2013-11-19 44 1 1 House of Reps 0 0

Tuesday, 19 November 2013

The SPEAKER ( Mrs Bronwyn Bishop ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

BILLS 613 BILLS Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, True-up Shortfall Levy (Excise) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, True-up Shortfall Levy (General) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill 2013, Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates and Other Amendments) Bill 2013, Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill 2013 613

Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013

Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013

Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013

Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013

True-up Shortfall Levy (Excise) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013

True-up Shortfall Levy (General) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013

Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill 2013

Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013

Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013

Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates and Other Amendments) Bill 2013

Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill 2013

Second Reading 613 12:01 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta Climate change is real. We know it on this side, it is known around the world and it is known in my community. Unfortunately, it seems that it is not known on the other side of this House in government. We are already seeing the effects. Even if we took action now we would still be leaving a negative legacy to the next generation and to our grandchildren. We are seeing the increase in extreme weather events and we are seeing very clear statements from the scientific community that we will see an increase in extreme weather events unless we take very real and drastic action. And yet we are standing in a chamber today with a government that either does not believe in climate change or does not care what legacy we leave to the next generation. We on this side of the House do, and having decided that action needs to be taken the next step is to decide which action. Both sides of this House over many, many years decided that a market-based mechanism—a cap-and-trade scheme if you want to call it that, or an emissions trading scheme—was the best way to go. But now there is quite a division. On the government side we see a sham of a policy: Direct Action. And let's look at what that actually is. Through this Direct Action policy there is no cap on the amount of pollution that can be produced by the country, but there is this odd approach where the government, with taxpayers' money, pays the polluters to stop polluting. In other words, there is a department somewhere that makes decisions between this big business or that big business—who gets the money to stop polluting and who does not. In many ways it interferes in the competitive process and gives one business an advantage over another in a way that we would never expect a Liberal Party to act. Then, of course, if a business continues to pollute beyond a certain level it is fined—it pays a fine. It is a bizarre policy that we have not really seen any detail on yet. The last time we saw any detail was back in 2010, and we have seen very little since then. The method that is accepted around the world, and in Australia by the vast majority of economists, as the best method is a market-based mechanism, sometimes called a cap-and-trade scheme, sometimes called an emissions trading scheme and sometimes called a price on carbon. But this is what it does: it sets a cap on the amount of carbon pollution that we produce in this country and reduces it over time to a level where the balance of the amount of carbon pollution that is produced by mankind and that which the earth can absorb is restored so that we have a balance in our world just as we have had over thousands and thousands of years. And then within that cap permits are sold to businesses that will continue to pollute. Because there is a price then on pollution, businesses will do what businesses will do: they will try and find a way to reduce their costs by not polluting. So what we have then across the economy is literally thousands of small businesses and many big ones trying to find ways to reduce the cost of pollution by finding ways not to pollute. And we already see the dramatic increase in investment in renewables in this country and around the world as industry tries to find ways to reduce the cost of producing pollution. Those that can find other alternatives will find other alternatives, and we already see local councils capping their waste disposal sites, collecting the methane and selling that methane or converting it to more useful forms. We already see that. We have already seen other areas where this has been done: for example, when councils introduced tip fees to try and reduce the amount of land pollution, if you like. We now see companies that produce tyres as waste material reusing them to make carpet. You can actually see businesses trying to find ways not only not to pay tip fees by throwing material into the ground but to resell and make a profit through their waste. We are already starting to see that in the scientific community in this country. We see a group of scientists in Perth, for example, who are working and having quite a bit of success in converting methane into hydrogen and into a physical form of carbon rather than hydrogen and carbon dioxide—again, an area of endeavour which would produce significant business advantages for that particular company and for many other companies as well by reducing the very cost of doing business. Those that cannot find other alternatives under a cap-and-trade scheme continue to pay. As the cap comes down, if they cannot find alternatives the price does actually go up. But as the price of polluting goes up, the incentive to find answers also goes up. So what you find again, as the cap shrinks, is more and more effort put in by the business community to find answers to pollution. It is a really quite elegant economic solution to a quite difficult problem. On the other side we have the Direct Action policy, which not only does not set a cap but does not really provide any incentive for businesses around the country to find the answers that we need. I know that there are members on the other side that believe that technology will out. We have heard John Howard say that quite recently—that, over time, technology will solve the problems. Well, technology will solve the problems if there is a financial incentive to do so. Technology will be developed and businesses will find the answers through technology—and technology will be developed if there is a profit to be made on it and there is an economic advantage to doing so. The Direct Action Plan does not provide that incentive, which is why it is strange that we have a Liberal government supporting it. What it does is says to a big business that is polluting: 'We will give you taxpayers' money if you stop.' Where in that is the incentive for thousands of businesses to go out and find the answer? Where is the incentive in that for Australia to use its extraordinary talent at finding new answers and to put that talent to work to build a new economy? We talk about the wealth of Australia being in the ground. In the new world of clean technology we have a wealth of other talent. We have wind, we have sun, we have waves, we have hot rocks. We have everything we need in this country to have a thriving renewable energy market. China in the last year spent more money on renewable energy than it did on coal fired energy in terms of its investment in new assets. That is an indication of the way the world is going. To be sitting in the chamber with a government that does not care whether Australia is in the new industry or not, that is happy to see Australia freeze itself in a carbon economy, is quite bizarre. Australia has another talent. We have a talent for ideas. We are one of the great innovative nations of the world, perhaps because of our diversity, perhaps because of our background when we became a convict settlement—who knows? But, for whatever reason, we are an incredibly creative nation. We invent above and beyond our weight; we produce scientific publications well above our weight in terms of our percentage of population. It is what we do well. Put the incentive there for business to find new answers and to invest in new technology, combine that with their talent for doing just that and the talent we have in renewables through our natural environment and you have a country that can blossom and prosper in the new world in a way we did in the coal based economy. At the time that coal was the driver of wealth we had the fossil fuels in the ground. Now, as we move away from the carbon economy to clean technology, we are also the country with the right assets in the right place. We have the right climate, the right environment and the right ability to come up with new answers. A cap-and-trade scheme causes those talents to come together to build a more prosperous nation. The Direct Action Plan not only does not do much for the economy but does not do anything for the environment either. So I would urge the government to rethink its position on this and recognise the extraordinary opportunities for Australia through real action on climate change, not the fig leaf of direct action. 12:11 Mr RANDALL PK6 Canning Madam Speaker, before I begin my contribution in this debate I would like to say how delighted I am to see you in the chair with your election as Speaker. We are finally returning to dignity and decorum in this House as a result of your stewardship in the chair. I am delighted to speak on the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 because on 7 September this year a marvellous thing happened in this country: we had a change of government. It was one of the more significant changes of government since the Second World War. It is a rare event for a total and emphatic change of government to happen in the history of Australia, but on 7 September the Australian people spoke. They decided that those that were then the government—the Labor Party, led by the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government—were no longer fit to govern and they chose the coalition led by Tony Abbott. And one of the major commitments we gave in opposition was that we were going to withdraw this destroying, economy-wide tax, the carbon tax. That was our commitment and everyone knew it. We were elected on that basis and as a result I believe there is a mandate. Let us just have a look at why we ended up in the position we were in, this shambolic state of a carbon tax in this country—and it is shambolic, and I will address that in a moment. First of all, the then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, said it was the greatest moral challenge of our time to implement a carbon tax. Unlike the accusation that comes from those on the other side, I am not a climate change denier. I believe that the climate is evolving and changing and I do believe that man has had an influence on this world and leaves his footprint. It is up to us all to do our best to make sure that we repair that footprint and minimise its effect. That can be done, and you can see that all over the place. The ozone layer, for example, was being depleted until we were able to get companies to take chlorofluorocarbons out of sprays and put in hydrofluorocarbons. As a result, the ozone layer is closing up again. You can repair the damage that is done to our world. As I said, Kevin Rudd, the then Prime Minister, trumpeted this issue as his cause celebre. He went to Copenhagen with great fanfare, and a massive amount of bureaucrats in tow, and was going to lead the world on climate change. However, when the Chinese in particular objected to his policy in this area and it was defeated, unfortunately for the Chinese the Mandarin-speaking Prime Minister at the time, in not too good a language, described them as rodent fornicators and took a great set against them. What happened after that? It became unpalatable and Julia Gillard, the member for Lalor, then said to the Prime Minister 'dump this tax'. So, leading up to the 2010 election, the Labor Party dumped this tax. So much for something that was the greatest moral challenge of our time—they dumped the tax! Leading into the election on many occasions—and dare I bring them to our attention here—there was Wayne Swan, for example, saying: We're not introducing a carbon tax, that's an hysterically inaccurate claim being made by the Opposition— on Meet the Press on 15 August 2010. There was Kevin Rudd saying: The Government has decided to terminate the carbon tax to help cost-of-living pressures for families and tosmall business. And of course there was a classic one of Julia Gillard saying before the election: There will be no carbon tax under the government that I lead. And they repeated it and they repeated it ad infinitum. Then what happened? They ended up with a minority government in this place in 2010. They horse-traded with the devil in terms of the Greens and they ended up with a hung parliament. What did they do? They broke their promise to the Australian people and said they would then bring in a carbon tax, and they brought in a carbon tax with the help of the crossbenchers and the Greens. The difference between us and them is that we are going to keep our promise, and we are going to repeal this economy-wide job-destroying carbon tax. The difference between our real action and their policy is that real action actually does things on the ground and makes a difference. Just putting a tax on carbon is a revenue-raising measure. It does not stop the prolific use of carbon production. If it did, it would have to be so high that it would change the way we use our cars and the way we heat our homes. In Western Australia, for example, Western Power said quite clearly that the trigger point for them to change would be $90 a tonne. The fact that we have the highest carbon tax in the world is one thing, but it is not $90 a tonne—not yet. That is where it is heading if we allow this legislation to continue. But a tax does not change the way people use their electricity and their energy. It does add a massive amount to their electricity bills and, as I said, it has a flow-on effect in the economy, in business and industry in terms of the way that it impacts on the cost of production—the truck that has to deliver the goods—and of course, dare I say, the coolant, which I will refer to a little further on as well. During this campaign in my electorate along came the then industry minister Simon Crean to talk to my local residents, citizens and businesses and to sell to them the glorious benefits of the carbon tax. Thank goodness I was there with a couple of like-minded people, because those in the audience were aghast. There was the minister of the Crown trying to sell them the part about how good a carbon tax was going to be for them. Eventually he was soundly rejected and almost shown the door. In my electorate the largest employer is Alcoa, and Alcoa has two large mines there and two production plants. Sixty per cent of Alcoa's world income comes from my electorate. They pointed out to the minister at the time, Simon Crean, that in 2012 Alcoa announced plans to review the viability of their Point Henry aluminium smelter in Victoria due to the carbon tax—though the large proportion of the alumina that eventually comes from bauxite comes from my electorate. They said that previously the Aluminium Council had calculated that the carbon tax would impose a cost on Australian aluminium producers of at least $60 a tonne. Let us put this into context. Australia only has a handful of aluminium smelters and aluminium refining plants, yet China has a hundred. We were going to be put at a complete disadvantage to the Chinese, who are one of our competitors in this area, because they do not have a carbon tax. Indonesia has smelters, and they do not have a carbon tax. So we were going to be made uncompetitive with our near neighbours in terms of production of aluminium. It is even better than that. Alcoa pointed out to the then Minister Crean that the Western Australian refineries of Alcoa had half their greenhouse gas footprint in the region. In fact in WA alone Alcoa had reduced its emissions per tonne of product by more than 20 per cent since 1990 levels without a carbon tax. So it was all about incentive, initiatives—not a tax. I have potentially the largest gold mine in Australia in my electorate, the new Boddington gold mine. The mine manager, Tony Esplin, in April last year pointed out the crippling effects that Labor's carbon tax would have on his mining industry given that the Greens were wanting to put a tax on gold—and remember who was in bed with the Greens, the Labor Party. So you would have had the double whammy of a carbon tax and mining tax if the Greens had got their way. Thank goodness the election happened the way it did on 7 September this year. Within my electorate also at a local level, councils were very concerned. Some of them were contemplating not leaving their streetlights on at night because of the extra cost of the generation of electricity. So there was the issue of who was going to be paying the extra costs—was it going to be the ratepayers? The Labor Party certainly did not have a plan for small businesses in the carbon tax compensation. So the Labor Party comes into this place and opposes this bill, unlike us. When they took government in 2007 and Work Choices was the mandate that they believed they had, we walked away from Work Choices. But no, not those on the opposite side. They have not learned the lesson that they are now the opposition. They will come to grips with it eventually. It is a very depressing time to be on the other side. But the longer they sit there, the more they will eventually realise that opposing this is opposing the will of the people in the electorate. It is opposing the people who want to pay less for their electricity. It affects people's lifestyles in terms of the costs of doing business. In a very good article today by Nick Cater, the author of The Lucky Culture and the Rise of an Australian Ruling Class, he points out that George Wright said: 'I would say we are in the right side of history,' he continued. 'We are in the right side of science, we are in the right side of economics and on the right side of preserving for the long term our living standards.' He goes on to say: The important thing to note is that the party is on the wrong side of the electorate … They have not quite got it yet; they are on the wrong side of the electorate, and obviously that means they are on the wrong side of parliament. He then goes on to say: Having failed to make a persuasive case to put a price on carbon from government at two elections, Labor will now try to make the case from opposition and see how things go. What a joke! They are going to try to influence this legislation from that side. Unfortunately, they do not win anymore. It is not a hung parliament. He continues: Averting the coming climate catastrophe is, of course, a laudable ambition but Labor should surely have registered by now that tree hugging is a middle-class luxury the workers' party can ill afford. I really want you to hear what the article says next. Maybe it is relevant because it quotes a former member. The article states: It is heresy to talk like that these days— that is in relation to Tasmania and the Wilderness Society that Labor fought along with the Greens and the rest of the bib-and-brace and hairy legged comrades in Tasmania. The article continues: It is heresy to talk like that these days, but at the time, wise heads could see the insanity of it all. "A Labor government knowingly put South Tasmanian blue-collar workers—living in an area which already had unemployment rates between 20 and 24 per cent—out of work to appease bourgeois Left and middle-class trendoids in the gentrified suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne," wrote former Labor finance minister Peter Walsh. That is the member for Brand's father-in-law. So they still have not learnt. Their elder statesmen are still trying to counsel them. We have these examples of why they might want to learn and not oppose our removal of this crippling tax in the Australian economy. We said we were going to do it before the election and we are going to do it. I will conclude by saying that not only is my electorate determined that we do this and carry out our promise but the Business Council of Australia also is. There is an article in the Financial Review today by Jennifer Westacott. I cannot read it all so I might seek leave to table it at the end of my speech. She states amongst other things: Australia's carbon tax is one of the highest in the world and is making our important industries less competitive every day it stays in place. Every day it stays in place we are less competitive. I have pointed out the smelting comparisons between our near Asian neighbours and us. The article continues: This is especially so for those industries which have to compete globally against companies that pay no carbon price or a much lower one. In my final few moments I want to make sure the parliament understands what she says next. She wrote: Parliament can finally put politics to one side on this critical economic issue and take the first step towards that competitive environment and policy stability by removing the carbon tax. The second step is to focus debate on ensuring direct action is workable and meets the important principles for reducing emissions while maintaining a strong economy. What we are seeking is an approach to reducing carbon emissions that works for business and the economy as well as the environment, and which is developed in the context of a comprehensive energy policy that ensures secure and reliable energy and preserves our competitive advantages. Now what is the matter with that? The Labor Party do not want that to happen. They want us to still pay one of the highest carbon taxes in the world and disadvantage not only our businesses and jobs but people trying to heat or air-condition their homes. They should get out of the way and let this government get on to the business it was elected to do. 12:26 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari Madam Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to address the parliament whilst you have been in the chair. Congratulations. It demonstrates that people of merit actually do get recognised occasionally, so well done. The SPEAKER SE4 I thank the honourable member. Mr SNOWDON IJ4 I might not always agree with you—I probably will not; I dare say we will have our differences, but nevertheless. The member for Canning just gave an interesting oration. I am not quite sure what he was trying to tell us, apart from the fact that it is clear that he does not believe in climate change. Like many of the sceptics in the government, he has no appetite for understanding the reality of climate change or what has been put before the world community by the scientists who work in this space. From this legislation and a variety of other legislation to be put through this place we are learning a lot about the philosophy and values that motivate this government. That is something I think many Australians are going to be very concerned about. It is very clear now that they do not care about evidence based policy and that they are the ultimate political opportunists. We all recall the way in which the former Prime Minister and a former Leader of the Opposition were advocates of a price on carbon. John Howard and Malcolm Turnbull supported an emissions trading scheme. Of course the Prime Minister was the then Leader of the Opposition because he won by one vote a ballot in his party room about an emissions trading scheme. So half of them but one then in opposition supported the view that we needed an emissions trading scheme. For whatever reason, 49 per cent or thereabouts of that caucus now in government has flipped. They no longer believe in the reality of climate change. We had the former Prime Minister demonstrating very clearly how much revisionism has been going on within the Liberal Party room and the coalition. He is saying whatever he can to support his protege, his little mate, the current Prime Minister, because it appears he is no longer a believer in accepting the science. This month we heard the former Prime Minister John Howard tell a London audience that those of us who accept that climate change is real are a bunch of religious zealots, and that he will trust his instincts rather than the overwhelming evidence of 97 per cent of the world's climate scientists. What does that sound like? What does that remind you of? It reminds me very much of this quote by the Prime Minister in February 2010: The climate change argument is absolute crap, however the politics are tough for us because 80 per cent of people believe climate change is a real and present danger. I have news for the Prime Minister: nothing has changed and, unfortunately for him, climate change is not crap. We all know it is a reality. We on this side of the House accept the reality and we are proposing a set of policies that are aimed at bringing down our emissions. But what we are seeing from the government is nothing like an appropriate policy to address the issue of climate change and carbon emissions. There is a reason 60,000 people demonstrated in rallies around the country last weekend for stronger action on climate change. Those people believe in climate change, just as 97 per cent of published climate scientists do. Climate change is real and it is driven by man-made greenhouse gas emissions. We do need effective action on climate change, and the best effective action is through a market-based mechanism such as an emissions trading scheme, which is the centrepiece of Labor's policy. I had one of my colleagues saying in the caucus this morning—I will not say who it was, but he got up and said, 'I'm from the left, but I really believe in markets.' In this case we all do and that is what is important. We have taken the responsible position to see that a market-based mechanism is the best way to address the issue of climate change and emissions. Let me refer specifically to my own electorate. For those who do not know, Lingiari, the electorate that I am so honoured to represent, comprises all but 330 square kilometres of the Northern Territory. It is 1.34 million kilometres in area, and it includes the Indian Ocean territories of Christmas and Cocos Islands. It covers 5,000 kilometres of mainland coastline and a further 2,000 kilometres of coastline encompassing offshore islands. In 2011 I said in a speech in this place that the Cocos Islands in my electorate—I note that the minister responsible for the territories, the member for Mayo, is at the table—have coral atolls with an altitude of only three metres at their highest point. Sea level rise is a real threat due to global warming. I was on the Cocos Islands a fortnight or so ago and things have changed on the Cocos Islands. They have changed dramatically; really terrific weather events have had an impact. At one point on the island, very close to the southern end of the runway, water was coming in off the ocean that was not hitting any barriers, so effectively the land is below sea level. On other parts of the island there are now real issues with erosion caused by inundation from the sea. This is real. It is not something which has been cooked up; this is real and it is happening today. I would encourage the minister to visit the Cocos Islands, and I hope he is of a mind to soon as it is a very lovely place with very wonderful people, because if there is one place in Australia that is exposed to climate change and its impacts on our community more than any other, it is the Cocos Islands. We know, clearly, that even a small rise in sea levels will see those islands disappear. It is not an exaggeration, it is an absolute reality. The projections from the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology show that if we do not reduce our carbon pollution the Northern Territory's coastline regions will experience a nearly 30-fold increase in the number of 35-plus degree days annually by 2070. I live in Alice Springs: it is getting hotter and drier; the Top End is getting warmer and wetter. We know it to be the case. The scientists are telling us it is the case. The meteorologists are telling us it is the case. The scientists are telling us why it is the case—because of climate change. And yet, for whatever reason, the sceptics on the other side of the chamber, including those who were strong advocates of a price on carbon when the Howard government was in, are now adopting the view that the best thing we can do is put our head in the sand. Well, it is not the best thing they can do and it is a disservice to Australia should they do that. In the context of my own electorate, we know that with climate change comes increased risk of health issues, particularly for poorer Australians. We will see higher minimum night-time temperatures and heatwaves, and they can impact on a range of conditions, including heart disease. Maes, De Meyer and others report on a correlation between temperature rises and violent suicide. Conditions such as hay fever and asthma are similarly exacerbated. Other factors such as humidity, the rate of change of temperature and high temperatures all night all contribute to heat stress. Studies have suggested a correlation between climatic change and the increased risk of infectious diseases such as cholera, salmonella, giardia, diarrhoea and hepatitis A. It also threatens to increase the geographic range of dengue fever in some places. Melioidosis is known to be associated with wet weather. More storms and flooding, even if rainfall overall is reduced, could increase rates of melioidosis. This has previously been seen as a tropical disease, but it is now being reported in Central Australia in exceptionally wet seasons. Madam Speaker, even a small rise in the sea level—Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg your pardon; Madam Speaker is not here. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E I appreciate that. Mr SNOWDON IJ4 I did notice you arrive, and congratulations on your elevation to that lofty position. I am hoping I am not going to have many disagreements with you, but nevertheless there may be some. We know what the impacts of climate change are. The world community knows what the impacts of climate change are. Yet the opposition, as I said, have chosen to ignore it and they are now asking the Australian community to accept a plan for climate change which they themselves cannot even explain, a policy initiative which is unexplainable. They cannot tell us how it is going to work. Labor provided unprecedented support for renewable energy, through the Renewable Energy Target, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, among other things. Whilst we were in government, with the policies we had in place, Australia's wind capacity trebled and more than one million households had solar panels installed, up from fewer than 7,500 under the previous Howard government. Employment in the renewable energy industry more than doubled, to over 24,000 people. During the first year of the carbon price, around 150,000 jobs were created, the economy continued to grow at 2.5 per cent and inflation remained low. Pollution in the National Electricity Market decreased by seven per cent. Renewable power generation as a share of the National Electricity Market increased by 25 per cent. Australians know what a huge challenge climate change is for our country. Summers are hotter; droughts are longer; extreme weather events are now more commonplace. Labor has said that we will support the repeal of the carbon tax, but we cannot do nothing. We have proposed a middle ground that can be reached to ensure that we act on carbon pollution. Labor is willing to work to ensure Australia is not left doing nothing. Labor's amendments will put a legal cap on carbon pollution; retain the Climate Change Authority, to ensure robust, independent analysis and advice; and stop the cuts to Australia's renewable energy research and development. As it stands, the Prime Minister's legislation scraps the cap and pays big polluters to pollute. That will amount to nothing. Faced with a choice between doing something to address pollution and doing nothing, Labor will act. Labor's amendments are a smart and sensible middle ground to ensure we act on carbon pollution and do not gamble the future. On the other hand, the coalition's approach will—it is argued, from studies done by the Monash University Centre of Policy Studies—see pollution increase by eight to 10 per cent above 2000 levels by 2020; reduce pollution by nearly one-third less than Labor's policy would deliver; require significant additional investment of between $4 billion and $15 billion to achieve the 2020 target of at least a five per cent reduction on 2000 levels; see costs and pollution both increase over time—and even with spending increasing to around $88 billion from 2014 to 2050, pollution will still increase by about 45 per cent over this period; and subsidise the pollution of businesses who do not make changes, with these public subsidies calculated at around $50 billion to 2020. We have a choice in this place to act responsibly in the best interests of the Australian community. The Australian community demands nothing less of us. I say to the government: think very, very carefully about where you are heading and where you are taking us, because it will not be me who suffers; it will be my children, my grandchildren and my great-grandchildren. They are the ones who will suffer as a direct consequence of the policies being advocated through these proposals from the government. (Time expired) 12:41 Mr JOHN COBB 00AN1 Calare I rise to speak on the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and related bills. Like a lot of Australia, my electorate of Calare has farmers of wheat, cattle and sheep. People there do various types of horticulture very well. There is cold storage. Calare also has power generation, timber growing and processing, and dairy farming. We have any number of small businesses—some 13,000, I think—including hairdressers, coffee shops, restaurants and grain processors. Every one of these enterprises, particularly the small businesses, has suffered because of the carbon tax. I just heard the member for Lingiari say that, faced with the choice of doing nothing or doing something, Labor would always do something. In this case, Labor decided to make a hard job harder, and I mean seriously harder. A hairdresser or a coffee shop with a $10,000 electricity bill, which is maybe around what it is, had to pay another $1,000 a year because Labor wanted to lead the world. It wanted to lead the world, when the world was not willing to follow. It wanted to lead the world to make its own country less competitive, both domestically against imports and overseas against competitors. We are talking not just an odd bob or two; we are talking very serious reality, at a time when Australian manufacturing and food processing is struggling like never before—partly, it is true, not just because of the carbon tax but because of everything the previous government did over the last six years to make the costs of doing business more expensive. But the most obvious, the most drastic and the most immediate and unavoidable was without doubt the carbon tax. I can quote endlessly on the costs of it. I will touch on a couple. I know two people in my electorate in the town of Manildra who are canola processors. The thing that the previous Rudd-Gillard governments never understood is that a small percentage of turnover can be a huge percentage of profit. The carbon tax wasn't even based on profit; it was based on turnover, it was based on emissions. It had no relevance to whether you were making a quid or not, and if you were not making a quid you were in serious trouble. If you are not making a quid, every job you support, your town and your whole system is in chaos. That is what they created without the knowledge or the understanding of what they were doing—except their Prime Minister could stand on the world stage and say, 'We are leaders.' Leaders of what? Not leaders of anything successful, not leaders of anything that was measurable, not leaders of anything. We all believe in dealing with pollution. I fail to see why we do not call it 'pollution'; it is always 'carbon emissions', not 'pollution'. I believe totally in being sensible about pollution. I have never been, nor am I ever likely to be, called a greenie. However, I have bores on my country— Government members interjecting— Mr JOHN COBB 00AN1 No, I won't ever be called a greenie. But I have gone to the expense in a couple of cases of replacing diesel powered generation to lift that water to solar. Because it is good for the environment? Well, yes, that is in the back of my mind, but mainly because it is more efficient. It is more expensive to put in but once you put it in it works well. That is the type of thing that we as a government will encourage. We will encourage business, farmers, manufacturers to do the right thing rather than belt them over the head and say, 'We'll send you broke if you don't do it; we'll probably send you broke anyway!' The member for Lingiari also spoke about the choices of parliament. I think what he neglected to mention is that the Australian voter, the Australian nation has already made a choice and that choice is to get rid of the carbon tax, not simply replace it. The previous Prime Minister said, 'Oh, we are getting rid of it.' He neglected to tell the truth, the whole truth, which is that they were not getting rid of it; they were still going to increase the cost on carbon up to some $30-odd in the very near future. I know with some people it is a Holy Grail to talk about those things which you cannot hold, to talk about those things which they do not feel particularly affected by. It would seem I am still on the wrong side of the House, but I guess that is an accident of numbers. The people on the other side of the House seem very rarely to be actually dealing with reality in terms of productivity because of what they do. By and large they seem to be staffers of previous ministers—highly educated university students in industrial law or some such, who are then foisted on unions to tell the union what is good for them. It was a government that purported to be a socialist government looking after the welfare of workers and others which foisted the carbon tax on people. And it is not just business, small business or otherwise, affected by this; it is everyday people. It is people in their homes, their families—it is everybody. When your country is not making money then it is very hard for those working in it to make money and it is very hard for them to pay their bills. I find it incredible that the member for Lingiari is still talking about, 'We'd rather do something than nothing,' simply to say that we are doing something. It is very obvious that Australia has made a decision. It is very obvious that our government will follow through on our commitment to stand by that decision and to get rid of a tax which from day one was designed, amongst other things, to redistribute money. I always felt that one of the greatest comments that the previous Prime Minister of Great Britain once said when she said, 'Socialism works quite well until such time as you run out of other people's money to spend.' I think that is, without doubt, the basic difference between the two sides of this House—one wants to redistribute what already exists, whereas we, on the other hand, want a much bigger pie for everybody to share in. The carbon tax is guaranteed to reduce the pie and certainly to redistribute what it produces. I could talk about what the previous two prime ministers said they would do, didn't do and one thing and another, but I think that is pretty much consigned to history. They said they would do one thing and did another. I guess that was the story of the last six years. But when the carbon tax is gone it is quite obvious that the average household in Australia will be considerably better off and the cost of living on households will be eased. I remember the previous government talking vigorously about how they were going to make reparations to householders for the extra costs of the carbon tax— Mr Dreyfus HWG It is called 'assistance'— Mr JOHN COBB 00AN1 You were better off when you were the Attorney-General rather than the guy who is pretending to be! 'Assistance', yes, well, they certainly needed it. They talked about assistance for households—fine, I am happy to do that. When you take with one hand you certainly need to give something back with the other. They made it possible for the bigger businesses to get government money to change the way they did things. I said at the start that there are something like 13,000 small businesses in the seat of Calare. There are hundreds of thousands of Australians but not one cent goes to the biggest employer in Australia—small business—who, without exception, unless they did not use electricity or did not use gas or did not use trains or transport, did not receive one red cent. They were hurt deliberately, although it was probably ignorance—even the shadow Attorney-General would probably agree that there was some ignorance involved here because, when it comes to businesses, there is an awful lot of ignorance on that side. Small businesses were hurt more than anyone with absolutely no outlet to improve what they did, without any reparations for the damage done to them. We are very proud of what we do in Calare. I always say that we are that part of Australia where we do not talk about what we do, where we do not shuffle paper and do not have huge law firms like the ones I am sure the shadow Attorney-General is involved with. We are not involved in those things that actually do not produce money. In Calare we grow things; we mine things; we make things and generate power. Regional Australia has been and is hit far worse than any other part of Australia. Why? I will give one good reason: on the coast of Australia temperatures do not vary a great deal. Inland, they certainly do. In Calare, where it can get damn cold, they vary a lot. You can be in the middle of a 40-degree heatwave in the summer and it can be minus five in the winter, so we use a lot more air conditioning. We use a lot more heating than they do in Melbourne or Sydney or Brisbane. Therefore, it costs us one heck of a lot more to pay for the carbon tax, which was designed by a government that thought the GFC was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Why is that? I do not suppose they actually wanted the world to be in chaos but what did it do? It created an excuse to borrow billions—hundreds of millions—of dollars to use on social programs. I can imagine being in the Labor Party cabinet. 'Hey, boys! Did you realise the world is in so much chaos that we can borrow money and spend it on all those things we always wanted to do, which we've always pretended to be responsible about, but now we don't have to be.' And by God, they were not. Then came the point: 'We've got to be the leaders in cutting world pollution or carbon emissions so let's put in one of those things that the ex-Prime Minister of Great Britain said we were going to do anyway—let's make Margaret Thatcher's words come true. Yep, we are a socialist government. It worked quite well and we've run out of money so we will bring in a carbon tax—that will bring in a bit more—and at the same time we'll be world leaders in doing nothing.' Because it has done nothing. I guess a lot of what I have said applies to most of Australia but, whether it is western New South Wales or Queensland or wherever it might be, regional Australia has borne the brunt of this. Regional Australians are the ones who fire up the power stations. We are the ones who produce things like canola. All grain processing has become as dear as hell because it does use a lot of energy. However, it is very hard to have bread or anything else without it. It is a fact of life. So we will keep doing what we do but we are going to do it with a government that is going to kick this act right out of the football field. 12:56 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I rise to speak on the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and related bills. The most fundamental duty of the government, above all others, is to act in the national interest. From the time that he knifed the member for Wentworth for the leadership of the Liberal Party some four years ago, the current Prime Minister has worked against the national interest on the vital issue of climate change. He has taken the Liberal Party and The Nationals from their position of support for the pricing of carbon. I know members opposite do not like to remember this but their position at the 2007 election was unequivocally, clearly in support of putting a price on carbon. Not only did they take that policy to the 2007 election but also they took that policy through 2008 and 2009. The member for Fraser yesterday in his speech to the House very eloquently referred to and reminded us all of the speeches that were given so forcefully by so many members of the Liberal Party and so many members of the National Party, in which they professed their support for an emissions trading scheme for our country and for the pricing of carbon. We know that the pricing of carbon is the most effective, least cost way of reducing carbon pollution. We also know why we need to act. Again, the government are hiding behind a smoke screen where they profess support for bringing down Australia's carbon pollution but, as have so many of my colleagues on this side of the House, I want to remind everyone here why carbon pollution needs to be reduced from Australia and worldwide. Carbon pollution is affecting Australia now and carbon pollution is going to affect Australia in worse ways in the future. We have seen the increased frequency of natural disasters, the increased frequency of fires, floods and more intense weather events. We have seen drought and extreme weather impacting on our farmers and driving up costs. We have seen the kinds of impacts that climate change is already bringing and these impacts will only get worse. Carbon pollution is affecting the whole world. Right now, rising sea levels are threatening island nations. We were reminded at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting held last week and last weekend in Sri Lanka when we heard the pleas for assistance, ignored by our Prime Minister, from island nations. We have seen natural disasters right across the world being supercharged by climate change causing death and destruction on a massive scale, often in nations that are the least able to cope with it. There is a reason that a group has been formed in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of the least developed nations of the world because they are likely to be among the countries that are worst affected and of course they are likely to be among the countries least able to afford to deal with it. I will just remind honourable members of something that the Pentagon, not exactly a left-wing environmental organisation, have said about the threat of climate change. They have not just started saying it recently; the Pentagon have been writing about the threat posed by climate change now for many years. The Pentagon have identified climate change as one of the greatest global security challenges of the coming decades. Often the devastating impacts of climate change that we are already experiencing are only going to get worse. If we do not act, these effects of dangerous climate change are going to get worse, a lot worse, and we are going to experience an increased frequency of more intense weather events. We should not have to put up with the false debate that was provoked by our so-called Minister for the Environment, who wanted to pretend that people who had drawn attention to the recent intense and catastrophic bushfires in the Blue Mountains were saying that that event was definitely the result of dangerous climate change. Nobody said anything of the kind. He was, as the Liberal Party so favours as its means of argument, using straw-man argumentation, pretending that those who are opposed to you are putting forward an argument which they are not actually making. All that anyone was saying about those catastrophic fires in the Blue Mountains was that they are an example of the kind of more intense, extreme and disastrous event that we can expect if dangerous climate change is not brought into check. If you accept the science, if you accept any science, you accept all of science. You cannot pick and choose science like items on a menu. You cannot say, 'I accept the principles of physics' and then say, 'But I think the science of chemistry is crap.' You cannot say that you accept the biological sciences that have provided the wondrous benefits of modern medicine from antibiotics to cataract surgery but that you do not accept the science of evolution or the science of genetics. Science is a framework for understanding the world and it is one of the greatest single achievements of our civilisation, perhaps the greatest driver of our prosperity as a modern civilisation, and we should never forget it. We do not challenge the science of the electric light, even though we do not necessarily understand it. We do not challenge the science of the internal combustion engine when we drive our cars. There is no more reason for policymakers, ministers or anyone in Australia to be now challenging the science of climate change, as people, unfortunately, are being encouraged to do—led by our current Prime Minister. The science of climate change is clear. The consensus across the world of thousands and thousands of eminent and eminently qualified scientists is undeniable. Climate change is happening right now. It is being driven by emissions that humans are producing. If we do not act decisively to reduce those emissions, the consequence for our nation will be dire in the short term and very likely catastrophic in the longer term. We have to act on risk assessment. We do not wait in setting government policy or on deciding a course of action for our nation for absolute certainty in every policy area. Instead, we make risk assessments. We assess the likelihood of particular future events. We assess the gravity or seriousness of those likely future events. If we are looking at a high probability of an event occurring and it is a damaging or disastrous event of great seriousness then we act. We do not wait for certainty before acting. We act on risk assessments. The national interest demands that our nation act and act decisively to respond to this threat. This is the true test of leadership and our current Prime Minister is failing it and failing it dismally. We have a carefully crafted scheme of legislation with multiple complementary policies. It is a scheme of legislation that puts a price on carbon. It has a fixed price period for its first three years. It puts a cap on our national carbon pollution. We have in this place adopted the most effective and least cost means of reducing carbon pollution. It is not just the Liberal Party and the National Party who used to agree with this; it is every single reputable economic organisation in the world, from the OECD to the World Bank to the International Monetary Fund to the International Energy Agency. All of them absolutely endorse putting a price on carbon as the least cost, most effective means of bringing down carbon pollution. What is the rest of the world doing? I have heard the lines from those opposite in their script, provided to them by the Prime Minister, in which there is assertion after assertion that the rest of the world is not acting and, like so much else of what our Prime Minister has inflicted on Australia since he became the leader of the Liberal Party at the end of 2009, it is a false claim. All of our important allies and trading partners are acting and we could point to the fact that Europe has acted and not just recently either. Europe acted years and years ago in adopting an emissions trading scheme that applies across western Europe. The United Kingdom has reached a bipartisan consensus. We have a Conservative government in the United Kingdom but there remains a bipartisan consensus in that country. And what a pity it is that the conservative government of this country has not reached the same position as its Conservative political allies in the United Kingdom. What a pity too that it has chosen not to follow the lead given by the present conservative government of New Zealand, which, on coming to power, adopted the legislative emissions trading scheme that had been put there by the previous Labour government. There continues to this day a bipartisan agreement in New Zealand, as in the United Kingdom, on the usefulness of pricing carbon. California, in a scheme legislated by a government led by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, now has in a government led by Governor Brown, a Democratic governor, introduced from 1 January 2013 an emissions trading scheme which is remarkably similar in most of its features to the scheme that this government is trying to wreck in Australia. The scheme in California covers about 60 per cent of the economy. It covers similar sectors and, like the scheme here which has already worked since it came in on 1 July 2012 to bring down Australia's carbon pollution, the Californians are confident in their bipartisan agreement because the Republicans in California, mercifully, are different to the Tea Party Republicans that have been trying to take over the government of the United States. There in California they hope that it will work. China, our largest trading partner, has welcomed assistance from Australia in the design of emissions trading schemes and is now this year introducing prices on carbon in seven of its provinces with the assistance, until this government came to power, of Australian experts. But shamefully, while our partners are acting around the world, while the rest of the world understands that putting a price on carbon is the right thing to do, what is the new government of this Prime Minister doing about the challenge of climate change? I wish I could say that the Abbott government wants to do nothing. That would be bad enough. But in fact that would be too generous an assessment. Before the government gets to its plan of doing nothing with its smokescreen of a fund, which it has not explained what it is going to do with, it is going to first destroy the successful and economically responsible policies that Labor has introduced. One of the first acts of the Rudd Labor government in 2007 was to ratify the Kyoto protocol. In fear of science, in fear of an informed public—you could hardly want a better comparison—one of the first acts of this government of wreckers was to abolish the Climate Change Authority. The CSIRO, while I think of it, is also a victim of this government's rejection of science with massive cuts that threaten to decimate scientific research at Australia's premier scientific institution. The government are now seeking, in the bills that are before this House, to destroy the Climate Change Authority. They are seeking to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation with an act of what can only be described as extraordinary ideological hypocrisy and economic thuggery. How soon will it be before they attack the renewable energy target? What Mr Abbott is intent on doing here is taking our nation backwards. Once he has demolished the frameworks for clean energy and for long-term economic prosperity—because this is the direction the world needs to move in—that Labor has put in place, with all the upheaval and the uncertainty for business, about which this government cares not, Mr Abbott is going to get hard to work doing nothing, nothing but spending billions of taxpayers' dollars per smokescreen, billions of dollars on a policy farce hidden behind a euphemistic title, now so typical of the coalition, called 'Direct Action', which in fact should be called 'direct inaction'. And what is the content of that policy? We do not know because they have abandoned the policy that they published in 2010 in favour of a green paper process, and we do not know what the content of their policy is. 13:12 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest In spite of the opposition's continuous spin, as we just heard, and efforts to distract and divert the debate, the bill before the House today is not a debate about climate change. The real question before the House today is: what is the best response to managing the continuous change in climate? Instead of practical action, the Labor Party took the position that a new tax was the best response—in fact an economy-wide tax and the highest carbon tax in the world, not just any tax. Interestingly though, Labor chose not to tell the Australian people this at either the 2010 or the 2013 elections. The 2010 'there will be no carbon tax' line has gone down in political history as one of the most infamous duplicities this nation has ever witnessed. There was, in quick time, a carbon tax imposed. In the 2013 election, Labor attempted to mislead Australians yet again by claiming it had terminated the carbon tax. Well, nothing could be further from the truth. The Labor Party had already lost the trust of the Australian community and at the election in 2013 actually was seen for what it was: a desperate attempt to once again hoodwink the community into forgetting its 2010 duplicity. But people were not fooled for a second time. In spite of this, a mere few weeks after the election, here in this House, Labor is again supporting its carbon tax. What rank hypocrisy! This tax needs to go. The people, the businesses, the industries in my electorate are all paying Labor's carbon tax in one form or another. It is a tax which has had a disproportionate impact in rural and regional areas on everybody from families to local councils, hospitals, schools, the countless hardworking small businesses, those in primary production, our farmers, our miners, the abattoirs and food manufacturers, those in refrigerated transport, anyone in the aluminate refinery sector, the power generators in my electorate and those producing silicon. It has added to the cost of building houses and roads. It has just been a cascading, compounding tax. Businesses in my electorate that did not directly have to pay the carbon tax found that there was an additional cost on their businesses of hundreds of thousands of dollars due to carbon tax compounding. Labor want to not only perpetuate this tax but increase it year upon year. It is like Sara Lee—layer upon layer. Even worse, Labor are determined to further increase the $9 billion first-year cost of their carbon tax for rural and regional areas like my electorate in the south-west of Western Australia, because their carbon tax will be applied directly to the trucking and transport industry from 1 July next year. Anyone who has even a modicum of understanding about Australia's size and distances knows that this will add a unilateral additional cost right across the nation but even more so in rural and regional areas. Labor's carbon tax has to go, and that is what the electors of Forrest voted for. Alinta Energy has confirmed that the cost to energy providers will be reduced once Labor's carbon tax goes, but the Labor Party is opposed to making electricity cheaper for families, individuals, businesses and industries. The tax should go not only because of the direct cost for families, businesses, industries and the whole Australian economy but also because Labor's own modelling shows that domestic emissions continue to rise under the carbon tax. So not only is the carbon estimated to accrue $16 billion over two years; it is ineffective in its purpose of reducing emissions. In fact, it is just another costly, useless Labor tax—one that makes Australian businesses and industry less competitive. We know that Australia contributes less than one per cent of global CO2emissions. We also know that China is the largest emitter—I read recently that it could be around 23 per cent—followed by the US, India and Russia. We know that the top 10 emitters produce two-thirds of the world's emissions, and this number is expected to rise. As these economies grow rapidly, and they are, their total emissions will continue to rise at a faster rate than the rest of the world—which means their emissions will continue to dwarf those of the rest of the world, including Australia's. Most importantly, I ask: in practical terms, which of the major emitters are going to have reduced their total emissions by 2050? The answer, I suspect, is very few. While some countries may try to hide behind lower emissions intensity, this simply ignores the fact that growth in their economies will result in growth in emissions. Big emitters will become bigger emitters, despite the misleading rhetoric we heard recently from the Greens and Labor, who try to pretend otherwise. That is the practicality. You have to be a realist. This means that, no matter what the outcome of this debate in this Parliament of Australia, global emissions will rise, which reinforces the need for Australia to have what we are suggesting: a practical response that does not damage our economy or our competitive advantage. We know that Australia is one of the only countries to meet its Kyoto targets. Business and industry have worked hard to reduce their emissions and will continue to do so. Indeed, under our coalition government, we will retain the five per cent reduction target from 2000 levels by 2020. We are committed to reducing our emissions but, given the time wasted by Labor and its flawed carbon tax policy, the challenge is certainly significant. However, Australia will be one of very few nations that actually achieve a reduction. Global emissions are predicted to rise, predominantly due to increases in the emissions of the top 10 emitters. This is why I believe that adaptation needs to be a much greater part in the debate and should have equal consideration with climate change mitigation—a practical approach, as we are suggesting. The failure of the Copenhagen round of climate debates was the greatest example of global failure on the climate issue, but why? It is because the bigger emitters refused to make cuts to their total emissions. There is no sign that this is any different now. The coalition government is determined in its commitment to reducing Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. The government is also committed to funding and supporting an area that I think is extremely important, and that is adaptation. This is evidenced by the election commitment from the minister to continue the work of the climate change adaptation research centre at Griffith University. I congratulate the minister for this decision. I look forward to greater engagement with the natural resource management system in what could well be a nationally coordinated program, and it works down to the local level through Direct Action. These are things that actually happen and work on the ground. This is not talk, not paper shuffling but things that work on the ground. I also believe that a more practical adaptation mechanism will be a nationally coordinated approach to managing some of the issues we see with feral pests and weeds. I am talking about practical actions on the ground that you can see that actually work. We need to future-proof our ecosystems to ensure they not only survive but thrive in what will be a changing environment. The south-west of Western Australia has its own vulnerable ecosystems. The jarrah forests of the northern and eastern parts of the south-west have seen some stress because of the drying climate. We have had much better rainfall this year, but water stress is still apparent and it is noticeable around the Darling Scarp at Collie. Our iconic karri forests are also vulnerable. Karri trees are, as we know, highly water dependent so they will require monitoring and potential action. The remaining Tuart forests on the coastal plain of the south-west are also at risk. So we need to better understand our environment and, of course, protect it into the future through adaptation. This presents us with great opportunities. Ecosystems, as we know, are alive and changing, and the planet can adapt. We can make use of this adaptive mechanism to drive good outcomes. For example, warmer water pushing south down the WA coast via the Leeuwin Current brings with it coral spawn that could represent the beginnings of new coral reefs. Right now there is not much structure off the south-west coast for the spawn to lodge and grow on. However, a trial by the WA state government has seen concrete frames deposited on the ocean floor from the substructure that the coral requires to grow. That is going to provide the framework for that growth. That type of action and practical action should be the basis of Australia's climate change adaptation response and the WA government is to be commended for its foresight. This is a project that could be expanded exponentially. Let us look for practical outcomes for the changes. Such projects should be happening, to future-proof Australia and leave a real legacy for future generations—not the cost of a carbon tax, practical applications that work. This is a worthy task for government: the practical actions that we are focusing on, real things that work on the ground where you can see what is happening and making a difference. The carbon tax did nothing to achieve any of that. The carbon tax would not, as we know by the government's own reckoning, have reduced Australia's carbon emissions. In fact, they increased. Labor's own modelling showed that our emissions would have risen under the carbon tax—no practical action that I am talking about on the ground. Australia's emissions would have risen, and global emissions would continue to grow. So our response to climate change has to be adaptive and I have confidence that this government will make sure that that is exactly what we do: adaptive processes, practical outcomes that actually work on the ground. We will see harnessing of new technology. The world does not stand still. There is a challenge out there and there is a lot that we can do. We need to continue to invest in adaptation so that we ensure that our descendants have the same benefits that we do through living in the way that we live. I have great concerns for every single day that Labor hangs on to this flawed carbon tax. Every day is another cost for the people, for the businesses, for the industries in my electorate—and for no benefit. So the additional cost that we see in rural and regional areas, the exponential cost, has been compounding and cascading, and my electorate in the south-west of Western Australia has felt this particularly badly. I have talked to so many. We provide some of the manufacturing, the only secondary value-adding to resources in my electorate. We have seen the increasing costs. We have looked right across the primary sector. For instance, one thing that has been overlooked in this debate often is the impact on the dairy industry, one that I know a lot about. In this country about 11 billion litres of milk are produced on an annual basis, and all of that milk has to be refrigerated on farm before it is collected and transported to the manufacturers. So the dairy farmers in Australia have all had to absorb this cost of the carbon tax added to their daily business. It was not just that, because every other input basically involved an additional electricity cost. So there was the cost for farmers in the primary sector in the dairy industry. Then you move on to the actual manufacturers of the product, one that uses electricity significantly to produce some of the best and the highest quality dairy products in the world, and yet they have had to bear this additional carbon tax. I talk to small businesses frequently on how the cost of doing business has increased, and often they operate in a market where they have been unable to pass on those costs. So these same small businesses have had to constantly try to reduce their costs, and often it is a mum and dad type business, who have to do the work themselves. They have no way of passing any of these costs on. So it is more costs and more work for them. I am fully supportive of removing this carbon tax. It has not achieved the objectives that it was supposed to have had. I support the practical actions that we will be taking on the ground to bring about a genuine change. 13:26 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I am delighted to rise today to speak on this legislation. No serious member of parliament elected to this parliament in the 21st century can come here without having a position on climate change. How we deal with climate change and how we deal with the carbon pollution that causes it will be something by which our successors will judge us in 30 or 50 or 100 years time. I think we will be judged on how we responded to three key questions. Firstly, did we act? We know that 97 per cent of published climate scientists agree that climate change is real and is driven by man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Did we act, or did we leave it for our kids and our grandkids to clean up our mess? Secondly, we need to ask ourselves: was our action effective? When an overwhelming majority of economists suggest that the best way to take action is to limit pollution and then allow business to choose the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions, what did we do? Thirdly, we need to ask ourselves: did we do our share? When the world took action on climate change, did Australia play its part or did we sit on the sidelines? The legislation introduced by this government is reckless. Against all sensible advice, it removes a cap on pollution. It seeks to abolish the Climate Change Authority, an independent body providing government with the best advice on tackling climate change. Against evidence showing that the carbon price is working, it seeks to replace it with a slush fund for polluters that sheets home the costs to taxpayers. Going back to our key questions, why did we act? Carbon pollution is having a big impact on Australia. Summers are getting hotter and there are more extreme weather events. It is beginning to affect our agriculture, our oceans and our environment. There is a cost to our environment and to our economy that will grow over time. Australia has just had its warmest 12 months on record, and that was not a one-off. The hottest 10 years ever recorded have all been recorded in the past 15 years. Labor's position on climate change is clear: tackling climate change has been part of our policy platform since 1988. As the party of fairness, we believe it is only fair that we take action now to clean up our mess, that we do not leave it for our kids and grandkids to clean up. Taking action on climate change is about intergenerational equity, doing what we can to make sure that those who come after us inherit a planet in better shape than the one we inherited. So we ask ourselves about how we acted. Was our action effective? We have believed for the past decade that a market based mechanism is the most effective way to reduce pollution. In fact, New South Wales, under state Labor, introduced the world's first carbon market in 2003. An emissions trading scheme imposes an economy-wide cap on carbon pollution and lets business work out the cheapest and most effective way to operate within that cap. A recent survey showed that 86 per cent of economists back an emissions trading scheme as the cheapest and most effective way to tackle carbon pollution, and this month the OECD released a report confirming that countries could achieve higher levels of emission reductions at a much lower cost if they relied on this type of scheme. Importantly, the carbon price is working. The previous parliament saw those opposite launch one of the most mendacious scare campaigns in recent political history. Carbon pricing, it was claimed, would destroy entire industries, like steel manufacturing and coalmining; it would wipe out whole towns, like Whyalla; and it would result in unimaginable increases to the cost of living, like the $100 Sunday roast. Of course, none of that happened. During the first year of the carbon price around 150,000 jobs were created, the economy continued to grow at 2½ per cent and inflation remained low. Pollution in the National Electricity Market decreased by seven per cent. Renewable power generation as a share of the National Electricity Market increased by 25 per cent. One million homes around Australia now have solar panels, compared with 7,000 when we came to office. South Australia draws almost 30 per cent of its energy from wind. The inflationary impact was modest at best and less than expected, which meant that the assistance households received through tax cuts or transfer payments went even further. So after the success of the carbon pricing, why would we take the reckless action of repealing it? The government's alternative is troubling, to say the least. Labor supports getting rid of the fixed price carbon tax, but only when the government comes up with a real solution to cut carbon pollution. Yet the government is led by a Prime Minister who does not believe in climate change and has no serious policy to deal with it. The government's legislation removes the cap on pollution and allows the big polluters open slather. They are not allowed to dump their rubbish in the street, they are not allowed to pour their chemicals into our rivers but this government wants to leave them open slather in our air. This will cost households an average $1,200 a year, while failing to cut pollution. The Minister for Communications called the government's policy for what it is. He called it: … an environmental fig leaf to cover a determination to do nothing. Last week, former Treasury secretary Ken Henry called the government's policy a 'bizarre' strategy, which involved the government paying big polluters in a scheme that costs more and is less effective. That is, they will replace the price on pollution paid by polluters with a slush fund for polluters that will cost Australians around $1,200 a household. Instead of charging polluters to pollute they are handing over cash, with no guarantee that we will meet pollution targets. We know, too, that most Australians simply do not believe the assurances that electricity prices and gas prices will go down. While this House debates the carbon price, and the Prime Minister continues to equivocate on the science, countries in our own neighbourhood are dealing with the reality of climate change. As the Kiribati foreign secretary told the World Bank in September: There are still some who believe that climate change is a distant threat but for us it is a present threat. It’s happening now and our people are being affected now. As a last resort the Kiribati government has already developed a relocation policy, which is aimed at helping its entire population to migrate should the worst impacts eventuate. Against that harsh reality, the world is acting on climate change. Ninety-nine countries worldwide, including Australia, covering 80 per cent of global emissions and 90 per cent of the global economy, have made formal pledges to the United Nations to reduce carbon pollution. Around one billion people live in a country, a region or a city with a carbon price, and this will grow to around three billion people by 2016—almost half of the global population. Those opposite like to say that Australia, with only 1½ per cent of global emissions, can afford to do nothing. What impact will our activity have, they argue? Well, you can ask the exact opposite question: the Australian population is less than half a per cent of the global population and yet we are one of the highest emitters per capita, and we are among the top 20 highest emitters in total—how can we afford to do nothing with that record? What credibility do they think Australia will have internationally if we do not commit to taking strong action? Under Labor Australia made significant contributions to global action on climate change. The first act of the Labor government in 2007 was to ratify the Kyoto protocol, and we subsequently committed Australia to a second commitment period under the protocol. In government we played an active role at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change at the Conference of Parties meetings. Unlike this government, we actually sent the relevant minister or the relevant parliamentary secretary to these meetings. Momentum is building right now in Poland, with the global climate agreement scheduled to be agreed in Paris in late 2015. But Australia is not appropriately represented; neither the Minister for Foreign Affairs nor the Minister for the Environment nor either of their parliamentary secretaries even bothered to turn up. And just last week, we know that with the Prime Minister, at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Colombo, we became one of only two countries out of 53 to oppose action on climate change and to oppose comments in the communique from the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, opposing not just words in the communique and not just a vague commitment to action but also opposing the establishment and use of the Green Climate Fund. It is curious that they support Direct Action here but they do not support direct action around the world. The world's major international economic institutions have lined up firmly in favour of carbon pricing. China, Australia's biggest trading partner, is heading down the same path. This year China started seven pilot emissions trading schemes in regions covering more than 200 million people, with the aim of a national trading scheme in place by the end of the decade. The OECD says consistent carbon pricing must be the cornerstone of government actions to tackle climate change, and the OECD position was supported by both the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. If Australia wants to be a constructive member of the world community, we need to take effective action on climate change. As I have been saying, the Labor opposition want to tackle climate change in the most effective way possible and the most cost-effective way possible. That is why we support getting rid of a fixed price carbon tax, but only when the government comes up with a real solution to cut carbon pollution. Labor's amendments to introduce an emissions trading scheme on 1 July 2014 will abolish the carbon tax, but they will retain the Climate Change Authority to ensure robust, independent analysis and advice and they will stop the cuts to Australia's renewable energy research and development. We will keep a commitment to put a cap on pollution. That means that Labor will tackle climate change in the most cost-effective and efficient way possible. Our amendments will replace the fixed carbon price with a system that puts a legal cap on carbon pollution and lets businesses get on and work out the cheapest and most efficient way to operate within that cap. Our amendments are a smart and sensible middle ground ensuring we act on carbon pollution and do not gamble our future. The government's alternative does nothing to reduce pollution and yet costs Australians more. It costs Australian households $1,200 a year. They are not getting rid of the carbon tax; they are replacing it with a tax on families. They are replacing a tax on businesses with a tax on families. I urge this House to support the opposition amendments. If members agree that climate change is happening, if they agree that it is caused by carbon pollution, then we need to place a legal limit on that pollution in the same way that we regulate many types of pollution. If members agree that a price on carbon pollution should be paid by polluters and not by Australian families, then we need an emissions trading scheme. And if members want Australia to play a constructive role on the world stage, to do our bit, then we need to take serious action on climate change. 13:39 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright I am cognisant of the time as we will be adjourning this debate soon, but in the time allowed for me I want to speak on the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and related bills. Our government was elected with a mandate to scrap the carbon tax, and we are a government that will follow through on what we say. Our mandate is evident in this very room I stand in today, the national parliament. If you look around this chamber, you can see that our numbers run beyond the halfway limit and over onto the other side. In contrast, the numbers on the other of the House from the Australian Labor Party, outside their front bench, are flat out getting past the first aisle. Our centrepiece at the last election could not have been mistaken: it was, simply, to repeal the carbon tax. So why is it that we have speaker after speaker come into this House and blatantly move against the will of the Australian people? I know there are those out there who hold the same position and are supporting a carbon tax. But what are the foundations of democracy if we do not go to an election and allow the people of Australia to have their choice, to have their say, to let their voice be heard? In trying to draw a conclusion, when the Australian public have spoken so overwhelmingly for repulsion of this carbon tax, one only needs to look at the model for how the Australian Labor Party listen to their people. It was not too long ago that a vote for the leader of the Australian Labor Party was given to their membership. There were two worthy candidates: Albanese and Shorten. I know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I should be referring to their names properly, but those were the names they ran under as candidates. The votes were 18,000 to one candidate and 12,000 to the other candidate, and here is a party that elects the bloke that got 12,000. That is clear evidence that the voice of the majority is not heard, that the voice of the Australian majority is of no consequence. However, on this side of the House we advocate that we are the voice of the silent majority. And in this case, on the repulsion of the carbon tax, the voice of the silent majority is overwhelming; it is deafening. Why do we feel so strongly about ditching the carbon tax? There are economic reasons and there are environmental reasons, which I would like to indulge in speaking about. We feel strongly about the reduction of the costs associated with carbon tax, which has hit businesses and households hard. At a time when we were coming out of the GFC, when we should have been putting in measures to stimulate our economy, we spent as a parliament billions and billions and billions of dollars trying to stimulate our country while hamstringing businesses, ball and shackle, with extra costs, with extra burdens in their business, with extra compliance. No-one in this nation escaped the extra costs that were passed on, whether they were pensioners, households, small business or anyone who had electricity. No-one escaped the additional costs of this toxic tax. And evidence suggests that the carbon tax is not in fact reducing our emissions. The government's own modelling suggests that emissions have risen and will continue to do so under this tax. For those in history who will go back and read Hansard, to make that statement clearer, government used the resources of Treasury and departments through the Public Service to model the future reduction of carbon as a key performance indicator to measure the success of this carbon tax. One of the ironies is that with that tax coming in the amount of carbon in the atmosphere was not going to reduce; it was actually going to go up. The modelling does not show the savings—and our previous speaker made some points that there had been some reductions. They are correct—there had been some reductions under the carbon tax—but our question is: is it the most effective way for carbon to be reduced in our atmosphere? And on that same modelling the carbon tax per tonne was set to go through the roof—$56 per tonne. $56 into the future was what our carbon tonnage cost was going to be under that same modelling. There is a national and international consensus from industry leaders that the carbon tax experiment has failed for a number of reasons, none more so than Labor's mismanagement of its own policy. I just want to pick up on that word 'mismanagement'. One does not have to look far beyond any portfolio that the previous government presided over, such as the NBN with their continual blow-outs—and I think there was a back-of-the-envelope calculation where the cost for the NBN was supposed to start in around $5 billion and now is pushing $90 billion. There is the way that the budget was managed, which was an absolute disgrace. It will take us many years to try to bring some type of integrity back to the budget. Just put it into perspective when it comes to mismanagement of portfolios: for the current debt that we have at $300 billion, if we were to go back into history and find Australia's largest surplus, given that the Australian economy is very cyclical and has its ups and its downs, as a government, to pay down that $300 billion of debt we would have to emulate that surplus for 18 consecutive years. The previous speaker also spoke on this bill about making the tough decisions so that we did not leave a legacy for our children. She spoke about making the hard decisions now so that we did not burden our children. I tell you that they had no problem with leaving all of our children enormous debt. It is so hypocritical to come to this House and talk about looking after a future generation with reference to the environment when all the opposition has done is shackled my daughter, my nieces and my nephews with debt and deficit. The Australian government is abolishing the carbon tax to reduce the cost for businesses and households. The carbon tax has been a hit of nearly $9 billion a year on the economy. The previous speaker said that our Direct Action policy would cost $1,200 more. We need not go back too far to look at the budget figures. This was a government that could not hit the side of a barn with a forecast, so how the jingoes do you think that they can rattle up a $1,200 estimate as to our cost on the Direct Action plan? They could not hit the side of a barn with a forecast, so for any number that they bring into this chamber and try to advocate down to the $100, these blokes were predominantly out by about by $20 billion on every single budget! The only common denominator was that it was a downward trend. So do not profess to come into this chamber and advocate that you are the authority on estimating a $1,200 cost to our budget. We will not leave the problem to our future generations. The government will make the tough decisions, as we will with the NBN, and we will fix that as well. We are already fixing our border security problems. There has been a drastic decrease in arrivals in boats, because we are committed to fixing our nation. The removal of the carbon tax in 2014-15 will leave the average cost of living for households around $550 lower than they would otherwise have been according to Treasury's modelling. Now I have just spoken about the previous government's capacity to forecast. You need to look at our historical track record when it comes to delivering from an economic perspective. If we say that it is going to deliver $550, take that to the bank. It is estimated that retail electricity should come down around nine per cent and be seven per cent lower on gas prices. Most of the gas and energy companies line-item the carbon tax as a component on your electricity bill. We will require every energy body to regulate and make sure that that reduction happens. It is there because of the carbon tax. We will repeal the carbon tax and the cost will come down. As a result, household average electricity bills would be around $200 lower and household average gas bills would be around $70 lower. Before the election in my electorate, we sent out a survey to every member asking them what their major issues were. We communicated with our electorates and we asked them: if they had a magic wand what things would they want us as a government to fix? Two overwhelming issues were our common denominator: one was to reduce the cost of living—cost-of-living pressures in my electorate of Wright in Queensland were biting, and pensioners, businesses, mums and dads and families were doing it tough. The second issue outside the cost of living—and the two issues are related—was to remove the carbon tax. I would not say that my electorate is different from most electorates in the nation. I am on the public record saying that my electorate of Wright would be a bellwether seat for the opinion of the nation. There is a wide cross-section of families. The horticultural area has people that supply vegetables to feed the eastern seaboard of Australia, and that has enormous export potential as well. In the campaign throughout my electorate, the issue of skyrocketing household bills was raised with me time and time again. Mums and dads approached me to express their struggles in living from pay cheque to pay cheque. That is not the way we run a country, to have people struggling. Winston Churchill once said with reference to a struggling nation: You cannot tax a country into prosperity. Trying to tax the nation into prosperity, he said: … is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. But what we saw from the previous government was constant tax, tax and tax. The people I represent in my electorate—and I am the voice for the silent majority of them—clearly said to me, 'Get rid of the carbon tax and ease our cost-of-living pressures.' Australia is a wealthy country. Our standards of living are high and our remuneration rates are some of the highest in the world, yet in my electorate families and elderly citizens are fighting to make ends meet because of this toxic tax. We in this parliament have been elected to repeal the carbon tax. I will not rest until we do so. There is indisputable evidence that proves that the carbon tax has directly increased the cost of inputs for business. As I said earlier, no-one has been able to escape the cost of this toxic tax. These increased costs reduce Australia's competitiveness with other countries without a carbon tax. Because these costs are inevitably passed on through the economy, the carbon tax essentially weakens Australia's entire economy. In my area I have producers who sell food and vegetables in the international market. They have an extra carbon tax on top of their cost of operations. When they compete to sell their product in the global market they are at an unfair advantage. They are clearly disadvantaged because of the shackles that we put around their business. How is that fair? We all believe in free trade but, by crikey, is this true free trade? We put free trade agreements in place with nations so that we can become more competitive and grow our slice of the pie as a nation. There are two ways we are going to turn the ship around: one is to increase our slice of the pie, increase our sales, and the other one is to cut some of our expenditure and, by crikey, there is a lot of expenditure we can cut. There is a lot of waste and fat that was introduced by the mismanagement of the last government that we will have to work hard to tidy up. The Australian Industry Group surveyed 485 businesses. They released the results of that survey this year. Manufacturing businesses reported that their total energy input costs increased by an average of 14.5 per cent as a direct result of the carbon tax. How is it that 70 per cent of businesses get it wrong and the previous government got it right? Some 70 per cent of the businesses surveyed indicated that their cost of production has gone up. Something is wrong. Are we listening? (Time expired) 13:55 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra I thank the member for Wright for that interesting contribution. I particularly liked the bucket analogy. I am still trying to work it out. It was an interesting analogy. I want to say first of all how inspiring it has been to listen to the speeches of my colleagues on this carbon tax repeal legislation. This is an issue on which Labor is united. We believe that climate change is a real and significant threat and one that demands a strong response. Labor is united in support of a market based solution as the most effective and efficient way to tackle climate change. It has been inspiring to hear the passion shown by my colleagues—the passion they have because they obviously want to ensure that Australia does not take a backward step here, that we do the right thing for future generations and that we do the right thing for the planet. We have known for some time that our sea levels are rising as a result of human induced global warming and the advice from climate scientists is clear on this. Most recently the fifth report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released this year, told us that warming of the climate system is unequivocal and the sea level has risen. We know too that extreme weather events are increasing in intensity and frequency as a result of climate change. In Australia we do not need to be reminded about the devastation that extreme weather events can cause. It is something we all know and it is something we all fear. It is something, therefore, that we should be united in tackling. Those opposite agree on the need to reduce carbon pollution. What we disagree on is how we should go about that. Labor will support the repeal of the fixed carbon price in order to replace it with an emissions trading scheme. What we will not support is the removal of the fixed price on carbon if it is not going to be replaced by a carbon pricing scheme that puts a cap on carbon pollution, that guarantees a reduction in carbon pollution. I want to talk a bit today about the significance of the moment we are in right now. We are at a fork in the road. If we choose one course, we have an opportunity to position ourselves to make the most of the carbon constrained global economy that is coming over the horizon as a matter of certainty. We have the opportunity to ease the challenges that our children and grandchildren are certain to face. We have the opportunity to join our trading partners and our allies as they demonstrate to the world that limiting carbon pollution can be done and must be done. This is not about being a global leader anymore. That moment has gone. The global leaders have been operating in carbon constrained economies for years. This is about not being left behind. Then there is the other course that we can take, which offers us a future that is not so bright. Along this road our children and grandchildren will face insurmountable problems and the costs, both financial and human, associated with tackling those problems. Along this road we will lag behind the rest of the world—lag behind our trading partners, our allies and our neighbours who took action when they first saw the opportunity and the need to do so. Along this road our future economic prosperity is at risk. Yesterday I was talking to one of my staff members about the position that Labor has taken and the crossroads that we are at at the moment. I was saying to her that it is a bit like being in the late 1970s and being on our way out to get a VHS player. We had ordered it and worked out how we were going to pay for it and it was almost ours, but at the last minute we switched and decided to get a Beta, which we went on to regret for years to come. My staff member, who is a lot younger than me, said that a similar situation occurred in 2001 when people decided to ditch their brand-new Apple iPods for Sony MiniDisc players. While these analogies might not be perfect, the message is clear. Moving away from a price on carbon is making the wrong choice. It is making a choice that Labor believes and that I believe Australia will live to regret. Debate interrupted. CONDOLENCES 639 CONDOLENCES Thomson, Hon. David Scott, MC 639 Report from Federation Chamber 639 14:00 The SPEAKER SE4 The question is that the motion moved by the honourable the Prime Minister be agreed to. Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 640 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE National Security 640 14:01 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah In the past 24 hours there have been calls for Australia to detail our intelligence operations and to apologise for them. The first duty of every government is to protect the country and to advance its national interests. That is why every government gathers information and why every government knows that every other government gathers information. There is no greater responsibility for a Prime Minister than ensuring the safety of Australian citizens and the security of our borders, and that is why we do collect intelligence. National security requires a consistent determination to do what is best for Australia. That is why this government will support the national security decisions of previous ones, as we will expect future governments to respect ours. Australia should not be expected to apologise for the steps we take to protect our country now or in the past, any more than other governments should be expected to apologise for the similar steps that they have taken. Importantly, in Australia's case, we use all our resources, including information, to help our friends and allies, not to harm them. Similarly, Australia should not be expected to detail what we do to protect our country any more than other governments should be expected to detail what they do to protect theirs. Others should ask of us no more than they are prepared to do themselves. I want to make it absolutely crystal clear: Australia has deep respect for Indonesia, for its government and for its people. I regard President Yudhoyono as a good friend of Australia—indeed, as one of the very best friends that we have anywhere in the world. That is why I sincerely regret any embarrassment that recent media reports have caused him. But it is in everyone's interests, Indonesia's no less than Australia's, that cool heads prevail and that our relationship grows closer, not more distant. I pledge myself to build the strongest possible relationship with Indonesia. After all, due to its size, proximity and potential to be an emerging democratic superpower of Asia, it is the most important single relationship that we have. 14:04 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong The opposition supports the Prime Minister's commitment to national security, and it supports the comments about the importance of our national security. In terms of the comments made about our relationship with Indonesia, the opposition believes that our relationship can recover. In fact, it will be a relationship prospectively that will thrive and prosper. But it does also require Australia to recognise that our Indonesian friends have been offended. Our nations have many common interests and shared perspectives. Labor is proud that as far back as 1940s the Chifley Labor government supported the aspirations of young Indonesian nationalists and sponsored their case in the United Nations. No one side of Australian politics owns the Australia-Indonesia relationship. This is about Australia's national interests, as the Prime Minister referred to, and should be above party politics. For instance, we acknowledge the importance of former Prime Minister Howard's gift on behalf of all Australians of $1 billion to enable Indonesia to recover from the tsunami devastation. We are proud of the work of former Prime Minister Keating in strengthening relations with Indonesia during the Suharto government. We believe that the most recent Labor administrations lifted the level of consultation, rapport and cooperation to new levels, and we are proud of that. Indeed, last week Vice President Professor Dr Boediono had a warm and constructive dialogue with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and me, and I know he met with many representatives from the government. What we must do now—government and opposition, coalition and Labor—is commit ourselves to improving and repairing the relationship. This is a goal we must unite behind. This parliament respects Indonesia as a successful democracy. The role of this relationship with Indonesia is fundamental to resolving for instance, but not only, asylum seeker boat issues. Labor believes that a timely resolution is called for to help repair our relationship with Indonesia. I believe, for instance, that the example of the United States and the way that it handled a similar issue with Germany provides the opportunity for us to consider the same course of action. The days ahead remain of the utmost importance in working to remediate issues with Indonesia. We should not allow these matters to fester for very long at all. We should not allow this matter to taint our relationship going forward, and we encourage the government to redouble its efforts to ensure that this is not the case. We in the opposition do not underestimate the seriousness of this issue. We say to our Indonesian friends: it is impossible to imagine our futures without positive and constructive friendship and dialogue between our governments and our peoples. We believe the parliament should rededicate itself to the task of rebuilding the relationship. This is fundamental to our national interest. I can assure the Prime Minister—and let me be very clear about this—the opposition will fully cooperate in the task before us. We are willing to join with the government in any effort, in any briefings, in any discussions, in the pursuit of the task of rebuilding trust in this most important key relationship. Let me be very clear. Labor wants the government to be successful in rebuilding the relationship with Indonesia. This is what all sides need and want—a recovery of trust. White Ribbon Day 641 14:08 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah Madam Speaker, I wish to note that this is the 10th anniversary of White Ribbon Day here in Australia. White Ribbon Day is an opportunity for all of us to recommit ourselves to the struggle against violence directed towards women. I would love to be able to say that violence against women was a thing of the past, but to suggest that it was would be to mislead this parliament. Regrettably, on average once a week a woman in Australia is a fatal casualty of domestic violence. Most regrettably, one woman in three has experienced physical violence, invariably at the hands of men. So this is an appropriate occasion to rededicate ourselves to this important task, to rededicate ourselves to letting the young men of our country, in particular, know that a strong man never practises violence. In particular, a strong man never practises violence against the vulnerable. In particular, a strong man is never responsible for violence against women. It is important that we all do what we can to ensure that this message gets out. It is important to do what we can to protect the women of Australia. In my electorate, my wife and I have been responsible for helping to support the Manly Women's Shelter, for which the Pollie Pedal has raised some $300,000 over the last two years. But what we can do individually we can also help to do collectively, and I am pleased to be able to say, on the 10th anniversary of White Ribbon Day in this country, that the government today announced the pledging of an additional $1 million over the next four years to the work of White Ribbon Day, particularly in promoting amongst communities where this message is particularly urgent the importance of respecting the dignity and the persons of women. As the father of three daughters, I am determined to do everything I can as a citizen and as a Prime Minister to ensure that all the women of Australia, and indeed all the women of the world, receive appropriate respect from their menfolk and never suffer violence at their hands. 14:11 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I rise to speak on the same matter as the Prime Minister. The biggest risk factor for becoming a victim of sexual assault, domestic violence or family violence is being a woman. As the Prime Minister said, the statistics are chilling. That in our country at least one woman is killed every week by a current or former partner is shameful. Women and children experiencing domestic violence make up a third of the 230,000 who are recorded as homeless. These women and their children suffer physical, psychological, financial and emotional abuse. Violence against women and children is preventable. Some say that domestic violence is just a women's issue. But it is more. Some say that domestic violence is a state issue or a police issue. But it is more. Some say that domestic violence is a problem for the poor or for particular communities. But it is more. Domestic violence stretches across the length and breadth of all the postcodes of our nation. It is irrespective of your religion, your wealth or your ethnicity. Domestic violence, however, is too often narrowly defined, leaving women vulnerable and voiceless, sometimes unable to self-identify with the precariousness of the situations that they live in. There are myths and misunderstandings about the barriers that often work to prevent women from leaving violent relationships. It is not right that a woman in Australia is as likely to be assaulted in her own home as she is on the high street of Australia. It is not right that this will happen absolutely more often that not at the hands of men they know, often men they have known for a lifetime. When we have upwards of 250,000 Australians, predominantly women, being assaulted by people who say that they love them, then we as a nation have an obligation. This is not an issue on the margins, but it is one which we can all help deal with. We know it devastates lives and families. We know that domestic violence can be fuelled by alcohol and drugs. We know the long-term impact on children and future generations is heartbreaking. Labor is proud of its track record. Our National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children has been recognised by the United Nations as world's best practice. We committed billions of dollars to homelessness, benefiting women and their children, offering them protection in their homes. We funded the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court to ensure they have the resources they need. On White Ribbon Day in a bipartisan and constructive manner, Labor says that, whilst we honour White Ribbon Day, we can do more in this parliament. We can continue to increase support to build more refuges; we can speak up for the homeless, making sure that home is safe and secure and that victims can stay home and the perpetrators leave; we can help victims of domestic violence keep their jobs or help find them new jobs so they can pay the rent; we can expand laws and programs; we can stand up for women in domestic violence refuges who do not exist—'do not exist' I say, because they are not eligible to access any government or Centrelink payments. I congratulate the government's announcement today for its further $1 million contribution to the White Ribbon Day campaign, following Labor's previous contributions. I congratulate the White Ribbon Day advocates for their tireless efforts. Like the Prime Minister, as a parent, I want both my sons and daughters to grow up knowing on the one hand that my daughters will be safe and that my boy will know to grow up to be a responsible adult. I thank White Ribbon for their efforts. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 643 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:15 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I inform the House that the Assistant Minister for Defence is hosting the Singaporean Minister for Defence in Queensland and will be absent from question time today. The Deputy Prime Minister will answer questions on his behalf and on behalf of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 643 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Asylum Seekers 643 14:16 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Can the minister confirm reports that last Friday an Australian Navy patrol boat near Christmas Island sought to tow an asylum seeker vessel and that vessel then broke up and sank? Is this the first attempted tow-back and is this an example of it being safe to do so? 14:16 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The government will not be supporting the opposition's campaign for the people smugglers' right to know. That is not something we are going to engage in. I am not going to rely on the previous statements I have made in this House about these matters—about operations that have resulted in a 75 per cent reduction in illegal arrivals to Australia by boat. I am going to rely on the words of the former Chief of the Defence Force, someone very well-known to the members of the opposition, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, who said this last Friday, which was not widely reported: I guess the military way of doing things is to operate with a higher degree of operational security to keep the people smugglers on the back foot, and I think that's really why there's a need for operational security, and that's why things are the way they are at the moment. That is what he said to Adam Spencer. This is what he said in a news radio interview. He said: There is a great advantage to have a high level of operational security which means you are not going to be transmitting frequently on what activities you are up to at that particular moment in time. If they refuse to listen to the government as to why it would be reckless and foolish to broadcast operational matters of this nature, which the former Chief of the Defence Force has described in these terms, then perhaps they will listen to the former chief of defence who, indeed, headed up the previous government's own expert panel. Carbon Pricing 644 14:18 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister explain to the House what impact the carbon tax has on the operating costs of Australian businesses? How will scrapping the carbon tax reduce these costs and make Australian jobs more secure? 14:18 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I do thank the member for Forrest for her question and I appreciate her concerns to ensure that every job be made more secure and every business made more competitive by the abolition of the carbon tax, which is doing enormous damage to job security and competitiveness right across our economy but particularly in an energy-intensive state such as Western Australia. If it is not repealed, the carbon tax will go up and up and up: $24 a tonne now, $38 a tonne in 2020 and an almost unimaginable $350 a tonne by 2050. Opposition members interjecting— Mr ABBOTT EZ5 They are the former government's own figures. If the carbon tax is not repealed, power prices will go up and up and up. They are is power prices that will damage businesses as well as hurt households. Right now power prices for the average Australian household are $200 a year more than they should be because of the carbon tax. Household costs are $550 a year more for the average household thanks to the carbon tax. But there is a simple way to get power prices down and that is to abolish the carbon tax. That is the simple way to get power prices down to take the pressure off households and to make every worker's job more secure. As the head of the ACCC said last week, 'What goes up with the carbon tax will come down with the abolition of the carbon tax.' Today there is more good news. The boss of Alinta Energy, one of the big energy producers in Western Australia, has said, 'Any cost savings associated with the carbon price repeal will be passed on to retail customers by Alinta Energy.' What is standing in the way of this benefit to business and to consumers? I will not talk about 'electricity bills', which we all know are far too high, but if the Leader of the Opposition does not want to be referred to by that term, there is a very simple thing he can do: get out of the way and let the carbon tax repeal bill be passed. Axe the tax and respect the will of the Australian people. Mr Mitchell interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 Whoever said the word 'hypocrite' I would ask them to withdraw. Mr Mitchell M3E I withdraw. Asylum Seekers 644 14:22 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. I refer the minister to his previous answer about the reported tow-back vessel that sank. Were all those on board this asylum seeker boat rescued? Where were those asylum seekers taken and where are they now? 14:22 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Once again, I have answered this question. I know the opposition would like us to hand over the PIN for Operation Sovereign Borders to the people smugglers but we are not going to do that, because we are not in the business of helping people smugglers. I know those on the other side are seeking to champion their interests because right now, in the Senate— Mr Burke DYW On a point of order, Madam Speaker, under standing order 90, a reflection on members was just made in a very direct fashion by the minister and should be withdrawn. The SPEAKER SE4 Perhaps you could help the chair by telling me what the reflection was? Mr Burke DYW Madam Speaker, the minister just referred to certain interests being championed, which is deeply offensive. We understand the subject matter he was talking to. I do not believe it should be incumbent upon us to repeat an imputation in order to have it withdrawn. The SPEAKER SE4 I am sorry. I was a bit confused by the Manager for Opposition Business. He does not wish to inform me of what the offensive term is but, to assist the House, perhaps the minister may withdraw on this occasion and we will proceed. Mr MORRISON E3L I am happy to assist you, Madam Speaker, and withdraw. The point I was seeking to make was that in the Senate at the moment the Greens have moved a motion—and it has been done, I understand, by the real shadow minister for immigration, Senator Hanson-Young—the deputy sits over here— Opposition members interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L I am simply seeking to explain. Mr Burke DYW I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker—direct relevance. The SPEAKER SE4 I presume you are asking for the answer to be directly relevant, is that right? Mr Burke DYW I would love it to be directly relevant. The SPEAKER SE4 Well perhaps next time you will say so. I call the honourable minister and ask that he be relevant to the question. Mr MORRISON E3L The point I was wishing to make is that those opposite are seeking to ensure that people who arrive in Australia illegally by boat—33,000 who are sitting here today—get the permanent visas that their government promised them. In relation to matters that have been raised by the member, if there are any incidents that require explanation— The SPEAKER SE4 The minister will resume his seat. I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and we have had our one point on relevance. Ms Plibersek 83M On a point of order, Madam Speaker: if the minister cannot answer the question he should just sit down. The SPEAKER SE4 The deputy leader is not in order. That is not a point of order. If you wish to couch it in a way that it can be entertained I think you should look at the standing orders a little more closely. I call the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. The deputy leader will sit down. Mr MORRISON E3L I know members opposite are anxious about this issue and are sensitive about this issue, as they should be, because they allowed more than 50,000 people to turn up illegally on their watch. As is our practice under Operation Sovereign Borders, as the 'deputy shadow minister for immigration' over there would know, if there are serious incidents that require reporting in between reporting periods then they are reported. Mining 646 14:26 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline how Western Australian mining companies will have their compliance costs reduced after the abolition of the mining tax, and will the Treasurer outline how this affects the 3,100 workers in the mining industry in the electorate of Hasluck? 14:26 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney It is a very good question from the member for Hasluck because the mining tax is a burden on the people of Western Australia, as it is on all Australians. The mining tax is a budget disaster. Imagine introducing a tax that hardly raises any money, but then you go and spend all this money against a fictional revenue stream. That is exactly what the Labor Party did. It was originally to raise nearly $50 billion so they went on a spending spree against money that they never collected. In total, the tax raised $400 million—just $400 million. Fewer than 20 taxpayers have paid that $400 million. Around 145 other miners have been required to submit all the paperwork associated with the tax. Mr Perrett HVP They are up in the gallery watching you. Mr HOCKEY DK6 I heard that interjection from the member over there. I just remind the House that the Labor Party are not very good with numbers, we know that. They certainly are not very good with budgets and they are most definitely not very good with other people's money. When I thought about why would you introduce a tax that does not raise any money I went to my old china plate over there, the member for Lilley. He summed it up in this year's budget. The member for Lilley said about the mining tax: 'We brought a super profits tax in precisely at the time the super profits disappeared.' And he is right. He is Mensa so he is right. The problem is that Labor is defending all this expenditure against this tax. So let us get it right: the tax does not raise any money; the tax has over $16 billion of expenditure against it; the tax leaves the budget $13½ billion worse off; the tax leaves the debt to increase by $13½ billion; the Labor Party say that they actually want to keep the tax; and the tax is a burden on 145 people who have to pay between $2 million and $20 million a year to comply with a tax that hardly raises any money. You guys are geniuses. Collectively, you are outstanding work. I say to the Labor Party, 'Respect the mandate of the Australian people; respect the mandate of the government.' As the Australian people did, you should vote to get rid of the mining tax. It is an insidious and flawed tax that only the Labor Party could come up with. Well done! Asylum Seekers 646 14:29 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. On what basis did the minister publicly assert last Friday that the Abbott government's boat buyback policy was not a measure the Indonesian government wants to see as part of Australia's cooperative activities with Indonesia? Why did the minister say Indonesia does not want the boat buyback policy? 14:29 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The government work cooperatively with Indonesia on all matters and all matters we are implementing together with Indonesia are done with one simple purpose—that is, to stop the boats coming to Australia. That is what we are achieving and we are doing it cooperatively with Indonesia with every measure. The SPEAKER SE4 I call the honourable member for Kennedy. Mr Katter HX4 Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This question has already been answered, it could be argued, by the Prime Minister. But I think this question is wider in its purview than just on the particular issue concerning— The SPEAKER SE4 In recognising the member for Kennedy, I thought he was going to ask a question. Mr Katter HX4 Craving your indulgence, Madam Speaker, I will proceed with a question. The SPEAKER SE4 Right. You do not need indulgence for the question. Just proceed. Indonesia 647 14:30 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, would you agree that every Australian would be appalled if you and your wife's phones were tapped and worried why Indonesia would do this? If Christianity is loving one's neighbours, how would you describe families fishing for food having their boats burnt, last week's territorial naval intrusion, sovereignties assailed, food supply cut and phones tapped? Surely an apology, a condemnation of the Gillard actions and assurances about foreign policy in the future are imperatives? 14:31 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I thank the member for Kennedy for his question. It was a wide-ranging question and I am not certain that I entirely follow every element of it. I am certainly not going to support every aspect of the former government's foreign policy in respect of Indonesia. Obviously, I deplore the Oceanic Viking stand-off. I deplore the live cattle ban that the former government applied misguidedly to Indonesia. Nevertheless, I am certainly not going to be critical of the former government's conduct in respect of intelligence. I do not believe that Australia should be expected to apologise for reasonable intelligence-gathering operations, just as I do not expect other countries or other governments to apologise for their reasonable intelligence-gathering operations. Carbon Pricing 647 14:32 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. Can the minister tell the House how repealing the carbon tax will reduce the price of diesel, petrol and aviation fuel? How will this benefit flow to the entire community, particularly my electorate of Flynn? What might the consequences be if the carbon tax is not removed quickly? 14:33 Mr TRUSS GT4 Wide Bay The member's electorate covers one of the most important industrial areas in our country. Mining, exports and minerals processing are all industries that are made less competitive because Labor put a carbon tax in place. So the real benefits to the people of Gladstone will be a stronger and more robust economy and more competitive industries. But it will also flow through to almost everything they do in their daily lives, whether it is the forklift in the factory; the council undertaking some roadworks; the boats, the dredges and the ferries working in Gladstone harbour; getting a ticket at the airport to fly to another part of the country; or getting on the tilt train in the morning. All of those costs are higher because of Labor's carbon tax. Let us never forget that on 1 July 2013, just as the leader who dumped the emissions trading scheme dumped the Prime Minister who promised we would not have a carbon tax ever, the carbon tax went up again. If Labor are allowed to keep their carbon tax in place, the prices will go up again and again. As if they have not done enough damage; Labor want to keep the carbon tax in place. In fact, they cannot make up their mind whether they want a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme. I think they want both. They want to put more penalties on the Australian people. They do not want Australian industries to be competitive and be able to deliver products at a competitive price around the world. The reality is that Labor are imposing a cost not just on ordinary Australians in their households, not just on the day-to-day things that we do in our lives but, worst of all, on our industry and on our national competitiveness. The answer to the people of Flynn and the answer to the people of Australia is for Labor to recognise that the people have spoken on this issue and to support us to axe the tax. Asylum Seekers 648 14:35 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. I refer to the removal of automatic visas on arrival for Iranians arriving in Indonesia. How has this measure contributed to the reduction in asylum seeker vessels coming to Australia? Can the minister assure the House that this arrangement will continue? 14:36 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I can assure the shadow minister that it remains in place and we remain absolutely confident that it will remain in place. Public Service 648 14:36 Ms GAMBARO 9K6 Brisbane My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to media reports that the previous government had secret plans to cut 14,500 jobs from the Public Service over the next four years. What do these revelations mean for more than 16,000 federal Public Service employees in Queensland, including those in my electorate of Brisbane? Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I refer you to page 558 of House ofReps Practice and the precedents set by previous Speakers that the member should be required to authenticate the reference in that question. The SPEAKER SE4 There is no point of order. I call the Treasurer. Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Hunter does not have the call. Mr Hockey DK6 What is going on here? The SPEAKER SE4 The Treasurer will resume his seat and the member for Hunter will resume his seat. I have refreshed my memory with page 558. I think the member simply referred to the statements that had been made with regard to public servants. Perhaps you could reread the question. Ms GAMBARO 9K6 Madam Speaker, I was referring to media reports. Is that not in order? The SPEAKER SE4 You have not identified any particular media report. Continue to read. Ms GAMBARO 9K6 My question is to the Treasurer— Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Brisbane will resume her seat and the member for Hunter will resume his seat. The member for Hunter is concerned that if the member is including in her question citing a particular media report then she needs to authenticate that report. Ms GAMBARO 9K6 Madam Speaker, I am pleased to do so. I will rephrase the question. My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the minister to media reports in the Daily Telegraph of 19 November and in TheAustralian of 19 November, today, that the previous government had secret plans to cut 14,500 jobs from the Public Service over the next four years. What do these revelations mean for the 16,000 federal Public Service employees in Queensland, including those in my electorate of Brisbane? (Time expired) Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The SPEAKER SE4 I call the Treasurer. The member for Hunter will his resume seat. Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The SPEAKER SE4 I have given the call to the Treasurer, who is yet to open his mouth and speak. The Treasurer can resume his seat for one moment and we will entertain the member for Hunter. Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 Under the precedent clearly outlined in House of Reps Practice set by previous Speakers, the member is required not only to authenticate the fact that the matter was published but also to authenticate the purported facts published in the article. The SPEAKER SE4 There is no point of order. I call the Treasurer. 14:38 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney I note that the member for Brisbane does not have media favourites so that is why she did not go down the path of naming all the publications, but it was widely published today. The fact is that Labor hid 14,500 job losses in the public sector before the election. How unbelievably embarrassing. Whoops, how did that happen? Fourteen and a half thousand people just lost their jobs under Labor in the public sector and they forgot to tell us about it. But if you believed the Shadow Treasurer this morning, he said at his press conference, 'It is all in there in all our economic statements released just before the last election.' I went thumbing through it again and I read it again and again. I even put a little orange tab here. It says nothing about 14,500 jobs in the public service. But it gets better. The Leader of the Opposition, as Minister for Workplace Relations in the previous government, on 16 August 2013 went to the union movement, the Commonwealth Public Sector Union, and said, 'We believe that the necessary savings should not impact unduly on the overall number of Public Service jobs.' Hang on, so there you have the Leader of the Opposition saying, 'Do not worry, we are going to have efficiency dividends but nobody is going to lose their job.' And then after the election we discover that 14,500 jobs are going in the public sector. But it was not just his spoken word but his written word as well to Nadine Flood, the national secretary of the CPSU. He said it is possible that public sector savings and the efficiency dividend outcome may be achieved through a range of measures including targeted non-staff savings at the agency and sector-wide levels and the possibility of mergers or a reduction in the Public Service. There was nothing about 14,500 jobs going under Labor as a result of their efficiency dividend. Senator Wong said, in estimates today, how did that happen? We asked for an efficiency dividend out of the public sector and oh my goodness aren't we surprised that there are job losses? The problem is: every cupboard we open on the budget there are more spiders put there by Labor. We went to the last election saying there would be 12,000 redundancies through natural attrition and every day we had to suffer the member for Griffith standing in this place talking about the job losses in Queensland and all the hypocrites on the Labor side talking about job losses under Campbell Newman. Opposition members interjecting— Mr HOCKEY DK6 It is true; you are hypocrites. The SPEAKER SE4 I would ask the Treasurer to withdraw. Mr HOCKEY DK6 I withdraw. How sad it is for Australia that they were ever in government. Asylum Seekers 650 14:43 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the government considering formally abandoning its failed boat buy-back policy in order to improve its relationship with Indonesia? 14:44 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I am really thrilled to get questions on this topic. And I am very pleased to say to the Leader of the Opposition we stand by all our policies. We stand by all of them because they are working. The boats have not entirely stopped but they are stopping. They are down almost 80 per cent in the first two months of this government compared with the last two months of the former government. That is good news for Australia, it is good news for the safety of life at sea, and it is good news for the strength of our relationship with Indonesia. The only people for whom it is not good news are members opposite, who are ashamed and embarrassed about their appalling record. Public Service 650 14:45 WYATT ROY M2X Longman My question is to the Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service. I refer the minister to a report in today's Daily Telegraph which says that the previous government had secret plans to cut 14,500 jobs from the Public Service over the next four years. How is the government planning to respond to the uncertainty created by these revelations, and what is their impact on other government plans? 14:45 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I have seen the reports referred to by the member for Longman, and I can tell him that the government will respond by firstly reviewing our own promise made before the election: that we would have 12,000 reductions in the Public Service through natural attrition. The important thing is that we promised, before the election, and we were completely up-front and honest with the Australian public about our plans for the future—quite unlike the opposition. The second part of the question was about implications for the wider aspects of the government's plans. One of the things that need to be explained to the Australian public is that, as well as the previous government pretending that they would not be cutting anything from the Public Service while actually having secret plans to cut 14,500 public servants across the board, they had not funded their redundancies in the forward estimates in the budget. So in fact this is just another addition to the Bowen black hole that this government unfortunately inherited two months ago. The Bowen black hole will mean that the deficit and debt will increase because of the previous government's legacy to this new government. Indeed, this was one of the booby-traps that Labor left in the budget for the new government. This was one of the booby-traps from the boobies on that side of the House: a cut of 14,500 to the Public Service. It is even worse than that. The Leader of the Opposition himself—dripping all that sincerity that he likes to affect when he goes to various places around Australia—said at the CPSU conference in Melbourne on 16 August during the election campaign: As a Federal Minister for almost three years, I have had the privilege of a front row seat and gained a unique appreciation of the work that our public sector employees do for this country each and every day. Your stories go quietly on, a few attracting discreet bouquets. But so often you are the subject of economic vandalism inspired by conservative ideology. We all know the solution to our nation’s challenges is not to cut to the bone. Tragically, he was not going to give them bouquets; he was planning on hitting them with an anvil after the election. But, thank goodness, he was not elected. The truth is: the coalition was entirely up-front with the public servants of Australia about our plans. I feel betrayed; but imagine those public servants who voted Labor, believing it would secure their jobs only to find that Labor was waiting for them with an anvil after the election. Public Service 651 14:48 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Given the testimony from the Department of Finance this morning that the Prime Minister's election commitment to save $5.2 billion by cutting 12,000 jobs through natural attrition will not be possible, will the Prime Minister break his upfront, no-surprises, no-excuses policies and start sacking workers? Or where will you find the cuts to pay for the $5.2 billion? 14:49 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah There is a very clear difference between the government and the opposition on this subject. We were absolutely honest and up-front with people before the election. We wanted to reduce the size of the Public Service by 12,000. Members opposite were just dishonest. It is as simple as that. They were simply dishonest. They were as dishonest about the Public Service before this election as they were dishonest about the carbon tax before the last election. This is why no-one can trust anything that Labor says. Asylum Seekers 651 14:50 Mr EWEN JONES 96430 Herbert My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Firstly, I would like to thank the minister for visiting an Afghan family in Townsville who had spent 24 years in refugee camps before coming to Australia as part of our humanitarian visa program. How are the government's border protection policies supporting the integrity of our humanitarian program? 14:50 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for his question. It was indeed a great pleasure to meet with Nazifeh Yousefi and her family. They are an inspirational family, having come here from Iran after applying through our proper process. Her husband has joined her, and her children have studied, they have gone to university, and they have bought their own home in Townsville. They are an inspirational family. They came the right way. They will be encouraged by the fact that, under the coalition, no longer will an Australian government provide permanent visas that are intended for people like Nazifeh to people who have come illegally by boat. Under our program, we have made the change. We have reset the refugee and humanitarian program to ensure that not one of those visas will go to someone who has come the wrong way. Opposition members interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L Those interjecting opposite make a point and I would like to address it. They talk about their increase in the program to 20,000. Under the coalition's program there are 13,750 visas for the special humanitarian program and the refugee program and that is our program: 13,750. That is the entire program. Those opposite increased it to 20,000. What they did not say is that 7,000 of that 20,000 were going to be permanent protection visas for people who came illegally by boat. So their 20,000 figure was a big con. Not one of the 13,750 protection visas that we will give to deserving cases all around the world will go to someone who has arrived illegally by boat but they wanted to provide 7,000 out of their 20,000. Mr Burke DYW Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. Page 553 of the Practice states under the old paradigm that it was irrelevant to compare policies of the opposition with those of the government. That is under the old paradigm. For it to be under the new paradigm a direct answer to the question and for the minister to remain in order and continue his answer, he must come back to answering the question and not make those comparisons. It is the third paragraph of page 553, Madam Speaker. The SPEAKER SE4 I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for his nice reading. But I call the minister and I would point out that when he is asked about the position of people who are coming with permanent visas and the 20,000 versus the 13,750 he is entitled to say, as he has done, that the difference between 13,750 and 20,000 constitutes information that the House would find directly relevant to the question. I call the Leader of the House. Mr Pyne 9V5 Madam Speaker, during your expostulation on the standing orders the member for Isaacs reflected very rudely on your impartiality, which is quite outside the standing orders. If he wishes to make such a claim he should do so by a substantive motion. As a gentleman I hope he would withdraw it, and if not I would ask you to ask him to withdraw it. Mr Dreyfus HWG I withdraw. The SPEAKER SE4 Thank you. I call the minister. Mr MORRISON E3L As I was stating, the change we have made— Mr Burke DYW Madam Speaker— The SPEAKER SE4 The Manager of Opposition Business on a matter that is not relevance. Mr Burke DYW I am seeking to understand how a ruling can make relevant material that was irrelevant to the question. The SPEAKER SE4 You have just said that your point of order is relevance and we have already had one and you are only entitled to one. Mr Burke DYW Madam Speaker, it is with respect to how your ruling is now enforced given that we are dealing with material that you have now said is part of the question which categorically was not. Ms Plibersek 83M You have just rewritten the question. The SPEAKER SE4 The question was one that was pertaining to numbers, as clearly was indicated by the questioner. But I would ask the minister to be relevant to the question as asked. Mr MORRISON E3L There could be nothing more relevant in terms of the answer to the member's question that under this government we are not giving permanent visas to people who come the wrong way to Australia. So those who come the right way to Australia can expect the generous spirit and heart of the Australian people in the way we administer this program. What we have changed is we have increased the size of the special humanitarian program which under their government reduced to just 500 people. Under the Howard government it ran at an average of 5,000 a year. There are many victims of the previous government's policies and failures on border protection. We know of the deaths, we know of the cost to the budget, but there are those people who waited in camps like Nazifeh for decades while that government over the last six years handed out protection visas to people who came illegally by boat. And they still want to do it in the Senate—they still want to honour the people smugglers' promise because is that what they believe in. Reserve Bank 653 14:56 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the government's grant of almost $9 billion to the Reserve Bank, blowing out this year's budget deficit and adding over $1 billion to Australia's debt interest bill. I also refer the Prime Minister to the fact that his government not only refuses to release relevant documentation under FOI but is also defying a Senate order to produce the documents. Prime Minister, what have you got to hide? 14:57 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah We topped up the capital of the Reserve Bank because capital had been stripped by the former government. It is as simple as that. We were advised by the Governor of the Reserve Bank that it was prudent to increase the capital and that is exactly what we have done. In respect of documents that have been sought by the Senate, our policy on this matter will be exactly the same as the policy of previous governments. It is probably worth reminding the former Treasurer that on at least 12 separate occasions the government in which he served refused to comply with an order of this sort from the Senate. A government member: Hypocrites. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 I do not want to call them hypocrites because that would be outside the standing orders, but that is what they are. Ms Plibersek 83M Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister should withdraw. That was a nasty, tricky way of getting something into Hansard. The SPEAKER SE4 To assist the House— Mr ABBOTT EZ5 I withdraw. Broadband 654 14:58 Mrs GRIGGS 220370 Solomon My question is to the Minister for Communications. I remind the minister that in my electorate of Solomon the previous government spent tens of thousands of dollars promoting the switch-on of the NBN in July this year. Can the minister provide an update on the progress of the NBN in the Northern Territory? 14:59 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for her question. The honourable member remembers very well 12 July this year when the member for Chifley, then the parliamentary secretary for broadband, was in the Northern Territory switching on the NBN. The member for Chifley's powerful charisma was not the only thing the government was bringing to bear to this project. There was over $13 million in building costs, six visits by the former minister, Senator Conroy, and one visit from his successor, the member for Grayndler, who was there hauling fibre on 29 August. So all of that charisma and millions of dollars you would think an absolutely irresistible combination. Well, as we speak, in the Northern Territory, in built-up areas, there are 322 premises capable of getting a broadband service on the fibre network. Honourable members interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 But wait! There's more! Five have actually connected! People in the telecoms business, as the member for Chifley would know, are concerned about the cost of multiple truck rolls. This is a network that had multiple ministerial rolls! Senator Conroy went to the Northern Territory more often than there are active connections on the broadband network. You really could not make this up! The Northern Territory News should have this on the front page—they should have these connections on the front page. Madam Speaker, as you know, they love to have sightings of UFOs on the front page, and there are more of them than there are active customers! And they do like crocodiles as well, and what could be a bigger crock than Labor's propaganda during the election, claiming that connection to the NBN is free? Oh yes, it is free—at the current rate it is about $2 million a connected premises in the brownfield areas. That is hardly free. All of this has got to change. The adults are back in charge of the NBN. We are conducting a strategic review. On the board there was not one person with experience in the telecommunications industry—not one out of eight! That is not bad: how many people would appoint eight people to a board of a telecom project and have not one telecom person on the board? I tell you: only the Labor Party! Instead, we have four experienced lifelong telecom people on that board, and we will get this project completed sooner, cheaper and more affordably. Early Years Quality Fund 654 15:02 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor My question is to the Assistant Minister for Education. I refer the minister to her election policy, which I have here, handy, which states: If elected, the Coalition will honour funds contracted from the EYQF … Can the minister confirm that no Early Years Quality Fund contracts will be cut? 15:02 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I am pleased to receive a question from the member for Lalor. What I can say is that following the disturbing evidence around the creation, allocation and distribution of the Early Years Quality Fund, when I was sworn in as minister I commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers to conduct a report. That report has recently— Opposition members interjecting— Ms LEY 00AMN I am not sure, Madam Speaker, whether members opposite actually want to hear the update on the Early Years Quality Fund—maybe they do not. The report has been received, I am in the process of digesting its contents and I will have something to say about the future of the Early Years Quality Fund. But there is something I want to add, because my understanding is that the member for Lalor is a teacher and therefore she should be concerned, as she appears to be, about the wages of teachers. But the one thing that stood out—and I do not need PricewaterhouseCoopers to tell me this—is that the fund of which she speaks could only cover 30 per cent of the workforce in the long day care sector, which is a tiny proportion of the overall workforce. So, Madam Speaker, if you were at the community preschool at Moonee Ponds you could never have received an allocation from the Early Years Quality Fund. If you worked in out-of-school-hours care, or if you worked in occasional care or if you worked as an early childhood teacher in something other than long day care you could never have received an allocation from the Early Years Quality Fund. I wonder why not. Because union members do not appear in those sectors of the childcare workforce. So what this Labor Party did in government was provide a small amount of money in a fund for 30 per cent of a subset of the workforce for just two years. Do you know what the really interesting thing is about the opposition minister who presided over this flawed public policy, Madam Speaker? When this fund opened for business, do you know how long it took? I have mentioned the small quantum—it was exhausted in 12 hours. Just 12 hours! Did the then minister deign to let the sector know that there was no point in putting in their applications? No, because every single application came with lodgements of your EBA with the Fair Work Commission and more union members in your workplace. So I make no apologies for commissioning this report to clean up Labor's mess. Child Care 655 15:05 Mr BROUGH 2K6 Fisher My question, too, is to the Assistant Minister for Education. I remind the minister of her visit to the Sunshine Coast, where she was asked to ensure that there was available and affordable child care as it was vital to our residents. Can the minister outline the childcare sector's response to the government's announcement of a Productivity Commission inquiry into the childcare sector? 15:05 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer Thank you, and welcome back to the member for Fisher—a different seat, but we look forward to the same strong, intelligent contribution to the national debate after an era where intelligent contributions were sadly lacking. I did indeed visit the now member for Fisher during the election campaign, and came to understand the particular struggles and issues on the Sunshine Coast. I know that his constituents, the educators and the providers in his electorate will have a chance to talk about what they would like to see in the future of childcare policy under this government. The government is going out to ask people what they want, not telling people what they think they need. The member for Fisher asked for reactions and I am really happy to report that the love is spreading for the Productivity Commission inquiry. Goodstart Early Learning has recognised that it is a once-in-a-decade opportunity to get Australia's policy settings right to deliver access to affordable, high-quality child care and early learning for Australian families. That is the largest single non-profit provider of child care. The Australian Childcare Alliance that represents 70 per cent of long day care centres throughout the country believes that it is timely that this review occurs as the sector is struggling under the burden of red tape and the assessment and rating process. And our friends at United Voice have issued this media release that says 'Educators welcome childcare inquiry'. I know that there are members opposite who have close links with the union United Voice. Maybe the member for Port Adelaide and the member for Werriwa and the newly elected Senator Sue Lines and Senator Penny Wong might like to talk to the shadow minister, who does not like the current Productivity Commission inquiry into child care, and remind the shadow minister that their union has said: Everyone involved in the system—parents, educators and providers have been talking about the crisis for years. Six years, in fact. It goes on: The Productivity Commission inquiry is a real chance for the new Government to make changes that will see a higher quality education and care. And United Voice very helpfully makes a point that I often make, that quality early childhood education and care 'has a direct impact on the economy because it is the vital factor in women's workforce participation'. I am delighted to report that the Productivity Commission inquiry is launched and is underway and we have good things to look forward to. Special Child Care Benefit 656 15:08 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston My question is to the Assistant Minister for Education. I refer the minister to the fact that over 18,000 families rely on the special child care benefit for children at risk or children with disability. Can the minister guarantee no families receiving the special child care benefit will have their assistance cut? 15:08 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I am pleased to take a question about the special child care benefit because I know, as I know the member who has asked the question does, that when it comes to supporting children with special needs in child care there really is not a higher priority. I have had some briefings recently on the special child care benefit because I felt it was inadequate under the previous government and I have sought whether there are short-term ways that we can improve the assistance to those families. I do not want to make the issue of the special child care benefit and its assistance for vulnerable families and children a political issue in this place, so if the member has any particular issues relating to her electorate about affected families I am happy to take those and seek the appropriate advice. When it comes to the Productivity Commission inquiry, that will look, of course, at all payments to families, but there is no intention—not on my part and I know not on the part of any commissioner within the PC or any member on this side—to make any cuts to an important support for vulnerable families. Road Infrastructure 657 15:10 Mr WILLIAMS 249758 Hindmarsh My question is to the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. Is the minister aware that a recent South Australian Royal Automobile Association travel time report revealed that the average travel time speeds along sections of South Road during peak periods have reduced to 21 kilometres an hour in the morning and 29 kilometres an hour in the afternoon? What is the government's plan to upgrade the entire South Road corridor and reduce travel times for commuters in my electorate of Hindmarsh? 15:10 Mr BRIGGS IYU Mayo Congratulations to the new member for Hindmarsh for an outstanding maiden speech yesterday. It is great that the western suburbs of Adelaide have finally got some good Liberal representation after all these years. Madam Speaker, as you are well aware, the Prime Minister will be, at the end of his term, the infrastructure Prime Minister. That is the intention of the Prime Minister and we will make sure that he is the infrastructure Prime Minister during his term. Yesterday we talked about the WestConnex project in Sydney and its importance to the people of Western Sydney in particular in Australia's premier city. Today we talk about the north-south corridor project and particularly for those in Hindmarsh affected by this, being in the most liveable city in Australia. We want to make the north-south corridor a reality as soon as we possibly can. We are not just going to talk about it; we are going to deliver on it. In the election campaign we committed to $500 million to upgrade the Darlington Interchange. I noticed yesterday that the former minister— Mr Albanese interjecting— Mr BRIGGS IYU who longs to be back on this side of the House, was critical of the government standing by its election promise. I know it is an unusual concept for the Labor Party, but we announced $500 million for Darlington in the campaign and we are going to deliver $500 million for Darlington. I know for the Labor Party that is a very unusual thing to happen. In October at the South Australian Liberal Party conference the Prime Minister, in what was an ambitious announcement, said that this government, the Abbott government, will deliver an entire north-south corridor upgrade in our term in government. Ms Rishworth interjecting— Ms Kate Ellis interjecting— Mr BRIGGS IYU I am surprised that the member for Kingston and the member for Adelaide are so opposed to this. I am surprised that their constituents would be so opposed. I understand the member for Kingston is very disappointed that her own party would not commit to the Darlington Interchange, but we will commit to the Darlington Interchange and we will get the Torrens-to-Torrens work underway. We will continue to ensure—what's wrong, Albo? Mr Albanese R36 Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The minister was asked about South Road. In order to be relevant he has to explain why he stopped work on the Torrens-to-Torrens section, which is already under construction. The SPEAKER SE4 Good try, but there is no point of order. I call the minister. Mr BRIGGS IYU He is increasingly looking like one of those Japanese troops who were left on an island, forgetting that the war was over. The war is over, Albo! We put a proposition to the electorate and they supported ours. Ms Rishworth HWA It's never going to happen! Mr BRIGGS IYU It is a surprise that the member for Kingston would not support the southern suburbs of Adelaide, I must say. I am not surprised the member for Adelaide and the member for Port Adelaide do not support it, but the member for Kingston? We will deliver the north-south corridor. The infrastructure Prime Minister will ensure that the north-south corridor is upgraded for the benefit of South Australia and the people of Australia. We will be a government that is open for business under the infrastructure Prime Minister. Child Care 658 15:14 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister provide a clear commitment to Australian parents with children in child care, a guarantee not to cut childcare payments they receive over the next three years? 15:14 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah My commitment to the Leader of the Opposition is that we will fully honour our election commitment. That is what we will do. We will fully honour our election commitments. I know that members opposite are flabbergasted at that, absolutely flabbergasted, because they have never honoured any election commitment. On that note, Madam Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 658 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Child Care 658 15:15 The SPEAKER SE4 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Adelaide proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's refusal to promise that it will not cut child care assistance to Australian families. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:16 Ms KATE ELLIS DZU Adelaide This government have already shown that they are not the government that they said they would be when comes to Australia's childcare system. Less than six months ago when we raised concerns that the now government's Productivity Commission inquiry would just be a forerunner to mass cuts and means-testing of childcare assistance, those opposite cried innocent and went out of their way to ease concerns that the Australian public might have and so the Australian public saw promises like this one: Libs promise not to means-test child care rebate. That is a pretty black-and-white statement right there, a very clear statement to the Australian people, a statement that was made over and over again by a number of different members who now sit on the government benches. Yet surprise, surprise, time and time again over the last few days the assistant minister has refused to repeat this promise. Now why would that be? Before the election, those opposite were lining up to assure the public that they would not cut or means-test the childcare rebate. Has anybody heard the government promise not to means-test the childcare rebate since the election? Has anyone heard the government even guaranteeing not to cut the childcare assistance that families are currently relying on. No, all we hear from this government are tricky weasel words. Just months ago the Liberals were happy for the Australian public to be promised that the Liberals would not means-test the childcare rebate, but now they are absolutely not happy to repeat those words. Prior to the election, the assistant minister who now sits at the table stated that they had no intention of making any changes to childcare payments. That is what they told the Australian people. But that was then. Now they have a very, very different story. In fact this week we have heard the very same assistant minister say that every dollar is up for review and even go as far as to say that, yes, the rebate is on the table. This is not who they said they would be. Colleagues may wonder what has brought on such a quick and drastic change in the words that we are hearing from the very same assistant minister. There is one clear reason and it is the one that every Australian family is right to be concerned about, and that is when this government released the terms of reference for their Productivity Commission it contained only one definitive point. There is only one very clear promise in these terms of reference about what they will do. They will not deliver any more money for child care. Slipped in at the end of their terms of reference, the government has directed that in the future for any recommendation for Australian government policy settings the commission will only consider options which fit within the existing and current funding parameters. We all know, it is pretty simple maths, that the only way you can fund new programs without additional money is to cut existing assistance, and the minister at the table absolutely knows that too. Without any extra money these promises looking at things like funding nannies, funding au pairs, increasing the hours of operation, or any other shiny hope that this government seeks to put out to tempt the Australian people with, is only possible if it comes at the expense of the support that low- and middle-income Australians absolutely rely upon currently. They deserve to know. They were not told before the election but we are demanding that they are told now which families will have their childcare assistance cut and by how much it will be cut. They have already told us one thing just six months ago and the complete opposite now, but it is right that they are upfront with the Australian people who absolutely rely on this assistance from government to help balance their work and family and to help pay their childcare bills. They deserve to know. But we know that when it comes to childcare policy, every promise that this assistant minister makes, every project that she says she is considering and every proposal that she suggests comes with a very clear flipside, and that is a cut. Any new project which she suggests will only be funded by cutting an existing program, and these cuts will have to be deep because they are looking at the whole range of new areas and new promises they are putting out there for the Australian people. What are they going to cut—the childcare benefit, the childcare rebate? We do not know, but this parliament deserves answers to those questions. As an article by Rachel Browne and Daniella Miletic in today's Sydney Morning Herald points out, no matter what your view on different types of care is, so long as this review is locked in to one limited bucket of money, all this review can possibly do is pit family against family and divide the sector. But of course this is not actually the only negative impact that this government will have on the sector. We have seen a surge in childcare use since the Labor government increased affordability assistance and increased the childcare rebate from 30 per cent, where it sat under the previous Liberal government, to 50 per cent under us and when we increased the cap from $4,354, as it sat under the Liberal government, up to $7½ thousand under us. What is interesting is that this had an incredibly dramatic the impact on demand for child care and it saw a surge of new families flock to the system. In fact so many families were then flocking to the system looking for places that we now have a massive 1.3 million Australian children in care per year. But we also saw a remarkable growth in the number of centres. Under the Labor government there was a 35.9 per cent increase in the number of long day care services, yet we know that, despite this huge growth, there are many Australian families who are still on waiting lists and who are still struggling to find a place. The Assistant Minister for Education had a little bit to say about this too before the election. Before the election the government said one thing, yet once again they have very strangely entirely changed their tune. Before the election the assistant minister argued that policy uncertainty deterred investment in much-needed child care services. You need to have policy certainty if you are going to increase the number of places available and help parents on waiting lists, so how might this government go about delivering that? What they have done is said that every single dollar in the child care system is currently up for review. What sort of impact does the government think that that is going to have on waiting lists? How many investors does this government think are going to seek approval and invest their funds into new child care centres and places when they have absolutely zero guarantee of how much government funding they will get at the end of this review? I would like to hear an answer to that question because I fear that too many Australian families will be placed on increasing waiting lists because the government have not thought that through at all. We heard in question time today that there are now many examples of areas where the government have been prepared to say one thing about child care before the election but have since changed their tune. On the Thursday night before the election, just a couple of days before election day, the coalition released their child care policy on their website. That policy includes the very solemn commitment, which I will quote word for word: … the Coalition will honour funds contracted from the EYQF… That is pretty simple, pretty straightforward, pretty black and white. But when asked today whether the government will honour funds contracted from the Early Years Quality Fund the minister was not prepared to say that they will. In fact, we know that this $300 million commitment to ensure that more early childhood workers across Australia receive higher wages is something that this government have already broken and walked away from. If the government care so much about what the Productivity Commission says about child care, I suggest they look at the most recent report that the Productivity Commission did into child care, which points out that, unless you increase wages for the workforce, you will not have the workforce available to be able to meet demand for child care. If the government value the Productivity Commission's views on child care so much and if they are already breaking their election commitment, exactly how do they plan on meeting that and increasing wages for those passionate staff members who day in and day out look after our children and are being trusted with Australia's future? We need to be very clear. This government have misled every Australian family. They have not been the government that they said they would be. They were incredibly clear in saying 'Libs promise not to means-test childcare rebate'. They were incredibly clear in saying, 'We will honour funds contracted from the Early Years Quality Fund.' Minister, it is week 2 of parliament. Just how many election commitments are you racing to break before we get to Christmas time? When it comes to the child care sector the Australian public deserve better. We have worked long and hard to increase quality, to increase affordability and to increase the sector. We cannot afford to have this assistant minister, who is so clearly out of her depth, throw it all away. 15:26 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I am pleased to be able to address this matter of public importance in the parliament today on child care, an area that matters very much to every single member, whether they be on the government, the opposition or the cross benches. There are many aspects about what we are doing with our Productivity Commission inquiry that are not political at all. Deputy Speaker Scott, if you as a dedicated rural and regional member have studied the terms of reference we recently released, you would have seen that every possible concern that could be raised by anyone in the sector about a range of issues—whether that be, as the shadow minister picked up on, educators' wages, flexible and affordable care or special benefits for vulnerable children—is captured by our terms of reference because we are completely serious about doing this properly. I appreciate the shadow minister's various rhetorical flourishes. She did issue a release. I think the first paragraph encapsulates the slightly ridiculous nature of what is going on around this matter of public importance debate today. The first paragraph of her release of a few days ago states: The Abbott Government must guarantee that no family will be worse off as a result of the Terms of Reference for a Productivity Commission review … I can actually guarantee that no family will be worse off as a result of the terms of reference of a Productivity Commission review. I think that underscores the point. What we are doing is releasing the terms of reference. We are not releasing the final outcome. We are not releasing policy, which we will do at the end of this process. We have given the Productivity Commission until October 2014—which is quite a short period of time given the breadth of work that they have to undertake, but I know they will do a good job—to come back with some recommendations. I remind the shadow minister and her colleagues that this is where we are at. We are at the beginning of a long process. It would be a bit bizarre if there was a secret agenda to means test various rebates and to cut various support for families and we constructed an entire Productivity Commission review with terms of reference that I consulted on for six to eight months. If we constructed this whole exercise just as a smokescreen to do the things that the opposition have accused us of, it would be quite ridiculous. As the Treasurer reminded us in question time today, the Labor Party often gets the numbers wrong. I want to remind the shadow minister of the numbers she spoke about when she was minister. On the back of major changes and reforms that the then minister introduced into the sector, the minister for child care, the member for Adelaide, in July 2011 told us in relation to the cost impact on parents as a result of these changes: What we've seen is that the average increase will be some 57 cents per week this year and that will rise to $8.67 per week in 2014-15. So 57c a week is where we are supposed to be right now. Ms Kate Ellis DZU That's not true. Ms LEY 00AMN Shadow Minister, I appreciate you continuing to interrupt—I did not interrupt your contribution—and it worries me not if you continue to interrupt, but I can show you the direct quote in which you said costs would rise by 57c a week. I highlight this not to embarrass the shadow minister for saying something that was quite patently ridiculous at the time and is becoming ever more so—she is already out by a factor of 10,000, I think—but to make the point that if she cared about the cost to families, then she would not have sat on her hands as the minister in this place for as long as she did. She was minister for three to six years and she did absolutely nothing about the fact that costs were going up 44 per cent for families; she would have ignored the constant calls that came to her, and to members of the then government backbench, saying: 'We can't afford child care. It's at a price we can't pay in the area that we want for the hours that our working lives determine.' That never seemed to get through; that message never got through to the Labor Party. As the shadow minister at the table has just said, 'We've tripled this, we've doubled that, we've got this many dollars, we've got this many children', but it is always about the big picture numbers; it is never about the absolute impact on families. It is never about the fact that families simply were not being served well by the system. Every time I travelled around the country, which I did as the shadow minister, I visited hundreds of childcare centres and held hundreds of focus groups with connected families. The member for Riverina understood exactly what the concerns were in the rural city of Wagga Wagga. They were similar to my rural city of Albury, similar to the far west of New South Wales—my colleague the member for Parkes is contributing to the debate, but the member for Tamworth has talked to me about the issues in his area. We have picked up on that and we have responded to it, and that is what this Productivity Commission inquiry is all about. The reason it is important is if you are a government and you seek to serve the interests of the Australian people, then you must care about the impact on families of accessible, affordable and available child care—or the lack of it. Every time I went to a meeting and I met with a family—usually it was a woman who would stand up and say, 'Look, I can't do the job that I'm trained for, work the hours that I want to work in the place that I need to work because I can't find the right child care.' This leads directly to underparticipation in the economy. When we talk about the Productivity Commission, we very much recognise the productivity aspect to this. It is about participation in the economy and about the need for us to harness the talents, the incentives, the ingenuity of every single working Australian. It was remarkable how many times I heard the same stories in those meetings, although I also had them emailed to me and letters sent to me. The typical example was somebody who was trained as an accountant but was working as a bookkeeper, or a woman who might have trained as a lawyer and was doing some paralegal work part time. They knew, if they had to be at the doorstep of the childcare centre at 6 pm to pick up their child, they could not guarantee that in the job that they might previously have done that they could make it in time. As we know, those childcare centres shut the doors and you get a big fat fine for being late. You do not want to be late; you do not want to be late for them and you do not want to be late for your child. You want to be confident when you go to work that your child is being nurtured in a safe, secure environment, that there is a high quality of education and that the people the government funds and supports for the service are doing the best possible job. That leads me to the educators in the sector, because it would not be right to not mention the hard work of the educators who work in child care. The Labor Party often accuses me of not caring about a relatively vulnerable low-paid workforce. We talked about United Voice during question time, after the member for Lalor tried to present the case that United Voice was making about union recruitment in the Early Years Quality Fund as a sound one, when in fact it is not. But the point that I make about educators is the union United Voice approached me—it would be almost two years ago now—and said, 'We need to do something about the wages of the early childhood workforce'. I said: 'I understand completely. I understand how tough it is, and how long the hours are. We've got the body established; we've got the Fair Work Commission.' The then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, had created, with billions of dollars of public money, the Fair Work Commission in order to do exactly that. I asked: why not take the case to the Fair Work Commission? But instead, the union United Voice chose another approach, a political approach, and I will have more to say about that later. The fact is that the equal remuneration order that was recently lodged with the Fair Work Commission could have been lodged months ago and could therefore have supported not a two-year temporary increase in wages for just a few, but a long-term sustainable wage increase in the sector if that indeed is what the independent umpire, the Fair Work Commission, finally determines. I must make that point, because I will not accept the accusations of the opposition that we are not interested in the wages of the early childhood workforce. I want to end with this: the policy settings of today are so different from a generation ago. I have three children; they are 21, 23 and 25; they were in all of these different forms of child care 15 to 20 years ago. I have observed how the working world has changed, how the interaction between what you do in the workplace and what you do in the home is so different. You cannot knock off at five o'clock, pick up the children, go home, cook dinner and put your feet up in front of the TV because everything merges together. There are some good aspects about the way that work and family merge, I am not denying that—we should run work friendly workplaces and allow our staff to slip out and watch their children play sport and so on—but the fact is the childcare policy settings do belong to a generation ago. What we want to do with this Productivity Commission inquiry is make sure we design a system that works for the future, that looks after families and that recognises their needs. And, just back to the subject of the MPI, we in the government are not about making it harder for families or making it more costly for families; what we are driven by is making it easier for families. 15:35 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith This is a party that said one thing during the election campaign, but, since it has been elected, is now walking away from many of the commitments it made to the Australian people. It is slowly sneaking and crab-walking away from those commitments that it made in the very, very important policy area of early childhood development. It is sneaking away from that commitment not to means test the childcare rebate and to give a guarantee to Australian families—a simple guarantee, a few words—that parents will not be worse off when it comes to childcare costs as a result of the implementation of any policies that derive from this childcare review. Households in Australia, they budget from week to week. In my electorate, the costs of housing are astronomical. After the mortgage is paid or after the rent is paid, there is not much left. Families rely on the support that the former Labor government gave them when it came to child care. Decent, hardworking Australians rely on the reforms and the support that Labor introduced to make child care more affordable and accessible to more people. The proof of that is that, for the first time in Australia, under a Labor government, the number of children in child care hit one million. That was a resounding demonstration that we got it right when it came to making child care more affordable and accessible and improving the standards and quality of the services being delivered throughout the country. The government are saying that they will review the system. I do not have a problem with a review. There is nothing wrong with a review. But the issue here is that the government will not guarantee to hardworking, decent Australian families who currently receive support through the childcare rebate and other measures that those supports will not be cut. The government will not give that simple guarantee to those families, who are extremely worried, who budget from week to week and who rely on the childcare support that is given by the government. The government will not give a simple guarantee that those families will not be worse off as a result of any policies implemented through this review. I had a number of phone calls during the election campaign from constituents who were extremely worried about child care and the affordability of child care and wanted a guarantee from the Labor Party that we would not be tinkering with the childcare rebate. Of course, we were able to give that guarantee. The shadow minister has quite eloquently outlined the concerns in this area. Those opposite are promising to expand the reach of child care, but the pool of money dedicated to ensuring that that expansion occurs is not going to grow. So, through some form of magic, there is going to be this delivery of extra services that is not going to cost the Australian taxpayer any more! We all wait to see how they are going to deliver that. That is why families are concerned and worried. Labor in government made child care more affordable, through increasing the childcare rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent. Before Labor came into government, the childcare rebate was set at 30 per cent. Thirty per cent was available, up to a total of $4,354, and it was paid on an annual basis, so families had to struggle through with those childcare costs until they got to the end of the financial year and were finally relieved with a payment from the government. Labor saw this as an unworkable system, so what did we do? We listened to the concerns of parents and we reformed the system. We increased the childcare rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent and increased the maximum from $4,354 to $7,500 per child. We made child care more affordable and, in doing so, we made it more accessible. And we not only paid it annually; we paid it on a fortnightly basis, so we made it much more accessible to families. In terms of availability, we instituted grants to help local governments deliver more childcare places in local communities. We improved standards by delivering the National Quality Framework, to improve the education that our kids receive in early child care. There is a wealth of research and information which now clearly demonstrates that, the earlier a child is placed in structured training and structured education, the better their long-term welfare will be. Labor delivered on that commitment to families to structure child care. (Time expired) 15:41 Mr EWEN JONES 96430 Herbert When I heard that there was to be this MPI on child care, I thought it must have been proposed by our side to outline the way forward in cleaning up Labor's mess. It never actually occurred to me that this MPI, 'The government’s refusal to promise that it will not cut childcare assistance to Australian families', would actually have been asked for by the previous minister with responsibility for child care, the member for Adelaide. The member for Adelaide should actually throw herself on the floor of this House and beg for forgiveness for what she did to this sector. The member for Adelaide, in her capacity as the previous minister, presided over and approved increases in the cost of child care of over 40 per cent. She brought in the National Quality Framework, stating that it would have an impact of around 57c a week, despite anecdotal evidence that it was going to be at least $5 to $20 per day. The previous minister was asked to speak at a breakfast meeting with the childcare sector here in Parliament House, and she stood up there and said the usual things—a lot of platitudes about how good it was to be with them and everything—and then she said, 'This government has made child care more affordable.' We just heard the member for Kingsford Smith say that too. The only reason there were not guffaws was that there was such a big collective intake of breath as people looked at each other with incredulity, trying to figure out what the hell had just been said. These were the things that the previous minister presided over. We just heard the member for Kingsford Smith saying that, during the Labor government, the number of kids in child care hit over one million and that the system works. The member for Adelaide was the minister who said: 'We need 260 new childcare centres around the country. This is what we are doing. This is a reforming government. We're going to build them.' After 38, it was: 'Job done. It's all over. Two hundred and sixty? Don't worry about it. We didn't actually need them. We only needed 38.' What was it about the former Labor government and putting a big number out there and then producing a very small one? Let's be very happy that the former minister actually built 38 and did not close 38. That would be the ultimate irony with these people. This former minister produced over 300 pages of new regulation and red tape for the sector. With that 300 pages came 1,000 pages of explanatory notes. That does not reduce costs. That adds red-tape burden for childcare centres. That makes it harder for you to run your business. That makes it more expensive for parents to bring their kids into child care. All those things were cost burdens put onto the childcare sector by the then minister. The member for Adelaide also cut $2.6 million in funding for occasional care. So the track record of Labor and the member for Adelaide is absolutely abysmal. I was a single dad for the blink of an eye, and I had two little girls in child care. I know what quality child care is. I knew when my kids had had a good day in child care or had had a bad day in child care. The people in child care do fantastic work. They should be respected for they do. They shouldn't be given platitudes, they shouldn't have been given false promises of pay rises when they had no intention of actually delivering. What we will do is recognise, first and foremost, that child care is important and that the system is broken—that system needs review. We will charge the Productivity Commission with the task of looking at ways to make the child care market more flexible, more accessible and—wait for it—more affordable. I think the use of props was probably a little bit overdone and that one! That should be enough for the member opposite. That really should be enough for everyone opposite. The Productivity Commission is an unbiased third party sitting up here trying to make it more affordable for people, more accessible, more flexible. That is what we will do. We will cut the carbon tax to the child care centres. We will make it easier for them to turn on their lights. We will make it cheaper for them to run their businesses all the way through. We will cut their red tape for them, making it cheaper to run their business all the way through. That flows through to every parent who has a child in care. We understand the needs of the sector. We welcome this inquiry and say it is long overdue. We will clean up Labor's mess. I thank the House. 15:46 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo I, too, would like to speak on the matter and actually speak to the link between the wages for early childhood educators and the quality of care children receive. So far in the two speeches we have heard from the government side we have heard that the care and they really value and respect the educators. Yet we have heard no commitment on funding to increase their wages. Before the election the coalition said it would honour funds contracted to the Early Years Quality Fund, but today they are walking away from it. The industry is in crisis. A third of the workforce is leaving every year. That is roughly 180 workers a week. That is why the former Labor government worked with industry to set up the Early Years Quality Fund to boost the wages. This is creating a skills crisis within the industry. Quality educators are leaving and they are leaving for very real reasons. When you speak to them, particularly the ones in my electorate, it is not because they do not love the work; it is simply because they cannot afford to work in the industry any more. Take, for example, a couple of the early childhood educators that work in Castlemaine who I spoke to just a few weeks ago. To supplement their income—the low wages that they earn in child care—they are taking on casual work in the KR Castlemaine bacon factory. They are doing this simply to supplement their income because their wages in child care are too low. Just in case those opposite are unaware of what an early childhood educator currently earns under the award, it is as little as $19 an hour, yet these are skilled workers. These are professionals with a qualification, and their wages simply do not match those in other industries that have similar certificates and qualifications. I think it is a very good thing that the sector chooses to educate itself and that they are meeting the needs of the quality framework. This is great to see for our youngest children, our youngest Australians—that they are getting the quality education and care that they deserve. All the research suggests that the years that most matter to children's development is zero to five. That is why we need a well-trained, qualified education resource helping children develop. The other example I wish to share with you today, Deputy Speaker, is that of those who work at BRIT TAFE, another centre which is also seeking extra funding. In this centre there are a number of young women who work that have their qualifications and are quite proud to be educators, yet they talk to me of stress about buying their first home—because their wages are so low, they are concerned about entering into mortgages. This is the problem with paying professionals low wages. We need a government to partner with industry so that the cost is not passed on to parents. It was mentioned previously that perhaps it should be pursued through Fair Work, a move that I support. However, if Fair Work awards a wage increase and there is no government funding on the table then that wage increase will be covered by parents. This is why it is time for government to partner. This is why the previous government established the fund of $300 million to kick-start government investment. It is time for governments to start investing in the wages of our early childhood educators, to partner with the providers and to partner with parents in order to give them the security that their kids will receive the best education. The Productivity Commission, which we referred before, has already made the recommendation for wages to grow. For the sector to grow, wages need to increase. To stop people leaving, we need to increase the wages. It comes down to a matter of what is right. If you have a certificate III, if you have a qualification, if you are a professional, you should be paid a professional wage. That is why the previous government moved to create the quality fund. This new government should not walk away from the commitment and should continue to provide this money that is desperately needed for a sector those losing—I will state is again—180 qualified educators a week because of their low wages. 15:51 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite I am very pleased to address this matter of public importance today. I am the mother of a seven-year-old child. Like so many mothers and fathers across our nation, I have struggled with both accessing child care and with the cost of child care. I had to work and I was lucky to find a childcare centre that was close to home and that gave my son the wonderful care and attention he needed. It was not easy, however, and I know so many mothers and fathers across this nation know this feeling. I used to drive from work to the child care centre at a quarter to six or 10 to six every night with that absolute sick feeling in my stomach: would I make it before six o'clock; would I get in the doors in time; would I incur a charge of one dollar per minute because I was late; would I inconvenience the child care worker who had to stay back? This is a drive that thousands of mothers and fathers make every day with that same level of anxiety. Then, at a time when small children should be having their dinner, going to bed, I, like so many other mothers would be struggling to get home, unpacking the shopping, feeding my son and getting him to bed at a reasonable time. For parents with two or more children this daily struggle is even more difficult. For many families the cost of having two or more children in child care is just prohibitive. For two children, it can be well in excess of $200 a day, subject to childcare assistance. Across Australia nearly 120,000 parents say they just cannot access employment because they cannot find suitable child care. This is not just an issue of access but one of affordability and flexibility. We, unlike members opposite, understand that many parents do not live and work in a Monday-to-Friday nine-to-five world. We do not live in a Dolly Parton world. This is a system that is not working and that is why a Productivity Commission is so important. Unlike members opposite, we recognise that families are seeking greater choice, greater flexibility and greater affordability. Let us consider Labor's record when it comes to child care. It is not a good one. Labor has no credibility on child care. We all remember the promise to end the double drop-off. The plan was to build 260 child care and early education centres. The only drop-off we saw was that 222 centres were dropped off the list. Only 38, as we heard, were ever built. We all remember the promise to make child care more affordable. Under Labor, hourly fees in long day care centres rose by 44.2 per cent between 2007 and 2012. We all remember the promise to make child care more accessible, yet Labor cut $12.6 million in funding for occasional care—a cut that hit rural and regional areas particularly hard. We are very proud of our Productivity Commission inquiry. There is one major difference between what Labor did over the last six years and what we are doing now: we do not think we know best. We are asking parents—mothers, fathers, grandparents—and everyone involved in the childcare sector to give us their views. I would encourage the community working in child care—mothers and fathers—to put forward their ideas. I say to the people in my electorate, from Belmont to Waurn Ponds, from Ocean Grove to Colac: you have a say. I also want to address briefly a deceptive comment made by the member for Kingsford Smith. I reiterate, as has been reiterated today and yesterday in this parliament: we have no plans to means test the childcare rebate. The continuing statements to the contrary are a deception and we make that very, very clear. I was very pleased, however, to hear from the member for Kingsford Smith that 'we don't have any problem with the review'. Well, to members opposite, why have you not conducted a review? We are very proud of the review that we are conducting. We are listening to the parents of Australia and we are very proud to do so. 15:56 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta I have to ask whether any of the speakers on the government side actually realise they are in government. What we have heard from them today, again, and what we have heard for the last week-and-a-half in this parliament, is the constant carry-on about this side of politics. The Liberal Party is now in government. When you are in government you do not get to do what you did in opposition. You do not get to stand up here and define the problem as you see it and blame the other side. I understand that in the first month of government you try to rewrite history but, having been in opposition for six years, I would think you would want to start writing history of your own. Time in government can be very short. You might get three years; you might get six years. But, for God's sake, do not waste it trying to rewrite history. It is your opportunity today to write your own history and have an impact on families. If you believe what you are saying here, that child care was such a disaster for the last six years, then why on earth was the shadow minister sitting on the end of chair taking a salary and spending six months developing terms of reference so that she could undertake a year-long review? If things are so bad in the childcare sector that you say it is an emergency then why don't you act like there is one? Do not come in here and try to rewrite history. Write your own. If what you are saying is true, and families need you, then work for them. Do not play the politics—do the job of government. Families do, as my colleague said, sometimes live from week to week. But they also make choices about their life. They make choices about which one of them works and for how many hours. They consider the cost of child care. They make all sorts of decisions about how they live their lives. To put them in a position where statements are made before an election and then after an election they are left in a position of uncertainty for over a year is nothing less than cruel. The shadow minister referred to what happens to investment in those terms, but also you put families under incredible strain. Families who have children know that next year and the year after they will be applying for childcare services but they do not know what is going to happen because this government, in spite of this terrible 'emergency' that they saw for six years in opposition, thought the appropriate response was to spend six months developing terms of reference and then have a one-year review. I know the Prime Minister said he was going to slow the pace of government but this is catatonic. Before the election we had a mishmash of quite contradictory promises. Nobody could make sense of this. 'An increase in flexibility and accessibility'—a great aspiration and I am sure it is an aspiration, certainly for the next year. 'New funding for nannies and au pairs'; 'a capping of places'—it is hard to imagine how capping places does not put the price up, by the way; 'not means testing for the rebate'; and 'dropping standards'. It is an interesting collection of promises. What we hear now from this government is that there is a new one which is that they will not increase the funding. Keeping the funding the same is an effective cut. But let us leave that side. They are not increasing the funding, but they are increasing flexibility and accessibility—no new funding but, presumably, more places, different places, different hours. They are providing funding for nannies and au pairs, but no new funding—no new funding but new funding for nannies. It has to come from somewhere, so where does it come from? Which families who currently receive assistance for child care will lose it because the government are going to give more money to some? More money to some and no additional funding means cuts—it seems perfectly obvious. They are capping the number of places. No additional funding, more money for nannies and no additional places—it does not make any sense. Which person who gets childcare assistance now is going to lose their childcare place because the government are going to give more to others? It is really time they came clean. Families need certainty in the same way that business does. It is no different; they need certainty. It is time the government gave it to them. 16:01 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes I too rise today to speak on this matter of public importance. To the member for Parramatta, yes, there has been a change of government. The coalition are in government now and that is exactly why we are going out to listen to parents, industry and providers to find out what they need and what they want to fix up the mess that child care has become. Having caused some considerable angst in the childcare industry, those opposite are clearly trying to cause trouble by raising this topic today. Rather than working with the industry and the government to uncover solutions for the childcare industry, they are only interested in trying to cover the mess they have left behind. Labor, under the previous government, said that changes to child care would impact on fees by only an extra 57c per week. This is extremely laughable. Earlier this year and on previous occasions the assistant minister travelled to the Parkes electorate and heard evidence firsthand from parents and childcare operators. The actual increases were more likely to be in the region of $5 a day and in some cases parents experienced increases of up to $20 a day. This is a significant amount of money for a young family trying to make their way in life. Labor's approach to child care has been piecemeal and inadequate. On this topic, I have an interesting read that I would recommend to everyone: Maxine McKew's autobiography. In that book she spoke about her time as parliamentary secretary and at some length about implementing the changes under the national quality framework. It is apparent that the former parliamentary secretary had good intentions but there was clearly a lack of understanding of the impact of these decisions on parents in the region, and indeed on those employed in the industry. I am extremely glad that the assistant minister in charge of child care at the moment is from the regions. She is clearly aware of the importance of access to child care in country Australia. As opposition shadow minister, she visited facilities in my electorate in Coonamble, Dubbo, Mudgee and Narromine. I would like to briefly discuss a few of these issues that are so important in these and other places in the electorate of Parkes. In some areas, we have an urgent need for additional childcare places. The booming town of Mudgee, for instance, is undergoing a period of rapid growth. The availability of child care is a serious issue and it is impacting on suitably qualified people moving to that area. Compared to metropolitan areas, there are fewer options for parents when choosing childcare services. Flexibility and availability are key to effective childcare arrangements in growing towns like Mudgee. We also have the serious issue of workforce shortages, an issue Labor failed to address over the last six years. Labor also failed to recognise the significant difficulties that the childcare industry has in small regional towns. Efforts have been made by this government to at least understand these issues in places like Coonamble. In regard to education retirements, a childcare worker in Coonamble does not have access to professional development. Indeed, it is 160 kilometres to the nearest TAFE to undertake training to upgrade qualifications. In many cases, some of the older workers are leaving the industry rather than taking up the challenge of upgrading to diploma level. I welcome the government's announcement today that we will now have the first public examination in 20 years of child care and early childhood in Australia. The needs of parents have changed markedly in the last 20 years. Parents are no longer only employed for the nine-to-five working day. I particularly welcome the Productivity Commission inquiry into the needs of rural, regional and remote families. The community and childcare sector have been invited to make submissions. I look forward to hearing the recommendations from the Productivity Commission inquiry. What is interesting about this issue is that from the smallest towns to the largest growing cities in my electorate, the most traffic coming through my office in terms of correspondence and representations is from parents concerned about getting access to adequate child care and from people who want to relocate to towns like Dubbo and Mudgee and have nowhere for their children— (Time expired) 16:06 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I rise to speak on this matter of public importance from my background as a union organiser looking after limited hours day-care centres and also as a parent with two kids who went through child care and with one still there three days a week and also living across the road from a childcare centre. I could focus on that horrific road accident called ABC Learning that happened under the watch of those opposite, but instead I will briefly go to Labor's record before moving on to the real issues that have been touched on tangentially by those opposite but in no great detail. Let us look at some facts: record funding under Labor for early childhood education and care; an increase to the childcare rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent; improved affordability of care, resulting in a 30 per cent increase in the number of children in care—now over one million. I know occasional care has been an issue, but those opposite forgot to mention the fact that there has been a 30 per cent increase. Back in 2004 under the Liberals out-of-pocket expenses were 30 per cent of your disposable income. Under Labor in 2012, it was down to 8.4 per cent. Most importantly, we delivered that $300-million boost to wages. As touched on by the member for Bendigo in her speech, the horrific fact is 180 educators per week are leaving this sector. Anyone that has kids in care, and this was touched on by the member of the Corangamite, trusts their children will be looked after by these educators. We know it is not a childcare service. Children are our most precious burden. Children are hope distilled. So to hand them over to strangers, you need to rely on a quality framework to make sure that educators are trained up and that there are checks and balances. Then you need to make sure that they will be there in the long haul because, as anyone knows, if your child is in care and—be they 15 months, three years or four years—changes educators, it can be quite traumatic. All of a sudden when you drop them off it is a much more traumatic event because they are not given a warm, helping, familiar hand; instead it is the hand of a stranger. What is the best thing we can do for childcare? We can invest in quality training and remuneration. I heard horrific stories during the Big Steps campaign organised by the United Voice union such as the reality of people having to take another job on the weekend just to be able to consider the possibility of getting a housing loan. People were working five days a week, ridiculous hours. I work across a road from a childcare centre. I know that they are there from six to six. I know that horrific rush, as a member of parliament, of trying to get there before six o'clock. But, I tell you what, I would not begrudge paying the extra dollar if it went into the pockets of a childcare worker. I know the member opposite talked about the inconvenience of being there after six. Think what it is like to have a job where you cannot afford to get a loan to buy a house, where you have to get a second job when you are a professional educator with quality standards, where you have to pay for your own professional development and you cannot be considered for a loan and so are consigned to a lifetime of being a renter. Imagine that. That is the Walmart theory of labour. That is not the Labor Party's vision of labour in Australia. It has not been the vision of capital in Australia's approach to labour since the Harvester decision back in the early 1900s. Surely the people that look after our most valuable commodity, our future, our children, those people that are designing our planet for the future are worthy of some extra remuneration. Surely those opposite that have backgrounds in childcare centres, either taking profit from owning them or from having kids working in them or from having spouses that own them, would understand that we should wherever possible invest in remuneration. That is the best use of government dollars when it comes to the childcare sector. Those opposite are waving around and trumpeting this review like Chamberlain getting off an aeroplane. I know what 'review' means if you have not committed to any more money for child care. If you are going to throw money to nannies, au pairs and the like, that is fine but it has to be new money. Do not steal from those that are already suffering in this sector. (Time expired) 16:11 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter of public importance. The premise of this MPI is, I have to say, quite absurd. It is the latest in a line of quite desperate actions that the opposition is trying to beat up. Today is the fifth day that this parliament has sat and every single day we have had some grand, confected outrage from the members opposite. You would think they would be grateful that we are getting on with the job of governing and fixing up the mess that they left behind. But no, every day it is a new scare, a new attempt to spook the Australian public. It is not working. The latest is to tell Australian parents: your childcare is at risk. What nonsense. What a load of rubbish. Nothing could be further from the truth. I point out that this comes from the party that foisted a huge raft of reforms in the guise of the national quality framework on the childcare industry without proper consultation. This comes from the party that said that the NQF would impact on fees to parents by no more extra 57c per week, even when evidence was given that the changes were sparking fee increases of around $5-$20 a day. I have a number of childcare centres in my electorate of MacPherson on the Gold Coast and I recently received an email from a very concerned constituent in my electorate. They were talking about the rising cost of fees for childcare. They went through and provided quite a lot of detail in their email to me, some of which I will read out to you today: 'When a childcare centre is initially built, it is designed around regulations which prescribe class sizes for each age group; limits on class numbers; the number of toilets, basins et cetera for each child and each age group; and teacher-pupil ratios for each age group. As such, childcare centres are best described as having been specifically built around these prescribed ratios and size requirements. The new regulations brought in by the Labor government altered each of the above ratios and limits, which severely impacted on the childcare centres' capacity. For example, a childcare centre that was once licensed for 74 children will only be able to be licensed for say 60 children.'—due to the changes I have just indicated—'The impacts of this reduced capability are: for owner operated centres, the owner of this facility still needs to derive the same income in order to cover the mortgage repayments. But with fewer attendees, fees have to increase. For operator leased centres, the operator that rents the facility from a landlord still needs to pay the landlord the same rent. But with fewer attendees, they will necessarily have to increase fees. Parents with kids in childcare will get higher fees.' So communities are quite concerned about what the costs of child care are going to be as a result of the policy implementations of the former government. We in the coalition government have positive plans in relation to child care. We have asked the Productivity Commission to conduct the first public examination of Australia's child care and early childhood learning system in almost 20 years. Unlike when Labor came to office and forced the NQF on the childcare industry, the inquiry process will include extensive public hearings and the Productivity Commission will invite submissions from both industry and parents. I really cannot understand why a comprehensive review by an independent body like the Productivity Commission has resulted in such absolute hysteria from Labor MPs—including the former minister, the member for Adelaide, who really should know much better. The member for Adelaide would have done much better to listen to the industry, when it warned that Labor's NQF, with its 300 pages of new rules and 1,000 pages of explanatory notes, would only add significantly to the costs of child care. She should have thought more about the impact on family budgets of her own government's costly reforms. I can assure her and all Australian families that the coalition is committed to making the childcare market more flexible, accessible and affordable. That is what the Productivity Commission inquiry is all about. Labor should be supporting our approach, not irresponsibly trying to whip up hysteria with frivolous MPIs like this one. The SPEAKER SE4 The discussion has concluded, one hour having passed. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 673 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 16:16 Ms KATE ELLIS DZU Adelaide Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER SE4 Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Ms KATE ELLIS DZU I do. Sadly there are two different instances. Yesterday the assistant minister and today several backbenchers made the mistake of using the assistant minister's statistics and stated that I was the minister who presided over a 44 per cent increase in the cost of child care during my time in government. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics data, the childcare CPI did indeed rise by 44 per cent, but that was under the last coalition government and I most certainly was not the minister. The SPEAKER SE4 We are now getting into argument. It is necessary for the member— Ms KATE ELLIS DZU I am just saying: I was not the minister in the coalition government when childcare fees increased by 44 per cent. Furthermore, today both the assistant minister and many members opposite stated that I said that childcare fees would only ever increase by 57c per week. I have never said that. All I have done is to quote from independent modelling from Access Economics, which said that that would be increase in the first year, which is long past. The SPEAKER SE4 I think that went perilously close to debate but, nonetheless, you have made your point. BUSINESS 673 BUSINESS Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders 673 16:18 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I move: That, in relation to proceedings on the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013, so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring: (1) at the conclusion of the second reading debate, not including a Minister speaking in reply, or at 5.30 pm on Wednesday, 20 November 2013, whichever is the earlier, a Minister being called to sum up the second reading debate and then without delay the immediate question before the House to be put, then any question or questions necessary to complete the second reading stage of the bill to be put; (2) if the second reading has been agreed to the bill then being taken as a whole during consideration in detail for a period not exceeding 60 minutes at which time any Government amendments that have been circulated shall be treated as if they have been moved together with:    (a) one question being put on all the Government amendments;    (b) one question being put on any amendments which have been moved by non-Government Members; and    (c) any further questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of the bill being put; and (3) any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister. I will speak very briefly, because I know that my friend the honourable member for Banks is waiting to give his maiden speech and he has a terrific crowd of supporters that he has brought from Sydney. I am not surprised, because he is a very good member and he will make a big contribution. This is a debate management motion designed to ensure that the House has certainty of when the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013 will be dealt with. It will ensure that tomorrow afternoon, at 5.30 pm or thereabouts, matters will be put to a vote, consideration in detail will occur, and the minerals resource rent tax, if the House so decides, will be sent to the Senate for consideration. This is an unexceptional act on behalf of the government to ensure that there is seemly and sensible management of the House schedule. Because of the member for Banks I will leave my comments there. I would urge the Manager of Opposition Business not to delay the House long with another speech of confected outrage, because we do have other things to get on with today. 16:19 Mr BURKE DYW Watson There was the opportunity for the government to not put this motion at the moment but to allow the first speeches to take place and then for us to have this debate immediately following the first speeches. This decision of the Leader of the House surprises me—that we are to delay the first speeches to try to have the debate right now to silence the rest of the parliament. Let us not forget the motion that is in front of us. It does not merely refer to the mining tax; it also refers to item after item of expenditure, including the schoolkids bonus, which they are now wanting to make sure is shut down, abolished, almost without debate at all. There are times when you get what the Leader of the House so euphemistically calls 'a debate management motion'. It is a motion designed to prevent members of parliament from being heard. Some of his predecessors have moved motions—not as clumsy as this—to limit debate after the parliamentary debate has been going for some time and they feel they need to bring the issue to a close. On this occasion, the Leader of the House has done something new. He has actually moved that we gag the debate before the debate has commenced. The only view that has been heard in this parliament so far is the view of the minister who has moved it. Not one dissenting voice has been allowed to be heard on this issue so far, and already the Leader of the House has decided that that is just too much dissent. Already the Leader of the House has decided that the objections of the parliament and different voices have been heard for far too long for his liking. So we have the situation now where we find ourselves debating the gagging of debate as often as we find ourselves dealing with any motion of substance from this Leader of the House. We have a circumstance where, of the three issues that they first wanted to raise in this parliament—the debt ceiling, the mining tax and carbon pricing and limiting pollution—they have gagged debate on all three. On all three they have chosen to gag debate, on all three they have decided that the confidence of their own arguments just is not there, and they have decided that they would rather silence the parliament than participate in it. But they do so again with the Leader of the House bringing forward the most clumsy motion you could imagine. Even though the effort was made to help him when we last debated the gag with respect to carbon pricing, he has again come forward on this occasion with paragraph (2)(b) that states that one question will be put on any amendments which have been moved by non-government members. This House has no way of dealing with contradictory amendments at the same time. But once again the Leader of the House is to put this parliament in a circumstance where if more than one non-government member moves an amendment to the same clause then both of those amendments get voted on simultaneously. And if both were to be carried then we have a circumstance where there is no precedent anywhere in the Westminster system for how you then deal with two simultaneous amendments to the same bill. Mr Pyne 9V5 We don't want your amendments. Mr BURKE DYW I think the Leader of the House says it all where he just shakes his head menacingly and says, 'But we don't want amendments.' The Leader of the House will have to deal with the fact that, as arrogantly as he wants to treat the parliament, as arrogantly as some of those who sit beside him on the front bench might want to treat the parliament, when you continue to have your key message being that you will not answer questions, your key message being that you will shut down debate, your key message being that dissenting voices are not merely to be objected to but are to be completely silenced, the word does get out. People will recognise fairly quickly the level of arrogance which is inherent in the motion before us. It is a level of arrogance which sees people who have their guests here for first speeches now being told that they are going to have to go through this debate and the division before the courtesies of a first speech are able to be given. I would have thought the Leader of the House, of all people, would be showing a level of respect to people making their first speech. I would have thought the Leader of the House, of all people, would act differently. He has something of a reputation for trying to garner goodwill amongst his colleagues, as Madam Speaker is all too well aware of, and has done that over the years. But now he makes the insult, where the offer was made to delay this till after the first speeches, to decide that we are going to press ahead with this debate anyway. The nature of the debate is designed to make sure that no alternative views are given. The role of Leader of the House in providing some level of leadership you would think would have something to do with participation in the House. You would think the Leader of the House would have some level of respect for the House, for its protocols and for debate within it. But we have a circumstance where he cannot cope with any more debate when only one person has spoken. It is not as if the Leader of the House has been putting this bill forward and wanting to create an opportunity for people to talk and he is now looking at the clock ticking, saying that we are running out of time and we need to bring it to a close. What the Leader of the House is doing on this is simply saying that one person from the government is all he needs and at that point he just wants to crunch it through and use this parliament as though it were an Adelaide branch meeting as though he was back in his days in the Young Liberals. He is crunching it through, pushing it through, as though this was not the parliament of Australia but some student politician's playground. That is the way the Leader of the House is treating this parliament. The parliament should resist this. The parliament, faced with a motion which shuts down debate and which also goes to the extent of creating an impossible circumstance with conflicting amendments, should, first, tell the Leader of the House that if he is going to come back with a motion he should draft it properly in a way that does not put the parliament in a circumstance of dealing with impossible procedures. Further, the Leader of the House ought to deal with the fact that he might not like what is said in some speeches that come from the other side of the chamber. He might not like that there are different views within this parliament, but each member of this parliament has been elected to be able to put the views on behalf of their electorates. Each member of this parliament has a right to be able to put the views and to participate in the argument. What does it say about the reluctance of those opposite to actually participate in a debate where they might have to defend the abolition of the schoolkids bonus? What does it say about the confidence in the arguments of those opposite that they want to run away from having to defend issues that they took to the election, that they want to run away from actually defending this government's agenda? I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that there is no shortage of members on this side of the House wanting to participate in this debate. There is no shortage of members on this side of the House wanting to take the argument up to the government when the mining tax issues are brought on. Government members interjecting— Mr BURKE DYW I think those opposite do not quite recognise that this is not the mining tax debate. We want that debate brought on and we want to be able to participate in it. But what does it say when the one role that most government members will have in this debate is to vote to shut it down, the one piece of participation they will have before we actually get to the second reading debate is to vote that they themselves will not be heard, to vote that they themselves will not have to stand up and front up to the arguments about the abolition of the schoolkids bonus, they will not have to front up to the arguments about the cuts to superannuation, they will not have to front up to actually defend what they are told is the position of this government? It is right and proper that people are given the chance to participate in this debate. The motion is impossible to be carried through if we end up with conflicting amendments. And once again, true to form, the entire motion is about shutting down debate and building on the culture of secrecy which has come to characterise this parliament. 16:29 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs Madam Speaker— Mr Pyne 9V5 I have a point of order. I move: That the question be now put. Mr Dreyfus HWG That is not a point of order. The SPEAKER SE4 It is a procedural motion that can be moved at any time. The question is that the motion be put.

The House divided. [16:34]
(The Speaker—Hon. Bronwyn Bishop)

 79 AYES Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Billson, BF Briggs, JE Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Brough, MT Buchholz, S (teller) Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Cobb, JK Coleman, DB Coulton, M (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Fletcher, PW Frydenberg, JA Gambaro, T Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Griggs, NL Hartsuyker, L Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hendy, PW Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Hutchinson, ER Irons, SJ Jensen, DG Jones, ET Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Ley, SP Macfarlane, IE Marino, NB Markus, LE Matheson, RG McCormack, MF McNamara, KJ Nikolic, AA O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE Randall, DJ Roy, WB Ruddock, PM Scott, BC Scott, FM Simpkins, LXL Smith, ADH Southcott, AJ Stone, SN Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Varvaris, N Vasta, RX Whiteley, BD Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wood, JP Wyatt, KG 54 NOES Albanese, AN Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AE Burke, AS Butler, MC Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Feeney, D Ferguson, LDT Fitzgibbon, JA Giles, AJ Griffin, AP Hall, JG (teller) Hayes, CP Husic, EN Jones, SP King, CF Leigh, AK Macklin, JL MacTiernan, AJGC Marles, RD McGowan, C Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE Owens, J Parke, M Perrett, GD Plibersek, TJ Ripoll, BF Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Snowdon, WE Swan, WM Thistlethwaite, MJ Thomson, KJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 16:43 The SPEAKER SE4 The question now is that the original motion moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to.

The House divided. [16:43]
(The Speaker—Hon. Bronwyn Bishop)

80 AYES Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Billson, BF Briggs, JE Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Brough, MT Buchholz, S (teller) Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Cobb, JK Coleman, DB Coulton, M (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Fletcher, PW Frydenberg, JA Gambaro, T Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Griggs, NL Hartsuyker, L Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hendy, PW Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Hutchinson, ER Irons, SJ Jensen, DG Jones, ET Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Ley, SP Macfarlane, IE Marino, NB Markus, LE Matheson, RG McCormack, MF McNamara, KJ Nikolic, AA O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE Randall, DJ Roy, WB Ruddock, PM Scott, BC Scott, FM Simpkins, LXL Smith, ADH Southcott, AJ Stone, SN Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Varvaris, N Vasta, RX Whiteley, BD Wicks, LE Williams, MP Wilson, RJ Wood, JP Wyatt, KG 54 NOES Albanese, AN Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AE Burke, AS Butler, MC Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Feeney, D Ferguson, LDT Fitzgibbon, JA Giles, AJ Griffin, AP Hall, JG (teller) Hayes, CP Husic, EN Jones, SP King, CF Leigh, AK Macklin, JL MacTiernan, AJGC Marles, RD McGowan, C Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE Owens, J Parke, M Perrett, GD Plibersek, TJ Ripoll, BF Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Snowdon, WE Swan, WM Thistlethwaite, MJ Thomson, KJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH 679 GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH Address-in-Reply 679 16:45 The SPEAKER SE4 Before I call the member for Banks, I remind the House that it is the honourable member’s maiden speech and I ask the House to extend the normal courtesies to the member. 16:46 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks Madam Speaker, democracy and free markets are the two greatest forces for good in human history. You can't have real political freedom without economic freedom; you can't have real economic freedom without political freedom. I believe that we are here to provide strong national foundations so that every Australian can pursue their dreams. We should always remember, though, that, while government helps to secure the foundations of the nation, the people build the house. Today I stand here for the first time as the member for Banks. Since it was created in 1949, the seat of Banks has had only four members. Most recently, Daryl Melham served the electorate for more than two decades. Mr Melham is a good and honourable man, and I wish him every success in the future. I am the first member of the Liberal Party to be elected in Banks. A government member: And not the last! Government members: Hear, hear! Mr COLEMAN 241067 The people of the electorate have placed great trust in me. They expect and deserve to be provided with a high standard of representation. They will be. Everybody likes to expand their domain. It's only human to want to make your sphere of influence bigger. But it's critical that government understands what it does well, and what it does not. Clarity of thought leads to concentration of effort, and concentration of effort leads to success. The role of the federal government is clear. Firstly, it is to secure national defence. Without security, we have nothing. Over time, the nature of conflicts will change, but the forces that lead to them are timeless. There is no such thing as the end of history. At some point in our future, we are likely to face serious security challenges. We can't be sure of what those challenges will be, but we can be sure of a few things. We can be sure that it is better to be prepared. We can be sure that it is better to have friends who share our values. And we can be sure that our military will do the job we ask, if we give them the resources they need. In a secure nation, we are free to turn our thoughts to the future. We think about the amazing things that our kids are going to do one day. We think about the job we are going to get, the place we are going to visit and the people we are going to help. We think about our parents and how we will care for them as they age. We don't think much about economic issues for their own sake. But so much of what we care about is tied to our economic strength. After securing our national defence, the government must focus on the economic foundations of our nation. It is no accident, of course, that the nations of the world with the highest living standards are those that have embraced free political and economic systems. We all have our dreams. Our dreams are best realised in a free society. When nations don't get the foundations right, good actions go unrewarded. The most innovative idea can be squashed by a too-keen bureaucracy; the most principled act can be thwarted by corruption. We are fortunate to have great natural resources in this country. These resources have contributed to our wealth. But our resources are much less important than the strength of our system. Many countries around the world have vast natural resources, but without the right national foundations those resources are often squandered. Our laws and processes need to be transparent. Everyone must play by the same rules. Complex regulations which favour the well-advised should be avoided. Corruption should be nonexistent. Government should focus much of its energy on these foundational issues. I do not believe that government should focus as much of its energy on making decisions within the economy itself. Most of the time in business, you don't think about the government. Government doesn't help you to design better products. It doesn't help you to sell any better. It doesn't help you to hire the best people. And it doesn't give you helpful pointers on how to beat the competition. As the vast majority of your time in business is spent thinking about these things, you do not think about the government very much. You do think about the government when tax makes a new project uneconomic to pursue. You do think about the government when it imposes unworkable constraints on you. You do think about the government when you are filling out forms for it. You don't expect the government to solve all your problems, but you do expect it not to create new ones. The fact is that the economy constantly changes in ways that no government can predict. A century ago, one in three working Australians were employed in agriculture. Now just one in 40 of us work in that field. Twenty years ago, virtually nobody had heard of the internet. Today, millions of Australians rely on it in their work every day. I have spent the majority of my career in internet businesses, most recently as chairman of ninemsn. The internet's rise is a perfect example of the extraordinary power of free markets. Entrepreneurs have raced to create new businesses making it easier for people to shop, travel and learn. Open, online platforms have made it easier for families to communicate and harder for dictators to dictate. The change brought about by the internet has hurt some traditional industries—newspapers being a prime example—but nobody would seriously argue that we would be better off without the digital world. Change is hard. Once great industries can disappear. The dislocation caused by this is painful, and there is a role for government in softening the impact. But government can't stop the change from occurring. In business nobody's really sure what's going to happen in their industry five or 10 years down the track, and business leaders are much closer to markets than government. So, if business leaders don't really know how their industries will evolve, how can the government know? Government's line of sight in this area is very limited, and we should never pretend that it can see around corners. Tax matters because it restrains economic activity. The more money that families keep, the more they have to spend. The more money that businesses keep, the more they invest. Over the years, I've worked on many business proposals—from multi-billion dollar transactions all the way down. Sometimes I've been the decision maker; sometimes I've been the one building the 10-megabyte spreadsheet. These analyses, no matter how big or small they are, all try to work out the same thing: is it viable to do this? When you make the decision whether or not to proceed, tax is always on your mind. There are many projects that would go ahead but for the impact of tax. Most business ideas aren't revolutionary, and you don't expect them to produce revolutionary returns. So the decision about whether or not to take the risk is often finely balanced. The impact of tax is frequently the thing that tips a proposal over the edge one way or the other. Less tax means more investment. The best economic system is one with clear and transparent regulation, limited government intervention, low tax and low government debt. For governments, going into debt is always alluring but usually a bad idea. It's always possible to come up with plausible-sounding reasons about why a government should go into debt just this one time more, just for this project. But we know that most of the time, when something goes seriously wrong with the finances of a family, a business or a nation, debt is involved. Debt acts as a dead hand suppressing our firepower and blunting our confidence. I saw up close the havoc that excessive debt can cause in the private sector when my employer, the Nine Network, was almost brought to its knees. In recent decades, once great economies have been made feeble by debt. We must never let that happen here. A strong economy helps us in so many ways. For the government it means that revenue has a sound, sustainable base. Sustainable revenue means we can build the defence force we need; it means we can care for those who need care; it means we can better educate our kids. But a strong economy also allows us the freedom to pursue our personal goals. Maybe you want to send your son to a soccer camp, to help him follow his dream. Maybe you want to take that year off and drive around the country together, as you've been saying you will for decades. Maybe you want to volunteer at the local hospital. Whatever the goal, it is so much more achievable when the economy is strong. I mention some examples of our goals because I think they demonstrate the sort of people that we are. We are not a materialistic nation. We don't stand on ceremony. We're not sure about grand solutions. We know that fashions come and go but the important things endure. We can spot a fake. We have achieved so much. We're a member of the very small club of nations that has never wavered from democracy. We've generated much more than our fair share of world leaders in fields as diverse as science and the arts. We've dramatically increased our living standards, so that the children of today enjoy opportunities that were unheard of a few generations ago. Because we have largely embraced political and economic freedom, our nation has grown stronger over time. We live longer; we earn more; we fear less. We've made our national foundations stronger by allowing more people to build upon them. My grandfather couldn't get the job he wanted because he was Catholic; now we have Catholics in the most senior roles in the nation. There was a time, of course, when Aborigines couldn't vote, married women couldn't work, and non-whites couldn't immigrate. In recent decades we've made many important changes to our laws to give people the freedom to better build on our national foundations. We should never legislate for outcomes, but we should always be open to removing constraints that stop people from pursuing their dreams. It is the people of Australia, not the government, who make us great. Our role is to provide the stable and secure foundations that allow every Australian to be their best. In a remarkable speech, Calvin Coolidge once advised his parliamentary colleagues to have faith in Massachusetts. We should have faith in Australia. I believe that this faith in ourselves should extend to an Australian head of state. My daughter Caroline can aspire to be a great doctor, homemaker, police officer or teacher, but she cannot aspire to be the head of state. The notion that our head of state should be determined based on who one's parents are is, in my view, patently wrong. It is not a small matter. It is important. Imagine if you could only get a job at the local bank if your dad had worked there, or if you could only enter parliament if your mother had held the seat before you. I see no difference in relation to the head of state. This job should be opened to Australian applicants. I would like to think that one day someone from Banks could be our head of state. The people of Banks embody modern Australia. Many are young families raising kids—people in their 30s and 40s who do so much of the heavy lifting in our society. Some families have lived in the same home for more than half a century; others arrived in recent times from overseas. Banks has the highest proportion of people of Chinese background of any Australian electorate and people who trace their ancestry to all parts of the world. People in Banks are defined not by race or religion but by values. All that matters in Banks is that you play by the rules of Australia. Wherever you were born, the responsibility of all of us is the same. That responsibility is to live within our laws and to embrace our values. That is what the people of Banks believe; that is what I believe. Banks stretches from Carlton in Sydney's south-east to Revesby in the west. The mighty Georges River defines much of the area. In Hurstville we have one of the most dynamic, energetic centres in Australia. In Oatley we have a suburban paradise that fortunately the rest of Sydney doesn't know about. While Banks is already a great place, there are local issues where government can help to improve the lives of residents. Our river could be cleaner; our streets could be safer; our roads could be better. I am proud of the commitments that we have already made to help address these critical local issues and I look forward to delivering on them. Madam Speaker, I have received so much support from my friends in Banks. It goes without saying that I cannot do justice to that support in this speech. I am indebted to literally hundreds of people, many of whom are here today. My job in the months and years ahead is to honour the trust that they have placed in me. I do want to pay special tribute today, though, to the member for Oatley, Mark Coure, who led our campaign with great expertise. I have talked today about the country I love and the role of government within it. As this is my introduction to this House, though, I should say a little about myself. I have lived a lucky life. To be born in the 1970s, in Australia, is to draw a tremendous hand from fate. Because of the greatness of people who fought their battles long before I was born, I have grown up in a proud democracy where ideas flourish. I was raised by a loving mother, with values which have equipped me well for the world. I have been fortunate to progress to senior levels in Australian business, learning from the best in the process. From David Gold I learnt about drive; from Ian Law I learnt about professionalism; from David Gyngell I learnt about leadership. I did not grow up with wealth, but I never felt that I needed it. Madam Speaker, I have no excuses. In recent years, I have had the wonderful privilege of raising a family. 'Awe-inspiring' is one of those terms that we use from time to time, but I did not really know what it meant until I saw my wife, Dotte, care for our children. The incredible love and energy she puts into them literally inspires awe in me. In a sense, my life did not really begin until I was a father. My children, Caroline and Joseph, are the best thing that has ever happened to me. Other people could be the member for Banks, but only I can be their dad. I will always remember that. Madam Speaker, I wasn't raised to vote for the Liberal Party, let alone join it, let alone represent it in parliament. I became a Liberal because my experience of life and my reading of history led me to a clear conclusion. Most of the time, when good things happen they happen because of the hard work of a small number of people. They don't happen because a committee talked about them or because somebody published a discussion paper. They happen because people made them happen. Government should harness that creative energy by letting it be free. We all see something in the distance. Trying to get there is what life is all about. Our nation's history is one of progress. From humble beginnings, we have built the greatest nation on earth. Some of our governments have been better than others—considerably so—but in the long run we have always moved forward. We do best when the government focuses on providing secure national foundations and giving people the freedom to pursue their dreams. The Abbott government's agenda of measured, mature, unpretentious leadership is exactly what the nation needs and I look forward to playing my own small part in it. Finally, to the people of Banks, thank you for the faith you have shown in me. You are my boss. In Banks, I will listen to you. In Canberra, I will work for you. I will not solve every problem, because no government can do that, but I will use every ability I possess on your behalf and I will never give up. Together I know that we can make our great country even greater. The SPEAKER SE4 Before I give the call to the member for Newcastle, I would again remind the House that it is her maiden speech and I would ask that the courtesies of the House be afforded to her as they were indeed to the member for Banks. 17:06 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to begin my first speech in the Australian parliament by acknowledging the traditional owners, the Ngambri and Ngunnawal people, on whose country we meet, and pay my respects to their elders past and present and to their future leaders. I thank them for their ongoing custodianship of this land—it is their traditional knowledge systems and beliefs that have nurtured and will continue to nurture these lands and waters for millennia. I also want to acknowledge the traditional owners of my home town, Newcastle, and the wider electorate—the Awabakal, Worimi and Wonnarua peoples. Your histories are testament to your strength and resilience and should be better known. As a nation, we are uniquely grounded in the rich and complex cultures of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. This is one of the oldest living cultures in the world, a central—and sometimes confronting—part of our Australian identity and a significant component of how we present ourselves to the world. We have much to celebrate in partnership with Australia's first peoples, but we also have much to learn. I stand here today as the proudly elected member for Newcastle. It is an honour and a privilege to be elected to represent the people of Newcastle in this 44th Australian parliament. I am grateful for the confidence and trust that my fellow Novocastrians have placed in me to be their voice in the national parliament. I take very seriously the responsibility that this entails and pledge to do my utmost to ensure that your voices, hopes and aspirations are heard. Newcastle occupies a unique place in the Australian parliament and the history of the Australian Labor Party. Since its creation as a federation seat in 1901, Newcastle has only ever returned Labor members of parliament. And Newcastle is the only federation seat in the Australian parliament to have been held continuously by one political party. Even more remarkable perhaps is the fact that I am only the sixth person to have been elected to this position in 112 years. David Watkins; his son, David Oliver Watkins; Charlie Jones; Allan Morris; and Sharon Grierson have all proudly represented Newcastle and the Labor Party before. This history speaks volumes about Newcastle's long association with industry and work, our place as an important economic, social and cultural hub, the Newcastle spirit and our dogged commitment to equality and fairness in pursuit of a shared vision for our future. And it is testament to Labor's steadfast commitment to investing in people, jobs and innovation. That is Labor's way of ensuring that the benefits of economic growth are being shared across our community. I am proud to be part of a strong Labor tradition that recognises the active role of government in the pursuit of equality, social justice and a progressive reform agenda. As an elected member of this parliament, I commit to being a strong opposition, holding this new government to account, and to wholly devoting myself to the return of a Labor government. I wish to make particular note of our first and most recent members for Newcastle, whose actions exemplify the spirit and strength of our community. David Watkins, a member of the first Commonwealth parliament and a representative for 34 years, was a miner before entering politics and was an active member of a number of art and musical societies. One of his great marks while in politics was at a royal commission on coalmining regulation, with his evidence resulting in improved mine safety and ventilation. While our history is deeply connected with the mining industry, we have always fought for the health and safety of workers. And, secondly, our most recent representative, my friend and mentor Sharon Grierson, proudly served the people of Newcastle for the last 12 years. She was first elected in 2001 and was the first woman to represent the federal seat of Newcastle. Throughout her tenure, Sharon was a staunch advocate for her fellow Novocastrians. Her integrity, passion and commitment to Newcastle were unquestionable. We remain indebted for her vision of Newcastle as a centre of excellence for clean energy research and innovation and thank the former Labor government for investing in our future. The dedication and work of my five predecessors has forged the modern-day electorate that I now represent. Newcastle is very much my home town. I am a fifth generation Novocastrian. Newcastle has always been a priority for me, and it has always been a priority for Labor governments. While I was campaigning, people would often ask me why I was putting my hand up for this job. The answer was simple: because my decision making has always been guided by my strong personal commitment to three core Labor values—equality, social justice and democracy. Labor had a vision for Newcastle, and I knew it was a vision worth fighting for. There are many aspects of my personal story that come to bear on my work in this parliament. My love of anthropology and the study of human culture, society and difference is just one, but it is one that has had a profound impact on my life. For almost a decade I lived and worked in remote Aboriginal communities in the Kimberley region of Western Australia, immersing myself in a very different political and social reality. Always taking a hands-on approach, much of my early work in the Kimberley focused on the large cattle stations that were the major source of employment for Aboriginal people and enabled them to maintain close links to their traditional country. I worked variously as a domestic, a gardener, a stock-camp cook and a jillaroo alongside the Aboriginal stock men and women to better understand this important part of Aboriginal life in the Kimberley. My passion and commitment to social justice also led me to work with a community based disability service, where I helped establish a network of residential group homes, setting up independent living skills programs, and developed policy to assist the organisation at a time of rapid change and growth. Finally, my role as an elected Newcastle city councillor and my work for the former members for Newcastle provides me with a solid background in community service, advocacy and representation—skills that I hope will serve me well in this new role. My fellow citizens of Newcastle are proud and passionate people. We wear our heart on our sleeve, stand up for what is just, fiercely defend our rights and have proven to be incredibly agile and resilient when faced with adversity. Our stubborn resolve has been exhibited throughout our city's history. We always find a way to continue on and, moreover, prosper when faced with hardship. Living and working in Newcastle has not always been easy, but we always find ways to adapt. We renew. We transform. We innovate. We thrive. The pillars that support our community are the envy of cities around the world. Our university, port, industry, beaches, sporting teams and research institutes are all world class. The University of Newcastle is ranked in the top three per cent of universities in the world and outranks many of its larger Australian counterparts. It is a national leader in the provision of opportunities for students from all walks of life, and it has a proud reputation of supporting students not just to gain entry but to flourish in their field of study. This month I celebrated 30 years of the Wollotuka Institute at the university, a centre focused on fostering and developing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander study and employment. The Wollotuka Institute has overseen the graduation of 1,130 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, with more than 800 students currently enrolled and a further 322 listing the University of Newcastle as their first choice for admission in 2014. The University of Newcastle enrols more Indigenous students than any other university in Australia. Almost half of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander doctors in Australia graduated from the university's medical program, with 51 more enrolled in the current entry program. And the university employs more Indigenous staff members than any other university in Australia, with more than double the industry average. The University of Newcastle is the leader of Indigenous tertiary education in Australia. The university also serves as a central hub for ground-breaking research and is home to a number of Australia's pre-eminent research institutes, including the Newcastle Institute for Energy and Resources, which is in the final stages of building a new facility funded by Labor. The collaborative centre is advancing research in clean energy production, energy efficiency and the minimisation of carbon emissions, producing real, viable benefits to business, the community and the economy. Their research is making a difference. Another leading facility in the region is the CSIRO Energy Centre, a state-of-the-art research facility specialising in renewable energy and low-emission fossil fuel research. The CSIRO centre leads the Future Grid Cluster project, identifying low-cost pathways for the integration of renewable energy sources and technologies into Australia's electricity grid. CSIRO and the university are also key contributors to the Smart Grid, Smart City project. Smart Grid, Smart City tested a range of smart grid technologies, gathering information about the benefits and costs of implementing these technologies in an Australian setting. The major analysis and findings from the project are due to be released in early 2014. Clean energy research plays a critical role in our nation's commitment to the environment. Job cuts to CSIRO, a lack of direction without a dedicated science minister or a reduction in research funding will have far-reaching and ongoing impacts to both our economy and the environment. The Hunter Medical Research Institute is another Newcastle-based world-class research centre. HMRI was built with more than $48 million of funding from the Labor government and is home to 400 of the country's leading researchers, who are making medical breakthroughs that are advancing science and transforming lives. Newcastle-led, Labor funded: this research is making a difference. In the spirit of innovation and new enterprise, Newcastle is forging new ground. A number of organisations and collectives are firmly embracing and fostering innovative digital economy solutions. The annual Newcastle DiG Festival brings together leading minds to create a centre of innovative expertise and entrepreneurial excellence. Slingshot, a high-tech accelerator, that in its own words is 'where tenacious entrepreneurs turn killer ideas into remarkable companies', provides seed funding, a dynamic co-working space and mentoring programs that enable entrepreneurs to build companies that solve problems on a global scale. Then there is the notorious Lunaticks Society of Newcastle, named in honour of the Lunar Society of Birmingham, who met to debate new thinking during the industrial revolution of the 18th century. Now, modern-day 'Lunaticks' gather to discuss the digital revolution, with social media enthusiasts, app developers and entrepreneurs replacing the philosophers and industrialists of yesteryear. These digital leaders are taking up opportunities that promise to propel Australia into the digital world, a digital world that is, of course, reliant on first-class digital infrastructure. I am a passionate supporter of urban renewal. The internationally-lauded Renew Newcastle program, brain-child of innovator Marcus Westbury and driven on the ground by Marni Jackson, recently expanded to become Renew Australia. The renew movement is a low-budget, not-for-profit urban renewal scheme that brokers access to vacant buildings for artists and aspiring young businesses to make a start and exhibit their wares. Renew Adelaide, Renew Townsville, Made in Geelong and Pop Up Parramatta have already spawned from this model, and Renew Leichhardt recently established their own program. Newcastle has a rich history in the arts and is home to the largest number of artists per capita in Australia, so it is no surprise that, when BHP closed its doors in 1999, we commemorated this significant event through the arts. Our tradesmen replaced their tools of trade for tools of the arts to mark this historic milestone. I would like to acknowledge one particular individual who brings the arts, science and innovation together in a remarkable way. Wayne Stuart's unique pianos incorporate more keys and an extra pedal than the standard 19th century design to create a new voice that fully exploits the frequency range of an acoustic piano. Wayne's trademark instrument and ingenuity truly exemplify the innovative spirit of Novacastrians—pushing limits, breaking new ground. Newcastle is a city where great things happen. Our national teams, the Newcastle Knights and the Jets, provide year-round sporting entertainment, and we are regularly visited by major music and theatre acts. Later this month we will host more than 2,000 athletes at the inaugural Special Olympics Asia Pacific Games, and in 2015 we will be a proud host city for the AFC Asian Cup. Visitors also come to Newcastle to enjoy the splendour of our art gallery, home to a significant collection of works and travelling exhibitions. The permanent collection includes one of Australia's finest corpora of Japanese ceramics, a near-complete collection of Joseph Lycett's work, and the recently-donated Brett Whiteley sculpture, Black Totem II, one of just two giant sculptures Whiteley produced. Our gallery is key to the development of cultural tourism in our region. Those who visit our city often stay for good. It is little wonder that Newcastle is now the fourth ranked city in the Property Council of Australia's liveability rankings and the leading regional city. And this liveability ranking is supported by the Hunter Valley Research Foundation's Wellbeing Watch. In Newcastle our overall wellbeing continues to improve and it is with considerable pride that I note much of this improvement has taken place during the last six years of federal Labor government. Key indicators that have influenced wellbeing in Newcastle include an increase in undergraduate degree holders, increased employment and significantly increased household income. Newcastle is a city that continues to evolve, and I am here to push our cause. Under a Labor government, Newcastle was to benefit from a much-needed infrastructure project: the duplication of the Tourle Street Bridge to ease traffic congestion between the city and our airport and major industrial areas. Under the new government there is no guarantee this development will happen. The federal Labor government's contribution of $52 million was fully funded in the 2013-14 federal budget under the Nation Building Program. If Prime Minister Abbott wants to be remembered as the 'infrastructure Prime Minister', I expect this funding will be released, as budgeted for, so the project can proceed without issue. Not only is my electorate of Newcastle in danger of losing infrastructure funding; we are set to lose our greatest public asset to private hands. The New South Wales Liberal government plans to cut the steady income stream generated by our port, the port of Newcastle, by hawking it off to the highest bidder. Just last year, the port reaped profits of around $22 million. It is envisaged that the sell-off, the 99-year lease of the world's busiest coal terminal, will bring in upwards of $700 million, of which the state government plans to generously invest less than half—just $340 million—in the Newcastle area, regardless of the actual sale price! That's right—less than half. Our assets are being stripped, our revenue stream is being removed and we are meant to be happy to receive the crumbs left under the table. The port of Newcastle does not need to be sold; it needs investment to diversify. The addition of a container terminal or a passenger cruise ship terminal could bring new revenue to the port while keeping it in the public's hands. Surely the value of the port will appreciate over the next 100 years and, with increased revenue and diversification, jobs will follow. The Newcastle of today is a city of opportunity. We are a city of innovation, a city that punches well above its weight in education, science, the arts and the digital economy, and a city that is willing to try new things. Finally, Madam Speaker, a vote of thanks. I stand here today because of the support of the Australian Labor Party—the oldest and greatest political party—and the trade union movement. In particular, I want to acknowledge the support of my own union, the CPSU, alongside the tremendous efforts of United Voice, the CFMEU, the AWU, the SDA, the MUA and the formidable MUA Veterans, the New South Wales Nurses and Midwives' Association and the Newcastle Trades Hall Council. Together we will always defend the rights of Australian workers to decent wages and conditions, to fairness and safety in the workplace, and provide a voice for the most vulnerable of workers in our community. To the men and women of the Australian Labor Party, and Newcastle Labor in particular: I thank you for the trust you have instilled in me to be your representative. The success of the Newcastle Labor campaign grew from the grassroots up and the strength came from the many hundreds of dedicated Labor members, volunteers and supporters on the ground. While I cannot hope to name them all today, special mention must go to my campaign team, including Mitch Wilson, Phil Ireland, Amy Smith, John Graham, Mark Boyd, Kim Hall, Fiona Ross, Simonne Pengelly, Matt Murray, Donovan Harris, Nick Rippon, Paul O'Grady, Ted Bassingthwaighte, Victoria Phillis, Ross Coates, James Cameron, James Marshall, Barbara Whitcher, Deb Wood, Hugh Arjonilla, Bradley Burns, Steven Moore, Tegan Cone, Wayne Forbes and the incredible team of Young Labor activists who worked tirelessly on my campaign. Your endless enthusiasm, good humour and high spirits, even on the longest days, made it enjoyable, so thank you. I also want to pay tribute to my New South Wales Labor members of parliament, Sonia Hornery, Clayton Barr and Lynda Voltz, and the Newcastle Labor councillors, Stephanie Posniak, Tim Crakanthorp, Nuatali Nelmes and Jason Dunn. Your friendship and support is much appreciated. But my final thanks go to my parents, Kevin and Cath, who are here today. Your unconditional love and support keeps my world turning. You have instilled in me strong and abiding commitment to social justice, community service and rugby league, for which I am truly grateful. In closing, I also pay tribute to the many extraordinary women in my life: my two grandmothers, who loved and nurtured me; my mother, who taught me the value of hard work and independence; my sister, Christine, and my three nieces, Rebecca, Tegan and Abby, who keep me smiling; my aunts and cousins, who are always there; the Bunuba women of Fitzroy Crossing, who taught me to look at my world with fresh eyes; my women friends, both old and new, who keep me strong; and all the women community activists who just keep giving. Collectively, you have shaped who I am today—although you can rest assured that I take full responsibility for all faults—and I sincerely thank you for being part of my life. Together, we will make a difference. There is much work to be done. I look forward to an Australia with our own head of state, constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians, marriage equality and real action on climate change—just for starters. Thank you. The SPEAKER SE4 Order! Before I call the honourable member for Eden-Monaro, Dr Hendy, I advise that this is his first speech and ask the House to extend the same courtesies as we have done for the previous two speakers. 17:29 Dr HENDY 00BCM Eden-Monaro Madam Speaker, I rise to support the motion, and may I take this first opportunity to congratulate you on your election to your exalted role. As I said at the declaration of the poll, the first thing I need to say today is thank you to the people of Eden-Monaro. I am greatly honoured to represent this region. I pledge that I will work to the best of my ability for the people whether they voted for me or not. Secondly, may I say that Eden-Monaro is one of the most exceptional regions of the best country in the world. Eden-Monaro began as the land of the Yuin people by the sea, and in the Snowy River region and on the Monaro Plains, the home of the Ngarigo, the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples, amongst others. Indeed, Monaro is in fact an Aboriginal word meaning 'treeless plains', and Eden, if you did not know it, is a Hebrew word meaning 'fruitful and well watered'. As an electorate it covers some 29,000 square kilometres. That is equivalent to countries the size of Belgium or Wales. It is slightly smaller than the geographic size of China's Hainan province. However that province has 8.5 million people and Eden-Monaro carries a population of some 140,000 people. It is enormously diverse in geography. It contains some of the highest peaks in Australia. Indeed it stretches from the mountains to the Mimosa Rocks in the Tasman sea. In respect of the electorate, people often quote Banjo Paterson's poem The Man from Snowy River where he says: And down by Kosciusko, where the pine-clad ridges raise Their torn and rugged battlements on high, Where the air is clear as crystal, and the white stars fairly blaze At midnight in the cold and frosty sky… Indeed, I am probably the only person here that had to campaign during the middle of a snowstorm up in Thredbo a few months ago. But I also think of another poem by Paterson, Clancy of the Overflow, where his description could equally apply to the Monaro plains. He wrote: And he sees the vision splendid of the sunlit plains extended, And at night the wondrous glory of the everlasting stars … Madam Speaker, I first came to this region some 30 years ago and I have lived in Queanbeyan for the past 13 years. However, my family first reached Australian shores from England some 160 years ago, in the 1850s. They first went to the Victorian gold rushes but sadly, very sadly, they did not find any gold. They then moved north and settled on the coast of New South Wales, and I believe became dairy farmers. Over the generations my family, including many relations from Ireland, Scotland and Germany, were variously farmers, small business people and teachers in New South Wales and Queensland. My great grandfather, William Hendy, after whom my father is named and I get my middle name, was one of the founders of the teachers union in Australia and was one of the first state general secretaries. I am very proud of that fact. There were also citizen soldiers in my family, with Great Uncle Bill a veteran of the Battle of the Somme, amongst other horrors, and the winner of the Military Medal, and Uncle Jack who fought in Bomber Command in World War II and flew as a rear gunner over Nazi Germany and, amazingly, survived that nightmare. Their example and sacrifices inspire me enormously. In more recent times, two other people who have inspired me enormously are my parents, Bill and May. I am a proud product of a small business family. Both my parents were pharmacists and they owned a series of chemist shops over the years. They did it tough and built a good life for themselves and their three children. I never seemed to escape working in the shop at some stage during my school holidays. What you learn growing up in a small business family is self-reliance, perseverance and the value of hard work. I hope that I have lived those values in my adult life, those and my beliefs as an equally proud Christian. I have run my own small business and also been honoured to represent other small businesses as the chief executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Madam Speaker, all up, Eden-Monaro represents some 21 major towns and scores of local communities. They are regional communities that depend on their small businesses and rural landholders to sustain their populations and proud histories. At times they can be the classic 'forgotten people' that Robert Menzies talked about in his famous speech from 1942 when he spoke of the: … salary earners, shopkeepers, skilled artisans, professional men and women, farmers and so on— and in summary he said: … they are the backbone of the nation. But they are not forgotten by my party or by me. As I said in the election campaign, it is vital that we provide the strongest small-business environment in our region so it can provide the job security that is so vitally needed. I am standing here speaking in the House of Representatives for the very first time, but I am not unfamiliar with the surroundings, having sat in the advisers boxes over there many times in the past. My political journey started when I joined the Young Liberals in 1979—34 years ago. I joined the Liberal Party because I believed it genuinely encourages people to be the best they can be, not telling them what to be. I first formally worked in politics for Andrew Peacock, the then member for Kooyong, as a newly-recruited economist from the federal Treasury. Part of the remit was to do a bit of economic tutoring for the then shadow Treasurer. I knew from the very first meeting that I would have a longer road than originally envisioned when Andrew, as the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, better recognised the word NAIRU as being a Pacific Island made up mostly of bird droppings rather than the acronym for the 'non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment'. Be that as it may, Andrew Peacock's time as shadow Treasurer was a success that eventually led him to return to the leadership of the party. So to the current shadow Treasurer I say: you never know where life will lead, to excuse the pun. I was also there when the former member for Wentworth, Dr John Hewson, employed a young media adviser and talented wordsmith who later became the member for Warringah. Many of us copped regular tongue lashings from Dr Hewson. I did. So did, as I recall, the now Prime Minister. We were often reminded that 'we would not know if our derrieres were on fire'—although Dr Hewson actually used the much more colourful turn of phrase in the Australian vernacular. That may have been correct with respect to me, but it certainly was not correct with respect to the future Prime Minister. I just thought I should clarify that latter point! But we endured and the team collectively produced the Fightback package, which set the blueprint for economic reform for Australia in the following 20 years. It is something that the Liberal Party should be very proud of. The study of economics has been a key part of my professional career. As part of that I have spent a lot of my career on taxation policy, industrial relations policy, trade policy and also skills training. With respect to taxation, there does need to be more reform. I was very happy to see a commitment at the last election by the coalition to review the taxation system. When I was at ACCI we drew up a comprehensive blueprint for reforming the taxation system. In 2006 I, together with Dick Warburton, did an independent review for Treasurer Costello and the Howard government on an international comparison of Australia's tax system. In my view it confirmed the need for a number of changes. For example, I believe it remains the case that the Australian system taxes capital gains at too heavy a burden compared with similar countries and that this has impeded vitally needed investment. Reform would particularly help small business and farmers, including in my electorate of Eden-Monaro. On industrial relations, after the last decade of change there needs to be a reordering to the sensible centre. This is always a sensitive topic. This has been an ongoing debate since the beginning of Federation. Most Australians do not know that it was not the Labor side of politics but ironically my side of politics that over 100 years ago originally introduced the unique Australian centralised wage-fixing system. It was at that time an arguable attempt to govern relations between employers and employees, reduce violent conflict and at the same time provide a basic welfare system. It had fundamental flaws. It has been the subject of much debate over the years and I have always agreed that the system needs to be balanced between the participants. Earlier in my career I helped in a small way the then minister for workplace relations Peter Reith to implement a substantial reform agenda on the waterfront. It was a vital reform and a great achievement, and I am proud that I was part of it. That was sensible reform against the opposition of a large number of left-wing ideologues. Indeed, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, the watchword for my stance on politics is that I am a member of the pragmatic centre. Despite the importance of issues such as taxation and industrial relations, my economist training tells me that the biggest priority at this stage is to get the budget in order. Good budget management is a short-term, a medium-term and a long-term priority for any government. That is because without strong budget management government cannot deliver on a sustainable basis the services that the Australian people need and want. All strength to the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance in sorting out the mess that the new government has inherited, especially as I am very concerned about the possible global economic developments. I was also a former Chief of Staff to a Minister for Defence and in recent years was the principal adviser for foreign affairs and trade for the now Minister for Foreign Affairs. In addition, I have had the character-building benefit of working overseas in the Middle East. Let me say a few words about defence and foreign affairs. On 7 October 2001 I was Chief of Staff of the Minister for Defence. That was the day the final order went out for the operation to send Australian troops into Afghanistan after 9/11. In this case I was a small cog in the great military machine, but nonetheless I held an important position as the closest confidant of the minister. As the order went out it hit me—it physically hit me—that I was part of a decision-making process that would probably see the death and wounding of many brave Australian soldiers. In fact, there have been some 40 operational deaths and 261 wounded in action. As you can appreciate, these matters weigh heavily on a person. It is a salient example of where politics becomes a dreadfully serious endeavour. We all deeply respect the sacrifice of these brave men and women. Indeed, I want to acknowledge the sacrifice and duty of thousands of people from the defence community and veterans' community that now live in Eden-Monaro. The Afghanistan conflict is also a clear example of much of our international relations bedrock. It partly represents our commitment to our principal ally, the United States; it was a cooperative endeavour—in this case with the United Nations; it has been a clear example of Australia's resolve in the face of international terrorism; and it has helped in significant human rights advancement, especially for women, in that country. These have been cornerstones of international relations in this country for decades and I hope for decades to come as well. Our relations with our Asian neighbours have been confirmed by the Prime Minister's inaugural foreign policy activity through his attendance at the APEC summit and the East Asia Summit. It is vital to Australia's national interest that we maintain these relationships. The new government has correctly put the Australian-Indonesian relationship as an early priority. Also a priority is our continuing relationship with a range of countries, spanning from the smaller ones like Papua New Guinea to the giants like China, Japan and India. Having referred to China, may I say that I am not one of those starry-eyed analysts who look at that great nation with rose tinted glasses. We must be very pragmatic about China and note that we have differences as well as commonalities. We need to pursue friendship with China but, in my words, it remains a 'wary friendship'. I want to note that the New Colombo Plan is a very important initiative in terms of soft power diplomacy as well as the obvious educational skills benefits. I commend the Minister for Foreign Affairs on this innovation and, having mentioned her, may I just say that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has been one of the single most important people who have assisted in allowing me to stand here today. I am in her total debt and will never forget that assistance. I note that I have also been a Director of the Australian Made, Australian Grown Campaign. This is a privately run campaign sponsored by the chamber of commerce movement to promote, both here and abroad, Australian manufacturing and Australian grown produce—that is, agricultural produce. I remain a strong supporter of manufacturing and also of Australian farming. I am an economist by profession but let me emphasise I am not an ivory tower ideologue who simply cares between Right and Left. What is important is between right and wrong. We need to do the right thing by the people of Eden-Monaro and all people who live in regional areas. I hope to be a strong advocate in this parliament who can support both good economic policy and the regions. I certainly believe in economic reform, but let me say that I also believe that what I call the country-city compact, the CCC policy that existed for the best part of 100 years in Australia, was a tragic victim of the reform agenda of the eighties, nineties and 2000s. The country deserves a fair go and the country-city compact needs to be revived—maybe in a different form, but it needs to be revived. Over the years I have studied the rise and fall of what is called the Australian settlement—that is, the social and economic policy put in place at the time of Federation in 1901. Indeed, it was the brainchild of an early Liberal Prime Minister, Alfred Deakin. The settlement is most commonly known as an arrangement that saw high tariff protection for the manufacturing industry and a trade-off with a centralised wage-fixing system. The bulk of the settlement was rightly dismantled over the course of the last three decades by successive governments. However, one aspect of that change was also the dismantling of another part of the Australian settlement—that is, the country-city compact. The compact was a fundamental understanding of Australia's nation builders that the country needed to have its fair share of attention and resources. The country regions need a fair go. The compact recognised that there was an inextricable interdependence between the country and the city. It acknowledged that there was a mutual obligation that recognised the costs of living in the country. This has basically gone, and yet country regions remain vital to the nation. Almost all mining is in rural areas, and it remains the case that agriculture is an important part in the national economy. Around 93 per cent of the food eaten in this nation is grown in Australia. In addition, some 30 per cent of Australians live outside the major cities and almost 40 per cent of those aged over 65 live outside major cities, but there is clear educational and health disadvantage. In educational terms, retention rates in schools are more than 11 per cent less in rural areas. In very remote areas 30 per cent of children are not hitting the minimal benchmarks for year 3. In health terms, life expectancy is lower by up to seven years, depending on remoteness. People are up to four times more likely to die from accidents. It is up to 2.6 times more likely for men to die from suicides in the bush. Disability rates for rural males are between 20 per cent and 30 per cent higher. Part of my new job here in parliament is to use the facts about disadvantage to revive the country-city compact. Priorities can be set better; however, we cannot just cry poor. We have been doing that for the last 30 years as our services and infrastructure have been increasingly run down. The intellectual case needs to be built so that we can get that fair share. An intellectual case needs to be built around nation building. I believe that we can further build that intellectual case, and I can help do that. I believe that the campaign team I put together for the election was able to win despite a sceptical Liberal Party headquarters that strongly doubted we had any real chance of winning. I want to thank in particular Robert Flynn, David Hickman, Andy Heath, Maggie Havu, Wayne Brown, Jon Gaul, Erika Coles, Richard and Maureen Bennetts, John Watson, Jessie Robinson, John and Caryl Haslem, and Lesley Cowan—the core of my campaign team. I would like to particularly thank Tim Beale, and there were many more. Lastly, I want to thank my wife, Bronwyn, and children, Caroline and Patrick. They are my rock, and what I do is also for them. I hope they can be proud of what I will do in public life. Who knows how my political career will pan out. As Margaret Thatcher used to say, 'The iron law of politics is that the unexpected always happens.' Hopefully the patron saint of politicians—yes, there is one; Saint Thomas More—is watching over me. But what I can say in conclusion is to repeat the sentiments of my remarks at the beginning of my speech: for as long as I am the member for Eden-Monaro I will cherish the honour bestowed on me and I will humbly seek to do the best for the people that I represent. Thank you very much. The SPEAKER SE4 Before I call the member for Reid, I would like to advise the House that it is his maiden speech. Would the House extend the same courtesies to him as they have to the other speakers. 17:50 Mr LAUNDY 247130 Reid Madam Speaker, it is with a mixture of pride and humility that I rise to my feet as the newly elected member for Reid. I am the ninth person entrusted with this responsibility. Previous members include Labor stalwarts like Jack Lang and Tom Uren. Unfortunately for the Labor Party, I am a proud member of the Liberal Party—indeed, the first Liberal to hold this seat since it was formed in 1922. I would like to begin by thanking my predecessor, the Hon. John Murphy. John is a good man with a good heart, and for 15 years he was my family's member of federal parliament and he represented our electorate faithfully. I would also like to pay tribute to John's wife, Adrianna, who made many sacrifices on our behalf. From Drummoyne in the east to Auburn in the west, Reid is an amazing place, but for me the people who call Reid home are its greatest asset. It is home to a vast array of people from a huge variety of backgrounds. In fact, Reid is one of the most ethnically diverse seats in Australia. Whilst many talk about multiculturalism, in Reid we live it. I am proud to say that is reflected in the gallery here today. Joining me are people who were born in Korea, China, Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Afghanistan, India, South Sudan, Pakistan—I see the Consulate General in here—and Hungary. This is not to mention your run-of-the-mill countries—well, in Reid they are—Italy, Greece, the United Kingdom and of course Australia. Whilst the seat of Reid is not a Federation seat, its namesake was larger than life in the lead-up to, during and post Federation. George Reid served as the Premier of New South Wales from 1894 to 1899 and the Prime Minister of Australia from 1904 to 1905 and was later an MP in the House of Commons. Reid is the only person in the history of this place to win back his seat at a by-election caused by his own resignation. That is an honour I have no plans to compete for! When George Reid was elected Prime Minister in 1904, he lived in Barker Road, Strathfield. His home was later turned into a teachers college named Mount St Mary's. From 1980 to 1982 I was taught there once a week by student teachers. My school was next door. Around the corner from Reid's old home is South Street. In South Street you will find my family's home. Strathfield has been home to four generations of my family. The fact we can call this area home is due largely to the work of my grandparents Arthur and Veronica Laundy. Arthur Snr left an orphanage at 15 with just the clothes on his back. He married Veronica and, after 12 years of odd jobs, they backed themselves and bought their first lease of a hotel. They never looked back. They laid the foundations which my family has built upon. Whilst Veronica started this journey with me, she left me to finish it alone. We lost her in May last year at age 97. I know she, along with my grandfather Arthur Snr, would be looking down today as proud as punch. My mother's parents, Harold and Eileen Paul, we lost in my teenage years. They too will be looking down as proud as punch, but I reckon they would be scratching their heads. They were Labor to their bootstraps. Whilst my grandparents laid the foundations, it was my parents who raised me and shaped me into the man I am today. My mother and father play different roles in my family. Mum is the nurturing love and dad is the tough love. Dad would discipline the children and mum would discipline dad! Growing up with my brother, Stu, and my sisters, Danielle and Justine, was a lot of fun. Like all families, we had good times and bad, but our home was always full of laughter. Mum ran the home and dad ran the business, and they both worked hard. It was in my young years that my father began training me in how to be business minded. Some of my earliest memories in life include sitting on the bench seat of a Dodge truck whilst driving kegs between hotels on weekends because it saved money. Weekends for us would include rewinding the week's till rolls inside out so that Dad could use them again in the week ahead. By doing this we were halving our use of till rolls—simple, isn't it? This is how my grandfather raised my father and how my father raised me. In fact, if the Treasurer were to make my father an adviser, I reckon we would be back in surplus next week! Over the past 23 years, my father has taught me how to spend his money wisely. I made mistakes—just ask him. He will run you through them one by one. He never forgets! But I learnt from my mistakes. Small and family business people do. The role that family business plays in our economy is so important that I believe the Minister for Small Business should be the Minister for Small and Family Business. For so many people, not only in Reid but around Australia, their first job is with their family's business. It is where the entrepreneurial spirit is born and fostered. How many maiden speeches in this place since Federation have included stories about the struggles of a member's family and the work that that member did in their parent's business? Mine is no different. I understand it is not governments that create jobs, it is business, because I come from business. Governments create the environment in which business operates and ultimately the environment in which business employs people. We must reduce red tape and regulation and create an environment where risk takers have the confidence to take on bank debt, back themselves and employ people—and, in doing so, they will provide jobs for our children, which will allow them to prosper. As a proud Liberal, I believe in giving people a hand up, not a handout. This is what excites me most about our Work for the Dole scheme. As a former employer of people, I understand the value of investing in training, but we should aim to design a scheme that is not a way for the unemployed to earn their benefits but is a way they can earn the skills they need to secure their future through employment. Our country stands at a fiscal crossroads. When Prime Minister John Howard left office, we had 234,000 public servants. Today we have 257,000. Government is bigger than it has ever been, bigger than we can afford. We must act and we must act now. An efficiency dividend can no longer mean using fewer paperclips. It must mean having departments that are lean and efficient. As Robert Menzies once said: One thing about bureaucrats is that they never swallow their young. Leave them alone and you'll find them increasing every year. The people of Australia do not owe bureaucrats a living. There is no business I know that has two head offices. With six states, two territories and a federal government, we have nine. Our fiscal circumstances demand we end duplicated bureaucracies, giving the public better services and taxpayers better value. Ministers in this government will need to run departments as you would run a business, work closely with their state counterparts and ensure the trend of the last six years is not only stopped but reversed, for the sake of our children. And we as backbenchers must challenge them to do so. Throughout the campaign, the Prime Minister spoke of the need to build infrastructure. This is nowhere more evident than in Reid. For too long we have put up with more than our fair share of aircraft noise—in fact, in most years nearly double what we are supposed to have under the airport's operating plan. I applaud Prime Minister Abbott and Treasurer Hockey for having the courage to commit to a decision on the second Sydney airport in this term of government. Reid has also been home to the end of the M4 motorway for far too long. I remember, as a kid playing cricket on my street with the neighbours, pulling the garbage can off the road on the odd occasion that a car passed. But over the last 25 years I have watched Parramatta Road grind to a halt. Drivers rat-run through the back streets of Reid and, I am sad to say, our old cricket pitch is amongst them. I am proud to be part of a government that will finally fix this problem, build the WestConnex and give local roads back to locals. Australia is a country that has been built on the back of migration. Whilst many use the word 'multiculturalism' not many understand that it is a living, breathing thing. The needs of migrant Australians will vary over time and as a government we must react accordingly. This is definitely the case in Reid. There are two main areas I am particularly concerned about: the way we teach English as a second language and aged-care services. In listening to the story of young migrant men and women about their experiences whilst at school there is a common theme. Being schooled in the mainstream and removed from class to learn English is producing poor results. Children tell me they find it hard to assimilate, they get bullied and their attendance and results suffer. When I challenge them on how we could do it better, they have some wonderful ideas. As politicians we must realise that we do not have all the answers. We must always be prepared to listen and learn from our community. We must teach migrants of all ages English and, where we can, we should do it better. Families throughout Australia will always agonise over placing their loved ones into aged care. For migrant families this presents unique challenges. As migrant Australians age they often lose what English they have. Many families have told me that it is like placing their loved ones into solitary confinement. Facilities do not cater for their language or their culture and elderly migrants feel isolated and alone. My patron senator and friend, Senator Fierravanti-Wells, faced this issue with her parents. Her idea of engaging directly with local communities and providing them the resources to care for their elderly is a good one and we should work hard to make it a reality. Like all who come to this House, there are issues that I have a personal passion for. I believe we are having an impact on the planet and for the sake of our children we must do something about it. However, I believe we should attack the problem and not the economy—reduce emissions, not jobs. I am a believer in innovation, in technology and in enterprise. This is how the world's problems have always been solved. If we are fair dinkum about reducing emissions, let's take homes and businesses off the power grid, not pay them to feed back into it. The problem with early adopters of renewable technology is that they will face purchase prices that are high and act as a barrier to entry. The role of government should be to work out ways to encourage adoption and reduce emissions as a result. My family has been touched by disability and we are a far stronger unit because of it. The NDIS is a program that enjoys bipartisan support. As we move from the launch phase to full implementation the heavy lifting will fall to us in government in these most trying of fiscal times. Our challenge will be to ensure the money flows to the front lines to the people that need it most, not wasted on a bloated bureaucracy that burdens service providers with red tape and ultimately compliance costs. Families throughout Reid and Australia are relying on us and we cannot let them down. My family has also been touched by mental illness. To this day the best explanation I have had from a doctor about mental illness is that the mind is a complex thing and it does not come with an instruction manual. Unlike a broken arm or leg, where the treatment is the same no matter who you are, treatment of the mind varies by patient. Over the past 35 years I have seen first-hand the workings of our mental health system and I will be a passionate advocate about the need for us as a government and a society to do more. Throughout the election campaign I had amazing support from Liberal Party ministers, shadow ministers and MPs, both state and federal. A big thanks to the following honourable members and senators—and I was proud to play some part in them earning that title: Joe Hockey, Julie Bishop, Malcolm Turnbull, Scott Morrison, Christopher Pyne, Ian Macfarlane ('Macca'), Bob Baldwin, Bruce Billson, Michael Keenan, Greg Hunt, Jamie Briggs, Sussan Ley, and Senators Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, Marise Payne and Arthur Sinodinos. And, of course to my mentor in all things multicultural, the Father of the House, not to mention my good friend, the Hon. Philip Ruddock. Thank you all for your support, friendship and guidance. To you, Madam Speaker, I say not only thank you but of course congratulations on your most worthy elevation to the office you now hold. Thank you also to New South Wales Premier Barry O'Farrell, New South Wales Treasurer and good friend Mike Baird, New South Wales Minister Victor Dominello, the state member for Strathfield, Charles Casuscelli, along with the state member for Drummoyne, John Sidoti. To the best Premier NSW never had, as well as fellow St Pat's old boy, John Brogden, I say, 'Thanks, mate.' And, of course, I thank Prime Minister Abbott for his unwavering support, advice and guidance—but, more importantly, his friendship. Without the support of my local campaign team, the New South Wales Liberal Party campaign team, Liberal Party members, the Young Liberals and friends I would never have been elected. To them all I say, 'Thank you.' In particular I would like to thank Neil Harley, who has and continues to believe in me. I would like to thank Eugenia, his wife, who was prepared to become a campaign widow and has now become a political widow. Of course, it is not possible to name everybody who has helped me on the journey, but volunteers like Victor Tan, Alexander Lucas, Giovanni Graziano and Stephanie Moss deserve a special mention. To my conference president, Sandra Blackmore, who is only ever a phone call away, and to my friends, be it from school, university, sport, children's schools or I have met in my travels through life—thank you. To Suzie's family, the Crowes, who have always been there for us both; to Paul and Mike, who are here today, her mother, Pam, and her brothers and sisters, thanks for the love and support. Put all these together and you get an army some 700 strong that worked with me, before and during election day. And I am thrilled to have 200 to 300 of them in the gallery to support me yet again today. And then there is my immediate family—up in the gallery watching their husband and their dad. My son Charlie, or, as I know him, 'Chicka', who, at 15, is now a young man. My daughter Sophie, or, as I know her, 'Munnie Mun', is 14 going on 35! And then there is my daughter Analise, or, as I know her, the 'Rabbit'. No matter what I have achieved in life up to now or will achieve in life from here, all will pale into insignificance compared to my three beautiful children. They have and will always be my three greatest achievements. I am just blessed that they not only take after their mother; they look like her too. The last but in no way least of my thankyous is to my beautiful wife, Suzie. Suz grew up not far from here at a place called Coolac. Her family settled there in 1834. She is a country girl at heart; she is my best friend, the mother of my children and the glue that keeps my family together. Thank you, Suzie, for allowing me to follow my dream. At the beginning of this, my maiden speech, I mentioned the honour and privilege it is to be given a chance to represent the people of Reid in this great place. But with that comes great responsibility. The difficulty of being a candidate contesting a federal election is that you are competing against an incumbent with a track record whilst you are untried and untested. You are asking your community to take you on trust. The difficulty of making a maiden speech is much the same. You explain where you come from, what you believe and what you hope to achieve in the time you are here, but you cannot yet point to any achievements. That said, I can assure the people of Reid that the blood of my grandfather, who left an orphanage at 15 with nothing and rose to the heights of business success, runs strongly through my veins. That same spirit will be shown as I fight for the people of Reid. We are all ultimately a product of our upbringing and education, and I have been blessed to attend three magnificent schools. The mottos of these three schools have always been a guide to the way I have lived my life. They best capture the way I will work to repay the faith that the people of Reid have shown in me. At Santa Maria Del Monte in Strathfield it was 'Veritas', which means 'truth'. At St Patrick's College in Strathfield it was 'Luceat Lux Vestra', which means 'let your light shine'. And at St Joseph's College at Hunters Hill it was 'In Meliora Contende', which means 'strive for better things'. In representing the people of Reid I will search out and speak the truth. I will let my light shine strongly for my constituents. And I will strive for better things for all within my community. Madam Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence. The SPEAKER SE4 Thank you to the gallery for giving us a little quiet so that we can now hear from the member for Cunningham, who kindly gave way so that the member for Reid could give his speech at that time. I call the honourable member for Cunningham. 18:10 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham Thank you, Madam Speaker, and it is my first opportunity on my feet to also extend my congratulations to you on arising to that position as well. I know it is a challenging one. I have occasionally sat in that chair so I wish you all the best with it. The SPEAKER SE4 Thank you very much. Ms BIRD DZP I appreciate the opportunity, as we do when we come back to this parliament, to deliver an address-in-reply speech. It is one of the great pleasures at the beginning of each term to be able to listen to your colleagues deliver their first speeches to this chamber. It was a more fulsome pleasure in past years than this year, I have to admit, having to observe that from the opposite side of the chamber. There is a really encouraging group of MPs across both sides of this chamber delivering their first speeches to the parliament. I look forward to engaging with all of them over the coming parliamentary term. I take the opportunity today to, first of all, extend my own thanks. It is an enormous privilege and responsibility to return to this place on behalf of the electorate that you represent and it is the case that I have had the great privilege of the support and faith of my own local area since I arrived at this place in 2004. I thank them for their ongoing commitment to the task of the nation and their belief that I am the right person to achieve that for them in this place. I only wish that more electorates had the foresight and wisdom of those in my electorate but that was not to be the case on this occasion. I want to outline some of the issues that have arisen in the electorate of Cunningham over the previous term and some of the issues that I hope to pursue during this term of the parliament, particularly in light of the contents of the address provided by the Governor-General to all of us. During the last term of the parliament, as many members would be well aware, my area had a fairly difficult and traumatic period of time with a major announcement by BlueScope Steel about a restructure that had the result of a significant number of local people losing their jobs. It was the case that the federal Labor government under the leadership of Prime Minister Julia Gillard took a very active role in helping our region address the challenge that we faced as a result of that restructure. It was not new. We are a region that has been going through a transformation since probably the mid-1980s. We have been through a number of mining crises that that industry sector tends to experience—the ups and downs that go along with that—and indeed some of my uncles in the mining industry reckon they have had more experience writing CVs than mining because that is the reality of that industry. Obviously, major manufacturers like the steel industry also are undergoing the challenges of the modern international economy. I am an optimist about the manufacturing sector. Having lived in a region that has gone through those sorts of transformations since the mid-1980s, I know that there is a great legacy in the Australian character that, in particular in the manufacturing sector—and others may have experienced it in other industry sectors that are predominant in their region—there is a characteristic that has innovation at its heart. The original tradesmen would put together a new piece of equipment just to solve a problem that they saw in the workplace and create a whole new level of innovation productivity as a result of that. That ethos where you see a problem, apply your mind to it, pull together whatever it is that you can find and create a solution is profoundly reflected in the trade history in Australia. It is certainly the reason I am so passionate about skills development in this nation. It has been a comparative advantage for our nation for a long time. It has driven the fact that we punch above our weight. It has been transformed over recent decades in the experience of the university sector where we see a lot of innovation. But I believe that at its heart it grew out of the men and women on the tools from previous generations. Indeed, it is reflected in the culture and traditions of the early settlers and the farming sector. It is a part of our character that has driven an innovative spirit and it is reflected in our manufacturing industry. That is why I am optimistic about its future. It will be a different type of manufacturing. We will compete in a value-added chain. We will compete in an innovative, problem-solving sector of the manufacturing international challenge. It is something where I think we will do well. In our region, we have also diversified and it is no surprise, as is often the story, that the service sectors, education, health and aged care, are the growth sectors that are providing far more employment than was previously the case. Indeed, places like the University of Wollongong and TAFE Illawarra are major contributors to that. Given all that, in the last term of government we identified some things that the region could particularly benefit from in terms of government support to progress that transformation, particularly around creating jobs for the future so that families have security and the support of regular work and a decent wage with safe conditions. I think that should be the foundation of every family and every community. In response to those challenges and in support of our region, the federal government took some decisions about some significant investments in our region. The first one I want to touch on is the National Broadband Network. Our region was targeted as an early rollout site in order to support the diversification of businesses. In our region, the National Broadband Network became a major transformative piece of infrastructure. A lot of work was done across the government and the private sectors to look at how we could take up this new infrastructure and transform our economy and our society. We are an hour south of Sydney. We are a beautiful place to live. There are lovely people there, and the minister at the table, Minister Billson, quite rightly identifies that. We are well serviced with university and TAFE facilities. It is increasingly the case that people want to relocate out of Sydney and live in our region for the great lifestyle and the proximity to the major capital city and the airport. Part of making that real and therefore creating new businesses and jobs around that is to have a lifeline out of the region into the capital city, into the neighbouring regions and, increasingly in the modern world, to the rest of the nation and internationally. The National Broadband Network had the capacity to completely transform regions, to make the tyranny of distance meaningless between regions, capital cities and the world. It provided the capacity for businesses to be based outside capital cities and participate in the international economy. To me, that was the most significant effect of the rollout of the National Broadband Network. Not only should it be a national broadband network; it should be a network that takes fibre to the premises. The reality of the future is the delivery of services by small and micro businesses such as those that support the aged in their homes, and by the 'mumpreneurs' who are trying to establish themselves. And I am sure the Minister for Small Business would be well aware of this. I know my colleague the member for Ryan did some work on the committee where we met many examples of this. Home based businesses where people are being very creative and establishing their own small businesses rely on fibre to the premises. It is not just about broadband download delivery. That will not be a model to build a business upon in the long term. It is about upload as well. This is why it is so significant to have fibre to the premises and why it is so disappointing that the government has walked away from that. I obviously await the outcome of the review with great interest. There was outstanding evidence to say to the government that fibre to the premises is more than a luxury; it is actually a need of a modern economy, particularly for our regions and for emerging small and micro businesses across the country. As the former Minister for Regional Communications, I follow some wonderful Twitter feeds from people who are real advocates of the importance of fibre to the premises. Many of them are home based businesses. Many put up information and run blogs talking about why that technology and infrastructure was so critical for them, and it was critical for our region. My colleague the member for Throsby and I were very disappointed to discover overnight that whole suburbs across the Illawarra had simply disappeared off the NBN map. It seems, as I have reflected to others, that the new version of transparency from the Minister for Communications is invisibility. I think someone should explain to him that invisibility is not the ultimate form of transparency; it is exactly the opposite of transparency. The argument was that more accurate information was going to be put up, that the information was indeed going to be more reliable. There are a few very small spots in our area and all that tells us is what has actually commenced. Previously we could hold government to account. Across the map, there was an indication of what building was going to commence in 12 months and what building was going to commence in three years. You could, as I regularly did, have local constituents contact you and say: 'Where am I on the map? What is the time frame? What happens if I am in that time frame?' And they could hold you to account for those things. Now you cannot do that. It is not more transparent, it does not deliver greater responsibility by government and it does not deliver more information. Indeed it is quite devastating because a significant number of those homes were actually on the schedule for construction to commence within the current 12 months and people were very much looking forward to having that new technology available. So we have started a campaign: 'put us back on the map, Malcolm'. I am very much determined with my colleague the member for Throsby to continue to pursue on behalf of our residents and businesses some updated information on what is actually going to happen with those suburbs. One of the purposes of developing the National Broadband Network in the format we put it forward in was to cut down on the digital divide. There was an emerging divide between capital city services and those in regional and rural Australia. Most members here, I am sure, were lobbied. I have got whole black spots in my own area and we are only an hour south of Sydney. We were lobbied about people who could not get decent broadband. Now you are going to have areas where one half of the street is going to have fibre to the premise and the other half will not. I think this is going to become a real equity issue for suburbs, for regions and between different individuals in our community if they are not going to have that equal foundation for their infrastructure. Also, sadly, there were two other major commitments the former Labor government made that the new government walked away from after the election. Clearly, we have the new infrastructure for the future in broadband but we also need traditional infrastructure, in particular road and rail infrastructure, because our region is a coastal strip with an escarpment at the side. The topography in itself creates real challenges. Road and rail services are not cheap to build in that environment. We have been lobbying for quite a long time to have improved access in and out of our region. In particular, there was a $42-million commitment by the Gillard and Rudd governments for the Mount Ousley Road upgrade listed as a line item in the last budget. It was a joint project between the federal government and the O'Farrell state government so no ideology could be blamed for this particular piece of road infrastructure. It is the major road in and out of the Illawarra to Sydney. It was an $84-million upgrade to that road that the federal government, under Labor, was delivering $42 million towards. We have been advised: no guarantees. The Maldon to Dombarton rail link is the No. 1 important infrastructure issue for our region. It comes up regularly when people are surveyed about what they would like to see make a difference to our region; it is something I have been campaigning for since I first joined Paul Neville, former member for Hinkler, who was the chair of the transport committee, when I first came into this place. I had great the pleasure of being on that committee with him. The committee produced a report called The great freight task: is Australia's transport network up to the challenge. The inquiry looked at all the ports around the nation and what infrastructure was needed to connect the ports to the hinterland to maximise their efficiency. The Maldon to Dombarton railway was one of those projects we talked about which became very obvious and important to me as the local member. Construction had commenced on this rail link. The current Premier was an adviser to Nick Greiner at the time when they decided to not continue with Maldon to Dombarton railway in the mid-eighties. The coal industry had a downturn; they thought there would not be a need for the rail line, so they bought out the contract. Sadly, with hindsight you could see that if they had not bought out the contract and simply let the construction be completed, it would have been a long-term positive investment. But they stopped the project. I am sure, Acting Deputy Speaker Kelly, you would be aware that it has quite a visual impact. You can see it because it is a bridge across a significant gorge. It goes about a third of the way across and stops. People see that and think, 'Why would you build that much of the piece of infrastructure and stop?' I think many members of the Liberal Party in the state and federal arenas around New South Wales, around this region, now agree that it is worthwhile seeing that project continue to completion. Indeed, we had provided $25 million to the state government to do the preparatory work to recommence building that line, with design, planning and environmental work currently underway. To find some private investment opportunities, which we understand there are, for completing that line—it is not a cheap task, as I said—Labor had put $50 million on the table. The member for Grayndler, as the minister, announced that we were willing to go out and have a talk with private money to see what could be built on that seed funding to commence and complete that line. It is a critical line for us, for our port of Kembla. We want to see it grow, see it diversify and see the new jobs that will be created. Again, sadly, post election, we discover that this is also 'not guaranteed'. I have raised these issues with the minister casually, but I will continue to follow up on it. I think they are projects that stand on their own. They are viable and important to the region. They are well supported across party lines in our region. And they are important opportunities for our region to create the jobs that we need, particularly for our young people. Like many coastal areas, we have persistently high youth unemployment. It is the case that Labor, over six years in government, delivered significantly to our regions because it understood the need for support in the transformation process and the need to create jobs. It was very disappointing to see all of those projects knocked on the head so quickly after the election, and I can only say that I am sure the new government will see the error of its ways and decide to recommit to those very important projects for the benefit of our local regions. Debate adjourned. BILLS 704 BILLS Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, True-up Shortfall Levy (Excise) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, True-up Shortfall Levy (General) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill 2013, Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates and Other Amendments) Bill 2013, Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill 2013 705

Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013

Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013

Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013

Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013

True-up Shortfall Levy (Excise) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013

True-up Shortfall Levy (General) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013

Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill 2013

Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013

Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013

Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates and Other Amendments) Bill 2013

Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill 2013

Second Reading 705 18:31 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra Continuing my contribution to this debate from earlier today, for me it is the lost future economic opportunity that makes removing a price on carbon so wrong. For some time now the coalition and its friends have been spreading the message that Australia was 'going rogue' by putting a price on carbon and that this was a silly, risky decision that left us alone, out on a limb. This is not the case—in fact, far from it. The fact is that economies all over the world are putting a price on carbon right now or have already done so. There are over one billion people currently living in carbon constrained economies. They live in a country, a state, a province or a union that has initiated some form of carbon pricing, such as a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme. The European Union, of course, has had an ETS since 2005. The EU ETS is now the largest carbon market in the world, operating in 30 countries including the 27 EU member states plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. The EU is Australia's second-largest trading bloc, which is why linking Australia's ETS with the EU's ETS was a long-term goal of the Labor government. It is also why, when in August last year the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency announced that the Australian carbon price would be linked with the European Union ETS when Australia moved to a floating price ETS, it was applauded as the best possible outcome for Australia. The EU is not alone; far from it. California, which is the ninth largest economy in the world in its own right, has introduced an emissions trading scheme around the $20 mark. In China alone, 200 million people are living in provinces where there is an ETS either in place or in development. And, most significantly, there are plans for a nationwide emissions trading scheme in China later this decade. Closer to home, our friend and neighbour New Zealand has had an ETS in place since 2009 with bipartisan support. This is something that has really stunned me in this whole process. In speaking to diplomats from Europe, in particular, they cannot believe the partisan approach that has been taken to tackling climate change in this country. We heard yesterday from my colleague the member for Charlton, in his first speech, who said that by 2016 over three billion people would be living in countries where there are emissions trading schemes or carbon taxes. That is three billion people. So the idea that Australia is somehow being foolhardy or going it alone is simply false. In fact, if Australia were to move to an ETS right now, we would still not be able to call ourselves a global leader, because the rest of the world is already taking action. This is no longer about being a leader; as I said before, this is about not being left behind. And what would being left behind look like? I hate to think. First of all, our trade relationships would be at risk. Our biggest trading partners are putting a price on carbon, and they will not idly stand by and watch if we do not take action. If we act now, we will have the time, the resources and the imperative to prepare our economy to operate in a carbon constrained future. If we act now, we can be world leaders in renewable technologies and leaders in low-carbon industries. If we repeal the price on carbon and do not replace it with an ETS, we cannot. The fact is that the government's so-called 'direct action plan' will take very little action at all. Direct action does not put a cap on carbon pollution and it does not provide the price signal, the market-based imperative that is required to move away from carbon intensive actions. Direct action is a system of taxpayer funded subsidies to polluters. It asks ordinary, working, tax-paying Australians to subsidise big polluters. It is a policy that is rejected by climate scientists and economists alike. Direct action does not guarantee a reduction in carbon pollution, either. The simple truth is that without a cap on carbon there cannot be any such guarantee. It is an expensive system that pays taxpayer-funded subsides to polluters, with no guarantee of success. I know that there are members opposite who agree that an ETS is the most efficient and effective way to reduce carbon pollution. The fact is that in 2007 there was bipartisan support for an ETS. It was the policy that both major parties took to the 2007 election and supported beyond the 2007 election. On tackling climate change, then Prime Minister John Howard said, 'Australia will more than play its part to address climate change, but we will do it in a measured way, in full knowledge of the economic consequences for our nation.' He was not talking about direct action, he was not talking about using taxpayers' money to subsidise polluters; he was talking about the introduction of an ETS. Following the election, then opposition leader Brendan Nelson also put the coalition's support behind an ETS. In July 2008 he said, 'We believe in an emissions trading scheme. We believe in a cap and trade system.' And of course, famously, Dr Nelson's successor as Leader of the Opposition, the member for Wentworth, is the No. 1 fan of the ETS. He put it very succinctly when he said, 'You won't find an economist anywhere that will tell you anything other than that the most efficient and effective way to cut emissions is by putting a price on carbon.' Sadly, the most recent change in leadership of the parliamentary Liberal Party heralded a policy backflip, and for reasons unknown an ETS has fallen out of favour with the coalition. Today I ask those opposite to consider whether or not direct action is really the policy they want to implement. I ask them to listen to the experts, the scientists and the economists, and to listen to their own comments made not so long ago to commit to a market-based solution to climate change, a cap-and-trade ETS. I ask them to walk away from their policy—a policy which no serious economist believes is efficient and which is not serious about actually having a significant impact on climate change. There has been a lot of talk in this parliament so far about mandates. Well, the fact is that I was elected by the people of Canberra on the basis that I support moving from a fixed price on carbon to a cap-and-trade, floating price emissions trading scheme. I was elected by the people of Canberra because I support a strong, market-based solution to climate change. People were out in full force on Sunday on the national day of action on climate change. There were some 2,000 Canberrans who rallied in Garema Place in Civic to show their support for strong action on climate change, for real action on climate change. They are concerned about their children's future, they are concerned about their grandchildren's future. They were young and old. There were students there, there were Labor students there, there were students from the ANU, there were the usual International Socialists there—there were people from all walks of life, many of my constituents of all ages: retired Canberrans, people in their middle ages and students. There were people from right across Canberra who were there to support real action and strong action on climate change. I thank those Canberrans for coming out and showing their strong support for action on climate change . I thank them for giving up their Sunday, because I know that time is very precious these days for families, but they wanted to get out there. I know they were keen to show their support. A number of them wrote to me to ensure that I was going to be there to rally for that support and I thank Canberra for being out there. As I said, I was elected by the people of Canberra because I support a strong market-based solution to climate change and many Canberrans also do. Since the election, I have been contacted by many of my constituents on this matter, and their pleas to me have been united: 'Please don't undo the good work Labor has done on climate change. Please maintain a price on carbon.' So if those opposite are going to talk about mandates, I would like to say to them that the mandate that I hold is from the people who elected me, the people of Canberra, those people who were out on Sunday showing their support for strong, real action on climate change, young and old, from all walks of life, from all professions, from all backgrounds. The people of Canberra are united in their support for a strong market-based solution to climate change and that is the mandate I will uphold in this parliament. 18:40 Dr SOUTHCOTT TK6 Boothby On the night of the election the Prime Minister elect got up and said, 'The people have spoken and the government has changed.' The policies we took to the election were very clear and one of the cornerstone policies was the abolition of the carbon tax. This was not some side issue; this has been at the centre of the political debate in this country for the last four or five years. If you are concerned about jobs then you cannot support a carbon tax. If you are concerned about the impact of cost of living on families then it is crazy to support a carbon tax. The carbon tax has been a direct hit on the hip pockets of families. The message at the last election was very clear and voters were very clear about what was being offered, that a vote for the coalition was a vote to abolish the carbon tax. The Leader of the Opposition wants people to continue to pay 10 per cent more on their electricity bills. He wants them to continue to pay more on their gas bills. The carbon tax is a $9 billion hit on the economy this year alone and it hits every home, every hospital, every school, every charity. In my own state of South Australia we heard about the impact on Penrice Soda and the impact on Adelaide Brighton, iconic South Australian companies. We heard about the impact this would have on manufacturing and we heard about the impact this would have on all small businesses, including refrigerating businesses. In my electorate the Belair Hotel received one of the first itemised electricity bills after the carbon tax, and what that bill showed clearly was that the increase in their off-peak power rate was 44 per cent as a direct result of the carbon tax. Their January electricity bill was $15,494.83. When they got their July bill, the first bill under the carbon tax, it was $19,092.65. A large part of that came from the leap of 4.5c per kilowatt hour to 6.51c a kilowatt hour in the off-peak power rate. The reason given on the July bill was 'carbon adjustment'. Belair hotel director, Brett Matthews, stated that the extra cost would mean either jobs cut or prices raised at this popular hotel which employs about 75 people. We have already introduced into parliament the carbon tax repeal bill. This is a central part of the coalition's plan to build a stronger economy and to help address cost-of-living pressures on families. Scrapping the carbon tax means that households will be $550 better off in 2014-15 alone. It means that electricity bills will be $200 lower a year and gas bills $70 lower a year. Families in my electorate of Boothby are really feeling the pinch of increasing cost-of-living pressures. Household budgets are suffering, and one of the best things that we can do in Canberra to help them is to abolish the carbon tax immediately. As I said before, the people of Australia spoke; the people of Boothby, my electorate, spoke as well and they were very clear about what they voted for. One of the main things they voted for was the abolition of the carbon tax. That means that it is now up to parliament to repeal this tax. The Leader of the Opposition has already said that Labor will vote to keep the carbon tax. What this demonstrates—and I think it was the Minister for Agriculture who put it so well—is that we have government change deniers. Ms Hall 83N Just climate change deniers! Dr SOUTHCOTT TK6 Thank you, member for Shortland—there are government change deniers in the ranks of the Labor Party and in the ranks of the opposition. They just have not accepted the result of the September election, and they do not understand the impact that this has on jobs and the impact that this has on household budgets. I know that amongst a lot of people there is a bit of cynicism: 'Well, prices just continue to go up, and will you really see prices come down as a result of removing the carbon tax?' The ACCC have been very clear on this. They have said that they will have the powers to ensure that cost reductions from the repeal of this carbon tax are passed on. Rod Sims said: I think this is really quite a straightforward issue. Prices went up by nine per cent. There's not much doubt about that number. It was the number that people have had for some time. That's what happened when the price was introduced, and of course, when you take it away, you reverse that. I really it's quite straightforward. So repealing the carbon tax will help families, it will help jobs and it will help households with those cost-of-living pressures by taking electricity down and by taking gas down. It will help the economy and it will demonstrate that Australia is open for business again. 18:46 Ms HALL 83N Shortland It is a great pleasure to follow the member for Boothby. I find it extremely interesting listening to him talking about electricity prices, particularly coming from New South Wales, where there have been massive increases in the price of electricity—not because of the price on carbon but because of the state government ratcheting up the price of electricity. It is to do with the poles, the wires and the fact that the state government does not shy away at any stage from increasing the price of electricity. Nine per cent with the price on carbon and something like 50 per cent at the hands of the state government in New South Wales. And I believe that similar events have happened in other states. So I think it is very interesting that the member for Boothby can argue that there is going to be a massive deduction in electricity prices, when all we have to do is see where the major increase in the price of electricity comes from—not from the price on carbon but from the ravages of the state governments. I would argue that there is no guarantee that prices will be reduced. That was really brought home to me when I was listening to the ABC, where there was a fact finder presentation. It showed that it is very dubious as to whether or not the price of electricity will be reduced as a result of this legislation. But we will see that in time to come, and I will be interested to hear the excuses that those on the other side of this House put forward. The legislation that we have before us today, the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and related bills, is based on flawed assumptions, with disregard for the science of climate change and disregard for Australia's future economic prosperity. We heard the member opposite speaking a moment ago—obviously, a climate change denier. This legislation is regressive and lacks any vision whatsoever. It will fail to deliver a reduction in carbon emissions, and modelling shows that it will in fact lead to an increase in emissions and cost more for Australians. The estimate is that Direct Action is going cost all Australian households $1,200. We heard the previous speaker talking about a reduction of $200 a year, and yet we are looking at introducing legislation—the government's 'vision', if you could call it a vision, a 'vision' that takes us back to the past—that will cost the Australian people $1,200. So we have before the House legislation that is not based on any science, and it will cost more. That is not good legislation, and I am sure that there are many on the other side who are quite embarrassed about the fact that this legislation is being put to the House. We on this side of the House accept that there is such a thing as climate change. We believe that it exists and that this is demonstrated by the increase in temperature that has been evident over the last five decades. Since 1950 the temperature has increased in each decade. It has also been made quite apparent by things like the melting of the polar ice caps, and I also refer to a number of extreme weather events: we have had flooding, we have had cyclones and we have had a number of extreme events. In the electorate that I represent, over the last very short period we have been faced with torrential rains, storms and adverse rain events that have been greater than at any other time. I believe that over yesterday and going back into Sunday there was the highest rainfall that has ever been recorded in November and yet, a month earlier, the electorate was on fire. There were bushfires ravaging both the Central Coast part of my electorate and the southern part of Lake Macquarie. I would really find it hard to stand in this House and say these extreme weather events are normal. They are not. We have had the highest temperatures recorded for this time of year. We have had adverse weather event after weather event after weather event, and this year is set to be the hottest year on record. Labor's position is that we accept climate change. We really believe that Australia needs to do something about it. Unfortunately, Tony Abbott and members on the other side are intending to remove the legal cap on pollution and allow big polluters open slather, instead of paying for pollution. So on the one hand there is a policy designed to be a disincentive for people wishing to pollute and on the other hand there is legislation such as we have before us today that will encourage people to pollute. The Prime Minister and his colleagues are setting up a slush fund of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money and that money is going to be handed to the polluters—putting money aside to pay the polluters and taking away all the incentives that have been put in place to reduce pollution. Before I moved sideways to talk about the opposition's policy I was talking about the extreme weather events and the impact that climate change has had in my local area. One very tangible way that has been demonstrated in the electorate I represent is that the local council and the New South Wales government have made it a requirement that people living near the sea have to elevate their buildings. There has been a change to the building code, and insurers are refusing to insure people living in areas around the lake and lower coastal areas. This is a direct result of climate change—and still we have the deniers on the other side of this House giving money to polluters, paying people to pollute, rather than tackling climate change. I think that is an absolute disgrace. I am sure there are many members on the other side of this House who are very embarrassed about the direction things are going. This month the OECD released a report confirming that countries could achieve higher levels of emissions reductions at a much lower cost if they relied on an emissions trading scheme. We agree that it is time for the current scheme to be repealed, but it should be replaced with an ETS. It is by far the best scheme that you can put in place to reduce carbon. It has been noted worldwide and accepted as the best approach to reducing carbon emissions and, as such, dealing with climate change. As I have mentioned, we know that those on the other side of this House do not accept climate change. They talk a lot about former Prime Minister Howard in this House. He went to the 2007 election with a plan to introduce an ETS. I might add that we went to that election with a similar plan; we had a mandate from the Australian people to introduce that plan and the legislation was voted down by those on the other side of the House. They did not respect the mandate that the people of Australia gave us to introduce that scheme. But John Howard has reverted to form—he told an audience recently in London that those who accept climate change is real are a bunch of 'religious zealots'. I think that probably reflects the feelings of many of those on the other side of this House, at a time when 97 per cent of scientists worldwide believe that climate change is a reality and 97 per cent of scientists believe it is imperative that we address climate change and reduce carbon emissions. But I look to some of the statements by authority figures on the other side, starting with the Prime Minister. In July 2011 he said: One of the problems with emissions trading schemes is policing the non-delivery of an invisible product to no one … Doesn't that demonstrate what a climate change denier that man is? It shows that our Prime Minister just is not across the science and does not understand climate change. It is no wonder that in 2009 he referred to climate change has 'crap'. Minister Joyce has said: Australia accounts for 1.5 per cent of emissions worldwide, so 5 per cent of that is three-fifths of five-eighths of nothing. It's nothing but blatantly ridiculous tokenism. In other words, another climate change denier sitting on the frontbench in the government. Another choice statement by Minister Joyce is: I never believed that science is settled. If the science was settled, Copernicus would be dead. Sorry, he is dead—he would have been killed! Honestly, quite nonsensical! And back in December 2009, Malcolm Turnbull, somebody who has had a very sensible and science based approach to climate change in the past, stated: … Tony himself has, in just four or five months, publicly advocated blocking the[emissions trading scheme], the passing of the ETS, the amending of the ETS and, if the amendments were satisfactory, passing it, and now the blocking of it. His only redeeming virtue in this remarkable lack of conviction is that every time he announced a new position to me he would preface it with "Mate, mate, I know I am a bit of a weathervane on this, but …" In other words, what it shows is that the Prime Minister of Australia does not understand the issue. He does not understand how imperative it is that we address this issue. This is an issue that will impact on many, many future generations of Australians. This is an issue that we cannot sweep under the carpet. This is an issue that is based on science. The science of this shows that climate change is a reality and, until the government recognises that climate change is a reality they are putting not only our environment and our future at risk but they are also putting at risk the prosperity of our country. The government may like to pretend that climate change does not exist, it may like to pretend that direct action will be effective, but the bottom line is that climate change does exist and direct action equates to little action, which will be ineffective. It is not difficult to understand why the Abbott government has introduced the legislation that is not based on science or on delivering economic prosperity to Australia. When you read and listen to those statements made by the Prime Minister, you understand that he does not understand the issue. In conclusion, this legislation is flawed and it will not deliver a reduction in carbon emissions. It will cost Australian households more and it is not based on science. 19:02 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I rise tonight to speak on the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and related bills. Before the 2010 election, the then Prime Minister Julia Gillard promised she would not introduce a carbon tax under the government she led. At the time, the former Treasurer the member for Lilley supported this statement with this line: No, it's not possible that we're bringing in the carbon tax. That is a hysterically inaccurate claim being made by the coalition. We all know what subsequently happened after those infamous words. On 11 October 2012 the then Prime Minister and her fellow government members cheered in this chamber as they legislated the very thing they promised the Australian people that they would not. They legislated despite the fact that Australia is responsible for less than 1.5 per cent of the world's carbon emissions; despite concerns from Australian business both big and small that they would be put at a competitive disadvantage relative to their global counterparts; despite the fact that costs would go up for business and households; and despite the fact that the government's own modelling revealed that emissions would continue to rise by 77 million tonnes between 2010 and 2020 even with a carbon tax. In legislating for a carbon tax, Labor Party members were cheering for increased electricity prices, greater cost-of-living pressures on Australian families, a less competitive environment for Australian businesses and more complexity and regulation for those charged with administering it. In the time available to me this evening, I would like to discuss three things: the impact that the carbon tax has had on individuals, businesses and not-for-profit organisations in my electorate of Higgins; whether a carbon tax in Australia does in fact reduce domestic and global emissions; and finally, how we compare to other countries in tackling this global challenge. First to Higgins. The carbon tax had a direct impact on household electricity bills, increasing them from anywhere between 10 to 15 per cent. But the impact has not been felt by households alone. One of the great small businesses in my electorate of Higgins is the Malvernvale Hotel. The Malvernvale is a quintessential Australian pub and bottle shop, the like of which can be found in any electorate across the country. The first electricity bill that they received after the introduction of carbon tax had a whopping surprise for them. It showed an increased bill from $6,005.38 in June to $7,635.37 in July, a rise of $1,359.99. For the month of July the 'carbon charge' was $1,162.87, which represents 85.5 per cent of the increase and 15.8 per cent of the total bill. This is money that could otherwise have been reinvested in the business to employ more people and to help grow our economy. Instead, it was money spent—on what and for what? The second example in my electorate of Higgins relates to Sam, a family man who runs his own small business, a popular restaurant and bar. When Sam's refrigerator broke down and he called in the repair man post the implementation of the carbon tax, he was not prepared for what unfolded. When he received a bill for the broken carburettor he noticed that the price for replacement refrigerant gas was more expensive than the carburettor itself despite it being a fraction of the cost previously. This is because some refrigerant gas had increased in price under the carbon tax by up to 300 per cent. This is on top of the increase to electricity prices. Sam absorbed this cost in his business as he is very conscious that customers are price sensitive. He said that he was completely unaware that this would be one of the unforeseen impacts of the carbon tax. The third example in my electorate of Higgins is the impact that the carbon tax has had on one of my not-for-profit hospitals, a hospital that helps thousands of people each year with serious illness. After the introduction of the carbon tax, I was told by the chief executive of that hospital that its electricity bill went up by $345,000 per annum. This of course inevitably leads to the increased cost of health care. These three local examples alone are damning indictments on this Labor-Greens' carbon tax experiment. We must never lose sight of the justification provided by the previous government when they introduced this tax. They said the tax would reduce domestic and global emissions yet, according to the former government's own modelling, even with the tax, domestic emissions will rise from around 560 million tonnes in 2010 to 637 million tonnes in 2020. Worse than this is the fact that, despite a carbon tax that was set at a price roughly five times higher than its European equivalent, Australia's carbon tax will potentially also increase global emissions. Take, for example, the production of ammonia. According to the TNO report commissioned for the European Commission, it is 35 per cent more energy intensive to produce ammonia in China than in Australia. So it follows that, if it becomes less competitive to produce ammonia in Australia and production is shifted offshore to places like China, there will be a greater output of CO2 per tonne of production that if that production were to stay in Australia. This is the ugly but inevitable truth—the truth that is not told by those opposite—of the carbon tax. By putting Australian businesses at a competitive disadvantage it has the potential to actually increase carbon emissions. Australian industries have been innovators and pioneers for cleaning up their carbon emissions. The Australian aluminium industry has cut its emissions by 26 per cent since 1990. Since 1990 the Australian cement industry has cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent per unit of output and reduced the carbon intensity of its product by 24 per cent per tonne. All of this was without a carbon tax and without a price on carbon. If your mission is to reduce global carbon emissions, it does not make any sense to apply an unemployment tax in the form of a carbon tax on the very country that applies some of the world's best practice to manufacturing. It is not true to say that the carbon tax is the only factor having a negative impact on Australian manufacturing, but it is naive, irresponsible and plain wrong to say that the carbon tax does not negatively impact upon industry, which is why we have brought in these bills to remove it. How is the rest of the world tackling this global challenge? The Productivity Commission told us that no country currently imposes an economy-wide tax on greenhouse emissions or has in place an economy-wide ETS. In fact, compared to the European ETS at around $7 a tonne covering 45 per cent of total emissions and the New Zealand ETS at around $3 a tonne and covering 50 per cent of emissions, the scope and scale of Australia's $8 billion carbon tax that only goes up and that covers everything is dramatically different. Recently Canada's Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, stated: Our government knows that carbon taxes raise the price of everything, including gas, groceries, and electricity. …   …   … … greenhouse gas emissions are down since 2006, and we've created 1 million net new jobs since the recession—and we have done this without penalising Canadian families with a carbon tax. It now rests upon the coalition in government to clean up the mess of the carbon tax imposed by the previous Labor-Greens government. The previous government were so proud of this tax, but it was so ill thought through that they needed to significantly change it on more than 10 occasions within a 12-month period. This tax is so burdened with inefficiencies and hidden costs it is widely accepted that business compliance costs alone are expected to fall by around $87.6 million per annum upon its removal. According to Treasury modelling, the removal of the carbon tax in 2014-15 will help Australian households be better off by around $550 a year. Those on the other side of the chamber know that the carbon tax has hurt families, hurt businesses and hurt our economy. They said so on multiple occasions during the recent election campaign and even claimed that they would terminate it. Former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd declared: The Government has decided to terminate the carbon tax to help the cost-of-living pressures for families and to reduce costs for small business. Well, now they have that chance. Yet, according to the Leader of the Opposition, they will again break their election promise and frustrate the mandate that we on this side of the chamber have been given. We have a plan to reduce carbon emissions. We have a plan that we took to the election. We will meet our target to reduce Australia's carbon emissions by reducing them by five per cent from 1990 levels by 2020 through a direct action plan designed by the environment minister. This is a plan that is costed and capped and that will at its heart provide incentives for business to reduce emissions and will also support practical environmental measures. This will not harm Australian families, this will not harm Australian businesses and this will help our environment. I urge those opposite to listen to what the Australian people have said about the impact of the carbon tax and to repeal it. I commend these bills to the House. 19:13 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Throsby These bills will repeal, amongst other things, the carbon tax. If it were as simple as that then you would see many members on this side of the House voting in favour of the legislation. Unfortunately, it is not. The legislation goes much further. It removes the legislated cap on carbon emissions, a legislated cap that had bipartisan support until the introduction of this legislation into the House. By removing the Climate Change Authority in one fell swoop it attempts to silence the critics of the government when it comes to economic and scientific advice on the best way to deal with carbon emissions. It removes millions of dollars granted to businesses to help them deal with reducing their carbon emissions through grants that were put in place by the previous government, and does much, much more indeed. Speaker after speaker on this matter have stood over there and asked that those on our side of the chamber respect a mandate. The truth is this: each and every one of us who have been lucky to be returned or freshly elected to this place comes here with a mandate—that is, a mandate to implement policies that they put before the electors in their electorate. I did this, and I can tell you that the mandate I have is to ensure that we take strong action on reducing our carbon emissions, and that we do that through the repeal of the carbon tax and the implementation of an emissions trading scheme. Our proposition before the parliament does exactly that. Let me say something about mandates: no government ever has a mandate to ignore expert advice. No government has a mandate to ignore the advice of scientists. No government has a mandate to turn its back on the public interest. Yet in bringing these bills before the House that is precisely what the Abbott government is doing, and what a terrible legacy for each member on that side of the House to vote in favour of. When they vote for these bills, they will be going down in history as people who are voting to wreck a perfectly good scheme. When they vote for these bills, they are putting themselves on the wrong side of history as wreckers of our economy and wreckers of the future of our children. We know that our climate is changing. From 2001 to 2010 we have had the warmest decade on record. In fact, every decade since the 1940s has been warmer than the decade before it. We know the average global surface temperatures have increased by around 0.85 per cent since 1880, and that average ocean surface temperatures are rising. We know that the World Meteorological Organisation has advised that sea levels are rising twice as fast as they did on average during the 20th century. And we know that there is an accelerating loss of Arctic and Antarctic icesheets and an increasing acidification of our oceans. The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released in September, shows a strong international consensus on climate change. The world's climate scientists are 95 per cent certain that the process of global warming has been underway for some decades and that the major cause of this is human activity—in particular, the burning of fossil fuels. The conclusion of this expert advice is that we need to limit overall global warming to two per cent above pre-industrial averages. After coming through some of the summers that we have just been through—after experiencing the early onset of ravaging bushfires throughout New South Wales and some of the worst floods in living memory; after experiencing the early onset of terrible typhoons in countries to the north of us—we do not need to just read the advice of the scientists, we can base our opinions on our own experiences. We know that something drastic is happening to our environment. Whether it is the droughts, whether it is the floods, whether it is the terrible bushfires, whether it is cyclones or the typhoons, we know that our climate is changing. Action is more urgent now than ever. We know that if we do not act, and if we do not act decisively, children in future generations will look upon us in shame and wonder what their parents and grandparents did—or more truly did not do—to address this terrible scourge. What sort of Prime Minister would want that as their legacy? What sort of Prime Minister would ignore the urgency of this advice? Instead of accepting this advice, the government is replacing a policy that is working with a policy that every expert says will not work, and that is the great tragedy of these bills that have been brought before the parliament. Industry was talking up the opportunity to invest in clean energy technology to help secure its long-term future. Businesses were moving ahead to lower their emissions, embracing energy efficiencies that will keep them competitive in a carbon constrained future. The renewable energy sector has grown strongly as a result of Labor's investment. It is crying out for certainty. In 2012-13 renewable energy grew its share of the national electricity market by 25 per cent; wind energy has trebled; jobs in the renewable energy sector doubled from over 24,000; and the number of houses with PV solar panels rose from 7,000 to more than one million. According to the Climate Institute, the carbon price is helping to make renewable energy competitive with the energy from fossil fuels. We can have a clean energy future, but it will not happen without a financial incentive through a cost to industry for polluting. Business knows this; Australians know this. In fact, it is a simple concept that you can explain to the most naive kindergarten child. If there is no charge on water, people will leave the taps running; if people have to pay money for the water they use, they will think about the way they use it. This is a concept that the most naive kindergarten child can understand. And so it is with carbon: putting a price on carbon makes polluters think about the way they are using it and think about ways they can economise and reduce their carbon emissions. The coalition argument for these bills is built on a great deception. Those opposite pretend that the abolition of the fixed price on carbon will lead to lower electricity costs. They pretend that taxpayers will somehow be better off; they pretend that this legislation is somehow business friendly; and they pretend that their policy can achieve the same environmental outcomes as Labor's. Nothing could be further from the truth. The coalition's policy is a hoax on the Australian electorate. It is a hoax that pretends planting trees and soil carbon technology alone will somehow make up for the devastation that results from unconstrained burning of fossil fuels. You would have to plant the entire state of Tasmania with trees to ensure that you could reduce carbon by the rate that would be necessary to meet the 2020 targets. I think the member for Wentworth nailed it when he wrote on this issue, after he was deposed as Leader of the Opposition: Any policy that is announced will simply be a con, an environmental figleaf to cover a determination to do nothing. He wrote that there was a very good reason for this: After all, as Nick Minchin observed, in his view the majority of the Party Room do not believe in human caused global warming at all. There it is, in the words of the member for Wentworth, now a senior frontbencher in the government: the real purpose of this bill is to be a fig leaf, to hide the fact that the majority of the coalition party room do not believe in human induced climate change. This is a very expensive way of doing absolutely nothing. Labor support ending the carbon tax, but we do not agree with ending the legislated cap on carbon pollution. This measure in particular is, in effect, an admission of failure by the coalition. It is an admission that their policy is an environmental fig leaf—'greenwashing'. There is no doubt that electricity prices have been rising in recent years, but half of that rise, at least, is due to the cost of network upgrades—that is, to the cost of improving the poles and wires that deliver the power. This is a fact that is well known to those opposite. It is the gold-plating of the electricity networks, mostly by state-owned utilities, that is delivering the record power bill increases that households and businesses are experiencing. Those opposite know that household electricity bills will not come down by anywhere near the $200 claimed by the Prime Minister. This is nonsense and it is all part of a vast coalition policy hoax. When you see the other bills that have been brought before the House, you can be left wondering. A low-paid worker who is now going to be hit with a $500 increase in their superannuation tax could be forgiven for thinking that what the coalition is trying to do is say: 'Look over here! Look at the $200 that your electricity bills might go down by and don't be concentrating over here on the $500 whack that we are about to introduce to your superannuation tax.' It is a great hoax. Once the coalition stood for market forces. Once they stood behind sensible economic policy—but no longer. A truly responsible parliament would commit to work together to come up with the best scheme for Australia's future. That cooperation was on offer and remains on offer. That is what Labor did, even in a minority government. A truly responsible Prime Minister would want to be at the forefront of such a process. Sadly, we have no such Prime Minister. There is no argument from Labor that the fixed price on carbon should end by 30 June next year. Let me repeat that: there is no argument from Labor that the fixed price on carbon should end by 30 June next year. But it should end on the commencement of a transition to a floating price for carbon. This is the policy that I and every Labor member on this side of the House and in the Senate took to the last federal election. Sadly, the bills before the House today abolish the entire framework for an emissions-trading scheme, something which is known to the economically literate on that side of the House to be the lowest-cost way of abating carbon emissions, of reducing carbon pollution. Though they deny it now, the economic merits of this low-cost market-driven scheme have been acknowledged by some of those opposite. Abolishing the Climate Change Authority is another one of the objectives of this legislation. It is nothing more than silencing the critics. There are some countries where it has been the habit of governments to dig out opposition to their policies and their politics and silence it, to close the critics down, to put them out of work, to incarcerate them. Happily, for most of the history of this democratic country, it has not been the policy of either side of the House to silence our critics. We believe in a robust debate and a robust democracy. In abolishing the Climate Change Authority, the Liberal coalition government are departing from this history. We know that there has been no place in their cabinet for science. We know that there has been no place in their policy for science. But to abolish the Climate Change Authority is a mean-spirited attempt to close down the critics. You would think that, if you were going to go to the bother of ensuring that we had a position of Chief Scientist in this country, you would listen to their advice. In closing down the Climate Change Authority, the government is refusing to listen to the advice of leading experts, economic and environmental, including the advice of the Chief Scientist of Australia. The authority has been a statutory body charged with providing strong and independent advice to the government about matters, including the Renewable Energy Target as well as caps and targets for carbon pollution or emissions. This measure is consistent with an emerging pattern of behaviour by the Abbott government—secrecy and shutting down information that conflicts with their political spin and refusing even to come into this place and answer the simplest of questions on their policy objectives. However, in this they have been thwarted. I am very pleased to see that the Climate Change Authority has been crowdfunded with $1 million to enable it to continue to provide quality information to the Australian public. It will continue to provide the advice that the Australian people need. It will not be silenced. (Time expired) Debate adjourned. Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013 717

Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013

Second Reading 717 19:29 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon We will oppose this legislation in the House and we will oppose it in the other place. We will oppose it on several grounds. We will oppose it because we do not believe the minerals resource rent tax should be repealed and we will oppose it because we believe the other measures included in this bill certainly should not be repealed. This bill is called the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill. It could just as easily be called the 'schoolskids bonus repeal bill'. It could be called the 'low-income superannuation contribution repeal bill'. It could be called the 'small business tax increase bill'. It could be the 'abolition of accelerated depreciation for cars bill'. It could be called any number of things. Of course, the government has chosen to call it the minerals resource rent tax repeal bill. I will deal with each of these items in turn. The minerals resource rent tax is, of course, the centrepiece of the bill. On this side of the House we believe that a profits based tax on profits from the minerals sector—minerals which belong to the Australian people—is a good reform. That is not to say that it does not have its challenges in implementation, it does not have its challenges in design. But to say, as those opposite do, that it should be abolished is something we do not agree with at all. Those opposite say, they said, it was a dagger at the heart of the prosperity of Australia. They said that it would raise so much money that it would cripple the minerals sector in Australia. Now they say it should be abolished because it hasn't raised enough. They cannot have it both ways. Of course, reform is always difficult. Those opposite said that it would make projects unviable. I challenge any government speaker tonight in this debate—or in the vast hour or so that they have deigned to allow for debate!—to outline which projects have not proceeded because the minerals resource rent tax is in place. Name a mining project, name a venture which has not proceeded. I would be very interested to hear from honourable members opposite. I saw the honourable member for Moncrieff a few weeks ago on telly—on The Nation on Sky—and he said, of course, that the minerals resource rent tax 'has stopped projects proceeding'. I saw David Speers, the host, say, 'Could you name one,' and there was this long, awkward pause we occasionally see on television and then the member for Moncrieff indicated that he did not have one at hand—but he was sure that there was one somewhere. Reform is never easy. Difficult reforms are always worth fighting for. We have to draw on history. The minerals resource rent tax is not the first time a government has attempted to implement a profits based tax on resources. We saw a previous government, the Hawke Labor government, introduce the petroleum resource rent tax for exploration which occurs off our coast for exploitation of what is also Australia's natural resources by offshore petroleum enterprises. I am going to spend a little bit of time on this because it is instructive. In this House the Hawke Labor government had to fight very hard to see the petroleum resource rent tax introduced. The Hawke Labor government said that this resource, which belongs to all Australians, should provide a revenue stream for all Australians. I went back and had a look at that debate, because it is very, very instructive. Somebody who then held the office that I now hold, shadow Treasurer, said this: Nothing could better illustrate the counterproductive nature of the Hawke government's energy policies. The Hawke government's RRT will effectively destroy the incentive for offshore exploration. That was the then shadow Treasurer John Howard, who argued that this resource rent tax would stop ventures proceeding and should not be proceeded with. Then we had the then member for Mayo—that economic genius Alexander Downer!—who said: The legislation is yet another example of this government introducing new taxes on the few productive industries we have left in Australia, thereby inhibiting their development. 'The few productive industries we have left in Australia'. Now there is an optimistic view for you from the future foreign minister! If you look through the Hansard of that debate—it was a long and bitter debate—I could have not told you, Deputy Speaker Broadbent, it was from the PRRT debate and you would have thought it was from the MRRT debate. They are the sorts of things that those opposite said at the time about the PRRT that they have said since about the MRRT. Mr Everingham, who I have a vague recollection of and who sat opposite, said this: This government's determination to find every means to extract dollars from the industry to prop up its disastrous record of economic management threatens the very livelihood of the oil exploration industry. You see, members opposite at the time said that the PRRT would be such a disincentive for growth that it would destroy the petroleum industry in Australia and they fought it, resisted it, with all the energy they could muster. There was one little problem for those members opposite. It passed both houses at the time. It went on, of course, not to provide a disincentive for investment and has raised for the Australian people in the time since then, in 2013 dollars, $39 billion. Of course we have had the Howard government come and go and I do not recall an attempt to repeal the petroleum resource rent tax. We now see the Abbott government in office and I have not seen a bill come before the House to abolish the petroleum resource rent tax—because, of course, history tells us that the petroleum resource rent tax did not have the adverse consequences that Tories at the time said it would. It did not have the chilling effect on investment that they said it would. But it did do this: it has raised for the Australian people $39 billion in 2013 dollars since it was introduced. It was a good reform—a reform that the Hawke government had to fight for, a reform that the Hawke government had to argue for, a reform that was done in good time so that subsequent conservative governments could not repeal it. Unfortunately, we see this conservative government repealing the MRRT. But they are also not just repealing the MRRT in this piece of legislation; they are repealing a whole range of other measures, which I will deal with sequentially. Firstly, we see this government attempting to repeal in this legislation the low income superannuation contribution. More than any other measure, the repeal of the low income superannuation contribution tells us about the priorities of this government. It tells us even more than their priorities. It tells us about their values. It tells us about the values of this government. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Broadbent, most Australians get a tax concession for saving for the future—saving through superannuation—as they should. Most Australians receive it, but not all. High-income earners receive a tax concession for saving for the future, and they should, but in the previous government we thought that it was fundamentally unfair that low- and middle-income earners receive zero tax concession for saving for the future. One in three Australian workers receives not one bit of assistance to save for their future through the superannuation system, and we thought that that was unfair—and we think it is unfair now. But we did not just think it was unfair; we did something about it. So the low income superannuation contribution effectively means that people earning under $37,000 now get a tax concession for saving through superannuation. They actually get some benefit out of the tax system for putting money aside for the future. I would again invite honourable members opposite who are going to speak in this debate to explain to the House and to the Australian people why they think it is fair that somebody who might be a cleaner or a manufacturing worker or a shop assistant gets no assistance at all to save for their retirement through the superannuation system and the tax system. It is even worse than that because this government is taking the low income superannuation contribution away retrospectively. Australians who saved money through the superannuation system, put money aside, and got a tax concession are having it taken away by this government. Can you imagine the furore if this government attempted such a measure for high-income earners? If any government attempted a retrospective tax on the superannuation of high-income earners there would be a justified outrage but because low-income earners and middle-income earners have less of a voice in the national debate this government thinks they can get away with it. Well, we are their voice and we will oppose this measure to repeal the low income superannuation contribution. Low- and middle-income earners have a right to be outraged that the tax concession on their superannuation savings is being ripped away by this government. I said that this tells us about the values of the government, and it does, because not in this bill, but in other measures, this government is reversing other tax changes of the previous government. They are providing a tax break for people who have more than $2 million in their superannuation accounts. Good luck to people who have more than $2 million in their superannuation accounts. Good luck! There are people in this House with more than $2 million in their superannuation accounts—good luck to them. They should receive a tax break but not the extraordinarily generous tax breaks that this government intends to give them at the same time as taking away tax breaks from people throughout Australia who are working away quietly in their shops and factories trying to save a bit for the future. I oppose class warfare in all its forms and this is class warfare from this government, giving a tax break to people with more than $2 million in their superannuation accounts and taking it away from Australians who earn less than $37,000. I do not suggest that they raise the same amount of money because they do not. I do not suggest that if you did not do one you would not have to do the other because that does not equate. But it equates when it comes to values and priorities. It equates when it comes to what is important in this House, and it is important in this House that low- and middle-income earners receive some support for saving for the future. This tax grab by this government on low- and middle-income earners has a particularly adverse effect on females in the workforce. It is not just because females, even still in 2013, receive a lower average pay than males. It is because females in the workforce have a more interrupted working life and more things that take them out of the workforce, most particularly having children. Even with paid parental leave, many mothers stay out of the workforce for longer than 12 months and therefore they have an extremely interrupted working life. That means they do not have a period in the workforce to build for their retirement. So the low income superannuation contribution is a chance to give them a bit of a leg-up, as they say, for their retirement so that when they hit retirement age they have something to fall back on. What is unfair about that? I invite, again, honourable members opposite to explain to us why they think that somebody with under $37,000 of income deserves zero support through the tax system to save for their retirement. Zero support—the government are not just reducing the support through the tax system, they are not just taking a bit away, they are abolishing the only tax concession that goes to low- and middle-income workers earning under $37,000. It is not in the national interest when you combine the abolition of the low income superannuation contribution with another measure in this bill, which is to delay the increase in superannuation from nine per cent to 12 per cent. That will reduce our national savings by $53 billion by 2021-22. We all know that this Prime Minister does not really understand superannuation and does not really support it. He stood in this House, somewhere over here in opposition, after the increase in superannuation was introduced—he did it in the adjournment debate, as I recall—and called Australia's superannuation system the biggest con job in Australian history. He does not support superannuation. The Prime Minister does not understand that superannuation is the way to remove people from welfare, through their retirement, and give them a chance to save for their future. The Prime Minister fundamentally does not understand that. He said here in this House that he does not really support moving from nine to 12. I hope that this delay does not become a cancellation when the government says: 'It's all too much harder than we thought. We're going to have to cancel this increase from nine per cent to 12 per cent.' They have done it before. They promised the Australian people in 1996 that they would move the superannuation guarantee from nine per cent to 12 per cent and they reneged on that promise. Mr Nikolic 137174 That's wrong. Mr BOWEN DZS They reneged on that promise in 1996. It pays to listen to the debate before interjecting. In 1996, they promised the Australian people they would not interfere with the increase to 12 per cent and they reneged on that promise. Another measure in this bill will remove the instant asset write-off for small business. It sounds like some sort of arcane tax measure and maybe it is. Actually, it is a small business tax cut, which the previous government introduced. It was a measure to reduce the red tape compliance burden on small business. When Labor came to office in 2007, small businesses could write-off any investment under $1,000 without all the red tape burden which normally goes with that. The previous government increased that threshold to $6,500 so that there was much more that small business could just write-off without the red tape burden. At the last election, we had a commitment to increase it further to 10 per cent. This bill takes it back to 2007 levels, back to $1,000. We hear a lot from this government about small business. They say that they are the party of small business. We hear a lot about red tape. They are strong on rhetoric, short on action—not only that, they are strong on counterproductive action. In one of the first pieces of legislation they are bringing before the House, this government want to increase taxes on small business and increase the red tape burden—increasing taxes on small business by a billion dollars and increasing the red tape burden on any small business that chooses to make an investment between $1,000 and $6,500. Now there is not only the cash flow impact but also the red tape impact. I wonder if the member for Kooyong is going to speak in this debate, the member who has been tasked by the Prime Minister to cut red tape. Is he going to support this measure which will increase the red tape burden on Australia's small businesses? We will oppose this measure because we do not actually believe in just the rhetoric about small business; we believe in action to support it. We are proud of our pro small business reforms. We saw this red tape burden and we lifted it from small business, and this government are going to reimpose it. It is not just us who say this; the Australian Industry Group said of the increase in the threshold of the small business asset write-off that it 'will add complexity and compliance costs for eligible small businesses.' This change in the law will increase red tape and affect cash flow at a time when the government needs to be looking to boost non-mining investment as investment in the mining sector winds down. It will be a stymie to investment from the small business sector. This is a very significant measure that this government are seeking to abolish. It will increase taxes in up to 2.7 million small businesses. It is not just that. This bill also abolishes the loss carry back. Again, it might sound like an arcane tax measure. Loss carry back is a measure not just for small businesses; it encourages innovation and a bit of risk-taking. It says that if you make a loss in one particular year, you can take that into account in future years. I would have thought that it was something that this government would embrace with all their rhetoric about entrepreneurialism, innovation, risk-taking and private enterprise. I would have thought they would embrace this measure, and would have congratulated the previous government for introducing it. But, no, we see them abolishing it in the first sitting fortnight. This will be a hit to businesses of almost $1 billion over the next four years. Then we get to the accelerated depreciation of motor vehicles for small business. Again, we have heard a lot from this government about the importance of the car industry and the importance of tax treatment for the car industry. This would allow a small business an immediate $5,000 deduction for a vehicle costing $6,500 or more. So do not lecture us about the car industry, when this accelerated depreciation is being taken away by this government, an impost on small business and an impost on the car industry. Let us see this impost play through the car industry. We will be having a bit to say about that and holding the government to account for its impacts. We will not be lectured by this government about fringe benefits tax or any other measure when this new government are actually abolishing the accelerated depreciation of motor vehicles for small business. The final matter I am going to speak about is one that I know is very close to the heart of the member for Jagajaga, who has joined us in the chamber—that is, the schoolkids bonus. We hear a lot about cost of living, as we should. We heard about cost of living before the election and we hear a lot about cost of living after the election. We get lectured in this chamber about what we should do about cost of living. Well, let us have a talk about cost of living and about government measures to support families dealing with the cost of living. Something that helps families deal with the cost of living is $410 a year for primary school students and $820 a year for high school students. If a family has two children, that amounts to $15,000 over the course of their schooling life. I think that might help them with the cost of living just a little. I think that might actually help families deal with the cost of sending their children to school. I think that taking $4½ billion from Australian families might be something we might want to talk about in the cost-of-living debate. We might not want to be lectured by this mob about the cost of living when they are putting legislation into this House to take away $15,000 out of the pockets of Australian families. We hear from the government, 'The minerals resource rent tax has not made as much as we thought or you thought, or was predicted; therefore, we have to abolish this measure.' There is one little problem with the government's equation. The minerals resource rent tax was never designed to pay for the schoolkids bonus. If you look at the announcements at the time, the minerals resource rent tax was never introduced to pay for the schoolkids bonus. They were completely separate policies. If this government want to abolish the schoolkids bonus, it should have the guts to put it in separate legislation, bring it into the House, bring it into the other place and see how you go. Try your luck, because it was not paid for by the minerals resource rent tax. It never was. So how dare this government incorporate it in the same legislation? Do not talk to us about cost of living when you are taking money away from Australia's families with school children and putting it in the same legislation as the mineral resource rent tax. It was never paid for by the minerals resource rent tax. The school kids bonus was designed to replace the education tax rebate introduced by this government. That is where it came from. I looked through the legislation and I thought, 'Well, maybe if they are abolishing the schoolkids bonus then maybe they are at least reintroducing the education tax rebate.' No, they are not. While I am at it, the accelerated depreciation of motor vehicles, which I talked about before, was replacing the entrepreneurs tax offset, not reintroduced by this legislation either. It is the same problem. This government has some consistency issues to deal with. I really look forward to hearing from honourable members opposite because they have some explaining to do. They have got to explain to Australian families how taking money away from the schoolkids bonus is going to help the cost of living. They have got to explain to Australia's low- and middle-income earners why every single one of them over there thinks it is fair that they should get zero tax concession for saving for their retirement. And they need to explain why they think somebody with $2 million in their superannuation account deserves quite a good tax concession, thank you very much, but somebody on $37,000 or less deserves not a bit less but zero tax concession to save for their retirement. We think it is unfair and we will vote accordingly because this is a debate about values, not just priorities but values. Our values tell us that the schoolkids bonus is important. Our values tell us that the low-income superannuation contribution is important. Our values tell us that the small business tax concessions are important because we do not just talk about small business; we do not have empty rhetoric about how they are the backbone of the nation; we actually do things that help small business; and this government is taking them away. My challenge to the government is this: tell us why it is fair. Tell us why it is better for small business that they do not have the increased thresholds for the instant asset write-off. Tell Australia's families why it is fair that they lose the schoolkids bonus. Tell Australia's hard-working low- and middle-income earners why they should receive zero tax concessions for their superannuation. When they tell the Australian people that, I think the Australian people will have a fair bit to say about it. We will certainly be having plenty to say about it in this debate in the weeks, months and years to follow. 19:54 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I rise to speak on the Minerals Resource Rent Tax and Other Measures Bill 2013. One of my favourite movies that I have enjoyed over the years is National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation. The plot in that famous movie features the dysfunctional Clark W Griswold. Clark Griswold thinks that he is going to get this great big bonus for Christmas. So he goes out and promises his family all the wonderful things he is going to get with the bonus. We see in the movie the complete disarray and the complete dysfunction that the household falls into because they have been promised things, but the income never arrives. This is exactly the same situation we have here with the former government, which made all these wonderful promises to the electorate about all these wonderful things they were going to do based on a tax that did not raise the revenue to pay for it. The former government locked in expenditure and made promises to the electorate about wonderful things they were going to do and about the great benefits they were going to throw upon the electorate because of this tax. They locked in $16.17 billion of expenditure on an underlying cash basis over the forward estimates. Or if you look at all the fiscal bases, $18.4 billion worth of expenditure and promises has been locked in yet so far this tax has only raised $400 million—just a fraction. The opposition must understand that in government they ran the four biggest budget deficits in our nation's history. No government can carry on, as they did, running up debt, making promises and having no way to pay for it. We heard the member for McMahon in his contribution try to pretend that the expenditures and the promises were not linked to the mining tax. I would like to draw your attention to comments by Senator Wong in an interview on ABC Drive in June 2012 where the former government linked the payment of the schoolkids bonus to the proceeds of the mining tax. Senator Wong said: I think it's about making sure we use the benefits of the boom wisely. The former government's approach with the mining tax was about making sure the benefits flowed through to families, particularly low- and middle-income families through the schoolkids bonus, where people got assistance for kids' education. All governments would like to give more money to families but can only do it with the revenue raised in taxes. That is why, unfortunately, this repeal is necessary. The mining tax does not raise the revenue that these promises are based upon. The member for McMahon, in his speech, would have anyone out there listening believe that our mining companies do not pay any tax and somehow or other these minerals in the ground, that rightly belong to all Australians, are somehow being taken away by these mining companies and they are not paying any tax. I would like to just go through the contribution that the mining industry makes to this country and the amount of tax that it is currently paying. The place to start is employment—the number of jobs the mining industry contributes. Direct employment in the minerals industry at August this year was 249,000 people. That is up 40 per cent from just three years ago. Of those 249,000 workers in the industry, 95 per cent are full-time employees. And look at the wages that are paid. The average full-time salary in the mining industry is $2,477 a week, which is $128,000 a year. That is the contribution the mining industry makes. If you add those figures up, in one year that is $30 billion in wages that the mining industry pays to Australians. That is approximately $10 billion in personal income tax that the mining companies generate through the wages that they pay. Then we go to community infrastructure contributed by the mining industry. In the year 2011-12 alone, the mining industry spent $35 billion on community infrastructure, Indigenous contractors and local suppliers. This is what is at risk from the former government's tax. Then there is research and development. We know that the mining industry is the largest contributor to research and development in Australia. In 2011-12 there was $4.1 billion spent on R&D. This is now at risk because of the opposition's refusal to allow the repeal of this tax. It is not only the amount of tax that is paid that is important; how that tax was increased from the years of the Howard government to the years of the previous Labor government is also important. In the last year of the Howard government, $4 billion in royalties was paid. That is $4 billion into state coffers. In the last year of the Labor government it had doubled to $8 billion. That side over there, who pretend that they were getting nothing from the mining tax, ignore the fact that $8 billion in royalties was paid into state government coffers. And that was only a spit in the bucket compared with what they were getting in company tax receipts. Again, in the last year of the Howard government, mining company tax receipts were $6 billion. In the last year of the Labor government, that had doubled to $12 billion. Ms Macklin interjecting— Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 We hear the member for Jagajaga interjecting. This is what you do not understand: you are putting at risk that revenue that is flowing into the Treasury by trying to burden these companies with yet more taxes. That is the entire problem. That is the danger and the concern that we have, and that is the concern the mining industry have. You are not satisfied with those billions of dollars in tax, and you are putting it all at risk. What you do not understand is that we compete throughout the world to attract investment in mining. We are not the only country in the world that has coal. In fact, our coal resources are a mere seven per cent of the world's total. Ninety-three per cent of the world's known coal reserves are outside of Australia. Countries such as China, the USA, Pakistan, Russia and India all have greater coal reserves than Australia does. There are also large reserves of coal in South Africa, the UK, Kazakhstan, Brazil and Indonesia. We as a nation need to compete with those countries for that limited mining investment. It is the same with iron ore. We do not have a monopoly on iron ore. Many other countries have large deposits of iron ore. We are competing against China, Brazil, India, Russia, Ukraine, the USA and Canada for mining investment. If we burden mining in Australia with additional taxes above the ample taxes they are already paying, we risk that very investment. We risk the jobs and we risk not more tax going into government coffers but less tax. The other concern about this completely misguided tax is the red-tape burden that it places on the Australian mining industry. There are around 145 companies that need to go through all the compliance regulations, all the compliance burdens of this mining tax, and do you know how much tax they pay? They pay zero tax. Millions of dollars are being spent on accountants, bureaucrats and people pushing pens without creating one solitary cent of wealth for this nation—in order to comply with the red-tape burden of this misguided tax. The coalition government would like to give as much as we can to our people. But we cannot continue to run the debt up recklessly as the previous Labor government have done. Already the wasteful and reckless expenditure of the previous Labor government has resulted in an interest bill of $10 billion a year that we must now pay. That is an additional $10 billion that we must raise from the taxpayer and that cannot be used for our roads, our schools, our hospitals, our kids with disabilities, our public transport and all the other things we need to do. That $10 billion just pays the interest bill. Worst of all, about 75 per cent of that money we actually have to shift overseas. Because of the debt this government has run up we have to do that year after year after year forever until we start paying back the close to $300 billion that these people have had to borrow to fund their reckless, wasteful expenditure. How can members of the former government look at the young people of this country, our future generations, and explain to them the debt burden that they are leaving them to pay? If we put that debt on a weekly basis, it is $200 million every single week that this government now has to raise from the taxpayer and not use on all those services that we need to do. Instead, we have to pay the interest. We have to stop this. We have to turn the ship around, and that is why we must repeal this badly conceived, flawed mining tax, which is actually creating a burden and putting at risk the revenue that we are currently getting from the mining sector, the jobs we are currently getting through the mining sector, the community infrastructure that the mining sector is currently providing. All that is put at risk by this poorly conceived tax. That is why this tax has to be repealed, and unfortunately that is why all the spending that goes with it also has to be repealed. We need to start to pay down government debt. We need to start to turn the ship around. Otherwise we are going to burden our children and future generations of Australians with greater and greater debt burdens than the legacy of the former Labor government has already left. I commend the bill to the House. 20:09 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga I am very pleased to be able to contribute to the debate on what is called the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013. That phrase 'and other measures' conceals many savage cuts that will have a devastating impact on Australian families. This legislation is about much more than the repeal of the minerals resource rent tax. It contains cuts that Australian families are going to feel as a result of this new government's actions. Labor will oppose these cuts. Let us wait and see how each of the members here tonight goes out and says to the families in their electorates: 'I'm going to take this money out of your pockets. I'm going to make sure that you don't have the money that you need to make it a bit easier for you to pay for the things that your children need at school.' This legislation in fact scraps two Labor payments that made life easier for Australians: the schoolkids bonus and the income support bonus. It also contains a hit to superannuation for low-income earners with the abolition of the low-income superannuation contribution. If this legislation is passed, and I hope it will not be, Australian families will begin to feel the real impact of this government's cuts: 1.3 million families will be worse off, in Bass, in Hughes, in Cook—all of the families that live in your electorates that rely on the schoolkids bonus are going to lose money because of this government's legislation. We look forward to seeing whether or not members opposite have got the courage to go up to families in their electorates and tell them how much money they are going to take out of parents' pockets—2.2 million school-aged children are going to be worse off. What sort of government does that: 2.2 million schoolchildren are going to be worse off. Over the school lives of children in an average family, families will be $15,000 worse off. That is what this legislation does to families—$15,000 will come out of the pockets of ordinary families, low- and middle- income families, because this government is putting this legislation into the parliament. As Labor people we are very proud that we provided this additional support to Australian families to help with the costs of their children's education. We actually care about these families. We do not just talk about it, we do not get up in the parliament and gives speeches about the needs of low- and middle- income families, we actually deliver for them. What we are seeing from this government, though—the new member for Bass is having a bit of a smile about it. I will tell him what it means to the families in his electorate of Bass. I know very well that there are many low- and middle- income families in Launceston. What he is about to vote for is going to take $409 a year each year away from each family in his electorate with a primary school-aged child. If you have got two primary school-aged children it is double that. For secondary school-aged children the member for Bass is going to take $820 a year, each year—not just once but each year a child is in secondary school; for most of them it is six years—from ordinary families in his electorate. So he needs to go out and tell all of the families in Bass that he is taking all of that money out of their pockets, and that it is a decision that he personally is making. And the same applies to all of the members in the Liberal and National parties who are going to vote to cut this money out of the budgets of families. This is money for families who are struggling to make ends meet, struggling to make sure that they have the money to pay for their children's education—money that they depend on, whether it is for school uniforms, school shoes, textbooks, camps, excursions, sports fees, sports equipment and so the list goes on. I am sure that many members know how expensive school uniforms are. Average school uniforms are around $430, and we know particularly how quickly children in those middle years grow. Average annual costs for books, stationery and other equipment is around $250 for primary school children and $400 for high school students, and then of course there are the extra fees that parents might have for music or sport: families need this money. What we are giving them, of course, is just a contribution to the costs that families pay for their children's education. But today in this legislation—not that they have the courage to own up to it in even the name of the bill that is before the parliament; they do not even have the courage to do that—this bill takes this money from Australian families. This Prime Minister is going to make life harder for Australian families as a result of this legislation. I know one family in Brisbane: mum and dad, four kids aged four to 11. Three of the children are in primary school, the mother is at home and the father earns around $50,000 a year. With three of their children in primary school they are due to receive an extra $1,227 to help them make sure that their kids have every opportunity at school. What will happen to that family if this legislation gets through? If this Prime Minister and all the people who sit over there have their way? That family and 1.3 million families just like them will lose that money. So for this family, it is more than $1,200 each year—each year that family will lose that. That is exactly what this legislation is going to do. And, of course, to add insult to injury the government is not telling the truth to the Australian people about why they are taking this money away. The Treasurer has long claimed that the schoolkids bonus is attached to revenue received from the mining tax. But as I was the minister responsible for this payment, I can assure the House that it was not. When Labor introduced the schoolkids bonus it was done by replacing the education tax refund. We introduced the education tax refund in 2008-09 and then we recognised that we needed to make some improvements. Many people were not getting the benefit of the refund so we redesigned the payment into a direct payment for families. Of course, my colleagues will remember that at the time the Liberal-National parties opposed this measure vehemently. Extraordinary! They say they are there to support families, but they came in here and fought this measure tooth and nail to try to prevent families getting this benefit. We did get the measure through the parliament, and families have been receiving the benefit because the Labor government understood how important it was to help. And now, in what I can only describe as a cynical effort to con Australian families, we have the Treasurer including the schoolkids bonus in this legislation, trying to fool Australian families that somehow it has nothing to do with the legislation that is before us. Well, we will oppose it and we will oppose it because we actually think we are here and elected to support low- and middle-income families, and especially those who want to help their children get the best education. That is why we introduced the schoolkids bonus—no other reason. We want to help families make sure that their children get a good education. And now the coalition government is going to take that support away. Of course, it is not only this government that has behaved in this way. We have seen the Liberal government in Victoria do the same. They ripped away the School Start Bonus, which was actually just for very low-income families, and now we see them doing it here by abolishing the schoolkids bonus. This legislation also seeks to abolish another one of Labor's payments, this time to the very vulnerable. The income support bonus is a tax-free, indexed, non-means tested payment paid twice a year to some of our poorest and most vulnerable citizens: people on Austudy, Newstart, ABSTUDY, youth allowance and a range of other social security payments. The purpose of the previous Labor government putting the income support bonus in place was to make sure there was additional support for these very vulnerable citizens to help them manage what are sometimes very difficult and unanticipated costs, whether those are medical bills or urgent car repairs. These are very hard to plan for when you do not have very much money. It was much needed support, especially for people who are unemployed. This extra cash has been paid now to more than one million—one million—low-income Australians. That is how many people have had that extra support—very vulnerable Australians. Once again, this government wants to take it away—not take it away from wealthy people; take it away from the poorest people in our country. What sort of values does a government have that wants to take a small amount of money away from the most vulnerable people in the country? That is what it is doing. Meanwhile, we see this government—not in this legislation but in other legislation—increasing opportunities for those with high-income super. And we know what the government wants to do for the very, very highest income earners with its Paid Parental Leave Scheme, but let's leave that for another day. This legislation also plans to scrap the Labor government's low income superannuation contribution—another change to some of the poorest people in the country. This was a government contribution of up to $500 a year—not a huge amount of money—to help those earning $37,000 or less, so very low-income people, to save for their retirement. At the same time that this government seeks to rip this money out of the retirement savings of low-income earners, they have abandoned a proposal to tax high-income earners' super contributions. This really sums up the values of those opposite: take from the lowest income earners in this country and reward the high-income earners. This is fast becoming a characteristic of this government. We know that this legislation contains cuts that will hit 1.3 million families, 2.2 million children and a million very vulnerable citizens through the income support bonus. This will just be the first hit to families by this government—I am sure it will not be the last. Meanwhile, Labor will of course continue to stand up for the interests of hardworking families, for the interests of those who need our support the most. That is what governments are supposed to be there for: to help those who need assistance, not to come around the back door and sneakily put in legislation that will see very, very significant cuts to millions and millions of Australians. We will oppose this legislation. 20:24 Mr NIKOLIC 137174 Bass After those contributions from the member for McMahon and the member for Jagajaga, it is clear that the early days of the 44th Parliament are bearing witness to the most extraordinary efforts by those opposite to cling to the 43rd Parliament. As Australians have come to realise, the Labor Party created a number of problems during the last six years. The member for Jagajaga and her colleagues created a boat problem, a taxes problem and a debt problem. As soon as the election was over, the clamour from those opposite for us to do something about the debt, taxes and boat problems became deafening. Yet every day in this parliament they work to deny us the clear mandate we have from the Australian people to fix their debt problem, their taxes problem and their boat problem. In the process, they only accentuate the trust deficit that they have with the Australian people. But whether it is their opposition to the carbon tax repeal bill, or their efforts to deny the success that the member for Cook and Lieutenant General Campbell have achieved with Operation Sovereign Borders, or their efforts to stop our repeal of the MRRT, Australians are awake to the motivation of those opposite. It is not based on any noble assessment of national interest or a deeply held ideological belief. It is about those sharp, jagged factional edges which continue to grate against each other after six years of chaos, division and broken promises. What I encourage those opposite to do is just let go of the 43rd Parliament. Let go of the carbon tax and the mining tax, which the Australian people so comprehensively rejected at the last election. Let us implement the repeal of the MRRT legislation which, after all, was front and centre at our 2013 election campaign. At a time when the industry was and remains confronted with challenges to its ability to invest and grow, the former government imposed additional pressure through the MRRT. We will work to wind back the bad policies of the former government and alleviate that pressure. And if you think that Labor's approach to the MRRT sounds familiar, you are right: it repeats the mistakes of the carbon tax. As members present will recall, Labor's carbon tax took no account of what had happened at the Copenhagen summit. It became a millstone around the neck of Australia's international competitiveness. And despite the pain that it caused, the carbon tax did not actually have the effect of reducing emissions at all. It did not achieve its intended effect, yet it undermined jobs and endeavour. Just like the carbon tax, the MRRT imposed a big lead weight on the mining industry without raising the forecast revenue. As the Treasurer said when introducing this legislation to the House, we are in the very unusual position as legislators of repealing a tax which will actually save the Commonwealth money. That is the simple truth of the matter, and that is why I strongly urge all of those who are not on the government benches to support this bill. As someone whose former career was in the military, I recall the old joke: if it moves, salute it; if it doesn't, paint it. If I might extend that adage in a political sense, the Labor Party's approach is, and historically has been: if it contributes to the national economy, tax it mercilessly. But like so many policies that were recklessly inflicted on the Australian people and businesses in the last six years, the MRRT was simply not thought through. Not only was it ill-conceived but it also compounded the economic damage when the former government linked a number of spending measures to this blunt economic instrument. The schoolkids bonus, which we have heard about this evening, was dependent on revenue from the mining tax. We see that link, as the member for Hughes pointed out earlier, in comments from Senator Wong, the then minister for finance, in June 2012 which directly linked the schoolkids bonus to the proceeds of the mining tax. In essence, Labor raised expectations in our community that the federal government would fund certain programs from mining tax revenue. The problem was that the MRRT did not deliver anywhere near the forecast revenue, and Labor became even more reliant, if that is possible, on borrowings to pay for these commitments. Repeal of the MRRT package will deliver more than $13 billion of savings to the budget bottom line on an underlying cash basis over the forward estimates—I repeat: $13 billion in savings. In doing so, it goes some way to repairing the economic damage caused to our nation's finances during the last six years. In the case of the MRRT, as we have heard, it is forecast to raise only around 10 per cent of the original forecast revenue. Since its introduction, the MRRT has raised only around $400 million in net terms, yet the former government has locked in $16.7 billion of expenditure on an underlying cash basis over the current forward estimates. That is over 40 times the current revenue accrued. Just imagine running a business on that basis. Imagine committing 40 times your forecast income—not actual income, but forecast income—based on questionable assumptions with a political twist. The Labor government were like gamblers at the casino, predicting a huge windfall, spending that windfall 40 times over and then expressing surprise when the consequences of their bad judgement were realised. And unforgivably, they were gambling with Commonwealth revenue and expenditure. By repealing ill-considered policies like the carbon and mining taxes, we are acting to ease pressure on the budget. As the Minerals Council of Australia has rightly pointed out, even if the original basis of the MRRT could be argued, the economic situation applying in 2010 is very different in the resources sector from that which applies in the international commodity world of 2013, and the member for Fraser, surely, would understand that. It is difficult to understand why the Labor Party, having created this mess, is now standing in the way of us fixing it. Repeal of the MRRT will have a significant effect on Australia's reputation as, in the words of the Prime Minister, we will be 'open for business', and specifically open for investment. Like the repeal of the carbon tax currently being debated, the MRRT was an isolationist tax. It was a government taking measures that disadvantaged the national interest in isolation to the policy settings of our major competitors. That is what made the Rudd and Gillard government decisions in this area so breathtakingly bad. It is legitimate for us to have different views about the environment and management of resources, but it is surely bereft of any economic sense whatsoever to take policy decisions that had the direct effect of disadvantaging our terms of trade. Much of the media commentary on the MRRT has concentrated on Western Australia and Queensland, and so it should because of the importance of the resources sector in those states. But this House must remember that every state of the Federation is a mining state. In my home state of Tasmania, resetting our economic course to a brighter future includes reinvigorating valuable industries like forestry and mining. Increases to the tax and compliance costs for industries like mining have the potential to damage our state doubly. They can impede new investment and impact on the growth of local jobs—highly undesirable outcomes for a state that has the highest unemployment rate in Australia. The MRRT did not raise revenue directly from Tasmanian mines but the signal it sent to those keen to invest in and expand our mining sector was clear. 'We will tax you,' Labor said, and there was no ambiguity in that message for those seeking to invest. And in doing this, they were enthusiastically supported by the Green Party. The Greens of course are masters at traducing reputations of companies especially in the resources sector. They have no compunction whatsoever in using whatever tools they can—underhand or out in the open, it does not matter to them. It was nothing short of alarming that a major political party founded on support for working people especially miners was happy to support a law which attacked confidence in the mining sector so squarely. I hope that Labor parliamentarians reflect on this the next time they evoke images of the Eureka flag. In my own state we have seen the Greens party's consistent efforts to lock up the so-called Tarkine in Tasmania, a name quickly leapt on by Dr Bob Brown in the early 1990s to elevate it to some mystical and romanticised status. In reality this is of course the Arthur-Pieman Conservation Area bounded by the Arthur River in the north and the Pieman River in the south. Yet Dr Brown's invention has mystical growing boundaries matched only by growing Greens party demands to lock up even more of our state as a national park. The Arthur-Pieman area is indeed a beautiful area with important reserves that already deliver a sensible balance between recreational, economic and conservation imperatives. But despite recent mine proposals and existing mines only covering one per cent of Dr Brown's mystical creation, the Greens continue to use every legal device to impede mining approvals. This is an area dotted with historical mine sites and railway infrastructure, yet the Greens party quite mendaciously present it as pristine, untouched wilderness. But of course the Greens have never let the facts get in the way of a good story. That is why they have duped so many good people. There is little doubt the Greens celebrate the MRRT, which only serves to add pressure on the mining industry. In this sense Labor's mining tax supports Greens party efforts around the country to impede sensible development. When we are considering legislation directly related to our mining industry, it is worth reminding the House of the contribution the industry makes. Apart from the very important royalty payments, the growth of many areas of regional Australia has been directly supported by mining. The Minerals Council stated yesterday that the mining industry made a contribution of $34.7 billion to community infrastructure, Indigenous contractors, and local suppliers in just one financial year, 2011-12. This was the conclusion of the corporate social responsibility consultants, Banarra. As all of us who have visited mining towns know, this includes community facilities such as health centres, education and training, sporting clubs, transport services and community amenities. So when Australians heard the glib Hawker-Britton line that Australians should get 'something back' from mining, they were rightly bemused. They knew—and even Labor spin doctors knew—Australians do get something back from mining. They get royalties, company tax, licencing fees, and the often underestimated community contribution. But of course most of all they get long-term employment for thousands of Australians directly and many thousands more indirectly. When the history of Australia is written, the carbon tax and the mining tax will be remembered as signature policy failures of the Labor Party in government and I do think that the more thoughtful of those opposite also understand that. Many of those opposite who understand it have now left the parliament. As the former member for Batman so eloquently said in this House on 29 May 2013: 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. Martin Ferguson got it and I know that there are others on that side of the House who get it as well. More is the pity that they do not represent an influential majority in the Labor caucus. The member for Jagajaga and the member for McMahon during their contributions were keen to lecture the House on values. Trust is considered by some as a foundation value. In the three weeks remaining of parliament this year the opposition have the opportunity to redeem at least some of the trust deficit that they have with the Australian people—to stop the class war rhetoric and the politics of envy and divisions that those opposite relentlessly persist with. Australia is advantaged by having a strong alternative government and this House is certainly better if we can have a robust exchange of competing policies and ideas, but there is no way that this House should ever vote for laws which have their genesis in isolationist economics, reckless to the effect on our trade and investment and reckless to nourishing the confidence that is so essential to a flourishing economy. By passing this bill the House can move Australia forward. We can send a clear signal to this important industry that we support it and that we understand the contribution it makes to our national economy. We can remind the electorate that an adult government and an adult parliament will now legislate for a taxation regime that is actually based on fairness and the encouragement of investment and growth. I encourage those opposite to heed the words of the former member for Batman, to heed those moderate voices in the Labor caucus and to create a welcome outbreak of political common sense. I commend the bill and urge its support in this House. (Time expired) 20:39 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fraser It is my pleasure to rise on the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013, which repeals a profits based mining tax in Australia. It is useful to step through some of the history as to how Australia came to this point. In the late 1980s a profits based petroleum resource rent tax was put in place. It was criticised by many of the same voices that criticise this mining tax on the grounds that it did not raise very much revenue in the early years, but the petroleum resource rent tax has now raised millions of dollars and is an established part of the Australian taxation system. When the Henry review called for submissions it was the Minerals Council of Australia that put forward a submission to the Henry review arguing in favour of a profits based mining tax. The Minerals Council of Australia did so because profits based taxation is just a more efficient way of taxing resources. If we compare the early part to the late part of the mining boom—say, 2000 to 2007—we will see that the Australian taxpayer in the early period was getting one dollar in three in taxes from mining and in the late period was getting one dollar in seven. That is because under a royalties regime when the world price goes up taxpayers get none of that benefit. They get the volume effect but not the price effect. If the increase in that world price was somehow due to the ingenuity of Australia's miners then that might be defensible, but it turns out that world prices are out of the hands of our miners. They are ingenious in many ways but they do not control the world price. So just as the Eureka Stockade, as the member for Bass referred to, was a revolt for fairer taxation of miners, taking the view that royalties would be fairer than mining licences, so too this Labor government put in place a fairer scheme of taxing resource revenues. A profits based tax is a fairer approach than a royalties based scheme. This is not something that ought to be a Labor versus coalition divide. Indeed, Sarah Palin made her name as the Governor of Alaska championing profits based resource taxation. It is just a smarter way of taxing resources and its impact comes not only in the boom when taxpayers see a larger share of the revenue but also in the lean times when the effective burden of taxation falls. We have seen over recent years benefits of the boom flowing to Australians. The member for Bass, the previous speaker, was quite right to note that there have been benefits to Australians of the mining boom flowing through, such as cheaper prices for many of our imports, but the mining boom has also placed pressure on the Australian economy, particularly on the manufacturing sector and the higher education sector, which is the sector I worked in before coming to parliament, where a high Australian dollar has made it tough to attract international students. It is certainly true that previous mining booms and the resource shocks of the 1950s and 1970s pretty much blew the place up. We saw high inflation and the risks of unemployment that were with that. The Australian economy did not suffer those sorts of shocks in this mining boom but it did suffer some considerable stresses and I think many Australians felt it would be fair if mining firms paid a larger share of their revenue in tax. The House economics committee held an inquiry into the MRRT bill when it came before the parliament. As part of that inquiry we interviewed Mr Julian Tapp from Fortescue Metals Group. I asked Mr Tapp about the corporate tax paid by FMG, which was then a $20 billion company. I asked: But, in terms of corporate tax paid, it would not be correct to describe Mr Forrest as a taxpayer, would it? The response was: Mr Forrest is not a company; Fortescue Metals Group is the company. I then asked: But, as things currently stand, it would not be correct to describe— The reply was: We have not cut a corporate tax cheque to date, no. So FMG, despite describing itself as a taxpayer, was not at that point a corporate taxpayer. I think this raised a concern in the minds of many Australians as to why immensely profitable firms should not be making a contribution to the broader Australian good. We heard, when the MRRT bill came before this parliament a little over two years ago, from the member for North Sydney. The member for North Sydney foresaw it as follows: This is a bad tax. It will reduce investment and jobs. It will reduce the wealth and retirement incomes of everyday Australians. It will hamper Australia in global competition for scarce capital and jobs. It will reduce investment and jobs. It will reduce the wealth of retirement incomes of everyday Australians. It will hamper Australia global competition with scarce capital of jobs. He went on to talk about everything from locusts to the plague. To assess those claims we simply have to look at the numbers. Let us look at estimates of expenditure on annual private minerals exploration: 2009-10, $5.7 billion; 2012-13, $7.8 billion. If we ask ourselves if Australians are poorer now than they were when the mining tax was introduced, we find the answer again to be a resounding no. Australians' wealth levels have increased significantly. In this debate the Treasurer would have you believe that this is the only tax whose repeal will make the public finances better off. Somehow the Treasurer has discovered magic pudding economics, through which he can repeal a tax and add money to the government coffers. The fact is the Treasury costings—this is the Treasurer, so they are effectively his costings—put the lost revenue from getting rid of a profits-based mining tax somewhere in the order of $4 billion. Now if the Treasurer wants to stand at the opposite dispatch box and disavow the costings of his own department, if he wants to say that in fact somehow this is a miraculous tax that will raise a negative amount over the forward estimates, I would be fascinated to hear that exercise. Frankly, like every other tax, if you repeal it you will leave the public finances worse off. At the same time as the Treasurer is repealing a tax whose burden falls on some of the wealthiest shareholders in the world, he is cutting back the income support bonus, cutting away the schoolkids bonus, which is a means-tested program that helps Australian families with the cost of education. I agree with the member for Jagajaga on this: the government should have had the courage to introduce this bill not as the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013, but as the 'Minerals Resource Rent Tax repeal and the schoolkids bonus repeal and the low income superannuation contribution repeal and the hit to small business and the hit to income support bill 2013'. Were this government to honestly name its bills, then that is what it would be. This bill concerns me as somebody who is pretty passionate about inequality. I believe that, as I said in my first speech in this place, too much inequality strains the social fabric and threatens to tear us one from another. A bill which on the one hand delivers an effective cut to unemployment benefits, and on the other hand delivers a huge benefit at the same time to those at the top of the income spectrum is fundamentally against Australian values. Australians value the fair go. We believe that we are a people who ought to work together. That was the principle of the Eureka Stockade, which was invoked by the previous speaker in this debate, the member for Bass, and it is a principle which I believe runs through the Australian social compact. We are a country that does not like tipping, we sit in the front seat of taxis, we believe in the fair go, and we have a tradition of calling one another 'mate' and not calling one another 'sir'. And yet, this bill will probably do more to widen the gap between rich and poor than any bill that has been brought before the parliament over the past decade. This is a bill which will take us backwards into a system of taxing mining and royalties, which we know not to be efficient. When Labor considered the issue of mining taxation, we listened to the experts. We looked around at best practice for tackling taxation, and it struck us that the approach taken in the PRRT, a profits-based approach, was a fair approach. That represents a rebalancing of the tax scale, and I do want to quote from an excellent new book, Ross Garnaut's Dog Days: Australia After the Boom, in which Professor Garnaut laments: More and more of the load is carried by income taxpayers with limited opportunities for avoiding taxation, is economically distorting, unfair and probably politically unsustainable. That is what we are seeing with this bill and with the carbon price repeal bill. Under Labor, we reduced the tax burden on workers, we increased the tax paid by polluters and we increased the tax paid in a profits-based way by mining companies. But if you are to decrease the tax rates on mining companies, if you are to decrease the tax rates on polluters, then effectively the burden will be higher upon wage earners. This is a tax shift, but it is a tax shift in the wrong direction. It is a tax shift that sees Australians pay a higher burden of income tax because if you are not going to ask big miners and big polluters to pay their fair share, then Australian households will have to pay more. It comes in the context of a confected budget crisis. The Treasurer has come into this House with all kinds of stories about spendthrift ways and spiders—I think some days he thinks he is still over this side of the table. But the fact is that, in the 2012-13 budget—we have seen the final budget outcome released recently—we saw a reduction in real spending of 3.2 per cent and a reduction in nominal spending of one per cent. Stephen Koukoulas has pointed out that a one per cent reduction in nominal spending has never happened before in Australia. That is an unprecedented reduction in government spending. So, when those opposite confect these budget crises—by giving $9 billion to the Reserve Bank that they do not need, by giving a tax cut to large mining companies that they do not need—they are effectively hurting future generations. I spoke before about the politics of profits-based mining taxes. I have given you an egalitarian argument for it, as I would, as a member of the Labor Party. But there is a more conservative, Burkean argument for fair mining taxation too. As Burke said, we are not just here for those generations now alive; we are informed by the generations that have gone before us and by the generations to come. If we tax mining revenue unfairly, then we short-change the generations to come and we hurt the future generations of Australians who will not have the minerals and will not have the proceeds from fair taxation. So even a Burkean should oppose the bill before the House today. The minerals resource rent tax is a tax which I am sure could be improved. If there were reasonable proposals coming forward from the government about ways of improving the operations of the tax, we on this side of the House would be happy to have those conversations about how to better integrate state and federal regimes. But to simply abolish the tax is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is to leave Australia a little less fair, a little less egalitarian and a little poorer than it was before we found it. 20:54 Mr SIMPKINS HWE Cowan I welcome the opportunity tonight to speak, or to at least commence my comments, on the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013. It was very clear when we went to the last election—in fact the last two elections—that we were opposed to the mining tax. It was in policy statements and there was a very clear understanding. The then government, now opposition, threw everything at us. They talked about the loss of the schoolkids bonus. There is no doubt they had a go at the politics, and in the end they were comprehensively rejected by the Australian people. So it is with a very clear conscience that we come here and present this bill to do exactly as we said we would do: repeal a tax that was ineffective and poorly placed. I spoke in the last parliament about the mining tax. It was very clear that the former government was basically saying to the Australian people that what is in the ground in Western Australia, for instance, belongs to the Australian people. And yet, throughout history, the reality of the system of royalties has been that what is in the ground belongs to the state and the people—of Western Australia if it is in Western Australia, or of Queensland if it is in Queensland. We must remember that to bring these resources out of the ground requires money, resources and risk. People actually have to make the effort. It is not like a bag of money buried under the surface and you just brush away the dirt. The former government used to say, 'It's very easy to make the money, so everyone should have their cut of it.' But the reality is that every dollar that is made out of the resources sector requires risk and requires people to put their livelihoods on the line. What we stand for on this side is, if someone wants to put in the effort—it may be the ordinary person in the street, the small miners, the middle sized miners et cetera—if they want to take the risk, if they want to put the hours in, they should get the benefit of it. Yet this tax represents the Labor Party saying to the people of Australia: 'You don't have to take any risks. You don't have to put any sweat in. You don't have to be away from your families. You're entitled to a cut.' It is typical of that side of politics that it is all about entitlement. If there is something going wrong in your life, what the other side say is: 'Let's look at society first. Let's look at who's ripping you off. You don't need to look in a mirror. You don't need to actually go out there and put some effort in. It's society that is against you.' In the case of this tax, the former government said to the people: 'You don't need to take the risks. You don't need to sweat. You don't need the blood, the sweat, the tears. You don't need to be away from your families. We'll just give you a cut.' Unfortunately it was not just like that. It was a bad concept right from the start. That is the point I am trying to make. The former government, the Labor Party, as we fought the 2010 election in Western Australia, were using states like Western Australia and Queensland as cash cows. They were just trying to rip the money out. Former Prime Minister Rudd, in his 2007 election campaign, promised an infrastructure fund for Western Australia, but of course, as everyone could have predicted, it never eventuated. Rather than giving that fair deal to Western Australia that he promised, Mr Rudd was behind nothing more than a rip-off. And the subsequent government, the Gillard government, was involved in nothing more than a rip-off of the resources of Western Australia and Queensland—all without justification and all to build an unfortunate sense of entitlement around this country. Unfortunately, when you look at the detail of this tax and the resource revenues that have been generated out of it, you see that the former government decided to spend money that they thought they were going to make but they never actually made it. This is one of the greatest tragedies of it all and, when I get the opportunity to continue, I will talk some more about this. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 736 ADJOURNMENT Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment 736 21:00 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs On 16 October a bushfire started in Lithgow, New South Wales. The next day two more fires began nearby in Mt York and Springwood. These fires led to the loss of at least 210 properties, with over 100 more damaged. By 18 October, two days after the Lithgow fire started, and while the fires were still raging, the present government activated the Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment. This assistance is an immediate one-off payment to Australians affected by natural disasters at the time they need it most. It can be used to cover the cost of accommodation, personal items and urgent medications—exactly the kinds of expenses victims of bushfires need to meet when they are isolated from their homes in an emergency situation. These vital disaster recovery payments were provided following the Victorian Black Saturday bushfires in 2009, Cyclone Yasi in 2011, and Cyclone Oswald and the Tasmanian bushfires earlier this year. Last month was the first time disaster recovery payments have been approved by the Abbott government. The approval is made by the Minister for Justice, the member for Stirling. But, this time, unlike Black Saturday, Cyclone Yasi, Cyclone Oswald and the Tasmania bushfire disaster, the assistance to the New South Wales bushfire victims was savagely cut without any consultation. A government that claimed it would deliver no surprises delivered a very nasty surprise indeed, heartlessly removing vital assistance for New South Wales residents at the very time they were most in need. People who were unable to access their homes for more than 24 hours, or who were without essential utilities like water or electricity for more than 48 hours, were no longer eligible for this emergency assistance. The Abbott government decided, without any explanation, that victims of these bushfires in New South Wales deserved less assistance than Australians affected by other natural disasters. When his mean-spirited decision came to light, the member for Stirling continued to claim this decision was under review—an excuse that makes no sense at all. The very nature of this payment is that it is needed when a natural disaster is occurring, not almost a month afterwards—or later. Last night's response of Senator Brandis at Senate estimates makes it clear that the review claimed by the member for Stirling was a complete smokescreen. Senator Brandis, in response to questions by Senator Cameron about why the Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment had not been extended to people who had been prevented from accessing their homes for more than 24 hours, or were without essential utilities for at least 48 hours, said: It is perhaps what we might call a situational judgement or an assessment of the gravity of the impact on particular potential classes of claimants. Now just think about that for a moment—'an assessment of the gravity of the impact on particular potential classes of claimants'. Senator Brandis is making clear that the decision was made on an assessment by the Minister for Justice that the victims of this devastating bushfire have not suffered enough to warrant government support. It is simply not good enough for this government to withdraw support from the people of New South Wales when they need it the most. It is simply not good enough for this government to be running and hiding rather than standing with, supporting the victims of bushfires, as the former Labor government did with so many disasters over recent years. New South Wales residents deserve an explanation from the Minister for Justice. They deserve to hear from him why he has decided they should receive less assistance than Australians affected by previous bushfires. Just think about the significance of this decision by Mr Keenan, the Minister for Justice. What he says is, 'If you've been kept out of your home for 24 hours or more'—and think about all the consequences that that means for what happens in your house—'if you have been without utilities for 48 hours or more'; again, think about all of the consequences of that particular catastrophe for your household. It means the spoilage of food and potentially the wrecking of a whole range of household facilities. It certainly means you are going to have incurred very considerable expense to keep your life running. If you have incurred any of those consequences of a disaster, under this heartless government, you get nothing because, according to Senator Brandis answering on behalf of the Minister for Justice, they made 'an assessment of the gravity of the impact on particular potential classes of claimants'. It is a marvellous phrase but what it actually means is that this is a heartless government that does not care to assist Australians in need. Macarthur Electorate: White Ribbon Golf Day 738 20:59 Mr MATHESON M2V Macarthur Next Monday I will join men and women from across Macarthur in a White Ribbon Golf Day to take a stance against violence towards women. The Campbelltown Domestic Violence Liaison Committee have organised the White Ribbon Golf Day on Monday to raise awareness for this important cause in the Macarthur community. The golf day aims to raise men's awareness of domestic violence and to decrease the tolerance of domestic violence and number of incidents within the Campbelltown local government area. Not only will the golf day raise awareness but the money raised on the day will fund ongoing local community campaigns well into the future. The majority of men in my electorate know that violence towards women is not acceptable. However, in the 12 months to March 2013, there were 27,840 reported incidences of domestic violence related assaults in New South Wales, according to the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. According to the bureau, Campbelltown was ranked 25th in New South Wales for reported incidents of domestic violence related assaults and it is estimated that only 20 per cent to 30 per cent of domestic violence incidents are reported. This is why the Campbelltown Domestic Violence Liaison Committee works so hard to encourage men and women across Macarthur to take a stand against violence towards women. I am proud to be a White Ribbon Ambassador. As a former police officer, the issue of domestic violence is one close to my heart. Sadly, I witnessed many cases of domestic violence during the 25 years I spent in the New South Wales Police Force. As a husband and father of two daughters, I found it very difficult to understand how these violent acts could occur, especially when they were instigated by those closest to the victims themselves. Throughout my time with the New South Wales Police Force I was faced with many acts of violence against women, including domestic violence, family violence, wife bashing, sexual assault, rape, sexual harassment, verbal abuse, emotional abuse and forced isolation from friends and family. It was heartbreaking to see these occurring against women of all ages and cultures and even more disturbing to see so many people sit on the sidelines refusing to stand up for what is right while those whom they loved came to harm. Violence against women is a serious problem in Australia. At least one woman is killed every week by a current or former partner. The Australian Institute of Criminology reports that 36 per cent of all homicides take place in a domestic setting and 72 per cent of those involve a woman being killed by her male partner. The Australian Bureau of Statistics data indicate that one in three Australian women over the age of 15 reports having experienced physical or sexual violence at some time in their life. The impact of violence against women is widespread and long standing, generating profound personal, social and economic costs for individuals, communities and the nation. Sadly, domestic and family violence is a major cause of homelessness for women and their children. This is why White Ribbon Day is so important. It encourages the violence against women to stop and asks those who witness such violence to take a stance for these women and make it clear that it will no longer be tolerated in our communities. In my electorate, there are still too many examples of domestic violence against women—emotional and physical. But there are also some great initiatives in my electorate as part of the White Ribbon program to stop this behaviour and encourage others to stand up against it. Each year, the Campbelltown Domestic Violence Liaison Committee conducts events to help raise awareness in the local community for White Ribbon Day. The people who take part in these events in Macarthur are helping to strengthen the White Ribbon campaign which began in Australia in 2003. I believe in everything the campaign stands for, especially its primary focus on prevention. The White Ribbon Foundation works to change our culture, to stop violence before it occurs, with activities in schools, workplaces and the broader community. As an ambassador, I have made a commitment to take an active role in ending violence towards women. I join many men from all walks of life who are passionate advocates for social change. White Ribbon now has 1,900 active ambassadors promoting the campaign in the Australian community. These men share the White Ribbon message with their networks and through social media highlight the importance of respect for women. They encourage community groups, local councils, workplaces, men's organisations, sports and service clubs to get involved in the White Ribbon campaign. I am proud of the people in my community who support this important cause each year. I thank all the men in Macarthur who have signed up to the cause and have sworn an oath to stop violence against women. More importantly, I commend every man who has ever intervened or stood up against violence towards women. It is these men who are leading by example and breaking the silence from the front line. They are the greatest ambassadors for the cause and it is thanks to them that we are moving closer to a society where such behaviour is not tolerated. That is the way it should be. White Ribbon Day is 10 years strong and may it be everlasting in addressing violence against women in Macarthur and across the nation. I stand here proudly with my colleagues, the member for Longman and the member for Hinkler supporting White Ribbon Day. Wills Electorate: Brunswick Terminal Station 739 21:10 Mr KELVIN THOMSON UK6 Wills This year the power company SP AusNet undertook at the Brunswick Terminal Station in my electorate works including removal of a dozen or so large heritage trees on the King Street fence line, well away from any buildings, without a permit. They also excavated a six-to-eight metre basement despite being required to obtain a permit to excavate a foundation greater than one metre deep. Facing possible prosecution from the City of Moreland, they applied to the Victorian Minister for Planning to amend the Moreland planning scheme. I want to commend the City of Moreland for a resolution carried unanimously at a council meeting last week. I understand that the motion needs to be confirmed through the minutes at the December council meeting but the motion was that the mayor write to the Victorian Minister for Planning to question: firstly, the urgency for amendments to the Moreland planning scheme and the Brunswick Terminal Station incorporated document, and the entire upgrade of the Brunswick Terminal Station, in light of 2013 Australian Energy Market Operator energy forecasts that show energy demand is lower than expected; secondly, to request an urgent independent review be undertaken of the Brunswick Terminal Station upgrade given previous issues and concerns related to health impacts of the project; and, thirdly, seek a response as to why the minister has failed to meet with residents after they have been campaigning for the last three years. The City of Moreland is absolutely right to raise the issue of energy demands being lower than expected. In February 2012 SP AusNet had the Victorian planning minister give them a permit to rebuild the terminal on the grounds that it was urgent having regard to growth in Melbourne's electricity demand. But later on, in June 2012, a report released by the Australian Energy Market Operator forecast reduced energy use across eastern and south-eastern Australia. They said it 'is likely to result in the deferral of new electricity generation or transmission network investment for years'. Their managing director said: We have not seen electricity use drop this much since the National Electricity Market commenced. Consumers have responded to price increases and taken advantage of government feed-in tariffs by installing rooftop PV systems and adopting energy efficiency measures, and that has reduced the amount of energy supplied by the electricity grid. Investment signals for new large-scale electricity infrastructure are muted when compared to a year ago.' He concluded by saying that 'average growth in annual energy for the 10-year period is now forecast to be 1.7 per cent, down from 2.3 per cent forecast in 2011'. But wait, there is more. This year, the report from the Australian Energy Market Operator said that electricity use across the National Electricity Market is forecast to be 2.4 per cent lower for 2013 than estimated in 2012 and that there was slower growth in electricity consumption across eastern and south-eastern Australian as a result of continuing increases in rooftop PV systems, energy efficiency savings and lower-than-expected growth in most industrial sectors. They then decided that the growth scenario for the 10-year outlook is 1.3 per cent, which was lower than the 1.7 per cent forecast in 2012. So the initial 2.3 per cent has become 1.3 per cent. It was and still is outrageous that Planning Minister Guy in February 2012 overrode the Moreland Council, announced the rezoning of the Brunswick Terminal Station land and gave permission for two new 66kV terminals on that site with 26-metre pylons. The Moreland Council had twice rejected this proposal as an inappropriate development for the site. It was a flagrant disregard for the views of local residents and electricity regulators have failed in their duty to protect consumers from being ripped off by this kind of project. They should have and could still conduct a formal review of this project and see how much of this expansion is really necessary and whether there are cheaper alternatives for the CBD, looking at options such as cogeneration. Why do we not take the chance, step back and have an independent review panel reassess if this project is required at all and have a fair crack at putting a brake on our increasing power prices? Small Business 741 21:15 WYATT ROY M2X Longman I am delighted to advise the House that since the 7 September federal election businesses in my local region have been reporting a lift in confidence. Our nation is under new management and confidence is up. It is undoubtedly a response to the new dawn of competent, stable and methodical government—a coalition government with its hands on the wheel. With the parliamentary program of this government now active, including the repeal of the carbon tax and our plan to slash $1 billion in red tape every year, local businesses and householders have good reason for their optimism. Our commitment to small business is unshakable because this government knows and understands it to be the engine room of our economy. ABS retail sales figures released earlier this month bear witness to improved conditions. The statistics confirmed a 0.8 per cent lift in national spending in September, the biggest monthly rise since February. Quarterly trade was also above market expectations, up 0.7 per cent. In fact, LJ Hooker Caboolture-Morayfield principal, Steve Hay, told my office that he had experienced a record September-October with 55 sales. 'We did $5 million in sales in September and we hadn't done a month like that since November 2011.' Steve said, 'We sold 31 properties in October, or one a day, totalling $9 million.' Steve said he believed that the coalition election victory had revived consumer confidence. 'We noticed the change pretty much straightaway.' He said, 'There's a lot more buyers and more confidence because everyone thinks we're past the doom and gloom of the Labor government.' Caboolture Sports Club also posted a stronger September-October compared to last year. Mr Kelvin Patch, the CEO of the club, said turnover typically spiked with a rise in disposable income. 'Confidence is up,' he said. 'So people are spending more instead of putting it away for a rainy day.' Atlas Heavy Engineering managing director, Rex Vegt, told me the Narangba company, which makes excavator buckets and other attachments for the earthmoving industry, had clinched a $750,000 sale of around 100 components a few weeks ago. He said, 'That was our biggest single order in the history of the company. Our attachments go into the domestic earthmoving market, up to 45-tonne machines which do housing estates and roads,' he said. 'So if there's a pick-up in the housing market, we see it too.' Rex went on and he said: 'Tony Abbott has said he's going to be the Infrastructure Prime Minister and that's injected a certain amount of confidence in the marketplace. Everyone's expecting a lift, which I think will really hit about April next year.' It goes on. Morayfield Smash Repairs owner Ryan Anderson said his 21-employee enterprise was extremely busy. 'Up to the election, everyone was scared to pull any money out of their pocket,' Ryan said. 'But since, it definitely has picked up.' It is early days yet and the government has work to do to clean up Labor's legacy of budgetary chaos and excess. As well as getting rid of the carbon tax and at least $1 billion a year in senseless paperwork and compliance costs, the coalition, in its resolve to support small business, will reduce the company tax rate by 1.5 per cent to 28.5 per cent. We will undertake an independent root-and-branch review of the competition framework. We will extend unfair contract protections for small business. We will defer by two years the increase in compulsory employer funded superannuation. We will help small businesses attract good workers by providing their employees with access to the coalition's landmark paid parental leave scheme. We will remove from small business the requirement to administer the government's paid parental leave scheme. We will protect the rights of independent contractors and the self-employed. We will improve small business access to government contracts. And we will work with the financial sector to improve access to small business finance. Small business is the backbone of our community. I hope that, tonight, hearing the positive testimony of these hardworking locals will buoy all who sit in this place and care about seeing the Australian economy return to its rightful position of strength, stability and pride. We do have some way to go, but under this coalition government the job is well and truly underway. Queensland Government 742 21:20 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair When the LNP Premier of Queensland, Campbell Newman, decided to slash and burn in my home state of Queensland, including slashing all funding to the Queensland tenant advice and advocacy service, effective 30 October 2012, the then shadow Treasurer, the member for North Sydney and now the Treasurer, said these cuts were good cuts; his exact words were 'courageous cuts'. I am here to tell you that he was wrong and Campbell Newman is wrong. These are disgraceful cuts. They are short-sighted, legally senseless and economically irrational. These are cruel and heartless cuts. Each year, about 80,000 Queenslanders seek these services. They are the most disadvantaged and vulnerable people in my home state. They are often people going through financial or personal crises like job loss, illness or relationship breakdown, and too often they are victims of domestic violence. Many are suffering mental illness, likely to be exacerbated by their inability to access homelessness services. Economically, the decision is absurd because it will cost more to look after these people who will be hurt by this terrible decision. What is more, the money that has been taken from these services is the interest accumulated from bonds paid by tenants into the Residential Tenancies Authority in Queensland. So it is not even taxpayers' money; it is tenants' money that has been taken by Campbell Newman and his LNP government in Queensland. The former federal Labor government recognised the gravity of the situation and stepped in. We provided emergency federal funding of $3.3 million, allowing these services to continue until June 2013. We then provided a further $2.5 million to Tenants Union of Queensland, extending the funding to 31 December 2013. That was a year ago. In just over a month that funding will expire, leaving Queenslanders without tenancy advice and advocacy services—a shameful, disgraceful and tragic situation. In my home electorate of Blair the Ipswich Regional Advocacy Service, IRASI, provides services in this regard and it punches above its weight. For the period from 1 July to 30 September this year, IRASI provided 548 hours of information, advice and referral over and above its 495 contracted hours, such is the demand in the Ipswich and West Moreton region in south-east Queensland. IRASI is one of 23 services across Queensland helping over 80,000 Queenslanders. Without IRASI people who are disabled and people with education and life challenges would not receive tenancy advice and court advice on many occasions. Advocacy and advice services like IRASI keep people in their homes. In Ipswich, the Somerset region and the Lockyer Valley they are critical to preventing homelessness. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare says in its most recent report that 105,000 Australians are homeless on any given night. Presently IRASI receives an extra 55 new clients per month in addition to its existing client base. IRASI's last quarterly report shows an increase in its service by 100 hours over the month, so the problem exacerbates not abates. The most effective way to reduce homelessness is to prevent people becoming homeless in the first place. IRASI is doing that for people in the Ipswich and West Moreton region. It even restructured its services to better serve its clients base and to provide better value for money. These services are crucial to the people of this region. I am advised by IRASI manager, Tracey Slater, that its required yearly funding operating budget is $230,000. That is all they seek from the Queensland government. That funding would enable IRASI to continue work with its clients, many of whom have absolutely nowhere to go. The mayor of Ipswich, Paul Pisasale, has lent his support to IRASI's representation to the Queensland LNP government. In fact, a number of meetings have been held at the offices of IRASI and in my electorate office. Regrettably, despite invitations on repeated occasions, the local state LNP members, Ian Berry, the member for Ipswich, and Sean Choat, the member for Ipswich West, have not seen fit to join these discussions or even attend these meetings. In fact, Ian Berry sent a one-sentence letter to IRASI in relation to this issue—a dreadful response. I have written personally on 6 November 2013 to the state LNP housing minister, Tim Mander, requesting he reconsider his government's callous and brutal decision in this regard. I am yet to receive a response. I urge the federal Treasurer, the member for North Sydney, to speak to his LNP colleagues in Queensland and ask them to reconsider this decision. We need to fund IRASI and services like that in Queensland. If the Queensland government will not step in, I urge the current coalition government to save the services in Queensland and do the right thing by all of Queensland. Child Protection 743 21:25 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins Listening to so many excellent and thoughtful first speeches in the parliament over the last week, I reflected on those things that unite us across this chamber rather than divide us. Each person who comes to this place, I believe, comes with a willingness to serve their local community. They come wanting to stand for the values that have shaped them and for their vision of a better Australia. It gave me pause to reflect on my own first speech, delivered more than three years ago, where I concluded, 'I will never forget that politics is about people and that people can make a difference.' Tonight, I want to talk about three people who, in their own way, have made a difference to the lives of Victorians for the better. The first is my father, Dan O'Dwyer. As a young solicitor, my father set up a family and criminal law practice in Dandenong with my mother. It exposed him to the need to speak for those who have no voice and to care for those who cannot care for themselves—our most precious asset, and our most vulnerable—our children. He established a working unit of the Children's Protection Society in the Western Port region and was its first chairman. It was the biggest branch in Victoria with the heaviest workload. It employed child protection workers and had the responsibility to intervene and care for children in cases of abuse and neglect in the years before the Department of Human Services took over this role. The other two people that I want to mention tonight, who have stood up for the protection of our children, are my friends and state colleagues for the Southern Metropolitan Region in Victoria, Ms Georgie Crozier, Parliamentary Secretary for Health, and Mrs Andrea Coote, Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Community Services. Georgie recently chaired the Family and Community Development Committee's inquiry into the handling of child abuse by religious and other non-government organisations, and Andrea was a member of her committee. Last week they delivered their report titled Betrayal of Trust to the Victorian parliament. They, and other committee members, considered a huge weight of evidence—more than 578 submissions—and held 162 hearings. What they found—in the words of the chairman—was that 'children were betrayed by trusted figures in organisations of high standing and suffered unimaginable harm. Parents of these children experienced a betrayal beyond comprehension, and the community was betrayed by the failure of organisations to protect children in their care.' Sadly, revelations of crimes against children are not new. And it is also true that crimes against children are not confined to religious organisations or non-government institutions that were the focus of the report. However, what the report did find was, in my view, damning. It found against religious institutions that put the protection of their reputation and finances above the protection of children, allowing in some instances abusers to keep abusing without sanction. It is almost too terrible to contemplate. The report makes a number of sensible recommendations in particular regarding the reform of criminal law, access to civil litigation and the creation of an independent assessor of claims. These are clear, achievable and necessary recommendations and should be implemented. In November 2012, the now Prime Minister urged the then Prime Minister to support a royal commission to investigate the sexual abuse of children. He stated that 'as a community we must have zero tolerance for the sexual abuse of children.' How right he is. The Victorian inquiry will be a vital tool in the federal royal commission. I commend it to the House, as I do the work done by so many in our community to protect our nation's greatest asset: our children. Finally, let me conclude with the words of the late and great Martin Luther King Jr. 'Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.' House adjourned at 21:30 NOTICES 744 NOTICES