of operating aged care facilities in regional Western Australia, it is no longer attractive for investors to enter this industry and the state will soon be falling behind on meeting demand for beds. This situation will only worsen as the population ages, and this legislation has just made a bad situation much worse. By offering small operators a Workforce Supplement payment with unviable conditions attached, the government has assured that small operators will not take up these funds. This will lead to a larger pot of funds for the bigger city providers, who will now be forced to negotiate enterprise bargaining agreements with the unions in order to be eligible for assistance. This government has put unionism and politics ahead of the care of our most vulnerable citizens—the aged. This Labor Gillard government has sacrificed and abandoned remote and rural aged care operators and their aged residents in favour of large city providers in order to serve the union agenda. Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to mention another section of O'Connor electorate struggling through the economic uncertainty—the farmers. Farmers across O'Connor electorate and WA more widely are really doing it tough at the moment. Subsequent bad years have put a lot of pressure on these farmers and unfortunately many will not be putting a crop in this season. I travelled my electorate during the last break visiting farming communities across the Wheatbelt and the south-east including the Ravensthorpe and Esperance regions. I also took trips deep into the eastern Wheatbelt, an area that is really struggling under the present economic climate. They are still waiting for rain as we speak. At this time the government had just announced its farm finance proposal. The feedback I received was quite positive. I am pleased that this funding has been included in this budget. However, time is of the essence and this cannot be stressed enough. The window of opportunity to put a crop in has all but passed with many not having the finances to put a crop in at all. I urge the minister responsible to work as closely as possible with the state government to ensure that this funding becomes available immediately. The WA government should not be left to burden the cost of administering this program, and I understand this is the fear of the state government. I hope Minister Ludwig alleviates these concerns as soon as possible so that these funds can be made available to those farmers that will take up the opportunity to at least put a crop in. Mr McCormack 219646 Do not hold your breath. Mr CROOK M3K I thank the member for Riverina for his support in this because, clearly, it is going to be a major issue in the eastern Wheatbelt of Western Australia. I have heard some very heart-rending stories about where some of these farmers are going. I really am genuinely concerned about their mental wellbeing, about the wellbeing of their families and about the wellbeing and the life of some of these remote agricultural communities. Many of these outstanding regional communities are there on the back of what has been clearly an outstanding industry. I feel that we need to promote our agricultural industries to the fore. I would like to acknowledge the minister for making this money available because it has been well received. The urgency now is paramount. If it is not taken up by farmers within the next fortnight to three weeks, many will be in dire straits. I also urge the government to release more information in relation to the Farm Finance including who will be eligible. There is still a doubt over who is going to receive these funds and whether there will be exit packages for people who do want to get off their land and allow other farmers to come in. What will the interest rates be for these concessional loans? I think all of these things need to be addressed as a matter of urgency and I urge the minister to liaise closely with all state governments to ensure that these procedures are put in place, so there clearly is a knowledge of where they are heading. In closing I would like to again emphasise my extreme disappointment with this government and its inability to support regional Australia as I outlined in my speech previously. This parliament was one that was supposedly to focus on regional Australia by virtue of those that gave it power. In the early days it promised so much for regional Australia and it has failed us. I have a very simple comparison because I can compare it with the hung parliament in West Australia where the WA Nationals delivered the outstanding Royalties for Regions program, a program that is the envy of all other states. There is no doubt about that. They are the words of the federal Nationals leader, Warren Truss, not mine. He has seen first-hand the very distinctive regional policy that is the envy of all other states. More importantly, the Western Australian government delivered stable government and that was done on the back of an outstanding policy, the Royalties for Regions policy. This parliament promised so much and has delivered so little for regional Australia. We have a minister saying that regional development funding can be spent in metropolitan areas because they are regions as well. I do not think there is one person in my electorate of O'Connor that considers the outer suburbs of Sydney a region or regional Australia. I strongly urge future governments that they have a strong focus on regional Australia. (Time expired) 16:00 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina May I commend the member for O'Connor for his speech and for his contribution to this place. Last Saturday at the Nationals preselection, another very worthy candidate for the seat of O'Connor was preselected for the Nationals. His name is Chub Witham, and I look forward to him making a very worthwhile contribution to this place, as Tony Crook has done for the constituents of O'Connor, who have benefited greatly from having a Western Australian Nationals member representing their interests. Just recently—in fact, it was on 29 April—the Prime Minister made a speech to the Per Capita Reform Agenda prior to the budget. She used a rather bizarre example, I thought, when she was trying to explain what the budget cuts which were approaching would mean to the average Australian person. She drew on the example of John: Imagine a wage earner, John, employed in the same job throughout the last 20 years. We all know the speech. We all heard it. We all raised our eyebrows at it. Certainly John had to tighten his belt in the example that the Prime Minister used. I would like to imagine an irrigator by the name of John. I might use the example of John Bisetto, who was the one who told the water minister when he went to Griffith that he was a disgrace, about the so-called water reform he was planning to implement. The irrigator John in my example might be John Bisetto; it might be any other one of those great family farmers at Griffith and in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area whose name might just happen to be John, but certainly their uncertainty has not been lifted by the water reform, by the Murray-Darling Basin Plan enacted by this government. Certainly I look forward to an Abbott-Truss led government, which will keep its word and cap buyback at 1,500 gigalitres, which means that only 249 gigalitres of water will then remain to be recovered. That will be a good outcome for the irrigators of my area and certainly a good outcome for all those irrigators by the name of John. Also imagine a stay-at-home mum. Let us call her Jane. Jane is concerned that there is nothing for her. She is a stay-at home mum and she is choosing to look after her kids, but what is there on the table for poor Jane? Indeed, we have a regional student. Let us just, for example, call her Jennie. Jennie is also affected because, as Senator Fiona Nash, the Nationals regional education spokeswoman, told Senate estimates yesterday, just 17 per cent of regional 25- to 34-year-olds had bachelor or postgraduate qualifications in 2011, compared with 36 per cent of those from the city. Residents of regional Australia, Senator Nash said, are only half as likely to have degrees as their metropolitan counterparts. That is really tough on them. It is really tough on the Jennies of the world, the Jennies who are trying to make a great contribution to this country, but because of Julia and her government they have not been able to do that. Mr Perrett interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 Oh, come on! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT Order! Mr McCORMACK 219646 Okay, the Prime Minister. Mr Perrett HVP Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I would ask the member to refer to the elected Prime Minister of this country by her correct title and not be so insulting. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT The member will refer to members by their correct title. Mr McCORMACK 219646 Sure, I take his interjection. The Prime Minister of this country and her government have overseen a situation where regional students were not provided with independent youth allowance, and that was just a shameful indictment on this government—a shameful indictment on the government and certainly on a Prime Minister who, when she was the Minister for Education, said that she was all about equity. The member for Moreton knows that that certainly was not the case for those regional students, whose name might have been Jennie, might have been Julia or might have been John, Jane or anything else. It certainly was not fair. Mr Perrett interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 I will take your interjections, but you know it was not fair. And it is certain that they have a tough enough time, member for Moreton, to actually get a tertiary education without being held back by your government. Mr Perrett interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 I do not have to give you the detail because it was already the fact that you would not provide. Your government would not provide equity in independent youth allowance. You know it and the members on your side though it. I certainly saw the minister for education, Peter Garrett—there you are, I have called him by his full name—come in and make this speech about, 'We are going to provide independent youth allowance equity just because the regional Independents and the regional members of my government—you were probably one of them!—have told me that this is so'. That came after months and months and months of the Nationals standing up for our people, who were not given tertiary independent youth allowance, and it was so unfair. Mr Perrett interjecting — Mr McCORMACK 219646 You know it! Your members on your side knew it. You can complain and whinge all you like but that is the truth.— Mr Perrett interjecting — The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT Order! The member will be heard without interjection. Mr McCORMACK 219646 Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This year's budget has confirmed what we have all known for a long, long time: Labor's financial and budget management is in complete chaos. The budget has done nothing to help Australian families deal with rising cost-of-living pressures, economic uncertainty and poor services. Instead, it has delivered more debt, more deficits, more taxes, more broken promises and certainly more uncertainty from an incompetent government which cannot and has not been able to be trusted since it was elected in 2007. It has been six long years of chaos, debt and, unfortunately, spin. Everything is about spin and rhetoric that just does not add up. Just like the budget figures: they never add up. Australians are sick to the back teeth of it. They are desperate for stable, competent economic fiscal managers. Australians deserve that; it is the least that this parliament can provide. After all, it is the taxpayers' money that this government is wasting—the taxpayers' money! Mr Perrett interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 He can complain all he likes but he knows what I am saying is true. Yet again, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have failed to set out— Mr Perrett interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT Order! Mr McCORMACK 219646 You will get your turn. You have probably already had it and you probably do not want to take it because you are so ashamed of the government you represent and you are so ashamed of the fact that there has been, yet again, another budget deficit. Yet again the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have failed to set out a credible economic strategy for the coming 12 months, let alone for the next decade. And that is what we want: we want long-term plans, not just plans brought in in indecent haste, not just plans brought in at the dead of night and made out on a beer coaster. We want good, stable credible government. This year the government has delivered a total gross debt to breach the $300 billion debt ceiling within the forward estimates. Another record deficit with at least two more to come. That is shameful. We are maxing out our nation's credit card and we are maxing out our nation's potential savings. We are preventing nation-building infrastructure from being able to be rolled out: roads, hospitals—those important things that the people, certainly in regional areas and certainly in the Riverina, need and expect. But they are not getting them from this mob. How can the government justify $100 million spending on government advertising and yet deliver $25 billion more in higher taxes over the next four years? It is a good question. We must remember: these are taxes which will not hit Australians' pockets until after the next election. Let me tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that election cannot come soon enough. Families have been let down yet again. They can justify spending to promote their own schemes—this is Labor—coincidentally in an election year, but scrap tax cuts, family payments and all the rest. Families are struggling to make ends meet. They are struggling in Moreton, they are struggling in the Riverina and they are struggling right throughout Australia. But what is this government doing about it? Very, very little. They are just taking out of their back pockets like a thief in the night. Reading the reaction to the budget in The Daily Advertiser, my local newspaper in Wagga Wagga, on 15 May, the only positive reaction I could find was from—surprise, surprise!—the Country Labor president. The only positive reaction! Mr Perrett interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 Indeed! You might be interested to know— Mr Perrett interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 Well, stay tuned on Adrian Piccoli and his comments about Gonski—stay tuned! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT Order! The member for Moreton will desist from interjecting. He is certainly not assisting the chair— Mr McCORMACK 219646 And he is wasting my time. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT The member for Riverina will withdraw that statement. Mr McCORMACK 219646 Well, I won't withdraw, because he is soaking up my time— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT The member will withdraw the statement. Mr McCORMACK 219646 For the sake of the House, I withdraw—but he is wasting my time. As far as Mr Piccoli is concerned, yes, the state education minister did come yesterday and he did speak to the Nationals about the Gonski plan. Mr Perrett interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 All I say is: hold fire on that criticism of me, because there are some aspects of the Gonski plan I actually agree with, Member for Moreton. There you go; that might surprise you. John Harding, the president of the Wagga Wagga branch of the Association of Independent Retirees, feels that they have been left in a state of uncertainty, and he is right. He said: Dom and Larissa Byrne of Wagga Wagga are about to welcome baby No. 6 in July—and congratulations and good luck to them on that. They are certainly doing their part for the nation. But they believe the government is 'making it more difficult for young couples to start a family'. Mr Byrne expressed his concern, saying: He is a good man, Dominic Byrne, and I agree with him wholeheartedly on that point. Despite claims from the government that it offers hope and assistance for families, the coalition know—and, more importantly, the taxpayers of Australia know—that this is far from the reality. At the 2010 election, the Prime Minister promised Australia's net debt would peak at less than $90 billion. This year's budget revealed net debt will now peak at over $191 billion, which is more than double the Prime Minister's original promise. But the Australian public are used to this Prime Minister not exactly keeping all her promises. She promised that there would be no carbon tax, but there is. She guaranteed that there would be a surplus—in fact, she guaranteed there would be a surplus 165 times—but there is not and there never will be under the current Labor government. When was the last time a Labor government produced a surplus? It was in 1989. This budget is the 12th deficit from Labor's—wait for it—last 12 budgets. Last year, the Treasurer promised a surplus of $1½ billion a dozen times or more—instead he has developed a $19.4 billion deficit, a deficit as big as the surplus he originally promised. Australian households are under pressure. University students of the Riverina are under pressure. The irrigators of the Riverina are under pressure. And they are under pressure because of this government. They are under pressure because this government delivers no hope, no certainty. I hope that, come election day, the government are sent packing, because that is what they deserve. I am very, very concerned about this government's treatment of veterans and of the Defence Force more broadly. As members are well aware, Wagga Wagga in my electorate is a tri-service city. It has the Army, the Air Force and the Navy— Mr Perrett interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 Stop interjecting! Please stop interjecting and just hear me out, because you actually might learn something. Part of our defence strategy needs to be that we do not pare back defence, that we do not cut it to the bone like your mob has. Last year, $5½ billion was stripped out of the defence budget, and there was no confidence this year either—not only that but the DFRDB and DFRB entitlements of veterans are not being indexed as they should. Your government, despite the rhetoric we have heard from the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, has not come good on any of its promises to properly and fairly index these payments—payments to people who put their lives on the line for our nation. And what is your side of politics doing for them? Nothing. Nothing at all. You just make it hard for them to make ends meet. The amount of correspondence I get from Bert Hovey and others—they are good people, they put their lives on the line for this nation, and what do they get in return? Absolutely nothing. It is shameful and you know it. The defence budget has been absolutely cut to the bone. It is an absolute disgrace. As I said before, the spending on tertiary education is also shameful, with $20 million taken away from Charles Sturt University, an absolute leader in tertiary education. Don't raise your eyebrows at me; it is true. Its funding has been cut by $20 million. Charles Sturt University's Vice-Chancellor, Professor Andrew Vann, said that the cuts were 'short-sighted and unwise', 'illogical' and 'undercutting our future prosperity'. We should be doing everything that we can in this place to better prepare our nation for the future, to better prepare for our future generation so that they have some prosperity. Your side is doing nothing about it, but we have a plan. We have a very good plan to put this nation back on track— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT Order! The member will refer to members by their titles. Mr McCormack 219646 What did I say? Mr Perrett HVP 'You.' The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT You were referring to the member for Moreton, Member for Riverina. You may wish to refer to the member by his title. Mr McCORMACK 219646 We have a plan. It is a good plan and certainly, after 14 September, I am sure that we will pay the debt back. It will take a long time but we will give this nation hope, reward and opportunity. 16:15 Mrs GASH AK6 Gilmore This will be my last comment in the annual ritual of commenting on the budget. As that dawned on me, it brought to mind the circumstances of my first response back in 1996. I do not intend this to be my valedictory speech but, as I contemplate leaving parliament for a new life, I have come to realise that truly nothing is new under the sun. In 1996 the coalition came to government with the economic legacy left to us by our predecessors, a $96 billion budget hole with an annual service payment of something like $11 billion that could otherwise have been spent on supporting the Australian community. It took us 10 years to pay off the debt and we did not have a mining boom to fund us. Instead we took a more disciplined approach in delivering the goods, and left the legacy of a $20 billion surplus. I am a strong advocate of the teaching of history in our classrooms. Not only are there some great stories to be found—inspirational ones and great models of how to do and not do things in society—but there are lessons for the future. I do not know who it was that said, 'If you want to know about the future, look to the past,' but how true that is. If history was more widely followed in the community it would reveal the predisposition of Labor to the spending of other people's money. I am not suggesting everything they spent their money on was either excessive, frivolous or just plain nuts. They have done some good things, but the Australian community has paid a premium price. The example that springs to mind is the excessive costs of Labor's so-called education revolution, where expensive school halls were built, sometimes when the schools did not even need them. The associated debacle of the school computers program—where is it now? There are still schools in our electorate waiting. But not to worry—if they need maintenance, it is actually cheaper to throw them away. Today it is almost superfluous to continue commenting on the waste and extravagances foisted on the Australian people by this government. It has been done to death. The commentary is starting to dry up and people just want this government to go. When they do go—hopefully on 14 September—history will have repeated itself. If the coalition takes over government they will do so collared with another Labor generated debt hanging around the necks that will hobble the nation of years. In fact, the debt will be about double that inherited in 1996, with its associated liabilities. I have had this conversation before and could as easily have cut and pasted my comments from the Hansard of the nineties. Truly, nothing is new under the sun. To quote Paul Kelly's opening remark in The Australian today: '…the need for Australia to revise post-election its assistance to the car industry is merely a small example of the huge public policy transformation that will be demanded as the resources boom fades.' He goes on to ask: 'How will Australia manage the decline of the boom that has so effortlessly boosted national income?' A good question—but this present government, whose latest budget reflects a continued addiction to spending and chasing shadows at our expense, is devoid of an answer. I just wish more Australians read history. Labor has just delivered a massive budget deficit for the fifth year in a row. Labor promised over 500 times to bring the budget into surplus. This last six months alone, each time they reiterated their promise to bring the budget into surplus, it was reported within days that the deficit was growing—one billion, seven billion, 17 billion and now finally 19 billion in the red, a figure almost directly the opposite of the surplus we left them in 2007. While they finally conceded that could not make it after all, after hundreds of promises saying otherwise, their very dubious forecast of their ability to bring us back into the black has to be taken with a grain of salt. They just cannot seem to get anything right. This is a government Australia cannot afford. Labor's budget delivers more debt, continuing deficits, higher taxes, broken promises waiting to happen, continuing uncertainty and rising unemployment. To the Australian public—the Australian taxpayer—this is a classic case of deja vu. While I have relieved myself of the experience of having to relive history by not standing at the federal election due on 14 September, I will be throwing my energies behind supporting the Liberal candidate in Gilmore, Ann Sudmalis. Ann Sudmalis will make an informed, honest representative for Gilmore. In just this year alone she has attended more than 200 community events, held almost 100 village visits and personally knocked on hundreds of doors. Previously, for four years she served in the municipality of Kiama as a councillor. She knows and understands the damage the policies of this government will bring to Gilmore. We have all had a taste of them. Take their disastrous border protection policy, which saw a rise in the average of three asylum seeker boats arriving in Australian waters during the Howard government years to three per day under this government. Unemployment is rising and Gilmore under this government. Our candidate can see that this government is making it harder for single parents, is making it harder for small businesses and is making it harder for a self-funded retirees. A coalition government will scrap the carbon tax, while simultaneously delivering tax cuts and increases to welfare. There is no money for the Princes Highway, yet Julia Gillard's candidate running for Gilmore thinks the Princes Highway is great. He is out of touch as much as the government he supports. Regional Development Australia is not delivering, not by its panel members but through the lack of recognition for regional Australia by this government and the absence of realistic support for any of our necessary projects. As a result, there has been little funding for infrastructure in Gilmore. The only time a government minister has visited Gilmore is during an election campaign and then it has been their B team. That shows just how interested they are in Gilmore: they are not. Under the former coalition government Gilmore did very well on just about every level. It was not perfect but it was a lot better than what this Labor government have done. Ann Sudmalis is committed to turning this neglect around and I want to help her do it. Our candidate will have a difficult task ahead of her but I am confident she will be committed and a persistent advocate for the people of Gilmore. More than once she has been knocked down and has come back up again. I cannot think of a more worthy candidate to take over from me. While I might have chosen to leave this parliament, there is still a lot to be done and now even more so after six years of 'hard Labor'. Our candidate will pursue the vital job creation projects with the same energy and tenacity that I hope I have shown in my 17 years. This is a budget without credibility. It is a budget which was discarded by the Australian public almost immediately after its introduction and no-one takes it seriously. No-one believes Labor's promises anymore. No-one believes anything they say, given their extensive track record of broken promises, mismanagement, incompetence, inefficiencies and looking after the trade union heavies. There can be no doubt that Labor has been in it for itself and not for the people they were elected to represent. The resources boom is just about over and Labor has no policies to deal with the money suddenly drying up. It leaves Gilmore with no job creation projects but with a general unemployment rate of 12 per cent and a youth unemployment rate of 28 per cent. So what has been achieved in six years of Labor government? They have been very good at spending other people's money but most projects have been ill thought out and have failed. Any candidate for the seat of Gilmore needs to first have the necessary life experiences, education and abilities, as well as understanding the needs and aspirations of its residents, to earn the honour of representing them in this high office. They also need integrity and the ability to share common values and, most of all, they need to be in touch. I will be doing all I can to make sure that that happens. Once again I would like to paraphrase Paul Kelly from the same article: The public will be shocked because it lives under the delusion that things are already tough when in fact much tougher times are coming. When the tougher times arrive, the people of Gilmore will need a tough advocate fighting their fights. Gilmore does not need a seat warmer who will toe the line; Gilmore will need someone who is not afraid to challenge the status quo. The next member must fight for the small things like small equipment grants and small community grants. It is not all about big ticket items—black spots, contrary to Labor's candidate asserting that the Princes Highway is of world standard. There are many potentially deadly places along the highway. We still need upgrades to medical services. We need more support than the homeless, better services and a coordinated response rather than the current ad hoc process. We need a dental scheme. Why Labor cut the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme, a Howard government initiative, is beyond the understanding of just about everyone. Any candidate who is really serious about being Gilmore's representative needs to have comprehensive plans for local tourism. They need to be thoroughly across the subject and totally committed to it. It is our premium industry, with the best prospects for business development and real jobs growth. Sporting facilities desperately need further upgrades. Our farmers, small businesses and manufacturers all need the assistance long neglected by this government. The long-term future of the Shoalhaven hinges on a third river crossing. Even the Greens are talking about it, yet I wonder when the time comes will they allow it to happen? How many green frogs and orchids will be rolled out as an excuse to oppose change? The New South Wales coalition government has committed funds to study the project, but such is the rapid growth of the area's needs that this project needs to be accelerated, and that can only be done with federal government support. Main Road 92 was a long-term dream and has opened further avenues for economic growth for Gilmore. We now need the funding to complete the final stages. We have soaring youth unemployment, as I said, and we need to encourage the continued development of the University of Wollongong facilities in the Shoalhaven. I well remember those early days of trying to get Wollongong university to establish our own campus here. We got that, and then a medical school to train our local doctors, and then a nursing school. Kiama, Shoalhaven and Shellharbour enjoy a long and significant heritage. Much of our region was the first to be colonised outside of Sydney after the landing of the First Fleet. Funding is needed to preserve this heritage and our visible history for future generations. CCTV cameras is also a major issue. I am sure most members would be familiar with Shoalhaven City Council's troubles and how this has cemented the community's demand for CCTV. It is an issue with national implications. Any candidate for Gilmore must see the value of CCTV and the need to improve other crime prevention initiatives, such as providing better street lighting. The Greens oppose this. They would like to see the crims being given an even break, or so it seems, yet they want CCTV cameras in national parks and other reserves to see how animals are treated. Never mind us humans! We need to complete the Dunn Lewis Centre in Ulladulla. To be fair, I recognise the funding to complete stage 1 was actually given by this government. It is a modern facility with lots of unrealised potential that will add value for the community in general and for the youth of the Milton-Ulladulla area in particular. Gilmore is essentially a coastal community, with the majority of its population living 20 kilometres from the coast. Our best natural asset is Jervis Bay, a perfect, protected harbour, yet there are next to no realistic boating facilities between Sydney and Eden. The Shoalhaven has significant mental health issues, yet has not been provided with the range of services that are needed. We must have a permanent Headspace presence in Ulladulla. Gilmore is not a wealthy community. It has many small towns and villages which all require individual attention. It is an ageing community, yet a community with a growing youth demographic that has to be recognised as having its own particular needs and wants. A cursory study of the census will reveal that. The paucity of employment opportunities means that some young people have to move out of the area, away from their families, for a realistic chance at life. Is that fair? No, it is not. So to those who would seek to limit opportunity by opposing realistic growth opportunities I say: stop being so selfish. Stop being so self-absorbed and intolerant of the needs of others, to the point where you pathologically refuse to see the forest for the trees. And, yes, I direct that comment to the Greens and their supporters. The world is growing, yet they prefer to live in perpetual denial. It is a fairyland stuff. This budget rightly deserves to be dismissed. It is no more than an exercise in Labor saving the furniture. This is a budget about Labor saving Labor seats. It is not a budget for Australia's future, nor for the wellbeing of the people of Gilmore. 16:29 Ms GRIERSON 00AMP Newcastle Now I understand what living in parallel universes is like. It occurs here every day—totally different worlds. Speaking on the appropriation bills before the House, I point out that our nation's economy under the leadership of the federal Labor government is 13 per cent larger than when the global financial crisis hit—the same GFC that those opposite have refused ever to acknowledge; the same GFC that Labor steered our economy through, avoiding recession when other nations floundered. Revenues are now dramatically reduced by the impact of the high Aussie dollar—which, of course, is because so many nations in the world are investing in our dollar because it is safe, sound and reliable—and the lower resource prices because of the fall in commodity prices. Federal Labor's economic management has kept debt low. It has created over 960,000 new jobs in Australia. It has kept interest rates lower, helping families with their mortgages. We have experienced moderate wage growth and moderate inflation rates. Under Labor, Australia has retained its triple A global credit rating with the three big global rating agencies—Fitch, Moody's and Standard & Poor's—one of only eight nations to do so and something those opposite have never achieved. Australia's economy under federal Labor's sound fiscal management has remained incredibly strong, incredibly resilient, while many nations around the world remain in recession and continue to experience high levels of unemployment and poverty. Our economy is indeed the envy of the world. CommSec chief economist, Craig James, was quoted in the Australian Financial Review earlier this year, saying of our GDP figure: This remains the case. Australia is doing remarkably well in the face of global adversity, though you would never know it, listening to the doom and gloom of the economic vandals opposite who would slash and burn if ever in government—just as their Liberal state counterparts have illustrated around the nation, particularly in my state of New South Wales where we see TAFE cuts, where we see health cuts and where we see Public Service jobs disappearing. Australia is also the happiest country on earth, according to the Sydney Morning Herald, on 28 May: And who has been in power in those three straight years? A Labor government led by Julia Gillard! But we did lead Sweden and Canada, according to the Paris based group's Better Life index— In contrast to that happy nation and these facts, the opposition remains on a relentless trail of negativity designed to scare the Australian public. No amount of fear mongering by those opposite will ever change the fact that Australia is a leading nation on a global stage and one that is increasingly being recognised for its economic strength. The opposition claim they have costed policies, but they are yet to be seen. All we have heard repeatedly is a mantra: hope, reward and opportunity. Well, you had better hope—hope that they are not in government, because who will they reward?—the ones who need it least. And opportunity?—only for their friends. It is a hollow mantra, concocted by Liberal spin merchants who have created low-grade immature attack websites about chooks and offensive misleading billboards about asylum seekers. When it actually comes to developing and costing policy the Liberals feel they are more capable of performing stunts than presenting a credible alternative government and credible alternative policies. Similarly, they hide their leader from interviews—particularly long ones—with the media and they prevent him from fronting audiences such as the ABC's Q&A. In fact, it has been over 1,000 days since the member for Warringah, the Leader of the Opposition, last appeared on the program. Why is he hiding? Mr Tudge interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT Order! The member for Aston will cease— Ms GRIERSON 00AMP I think it is because the Libs want to tiptoe past the election, tiptoe into a campaign, without any firm costings— Mr Tudge interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT The member for Aston is defying the chair. Ms GRIERSON 00AMP Instead, they will commission an audit report. Just remember, it is code for: 'We will do an audit. We'll get someone else to do it. We'll be the nice guys, so someone else will say "The sky is falling; the country's going broke" and we will have to do more cuts than we ever thought we would need to do.' That is exactly what has happened all around the country as conservative governments come to power. Just as the Queensland Liberal government has done, they will cut to the bone. Take the 2010 election. Treasury analysis shows us that Tony Abbott and the Liberals had an $11 billion black hole in their costings. In 2013, following the Liberal leader's budget reply, they have already revealed a further black hole. It is getting bigger and it is getting blacker. There goes the happiness. They promised $5 billion worth of savings but they will not exactly say where they will come from. How will this be filled? The only way is that it will be cut to the bone. We already know that the Leader of the Opposition plans to cut the Schoolkids Bonus, a program that has helped thousands of families in my electorate at a time when we are also investing into the retail sector. They are supposedly the friends of small business over there. Small businesses have benefited from the Schoolkids Bonus. Round January and February, a time when there is a lull, the benefits have just poured in because families have spent the bonus and it has been great for everyone. The opposition have also said they will slash 12,000 public servant jobs in Canberra and 20,000 around the nation. They also intend to lower the tax-free threshold, increased by Labor to $18,200. They will lower it again down to $6,000. There is no incentive for work there. This will hurt the lowest paid workers in Australia including many families in Newcastle and, of course, it particularly hurts young people and women. As Professor Phillip O'Neill wrote in the Newcastle Herald on Monday 27 May: How many of these workers and their families would be affected by cuts under any Abbott government? How many community members would be hurt by a loss in services? It is a scary thought. Only Labor governments do stand up for families and only Labor governments stand up for jobs. Only Labor budgets set the path for a stronger economy, a smarter nation and a much fairer society. Our Labor budget delivers $14.3 billion for DisabilityCare Australia. We truly can be a civilised society, ensuring that all Australians with a significant disability receive the individualised support and care required regardless of how they acquired their disability. No Australian deserves to be left behind. Our National Disability Insurance Scheme has bipartisan support but it took a federal Labor government to put it on the agenda and make it a reality because that is the Labor way. It follows in the footsteps of Medicare and the age pension as a great Labor reform and one I am incredibly proud of. Until that commission of audit gets its hands on it, it apparently has bipartisan support. If that commission of audit ever comes into fruition, I think social agenda issues will be the first things cut. But with an additional $300 million in Commonwealth funding for the launch site in the Hunter, the biggest in our nation, I know how much the people of my region and electorate care about the NDIS. Paralympic gold medallist and proud Novocastrian Kurt Fearnley tweeted on budget night:: It is long overdue reform and I am proud that Labor is delivering that reform. Prior to entering parliament in 2001, I was a principal at a school for students with many complex special needs. I witnessed first-hand the difficulties faced by those students and their triumphs. I know how much extra resources mean when you are scratching to put together a 12-month plan. We want the NDIS. For me to know it is going to benefit everyone is a very heartening experience. But this is not just a social reform, it is an economic reform as well. Deloitte Access Economics tells us that closing the gap between labour market participation rate and unemployed rates for people with and without disabilities by one third would result in a cumulative $43 billion increase in Australia's GDP over the next decade in real dollar terms. Today, however, just half of working age Australian with disabilities are employed in the workforce. This is a real case for the change that Labor is bringing. Our budget also delivers $9.8 billion for better schools under our National Plan for School Improvement. It has been informed by the independent Gonski review of school funding, the most thorough funding review of Australian schools funding in 40 years. We know education is the key to future opportunity for our youth. We know that this additional funding will boost the performance of students, preparing them for high-skilled and high-wage jobs, those jobs of the future that are going to become more common but also require a higher attainment. After 30 years in education under the existing funding formula, I know how disparate it was, how disadvantaged our students were— Mr Tudge interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT The member for Aston, you will refrain from interjecting Ms GRIERSON 00AMP whenever they had a disability, were Indigenous, were low SES, were from non-English-speaking backgrounds, were attending small schools or were in rural and remote schools. I have had experience in all of those schools to tell you and everybody here in this chamber and in this parliament that a needs based formula has been the missing formula for great success. Mr Tudge interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT The member for Aston is ignoring the chair and the member for Aston is warned. Ms GRIERSON 00AMP Yes, we are the nation that has the highest attainment by women in education, and I am proud of that. But too many people are missing out. The gap between those that are achieving and those that are not is about three years. We can do better than that and we will. Labor's plan to lift the education performance of Australia's youth by investing in schools and teachers is contrasted by those opposite, who would reduce school funding from $16.2 billion over the next six years. Investment into our schools is the real hope, the real reward and the real opportunity, not the reductions and the cuts that will be offered by those opposite. How offensive for the opposition education spokesperson, the member for Sturt, and the member for Paterson to visit schools in the Hunter region, in particular Irrawang High School in Raymond Terrace. It is an area I worked in so I know it very well. They claimed that there is no need for additional school funding, with the member for Paterson suggesting that the reforms are a 'con-ski'—rubbish. In a letter to the editor in the Newcastle Herald a former pupil at the school criticised the pair for visiting stating: Such schools in Hunter region electorates are in dire need of this funding as students past and present, teachers, parents and the community have all attested to and have all advocated for. Having an education background, I know the significance and dire need for this additional funding. When discussing education policy with the Prime Minister over the years, my support for areas I was not happy with was always conditional on needs based funding. To see the partnership program, to know that schools I had been principal of will finally get that extra support they needed meant I was absolutely willing to have those discussions and walk out with full support. Our Labor budget also sets in place $1 billion for our plan for Australian jobs, driving innovation within our manufacturing sector and delivering an industry participation plan for investment projects worth over $500 million. We also made this an industry partnership with innovation precincts, joining together industry and researchers to drive innovation for further success domestically and internationally. Industry and researchers in Newcastle are in the process of preparing a bid to become an energy innovation precinct. With our well established local business and industry and our world-class research capacity in clean energy with the CSIRO Energy Centre, Newcastle Institute for Energy and Resources and the University of Newcastle, there is great potential for Newcastle and the nation to benefit from Newcastle becoming an industry-led energy industry innovation precinct. It has been interesting to hear Geelong people talking about the Newcastle example. Yes, we were a one-industry town many years ago but we no longer face that dilemma. I am very proud to be supporting this budget. Labor budgets do build for our future and ensure a stable economy while supporting jobs. It is a combination of DisabilityCare Australia, our investment package for better schools, our plan for Australian jobs and our National Broadband Network—the largest infrastructure project in our nation's history—that prepare our nation for the opportunities and challenges of the future. Only a Labor government can achieve this. I am proud of the final budget being handed down in my term in parliament. 16:44 Mr BRUCE SCOTT YT4 Maranoa I rise this afternoon to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2013-2014 and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2013-2014. These bills will obviously appropriate significant sums of money over the rest of this budget cycle. I was disappointed on the night of the budget to hear very little reference to rural and regional Australia or to that great productive sector, the sector that feeds this nation and still has 60 per cent of its capacity exported to markets around the world. I refer to our farmers and their families and of course the small businesses in those country towns that are so dependent on the wealth that is generated by our agriculture sector. But first of all I want to say that the $2 billion that was cut from the regional development fund was a great disappointment to me, because we were looking forward in my constituency, in rural and regional Australia, to seeing some of that money invested in the road infrastructure in Australia. If there is anything that we can do to reduce the costs of doing business and increase productivity for our agricultural sector and, for that matter, the mining sector, which is of course located largely in rural and remote parts of Australia, it is to upgrade some of our roads. But that $2 billion is gone because of the gross mismanagement by this government of the economy. The government went looking for savings and of course the $2 billion was an easy hit—it was going to hit rural and regional Australia—because the government, quite frankly, does not understand rural and regional Australia or the communities, the families, the businesses or the farming community that live out in rural and regional Australia. There is no greater example of the lack of understanding of rural and regional Australia than the situation that is confronting the beef industry in northern Australia and, for that matter, across Australia right now. The ban that this government put on the export of live cattle to Indonesia from Australia still has ramifications not only today for the northern cattle industry but across the beef industry across Australia. I am joined right now by the member for Kennedy. He and I along with other colleagues—the minister in Queensland; Senator Joyce; and my good friend and colleague Vaughan Johnson, the member for Gregory—attended a crisis meeting in Richmond several weeks ago. I know that some of those people who were at that meeting, proud producers who have been producing for decades and decades as families, who understand Northern Australia, are down here to bring their case to Canberra. I hope to be able to meet with them tomorrow. By banning those live cattle exports, the government insulted the very market, the very government, the very country, which had been taking up to 700,000 head of live cattle each year, much-needed food protein for their communities, for their people, across Indonesia. The cattle that they breed up there are bred in the tropics of Australia. They are largely influenced by the Brahman breed. They are bred to be exported live. Why that type? Because they are going into a tropical area, into Indonesia, into feedlots and from feedlots into processing works which will provide that much-needed protein source for the people of Indonesia. The ramifications now are not just for northern Australia's beef industry but across the beef industry across the eastern states and many parts of Western Australia as well. My home town is Roma, in Queensland. It has weekly store cattle sales and weekly fat cattle sales. In fact, it is the largest store-cattle-selling centre in Australia. We have seen many producers wanting to ship these cattle from northern Australia into a market. Many of them know that cattle with Brahman influences—and I know the member for Kennedy would concur with this—are not necessarily suitable for our domestic market because they have been bred for a specific market which is in Indonesia. It is like a factory producing an article for a particular consumer market, and suddenly the market has gone. I have seen, in the saleyards in Longreach and in Roma, prices back by up to 50 per cent. The net result is that the producers who have bred these cattle—whether they are northern cattle producers or producers across the eastern states or in many parts of my electorate—have seen their projected incomes reduced by up to 50 per cent. The banks are very aware of the roll-on effect of that, and I call on the banks to have patience with the many producers who find themselves in this situation. The net effect of that is to reduce the value of the land, because it is based on what you can earn from the land. That will be reflected in the capital value of that asset. Some of the largest publicly listed pastoral companies in Australia have been really hit by this decision and the lack of understanding by this government of the importance of the live cattle market to the beef industry in northern Australia. The Australian Agricultural Company, established in 1824, is our oldest registered company. The Bank of New South Wales would say that they were there a year earlier, but that is a debate for another day. They are now called Westpac. The Australian Agricultural Company is the oldest continuous company in Australia. It has just reported a $46.5 million quarterly loss because of the write-down of the value of its cattle and its capital assets, the land, because of the way that the government dealt with the live cattle exports issue by banning the export of live cattle to Indonesia and the way that the government have handled the situation since then. We have not regained the numbers in quota entitlement to Indonesia. We have not gained any more market share. Something like an extra half a million head of cattle that would otherwise have been exported into Indonesia through live cattle exports have had to find themselves a market in Australia. I am sure the member for Kennedy has seen people putting their cattle on the road in a desperate attempt to save them, because they missed out on the wet season this year. They know, as I know—but obviously this government would not understand—that the northern parts of Australia, the tropics, will not see a wet season or rain until January, February or March of next year. And of course they could miss it then as well. So we have got half a million head of cattle that otherwise would have been exported to Indonesia on these properties. So many of the producers have told me that, if they send them away to market, albeit in a much lighter state because they have not grown as well as they would have in a better wet season, they could find themselves with a bill rather than a cheque. Cattle that recently went to Longreach—and I am sure the member for Kennedy would be aware of this—made something like $20 a head because of the situation. There was no market for them. The market they were bred for—live export to Indonesia—has been largely taken away by this government. The ramifications are still out there for the Australian Agricultural Company and for other large companies that have been around for more than 100 years. The other one that has reported lately is NAPCO, the North Australian Pastoral Company, a wonderful company of the Northern Territory and the Channel Country of my electorate. It is privately owned, not publicly listed, but it has to report because of the shareholdings in the company. It has just reported a $5.68 million loss for the year. This is all a direct result of the government's handling of the live export market into Indonesia. I want to touch on one other thing in the time I have left, and that is the real threats to my country towns in Western Queensland. Recent regional population growth statistics reveal that the average growth rates in many towns in the central western part of my electorate are falling. The way the federal government has dealt with the live cattle market has not helped those communities. From 2001 to 2011, in the local government area of Longreach the population dropped by some 318 people. Balonne, based on St George, lost 685 people in 10 years. Barcaldine's population decreased by 265 people, and the Paroo lost some 247 people. Those numbers might sound rather small, but in those populations they are significant because the numbers continue to decline. One of the major contributing factors, in my view—and it is shared by many people I met on the weekend at the Isisford Sheep and Wool Show—is the impact that wild dogs are having on the wool industry. So many people who would have otherwise remained in the sheep and wool industry have sold their sheep and gone into cattle because the wild dogs are just decimating sheep flocks in the central western Queensland region of my electorate. So why would wild dogs have an impact on the population of those towns? When you go out of the sheep and wool industry is I am sure that the member for Kennedy would understand, you lose the shearers from your towns. You lose their families whose children would have gone to the schools, so you need fewer teachers. They do not shop in town because they are no longer in town, and all of our shearing teams who would have otherwise resided in those country towns have moved away elsewhere. This is a direct result of the economics of the sheep and wool industry. It has had the massive impact of dingoes and wild dogs—call them what you like—on people's decisions to get out of sheep and wool because the dogs, in large numbers, have been eating the lambs that have been produced each year in lambing season, and have also destroyed many adult sheep as well. There is plenty of evidence out there from experts who can tell you that a single wild dog or dingo can eat or destroy up to 60 lambs per night. I have reports coming in from producers with a what we call scanned pregnancy tested ewes. They put them out in paddocks to lamb; there is a good source of protein in the grass, so you would expect 80 to 90 per cent of those who have been scanned as pregnant, and separated away from those ones that are not pregnant, to lamb. At lamb-marking time there are only 10 to 20 per cent; in other words 70 to 80 per cent of the lambs have been taken by wild dogs. That is part of the reproductive cycle that enables producers to have excess stock for sale. Without that, the economics of that property fall into negative territory and, of course, so many of them have decided to get out of sheep now. I met with people in Isisford on the weekend, and what they are proposing out there is to establish a very long wild dog or dingo barrier fence, something like 800 kilometres, so that they can fence in the areas of Blackall-Tambo Regional Council, Barcaldine Regional Council, Longreach Regional Council and the Barcoo Shire Council. In those areas they believe that once that barrier is there, they will see people make a decision about staying in sheep and expanding their sheep enterprises. Right now it would not be an option should anyone want to go and purchase land in that part of Queensland, or even consider going into sheep, because they know the threat from wild dogs and dingoes is too great and would destroy the economic viability of those properties. Obviously, they would just go into cattle. So we do not have the shearers, we do not have their families, we do not have a rouseabouts and we do not have the trucks taking the wool to market—the transport and railway workers. All of those people were people who lived in those towns and that helped sustain those communities. But they were, to use that old phrase of many old towns, 'much of Australia is riding on the sheep's back'. But right now the dingoes are eating us out of this region. At the meeting I had with the people, I said that we are going to do a feasibility study. I welcome the fact that Premier Campbell Newman of the LNP government in Queensland has given them some $30,000 to look into the feasibility of erecting this fence. As part of that process they will identify the economic way that that could assist in helping to sustain these communities. I would hope to see a turnaround in those populations should we be able to get the money to build this dingo barrier fence. Back in the 1800s, what is now called the 'dingo fence' was built in Queensland, New South Wales and South Australia. It was originally built to keep rabbits out, but I believe that in something like 1914 it turned into a dog-proof fence. We need something like about $8 million—that is the sort of money that I would have hoped could have come from Regional Development Australia, rather than what has been taken away—the $2 billion lost could have been valuable, and I will be fighting for that $8 million to ensure that we can get a dingo barrier fence to protect the wool industry— (Time expired) 16:59 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy I always think that the budgets I have witnessed in this place over a period now of 20 years are not hallmarked by what is in them but in fact by what is not in them. Senator John Madigan let forth with great rage, and I am very much in sympathy with his rage. Many of you will have seen my rage at various times. I thought that when I got older I would get a little bit callused, but when in a nine-day period 200 mining jobs are announced to be gone from North Queensland—that next year 200 jobs will be gone at Mt Isa's CopperString as it closes down and as we cease to mine in Australia and downgrade to a quarry country only—500 jobs gone in Adelaide from the General Motors plant, 1,200 jobs gone in Melbourne at the Ford plant, 500 jobs gone at SPC Ardmona—at the plant itself and amongst the farmers—and another thousand-odd jobs are in jeopardy. That is just in a nine-day period! Doesn't anyone sort of have a sensitivity towards what we are watching, which is the complete unravelling of the Australian economic fabric as the free-market policies of the ALP and the LNP— An incident having occurred in the chamber— Mr KATTER HX4 Can I interrupt for a moment Madam Deputy Speaker? I would prefer people not to be having a telephone conversation while I am trying to address the Parliament of Australia! Possibly, gentlemen, you could go outside? The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMP Thank you, member for Kennedy, for bringing that to my attention. Mr KATTER HX4 The budget, and let me be positive first, was not entirely bereft of infrastructure—arguably, for the first time in 20 years. The current government—and we have to pay them credit for the NBN, which I have not the slightest doubt that the Liberal Party is intelligent enough, I hope, to continue with as they said they would—has the CopperString project in north-west Queensland. That is the greatest concentration of mineral wealth in the country. There are hundreds of millions of tonnes of iron ore and phosphate, as yet untouched. It has never been touched, in actual fact. Quite apart from our strength, which is copper, silver, lead and zinc, the CopperString project was to open up the great mineral wealth of the north-west mineral province—the 'Carpentaria mineral province', if you like, because it goes over into the Northern Territory. But in a very enlightened act of the government's vision—and I must pay tribute to the then Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Kevin Rudd; to his vision and his government's vision—they would provide an energy highway throughout Australia, extending the current energy highway into north-west Queensland—it is 1,000 kilometres away from north-west Queensland at the present moment—into the Pilbara, the iron ore region in Western Australia, and into Olympic Dam. This would be a wonderful thing for Australia. In a most extraordinary piece of mind-numbing stupidity, or of an almost a corrupt influence from the oil and gas companies, the Queensland ALP government refused to go ahead with the CopperString proposal. Even more extraordinary was the incoming government, which describes itself as a 'can-do' government. They most certainly 'can-do' jobs in; they removed 15,000 and have not created one! I thought that if they were in any way positive then the CopperString proposal will get the green light from the incoming LNP government, but it has not. The $2.5 million for the giant Pentland project will take that power one-third of the way up to north-west Queensland. We do not require money from the government for the project but what we do require from the government is tangible evidence that they are in favour of the project. In my electorate, seven per cent of its water and two per cent of its land mass can feed 60 million people. I am quite staggered by remarks by people like Mr Carr, a minister in this government, that the population of Australia is too large. If there is ever a truism of history, Mr Carr, you should stop reading your Civil War books and read some intelligent books and you would see a consistent pattern of behaviour in world history— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMP Member for Kennedy, we do refer to members of the parliament and the Senate by their correct title. Mr KATTER HX4 I do not know his title. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMP He is a senator and he is a minister. Mr KATTER HX4 If Minister Carr gave up reading his Civil War histories and read some books which give a greater purview of the vision of history then he would know that there is a consistent constant in human history: that a people without land will look for a land without people. Even the most casual reading of Mein Kampf,by a certain person in Germany in the 1920s, you will see the German word 'lebensraum' on almost every page—it is very similar to the English words 'living room': 'We want living room. Russia has the land without people and we have the people without land.' There was another country called Japan. Japan wrote a little black book that they gave to all of their southern army—64,000 soldiers—which said,; 'The treasure trove of South-East Asia is held by the Europeans. We shall secure that treasure trove for the betterment of the people of Asia.' It would seem to me that there is a timely resonance for Australia in those remarks. Where you think you can sit on assets that can feed 60 million people and your nearest neighbour has 80 million of their population going to bed hungry every night—and you, with a white faced European descended arrogance can say to them, 'We don't like the way that you process beef, so we are going to cut off your supply of protein.' For an exercise in staggering confrontational arrogance this decision would take a lot of beating. The response from our neighbours was a very Christian response. They are not a Christian country but their response was very Christian. They returned good for evil. We were the source of the evil. Unfortunately our water comes in a rush in the first three months of the year and then it is gone. So we cannot farm because we cannot access the water. You cannot go farming while your ground is water sodden and by the time that ground dries out there is no water in the river. The people of the world invented a thing called the dam, but we have not built one of those in Australia in nearly 30 years. So we continue on thinking that nothing will change, nothing will happen. Our nearest neighbour has 80 million people going to bed hungry every night and one small electorate in Australia can produce enough food to feed 60 million people just using two per cent of its land mass and seven per cent of its water supply. Those are not figures plucked out of the air; they are the actual figures from the Murray-Darling experience in southern Australia. There again, we have decided that the world is coming to an end—what is the latest Chicken Little line we get from the ratbag element of society?—and we are all going to die because of global warming. This particular Chicken Little observation has led us to close down 20 per cent of the Murray-Darling. This is actually money expended. We have taken money out of the taxpayer's pocket, spent it on buying water and taken it out of the economies of all those towns. As we talk, there are nearly 200 shops empty in Shepparton, over 83 in Mildura and around 100 in Griffith—all empty. Land prices in Deniliquin have dropped clean in half. The entire economy of the Riverland area of Australia, where nearly 1½ to two million people live, is collapsing. This is not from anything other than the decisions of the Liberal government of Australia and now those of the Labor Party. Not wanting to be left out, they have gone in and taken another 10 per cent. The Liberal Party took 20 per cent and the Labor Party, not wanting to be left out of the destruction, have taken another 10 per cent. Then we have had all of these jobs go in last nine days. If you draw a graph of this, it will show that no motor vehicles will be produced in Australia in nine years time. Since this industry sources steel from Australia, there will eventually be no steel industry in Australia. Before I sit down, let me say: we thank the government—the energies of the people in my electorate tell me what to do—because we have secured close to $100,000 million for two overpasses for the much-needed approaches to Cairns from Innisfail, Gordonvale and Edmonton. The work on the Cardwell Range will eliminate a very dangerous situation on the Bruce Highway and also cut travelling time by five or 10 minutes—and every five or 10 minutes counts. The completion of the Townville ring-road will ease congestion in Townsville and, of course, will greatly speed things up for people travelling on the Bruce Highway—particularly for people coming in from my area, such as me, and going north. Work will also be done on the Gordonvale Bridge. This is nearly $1 billion worth of work. I must emphasise to people in the western part of my electorate that the federal government gives money for national highways; it does not give money for main roads. So, unfortunately, we dip out on this money. We have got $200 million for part of the National Highway, which goes through Cloncurry, Mount Isa and Camooweal. We deeply appreciate that money, which has come through. Finally, it is not a good thing that we belong to a vanishing race, but in Australia we are well below zero population growth. So, in 15 years time, there will be more deaths than births in Australia and, as a race of people, we will start to eliminate ourselves from the gene pool. The ALP government and Liberal government both did a lot of good work in coming to grips with this problem, but now they are both retreating from that position. It was divulged this week that it costs $800,000 to raise two children in Australia. If you want to be $1 million worse off then go and have a couple of kids! A lot of our young people say, 'Oh, jeez, we can't afford to start a family this year,' and they put it off and put it off. Marie Claire did a wonderful story on this. Many Australian women put off having children and then it is too late. Only 15 per cent of women do not want to have children, but now nearly 30 per cent are not having children. Ethanol and the Galilee Basin development are not in this budget, and they should be. (Time expired) 17:14 Mr TONY SMITH 00APG Casey This debate on the appropriation bills provides each member with an opportunity to give their views not just on the budget but on any aspect of government policy. Of course, it is right and proper that each member of parliament who speaks on these bills focuses, to a large extent, on the government's budget. With a budget the government tells the nation its priorities and the public in turn can judge it on its capacity, on its competence and on its priorities. In this very Federation Chamber last year we had this debate and if we could go back to that moment in time we had those opposite pledging, and in some cases announcing, that they had achieved a budget surplus. As I reflect on each of our current Treasurer's budgets, they all have one underlying theme: with each budget there are grand promises that are always followed by broken promises, nasty surprises and, frankly, incompetent government. The Australian people have been paying the price for that over the last five or six years. In my contribution I want to look at this government's track record, because it is the best and the only indication of their future capability. Last year we had those in government telling the opposition they had returned the budget to surplus. The Australian public were meant to believe that a Treasurer who had missed each of his previous budget targets would miraculously take a budget deficit of some $40 billion and return it to surplus in one year. In fact, together with the Prime Minister, the Treasurer pledged on 500 occasions to return the budget to surplus this year. As it got closer to the budget and even as it became more obvious that the Treasurer was going to miss his target by a long way they kept making that pledge. As a corollary, for those opposite who spoke last year on the budget surplus that has not occurred this year, that will not occur next year or the year after. If you believe the Treasurer it will be near balance the year after that and then a small surplus. The Australian people have seen this Treasurer's track record. They have seen his capacity for meeting targets. What they see is a government that makes a promise on budget night and then spends the rest of the year working out how to break that promise. Those opposite who also spoke on the budget last year also spoke about a number of commitments that were in the budget. They spoke of the importance of an increase to Family Tax Benefit A, worth $2.5 billion. That was in all of their newsletters and in all of their speeches. That promise pledged with hand on heart in last year's budget was broken in this year's budget. Promised tax cuts were also abolished. The mining tax which was supposed to share the benefits of the boom, of course, only delivered a fraction of what Labor claimed. I will come back to that in a short while. The Australian public—who has seen this track record—knows that any promise made by this Treasurer and this government is a promise that will surely be broken by this Labor government in the days, weeks and months ahead. We have looked at the deterioration in the state of the budget; that has deteriorated year after year with this Treasurer. We have seen the gross debt limit increase from $75 billion up to $300 billion. Each time the Treasurer has increased this debt limit, he has said that he would not have to increase it further and that he would never reach the cap. Now it is obvious that he will breach that $300 billion cap and that it will be necessary for him to again seek to increase it. For those opposite who listen to their Treasurer—I think, a year or two ago, there were some that believed their Treasurer, but I cannot believe that there are any of those in the government and on the government back benches who honestly believe in the competence of this Treasurer or the honesty of this Treasurer—each year, they have seen the results of his budget promises. I could run through how much he has missed on each budget projection. I have done that before in similar debates. But I want to talk about the cost of these broken promises and the cost of this incompetence. Our net government debt—let me be generous; I have referred to the gross level of debt—which has escalated to projections up towards $170 or $180 billion. From a Treasurer who inherited $45 billion in cash in the bank, this is a monumental turnaround. And with that debt comes an interest-servicing cost—a significant interest-servicing cost. It is basically $7 to $8 billion a year—$21 million a day. And that is on the net debt figure. That is just to keep the debt. It is not to pay a dollar of the debt off; it is just to keep it. The price Australians pay is the price of the services that could have been delivered with that amount of money every single year, and the cost of paying that down. There is only one way to pay that debt down and that is with a budget surplus, which would be a repayment. Of course, the Treasurer has never delivered a budget surplus and never will. The Treasurer would have us believe that this is all because he has had a collapse in revenue. Nothing could be further from the point. Revenue is up this year. It is up by about six per cent. It is way up, of course, when you look at the figures going back over the last few years. The Treasurer's problem is not that he has had a decline in revenue; the Treasurer's problem is that he has so overestimated what he saw to be the increase in revenue—and then spent the money—that when the increase did not turn out to be so much, he claims he has had a fall in revenue. It is a bit like a family sitting down to do an annual budget and making the assumption that at the end of the year they will get a $30,000 bonus, and on the basis of that assumption spending every single cent of it. Then the problem arises not that they get no bonus but that the bonus is not $30,000; it is something a bit smaller. The best example of this, if you want to go to the detail in the budget papers, is the mining tax, which was going to collect billions and billions of dollars. On the basis of the projection by the Treasurer, that money was spent yet it has not been realised. In fact, as we famously discovered, the mining tax has collected only a little over $100 million in its first six months. You would have thought that the Treasurer would learn from this, but no. If you look at the budget figures where he has the outcome and a low projection for next year, miraculously there is the projection that revenue from this tax will increase massively in the out years, coincidentally at the time he says the budget begins to return to balance and to surplus. This government does not have a revenue problem; it has a spending problem. Families and small businesses in the Yarra Valley and in the outer east know that they pay the price of this government's incompetence and irresponsibility because an incompetent and irresponsible government in Canberra spreads a lack of confidence throughout all of Australia. Whether it be in my electorate or in the electorates of my colleagues, Australians have seen this Treasurer and this government's approach to economic and fiscal policy. After five and a bit years they know that not a word that is pledged can be trusted and they know there are nasty surprises around the corner. This set of appropriation bills following on from the budget really does provide a capacity for those opposite to reflect on the promises they made to their constituents out of each budget. As they start to talk to their electorates again, they should think about what they have done in the past. They should think about what they know will happen in the future. The Australian people are not going to be lectured by this government and certainly members of this opposition are not going to be lectured by this government in the days and weeks leading up to the election about what they will deliver and what they say we will not. For every promise made to families—like the schoolkids bonus, which is linked to the mining tax, which they are promising hand on heart—I say to the families that their promises are the same as the promise they made on family tax A in the last budget. The future under Labor of the schoolkids bonus is the same as what has occurred to the family tax payment, which was promised with such fanfare last year. On these appropriation bills the government has demonstrated that it is getting worse, not better. What Australia desperately needs is a change of government. Australia desperately needs a new Treasurer delivering the budget next year and the present shadow Treasurer will deliver a responsible budget, a budget of integrity, a budget that starts to solve Australia's economic problems. That is what we want to be debating next year. (Time expired) 17:29 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson I rise to speak on the latest artwork the Treasurer has created for us: his sixth and, hopefully, final budget. When the Treasurer stood up in parliament and gave his budget speech I thought he should have had a top hat, complete with rabbit, perhaps a deck of cards in his pocket, white gloves, a pigeon cage and the box and saw for the assistant, because it is probably the greatest work the Treasurer has done and an extraordinary example of his craft—that is, the art of illusion. Just like we had last year, we have a vast collection of smoke and mirrors when it comes to this budget. And this budget will suffer exactly the same fate as last year's budget, because the illusion can only last so long before the smoke clears and people see what is going on. I think the smoke has already cleared on this, because people have run a million miles away from this budget. It has been a very, very unpopular. Last year's wafer-thin surplus promise, which the Treasurer promised and announced and re-promised and re-announced, with the Prime Minister doing the same thing—well, that was gone before the Treasurer even finished his budget speech last year. That promise was for a $1.5 billion surplus, we were told, with surpluses out over the forward estimates, the four-year life of the budget. Instead, what we have is a projected $18 billion deficit. Last year there was a $19.4 billion deficit, this year it is $18 billion, and on and on it is going to go. There is now no budget surplus until 2015-16—but if you believe that you would believe what the Treasurer said last year, that there was going to be a surplus. What does this do? This all adds to the nation's debt, and that debt continues to grow and grow and grow. The gross debt is likely to exceed $300 billion. That is a figure we would were told we would never ever get to, but it is likely to blow that limit, to burst out. I recall the figure of $370-odd billion being announced as where we would hit peak debt. It is atrocious that this country is going to get that far into debt. At $300 billion, this nation is probably paying around $12 billion to $13 billion a year just in interest on that debt. That is a big number for most people to get their heads around. It equates to about $1½ million every hour. That is what the taxpayers will be facing: $1½ million every hour every day for the rest of the year, for the life of this government, and that figure will increase and increase as it keeps on racking the debt up and up and up. The Gillard Labor government and the Rudd Labor government before it started their time in government with money in the bank and no net debt, yet we have managed to get to the situation we are in right now where the debt is growing and there is no sign that it is going to slow down. If we had actually used the money that was in the bank to spend on growth, on hard infrastructure, on stuff that was really needed to get the economy kicking along, it probably would not have been wasted, but the fact is that it has been. The fact is we have not seen substantial funding for major projects. I can point to the Bruce Highway as one of the key infrastructure items that has gone begging with this government. Sure, there has been some work, but I have to tell you it is business as usual: the flood maintenance stuff, the run-of-the-mill stuff, stuff that was budgeted for and left over from the Howard years. All of that is being done, but there has not been anything substantial. We have places like the Yeppen flood plain in Rockhampton, where my good friend the LNP candidate for Capricornia, Michelle Landry, is trying to bring some representation to that area. That Yeppen flood plain is closed for 10 days a year on average and no supplies can get through for 10 days when it floods. That is the time frame. Trucks, freight and cars cannot get through. The Bruce Highway is basically shut down. We have the Goorganga Plain in my electorate of Dawson, just at the Whitsunday coast area. It cuts off the Whitsunday coast airport from the tourism area of the Whitsundays. We have had situations where the area has been flooded and planes from Brisbane have sat on the tarmac. People have not been able to go anywhere because the bus could not get to the airport to pick them up and take them to the Whitsundays. So they have all got back on the plane and it has flown them back home to Brisbane. That area does not even have any planning funding allocated for it under this government. We have Sandy Gully a bit further north near Bowen where there are significant flooding issues as well. We have perhaps the biggest construction project in northern Australia, the Abbot Point coal terminal expansion about to happen. People will need to get through the section of road to work there for the construction and also for the operations. But this area floods regularly. You are not going to get the workforce through there. So it is vital we get this area upgraded but there has been no funding for that under the life of this government. The Horton River bridge a bit further along my electorate, also on the Bruce Highway, is very dangerous. It looks and feels very narrow. It is flood prone and, from the surveys I have conducted in my electorate, it is one of the top priority projects that people want to see sorted out by the government, but there has been no funding allocated to it under this government and no work done. Then there is the Mackay Ring Road. It is vitally needed to get heavy vehicles off local roads in urban Mackay. It will basically become the Bruce Highway bypass of Mackay. It will link the port with the industrial centre of Paget so there are economic benefits as well with greater efficiencies and freight movements. For the residents of Mackay it eases the traffic congestion during the peak hours. The majority of the population of Mackay live north of the Pioneer River. We have this situation where the employment hub is in an area called Paget south of the river and also in the mines which are south and west of Mackay, so there are a lot of traffic log jams but only a minimal amount has been funded here. We got $10 million which seems like a lot but it was $10 million for a study which started in November 2011 for completion midway through this year. They have identified a preferred route and there is public consultation underway but, once that is done, the funds run out. There is no more money to do anything else. The next stage has to be the detailed design and land resumptions. It is estimated to cost about $25 million for the detailed design and the hardship resumptions. That is probably up to $50 million if you are going to acquire the entire corridor. We actually had the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport come to Mackay. He talked about spending potentially $50 million as part of this supposed $4.1 billion commitment that the government is now on the even of an election saying they are going to spend over the next 10 years on the Bruce Highway. Well, hallelujah, they are late converts. But there is no money in the budget papers over the next financial year for it. There is no money from 1 July for any of these projects. The Prime Minister came to Mackay at the end of April. The Daily Mercury, the local newspaper, reported that under the glare of the harsh North Queensland sun and the paper reporter under her nose, the Prime Minister said the money for the ring road would be in the next budget. Less than three weeks later we had the Treasurer bring down a budget with no funding for the ring road in it and certainly not for the next financial year, another broken promise for this government. Curiously, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport flew in for a damage-control trip to Mackay about this. A journalists asked, 'Is this in the budget for 2013-14?' He said, 'It is in the budget.' He would not say the words 'for 2013-14'. He would not have dared say that. He dived and he dodged and he danced around that particular answer. I have to tell you why. It was found out today when the Department of Infrastructure and Transport's Mike Mrdak was before the Senate estimates committee. They asked him for about 15 minutes various different questions about this Bruce Highway funding package and what was going to be funded when. Again, just like the minister, there was a lot of diving and dancing. But the truth came out that it is split into two different parts—$1.844 billion is going to be funded from 2014-15 to 2018-19 and $1.09 billion will be funded from 2019-20 to 2022-23. The remainder of the funds are being spent this year on projects that have already been announced. The ring road and none of those projects I mentioned before are one of them. So it is about $1.2 billion less than what they said. More to the point, there is no funding for 2013-14. Surprise surprise! The Labor candidate in my electorate and the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport have been trying to pull the wool over people's eyes and tell them that the funding is there. But the fact is that funding does not happen until 2014-15. I am a Dr Who fan so unless the minister has a tardis that he can transport funding back in time, it is an impossibility. It is not happening. So they have been caught out and caught out badly with this lie that was told to the people of Mackay that there is going to be funding for the ring road in this budget, next financial year. We were told that by the Prime Minister when she visited Mackay in April. Senate estimates has brought out the truth. The funding is not there. It has been such a massive con job that they are now exposed, well and truly exposed for this fabrication. There is more than the ring road and more than the Bruce Highway that needs to be done in the electorate of Dawson that we do not see any funding for in this budget. They are not big-ticket items and they are not pork-barrelling. They are just things that definitely need to be done. The Don River is one of those things that needs to be fixed. It is a river which does not flow much but when it flows, boy doesn't it flow. If you get a downpour you are going to get some serious flooding that is going to wipe out the community of Queens Beach and a lot of the agricultural crops around that community. It is a problem waiting to happen. There is a plan. The council is undertaking a study that will come out with some recommendations on how to actually fix it. We need to have some funding on the table for natural disaster mitigation and to do projects on problem areas such as this so we do not have that disaster. We need to get that funding and get it going before it is too late. North Queensland produces an enormous amount of wealth for the entire nation. We just cannot seem to get the infrastructure out of government that we require to get on with the job of producing more of that wealth. We do not get our fair share. This government, I would have hoped, could have put up another regional development funding round before the election. It does not look like that is going to happen. Unfortunately, Mackay gymnastics is going to miss out. They have applied in the past for a measly $750,000 for a facility. Meanwhile, Geelong Cats in the national AFL comp gets $10 million for a stadium for that real small rural centre of Geelong. Meanwhile a poor little gymnastics club gets nothing. That situation I want to see reversed and I have a petition that I am going to be presenting to the House in the next coming week. We have to be focused on what counts. This government is too busy being focused on leadership, on appeasing the Greens, buying votes and they have dropped the ball and lost control. We need the strong economy restored. The only way that can happen is through the coalition. (Time expired) 17:45 Mr IRONS HYM Swan I rise today to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2013-2014. The Treasurer's budget speech was a massive disappointment for Australia—and by the look on the members' faces opposite, as the Treasurer was delivering his budget it was a disappointment for them as well. I have always believed that our history—personal and collective—can guide us into the future with smarter and better decisions, hopefully with the aim of improving our future. I looked back at one of my earlier budget replies, and this is what I said: 'For me, it was a gentle reminder to look back to the 2007 election and the period prior to that, when the Labor campaign machine promised a great deal to the people of Australia. This was a party that promised to the Australian people that they were economic conservatives. This was the party that said, "We will deliver a strong economy and take Australia forward with a new vision." The expectations of Australians have not been met.' I should have added at the end: 'Nor have the promises been realised', but I will have more to say about the promises later. That part of a previous speech of mine, even before this 43rd parliament started, is still relevant about the latest budget. On 14 May, the Treasurer had to stand and deliver a speech telling the Australian public and all Australian businesses that he and his budgets are failures. They are complete failures. To be fair to the Treasurer I need to state where he failed. It is as simple as this. In the Treasurer's 2012 budget speech he stated: There we see that the Treasurer and his delivered surplus budgets have failed. At the end of the quote from the Treasurer he mentioned that our economy is in transition. On Monday this week, the Treasurer again stated, during question time, that the economy is in transition. How long does this government need to keep rolling out the same old spin? Every time, they realise they have made another stuff-up. Maybe the Treasurer needs to use the correct word—this isn't an economy in transition, it is an economy that has been trashed. During the 2012 speech, the Treasurer also stated: He then went on to say: There is a word in there that the Australian people and the people of my electorate just do not believe from this government any more—it is the word 'promised'. Many times we have heard the word promised from this government in relation to policy, budget or actions. No one believes or can believe the promises of this government any more. This budget has confirmed that this government has no financial or management skills and is in complete chaos. This budget delivers nothing to help Australian families deal with cost-of-living pressures, economic uncertainty, poor services and poor service delivery. The 2013 budget's only effects are: to increase gross debt and to breach the $300 billion debt ceiling within the forward estimates; to be the fifth Labor deficit in five years with the promise of at least two more to come; no pathway back to a budget that is believable; more broken promises such as the scrapped tax cuts and family payments; and more than $25 billion in higher taxes over the next four years and an extra $100 billion spending on government advertising. The Treasurer of Australia has delivered deficit after deficit for six years. This carries on the proud Labor tradition of delivering deficits, with the last budget surplus delivered by Labor in 1989. What is it that prevents Labor from delivering the surplus, even after bragging and boasting that they will? And now in this budget, Labor is saying the deficit is a good thing. I wonder if the former Labor treasurers get together to boast over old times and biggest deficits, and whether it is like a badge of honour to achieve the biggest deficit and the most debt! If they do, I am sure our current Treasurer, Mr Swan, certainly wins by a country mile. I wonder if there is a perpetual trophy that is big enough to carry all the high-achieving deficit years—or maybe there is an honour board that carries the years and names of the treasurers for each of those years. The plain fact is that debt continues to rise and borrowings per day will rise to almost $50 million per day. The budget was not that well received by industry and business. Many people have made comments about their view of the budget. My own personal background is 25 years in small business. I know in my electorate there are over 17,000 businesses. We have businesses like Crown Perth, we have racetracks, we have greyhounds, and we have the Kewdale transport hub which has the biggest transport road and rail hub in Western Australia. When I was in business in 1992-1993 under Keating, we went through enormous stress—and it is this that my electorate is also feeling at the moment. Chief Executive Officer of the Institute of Chartered Accountants Australia, Lee White, said: Mr Andrew Conway, CEO of the Institute of Public Accountants, said: These comments are hardly an endorsement of this 2013 budget, that only offers more debt. I will offer one more assessment, from the Australian Food and Grocery Council CEO, Gary Dawson. He said there was little in the budget to stimulate growth and confidence, and nothing to relieve the ever increasing regulatory burden on business: Earlier this week, the shadow Treasurer gave his speech on the budget. I must admit he gave the House some great insights into his views of the Treasurer and of his budget. Actually, some of his comments were so good I cannot avoid quoting them. The member for North Sydney said: The shadow Treasurer also said: The shadow Treasurer went on to describe the budget as atrocious and to talk about structural surpluses that we all know the coalition just could not avoid and that our current Labor government just cannot give Australia. Recently we have heard that this government does not have a revenue problem, as repeatedly claimed by the Treasurer. The real problem is that this Labor government has a spending problem that it is addicted to. To give evidence of this, the Treasurer in his first five budgets has spent $191 billion more than has been raised in revenue. The Treasurer is taking Australia to more than $300 billion worth of gross debt, having inherited a very strong budget position from the coalition in 2007. The real tragedy is that the Treasurer has learned nothing from his previous five budget failures, and it is very clear now that in this budget he is still up to his old tricks. The Treasurer is still overestimating revenue by including completely unbelievable revenue assumptions in the budget. The Treasurer wants us to believe that mining tax revenue, for example, is going to increase by 1,000 per cent from this year to the last year of the forward estimates. That is just not going to happen. Madam Deputy Speaker, as you would know, many people call the mining tax the WA tax, as we are the state that is potentially most affected by it. But, as I stated before, it is a tax that has delivered nothing but a lack of confidence by investors in the mining industry. The mining tax is just another example of a Treasurer who just cannot deliver. In Western Australia many constituents are deeply concerned about border security and illegal immigration. This concern is justified by the budget blow-out and the fact that we had a boat turning up in Geraldton harbour. Under Labor, the number of illegal arrivals by boat has increased from two people per month in 2007-08 to more than 2,000 per month this year, 2012-13. If you looked at a graph which showed the growth of illegal arrivals, the steep incline starts in 2008, just after this government changed the rules that the coalition had implemented, known as the Pacific Solution. During the same time, the number of people in immigration detention who arrived by boat has increased from just four people when the coalition left office to more than 23,000, who were in the detention network or on bridging visas in the community as of 10 May. Labor have lost control of our borders and lost control of the budget. The arrival of two more illegal boats with a total of more than 160 people on board means that May is the second consecutive month in which more than 3,000 people have arrived illegally by boat. This can only end with more cost, chaos and tragedy. The latest arrivals have come as immigration department officials this week confirmed during Senate estimates that the Labor government had based their budget on 13,200 people arriving on illegal boats next financial year. I cannot imagine that anyone would believe that figure and how you could forecast that figure when the fact is that more than 22,000 illegal arrivals have come so far this financial year—a figure which the department said could hit 25,000 by the end of June. This is typical of Labor underestimating things like expenditure. Labor always underestimates the cost of their failure on our borders, an underestimation currently running at more than $10 billion of taxpayer's money. I would like to say to all the people in my electorate what the coalition will do if we are elected to government on 14 September. To the electors of Swan: the choice of our next government will be a choice between more broken promises and more debt and more taxes, or a change of government to the coalition, who have an experienced front bench and many people from many walks of life in our party to give the necessary experience to a coalition government that can rebuild our economy but also give you the government you can trust. We will abolish the carbon tax. We will reduce emissions with targeted incentives, not a tax that clobbers business and people. We will abolish the mining tax that drives confidence and investment away from Australia. We will cut red tape and regulation to small business enabling them to grow and prosper and this will boost productivity. We will introduce a paid parental leave scheme, we will revitalise the work for the dole scheme. As the Leader of the Opposition said, the coalition has a plan to build a strong and prosperous economy for a safe and secure Australia. We pledge ourselves to your service. (Time expired) 18:00 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I am pleased to speak for the Appropriations Bill in the parliament today and to reflect on the budgetary position and also my role in this parliament as the member for Farrer and with portfolio responsibilities in the opposition for child care, employment participation and training, and registered training organisations. I also want to mention that I am the chair of this parliament's friends of aviation group, a group that I along with others in this place were instrumental in setting up recently. This group is co-chaired by the member for Chifley and our aim is to recognise and highlight issues critical to the aviation sector in Australia. I believe this sector has been overlooked to a very large degree and that there is a large group of pilots, air operators, maintenance organisations and people who interact with the aviation sector that is feeling quite lost and alone under this government's policies. I would like to think that a recent Senate report highlights to this government a clear failing. I draw your attention, Deputy Speaker, to the Senate report by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Reference Committee, Aviation accident investigations, chaired by my colleague, Bill Heffernan, Senator for New South Wales with an impressive line-up of senators. Many people will be familiar with the circumstances of a particular accident over Norfolk Island involving Pel-Air and the subsequent ditching of that aircraft, the extraordinary survival of the pilot and all the passengers. One would almost say by skill and luck rather than perhaps judgement and an understanding of systemic procedures. What the committee did in—not re-investigating the accident, because the investigation of air accidents should most appropriately be done by the appropriate bodies, the ATSB and CASA—investigating the processes that were gone through in order to come up with the recommendations which, it is fair to say, largely blamed pilot error for the accident. If I can capture their thoughts, the Senate committee did not wish to let the pilot off the hook, so to speak, because to fly in the dark over a great expanse of ocean without an awful lot of fuel on board is probably something that does deserve a degree of condemnation. What surprised me, the committee and many in the sector is that in coming up with its conclusions ATSB simply did not look into systemic failures of the air operator and the reasons that led to the accident that, if you like, are separate from the actions of the pilot. I want to draw a little bit from the executive summary of the Senate report because it makes the point very well: The committee believes that ATSB processes have become deficient for reasons that they continued to detail. They then asked whether CASA exerted undue influence on those processes because CASA failed to provide the ATSB with critical documents which were absolutely relevant to the circumstances of this operator and, therefore, the circumstances of the crash. Why was that? The committee was surprised by the agencies near-exclusive focus on the actions of the pilot and its lack of analysis of the detail of factors that would assist the wider aviation industry. It has been a long time since anyone in aviation has considered that the final few moments of, in the worst case, a fatal or near-fatal crash should be confined to an analysis of the flight itself. People know I had a career in aviation before entering this place. Every air-crash investigation that you read—and many of us take an interest in these things and watch the relevant programs—will always take great note of the system that resulted in the final few minutes. In tertiary study across the world, you can study human factors in aviation accidents. There is a whole body of organisational and management theory that looks at systems and why they fail. It is extraordinary that our ATSB did not look at those systems. The committee was understandably very troubled by allegations that agencies, whose role it is to protect and enhance aviation safety, are acting in ways which could compromise that safety. It resolved to take appropriate action to investigate the allegations. I do commend the full report to the public because it is an excellent piece of work. I thank the Senators for doing it, but it should not stop here. The responsibility now rests with this minister to undertake to assure members of the public that our premier investigator is properly resourced, able to do its job, and capable and competent. After a consultation conversation I had with a previous air accident and incident investigator in my electorate, I have become more and more concerned about ATSB—not just in the context of this particular incident. I should remind members that we are, in terms of our accident investigative capabilities, subject to audits by ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organization. In 2004, ICAO audited the ATSB and essentially gave it a very good report. It was doing its job well. But its capabilities from 2004 to now appear to have been comprehensively trashed. So what is going on? The Senate report said that the committee heard that ATSB's report represents a low point in the agency's standard of reporting. Something has happened between 2004 and now and, ATSB being answerable to the minister for transport, the Minister needs to address this is a matter of urgency. It is always about quality. Whatever we examine in this place is about quality. The quality of reports published by the ATSB is of great concern. My constituent who, as I said, is an air incident and accident investigator, drew my attention to a report which was issued in 2013, some six months after the relevant event. It was about a transport plane which experienced a significant wind change during take-off. It was a Boeing 737 at Perth on 4 December 2012. The report simply said it took a long time to say the incident serves as a reminder to pilots that significant wind changes can occur during take-off, can be difficult to predict and can occur in the absence of thunderstorm activity. The wind conditions at each end of a runway may differ significantly so that headwind conditions can exist at one end and tailwind conditions at the other. Although it did not exist in this case, it is important for the available windsocks before take-off as the final opportunity to detect wind changes before the take-off begins. Even for people who do not have a commercial flying licence as I do, that must sound quite simplistic and indeed it is. We are talking about an experienced airline flight crew here and the ATSB is reminding them to look at the windsocks before take-off. The wind change occurred after the take-off commenced and onboard wind shear predictive reactive warning provided no warnings. We know it does not provide warnings if the speed of the aircraft is above 100 knots. We therefore know the speed of the aircraft was above 100 knots. We are told that wind shear can occur in the absence of thunderstorm activity by the ATSB, when the actual circumstances of the accident was there was not a thunderstorm. Well, there was one about 20 nautical miles away. It is very much teaching your grandmother to suck eggs to take six months to produce a report about something that is fairly self-evident. I do not want to have a go at the ATSB about this report but, if they are struggling with resources, what on earth are they doing taking six months to write this piece of nonsense that adds absolutely nothing to the body of air safety understanding or intelligence in this country? Everybody involved in aviation is struggling at the moment with the operations of the regulator and questions have been raised informally and formally in this parliament for the last 11 years that I have been a member here. This government does not seem to be getting to anything close to a resolution. We need to have an approach with the regulator that is about quality assurance. It is not about massive restructures or hiring or firing. It is about something as simple as assuring quality because the relationships with the regulator should be characterised by openness and a willingness to listen, especially where recent and relevant industry experience is lacking in the regulator. The regulator cannot know everything about everything that is going on every day but they simply do not consult. Many of us were invited to a recent industry crisis meeting in south-east Queensland which highlighted deep concerns of the industry about its own future under the current system and the inability of CASA to respond to genuine concerns and questions in any meaningful way that does not involve attempted intimidation of the victims. The attendees at the meeting were really just expressing their concerns. Many of the symptoms of unaccountability and the lack of focus on the real safety issues were brought to the floor and were treated with contempt. That in itself is of huge concern. I commend the organisations that have struggled through this period and hope that there are brighter times ahead for them, in particular, the Regional Aviation Association of Australia. I met recently with the Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia. They have sensible, responsible common-sense ideas about a new approach to quality assurance in CASA. They really do deserve examination by this minister and this government. We do not have to make statements about changing the culture but, if you establish a quality control system within the regulator, you charge that regulator with consulting, discussing and really listening and with some serious deadlines. The time that it takes to manage business is extraordinary and also the level of intimidation of control that it exercises over what are essentially small businesses trying to make a buck and do the right thing, often in regional Australia where it is very difficult to do that in aviation. I wanted to spend most of this time talking about an issue that I do not have much time to talk about in this place but which nevertheless is extremely important to me. I endorse the remarks of others about the shocking state of this budget under this government, the shocking state of government debt, the fact that Mr Swan has had to max out the credit card to $300 billion, not indicating that he needs that the debt will reach that amount but if he has maxed out the credit card to that, then clearly it might. That in itself is of huge concern. We know that if we are fortunate enough, work hard enough on our election in the middle of September, there is an enormous amount of work to do in order to: to pay off debt, to restore the hope, reward and opportunity that we know my constituents in my electorate in rural New South Wales are absolutely hanging out for. Across a wider national sector, the portfolios that I represent this parliament are also desperate for change and looking forward to a new focus and brighter times ahead. 18:15 Mr HAASE 84T Durack I rise to speak to Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2013-2014, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2013-2014 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2013-2014 concurrently. Associate to write this speech, I reflected upon the last three times to address the House in relation to the annual budget. On 3 June 2010 I said: On 31 May 2011 I said: On 29 May 2012 I said: And today on 29 May 2013 I say my view has not changed. My beliefs have not changed. Rather, my anger has grown at the same rate of knots that this Labor government's spending has grown. My anger is directed at the manner in which the taxpayers' money is being wasted and at the apathy this directionless government displays to all things financial. And today I add to the list of descriptive words I use when speaking of this government the word 'cunning'. This government has seen the writing on the wall. They know they have a snowball's chance in hell to hold the cheque book in months to come. They have, with this budget; booby trapped the sinking ship so to speak. They have thrown out the bath water and left us, the Liberal Party, holding the baby. They came into power, not in a blaze of glory; it was more of an entrance through the back door, a result of insidious deals behind doors. They have divided, conquered and destroyed a nation's respect for government. They destroyed our reputation as a nation that was internationally renowned for its low sovereign risk, a nation that previously held its Prime Minister in high regard, a nation that was not tarnished by rumour and innuendo and a nation that believed the government was a government of the people. I truly hope, for the sake of the nation, this is the last address to the appropriation bills I ever make from this side of the house. This year's budget confirms that Labor's budget management is in complete chaos. It confirms what we on this side of the house knew even before the Treasurer announced it; this budget is the fifth record deficit in five years, in fact it is Labor's 12th deficit from its last 12 budgets, predicting at least two more years of deficits to follow. After six years of chaos, debt and spin, Australians are desperately seeking stable and competent economic management and yet again this government has failed to deliver. This government has failed to deliver on their promises. Last year the Treasurer promised a surplus of $1.5 billion, but instead he has delivered a deficit more than 12 times that—$19.4 billion. In last year's budget speech, the Treasurer promised: He also promised: I find it particularly disturbing that this Treasurer continually breaks his promises to us, the people of Australia. A promise can perhaps be best described as a declaration or an assurance that one will do a particular thing or guarantee that a particular thing will happen. As a man of my word, I like to believe in promises. We all have the right to expect that, when the Treasurer says something, he is saying it hand-on-heart and that he means it. Broken promises or a cunning plan to booby trap the sinking boat show that, either way, he has not been honest in his dealings with the people of Australia. Smoke-and-mirrors instead of transparency has become the hallmark of this Treasurer and, for that matter, this government. At the last election, Prime Minister Julia Gillard promised that Australia's net debt would peak at less than $90 billion. This budget reveals that net debt will now peak at over $191 billion—more than double what was promised by Prime Minister Julia Gillard. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 18:21 to 18:34 Mr HAASE 84T I believe I should recommence with: Labor spruiks they have a revenue problem when in fact they have a spending problem. Revenue in 2013-14 is projected to be $80 billion more than at the end of the Howard government years. Yet the Treasurer plans to deliver his sixth deficit in a row. Spending in 2013-14 will be $120 billion more than spending at the end of the Howard years. With Australia's terms of trade still extraordinarily high—15 per cent higher than at any time during the Howard government—the budget should already be back in surplus. But over the last five years the government has spent $192 billion more than it has raised. Expenditure as a percentage of GDP has been higher every year under Labor than in the last years of the Howard government. The budget papers reveal that Australia's gross debt will breach Labor's $300 billion debt ceiling within the forward estimates. The budget papers foreshadow a further increase in the debt ceiling, stating: If only I had a credit card where, at a whim, I could increase its limit and then leave the payments to someone else! That is exactly what this government is doing. They are spending willy-nilly and leaving Australian taxpayers and their grandchildren—and maybe great grandchildren, for that matter—to pay the debt. Over the first four years of the great mining tax, the minerals resource rent tax that the Labor government secretly thought would pay for their re-election in September, the forecast revenues collapsed from $22.5 billion to $3.3 billion. In fact, mining tax revenue in 2012-13 is a staggering 95 per cent below Treasurer Wayne Swan's original MRRT revenue forecast. The spreading the benefits of the boom package, which was the centrepiece of Treasurer Swan's last three budgets, seems to have been deleted from the budget papers altogether. I did, however, go to the government website Budget 2012-13 and re-read some of the hollow promises made. Of particular interest was a page bearing, in big, bold gold script 'Spreading the benefits of the boom'. Quite clearly, for all and sundry to see, right under the heading it said: hollow words indeed. The page goes on to say: A little further down the page, we find more hollow words: Labor trumpeted their claim that they were spreading the benefits of the boom, and now we find it is another broken promise. Despite the comprehensive failure of the mining tax to raise any meaningful revenue so far, the Treasurer's 2016-17 surplus promise relies on mining tax revenue increasing by more than 10 times from its level this year. You cannot kill the golden goose and still expect a big, fat golden egg every morning. The carbon tax introduced after the infamous 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead' statement by Prime Minister Gillard in 2010 is by no stretch of the imagination going to receive the dollar-per-tonne amount forecast by the government. Despite the crumbling EU carbon price, the government continues to forecast receiving $38 a tonne in 2019-20, while the forecast carbon price for 2015-16 has dropped to $12 per tonne—a cost of over $5 billion to revenue. It remains more than double the European market forward price for 2015 of $6 per tonne. The budget delivers more than $25 billion in higher taxes over the next four years—99 per cent of which will hit Australians after the next election. In fact, 60 per cent of the government's deemed savings are new or increased taxes. Two years ago, Treasurer Swan promised there would be, '500,000 jobs created by 30 June this year'. So far, he has delivered barely half that number—another broken budget promise. The budget papers reveal yet another blow-out in the management of Australia's borders by at least $4.7 billion since last year's budget. The budget also assumes that boat arrivals will phase down over the next four years, despite arrivals now being at a record level. I can speak firsthand of the arrivals; not only of a record level but also of a record arrival in the city of Greater Geraldton, a booming city in the heart of my electorate of Durack. On 9 April just this year, 66 Sri Lankans on a leaky boat sailed casually into the Geraldton bay, between a coffee shop and a children's water park. Believed to have been at sea for 44 days, the boat was apparently destined for New Zealand. Of course, this came as no great surprise to me. The government and their processes are in such disarray that we should be expecting the worst. What does surprise me is that this is the first vessel that has made it down this far, considering the hundreds that have set out—and we have had $25 billion dollars ripped out from the defence budget in the last four years. In short, the 2013-14 budget delivers the following: total gross debt to reach the $300 billion debt ceiling within the forward estimates; Labor's fifth record deficit in five years, with at least two more deficits to come; record net debt of $192 billion dollars; no credible path back to surplus; more promises broken, such as the scrapping of tax cuts and family payments; and more than $25 billion in higher taxes over the next four years. If only this government had displayed the same rigour to Australia's bank account as to the outrageous acts of cunning we witnessed in this coming financial year's budget, Australia would not be staring down the barrel of fiscal ruin and we the Liberals would not have to bail the country out of financial hardship yet again. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 140651 The question is: 18:42 Mr MATHESON M2V Macarthur I rise today to speak on these appropriation bills because I believe the people of Macarthur are worse off as a result of this Labor budget. This year's budget delivers more debt, more deficits, more taxes, more broken promises and more uncertainty. It was a cruel blow to families, pensioners and small-business owners in my electorate. Sadly, our country is in more debt than ever before, with the total gross debt set to have reached $300 billion within the forward estimates. It is Labor's fifth record deficit in five years and there are at least two more deficits to come. Over the past five years the government has spent $191 billion more than it has raised. Australia cannot afford to keep running up record debt and deficits. This government needs to start living within its means, just like every family and every business across the country. I hold great concern for the people of Macarthur, who are struggling to make ends meet as a result of this government's reckless spending and waste since it was elected in 2007. It is a big concern but no surprise that Labor's budget has failed to address the cost of living pressures for all Australians. Since elected, this Labor government has done nothing to ease the cost of living pressures for families in Macarthur. Since 2007, the cost of electricity has increased by 93.8 per cent, water and sewage costs have increased by 63.1 per cent, the cost of gas has increased by 61.8 per cent, the cost of medical and health services is up by 40.9 per cent, and rents have increased by 30.2 per cent. The rising cost of living has had a huge impact on quality of life for many families in Macarthur. People in my electorate are working hard to pay off their mortgage and balance the family budget. They are trying to decrease their own debt and reduce their credit limits. So you can imagine how frustrating it would be to see their own government's wasteful spending result in almost $300 billion of debt, reaching record national debt interest payments of $7.8 billion per year. That is almost $50 million per day in borrowings. This government does not have a revenue problem; it has a spending problems. Labor's interest payments are now at almost $35 million a day. This budget delivers more than $25 billion in higher taxes over the next four years. And to make matters worse, this budget includes an extra $100 million spending on government advertising. How can this government justify $100 million on advertising when there are people in Macarthur who are struggling to pay their bills and put food on the table for their families? I have spoken in this House recently about families in Macarthur who cannot afford to sign their children up for sports teams and after-school activities. The cost of living is so high that there is no money left after one income covers the mortgage and the other income barely covers the electricity bills, water bills, grocery bills and the council rates—all of which have gone up thanks to this Labor government's record debt and their toxic carbon tax. There are pensioners in my electorate who shower once every two days and have cut down on the number of meals they eat each day because of the rising cost of electricity. The budget revealed that Labor's carbon tax projections are again wildly off the mark. The collapse of the European carbon price means that Labor is now covering up a further black hole of $6 billion. But relief is in sight for Macarthur families under a coalition government. We will abolish the carbon tax and provide immediate and substantial relief on electricity and gas prices. On day one of the new government, we will instruct the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to draft legislation to repeal the carbon tax. We will instruct the department to start implementing the coalition's Direct Action plan on climate change and carbon emissions. We will ensure that households get the full benefit of the abolition of the carbon tax by requiring the ACCC to make sure companies do the right thing. Under the government's budget, families in Macarthur will be worse off. They are being forced to bear the brunt of the government's failed mining tax and carbon tax—and that is not fair. The government has extended the pause on income thresholds for family payments, the family tax benefit supplement payments, until 2017. This decision will impact the 1.5 million families who receive Family Tax Benefit A and 1.3 million families who receive Family Tax Benefit B, as these supplement payments fail to keep pace with the rising cost of living. The Labor government's decision to scrap these planned family tax benefits will impact 12,261 families in Macarthur. This benefit would have provided up to $300 to eligible families with one child and up to $600 to families with two or more children. In May 2012, the Prime Minister promised a $1.8 billion boost to family payments, new tax relief for business and lump sum allowances for struggling Australians as part of a new 'benefits of the boom' package to spread the benefits of the resources boom to all corners of our country. This is just another broken promise for the people of Macarthur. At the last election, Labor also promised company tax cuts for businesses and then took them away last year, saying that the money would go towards family payments instead. Now those family payments have been taken away before they were even meant to start. Families across the country are literally paying the price for this government's reckless spending and waste. I can tell you now that more than 12,000 Macarthur families have taken a clear message away from this decision, and that is that Labor cannot be trusted to keep its promises or honour its word. Labor promised 'no carbon tax', a budget surplus, 500,000 new jobs and increased family payments—and every one of these promises has been broken. Macarthur families will also suffer as a result of this budget's broken promise on child care. At a time when childcare costs are increasing, Labor has broken its promise that the indexation of the childcare rebate would recommence in 2014. The coalition will ensure that child care is more accessible, affordable and flexible by getting the Productivity Commission to urgently undertake a major inquiry into the childcare system. There are thousands of families across Macarthur relying on child care to allow both parents to work, to stay on top of the mortgage and to pay all the bills. It is imperative that these families can access affordable and flexible child care to fit in with their employment. The coalition is also committed to its strong and effective paid parental leave scheme, which has been our policy now for three years. We want to ensure that Australian families are able to afford to take time off work for the birth of their children. This policy will ensure that they are able to spend these formative months with their newborn, before returning to the workforce. The beneficiaries of this policy in Macarthur will be teachers, police officers, nurses and retail workers who earn more than the minimum wage but are in no way rich. Paid parental leave should be viewed as a workplace entitlement, not a welfare entitlement. To this end, it makes sense for the amount paid to be based on an actual wage. Labor's scheme, on the other hand, puts families who earn above the minimum wage at a real financial disadvantage when starting a family. Our parental leave scheme is a genuine economic reform because, if we want a stronger economy, it is vital that we encourage skilled people to stay connected to the workforce. Increases to the Medicare levy under this budget will also hit Macarthur families, with an average Australian family who earns $70,000 a year, $350 per year worse off. Under this government, it is going to cost Macarthur residents more to visit the GP and other health professionals as a result of this budget. The government has cut more than $1.8 billion from Medicare rebates, the Extended Medicare Safety Net and the net medical expenses tax offset. These cuts will hit the sickest and most vulnerable members of my community the hardest. There will be no increase to Medicare rebates between November 2012 and July 2014, despite continued growth in the cost of delivering health care. This means the costs are likely to be passed on to patients directly, particularly in general practice, where there is a high volume of pensioners and concession card holders. These cuts follow Labor's previous attacks that have forced up the cost of private health insurance and cut Medicare funding for dental services. The government has failed to deliver on key promises in health. It has forced up the cost of health care for millions of Australians and has diverted much-needed resources to building bureaucracy. The coalition will restore good economic management so that sensible investments can be made in frontline health services that actually benefit patients. Families caring for a loved one with a disability can be sure that a coalition government will keep the announced spending on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We will also ensure that the scheme reflects the Productivity Commission's recommendations, rather than just becoming another government bureaucracy. I believe that the NDIS is the most important piece of legislation ever to go through this parliament. There are many families in my electorate which will benefit, but the scheme must reflect the Productivity Commission's recommendations to make sure nobody falls through the cracks. It is my strong belief that the financial support and assistance for these people living with a disability should not be the responsibility of parents and carers who have already provided hands-on support to their loved ones 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The coalition believes that the NDIS can be delivered in the time frame recommended by the Productivity Commission by a sensible government that manages it well. We are ready to work with the government to see an NDIS delivered as soon as possible and believe that we must get this right the first time around, with a very high level of consultation and attention to detail from now until its full implementation. The federal budget has revealed that Labor is actually reducing school education funding by $325 million over the forward estimates. This is despite the claims of extra spending. Labor claims that they are putting $2.8 billion into schools over the next four years. But they are discontinuing national partnership funding for lower socio-economic schools, reward payments to teachers, cash bonus payments to schools and literacy and numeracy funding to the value of $2.1 billion. On top of these discontinued programs, there is a third of a billion dollars reduction in ongoing funding set aside for non-government schools when comparing last year's budget figures to this year's figures. This means that schools in New South Wales will not see any of the promised federal funding until 2017—two federal elections away. Labor has also cut funding to universities, student income support, apprenticeships and training and tax deductions for self-education expenses. The coalition certainly supports additional funding for schools. We have always suggested that at least the same amount of funds indexed each year to meet rising costs must be a basic starting point arising as a result of any new school-funding model. Unlike this government, if elected, we will focus on areas which are linked to improved student outcomes. We will introduce reforms and improve teacher quality, implementing a robust national curriculum and principal and school autonomy, and encouraging more parental engagement. We believe that improving teacher quality is the most effective way to improve student outcomes. We also recognise that quality professional development for teachers has to be at the top of the education agenda. In Macarthur we have many fantastic teachers dedicated to the education of their students. These teachers know and understand how important it is that they receive professional development training to ensure that their students succeed in the classroom. The coalition will also oppose Labor's plan to introduce a means test on parents of children in non-government schools. The Labor Party calls it an 'individual parental capacity to pay'—this is just another term for 'means test'. Under Labor's school funding changes, parents will have to reveal their individual income when enrolling their child at a non-government school from 2017. The lack of infrastructure promised for the people of Macarthur in this budget was no surprise. Even the government's NBN was slashed. Budget figures reveal that plant investment in the NBN Co. this year and the next two years has been slashed by $3.5 billion. Less investment in the NBN Co. will clearly lead to a reduction in the number of households and businesses in Macarthur which actually receive access to the NBN fibre network. This number will be substantially lower in the period between now and June 2016 than forecast in the revised NBN 2012-2015 Corporate Plan. The budget confirms what the coalition has warned of for some time: Labor's NBN is unaffordable within the currently claimed budget, and undeliverable on the currently claimed schedule. The gutting of NBN funding is a clear admission that the rollout is extremely behind the schedule unveiled by the government only nine months ago. After almost six years of Labor, fewer than 20,000 households and businesses are connected to the fibre network, while 2 million are still unable to obtain fixed broadband that supports viewing a YouTube video. If elected, the coalition will complete the NBN sooner, more affordably and at less cost to Australian taxpayers. We will aim to ensure all households and businesses in Australia have access to broadband, providing a download data rate of at least 25 megabits per second by 2016. Within three years, the coalition's NBN will deliver broadband speeds at least five times faster than the current average for $60 billion less than Labor's version. The coalition will help Macarthur families, households, retirees and pensioners get ahead and plan their futures with confidence. We will do this by scrapping the carbon tax and ensuring that tax cuts and fortnightly pension and benefit increases are kept. This is good news for Macarthur families. We will redirect savings from wasteful government spending to provide cost-of-living relief to families and benefit recipients in Macarthur, including pensioners, while also improving the budget bottom line. By making savings across a range of programs the coalition will generate sufficient savings to retain in full the personal tax cuts which commenced last year, including the increase in the tax-free threshold to $18,200. We will also retain all of the fortnightly pension and benefit increases provided as part of Labor's carbon tax compensation package. This means people will continue to receive these tax cuts and fortnightly benefit increases—but without the carbon tax—giving Australians genuine cost of living relief. Everything we do will be to build a stronger economy. We believe that this is the key to almost everything we wish for as a nation. It means more jobs, higher wages, greater government revenue, better services and, ultimately, stronger and more cohesive communities. The coalition has the experience and discipline to return the budget to sustainable surpluses. We will reduce debt and provide real support to Macarthur families to help them get ahead again. A coalition government would give businesses in Macarthur the certainty they need to prosper. We will create stronger jobs growth by building a diverse, world-class, five-pillar economy and we will generate one million new jobs over the next five years. This budget has little to offer the people of Macarthur aside from pain and empty promises. I am proud to be a member of the coalition. Our Real Solutions Plan will take pressure off families in Macarthur and strengthen our economy. This will ensure that over time there will be more wealth to go around for everybody. The people of Macarthur deserve much better than this government and its reckless spending and broken promises. Through responsible savings and strong economic management the coalition will provide hope, reward and opportunity for all Australians, and that is something the people of Macarthur can get excited about. 18:56 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff Here we are: another year, another Labor budget. From my perspective it has been another example of more of the same. Unfortunately we know that when it comes to Labor Party budgets, it is a case of looking what Labor does not look at what Labor is going to do. Who would forget that it was not that long ago that Kevin Rudd was elected at the end of the coalition's period of office in 2007 promising to be a fiscal conservative. The Labor Party held themselves out to the electorate and said, 'We learned the lessons of the past. The Labor Party is not going to be a tax-and-spend government anymore. You can trust us to steer the Australian economy. You can trust the Labor Party to deliver surpluses and to make the big calls correctly to ensure ongoing prosperity for the Australian people.' Here we are six years later and what do we know? We know the track record of the Australian Labor Party, true to form, has been a continuation of the exact same profligacy we saw when Labor was last in office. We have seen the Labor Party engage in a process of taxing and spending. We saw the hard work of the coalition that for 12 years committed itself to making the tough calls, committed itself to saying no to people when we had to say no because we knew it was not in Australia's long-term financial interests and also to providing tax relief where we could afford to do so. After a period of abolishing wholesale sales tax and introducing the GST to make sure that Australia was on a sustainable fiscal platform, the coalition saw the economic opportunity squandered. If the Labor Party were elected in 2007 and in a matter of about six months later they delivered—I would use the word 'delivered' in quotation marks—a budget surplus of around $20 billion to $22 billion, from memory, built off the back of the hard work and the decisions that had been taken by the coalition in, at the very least, the 12 months prior but perhaps more accurately over the 12 years prior. We note the Labor Party got a firm grip on the levers controlling the Australian economy and made decisions about what they believed to be the priorities for our nation. Lo and behold, what we saw was the massive erosion of Australia's competitive standing and of Australia's fiscal position. Over the past six years of Labor Party government and incumbency we have seen Australia's financial position move from having $70 billion worth of assets—the Future Fund, the Higher Education Fund, Medicare Fund—and $20 billion plus surpluses to deficits of $44 billion, $58 billion and, who could forget, this year a guaranteed, you-can-bet-your-life-on-it surplus of a billion dollars that has turned out to be $19.4 billion deficit. What is more, after the Treasurer stood up and said in the budget speech last year, 'This is the first surplus with years of surplus to follow', we now find—oops, typical Labor—a $19.4 billion deficit and a deficit of $18 billion over the next financial year to be followed by a $17 billion deficit the year after that. The Labor Party, again true to form, says: 'But this isn’t our fault. It's all a consequence of international circumstances. If only we hadn't been in the wrong place at the wrong time, we could have governed effectively and we could have made sure the Australian people weren't up to their eyeballs in debt.' If only it was not for the GFC the Labor Party would have continued getting the big calls right and we would have seen the Australian people continue to enjoy strong economic growth. If only the Labor Party had not been the victim of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, then it would not have allowed a situation to arise where Australia moved from $70 billion of net assets to now gross debt approaching $400 billion in six years. The problem with that approach is that is just not supported by the facts. There are inescapable facts about Australia's economic performance. Granted, the GFC was particularly pronounced in Europe and we have seen fiscal problems of a magnitude not seen since the Great Depression throughout Europe. But that is not the story in our part of the world. That is not the story with respect to our major trading partners. That is not the story with respect to the United States. The simple reality is that in our region the countries with which Australia does the bulk of its trade and to which we export there was significant economic tumult about three or five years ago, but since then there has been a sustained pathway of strong economic growth. China has seen growth remain above seven per cent for years. The United States is currently seeing a strong economic recovery take hold. And we see throughout the bulk of our Asian neighbours continuing economic resilience. When you look at the economic profile of other countries—for example, Canada or other mid-range economies similar to Australia—the story could not be more different to the Australian experience. Those countries are once again back into positions of surplus; once again paying down debt; once again provisioning for the future. That is in remarkable and strong contrast to the Labor Party, which continues to say, 'It's not us; it's everybody else that is the problem.' My constituents on the Gold Coast know what the problem is. They know that the problem is that this is a Labor government that, true to form, is big taxing and big spending. There has never been a spending initiative that the Labor Party does not like and there has never been a tax that the Labor party does not like. What constituents talk to me about on a regular basis is their sense of betrayal by this Labor Prime Minister, who, we all know, stabbed the former Prime Minister in the back and said, 'I was forced to do it because we were making some major policy errors.' To name two that immediately spring to mind: the mining tax and border protection. These were issues that needed to be addressed. That was the excuse used by the current Labor Prime Minister to stab in the back Kevin Rudd, the member for Griffith and Australia's elected Prime Minister prior to that. What do we discover? The Prime Minister, only six days out from the last federal election, had looked down the barrel of TV cameras and said, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' The current Treasurer had said claims that the coalition was making at that stage that Labor had plans to introduce a carbon tax were 'hysterical'. And what has come to pass? We now know that those claims were not hysterical, they were exceptionally accurate. We know that the Prime Minister who said, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,' introduced a carbon tax. And the Prime Minister who said, 'I had to stab the member for Griffith in the back because we got it wrong on border protection,' has now seen effectively an armada of boats coming not only to the islands around Australia but to Australia's very mainland, with about 40,000 asylum seekers coming to Australia since Labor changed the laws. The falseness with which Labor goes about its budget process that concerns me as well. We know that the Labor Party needs to fudge the figures, frankly, when they are trying to make out that they have got everything under control when it comes to the nation's finances. That is the reason we have seen the Labor Party claim, for example, that the costs of border protection were going to reduce. At the very time we are getting record numbers of asylum seekers coming to Australia, because our borders are effectively nonexistent, we have a situation where the Labor Party says: 'No, sure, there's been a $6½ billion blow-out when it comes to the cost of dealing with the problem we created when we changed the laws, but you know what? Trust us, in the next 12 months the costs are going to go down. It's all right, we've got it under control.' No change to policy and, lo and behold, what we saw was that the costs went up, just as the coalition predicted they would. Likewise, when the coalition effectively openly laughed at Labor's projected $1 billion surplus, and then this year the Treasurer says: 'Well, these events were unpredictable. How were we to know we would have revenue write-downs of the magnitude that we have had?' Once again, we saw Labor playing the victim card. The problem was that, after the budget last year, the shadow Treasurer and member for North Sydney stated in his address to the National Press Club that we simply could not rely on Labor's forecasts because they were built off an expected increase in revenue of $39 billion. The shadow Treasurer mocked the fact that Labor said there would be a miraculous $39 billion recovery in revenue and that is what would deliver a $1 billion surplus this year. Lo and behold, he was right. There was no miraculous $39 billion recovery. It was all just spin put in place by the Labor Party to attempt to hoodwink the Australian people. I know that in my electorate on the Gold Coast people are sick and tired of this Labor government. They do not believe a word that comes from the lips of the Prime Minister. They certainly do not believe the fiscal strategy of this Labor Party, because it is bereft of any relevance and it is absolutely bereft of any credibility. Australians are ready to say to this government: 'We reject you and we reject the approach of the Labor Party.' They reject 40 new or increased taxes since Labor were elected. They reject the world's biggest carbon tax. They reject a mining tax that raises $125 million when Labor projected that it was actually going to raise over $2 billion. Australians are not mugs. They recognise a foul stench when they smell one and they know that this government has a foul stench about it. For that reason I am certainly pleased to be part of a coalition that has a proud track record of delivering not only for the people of Australia but for my city of the Gold Coast. Local media and constituents were concerned that in this year's budget papers there was one solitary mention of the Gold Coast, Australia's sixth largest city. In some 4,800 pages there was one solitary mention. I am not surprised because the Labor Party has not been seen anywhere near the Gold Coast for years. The Prime Minister physically set foot in the city twice over the last term, both times to address the AWU conference and cloistered within the confines of an AWU conference, but the reality is that the Labor Party has no form when it comes to understanding the Gold Coast. The Labor Party does not understand the Gold Coast because fundamentally, if there is one trait that is consistent with all my constituents across the city, it is a belief in small business and entrepreneurship. The reality is that that is foreign to Labor. It is foreign to Labor because it is not about unionised workforces, it is not about their approach to industrial relations and it is not about Labor's tax and spend approach to running government. That is the reason the Labor Party has been missing in action on the Gold Coast for years. I recommit myself and say to all Gold Coasters that tomorrow can be better than today. The coalition has positive plans that we will put in place to get Australia back on track. The coalition has in place a strong track record that demonstrates not only that we are committed to getting our economy back on track but also that we are committed to tourism and construction industries, the two single biggest employers across the city. We get small business; we get tourism; we get the construction and property industries. That is the reason we delivered historically; that is the reason the coalition got unemployment down to a record low, the lowest in 33 years; that is the reason we will resolve to recommit ourselves to paying off the nearly $400 billion of debt that Labor has racked up in getting Australia's economy back on track—because the next generation of Gold Coasters deserve it. 19:11 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2013-2014 and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2013-2014. This Labor budget is more debt, more chaos and more spin from a desperate government reeling out of control. On 14 May the Treasurer announced that his much-promised surplus of $1.5 billion had not materialised. Surprise, surprise! On more than 500 occasions the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and others in this Labor government promised a budget surplus in this financial year. Indeed, many ALP members sent out newsletters to their electorate claiming that Labor had already delivered a surplus. But as a result of this government's incompetence, as a result of their addiction to spending, there is now a $19.4 billion deficit for 2012-13. For 2013-14, the budget deficit will be $18 billion. In total, all six of the Treasurer's budgets have been deficits. The last 12 Labor budgets have been deficits. In fact, this is the longest period of successive deficits by one government in more than a generation. Yet the Treasurer expects Australians to believe him when he says that, with Labor's fifth record deficit in five years, with two more deficits still to come, Australia will magically see a return to surplus in 2015-16 of $0.8 billion. Five years of Labor deficits means $192 billion of debt, with gross debt expected to exceed the $300 billion limit in the forward estimates. This Labor government has already increased that debt ceiling on four occasions from $75 to $200 billion, then $250 billion and now it stands at $300 billion. After this year's budget, that debt ceiling will have to be increased for a fifth time when our gross debt exceeds $300 billion. That means Australian taxpayers are paying $35 million a day in interest—that is, $13 billion a year, which is more than enough to cover the full-year costs of the NDIS without a levy. The $192 billion of debt comes from this Labor government's addiction to spending taxpayers' money which it does not have. As Judith Sloan recently commented about the Parliamentary Budget Offices' publication on Australian government structural deficits, this has been a government prepared to run down the negative net debt position it inherited, to raid any trust funds hanging around and to borrow to spend even more money. Even if this government had received the extra receipts it had falsely predicted, I have no doubt that this Labor government would have spent those anyway because that is their nature—to spend, spend, spend. This government has forecast wildly increasing revenue and then subsequently downgraded the forecast, but in the meantime it has spent money it simply does not have. We need to only look at the mining tax. Last year the government said that they would receive $3 billion. This year they have announced that net receipts from the mining tax are less than 10 per cent of that—only $200 million. In 2013-14, federal government revenue is more than $80 billion higher than in the last year of the coalition government, a government that was running a real, sizeable surplus at the time. The spending today by this Labor government is $120 billion higher than in the last year of the coalition government. As a result, in true Labor style the Treasurer announced more than $25 billion in higher taxes over the next four years while also abandoning previous promises to cut taxes for both individuals and companies. This is on top of the carbon tax, the mining tax and more than $8 billion in new Labor super taxes. Labor's failure to control our finances means that important programs and initiatives which do have the support of the vast majority of Australians have had their funding cut or remain underfunded, as is the case for the NDIS. While government is passing increases to the Medicare levy, it has failed to outline how the remaining 60 per cent funding shortfall will be provided. There are countless examples of where the government continue to break their promises and cut funding including for university research and foreign aid. What Australians want and what Australians need is a government that lives within its means. If the coalition earns the privilege of government on 14 September, we will build a stronger, more productive and diverse economy with lower taxes, more efficient government and more productive businesses that will deliver more jobs, higher real income and better services. We will get the budget back under control, cut waste and start reducing debt. We will live within our means. Following the budget reply of the Leader of the Opposition, the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling has already revealed that at least 87 per cent of households will be better off under a coalition budget. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, Australian families will be better off because we will rescind the carbon tax while personal tax will not increase nor will benefits decrease. One important area of policy that continues to be ignored by this Labor government is small business. From the most recent National Australia Bank small business survey we know that confidence, conditions, profitability, cash flows and employment are all in negative territory. This year's budget does nothing to address the concerns of small business. As the Australian Retailers Association Executive Director Russell Zimmerman said, the budget does not offer support for small business with the lack of tax relief, high personal income tax, Medicare levy, no capital gains tax relief, no cost offset to fund the hike in the superannuation levy and no reduction in tax compliance and red tape. Andrew Conway, Chief Executive Officer of the Institute of Public Accounts, went further, declaring that this year's budget is yet another budget that will do nothing to promote the small business sector. Small businesses across my electorate are doing it tough. They are facing increasing electricity and refrigeration costs as a result of the carbon tax, increasingly complicated workplace relations laws and increasing red tape and bureaucracy across-the-board. Under this Labor government, small business has seen employment in the sector fall by 243,000 and, as a share of the private workforce employment, it has fallen from 51.3 per cent to 45.7 per cent. Last week the shadow Treasurer announced that small businesses who deal with Commonwealth departments will either be paid on time or will automatically receive interest payments under a coalition government. If an account is not paid within 30 days, interest will be paid at the same rate as the Australian Taxation Office expects people to pay for their late tax payments. This policy announcement is not just good news for small business but also for consumers. I have received a lot of feedback from businesses who have told me that they simply do not have the cash flow to cover the cost of providing a service and then waiting six months for a government bureaucrat to handle the payment. For example, I have heard from small business health providers in my electorate such as dentists and optometrists who are willing to assist Australian veterans for the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Some have had to refuse patients because they simply cannot afford to take them on, given the huge lag time between providing a service and actually receiving payment. I will continue to listen to small businesses in my electorate on how best the coalition can provide real solutions to double the rate of small business growth, including conducting a root and branch review of competition laws and implementing our commitment to reducing regulatory costs by $1 billion per annum. I note that in this year's budget Ryan continues to be ignored in the rollout of the National Broadband Network. Earlier this year, the NBN Co. announced that it would not meet its June 2013 rollout targets, down from an original target of 1.3 million premises seven months ago, then revised down again to 341,000. The figure now stands at anywhere between 190,000 and 220,000 premises. This is not good news for the people of Ryan, who have suffered under this government's poorly handled approach to broadband policy and have been regularly ignored by NBN Co. Indeed, if NBN Co. had not blocked the planned fibre-to-the-premises rollout by Brisbane City Council, residents would already be connected. The Treasurer confirmed on 14 May that the government's planned investment in NBN Co. this year and over the next two years has been slashed by $3.5 billion. Less investment in NBN Co. means fewer households and businesses will actually receive access to the NBN. After almost six years of Labor, fewer than 20,000 households and businesses are actually connected to the fibre network, while two million are still unable to obtain fixed broadband to support viewing even a YouTube video. Quite simply, Labor's NBN is unaffordable within the currently claimed budget and undeliverable on the currently claimed schedule. If elected, the coalition will complete an NBN sooner, more affordably and at less cost to Australian taxpayers. We will aim to ensure all households and businesses in Australia have access to broadband providing a download data rate of at least 25 megabits per second by 2016. I receive a lot of feedback from my constituents who are concerned about this government's failure to control our borders. To date, over 42,000 people have made the perilous journey to come to Australia on boats—694 boats. No matter your perspective on this complicated issue, these arrivals have translated into a cost blow-out of at least $4.7 billion since last year's budget. The 2013-14 budget this year has confirmed that the Labor government is not seriously addressing the problem, as it continues to use out-of-date predictions and figures. In Senate estimates this week, on Monday, the department of immigration confirmed that it was standing by its prediction of 13,200 irregular maritime arrivals next year, despite the fact that it is also predicting 25,000 arrivals for this year alone. As a result of these increases, the Labor government dealt a double blow to both asylum seekers and the assistance that Australia provides through our foreign aid budget. The Labor government has raided the foreign aid budget of some $375 million. Constituents in my electorate consistently tell me that Australia must do more to support the countries in our region. Ultimately it is not merely a percentage figure or aggregate number of dollars that Australia should use to measure the efficiency and effectiveness of our overseas development assistance. At the end of the day, what matters is the outcomes on the ground. I have seen firsthand the great results our aid has produced in neighbouring countries, including Papua New Guinea. Just this week, Bill Gates has been in Australia and highlighted the fundamental importance of assisting developing countries. He said: I strongly support these sentiments and have constantly advocated for supporting our nearest neighbours. However, Australia has a Labor government so incompetent, which has so disastrously managed our budget and continues to accrue deficits and debt, that it has once again deferred its promised increase to our foreign aid budget. It continues to break its promises to Australians and it continues to break its commitments to our region. Further, one of the ways that the Australian government can support not just Australians but also our neighbours is to provide appropriate support for the technological innovations and medical advances that come through research undertaken at Australian universities. For years, this Labor government has attacked research funding, and it continues to do so in this year's budget, which is very disappointing for universities such as the University of Queensland, in my electorate. Only the coalition has the plan, the experience and the discipline to return the budget to sustainable surpluses, reduce debt and provide real opportunities to Australian families to help them get ahead again—to provide a hand up, not a hand out; to get out of the way and provide an environment for businesses to prosper and grow. Only the coalition can build a strong, vibrant economy and a safe, secure Australia to restore the hope, reward and opportunity all Australians deserve. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E09 Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19 : 25 .   QUESTIONS IN WRITING 4511 QUESTIONS IN WRITING HMAS Penguin: Health Centre (Question No. 1345) 4511 1345 Mr Fletcher L6B asked the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, in writing, on 6 February 2013: Mr Stephen Smith 5V5 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (Question No. 1380) 4511 1380 Mr Alexander M3M asked the Minister for Health, in writing, on 14 March 2013: Ms Plibersek 83M The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Health and Ageing (Question No. 1381) 4512 1381 Mr Alexander M3M asked the Minister for Health, in writing, on 14 March 2013: Ms Plibersek 83M The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Health and Ageing (Question No. 1481) 4513 1481 Mr Alexander M3M asked the Minister for Health, in writing, on 21 March 2013: Ms Plibersek 83M The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: