2014-03-26 44 1 2 House of Reps 0 0

Wednesday, 26 March 2014

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

STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 3131 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 09:01 The SPEAKER SE4 As the parliament is no doubt aware, I am required this morning to join with the Prime Minister and the President of the Senate at Fairbairn RAAF Base to farewell the Governor-General and, accordingly, the Deputy Speaker will take the chair this morning. BILLS 3131 BILLS Dental Benefits Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 3131

Dental Benefits Legislation Amendment Bill 2014

First Reading 3131 Second Reading 3131 09:02 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I am pleased today to introduce the Dental Benefits Legislation Amendment Bill 2014. The bill amends the Health Insurance Act 1973 and the Dental Benefits Act 2008 to allow for a better process for waiving debts for dentists under the former Medicare Chronic Disease Dental Scheme—dentists who did nothing more than make minor paperwork errors and who have been waiting for way too long for adequate resolution. The Chronic Disease Dental Scheme was set up by the current Prime Minister, the then health minister, in 2007, and provided access to benefits of up to $4,250 over two calendar years for patients with chronic health conditions. Eighty per cent of people who accessed this scheme were concession card holders. It was our country's biggest ever investment into dental care. This scheme provided much-needed dental treatment—in fact more than 20 million services to more than one million patients—before the previous Labor government closed it down for political purposes in 2012. In opposition I offered to compromise on design changes to the scheme, which were never entertained by the then government. Their desire was simply to destroy a scheme helping Australians, solely because its architect was Tony Abbott. The Chronic Disease Dental Scheme included a technical reporting requirement, a requirement that necessitated dentists providing treatment plans to general practitioners, along with a quote and treatment plan to patients, prior to commencing treatment. The then government sought to use the dentists' technical oversight as a means of discrediting the scheme, and it was a shameful act. Dentists who did not meet these reporting requirements have been pursued for repayment of the full amount of the Medicare benefits paid under the scheme although, in most cases, these dentists met all the other requirements of the scheme and provided much-needed services to patients. They were simply used by Labor as political pawns. I made it very clear previously in this House that recovery of the full benefit was an excessively severe punishment given that the only error these hard-working professionals made was overlooking a paperwork requirement. The Department of Human Services sought to redress this issue by applying to the Minister for Finance to waive these debts under section 34 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. However, this process has so far been extremely time consuming and resource intensive for the Department of Finance and the Department of Human Services. It has also created anxiety and uncertainty for dentists who have been waiting for long periods of time to find out if their debts have been waived. This bill will relieve the uncertainty for dentists by allowing faster processing of the waivers. It does so by allowing the chief executive of Medicare to waive the debts of those dentists who did not meet the paperwork requirements without the need to go through the current lengthy process. Let me be very clear: this amendment will not excuse those dentists—a small number—who did not comply with other legal requirements of the scheme or, in particular, who committed fraud. Only those dentists who provided services in good faith will be eligible to have their debt waived. And we know that these dentists are in the majority. Dentists who, in good faith, did the right thing by their patients and provided them with much needed services. I turn now to the Child Dental Benefits Schedule. The program commenced on 1 January 2014 and provides access to benefits for basic dental services to children aged two to 17 years. The total benefit entitlement is capped at $1,000 per child over a two-year calendar period. The CDBS has a means test, which requires receipt of family tax benefit part A or a relevant Australian government payment. This bill amends the Health Insurance Act 1973 and the Dental Benefits Act 2008 to introduce critical changes for the efficient operation of the child dental benefits. To ensure that compliance audits of the Child Dental Benefits Schedule are more efficient and effective, this bill introduces amendments which will bring the compliance framework for the Child Dental Benefits Schedule into greater alignment with Medicare's compliance framework. It does so by including the power to compel a provider to comply with a request to produce documents to substantiate the payment of benefits. These powers in this bill will enable the chief executive of Medicare or a relevant officer of the Department of Human Services to give a notice to a practitioner, requiring them to produce documents to a practitioner, or another relevant person, to confirm appropriate Medicare claiming is occurring. Penalties will apply to individuals who fail to comply with a notice. The bill also amends the Health Insurance Act 1973 and the Dental Benefits Act 2008 so that the provisions of the Professional Services Review scheme can be applied to any dental services provided under the Child Dental Benefits Schedule. The Professional Services Review is an independent authority which examines suspected cases of inappropriate practice referred to it by the Department of Human Services. The PSR can currently investigate cases of inappropriate practice under the Medicare program and the PBS. Together, these critical amendments to the Child Dental Benefits Schedule will make the schedule more efficient, ensure that Commonwealth funding is being used appropriately, and promote a more consistent compliance structure for both Medicare and dental programs. Finally, the bill makes a number of technical amendments to ensure the efficient and effective operation of both the Dental Benefits Act and the Child Dental Benefits Schedule. This government is committed to improving health outcomes for Australians, as well as ensuring efficient and effective delivery of services. In conclusion, I put on the record some early concerns about the way in which the Child Dental Benefits Schedule was structured. Some of the initial usage rates, which are being closely monitored by my department at the moment, are to be noted. Also, we are very keen to observe practices across the states and territories in relation to their operation under this scheme, and we will continue to monitor that program very carefully because I do have some concerns about the way in which this scheme was designed in the dying days of a very bad government in the last parliament and I will continue to have a watching brief on what is a significant outlay of taxpayers' money. On that basis, I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Health Insurance Amendment (Extended Medicare Safety Net) Bill 2014 3133

Health Insurance Amendment (Extended Medicare Safety Net) Bill 2014

First Reading 3133 Second Reading 3133 09:09 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill amends the Health Insurance Act 1973 to increase the general Extended Medicare Safety Net threshold and introduces a minor administrative change in seeking confirmation of family composition. The Extended Medicare Safety Net provides individuals and families with an additional rebate for their-out-of hospital Medicare services once an annual threshold of out-of-pocket costs for out-of-hospital services is reached. Out-of-hospital services include GP and specialist attendances and services provided in private clinics and private emergency departments. Once the relevant annual threshold has been met, Medicare will pay for 80 per cent of any future out-of-pocket costs for Medicare eligible out-of-hospital services for the remainder of the calendar year. There are two Extended Medicare Safety Net thresholds: the concessional (lower) threshold for Commonwealth concession card holders; and the general (upper) threshold for all other Australians. From 1 January 2006, the concessional threshold increased to $500 and the general threshold increased to $1,000. The thresholds are indexed to the consumer price index at the start of each calendar year. In 2014, the concessional threshold is $624.10 and the general threshold is $1,248.70. As announced by the previous government in the 2013-14 budget, the general threshold of the Extended Medicare Safety Net will be increased to $2,000 from 1 January 2015. The concessional Extended Medicare Safety Net threshold will be indexed as usual and will not be impacted by this bill. This bill contributes to a more sustainable Medicare system. These measures are a significant change to the Medicare system. It is important to note that they were a commitment taken by the previous government in their last budget. They will save $105.6 million and are included in the forward estimates, so the current government is compelled to implement this change. Because of the fiscal situation bequeathed by the former government we have no choice but to implement this change. The other provision confirms family composition for the EMSN. This improves the efficiency of government service delivery and the timeliness of payment of benefits to patients. This bill removes the requirement for the Chief Executive of Medicare to request the confirmation of family composition (for Extended Medicare Safety Net purposes) only in writing. Currently, to ensure that the correct out-of-pocket costs have been attributed to the Extended Medicare Safety Net threshold, if a registered family is identified to be approaching the Extended Medicare Safety Net threshold and will soon be entitled to receive Extended Medicare Safety Net benefits, the Chief Executive of Medicare must, in writing, request confirmation of their family composition. Receiving confirmation in writing increases the time families must wait to receive their Extended Medicare Safety Net benefits. This amendment allows the Chief Executive of Medicare to determine how they would like to contact a family to confirm their family composition to allow a more streamlined process and ensure faster payment to patients. This bill will allow the government to responsibly manage expenditure on the Extended Medicare Safety Net and reduce the administrative burden on the Department of Human Services. This is important for supporting the sustainability of the Extended Medicare Safety Net while singles and families can continue to receive additional assistance with their out-of-pocket costs. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Bill 2014 3134

Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Bill 2014

First Reading 3134 Second Reading 3135 09:14 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the bill is to protect major sporting event sponsorship and licensing revenue from being undermined by unauthorised commercial use of event indicia and images for the following events: Asian Football Confederation (AFC) Asian Cup 2015; International Cricket Council (ICC) Cricket World Cup 2015; and Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games. This bill is consistent with the approach the Australian government took when it legislated to protect the indicia and images for the Sydney Olympics and Melbourne Commonwealth Games through the Sydney 2000 Games (Indicia and Images) Protection Act 1996 (Sydney Games Act) and the Melbourne 2006 Commonwealth Games (Indicia and Images) Protection Act 2005 (Melbourne 2006 Act) respectively. Australia has a reputation for, and track record in, hosting highly successful major sporting events, with the Australian government playing a critical role in facilitating the appropriate environment that makes such success possible. The three events that are the focus of this bill will, between them, see over 60 countries participating on Australian shores with a much broader global reach due to their profile and nature. They represent the pinnacle of competition and include some of the world's best football players, cricketers and athletes. For Australia, the profiles of these events present a great opportunity to showcase our country from a tourism, trade and event delivery perspective. For event owners and organisers this profile provides the opportunity to showcase their sports, build a legacy and attract commercial partners that will invest in the event and their sport into the future. This latter point is particularly important as event owners and organisers rely heavily on revenue gleaned from television rights, ticket sales, sponsorship and licensing to ensure their event can be delivered and continues to be an attractive and viable financial proposition to future host countries. It is this profile and these commercial realities that necessitate the sorts of protections that are proposed in this bill. Major events have long been targets of those that would seek to create an impression of association with, or sponsorship of, the event in order to achieve commercial gain without having purchased the rights to claim that association. This act, known as 'ambush marketing by association', has the capacity to diminish the value of sponsorship, reduce the incentive for organisations to enter into commercial arrangements with events, and reduce overall event revenue. The bill will protect the use of a range of words and expressions associated with each major sporting event such as 'Asian Cup 2015', 'Cricket World Cup 2015' and 'Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games', from ambush marketing and unlicensed commercial use in the lead-up to and during each major sporting event. Variants of the event names and known abbreviations will also be protected such as, 'Asian Cup', 'CWC 2015' and 'GC2018'. While it is important to protect sponsors from ambush marketing, the rights of the community to freedom of expression must also be respected, particularly in relation to words that have passed into common usage. A pragmatic approach has been taken with generic words, and references such as 'cricket', 'football' and 'Commonwealth' are of course excluded from any list. In addition to protecting particular words, numbers and expressions, the bill also provides protection to certain images that suggest, or are likely to suggest, a connection with these events. The manner in which these indicia and images will be defined and protected by the bill is consistent with the approach used under the Sydney Games Act and Melbourne 2006 Act. An important feature of this bill is a 'commercial benefit' test that applies to the use of material. Restrictions will apply only to unlicensed commercial use of the protected indicia and images. The aim is to prevent an unauthorised user from applying the protected indicia and images to suggest a formal association with the events. The Australian government supports state, territory and local governments engaging their local communities, including the local business community, in the festival and city dressing that will surround these events which may involve the use of indicia and images. The bill also recognises arrangements that may already be in place between host jurisdictions and the respective organising committees in relation to the use of indicia and images. The intention is for such arrangements to continue and not be affected by the proposed legislation. Further, it is intended to be complementary to existing or proposed legislation in states and territories that may be put in place in relation to these events. The bill also contains a number of exceptions allowing: for the continued operation of rights and liabilities under the Trade Marks Act 1995, Design Act 2003 and Copyright Act 1968; the provision of information, criticism and review of the events, such as in newspapers, magazines and broadcasts; and use for the reasonable needs of sporting bodies in relation to fundraising and promotion. In line with the Australian government's deregulation agenda, it is made clear in this bill that the legislation is not intended to increase the burden on business or affect their everyday operations. It is recognised that some individuals and corporations, such as the event owners and sponsors, already use the indicia prescribed in the legislation in conjunction with their goods and services. The bill fully protects the rights of the existing holders to use indicia to carry out their business functions. Just as the Melbourne 2006 Act permitted the use of Melbourne 2006 indicia or images solely for the purposes of providing information, or for the purposes of criticism or review, so too does this bill. The bill therefore permits the provision of information for the purposes of reporting news and presentation of current affairs, the factual description of goods or services provided by a business (such as stating that accommodation is available at a hotel that is located near an event venue), or factual statements by an athlete to promote their own achievements. The government also recognises that the reasonable needs of sporting bodies in relation to fundraising for and promotion of their preparation of athletes and teams for these events should be allowed to continue. Those reasonable needs could involve the use of the indicia or images for the purposes of providing factual information. The bill is not intended to affect this type of use. Another feature of the bill establishes a register to outline the authorised users of each event's indicia and images. These registers will be published and provide consumers with confidence that goods and services purchased are official. Authorising bodies, the owners of the intellectual property, are responsible for keeping account of authorised persons and entering and updating relevant details into the register. A person whose name appears on the register constitutes an authorised person of indicia and images for the event specified. Similar to provisions contained in the Melbourne 2006 act, this bill also provides various remedies to the authorising bodies and authorised persons to enforce their rights in relation to the protected indicia and images. It will be the authorising body or an authorised person who may bring an action against an unauthorised user, this will not be the responsibility of the government. The remedies available under the bill include injunctions, damages and corrective advertising. The courts also have the discretion, of course, to provide remedies under any law (either state, territory or Commonwealth) and most notably, under the Trade Marks Act 1995, the Copyright Act 1968 and the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 in relation to engaging in conduct that is misleading or deceptive. The bill also includes appropriate measures to limit the possibility of the importation of goods which seek to ambush each event's marketing. The Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (Customs) will be able to carry out the measures of this legislation relating to the monitoring of imported goods at Australia's borders. This bill also allows Customs to perform functions similar to those it undertook at the time of the Melbourne 2006 Commonwealth Games by seizing goods marked with unauthorised indicia and images at Australia's borders. The border protection component of this bill is consistent with the Trade Marks Act, and the Copyright Act as amended by the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 to ensure powers for Customs officers are aligned in relation to the seizure of unauthorised goods at the border, thus avoiding confusion for business, consumers and those administering the measures. Each schedule of the bill will cease to have effect within one year after the completion of each major sporting event as prescribed in the bill. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 3137 COMMITTEES Treaties Committee 3137 Report 3137 09:22 WYATT ROY M2X Longman On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report entitled Report 138: treaties tabled on 11 and 12 December 2013, 20 January 2014 and referred on 15 January 2014. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). WYATT ROY M2X by leave—today I present the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report No. 138. The report contains the committee's views on five proposed treaties: Convention between Australia and the Swiss Confederation for the Avoidance of Double Taxation with respect to Taxes on Income, with Protocol; Arms Trade Treaty; Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay on the Exchange of Information with Respect to Taxes; Agreement on Scientific and Technological Cooperation between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam; and Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Australia to amend the Agreement concerning Space Vehicle Tracking and Communications Facilities of 29 May 1980. I will single out the arms trade treaty, because of its significance to the international community and the leading role Australia played in the negotiation of this treaty. The arms trade treaty is the first ever binding international agreement governing the trade in conventional weapons. This trade is estimated to be worth $70 billion annually and represents a major barrier to the peace and wellbeing of people across the globe. The treaty will establish a common global standard for regulation of the international trade in conventional arms. It encourages state parties to trade conventional weapons more responsibly and more transparently, deterring their diversion to the illicit market and preventing their destabilising impact on peace and security. Australia has been an active supporter of the development of the proposed treaty. In 2009, Australia co-authored and cosponsored United Nations General Assembly resolution 64/48, which called for a conference to be convened in 2012 to elaborate on a legally binding instrument on the highest possible common international standards for the transfer of conventional arms. Australia was also elected vice-chair of the preparatory committee tasked with preparing an Arms Trade Treaty in July 2010 and, finally, Australia's Ambassador to the UN in Geneva was appointed president of the conference convened in March 2013 to negotiate a final text. The treaty will require signatories to develop national mechanisms to regulate the export of conventional weapons. Each signatory will be required to keep a national control list of weapons covered by their regulatory mechanisms. Weapons on the control list will be prohibited from being exported when the exporter would (1) breach a UN Security Council arms embargo or similar measure, (2) breach an international treaty to which the exporting state is a signatory or (3) occur where a party has knowledge at the time of authorisation that the weapons would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity and certain war crimes. The committee recognises that this treaty is only the beginning of the process of controlling the proliferation of conventional weapons. The committee also recognises that the treaty as it stands has some further potential for more significant oversight. For example, major conventional weapons exporters, such as China and Russia, have neither participated in the developing of the treaty nor supported it. While the United States, the world's largest exporter of conventional weapons, has signed the treaty, the committee is aware that domestic US politics is pushing against ratification. In addition, the treaty contains no enforcement provisions, relying instead on improving the transparency of international arms trading as a mechanism for encouraging compliance. Finally, the committee notes that the treaty does not include a fully comprehensive list of conventional weapons. Despite these limitations, the Arms Trade Treaty is an important step towards improving humanitarian conditions and the prospects for peace internationally. The Arms Trade Treaty represents a significant step as the first ever binding international agreement governing the trade in conventional weapons. The committee notes the important and active role Australia has played in the negotiation of this landmark agreement. The committee recommends that binding treaty action should be taken. The committee has also recommended that binding treaty action be taken in relation to the four other treaties examined in this report. On behalf of the committee, I commend the report to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 Does the member for Longman wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion? WYATT ROY M2X I move: That the House take note of the report. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Reference to Federation Chamber 3139 09:28 WYATT ROY M2X Longman by leave—I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. Human Rights Committee 3139 Report 3139 09:28 Mr LAURIE FERGUSON 8T4 Werriwa On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's fifth report of the 44th Parliament entitled Examination of legislation in accordance with the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011: bills introduced 17-20 March 2014, legislative instruments received 1-7 March 2014. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr LAURIE FERGUSON 8T4 by leave—This report examines 22 bills introduced in the period 17 to 20 March, three of which have been deferred for further consideration, and 42 legislative instruments received in the period 1 to 7 March. The report also includes the committee's consideration of seven responses to matters raised in previous committee reports. Of the bills considered in this report, I note the following bills are scheduled for debate during this week: the Marriage (Celebrant Registration Charge) Bill 2014, the Marriage Amendment (Celebrant Administration and Fees) Bill 2014, the Defence Force Retirement Benefits Legislation Amendment (Fair Indexation) Bill 2014, the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Classification Tools and Other Measures) Bill 2014, the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014 and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill 2013 [No. 2]. The report outlines the committee's assessment of the compatibility of these bills with human rights, and I encourage members to look to the committee's report to inform their deliberations on the merits of the proposed legislation. I would like to draw members' attention to a point of particular interest which arises in relation to a number of bills considered in the report, and which highlights the committee's approach to undertaking its assessments of the compatibility of legislation with human rights. As members would be aware, a number of bills introduced in this period of sittings are intended to further the government's deregulation agenda by the removal of spent and redundant legislation, as well as the removal of regulation considered to be burdensome, unnecessary or duplicating other regulatory arrangements. These bills include the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014, the Statute Law Revision (No. 1) Bill 2014, the Independent National Security Legislation (Monitor Repeal) Bill 2014 and the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (Repeal) (No. 1) Bill 2014. From the perspective of the committee's assessment of legislation for compatibility with human rights, bills seeking strictly to repeal spent and redundant legislation by definition lack any substantive or practical effect that might encourage, promote or limit human rights. However, where a bill seeks to repeal existing arrangements, the committee's assessment must take into account the extent to which the repeal of those arrangements may reduce or remove human rights protections. To determine this the committee looks at the extent to which any arrangements that remain in, or are proposed in place of, the repeal measure offer equivalent or greater protections of human rights. For the benefit of those involved in the development of repeal measures of this type, I note that it is therefore important that statements of compatibility address the question of whether the removal of legislation will reduce or remove human rights protections. Where existing or new arrangements will remain or take the place of repealed regulation, statements of compatibility should also provide sufficient information to support the committee's assessment of whether those remaining or proposed measures will offer equivalent or greater human rights protections. In relation to legislative instruments, the committee examined 42 instruments for this report and will seek further information relating to two of those. One of these instruments amends a marine order made under the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Act 2012. The committee has taken the opportunity to draw attention to its concerns regarding uniform national schemes such as those routinely negotiated through COAG and other intergovernmental forums. The committee's concerns relate to the potential for such schemes to be developed and agreed on without formal human rights consideration, and to restrict the capacity of jurisdictions to ensure that once enacted such legislation is or remains compatible with human rights. In addition to restating its concerns with national scheme legislation, the committee has sought an update on the progress of consultations to amend the Protocol on Drafting National Uniform Legislation to ensure that human rights considerations are addressed in the development of such legislation. Finally, in relating to responses to matters previously raised by the committee the report contains consideration of seven such responses and the committee's concluding remarks on these matters. With these comments, the committee submits its report of the 44th Parliament to the House. Infrastructure and Communications Committee 3141 Membership 3141 09:33 The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E I have received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip that he has nominated Mr Giles to be a member of the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications in place of Mr S. P. Jones. 09:33 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt by leave—I move: That Mr S. P. Jones be discharged from the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications and that, in his place, Mr Giles be appointed a member of the committee. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 3141 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 3141 09:34 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I move: That, in respect of the proceedings on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014, the Amending Acts 1901 to 1969 Repeal Bill 2014, and the Statute Law Revision (No. 1) Bill 2014, so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring: (1) the resumption of debate on the second readings of the bills being called on together; (2) at the conclusion of the second reading debate or at 5.30 pm on Wednesday, 26 March 2014, whichever is the earlier, a Minister being called to sum up the second reading debate, then without delay: (a) any necessary questions being put on any amendments moved to motions for the second readings by non-Government Members; and (b) one question being put on the second readings of the bills together; (3) the consideration in detail stages, if required, on all the bills being taken together for a period not exceeding 60 minutes at which time any Government amendments that have been circulated in respect of any of the bills 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 detail stage being put; (4) at the conclusion of the detail stage, one question being put on the remaining stages of all the bills together; and (5) any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister. I will explain what the government is proposing for today. Members will remember that last week, when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister introduced these bills as part of repeal day, a full week's notice was given to the opposition in order for them to be able to carry out their normal procedural matters within their own party to determine their position on these repeal bills and the repeal of regulations—which of course is the courtesy that we extend to the opposition, as they did to us when they were in government. Today is that day: it is repeal day. As the government indicated, we intend to pass these bills by the end of the day. At 5.30 we will have a second reading vote on this matter, and I hope the opposition will support the repeal of these bills and regulations. If a consideration in detail stage is required, an hour has been put aside for that to occur, and then the final votes will be taken on any amendments that might be moved by the opposition and then on the totality of these bills at about 6.30 to seven this evening. I am looking forward to repeal day. I think will be a great success. It is a bit like a school carnival, with these bills being debated today. We are very excited on this side of the House at the prospect of sweeping away many of these regulations and much of the red tape that is strangling business and communities, and repealing bills that are not necessary. The opposition, when they were in government, regarded their successes as the number of bills and regulations that they introduced. We have the opposite view. We genuinely believe in small government. Today's repeal day, of course, is a manifestation of that. Mr Frydenberg FKL No more nanny state! Mr PYNE 9V5 As the parliamentary secretary interjects, no more nanny state for Australia, and this is the manifestation of our genuine belief that we want less regulation and less red tape on business—regulation and red tape which are strangling the economy. Many of my colleagues—at least 40—have listed themselves to speak on the debate today, and they will all get the opportunity to do so, because our side of the House is determined to limit speeches to the appropriate period of time that will allow all of my colleagues an opportunity to contribute. I hope the opposition will similarly limit their contributions in order to give as many members as possible the chance to talk about repeal day, the chance to talk about reducing regulation and red tape. In order to facilitate that, I propose to leave my remarks there. I assume and hope that the opposition will support this debate management motion in order to make sure that repeal day occurs, as was intended over a week ago, and at that today we can pass legislation— Mr Frydenberg FKL Historic. Mr PYNE 9V5 an historic day—to repeal thousands and thousands of regulations and unnecessary bills and to give business the opportunity, the freedom, that they need to grow the economy, to employ Australians and to do what they do best, which is to grow our great nation. 09:39 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I thank the Leader of the House for his entertaining contribution. If there is a correct description of what they call repeal day, we heard it when the Leader of the House described it as a school carnival. If you walk outside you will indeed find that today's school carnival has been rained out. It is one of those school carnivals where people at the end of the day think that the hype and the anticipation was somewhat more exciting than the day they ended up with. We have before us today a debate where I suspect the more people look at the legislation the quicker we will get through the speaking list. It is pretty hard to build a whole lot of passion around what is in the bills before us. For weeks and weeks this parliament had almost no legislation before it at all, and now we have legislation before us we are suddenly going to say we support it being gagged! I am not going to extend my comments beyond that. I find it amusing that government members have already, by the admission of the Leader of the House, discovered that they cannot make long speeches on this issue, and that is a mercy to them. If I had to play the role of whip in this debate, I would be encouraging people to keep their remarks as brief as possible too. There has never been a fizzer like repeal day is. I will deal with the substance of these issues when we get to the debate but, on the subject of whether or not debate today should be gagged, it ought not to be and I suspect the government are merely covering themselves from the humiliation of their speakers who, when they stood up to speak on repeal day, found they had little to say. 09:41 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne The parliament has had a very short period to deal with what is, on the government's own admission, a significant tranche of repeal legislation. In the time we have had, stakeholders have looked over the regulations that are to be repealed as well as the legislation and have turned up a number of worrying landmines buried in these provisions. We find, for example, not because the government drew our attention to it but because someone else did the digging and found out, that cleaners on government contracts, including potentially to clean this place, stand to have their wages cut by up to 25 per cent if this repeal day legislation passes. That is one thing that has been found out. An estimated 50,000 pages of regulations and some 9,500 regulations are on the chopping block. The government has the perfect right to say we are going to spend a whole day debating this, but there should be maximum scrutiny applied to this legislation. It might well be that much of it is uncontroversial but it might also be that there are some landmines buried in there, as has been found already. This parliament has the right to scrutinise this legislation. The government has the right to put it up, but this parliament has the right to debate and scrutinise it. One would have thought that, with something so significant, with so many pages of regulations, it would be a perfect opportunity for a committee to look at it to see whether there is anything buried in there and for the parliament to debate the matter fully. A week is not enough, and a week is not enough given that it comes on the back of this government having had us debate virtually nothing at all. There has been plenty of opportunity; there have been plenty of hours to fill. Apparently closing the debate at 5.30 tonight will give everyone enough time to make their contribution. Looking at those on the speakers list at the moment, if everyone spoke for as long as they are entitled to under the standing orders we would have some 14 hours of debate. Yet this motion suggests truncating it to less than six hours. For what the government says is a signature component of its legislative agenda we should have more than six hours of debate in this parliament. It makes you wonder what else there is buried in this legislation that the government wants to hide. The government talks gleefully about this being a bonfire of deregulations, but everyone knows you do not stand too close to a bonfire or you get burnt, and what you do not do is start chucking kerosene on it and saying we have to get this done very quickly. That is what the government is doing at the moment. The Greens' real concern is that in this bonfire of regulations the government is hiding its true agenda in the smoke. For that reason, whatever position people ultimately come to on the merits of the bill, we should not be gagging debate, especially when the government has nothing else for this House to debate in its place. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The question is that the motion be agreed to.

The House divided. [09:50]
[The Deputy Speaker—Mr Vasta]

 81 AYES Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Baldwin, RC Billson, BF Briggs, JE Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Brough, MT Buchholz, S (teller) Chester, D Christensen, GR 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 Hockey, JB Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Hutchinson, ER Irons, SJ Jensen, DG Jones, ET Katter, RC Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Ley, SP Macfarlane, IE Marino, NB Markus, LE Matheson, RG McCormack, MF McNamara, KJ Morrison, SJ Nikolic, AA O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM 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 Truss, WE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Varvaris, N Whiteley, BD Wicks, LE Williams, MP Wilson, RJ Wood, JP Wyatt, KG 53 NOES Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AE Burke, AS Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Elliot, MJ Feeney, D Ferguson, LDT Giles, AJ Gray, G 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.

 BILLS 3145 BILLS Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014, Amending Acts 1901 to 1969 Repeal Bill 2014, Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 1) 2014 3145

Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014

Amending Acts 1901 to 1969 Repeal Bill 2014

Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 1) 2014

Second Reading 3145 09:56 Mr BURKE DYW Watson It is rare in the parliament to have so much hype over so little. I congratulate the member for Kooyong on what is an extraordinary level of spin over legislation that says very, very little—arguably, close to nothing. I am not surprised that the House has just carried a resolution, with majority support from government members, to make sure that they have to speak on these bills for today only. If I were them I would not be wanting this debate to continue beyond today either. With this bonfire it is all smoke. People on the government benches are getting all excited about the fact that someone has decided to vacuum the spare room that nobody walks into anyway. The legislation that is in front of us—the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014 and related legislation—is a series of legislative instruments that no-one has looked at for years, that have no impact on anyone, that have no effect at all. But we keep hearing from those opposite that this legislation is going to make a big difference for business. I hope that during the debate we hear from government members about the repeal within these bills. The legislation repeals the Defence Act 1904, which amended a definition relating to a naval officer of a state navy. The states have not had navies since 1913. But just in case Queensland or Tasmania or Western Australia decide to bring back a state navy, the member for Kooyong is onto them, making sure the repeal has taken place first. The legislation also repeals the Defence Act 1909, which, among other things, stipulated that the owner of a mule or bullock required for naval or military purposes shall furnish it for such purposes and that the owner may have to register it from time to time. So, just in case new orders come from members of the Defence Force whereby they want to reintroduce mules and bullocks to the ADF, the member for Kooyong is onto them, making sure we are up to date and repealing the relevant regulations. How this is going to make a difference to small business, only the member for Kooyong knows; only the media releases from the member for Kooyong can tell us how this is removing red tape for business. But he is clearly proud of it—proud of it enough to ask the Leader of the House, 'Please, can we just make sure this debate goes for only one day?' The legislation also repeals the Judiciary Act 1914, which made the High Court of Australia a Colonial Court of Admiralty. Colonial Courts of Admiralty ceased to exist in 1988, but, just in case someone decides to bring one back, the member for Kooyong again is onto them, making sure that it can be dealt with. The legislation repeals a series of spirits amendment acts, including from 1915, 1918, 1923 and 1932. The main Spirits Act ceased to have any effect in 2006. The legislation also repeals the Passports Act 1948, which used a definition for the meaning of an Australian citizen for the purposes of obtaining a passport which was changed anyway in 2007. Mr Whiteley 207800 So why didn't you get rid of the statute? Mr BURKE DYW He is out of his seat when he is interjecting, which is just silly. Repealing legislation which has no impact is not something we are going to vote against. It is not something to get all excited about and say, 'How dare they do that?' We did similar things. What we did not do was the fanfare, pretending that this will make a scrap of difference to business, because it will not. All this is is cleaning and vacuuming the spare room. You have got to do it from time to time. It is a reasonable thing to do. But it is not something where you can pretend that somehow this makes you the friend of business. The legislation repeals an amendment to the Flags Act 1953 which amended the size of the Commonwealth star on the Australian flag from three-eighths of the width of the flag to three-tenths of the width of the flag. As the size change was made into law, the amendment act is redundant. It does not matter whether the amendment act is there or not. You want to get rid of it? Not a problem, but I want to know which small business out there is going to say, 'The red-tape burden is lifted for me because I was checking and was not sure what the size of the Federation star on the flag was, and I was confused that the amendment act was still there on the books.' The Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014 amends or repeals legislation almost all of which has no consequence at all. I challenge those opposite, when they are referring in their speeches to the difference this will make to small business, to refer to one section of the bill—just one. I reckon what is going to happen for those opposite today is that they will give a general red-tape speech. They will give a general speech about regulations being bad. They will give an example of too much legislation and things like that. But I reckon they will not be able to make a single link in their speeches between a single word within the legislation that is before the parliament and there being a difference for business. Maybe they will prove me wrong. Maybe there are small businesses in the mule and bullock trade that have been anxiously waiting for this to be clarified on the statute books. But I reckon we are about to see a day of speeches where no-one opposite can draw a single link in their speeches to a single act that is being repealed through these items of legislation that are before us today. Here is a classic one. In the finance portfolio every year we have appropriation bills go through. The appropriation bills that went through in 2010-11 and 2011-12 are going to be repealed. What does an appropriation bill do? It has parliament voting for money to be transferred across. In 2010-11 and 2011-12 the appropriation bills were carried and the money was transferred across. They are now repealing those acts. Well, the money has been transferred. It makes no difference at all. There is no small business in the country, no business in the country and no government department in the country where this will make any difference at all, but today they are being repealed. If it were just being done in the way these items were dealt with in the previous government, where it was a standard clean-up, then no-one would have any argument. But to hold this up as being a serious example of economic reform is one of the strangest, most creative arguments I have heard in this place. In the social services portfolio the legislation repeals 12 housing assistance acts that related to the provision of financial assistance to the states and territories. The acts were all made redundant in 2009, when payments to the states and territories became governed by the Federal Financial Relations Act. So they get repealed. So what? If those opposite want to deal with red tape, to provide clean air for, or to remove restrictions on, business, then maybe they should consider today's legislation having something to do with business—and not their shorthand for business legislation, where it is all about removing consumer protection; those issues are not in the bills before us right now. In the employment portfolio the legislation repeals an act that established the Construction Industry Development Agency. Maybe we are going to hear passionate speeches about why the Construction Industry Development Agency has to go, notwithstanding that it went in 1995. But they are going to repeal the act and somehow that is meant to be making a difference. Those opposite are going to be giving very, very short speeches, I am told. That is probably merciful. That is probably being kind to the parliament and the public. It is also being particularly kind to those sitting opposite who have to speak on this. We have hundreds of pages of legislation before us, none of which are particularly objectionable, from what we have seen. We will make sure, in the ordinary Senate inquiry process, that there is a Senate check on these issues, but nothing that we have worked through at the moment contains anything offensive. But the reason that we have not been able to find anything offensive in there at the moment is that, on these particular bills, we have not been able to find anything. There is nothing there. There is absolutely nothing before us that makes a difference to anyone in the world. It does not make a difference to anyone in the world. Mr Frydenberg FKL You haven't read it! Mr BURKE DYW The member for Kooyong is interjecting out of his seat— Mr Frydenberg FKL I'm here! Mr BURKE DYW No; he was standing when he was interjecting. But please do not kick him out, because it is funnier when he is here. It is much funnier when he is here, because the member for Kooyong is the person who single-handedly inflated this issue as though it were going to be a standard-bearer for the government to prove that they were on the right side of business, that they were the people who would remove red tape— Mr Frydenberg FKL And the not-for-profits! Mr BURKE DYW Once again, he is referring to a bill that is not in this particular group that is before us. I think that shows exactly the challenge that he has in trying to have any level of passion about the legislation that is in front of us. If the parliamentary secretary who is responsible for the bill cannot even interject something relevant to the bill in front of us, then how on earth are his backbenchers going to be hung out to dry during the debate today to have to meet the challenge? Can they say something relevant on the legislation before us? The Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014 repeals or amends the provisions of a total of 81 pieces of legislation in the portfolios Agriculture, Communications, Defence, Employment, Environment, Finance, Industry, Prime Minister, Social Services and Treasury. It is claimed to be a bill that will reduce the regulatory burden for business, individuals and the community sector. We will vote for the bill and I challenge anyone to find a reason to be passionately in favour of or against the bill because this legislation is a clean-up of issues which were already largely irrelevant. I will be moving an amendment to the motion—just a second reading amendment, nothing in detail—simply to get some things on the record but largely as a favour to those opposite. Unless I move a second reading amendment, they will have to be relevant to the legislation. I do not know how they are going to do it. The member for Kooyong might be willing to hang government backbenchers out to dry but I am not. I am willing to move a second reading amendment to at least let them give speeches that have very little to do with the bill but do have something to do with the debate, to make sure that at no point are government backbenchers facing the humiliation of having it drawn to their attention that what they are saying has nothing to do with the bills in front of them. The poor Prime Minister had to deal with that—with talking about issues that are not in fact anything to do with these bills. While the member for Kooyong might be willing to hang his own side out to dry, we, in the last 24 hours, in a gallant fashion—I guess that is an appropriate description— Dr Leigh BU8 Riding to the rescue! Mr BURKE DYW Yes, that is right—like a knight in shining armour, we come to the rescue and provide the assistance to government members that is not being provided by their own side. I will come back to the second reading amendment in a moment and will continue with some general remarks first. There are issues in front of us which are not part of this set of bills but are part of the government policies that have been tied up with the rhetoric of repeal day and which cause real harm. The future of financial advice reforms cause real harm. Those reforms, originally advanced in government by Senator Sinodinos, were passed to the Minister for Finance and have now been put on the backburner until after the people of Western Australia have voted. I am not surprised that the government have done that, but it is a cynical and a shallow tactic to, in the first instance, claim that removing consumer protection for people's retirement savings is important in a red-tape context, but, secondly, to think that they can get away with just parking the issue, as they have with the Commission of Audit, until after the people of Western Australia have voted. There is another bill which is not before us in this section, which deals with the impact on charities and the abolition of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission—a commission that provides a one-stop shop that people often refer to when they ask: what is a way of making sure that we can remove red tape? The government's proposal here is that the way to remove red-tape is to get rid of the one-stop shop—the exact opposite of what they will argue in a whole lot of other areas. It shows that they are willing to remove transparency for charities under the guise of red tape removal. Similarly the stripping away of the wage protection for cleaners as part of revoking the fair work principles in the Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines has been caught up in the rhetoric and the language of this, notwithstanding that it is not in the bills before us today. For those opposite it is a real message. When they talk of removing red-tape, they are either talking about a pile of legislation which has no impact on anyone at all or they are talking about the impacts such as removing consumer protection, removing transparency and cutting wages. That is why they want to ramp up the rhetoric and talk about the bonfire, so that they can smuggle under the smoke as many issues as possible to hurt people. The record we had in government of removing regulation never had attached to it the fanfare we have seen from those opposite. If their test is removal of regulations, we need to compare the nearly six years we were in office. Take legislation like today's as the test, where the government are clearing 9,000 regulations that do not matter; we repealed 16,794 spent and redundant acts, regulations and legislative instruments from the statute book. I do not put that forward as a proud boast or as something that made a massive difference, because it did not, just like today's bills do not. The clearing of regulations that are already redundant does not make a big difference. It is a good thing to do. It is not worth anyone getting excited about opposing and it is not worth anyone getting excited about pretending that here is a test of being an impressive government. This is not. This is something that is routine. If they really think that changing the rules on mules and bullocks in the Australian Defence Force is what small business is asking for, then it is an example of how far away from reality this government is. The government that launched the most bizarre distraction into knighthoods and dame titles yesterday, the government that thinks that one of the big issues to talk about is bigotry and the government that thinks the way to deal with red tape is to get rid of the regulations that are not having an impact on anyone at all and put them in a big bonfire and ramp up the rhetoric is a government that is horrifically out of touch. We had a greater deregulatory agenda that was aimed at reducing costs for business in complying with regulation that actually did make a difference—the seamless national economy—and the benefits from those reforms were significant. Those opposite, in particular the member for Kooyong, should note that this is what regulatory reform is about. The COAG Reform Council reported in its final report on the seamless national economy in early February 2014 that the completion of most of the reforms had happened by the end of 2013 and that meant cost savings to Australian businesses worth billions of dollars per year. The Productivity Commission estimated that completion of just 17 of the seamless national economy reforms was estimated to lower business costs by $4 billion a year. The Productivity Commission also estimated that full implementation of the seamless national economy reforms would increase GDP by improving productivity by $6 billion per year. There were other reforms instituted by the previous Labor government that demonstrated our commitment to the deregulatory agenda. I remember as agriculture minister that one of the first things I did was make sure that wheat growers in Australia could export and sell their wheat to whoever they chose. That was something that was not available under the Howard government. Under the Howard government if you wanted your wheat exported, you could go to only one business, the AWB. That was the only place available to export bulk wheat. That was an appalling situation. So we removed what was a very real form of red tape. A proportion of those opposite, I acknowledge, voted with us on that. They were never able to do it in government. We came through in government and did it. For the entirety of the Howard years a proportion of them sat on their hands on the deregulation of wheat exports. The protectionists opposite, who have now returned to the government benches, lost the day, as they should have. Once again, since then we have seen on some issues, including foreign investment decisions, that the protectionists have managed to get a new level of power and authority in the coalition government that certainly did not happen when we were in office. Other reforms instituted by the previous Labor government demonstrated our commitment to the deregulatory agenda, including better regulation ministerial partnerships, which the former Minister for Finance and Deregulation established with various ministers to help eliminate unnecessary regulatory burdens. These partnerships were making tangible differences. For example, the partnership that resulted in the length of disclosure documents for financial products, such as superannuation, being reduced to a few pages made it easier for consumers to get information and less costly for business to produce. Those opposite should take note of this one. You do not have to see removing red tape and removing consumer protection as things that need to work in lock step. You can have regulatory reform where you improve the quality of information for consumers and make compliance easier for business. Another partnership resulted in the assessment process for new medical devices and procedures being changed so that patients could access new health technology sooner. We instituted policy measures that are making a difference to lowering business costs and improving productivity. These are tangible measures that are having an effect on the Australian economy. Let me take you back to last Wednesday when the Prime Minister made his statement on deregulation. The Prime Minister stated that the first repeal day—that is today—would accomplish a number of things. However, when you look at the legislative program, there would appear to be a few things missing. The Prime Minister said the first repeal day will abolish the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission. That is not in front of us today. They have gagged debate— Mr Hawke HWO So! Mr BURKE DYW What a great interjection. It was only the Prime Minister telling the parliament. Excuse me for thinking that that might matter. I mean, come in spinner, do not stop interjecting now that you have started. We were told that that would be debated and would be abolished on the first repeal day. They have decided to gag the debate and rush through all the changes that mean nothing, but they will not do that one. Once again, anything that is causing real harm they are trying to park until after the people of Western Australia have voted. The Prime Minister said that the first repeal day will abolish the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. That legislation is not being debated this week either. The Prime Minister told us that as a result of today's repeal day business will not have to reapply to use agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines. Surprise, surprise! After being told by the Prime Minister that that would be achieved today, they have not bothered to have it debated today. We were given a dollar figure for what the difference the repeal day would make to the economy, but that dollar figure is not as a result of the bills that are being debated on repeal day. That dollar figure has already haemorrhaged significantly if the government is actually serious about taking a step back on the freedom of financial advice reforms, which form the lion's share of the savings that it was claiming. Something has changed since the Prime Minister spoke to us last week. The Prime Minister told us a whole lot of things were going to be happening today but all that is left of the bonfire is the smoke. All the bits that we could have a decent argument about—such as red tape versus consumer protection, red tape versus transparency for charities, red tape versus a one-stop shop and the total dollar figure that might be seen to be achieved from a day like today—have gone. All we are left with is the vacuuming of the spare room that nobody walks into. That is all that has been left for us to debate today. Unsurprisingly, we got a very early confession from the Leader of the House that speeches today are going to be really short and the debate today is going to be cut as short as possible. If this were something that they were proud of, they would be wanting to debate this every day. If this were something they actually thought mattered, they would want the scrutiny of parliament because they would think it would advance their cause. What we have today is legislation that repeals things that already have no impact. The only circumstance in front of the parliament today is one where issues that already did not affect business, as of today, will not affect business. And that is the achievement of the government on repeal day. I congratulate the government on their nerve at claiming that this is a big deal. I congratulate the government on the message development that has gone into the rhetoric around this. If you want to look at the politics, it has been a pretty amusing investigation of spin. I challenge the speakers from the government side to come up with their own examples of something to be repealed in the actual bills before us that will make a difference to Australian business. I do not know which business in Australia has been wanting to get rid of the regulation about mules and bullocks for the Defence Force—but maybe I just do not talk to enough people! Maybe they are out there, and maybe we are about to hear it. I do not know which state is about to introduce its own navy—but maybe there is information from some of the Liberal states that those opposite will be able to tell me about. But I do know that today is not a significant day for economic reform. And I do know that today the government is caught out on massively over-egging the content of what they call 'repeal day'. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Does the member wish to move an amendment? Mr BURKE DYW In relation to the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014, I move: That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading the House notes that: (1) the former Labor government had a strong record of deregulation reform which significantly improved the competitiveness and productivity of the Australian economy. In particular, the former Labor government: a. repealed 16,794 acts, regulations and legislative instruments during its time in office; and b. through its Seamless National Economy reforms was delivering significant cost savings to businesses—just 17 of these reforms were estimated by the Productivity Commission to lower business costs by $4 billion per year with the full reforms to increase Australia's productivity and deliver a $6 billion boost to GDP per year; (2) a vast majority of the changes in this bill have no impact in terms of costs or regulatory burden on businesses, individuals and the community sector in Australia; (3) the parliament supports sensible deregulation which removes cost and regulatory burden, but does not support the removal of protections for seniors, consumers, workers and investors under the guise of cutting red tape; and (4) the government is using these bills as a distraction from cuts to protections for seniors, consumers, workers and investors." The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Is the amendment seconded? Dr Leigh BU8 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Mr BURKE DYW In conclusion, and to reiterate, we will be voting for the bills. There will be no dramatic division at the end of all of this unless someone during the debate can find something that matters that we can have a debate about. If anyone can find something that matters, we can then have a debate as to whether we are in favour of it or against. But to date, no-one has been able to do that. What we have in front of us is a standard clean-up which is not worth getting particularly frustrated about but is also in no way worth the fanfare that has been associated with the fizzer that is repeal day. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The original question was that these bills be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Watson has moved as an amendment to the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014 that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. 10:27 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell The Manager of Opposition Business considers himself some sort of funny man. Well he is funny but not for the reasons that he thinks he is funny. This amendment, of course, is a complete joke. If you read this amendment, the former Labor government is putting itself forward as a paragon of deregulation. Deregulation! This is a government that added over 21,000 additional regulations: a carbon tax and a mining tax. It was known to be an antibusiness government; a government that led to multifactor productivity decline—in free fall—over the past three years. And they have put forward an amendment today saying that the former Labor government has repealed 16,794 acts, regulations and legislative instruments. What a joke! And it is not a funny business. Deregulation and red tape are something that we in the coalition are passionate about because we know that with red tape reduction and deregulation comes productivity growth, jobs growth and better conditions for business—small, medium and large. It is not a funny business. The Manager of Opposition Business might have a charming manner, but it is disingenuous to suggest that housekeeping is not important. This omnibus bill, as he well knows, contains many measures that are out of date and that need to be removed. But, also, there are specific example, some very small, that only affect very small sectors, but being small should not be a reason for government punishing you. I will give some examples for the Manager of Opposition Business who, if he could stop laughing at his own jokes for a few minutes, might listen to these examples. Aged-care building certification at the federal level is being removed in this omnibus bill. This removes the requirement for duplicate requirements at the state level, saving aged-care providers $3.42 million in annual compliance savings. We know that in the Labor Party a million dollars is really like a few cents to them. They do not care about money. They do not have a value of money. They never have to earn money. They do not understand the inherent worth of a dollar. But saving the aged-care sector $3.42 million in duplicate requirements of red tape is no laughing matter. It is a serious business. And it is serious business of government to be deregulating, and deregulating these matters for these sectors. In the environment, as part of this omnibus bill—Manager of Opposition Business, if he had finished watching reruns of the comedy hour in his office—the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act 1989. No. 7, 1989 is amended to reduce the regulatory burden on low-volume importers. Yes, it has a minor impact of $420,000 in compliance costs. But if you are one of those small businesses or minor enterprises that struggle to compete against big business, that struggle to compete against previous Labor governments that do not understand the burden of doing business in this country and how tough it is when government does not understand them, that small saving is a big saving. The omnibus bill does contain real, viable measures for important sectors like the aged-care sector, companies importing in relation to the environment—these are just some of the examples I could give. I could give an even better example for the Manager of Opposition Business if he would stop practising his jokes in his office for a minute and stop smiling at himself in the mirror, thinking he is very clever. If he would stop that for one minute and read this bill, he would see that a big organisation, like Telstra, is also going to face significant regulatory reduction. That will mean that it will no longer have to provide 70,000 pages of contracts or store them—yes, he makes a joke about the spare room. Why do we require Telstra to provide every single page of that contract sent across? From now on, after this bill, they will just have to list these contracts to the ACCC and not provide all of that paperwork. Simple but important! Every one of these measures, in the coalition's view, is important to reduce the red-tape and regulatory burden. I have no problem as a member of this government limiting my contribution to five minutes. I tell you why: we are interested in red-tape reduction and we want to get on with it. If there is no problem with this bill, then the opposition should say, 'Let's put this through,' and not move ridiculous amendments that try and make them out to be paragons of virtue in relation to red-tape reduction. Big business, small business, industry bodies and society in general would laugh at the contention that the last government were paragons of deregulation. In fact, the member for Grayndler boasted: … the Government had passed 254 Bills through parliament compared to just 108 Bills in the first year of the Howard Government. Absolutely disgraceful! They saw it as a boast— Mr Dreyfus HWG Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would seek to know whether the member speaking is willing to give way under standing order 66(a). The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Is the member willing to yield? Mr Hawke HWO No. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The member is not willing to yield. Mr HAWKE HWO I understand why the shadow minister seeks to intervene in my contribution. Today, however, is about deregulation and red-tape reduction. We are going to reduce our contributions in that spirit. I am very happy to do so, because we need to get this bill through so that business can get moving again and get the red-tape monkey off the back of small and medium enterprises in our country. 10:32 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I rise to speak to the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 1) 2014 and the Amending Acts 1901 to 1969 Repeal Bill 2014. My colleague the member for Watson has spoken on the other bill before the House, the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014. Statute law revision bills are a routine piece of housekeeping undertaken by this parliament. They correct typographical and grammatical errors, they update language and they repeal spent or obsolete provisions. They are a completely unremarkable, largely clerical, practice which, in this country, dates back to before Federation. Commonwealth governments of both political persuasions have tended to introduce one or more such bills each year. In the past, the Liberal Party has acknowledged as much. In 2013, Liberal Senator Gary Humphries spoke briefly in favour of the similar statute law revision bill which I introduced last year as Attorney-General in the Labor government. This is what Senator Humphries had to say: Bills of this nature are traditionally non-controversial and receive the support of the parliament because they are regarded as an essential tool in the process of keeping the Commonwealth statute books accurate and up to date. Bizarrely though, the new Abbott Liberal government has dressed up this humble housekeeping practice in the extreme ideology which is fast becoming its hallmark. The member for Kooyong has, quite grandly, said in this place that this routine legislation will reduce the regulatory burden by improving the accuracy and usability of Commonwealth legislation. As a result, the legislation will help to save individuals, businesses and community organisations, time and money. I am sorry that the member for Mitchell, who spoke before me, was not prepared to take an intervention, because I was going to ask him to explain how it is that the statute law revision bill saves even one cent for any organisation, business organisation or non-business organisation in this country. The answer that he would have been forced to give is 'not one cent', and he would not have been able to name one. We are told, however, that this run-of-the-mill piece of legislation is an integral part of the government's repeal day stunt. In the ministerial statement that the Prime Minister delivered last week, the Prime Minister explained: … repeal day will scrap more than 9,500 unnecessary or counterproductive regulations and 1,000 redundant acts of parliament. He also said: Removing just these will save individuals or organisations more than $700 million a year, every year. The Prime Minister said that he was creating the 'biggest bonfire of regulations in our country's history'. We are not here debating the 9,500 spent and redundant regulations. All of them have been tabled and no doubt, in coming months, the parliament will have an opportunity to look at those. But as the names of them suggest, and the way in which repealing regulations is expressed, they deal with spent and redundant regulations—in other words, regulations that are no longer having the slightest effect on business life, on community life, on social life in our country. Just to deal with the statute law revision bill, I cannot really improve on the way in which Lenore Taylor, one of Australia's more observant and perceptive journalists, writing in the Guardian last week, helpfully summarised some of the mighty blows for freedom struck by this brave government in that piece of legislation. I quote from Lenore Taylor's article in the Guardian about the statute law revision bill: 1. Part two, paragraphs 10 to 57, lists the clauses in 11 different pieces of legislation where from now on the law will “omit the word “e-mail”, and substitute “email”. So 'e-mail' with a hyphen is being replaced by 'email' without a hyphen. Lenore Taylor goes on: Part three, paragraphs 58 to 91, lists the clauses in 16 pieces of legislation where from now on the law will “omit the words “facsimile transmission” and substitute the word “fax". …   …   … Schedule five lists 10 cases in which a reference to “legislative assembly for the Northern Territory” must now be substituted with “legislative assembly of the Northern Territory”. …   …   … Schedule one, part 27, corrects a punctuation error in the Fair Work Act 2009 to insert a comma in between the words “aircraft” and “ship”. …   …   … Schedule one, part 39, corrects a spelling error in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act so that the word “committing” has the requisite two “t”s. It is a pity that this government was not paying less attention to the spelling of the word 'committing' in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act and a little bit more attention to the problems that might be caused to the actual marine park that the act deals with by the depositing of millions of tonnes of dredge spoil. The arrogance of this government and of its Attorney-General is staggering. The Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and the member for Kooyong should be ashamed of themselves for dressing up this sort of proofreading exercise as any sort of reform. They should be ashamed to front the Australian people promising to remove red tape and then serve up this laundry list of spelling corrections and style-guide pedantry. The piece de resistance of this laughable, pathetic, repeal day stunt is the amending acts repeal bill, a bill which does nothing more than formally repeal transitional and amending legislation enacted between 1901 and 1969. It removes from the statute books pieces of legislation which are already inoperative. An example is the repeal of the Flags Act 1954, a piece of legislation that amended the Flags Act 1953. The amending act, that no longer has any force, changed the outer diameter of the Commonwealth Star, set out in the Flags Act 1953, from three-eighths to three-tenths of the width of the flag. I mention this because last week my office fielded concerned calls about the repeal of this amending act—'Would the government's repeal of the amending legislation mean that the national flag, and in particular the Commonwealth Star on the national flag, would change its dimensions?' Apparently the Prime Minister's office, who the callers had asked first, were quite certain that this was not the case, but were unclear and unable to explain why that was so. Mr Dutton 00AKI Are you telling me you don't support the flag? Mr DREYFUS HWG That is a nonsensical intervention, showing that this government has nothing of substance to say and should not have dressed up these bills as some magnificent piece of deregulation when in fact they are nothing of the kind. This repeal of course does not change the flag. Repealing an amending act does not revive the previous version of the principal act. The operation of this amending act was spent in 1954. The Minister for Health would do well to listen to this because, instead of pretending that this is some vast piece of regulation, the government should be owning up and admitting that it is not. The Flags Act was amended in 1954, the Commonwealth Star has had the same diameter for some 60 years now and the repeal of amending acts is nothing more than a media stunt. It changes no rights and no obligations. It has no effect other than allowing the Prime Minister a glib line in his ministerial statement. Much like our Prime Minister, this is a great big loud spectacle with not one iota of substance. This amending acts repeal bill is a mirage. There is not a single person or company in Australia subject to a regulation which this bill will remove—not one. The bill was concocted entirely so that the Prime Minister could say in his ministerial statement that he would repeal 1,000 acts. It is quite an extraordinary use of the parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. This bill must surely be one of the longest press releases in the history of Australian politics. The Prime Minister made a ministerial statement to celebrate his make-believe deregulation. He held press conferences. He launched a website. And yet, for all the brave talk of freedom, small government and cutting red tape, the Statute Law Revision Bill (No 1) and the Amending Acts 1901 to 1969 Repeal Bill will not remove a single operative piece of regulation. This government is all tip and no iceberg. They love to speechify; they want to revive the pomp and pageantry of knights and dames. They have the gall to tell the Australian people that they are 'working for them'. They have the nerve to tell the Australian people that their repeal stunt 'is about saving you money, saving you time and trusting your common sense to make more choices about your life.' I defy the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General to explain to the parliament and to the Australian people precisely what part of their $700 million saving will come from spelling 'committing' with two Ts. I would love to see a quantification of the deadweight loss imposed on our economy by the spelling of the word 'email' with or without a hyphen. I want to hear from a single Australian shopkeeper who thinks that the biggest problem facing their small business in uncertain economic times is a misplaced comma in federal legislation. The partisan pretence that the Liberal Party practises deregulation better than the Labor Party is just that—a pretence. We know what real deregulation is. The Abbott government will not tell you about the previous Labor government's deregulation effort. It will not tell you that the previous Labor government repealed 16,794 acts, regulations and legislative instruments during its time in office, or that the seamless national economy reforms delivered significant cost savings to business. Just 17 of these reforms were estimated by the Productivity Commission to lower business costs by $4 billion a year while the full reforms of that Labor package were estimated to increase Australia's productivity and deliver a $6 billion boost to GDP each year. It is already clear that the business community sees through the government's repeal day stunt for the circus that it is. The Business Spectator this morning reported that the PM's bonfire of regulations had fizzled. The Spectator, a publication not known for condemning attempts at deregulation, reported: The culling exercise does not target any specific red tape that hamstrings family business and only a handful of measures are aimed at small business. The Prime Minister does not actually have the bottle to pursue any real, thoroughgoing reform of Australia's regulatory framework. The Prime Minister is happy to spout lots of ideological cant and deliver little substance. Most of his repeal day is a stunt of smoke and mirrors, yet there is a darker side to the Prime Minister's repeal day showboating. Among the stunts, there are some very concerning repeals proposed by this government. Though the bills today are of no real substance, the Prime Minister does have some real cuts in the offing. For instance, the Abbott government proposes to repeal the legislation which provides for the Office of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. That office is responsible for reviewing quite onerous legislation in the national security area to ensure that the restrictions it imposes are still necessary. In a very real sense, the monitor is responsible for an ongoing kind of regulatory reform. The Abbott government cannot see the wood for the trees. The Abbott government is also committed to the repeal of important parts of the last Labor government's Future of Financial Advice reforms. These Labor reforms are a paradigmatic example of the good to be achieved by government regulation: they corrected a market failure, protected vulnerable consumers and safeguarded the retirement savings of Australians. The Abbott government's unwinding of this reform raises once again the prospect of costly disasters like Storm Financial. We should be worried that after all of the cheap tricks of repeal day—the confected numbers and the overheated rhetoric—are long forgotten these two foolish repeals will come back to haunt us. Repeal day might be just Mr Abbott's overindulgence in his own ideological obsessions, but it could be ordinary Australians who wake up with the hangover. So, while we will oppose the government's substantive attacks on responsible regulations like the Future of Financial Advice reforms, and while we will not let this government get away with their absurd political grandstanding, Labor will not oppose the uncontroversial bills before the House today. As I have said, the routine housekeeping of the statute book has long been a bipartisan undertaking. I thank the Office of Parliamentary Counsel for the time and effort which goes into these statute book maintenance efforts. I regret that their hard work on the important task of maintaining the Commonwealth statute books has been so cynically exploited by a government much more interested in stunts and circuses than in substantive reform. 10:47 WYATT ROY M2X Longman The suite of deregulation legislation for debate before the House is the largest single reduction of federal law in the nation's history. Today, red tape repeal day, is a specific sitting of parliament designed to facilitate the ditching of 10,000 pieces and 50,000 pages of legislation and regulation, saving more than $700 million in compliance costs—10,000 bizarre, redundant and often punitive laws, regulations and guidelines. It is little wonder the Prime Minister has referred to such a mass extinction as a red-tape bonfire. But just as important is what will rise from the ashes—that is, certainty and clearer air for business. As a result of this landmark day, government will be that much further from sight and will be that much less a practitioner of meddlesome oversight so that our lives are less cluttered, so that businesses, especially, can free their arms and breathe and grow again. That means a stronger economy. It means more jobs for Australians. The list of redundant and archaic standards headed for the scrap heap is truly astonishing. For example, job service providers will no longer be forced to keep paper records of applications, a requirement that demands thousands of filing cabinets just to hold them. Universities will be spared from submitting reports on the use of lecture theatres, seminar and tutorial rooms, laboratories, academic offices and computerised student workspaces. The saving for each tertiary institution will be about $87,000 a year. Dr Leigh BU8 Mr Deputy Speaker, I wonder if the member Longman will yield to a question under standing order 66A. WYATT ROY M2X I am happy to take a question. Dr Leigh BU8 I thank the member for Longman. Could the member for Longman explain how his constituents will benefit from the removal of the hyphen in the word 'e-mail'? WYATT ROY M2X I do thank the member for the question. Taking a lecture from the Labor Party, who introduced over 21,000 new regulations, is insane. Seeing that the member for Isaacs is sitting at the table, I will take this opportunity to talk about things that have a real impact. He called this legislation change 'imaginary' and 'a smokescreen'. I know that Canberra is a bit of a bubble, but I would suggest to Labor members opposite and their advisers, who I am sure are watching on TV, that it is a good thing to get out of this place and go and talk to local businesses around this country about how removing red tape and regulation makes a big difference in their lives. It is one thing to talk about it, but we should walk that walk. I think that the Labor Party's record is very bad: 10 new or increased taxes and over 20,000 regulations. Let me go through the detail of what this red tape repeal day actually means. As I said, there will be $87,000 of savings for universities—that is a benefit to my electorate. Childcare centres will be relieved of 1,280 pages of law, 345 pages of regulation and 1,149 pages of guidelines—constraints that inevitably have meant fewer services and higher fees for parents. The coalition promised a deregulation agenda that would slash $1 billion in red and green tape every year. We are delivering, with hundreds of millions of dollars in compliance costs to be removed today—the first of many dedicated repeal days that this government will bring to this place. I would like to touch on one more case in point—and the members for Fraser and Isaacs, who are sitting at the table, might want to listen—where I took up the cause, and which I will expand upon during a future and related legislative debate. Under the former Rudd government's Personal Property Securities Act 2009, PPSA, hire firms lending goods for 90 days or more must pay fees to register a security interest in the property, such as construction machinery, with the federal government. That spells red tape, but what is worse is that the bizarre configuring of the law means if they do not register, they risk losing the equipment if the business to which they are hiring the goods becomes insolvent. A liquidator may actually be able to take back a title and sell the property to help pay back creditors. I took up this case with the member for Kooyong at a local forum. We have managed, as part of this red tape repeal day, to bring legislation to this place that will make this significantly easier for local businesses. It will save those businesses thousands of dollars a year and help them grow and expand. I note that the Labor member from Canberra at the table said to me, 'How does red tape repeal day help local businesses?' This relates to thousands of dollars of savings directly for local businesses. It means they can go out there and they can employ more people. I know that Labor members, particularly those based in Canberra, think that this place is the wealth of all knowledge for our nation, and that there is not a single problem that can be fixed until a bureaucrat or a politician in Canberra has had a look at it. But what this red tape repeal day means is that we will get Canberra further away from our lives—we will get government out of our lives and we will allow the private sector and businesses in my electorate to do what they do best, which is to go out there, to thrive, to prosper and to employ more people. So, by having less government and less of Canberra in our lives, we can have more jobs and a stronger economy. I commend these bills to the House. 10:53 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fraser Unfortunately the member for Longman made no attempt to answer the question—which I asked him under 66A—as to how his constituents would benefit from the removal of the hyphen in the word 'e-mail'. He made no attempt to answer that question—and he is now scurrying from the chamber—because the answer is that it does not help his constituents at all. Instead, he engaged in another orgy of Canberra bashing, which those on the other side of the House are so fond of doing. On breakfast TV, the Treasurer was happy to joke about how the election of a Liberal government would drive down house prices in Canberra. Those on the other side of the House so often seem to think that the residents of Canberra are their punching bag to be used in their political stunts, rather than good, honest men and women in a great city who are working hard, just as the people in Longman are. To recognise the decency of Canberrans is something that I think all members of this House should be able to do, given that all members of this House are residents of or guests in this great city. Regulation per se should never be the enemy. Regulation ensures that our balconies do not fall down, that the wheels stay on our cars and that we know the food we buy at the local shop is safe. Regulation ensures that we get to lead safe, decent and productive lives. The member for Longman referred—as many members opposite have done—to one of their favourite talking points: 21,000 new or amended pieces of legislation under the Labor government. What they will never tell you is that, of those 21,000, 3,400 were air safety directives. Do those members opposite really believe that those 3,400 air safety directives should not have been passed? If so, let them go to their constituents and explain why they believe that air safety directives are not appropriate. Also, of the 21,000, 4,200 were tariff concession orders—tariff concession orders specifically requested by business to save them money. Do those opposite believe that those 4,200 tariff concession orders should not have been granted—that the government should have said to business: 'No, we are not going to do it. It involves a regulation which will help you, but because we are so antiregulation we will not have it.' Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Is the member for Fraser willing to give way? Dr LEIGH BU8 It would be only fair to do so, given that I asked a question of the member for Longman. Mr Pyne 9V5 I thank my honourable friend. I ask him whether, in the course of his speech, he will try and reconcile Labor's views in the last parliament that the success of the 43rd Parliament was measured by the number of pieces of legislation that were passed, with Labor's current view that they are the party of cutting red tape and regulation, which some speakers are putting in their remarks this morning. Dr LEIGH BU8 I thank the Leader of the House for his question. In his question is an important point, which is that we need to get the balance right on regulation. We need to ensure, as the Leader of the House well knows, that we have the right air safety regulations. So it is not about simple-minded stunts of the number of regulations passed or repealed; this bill is a straightforward bill, which will be supported by the Labor Party. It does a set of things which, frankly, no-one could object to. Removing the hyphen from 'e-mail'—that is a good thing, frankly, but I do not think it deserves a press conference by the Prime Minister. Changing the words 'facsimile transmission' to 'fax' is, again, a measure which probably did not require a press conference of the Prime Minister. Indeed, in other bills, changing 'electronic facsimile to a facsimile' to the words 'fax to a fax' probably did not require grandstanding by the government. In other contexts, correcting the spelling of the word 'committing' probably did not require grandstanding by the government. Changing the word 'trademarks' to two words, 'trade marks', is again something which members of this side of the House will not be objecting to, but let us not claim it as a nation-changing event. Changing 'Legislative Assembly for the Northern Territory' to 'Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory' is doubtless the correct way of addressing the legislative assembly in the Northern Territory, but it is not a measure which is going to make business or the community better off. As the second reading amendment makes clear, the former Labor government had a strong record of deregulation and reform and of removing unnecessary acts from the statute books. We repealed 16,794 acts, regulations and legislative instruments during our time in government. We put in place seamless national economy reforms—real deregulation that lowered business costs, according to the Productivity Commission, by $4 billion a year, with full reforms to increase productivity by $6 billion per year. Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene. I wonder if our good friend may take a question on this very important topic. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Would that be under standing order 66A? Mr Dutton 00AKI Yes, 66A. Dr LEIGH BU8 To indicate my great geniality and willingness to yield, I am happy to do that. Mr Dutton 00AKI I thank the member for Fraser for being so gracious. I ask the member, in reference to the figure he just quoted, whether or not that included any correction of spelling mistakes or other related issues of which he has been critical in his debate. During Labor's time, did the number he referred to include any of these clean-up aspects? Dr LEIGH BU8 I understand that, yes. The member asks a good question. He is quite right that some of those repeals involved what Fred Hilmer, the father of competition policy, has referred to as 'ghost acts'. And doubtless Labor changed typographical errors. We on this side of the House are not objecting to typographical errors—I am not standing before the House today arguing that typos should remain on the statute books. I am merely pointing out that the benefit of this to our constituents is zero—that no constituents' lives will be made better off by changing the spelling of 'email', just as no constituents' lives will be made better off by changes in the regulations governing mules and bullocks in the defence forces. No constituent of the Minister for Health and no constituent of mine will be made better off by ensuring that states cannot have their own navies. These are uncontroversial things to do, and let us not pretend that they are reform. Real reform means making hard decisions. What we see from this government is smoke and mirrors. The smoke involves the bonfire of ghost acts; the mirrors involve the government attempting to deflect attention from the fact that its changes to the future of financial advice laws and its scrapping of the charities commission are opposed by all the relevant interest groups. FoFA is the classic: the government achieved the unique configuration of having its changes opposed not only by the consumer groups but also the financial planning association. You have to really stuff up in order to get that configuration. The government has pressed the 'pause' button on their anti-consumer changes to financial advice legislation. What I encourage them to do is to press the 'stop' button, take the Betamax video out of the machine and throw it onto the bonfire. The other mirror is the attempt to distract Australians' attention from the repeal of the charities commission. The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission is supported by four in five charities. When asked in a survey, 'Would you like charities regulations returned to the Australian Taxation Office?' only six per cent of charities said they want this to happen. Charities as diverse as the Hillsong Church, the RSPCA, Lifeline, SANE Australia, the Myer Foundation and ACOSS have argued that the government should change its policy on getting rid of the charities commission. So there are important things at stake in the government's so-called repeal day. The fact is that the important things will make Australians worse off, and the unimportant things will not affect Australians' lives one whit. What you will not hear from those opposite is the statistic quoted by PolitiFact that, under the Howard government, the volume of regulations—372 a year—was higher than the volume of regulations under Labor, with around 300 regulations a year. So, when those opposite claim to be the party that does not bring in red tape, that in fact flies in the face of what happened under the Howard years, when the volume of regulations was more rapid than it was under Labor. We need to look not at the number of regulations but at the quality of regulations. When those opposite rail against air service directives—which they effectively have been doing—and they rail against tariff concession orders requested by business—as, again, they have effectively been doing—then they are making Australians worse off. And when they change the spelling of 'email' they are having no effect on Australians' lives. Serious reform requires hard public policy work—working with the states rather than attacking the states. It requires—indeed, as the minister at the table has said—one-stop shops. That is why it is so extraordinary that when Labor had set up the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission—a one-stop shop for the charities sector—the coalition wants to come in and destroy it. The minister is in favour of one-stop shops, as am I. But the minister wants to get rid of a one-stop shop for the charities sector—a one-stop shop that would reduce state and territory duplication of reporting requirements. Certainly South Australia and the ACT have indicated a willingness to cede their powers to the Commonwealth government. If the minister at the table seeks to make further interventions, I am certainly happy to take those as well. Government members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E They are disorderly and should be ignored. Dr LEIGH BU8 The one-stop shop of the charities commission is a great Labor reform. Instead, what we are seeing from this government is that they have not quite pressed the 'pause' button on it but have certainly pressed the 'slow' button—that button on the remote control that makes the picture freeze-frame forward. We were to have been discussing ACNC repeal this week, but the government has put it off, because they do not know what is going to replace the charities commission. They promised a consultation paper by the end of February, but Minister Andrews did not deliver it. They promised extensive consultation with the sector, but the sector is outraged, saying, 'Minister Andrews doesn't want to speak to us.' He has a tin ear for consultation. And so, extraordinarily, the ACNC (Repeal) (No. 1) Bill does not take effect until repeal bill No. 2 comes along. Were this parliament to pass it, it would sit on the statute books like a ghost regulation. How ironic is that? This government wants to repeal bills that do nothing, that have no effect on the statute books. Yet, in the ACNC (Repeal) (No. 1) Bill they want this parliament to pass a bill that will be a ghost regulation. It will haunt these halls like Banquo's ghost, just waiting for the ACNC (Repeal) (No. 2) Bill to come along. The sector is waiting too. They want to know what could possibly replace the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, a body supported by four out of five charities. They know that the bad old days of charities regulation being done by the Australian Taxation Office is an unworkable system. That is why many other countries' charity regulators are coming to Australia in the coming weeks to learn about the Australian model. They are coming to hear from people like ACNC Commissioner Susan Pascoe, who is broadly respected across the sector, about how Australia has done a good job on charities regulation. This government, which wants to get rid of red tape, is aiming to get rid of an ACNC that has a red tape reduction directorate. It is ironic, and it is a stain on this government's reputation. 11:08 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I rise to speak in support of Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014 and against the amendment proposed by the Manager of Opposition Business. I will certainly be taking up the challenge that was made by some previous opposition speakers, to say how this bill will improve the life or the business of any enterprise or business. I will certainly be doing that. I also want to make the point that while some of these bills may not do much in isolation, on the whole they do a lot. This is day one, and there will be more. In the coming days we have further repeal day bills, and they are going to make a big difference. Firstly, I want to say why this is important, and give some statistics showing why this is a very important day in our parliament. We know that bad regulation and too much regulation hurts productivity, deters investment and innovation, and costs jobs. In the five years from mid-2007 Australia's multifactor productivity declined by nearly three per cent. In talks we had with business, and around the country, the common thing that came back from businesses and organisations was that a big part of that is too much regulation. In 2012 the Economist Intelligence Unit ranked the productivity growth of 51 countries. Australia came in second-last, ahead of Botswana. It is very important that we look at this and talk to people around our country about why they think this is the case. Again, they keep telling us the reason is too much red tape. In 2013 Australia ranked 21st in the Global Competitiveness Index, slipping six places. We are slipping— Dr Leigh BU8 I wonder if the honourable member might yield to a question under standing order 66A? Mr HOGAN 218019 I thank the member, but I will decline, because I want to answer some questions that were asked earlier by the opposite side and my time is limited. We have falling productivity, we are slipping in competitiveness indexes, and we keep getting told by businesses and institutions that the reason for this is red tape. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, in their 2012 National Red Tape Survey, found that 44 per cent of businesses spend between one and five hours a week complying with government regulatory requirements such as filling out forms and permits, or reporting business activity. In addition, 72 per cent of businesses said the time they are spending on red tape has increased in the last two years. Further to this, 54 per cent say that complying with government regulations has prevented them making changes, or expanding their business. That is a very telling statistic. The question has been asked, as to how this repeal day bill will improve the life of businesses or organisations. There are three themes to this bill. One is removing duplication. One is about streamlining onerous and costly processes. The last theme is about having a common sense approach. Let us go to removing duplication. This is real, because this is what is going to happen because of this bill. Aged care building certification at the federal level will be removed as this merely duplicates requirements at the state level. This will save aged care providers an estimated $3.42 million in compliance savings. With an additional 74,000 aged care places needed over the next 10 years, we need less regulation to provide the incentives for the required investment. So that is one thing, but there are more. Australian companies that operate in multiple states will be eligible to self-insure under the Commonwealth workers compensation scheme, instead of having to apply separate workers compensation schemes in every state. That is going to save real money and real time. Small businesses will also benefit. Grant and procurement guidelines will be amended so that standard contract terms are applied across agencies' procurements under $200,000. Universities—and there is one in my electorate—will no longer have to submit a Capital Asset Management Surveys, which require information on the size, use, management and maintenance of their assets and spaces. Instead, results from the surveys by the Tertiary Education Facilities Management Association will be used, saving Universities an estimated $87,000 a year. This is another real example. I want to finish up by giving some third party endorsements for this. I have third-party endorsements of our repeal day legislation from the Brotherhood of St Laurence, from the Business Council of Australia, from the Master Grocers Association, and from others. I speak in support of the bill and against the amendment. 11:14 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland About half the pages in the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014 repeal legislation in the communications sector. Most of it is pretty straightforward. As the Minister for Communications has said, it gets rid of redundant regulation and it removes regulation that mandates the production of information that no-one uses. In other words it is a cleaning up exercise. It is a good thing that it is being done, but its value should not be overstated. You do not put out a press release when you vacuum the lounge room. That is effectively what the government are doing here. They are making a very big deal about something which is straightforward, a rudimentary cleaning-up exercise. To demonstrate how rudimentary this is, the Liberal Party claim that all up this will save business about $700 million a year and, of this, the changes to the communications sector, we are told, will save about $35 million a year. In other words, the communications sector reforms are about half the pages in this bill but they represent only about five per cent of the savings—not what you would call big reform. Interestingly, a number of the laws being repealed here were put in place by the Liberal Party themselves. A good example of this is schedule 2 part 8. It repeals parts of the universal service regime that require Telstra to provide an approved universal services marketing plan. It was put in place by the Howard government. It was actually put in place when the member for Bradfield, who is the parliamentary secretary responsible for putting these reforms in place, was an adviser to the former minister for communications, former Senator Alston. So he put it in place and now he is getting rid of it. Another example is schedule 2 part 14. That changes the way changes in control of broadcasting licences are reported to ACMA. They were put in place by Senator Coonan when she was the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and Arts. So there is a delicious irony in all of this. The Liberal Party put many of these regulations in place and now they are making a virtue of getting rid of them. I guess you could say what the Liberal Party giveth, the Liberal Party now taketh away. The repeal of the Telstra accounting separation requirements is something also worth mentioning here. This is being done not in this bill but by repealing a legislative instrument. It highlights one of the great telecommunications policy failures of the last two decades. In introducing competition in the early nineties, Labor did not structurally separate Telstra. I think that was a mistake. It was a mistake that was compounded by the Howard government when they privatised Telstra as an integrated whole. This was a conscious decision by the Howard government. They resorted instead to a series of measures to try to compensate for this—first, accounting separation and then, later, operational separation. Instead of dealing with the fundamental issue of Telstra's vertical integration, the Liberal Party's response at that time was more regulation. Ultimately, it was the Labor Party that had to cut this Gordian knot. As part of the National Broadband Network project, we required the structural separation of Telstra, one of the more important microeconomic reforms of the last decade. What did the Liberal Party do when we did this? They opposed it and they accused us of holding a gun to Telstra's head. It is interesting how things change over time. Last week, Telstra's submission to the Vertigan review was released and it said: Telstra supports the core principles of the National Broadband Network … policy, including a wholesale-only NBN and the progressive structural separation of Telstra. That is what real reform looks like, not the piecemeal regulation of the Howard government or this rudimentary cleaning-up exercise that we are debating here. That said, let me congratulate the telco industry for the way in which they have engaged in this process. I particularly want to congratulate Communications Alliance for the role that they have played in coordinating the views of different members of the sector and importantly consulting with the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network, ACCAN. The way they have done this is the right approach—consulting with industry in all its parts and consulting with consumer representatives. The work that they have done has helped to produce this outcome, a package of straightforward measures that are supported both by members of the industry and by consumers. Doing this is not that hard. This will get harder. It will get harder as the government embark on more serious reforms. This bill is rudimentary. The next stage has been described by the Minister for Communications as real reform. The minister said that this will involve further consultation with industry, and I welcome that. That is the right approach. It is the approach that I took as a minister in the reforms that I presented to this parliament over the course of the last three years. I took the approach of engaging directly with industry, getting their best ideas and bringing them forward to this parliament. Because the next stage of reform will invariably get more difficult, more contentious and more complex, it is important that the government thinks carefully and consults widely with industry and with the general public. The opposition will do the same and we will judge any of the reforms presented to the House on their merits. The Minister for Communications has foreshadowed reform in a number of areas, including changes to the taxation arrangements for employee share schemes and changes to facilitate crowdsourced equity funding. I said recently at the tech leaders conference in Queensland that there is a strong case for reform of employee share scheme arrangements, particularly in the case of start-ups. The same is true of crowdfunding. A number of countries have enacted legislation dealing with crowdfunding, including the United States, New Zealand and Italy. It is particularly useful for the start-up industry. A number of start-ups and innovation accelerators have made the point to me that it helps fill a gap in the market for capital between $50,000 and about $750,000. A lot of prospective businesses can get access to seed capital but find it hard to get access to capital to make the next step. Crowdfunding will help. Obviously, a balance needs to be struck between access to capital and investor protection. It is important that investors know the risks that come with effectively becoming a venture capitalist and how that is different to investing in a firm that is listed on the ASX. The Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee is looking at this and we look forward to seeing their report on the reforms that are brought forward to the parliament by the minister. Over the Christmas break both the Minister for Communications and I were in the United States and spoke to a number of tech companies in Silicon Valley. The minister wrote about this when he got back. He made the point on his blog that the sector was looking for government to remove obstacles to innovation and gave two good examples, the examples I have just cited—employee share schemes and crowdfunding. But the same could also be said of copyright reform. The same companies that are seeking reform to share schemes and to crowdfunding are also asking the government to overhaul our copyright laws. In February, the Attorney-General released the Australian Law Reform Commission's report Copyright and the digital economy. The commission argued in this report that this reform would: … make Australia a more attractive market for technology investment and innovation. The Attorney-General has in releasing this report indicated that he is unlikely to support this reform. But, given the Minister for Communications's desire to remove obstacles to innovation, I suspect that he may have a different view. He has to make that clear. He is following me in this debate, and this might provide an opportunity for the minister to give us his views on the importance of copyright reform. This is an important debate. It is one that will invariably happen in the cabinet room and also happen in this parliament, but it should also happen in our community. It is important that the government consults widely on this and keeps an open mind, because there is potential here for real reform that will boost investment and innovation in the tech sector in Australia. These sorts of reforms—employee share scheme reform, crowdfunding and copyright reform—are all what you might call relatively easy. They involve consulting, making decisions, legislating and ensuring they are properly implemented. What is a bit harder is building the skills that we need in this important sector of our economy. We are not doing that sufficiently at the moment. This is where real reform is needed. Seventy five per cent of the fastest growing occupations in Australia require STEM skills and knowledge. But the number of students taking up STEM courses has not kept up with demand. In February, The Financial Review did an analysis of this. They looked at take-up by domestic undergraduate students. They found a 36 per cent decline in students taking up IT degrees since 2001. They also said that the changes that the last government made, around uncapping university places, have seen a boost in numbers in the last few years, but not by much—not by enough. In the last 10 years, there have been 100,000 new jobs created in the tech sector. But, in the same time, only 49,500 students have graduated with technology degrees. This is hard—turning around these sorts of numbers is a big task. We need to do a number of things if we are going to be successful here. Here are a few suggestions. We need to embed technology in the curriculum from primary school up. Alan Noble, the head engineer for Google in Australia and New Zealand, talked about this at a start-up event in Canberra last week. He said we need to teach young people how to think like a computer scientist—they do not need to code, but they need to know how code works. Unfortunately, the Minister for Education has stalled the rollout of the new digital technology curriculum in primary schools. The Australian reported this week: States and territories had signed off on the digital technology aspect but the new national curriculum hasn't received a final tick of approval because of a review at the behest of Mr Pyne. I am not sure what the motivations of Christopher Pyne, the Minister for Education, are, but I would say that that review needs to be done as quickly as possible and the new digital technology curriculum needs to be rolled out as soon as possible. It is the sort of real reform that is needed in this area. The minister might be able to inform the House as to where that is at. I also have made the point recently that I think we need to change the way STEM subjects are taught. We need to increase the digital literacy of our teachers and the way that we provide career advice in this area and in others. We also need to get universities to take a more proactive role in encouraging students to take up STEM degrees and get universities to collaborate more with business on research projects. If this government is interested in real reform and removing obstacles to innovation, then it has to tackle this issue, as well as the others that are currently being proposed. Of course, they also have to build the NBN—not wreck it, which this government is currently doing. The NBN is the biggest and most important infrastructure project in Australia, and the legislation we are debating here is supposed to be about helping business. That is what the NBN does; it is the engine that will help to create jobs, build companies, drive productivity and increase trade. To do that, we need to build infrastructure not just for the next five years or the next 10 years but for the decades to come—not the second-rate version of the NBN that this government is building. Before the election, the Liberal Party promised that every Australian would have access to the NBN by the end of 2016. After the election, they broke that promise. Actually, on election night The Herald Sun published a letter from Tony Abbott to the Australian people in which he said: I want our NBN rolled out within three years and Malcolm Turnbull is the right person to make this happen. Well, it is not happening. That has gone. The promise has been broken. The promise that everyone would have access to 25 megabits per second by the end of 2016 is now gone. It is a broken promise and the people of Australia were deceived. They were also promised that nine million homes and businesses would get fibre to the node. That is not going to happen, either, now. That promise has been broken. As a result, businesses will suffer. They will not get what they were promised. If the government is to live up to its purported aim of helping Australian business, it has to do a lot more than what we see in this legislation. This is, as I said, a rudimentary cleaning up exercise—no more, no less. It gets rid of old laws that people do not use. As the Manager of Opposition Business said at the beginning of this debate, it is a bit like vacuuming a room in a house that nobody uses anymore. The government has said that this legislation will save business about $700 million a year. But it will save the communications sector only about five per cent of that. And all of that is pretty tiny, pretty small, when you compare it to the new cost that the government wants to impose on Australian businesses—the new tax that it wants to put on business to pay for the Prime Minister's paid parental leave scheme. That will cost business about $5½ billion a year. So business saves, on the one hand, about $700 million a year from this legislation, but, on the other hand, it will have to pay an extra $5½ billion a year. It is not a great deal. The real test is what comes next. (Time expired) 11:29 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I rise today to support the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014. I have been listening to the remarks of the shadow minister for communications, who just preceded me. I could not help but note that, in his discussion about employee share schemes, he said that reform in that area was easy. That is a remarkable concession, given that the reform that is required is to reverse an extraordinary decision taken by the Labor Party in 2009 which has single-handedly done enormous damage to the innovation sector and basically made it unaffordable for start-up companies to issue shares or options to their employees. We are all familiar, as I am sure the shadow minister is, with companies that have had to move to the United States because it is simply not feasible for them to employ the talent that they need in Australia, because of the penal taxation arrangements with respect to these share schemes. It really is remarkable that the shadow minister is such an enthusiastic reformer and thinks it is all so easy, because the problem was entirely created by his own side, and only a few years ago, despite many warnings from us that their reforms would have this impact. The shadow minister also went through the usual rigmarole of saying that the government is wrecking the NBN and stopping the NBN. I notice that in the last week over 9,000 premises have been passed by the NBN. The rollout is continuing and at a greater rate than it was prior to the election. Yes, we are determined to complete the NBN—sooner, more cheaply and more affordably. The shadow minister does himself no service by saying that the government had promised, or forecast, before the election that there would be nine million premises passed by fibre to the node. That certainly was in the example that we set out in our plan, but since the election it has become apparent that a superior technology, HFC, can be used for a large part of the rollout. HFC has performance characteristics that in most circumstances are even better than what can be delivered under fibre to the node, so, if they had the choice between fibre to the node and HFC as a broadband channel, in most cases people would prefer to have the HFC. The reality is that, with the NBN, what Australians want is very fast broadband, at the least cost to the taxpayer and as affordably for them as possible. They are not fussed about the particular technology. They want the service levels that enable them to do their work and enjoy their entertainment and so forth. That is what we are seeking to deliver and that is why our approach is a technology-agnostic one. Having dealt with those matters raised by the shadow minister, I will return to this bill. This year marks 10 years since I gave my maiden speech in this House. In that speech I said: Lucy and I have found that much of our satisfaction in business has come from starting new enterprises: creating new jobs and new markets for Australian technology. Our life's experience has been that there is little reward without risk. We believe Australia's economy and prosperity depend on a culture of initiative and enterprise which supports Australians doing what we do best—having a go—and, when things do not succeed, getting up and having another go. One of the Liberal Party's core beliefs is that we see government's role as enabling citizens to do their best rather than telling them what is best. That is why we have adopted a strong deregulatory policy agenda and we are progressing the changes to the way in which regulation is created, implemented and reviewed. The key principles of this reform agenda include regulating only where absolutely necessary and that regulation should not be the default position in dealing with public policy issues. In the Coalition's Policy to Boost Productivity and Reduce Regulation that we took to the Australian people during the election, we set a target of reducing regulatory cost to industry, not-for-profits and individuals by $1 billion per annum. Across my portfolio, the current media, telecommunications and radiocommunications regulatory frameworks are still fundamentally based in a mid-1990s world of relatively stable technologies and business models, but we now live in a world that has seen the explosion of the internet, the ubiquity of the mobile device, social media, the rollout of fast broadband across many platforms, the end of analog television and the rise of cloud computing. All of these changes are having a substantial impact on the regulated entities and bringing new challenges and pressures: the challenges to the print media business model, the increased competition for advertiser and subscriber dollars; the market effects of the structural separation of Telstra; and the expectations of consumers regarding the way they communicate, the services they use and their demand for content. Meanwhile, largely unregulated industries have provided innovative services which have significantly increased access to content but which have been accompanied by increased concern around matters such as privacy and the use of personal information. The pressures on the regulatory arrangements and the negative impact of outdated regulation on the communications sector will only increase. So we are reviewing every piece of legislation and regulation across the sector, and these are the questions we are asking of regulation. Does it serve clearly identified public policy goals? Has it been effective in achieving those goals? Could those goals otherwise be fulfilled by more efficient and simpler means? Does the regulation produce benefits that outweigh the costs, including those imposed on industry, compliance; government, enforcement; and consumers, reduced innovation, fewer services and higher prices? Is it consistent with other regulations and policies, including those relating to competition, trade and investment? Is it as technologically neutral as possible, to avoid creating regulatory distinctions between similar services that are delivered differently? In this context, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation for the very constructive role my parliamentary secretary, the member for Bradfield, has played in assisting me with this significant and critically important task. Our aim is to deliver real reform in the communications sector, while maintaining important community and consumer safeguards and ensuring better outcomes for businesses and consumers now and in the future. The bill before the House includes many communications measures. In fact, they take up a large part of the bill, with a particular focus on burdensome and redundant regulation. Examples of key measures before the House today are, firstly, repealing obsolete sections of telecommunications regulation that were superseded by a stronger, industry-led consumer protection code in 2012. This results in carriers no longer needing to maintain duplicate summaries for each product or service, meaning the government can repeal this measure and reduce red tape on industry without any negative impact on consumers. I note that the consumer group ACCAN has supported abolition of these requirements. Secondly, streamlining requirements to lodge telecommunications access agreements with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission—these lodgement obligations have long been considered an administrative burden not only for access providers but also for the ACCC. Thirdly, broadening the Australian Communications and Media Authority's discretion so it can determine whether they investigate complaints will allow the ACMA to focus its resources on complaints of a more serious nature, including those that might indicate systemic problems. Fourthly, the ACMA will be given the discretion to exempt smaller commercial radio broadcasting licensees and commercial television broadcasting licensees from submitting audited accounts. In addition the requirement for controllers of certain media assets to report annually to ACMA on changes to the control of commercial licenses and newspapers will be removed. Fifthly, duplicated universal service obligation requirements which are now redundant will be removed as they are covered under legislative instruments. As part of the repeal day today, the Communications portfolio will also simplify the regulatory scheme by removing outdated and redundant provisions which serve no purpose in the current environment, including regulation relating to the National Relay Service levy that was replaced by the Telecommunications (Industry Levy) Act 2012; early standards for analog mobile phone signals; services that were phased out in the beginning of 2000; information requirements relating to the original National Broadband Network request for proposal process, which ended in April 2009; and, telecommunication sector requirements in the event of service provider failure which have never been used. The Australian Communications and Media Authority is also assisting the government on delivering on this regulatory reform agenda. The ACMA has already revoked 46 redundant instruments and is well progressed in removing unnecessary reporting requirements across a range of them. In the context of deregulation, it is also important to recognise that since the election the government has reduced the burden of regulation on the telecommunication sector by streamlining identity checks for prepaid mobile services, amending the permit process for submarine cables and simplifying telecommunications industry code-making arrangements. The government has consulted widely with companies, consumer advocates and regulators in the communications sector to ensure that we get these measures right. The level of cooperation, specifically from industry and consumer groups, has been crucial to the reforms before the House today. It is evident from the submissions I received before Christmas that industry and consumer groups understand the need for reform and are eager to assist the government to ensure that there is change. The fact that they have worked together, reached a consensus and then come to government with a proposal for change is refreshing, and I welcome and thank them for it. The deregulation in communications is not just a short-term process. We have made a very strong start on deregulation in the Communications portfolio, but in the longer term real reform will only be achieved through careful consideration of a vast range of complex policy issues. We will need to work together over the coming months on aspects of the existing framework which are not readily removed or adjusted. In Sydney, a few weeks ago, I led the first meeting of the Ministerial Advisory Council on Communications—an initiative of the government to get an industry perspective on key areas for reform and deregulation to boost productivity and reduce the cost of doing business. I am continuing to work closely with the sector and have received very constructive feedback which is assisting me in deciding the priorities for reform—from better regulation for telecommunications consumer protections to looking at the laws relating to radio communications licensing and allocation arrangements, to media ownership and content rules. We will continue to undertake this consultation openly and positively, balancing industry and public interest concerns and recognising the realities of the industry of today and tomorrow. This is a very different approach to the previous government, where the previous minister, Senator Conroy, dealt with proprietors and chief executives one at a time—all too often telling each of them what they wanted to hear, instead of dealing with them in one room openly, and of course most notoriously with the attempt to the regulate the print sector, imposing sweeping and unprecedented regulations on the industry without any consultation and even without any warning. We take a very different approach. We are not going to measure our success as a government, as the previous government did, by the number of new regulations and burdens imposed on businesses. Regulation should not be the default position in dealing with public policy issues. Any future changes to the media or telecommunications regulation regime will be undertaken consultatively and will reflect our ongoing commitment to better regulation, which lowers the cost burden on business, while maintaining, at all times, necessary consumer and other safeguards. I commend the bill to the House. 11:42 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney The Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014 repeals or amends the provisions of a total of 81 pieces of legislation in Agriculture, Communications, Defence, Employment, Environment, Finance, Prime Minister, Social Services and Treasury portfolios. Of course, we support the removal of legislation that is redundant, irrelevant or no longer enforced. As the Leader of the Opposition said last week: Labor have always believed in making it easier for business to do business. We have always believed in competitive, productive and profitable enterprises. We believe in successful enterprises that provide Australians with good jobs. What did we do in office to that end? Over nearly six years in office, we repealed over 16,000 spent and redundant acts, regulations and legislative instruments from the statute books. We also had a deregulation agenda aimed at reducing costs for business in complying with unnecessary and inconsistent regulation. That, of course, was the seamless national economy program. The benefits from these reforms are very significant. The COAG Reform Council reported in its final report on the seamless national economy in early February this year that the completion of most of the reforms by the end of 2013 had meant cost savings to Australian businesses worth billions of dollars every year. The Productivity Commission estimated that completion of just 17 of the seamless national economy reforms were estimated to lower business costs by about $4 billion a year. The Productivity Commission also estimated the full implementation of the seamless national economy reforms would increase GDP by improving productivity by about $6 billion a year. So we took a number of steps and instituted policy measures that are already making a difference to lowering business costs and improving productivity. While Labor support the broad aims of this bill to reduce the regulatory burden for small business, individuals and the community sector, we also have to point out that what is happening in the parliament today is not quite the substantial range of reforms that the government is claiming. What we see today is a lot of ideology masking as legislation. The vast majority of the items in this bill relate to amending or repealing legislation that has literally no impact on people or organisations at all. So there is no harm in doing it, but there is no real benefit. For example, these bills repeal 12 acts in the finance portfolio—old appropriation acts from 2010-11 and 2011-12. These financial years have already occurred and the Commonwealth government agencies have already been provided with the appropriations that are stated in those acts. Taking those acts off the statute books will have no tangible effect on the lives of everyday Australians at all. In the industry portfolio we see the repeal of two acts that ceased to have effect by the end of 2011 and we see the inclusion of a single word in three locations in two acts. It is really not going to make the slightest bit of difference to people's lives. In the employment portfolio we see the repeal of an act that administered an agency that was abolished nearly 20 years ago. Of course it is a perfectly sensible thing to do and there is no harm in it, but there is simply not the great benefit that the government is claiming. I cannot really see the regulatory burden of a redundant act that relates to an agency that no longer exists. The government is making a series of changes to a succession of spirits acts from the 1910s and the 1920s which have long been superseded by subsequent legislation. Again, I am not sure what the regulatory burden of the definition of 'methylated spirits' from 1919 has on Australians but, if there is one, I am very pleased that the regulatory burden has been lifted. Likewise, the Melbourne Commonwealth Games were held in 2006 and I am perfectly prepared to accept that there is no longer a need to have legislation governing the use of the Commonwealth Games logo. I am delighted to see that piece of legislation repealed; I just do not really know what effect it will have in the real world. Combined with the over 1,000 acts that are repealed by the Amending Acts 1901 to 1969 Repeal Bill 2014 it is hard to see how this contributes to the $750 million in savings that has been claimed by the government. Yes, it is true that there are a large number of acts and regulations that will disappear. It is not a bad thing to do; it just makes very little real difference to people's lives and certainly not the difference that is being claimed. There is one area where people will see a real difference, but not an improvement. The abolition of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission is part of a separate bill but related to this piece of work by the government. This is a body that regulates the charities sector—and it is comprehensively supported by the sector—reduces red tape and protects the public from fraudulent or scamming behaviour from the small minority of people who abuse the role of charities in our community. As Tim Costello said last week: The Commission is actually working for us and gives the public confidence, it underpins the consumer benefit to charities. David Crosbie, the Chief Executive Officer of the Community Council for Australia, said: The ACNC is more efficient than the government regulators it replaced, is doing good work and deserves a chance to achieve its three goals of reducing red tape, increasing public trust and strengthening the charities sector. We will be debating this separately, so I am not going to dwell on the charities commission abolition. I have long had a very close personal interest in the establishment and the running of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. It is doing exactly what I designed it to do, which is reduce the regulatory burden on charities but increase public confidence. As part of this effort to ostensibly reduce red tape it seems ironic in the extreme that one of the measures in this package will, in fact, increase the regulatory burden on charities and take them back to the bad old days where they were being regulated essentially by the ATO, which does not have an interest in streamlining and making their lives easier. Indeed, the support of the sector for the ACNC shows that. The other very important thing that the ACNC has managed to do is give the public more confidence to donate. Every time people hear a story about one bad apple in the not-for-profit and charities sector, unfortunately some people will make an assumption about the whole sector. It is such an unfair assumption, because the charities and not-for-profit sector does such an important job in our Australian community. To think that the fine, upstanding, well-run organisations we see every day might be tarred with the same brush as the minority of organisations, or people who do the wrong thing, would be a terrible disappointment. A terrific benefit of the ACNC is that people who are considering donating money or are requested to donate can very easily check whether a charity is legitimate by carrying out a free check on the ACNC's register—an online database of nearly 60,000 charities. What a terrific service to offer Australians who are generous and want to help their fellow Australians. To the government that might be red tape but it is regulation that helps our charities sector run smoothly and do what they want to do, which is to focus on helping their clients. Of course, it gets worse. As the shadow minister for employment pointed out during the week, the government's red tape stunt will also see some of the lowest paid workers in Australia lose out because of a vital set of guidelines that are being axed. The bulk of this program makes very little difference to real people's lives, but this is an example of where it makes a big difference but not for the better. The Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines, which regulate the minimum pay and conditions for cleaners, will be abolished on 30 June this year. The guidelines apply to cleaners working for Australian government agencies and contractors. According to a story that was published in The Sydney Morning Herald,this change will see between $172 and $225 a week cut from the pockets of full-time contract cleaners of government buildings. The government has tried to hide these changes among 8,000 other regulatory changes announced as part of this agenda. But it shows the government's priorities—and they are wrong priorities. Amongst all this bluster about cutting red tape they are prepared to cut the pay of their own office cleaners. I think it tells you a great deal that on the day that we are debating a cut to the wages of low-paid workers we have this public discussion going on about reintroducing dames and knights. We are cutting the pay of thousands of cleaners and bestowing knighthoods on a select few. It is a classic example of how this government has its priorities all wrong. The government talks about award payments being a safety net and that people have the freedom to bargain above that, yet where you have very low-paid workers who have managed to get themselves a slightly better deal than the bare minimum pay that they can be paid, the government actually undermines that agreement. Unfortunately, this is an agenda for the government that is already in chaos. On Monday, we saw the government announce that it was 'pausing' its planned changes to the Future of Financial Advice reforms. That was going to dismantle important consumer protections in financial advice and open the door to the return of a culture that prioritised product sales—and volume product sales—over providing tailored advice, and where financial planners were under no obligation to act in a client's best interests. In a week that sees the fifth anniversary of the collapse of Storm Financial affecting many thousands of people, these reforms were supposed to be a centrepiece of the red tape repeal agenda. But they did not even make it through the week. This was a reform which the chair of the Financial Planning Association of Australia said would be bad for consumers, and it is easy to see why. The government has paused this so-called reform; it is about time they went back to the drawing board completely. As has been stated, as a party we are committed to a bipartisan approach to minimise, simplify and create cost-effective regulation—our record in government is testament to that. But we should not forget why we have regulation in the first place. Good regulation make our workplaces safer. It means we have clean drinking water, it means our roads are not lawless and it means the environment is protected. Good regulation is actually what helps our society to function—the alternative is the law of the jungle. The government should not confuse the repeal of redundant legislation with the gutting of real protections. 11:55 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I am very pleased to rise to speak on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014 and the other two bills being debated by the House this morning. The omnibus repeal day bill contains a very significant number of measures in the communications portfolio. Indeed, schedule 2 of the bill runs from page 6 to page 50 and all of those measures deal with the communications portfolio. In the brief time available to me today, I want to make three points about the measures in the bill: the first is that the communications sector is subject to a substantial regulatory burden and that reflects a number of factors, including the passage of time since key legislative measures in the sector came into effect—particularly the 1 July 1997 commencement of the Telecommunications Act 1997. The second point I want to make is to highlight a number of the provisions in the bill which will deliver tangible reductions in the regulatory burden applicable to participants in the communications sector. And, thirdly, I want to make the point that over time there will be additional deregulatory measures in the communications portfolio. Firstly, let me turn to the proposition that the communications sector is one in which participants face a heavy regulatory burden. That proposition justifies the belief that it is timely to ask whether the policy objectives which underpin particular regulatory measures in the sector remain valid, because if those policy objectives do not remain valid then, of course, the case for retaining those regulations is a very weak one. I would argue that there are three reasons why communications as a sector is subject to a particularly heavy regulatory burden, and in particular why there is scope for re-examining that regulatory burden at this time and identifying whether there are efficiencies which can be secured. The first proposition is that communications, by its nature, is a sector that is heavily regulated for reasons that I will explain. Secondly, we have seen several successive waves of regulations over the last two to three decades and they have generated some inconsistency and some redundancy. Thirdly, I want to highlight the changes in the underlying technology which are driving changing business structures and which also drive a need for changing regulations. If I first make the point that the communications sector is intrinsically a heavily-regulated sector that tends to suggest that the scope for deregulatory measures is going to be higher in a sector where you are starting with a very high level of regulation. Let's look at some of the reasons why we do start with a high level of regulation in communications. Firstly, the key business assets in this sector tend to be intangibles granted by governments, such as the right to use spectrum, or the right to broadcast a television or a radio signal. It is also an industry where, necessarily, the players often need to work together, and so there is regulation to set the standards under which those interworking arrangements occur. For example, in telecommunications: if the A-party—to use the industry jargon—is on Optus and the B-party is on Telstra, then if the A-party wants to make a call to the B-party there needs to be cooperation. There needs to be interworking between Telstra and Optus and, indeed, all the other participants in the industry; and there is extensive interworking, and much of that is the subject of a regulatory framework. An additional factor underpinning the extensive regulation in the sector is the essential nature of many of the services that are provided in the sector. That tends to mean that there is extensive regulation that deals with the availability of those services, the price at which they are provided and so on. Another factor which has meant this sector is heavily regulated is that many businesses in the communications sector were at one point government owned but have subsequently become privatised. I could point to what used to be Telecom, which is now Telstra, and AUSSAT, which became part of what is now Optus. The second reason why there is good potential for finding deregulatory initiatives in this sector is that over the last two to three decades you have had several successive waves of regulation which, over time, have necessarily and inevitably produced a degree of inconsistency and, in many cases, overregulation. We could look to history. In 1991 we saw legislation which first exposed the then Telecom to competition. In 1997 we saw legislation which opened up the telecommunications sector to full competition. In 1999 we saw legislation which provided for the arrival of digital television and the allocation of new spectrum to the existing operators. We had, of course, between 1996 and 2007, several successive acts authorising the privatisation of Telstra and we had the tsunami of regulation which accompanied the establishment of the National Broadband Network. Overlay that with the fact that, in addition to several waves of regulation, we also have multiple layers at which regulation can occur—be it through legislation; regulations and determination made by the minister of the day; determinations made by the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority; or self-regulatory measures such as the codes that are made by the Communications Alliance, previously known as the Australian Communications Industry Forum, which are then given formal status once approved by ACMA. So you have several layers of regulation, and that combines with the several successive waves over time of regulation. There are ample examples of internal inconsistency, redundancy and scope for efficiency. Another factor which is particularly pervasive in communications is the change in technology and the way that that is driving changes to business structures. That means that regulation increasingly needs to be reviewed to determine whether it continues to be appropriate. We have seen an explosion of mobile communications. The mobile network is the default network over which many Australians make their phone calls—fixed-line is what you use if you cannot get a mobile service. We have seen the internet explode from being a niche hobby-like area of activity for academics and a few technical specialists 20 years ago to now being a mass-market consumer service. We have seen the dominance of internet protocol, so that voice is increasingly now just an application delivered over internet protocol like all kinds of other data applications—no more analogue voice; that has an increasingly reduced presence. Mobiles now deliver data services just as much as they deliver voice services. We have seen the arrival of over-the-top services. For example, whereas under the GSM standard for mobiles the short messaging service—SMS—was an intrinsic part of the standard, now short message services are typically delivered by over-the-top IP applications like iMessage on iPhones or stand-alone applications like Viber. So we have seen enormous technological change and technological convergence so that players in all parts of the sector are competing with each other and competing with new classes of players. When every newspaper has a website which also carries video and is competing against websites from around the world, how valid are detailed regulatory constructs which divide media businesses into different categories of print, radio and television? So, with all these factors in play, it is very timely indeed to ask whether the regulatory constructs of 20 or more years ago remain appropriate or whether there is a need for some change and some removal of unnecessary regulation. That brings me to the second fundamental point I want to make today. There are key measures in the omnibus bill before us today which lighten the regulatory burden in communications and do so in a way which recognises the application of some of the factors I have spoken about. For example, currently there is a requirement that telecommunications providers must give a so-called standard form of agreement to consumers. That is a requirement under the 1997 act, and the policy intent is good—to give consumers information about the services that they require. However, there is a separate requirement, which was introduced fairly recently, under the telecommunications consumer protection code, that providers must give consumers what is called a critical information summary. That is an easy-to-understand short-form summary of the services. That means that the original requirement to provide a standard-form agreement is outdated and unnecessary and can be removed to lighten the regulatory burden without in any way disadvantaging consumers who are still getting this information under the critical information summary arrangements. That is an illustration of several of the points I have highlighted in my remarks—that, with the passage of time and the multiple layers of regulation, there are ample opportunities for inconsistencies, duplication or redundancy between them. Another set of measures in the bill before the House this morning that I want to highlight are the measures which streamline the requirements to lodge telecommunications access agreements with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the ACCC. Today, every time an industry participant—in the jargon: a carrier or a carriage service provider—reaches an agreement with another industry participant, or varies that agreement, there is a requirement to provide to the ACCC within 28 days the full text of that agreement. That is very burdensome. Telstra says it produces over 70,000 pages of these agreements to the ACCC a year. The underlying policy intent—that the ACCC be able to keep an eye on the various deals that are being done in pursuit of the important objective of maintaining and strengthening competition in communications—is not under challenge here. What is being questioned is the particular form of the measure, and what the bill proposes—in fact, what the bill gives effect to—is that there will now be a requirement on industry participants simply to provide a quarterly list of all the contracts they have entered into. So there is no automatic provision of 70,000 pages; a brief list goes to the ACCC and, if it requires further information, it can always ask for the full text of the agreement. It is another good example of regulation which has become overly burdensome, imposing cost and compliance requirements which can be stripped back and streamlined without in any way compromising the underlying objective. Another measure I could speak about is the duplicate requirements which exist under the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999 for Telstra to have in place a universal service obligation standard marketing plan and a policy statement. That provision is redundant. It replicates other requirements which apply to Telstra and it can usefully be removed. There are plenty of other examples in this legislation, in schedule 2 of this bill, of specific measures which will lighten the regulatory burden but without compromising the policy objective or the key consumer or other protections, whatever the objective might be. My final point in the time available to me is that the measures in the bill today are only the first part of what we seek to achieve in the Communications portfolio. I have talked about the fact that Communications is a heavily regulated portfolio. Indeed, during the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, a government which could not be characterised as being run by small-government people—they were big-government people; they loved big government; they loved more regulation—when it came to communications, the pages of new regulations kept flooding out, particularly in relation to the national broadband. So we have had for several years in the communications sector a steady, rapid, daunting and burdensome increase in regulation. This government is determined to turn that around to reduce the regulatory burden on the communications sector and capture the efficiency benefits that can therefore be realised. This is a high priority. The measures in today's omnibus bill from the communications sector are just a first step. I am very pleased to say that we are removing through these measures over 1,000 pages of burdensome regulation in the communications sector. We believe that the measures in this bill, together with other regulatory measures being taken at the same time through delegated legislation, regulation and so on, are expected to save the sector around $35 million a year. So this is an important set of measures to reduce regulatory burden, but there is more to come. As I have highlighted, there is good reason to believe there is significant potential to reduce the regulatory burden in the communications sector. It is a heavily regulated sector. We have had several successive waves of regulation over the past two to three decades and we have seen significant changes in technology. Today's measures are a first step on the agenda of this government to reduce the regulatory burden in the communications sector, improve efficiency and deliver better outcomes to businesses in the sector and the consumers of the services the sector provides. 12:10 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair We will support the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014 and associated legislation. Rarely do you see so much political puffery as we have seen in relation to this particular piece of legislation. Most of my speech will deal with the shadow portfolio areas that I have responsibility for: Indigenous affairs and ageing. I recall in the last six years speaking many, many times on statute law revision bills that were introduced by the former federal Labor government. Most of those speeches were made not here in the House of Representatives chamber but up in what we now call the Federation Chamber. I do not recall many coalition members actually speaking on those bills. We got rid of nearly 16,800 pieces of legislation, legislative instruments and regulations and some of it was minor but necessary. For example, some had problems with hyphens, semicolons and full stops; some were in relation to things like redundant sections, sunset clauses and provisions that needed to be undertaken and got rid of. Some of it was minor. There was a legislative drafting error, for example, referring to a section that did not actually exist. We did a lot of that clean-up stuff when we were in power, but those opposite are making a huge thing of this. You would think there was a bonfire outside the House of Representatives with flames going up and bills being burned or public servants everywhere in front of computers pressing the delete button, because they have made such a big thing of it. Where are the major changes they are talking about? Most of this stuff is pretty meaningful, but it is actually quite minor in many ways. We will support a lot of it. It covers a range of portfolio areas. Some of the stuff, if we were on that side of the chamber, we would simply do as well. I do not recall much dissension in relation to that statute law revision. Some of the most entertaining speeches I have heard—especially by the member for Greenway, who made some incredible speeches in relation to this—were pointing out errors that took place in legislative drafting and redundancies. I think this is important legislation, but the amount of hype that those opposite have created is simply an appalling piece of political point-scoring somewhere else to get away from the fact that what they have made across the portfolio areas is cuts, cuts, cuts. There has been no focus on jobs, which is such an important issue in the life of this country and our economy in the last few years, particularly since those opposite have come into power. I have spoken on this many times, and I will speak on this particular legislation again today. One of the things that really amazes me is simply the fact that, in the legislation that we have before this place, they are getting rid of appropriation acts from back in 2010-11 where the appropriations have actually taken place. I do not quite get why they have made such a huge thing to set aside a whole day for it. We dealt with this kind of work purposefully, meaningfully and with, to the credit of the now government, the support of the opposition when they were on this side of the chamber. In relation to the portfolio areas that I have responsibility for in the opposition, Indigenous affairs and ageing, there are a number of changes. We will agree to the schedules, but I want to point out a couple of things in relation to them. First, for example, part 1, schedule 8 of the omnibus repeal day legislation repeals the Coordinator-General for Remote Indigenous Services Act 2009. This, as I said before, has gone on the altar of cuts already. In MYEFO at the end of last year the government said they achieved savings of $7.1 million over three years by ceasing the funding for the Coordinator-General for Remote Indigenous Services—this from the 'Indigenous' Prime Minister, who really was going to look after Indigenous people across the country. This was part of a national partnership agreement on remote service delivery, improving government services across 29 remote Indigenous locations. It is very important in terms of tackling disadvantage in remote Indigenous communities. So the NPA delivered improved services in communities, early childhood centres and programs, new and upgraded school facilities, new and upgraded health clinics, new and refurbished housing and more local employment and training opportunities. But that is not good enough for those opposite, so we will get rid of this position; we will get rid of the coordination. The former coordinator-general, Mr Brian Gleeson, had worked relentlessly to bring governments, communities and service providers together to effect positive change in these communities. His independent and firsthand experience cannot be denied. He had 149 visits to remote service delivery communities and gathered information through a vast network of stakeholders. He was able to provide an informed and unique view of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs from his perspective. This was an important provision, an important operation. There was positive and strong engagement through six regional operation centres, government business managers and Indigenous engagement officers providing a single point of contact with government—a one-stop shop. Those opposite want to get rid of the Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, a one-stop shop. This also was a one-stop shop. Community governance and local decision making was strengthened through community and local reference groups, and 28 of the 29 communities signed local implementation plans with governments delivering on these commitments. But the government got rid of it just to save $7.1 million. This is consistent with a government that across the area of Indigenous affairs is engaged in cuts systematically. We can expect to see more in the May budget because that is what coalition governments do across the area of Indigenous affairs. We have already seen $13 million cut in Indigenous legal services and $2 million given back to help those people who fight native title claims. We have seen $1 million ripped from Indigenous health programs, a $15 million cut to the representative body National Congress of Australia's First Peoples and at the same time the implementation of a paternalistic approach with the Indigenous advisory group as well. There is no commitment to fund Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander early education centres. The national partnership agreement expires in the middle of this year, but no commitment has been made to continue. In COAG last year they got rid of the idea of a national partnership agreement that was being negotiated by us on Indigenous health. They have made no commitment to the national strategy for Indigenous health plans, a 10-year strategy that the member for Lingiari was involved in drafting, implementing and announcing in the middle of last year. So this is part of the process. They have in part 2 repealed section 17A of the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000, claiming there is duplication. They have stated that the section is no longer required as there are now other reporting arrangements that provide more publicly available information, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education action plan annual reports, the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority National report on schooling reports and the Productivity Commission Overcoming Indigenous disadvantage: key indicators biannual reports. They maintain that those particular aspects and other reports provide the statistical quality information about Indigenous education and wellbeing. We will see whether that is the case. If the information that we need across this space is not released and available publicly then we will know. This government seems to be very focused on the area of truancy, taking about $46.5 million from a remote jobs plan, programs that they say they supported in opposition, and putting it into a truancy army, Senator Scullion's truancy army. It has mixed reports and mixed outcomes, and that is what has come through in Senate estimates. Those opposite claim they support Indigenous affairs and claim they are represented by a Prime Minister for the Indigenous communities of this country, but all we have seen so far across this space is cuts, cuts and cuts. Another area of my shadow portfolio responsibility is aged care. Changes the government have made in this legislation relate to an area we agreed to, and that is certification. What they are doing here is getting rid of the certification that is provided in the Aged Care Act 1997 as to the certification of residential care services, which then flows through in terms of funding from the government. Get this, Deputy Speaker: this is legislation of the Howard coalition government they are getting rid of. The Howard coalition government brought in the building certification introduced in a 1997 reform package to improve the physical standards of aged-care facilities across the country because there was real concern in the sector. At that stage I was a lawyer in private practice but I was on the board of what we then called Queensland Baptist Care. I know that across the sector, and I had many clients in the aged-care sector, there was real concern, and there was real concern in the community too. The Howard government did the right thing at the time, because we had to lift up the standards of the aged-care facilities in this country. This was a bipartisan agreement to do it. The Howard government got this well and truly right. It served our country well, but I do accept that what the Productivity Commission has had to say in relation to this and what the stakeholders have said in relation to this mean that it is appropriate now to do away with the certification additional requirement. It is the case that we have building certification and legal requirements in terms of local government and also in terms of the BCA, the Building Code of Australia, which do duplicate it. But this idea that somehow it is going to save millions and millions of dollars in the aged-care sector is not borne out by the evidence. What the Productivity Commission said in their Caring for older Australians report is that the Australian government will save about $350,000 per year. That money could be used for other purposes, such as supporting the orphans who are going to miss out on the income support bonus. That is $250,000. We could use the $350,000 for that purpose if they wish to. That is an option now. We will support them across both areas if they wish to changes their minds in relation to the income support systems. The aged-care sector does support this. I note the comments in relation to this by Aged & Community Services Australia CEO, Adjunct Professor John Kelly, who said that this is a significant win for the sector. Leading Age Services Australia have welcomed the announcement because it gets rid of some red tape. Recently, I visited HammondCare and caught up with Dr Stephen Judd, Chief Executive Officer of HammondCare since 1995. He is a very eminent Australian with great knowledge in this area—I am reading one of his books at the moment—he is one of the Australian government's Minister's Dementia Advisory Group. He also has made comments in relation to this and supports it. We have consulted with the stakeholders across this sector. We see the benefit; we see their argument. The government seems to put a lot of emphasis on getting rid of certification, and we support them in that. But we released our Living Longer, Living Better package on 20 April 2012; legislation last year through the chamber, supported by those opposite. They said that they would not support the workforce supplements. They spent a lot of time today on this legislation; but there is $1.1 billion which is sitting there in the Treasury coffers. The sector wants to know what will happen to that money. That money was put aside by us, with the sector's agreement and the unions' agreement—ACSA, LASA, COTA, United Voice, the Nurses Federation—they all agree, and all the stakeholders across the whole sector agree, that that money should be used for wages and conditions because nurses, carers, IT workers and administrative workers in this sector are not paid enough. We will lose about one-third of our workers across this sector in the next 10 years. And it is an ageing sector as well. We need that money put aside for that purpose. They are putting a lot of emphasis on getting rid of certification which, according to the Productivity Commission, will save the taxpayer $350,000; but there is $1.1 billion that needs to go back into the sector for the workers in the sector. There are 14,000 workers in the sector in Western Australia now who are going to vote very shortly in a Senate by-election. They want to know what will happen to that money. So I call on the minister to do the right thing—to concentrate on what the sector needs, and to listen to the sector as we have and as we did in government and in opposition. They also have major reforms coming in on 1 July this year, and the sector has hardly been consulted. There has been a lot of concentration on certification; almost no concentration on the reforms that are going to take place. I call on the government to get their priorities straight in aged care. Stop the cuts in aged care and stop the cuts in Indigenous affairs as well. 12:25 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan I rise today to speak on this bonfire of bills, which together repeal red tape on businesses and individuals to the value of more than $700 million per year, every year. I want to take this time to highlight the importance of repealing the more than 9,500 unnecessary or counterproductive regulations and 1,000 redundant acts, which equates to more than 50,000 pages being cleaned out of the statue books. There are many positives in repealing red tape. The financial benefits to individuals and small businesses are certainly substantial; equally as significant is the time and energy that can now be spent on actually delivering front-line services, getting on with the job and productively working, rather than spending aeons climbing mountains of paperwork. Another major benefit of repealing red tape is that quite simply it is good housekeeping to keep the statue books up to date and functional. Legislation incorporates the norms by which society operates, and its availability in an up-to-date, accessible and coherent form is crucial for the orderly and effective functioning of society and in particular for the rule of law. From the perspective of both the nation and its citizens, it is vital that up-to-date versions of legislation relevant to an issue that concerns them are capable of being identified and accessed. If legislation is not readily and immediately accessible, finding it will prove to be a task that is beyond not only lay people but also experienced lawyers. In an ideal world, legislation should be published in a manner that will facilitate its being identified and located by members of the public. Ensuring this outcome should be relatively straightforward. Unfortunately, this is by no means always the case, as I shall try to detail. An initial problem faced by someone searching for the relevant legislation on a particular topic is that it is not necessarily to be found in one act. In many cases, the relevant provisions are scattered among a number of statutes and statutory rules and, quite probably, judicial decisions. In most common-law countries, the practice has been to publish statues and statutory rules in annual columns. Normally, each volume will consist of public general acts arranged in the order of enactment, with any private acts being included separately at the end of the volume which are not updated or revised, although in some common-law countries it has been the practice to issue annual publications containing annotations setting out amendments to earlier statutes. Statues that are repealed, become spent or otherwise lose their force are not excised. Unless there is a mechanism for revising and republishing amended statutes, users of those statutes are faced with considerable difficulty in finding out what legislative provisions are relevant to them. Moreover, having found what may appear to be the provisions that concern them, they cannot rest on their laurels; they still have to check to see whether, and to what extent, those provisions have been affected by subsequent legislation. If legislation is not kept up-to-date, the task of researching it is unnecessarily difficult and demanding, and requires much time, resources and enthusiasm. The problem is alleviated in those jurisdictions where indexes and annotations of statutes are maintained. And, in recent years, the publication in most common-law jurisdictions of electronic versions of statutes and statutory rules also make it easier to access legislation. There are so many advantages to reducing the burden of red tape. I am proud to stand on this side of the chamber where the coalition government has held true to its deregulatory policy agenda, unlike those opposite who imposed more than 21,000 new regulations in the six years they were in government. Members of my constituency constantly approach me with ideas for reducing regulation in their sector, whether it be reducing the duplication of regulation between the three levels of government or simplifying the compliance costs of simply doing business. The Abbott government understands that small government is good government. It cannot go unnoticed that, in just six months in government, the coalition has managed to find more than $700 million of red tape to repeal—well over halfway to our pledge of $1 billion a year. One of the shocking statistics that has become evident is that, according to a survey by Queensland researchers, Australia's scientists spend more than 500 years worth of time each year preparing research funding applications for grants. What a waste of talent and knowledge that could be much better utilised. I look forward to the coalition government increasing efficiency around research grant applications so that scientists can spend more time on crucial research and development, rather than on filling out paperwork. I look forward, as a Queensland representative on the coalition's deregulation committee, to seeing further repeals in red tape—saving businesses and individuals time, money and effort and contributing towards a stronger, more efficient economy and more jobs for Australians. I commend these bills to the House. 12:31 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I welcome the opportunity to speak on these bills, and I welcome the member for Ryan's new-found interest in statute stocktake and other legislation. I say that because, as I look back through the 43rd Parliament and see legislation such as the Statute Stocktake Bill (No. 1) 2011, the Statute Law Revision Bill 2012, the Legislative Instruments Amendment (Sunsetting) Bill 2011 and the Statute Law Revision Bill 2012, I realise she was not here to be seen—not a word. But I am always delighted when members take a new-found interest in what I call the very sound practice of eliminating regulation that has become outdated or unnecessary by amending and/or repealing certain legislation. What groundbreaking words—since the member for Wentworth quoted himself, I will quote myself—on 23 June 2011. Even more importantly, I think, as part of these debates over the 43rd Parliament when we had virtually no-one on the other side participating on the importance of eliminating spent or out-of-date legislation and thousands and thousands of pages were removed from the statute books, there was not a whimper, or barely a whimper. I thought an interesting whimper came from the now trade minister who, in the debate on the Statute Stocktake Bill (No. 1) 2011 on 23 June that year, did make some comments: The government— That is, Labor, when we were in government— is drawing an extremely long bow in its promotion of this bill as part of its commitment to reducing red tape, at least within the government's own administration. It must be Irony Week—because the longest bow being drawn here is by this government claiming that this bill is somehow going to result in the elimination of red tape or result in cost savings of such magnitude that are beyond imagination. So, as I said, I am very happy to welcome new-found interest from members on that side of the House—who all of a sudden think that repealing redundant legislation from the 1960s and 1970s is what everyone in the community has apparently been crying out for. I am very happy to welcome that. Turning to some of the substantive aspects of this legislation, I did think it was a bit rich to get a lecture from the Minister for Communications and his parliamentary secretary. It is funny how, in going through his regulatory principles a bit earlier, the parliamentary secretary never addressed these when he was an adviser to the Howard government during this period. He talked about convergence. The convergence debate in Australia came and went, and Australia did absolutely nothing. He did not mention other important factors that go towards explaining the way in which the communications sector is regulated, such as vertical integration and the importance of regulating to deal with that. He did not mention facilities-based competition in the ladder of investment, the notion that service retail enables new entrants into the market, and from there we can have facilities-based competition, or how we saw the failure of facilities-based competition under the Howard regime in Australia—resulting in no competition in broadband and no accessibility. He never included mention of some of his beauties when he was an adviser to the Howard government. But I will do that for him. His piece de resistance—this is my favourite—was the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999. If you want to talk about regulating just for the sake of having red tape, people often ask me: 'Member for Greenway, in the Telecommunications Act there is an enormous gap between part 8 and part 13, and there are a couple of gaps in between that have not been filled over the years. Why is that?' The answer I give them is: 'Well, you see, in November 1998, when the Howard government was flogging off Telstra and needed to pull the wool over the National Party's eyes so they could allow the sale to go through, the Howard government took a couple of sections from the Telecommunications Act and put them into a new act and gave it a new name.' Such inventiveness should be rewarded, and I am happy to mention that today and to pay tribute to the parliamentary secretary for doing this. It is indeed all a show, and you do not have to take it from me. You can take it from then Minister Minchin, who said, 'The government is bringing together in this bill the consumer and service safeguards so that Australians can readily know what protections are available to them.' That is fine, but all this time they have been going on about how there has been unnecessary regulation. We had a whole act invented just so they could get through the sale of Telstra and assuage the Nationals on this point. But there is another good point here, because we are talking in some aspects about repealing regulation related to the universal service obligations. There are some changes here. There are some savings here. They are not to be sneezed at. And they, of course, bring on the point of USO contestability—contestability and the universal service obligation. Again, these were reforms dreamt up under the Howard government, and what a success they were! Actually, they were one of the biggest flops ever seen. Let us see what the International Telecommunications Union ICT tool kit says about Australia and contestable USO provision: The goal of the Australian Universal Service Obligation Fund was to encourage competition in under-served areas by licensing other operators to become universal service providers … The pilot areas were divided into a total of 213 US— universal service— areas that encompassed 52 local government areas. So a lot of work, a lot of regulation and a lot of legislative instruments went into that. The conclusion was: … in 2005 the Ministry for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts declared that Telstra was the only USP and that there was no competition in the provision of US— that is, universal service. The government overregulated when they were in government before. They got it wrong. They repeal it, and then they want a pat on the back. There is so much more that they could have done here, and I will help them out, because some of the other speakers said there was more fun to come. I will help them out. Datacasting was a fantastic notion dreamt up by former Senator Alston. He declared, basically, that a heap of spectrum could not be used for a commercial interest, so who would like to bid for it? So they had all these auction rules created, all these legislative instruments around it and all these people working on it, and, amazingly, no-one wanted to bid for this spectrum. I was very interested to see what is happening with datacasting today. Why is it still in various pieces of legislation—all the auction rules and all the licensing processes? So I went to the Department of Communications website and looked up datacasting. It says at the bottom: Further information on datacasting can be found on the ACMA's datacasting page So I went to that datacasting page: The page you are looking for could not be found. It is so relevant that the regulator does not even have it updated on its own website. I will go to a couple of other examples. Early last year, in February, I presented a speech to the Australian Broadcasting Summit talking about a lot of the challenges facing regulation. I mentioned the issue of regional radio and made these comments: When the Howard Government amended the cross media ownership laws in 2006 a particular concern was the impact on local content on regional radio. This is a very important point. When I was making these comments, people in the audience were nodding their heads. I continued: As a consequence, they— the Howard government— introduced specific local content and local presence regulatory requirements for those licencees. This resulted in quite onerous regulatory compliance obligations on those licencees. As a lawyer at Gilbert and Tobin, one of my colleagues had the task of spending many hours, even days, on fulfilling this compliance task for one licencee. Thankfully this Government— the Labor government— in 2011 … revised those rules to reduce that burden, including in some cases exemptions. … the point I wish to make is the need for policy makers to understand the full impact of regulations. So it is very clear to see that, while those opposite bemoan the amount of regulation in some areas, they in fact have been the prime culprits, and it is time to reduce those regulatory burdens where Labor in government did the same. I would point out some of the big savings in the communications space in this bill. We are talking a total of about $30.445 million, not to be sneezed at, and $22.14 million of that is actually attributable to bills enacted or at least drafted under Labor. Labor's bills that came to this parliament and that lapsed as a result of the election then came back in virtually the same form. They are actually Labor reforms. They include reforms relating to removing requirements for multiple permits for submarine cables and the prepaid-mobile identity requirements reforms, where paper based requests were done away with. Of course, it took time to do this because you need to consult with law enforcement agencies. These are the kinds of devices that are used for things like drug dealing and other heinous offences. This resulted in Labor savings of $22.14 million. I will have a look at the remainder of the reforms in the communications space here. There is $6.58 million to do with consumer information under the SFOA regime. This was only possible because the Telecommunications Consumer Protections Code was brought about under part 6 of the Telecommunications Act under Labor in government. We let part 6 of the telco act operate effectively. While the minister may talk about getting all the CEOs together, all those blokes in suits, Labor actually got consumer groups as well as the industry into the room to make this happen. So this is only able to come about because we have part 6 of the Telecommunications Act working as it should because Labor facilitated it. I want to end my comments on a couple of points related to what is supposed to be the genesis for this day of cutting red tape. I was very interested. I have had a look at The Australian Government Guide to Regulation, which is on the Cutting Red Tape website. It basically says that everyone needs to read this, 'from the most junior member of the policy team to the departmental secretary'. As I was reading through, I thought: 'This actually sounds very familiar. I think I have read this kind of stuff before.' And, sure enough, as I go through existing best practice guides about regulation, I find those of the Australian National Audit Office, which sets in place its principles for regulation, including its best practice checklists, including a best practice checklist on resourcing issues, which goes directly to issues of cost. Then I go to the Legislative Instruments Handbook, for which there is an exposure draft that was put out in January 2014. It includes requirements such as, in chapter 4, the requirement for rule makers to 'assess the regulatory impact of a proposal under the Best Practice Regulation Handbook'2013. I wanted to see what this Best Practice Regulation Handbook 2013 said, so I went to the Office of Best Practice Regulation website to find this 2013 document. When you click on it, it now just goes to the Cutting Red Tape website. There is not even a mention of the Best Practice Regulation Handbook, when you go to this site, to say it has been replaced. This is all simply redoing a number of documents that already existed to guide best practice regulation. I know a bit about best-practice regulation, because, in my former life, I was responsible for formulating best-practice regulation not only for government departments and agencies in Australia but also overseas and for regulators themselves. So I can tell when something is simply being held up as a new document. These are simply best-regulation principles. For the parliamentary secretary, and anyone else, to claim that this is somehow a new and inventive model that they have developed is absolutely wrong. I encourage everyone to go and try to find the 2013 edition of the Best Practice Regulation Handbook, because I think you will find that those provisions have been duplicated in this document that they claim is something new, when in fact it is not. 12:46 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I am pleased to rise to speak on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014 and related bills. Today is the very first repeal day of the new coalition government, and there will be many more to come after it. This repeal day was something that we committed to before the last election. We are showing that we are a government of 'what we say is what we do', unlike the government of the previous six years. This government will remove $1 billion worth of red tape, each and every year. I take this opportunity to congratulate the parliamentary secretary and the Prime Minister for the cracking start they have made on this important commitment. Life often imitates art; sometimes art imitates life. Since we have our repeal day here in the federal parliament, it is very fitting that next week is the release of the Lego Movie, which has so much innovation and creativity. That movie was done here in Australia. That movie could very well have a subtitle. That movie could be about repeal day itself. The theme in that movie is very similar to the theme that we face in Australia today. The Lego Movie starts off set in Bricksburg, whose residents mindlessly follow government regulations, instructions and orders, over and over. In the movie there is a big billboard that says, 'Conform: It's the norm'. One of the quotes I always remember from that movie was from the hero of the movie, Emmet, who says, 'How do I know what to do if there is no instruction manual?' That is the point of the repeal day. The theme of the movie is that the ruler of Bricksburg tries to 'Kragilise' its residents—that is, spray them with a superglue that sticks them in their place so that there is no creativity and there is no innovation. The good guys in the movie are called the Master Builders—they are the free thinkers—and they engage in a fight against the evil government's robots, coincidentally, called the micromanagers. We saw this movie a few weeks ago in Parliament House. In the final scene, where the micromanagers are fighting against the free thinkers, the micromanagers fire red tape and try and control the free thinkers. I am sure when I was sitting there—there were staffers and parliamentarians—that I could hear some members of the opposition cheering for those micromanagers. Why do we need this repeal bill? Firstly, we need to have a look our productivity, at the unmitigated mess that the previous Labor government left and that we have inherited. In the five years from mid-2007, Australia's multifactor productivity declined nearly three per cent. In 2012, the Economist Intelligence Unit ranked the productivity growth of 51 countries. Where did Australia come among those 51 countries? We came second-last. The only one of those 51 countries that we beat for productivity growth was Botswana. In 2013, we were a lowly 21st in the World Economic Forum Global Competitive Index. We had slipped six places in four years. Under the previous Labor government, business—and especially small business—drowned in regulation. I know there are some on the other side who believe in concentrations of power and control of government, that they know best and that they can create regulations that can make the economy work better—but our history has shown this has failed time after time. We have the real, live experiments. We have the examples of Taiwan and Hong Kong versus communist China. We have examples of East Germany versus West Germany. We have the examples of North Korea versus South Korea. Why did those western countries succeed while the others did not? It was simply because they had less government regulation. Those economies were not strangled by red tape. The economies that failed did not have the levels of innovation, they did not have the levels of creativity, they did not have those risks-for-reward factors. That is why those economies stagnated. That is the danger that we are slipping into. We have seen it in the past six years of the previous government, with our productivity going backwards, our innovation going backwards, our small businesses going backwards. That is why this bill is important. It is the first start in winding back that regulation to let our entrepreneurs have a free hand to grow the economy and to create freedom so that we can all live prosperously. 12:51 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta I thank the member for Hughes for his contribution. It is wonderful to hear how countries that have very little regulation flourish while those that are regulated do not. I travelled recently to a Pacific island which I will not name. Because I am a bit of a cyclist I took some things that most people would not take—a pair of pedals, a pedal spanner and cycling shoes, as well as my helmet, so that I could hire a bike and still clip in. Imagine my horror when I got there and I realised that not only were the screws that hold the pedals on the bikes not uniform on this Pacific island, where of course they would be in most of world, but their threads were not uniform either. You could buy a bolt and a nut and they would not fit. This is a country with so little regulation that you could not even use last year's nut out of your toolbox with this year's bolt. To assume that all regulation is bad and all regulation ties us up and makes life unpleasant is quite ridiculous. In Australia, we live in a society where our balconies do not fall down, when you put the brakes on the car stops in a straight line, toys for sale do not have lead in them and their parts do not fall off creating a choking risk for a child, and you can get on a roller-coaster without fearing that it will fall down. We have a level of convenience and trust in what we buy that comes from regulation. Regulation can do really good things. I would appreciate it if the government did not attempt, in this debate, to demonise all regulation. You need to be able to pick the good from the bad, but we are not hearing that from the other side. Red tape repeal day is supposed to be about red tape, which is the paperwork that you need to fill in to prove that you did something or to get permission to do something. Having been a small business owner, I know that it is annoying. Sometimes it is valuable as you can use what you put into the form for your business purposes; at other times it is just annoying and you wonder why it is necessary. With the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014 and related bills we are talking about all spin and no substance. I have been looking forward to this day, to see what the government would come up with that would result in the great unshackling of small businesses who are drowning under red tape. What would they take out for small business on this repeal day? Having read all the bills and all the explanatory memoranda, which took me some time because there were a lot of pages produced, the answer is that very little has been taken out. The small things that have been taken out are the kinds of housekeeping matters that would normally have passed through this House uncontroversially, in the Federation Chamber, on any day of any parliament that has sat in living memory. I often talk about the amount of spin that is in politics and I liken it to sugar. Governments of all persuasions like to put a bit of sugar on their policies, to make them look a bit shiny when they are presented. That is part of the job. It is like putting the cinnamon sugar on a doughnut. But there is supposed to be a doughnut. Under all that sugar there is supposed to be a doughnut. Before someone says that there are holes in doughnuts I will say they are right, because even if you get a policy right there will always be someone who is unsatisfied with something. Someone will always find a hole in it. However, there is supposed to actually be a doughnut under all the sugar. This legislation is just sugar. When you peel away the rhetoric we have heard from the government since the election, the bills are just sugar. We have heard Prime Minister Tony Abbott in the lead-up to this debate, in the media reports and in his own speech, saying the childcare centres were subject to so many pages of law restricting their capacity to operate. The impression was given, and the reasonable expectation was created, that in these pages of repeals there would be something on child care. There is not. Despite all the hype, all the spin, all the promises and all the raising of expectations, these bills effectively repeal legislation that was automatically going to be repealed anyway. When we were in government we repealed 16,000 bills, but we also found ways to automatically repeal bills which became redundant so that we did not have to pull a stunt like repeal day. It happened automatically. In order to get the numbers up in the childcare area, the government has gone through and found bills that were scheduled to automatically repeal under their sunset provisions and brought their repeal dates forward, so that they could count them. There were public servants working that out at a time when the government was saying we had budget emergency. In September, when the government stated that there was work to do and they were going to hit the ground running, they had departmental staff going through legislation, finding provisions that were scheduled to be repealed automatically, and adding them to a list so they could count them. It is truly extraordinary and it must be extremely disappointing for those in the childcare sector who may have thought there might have been some real work done, rather than the rhetoric and spin. We heard about local cafes that serve alcohol and have to negotiate 75 sets of local, state and national regulations. It is well worth dealing with that, but it is hard to repeal that type of legislation as you have to negotiate with the states and do some work. Is there anything in all of these thousands of pages that actually delivers on the government's promises? No. Mr Hutchinson 212585 It is just the first tranche. Ms OWENS E09 I hear from the other side that it is coming, they are making a commitment. They do that. The Cutting Red Tape website is truly amazing. They are aiming to cut $1 billion of red tape for business each year. That is a great aim. However, our COAG reforms alone cut $4 billion every year for business. But $1 billion is a nice target. On the government's Cutting Red Tape website they have a wonderful graph which shows them approaching that $1 billion. It is not a graph of what they have actually done; it is a graph of their announcements. They have announced that if they do something at some point, and clearly not today, then these achievements will be reached. They are graphing their announcements, not their deliveries. It is all spin and no substance. We know that there is no substance to these bills, because there are no regulatory impact statements. This is a government that, in opposition in the lead-up to the election, made an enormous song and dance about how everything would have a regulatory impact statement because it was really important to look at the reduction of red tape impacting on small business. True, it is important. In fact, we used regulatory impact statements when we were in government and we were 97 per cent compliant, according to the Office of Best Practice Regulation. The current government already has some default notices for regulatory impact statements which they have not produced, even though, in January this year, they strengthened the requirement by stating that every proposal that went to cabinet for consideration would have to have a regulatory impact statement. These bills, which are the centrepiece of this great repeal day—which was their great announcement—do not even warrant regulatory impact statements. In fact, their explanatory memoranda say they are not required. It is clear why they are not required—because these bills do not actually repeal anything causing red tape burden. They repeal things that actually do nothing. In the last few months, the Treasurer, Joe Hockey, has been saying that every time he opened a cupboard he found a spider. Now we know why: it is because he has been running around in the archives opening cupboards that have not been opened since 1905. That is what he has been spending his time doing. It is truly astonishing! No wonder he is finding spiders if he and the department is actually spending time on this. This is the sort of stuff that you do when you have nothing else to do. Cleaning out your inbox, going back over your files and throwing out the files that are 50 years old or 75 years old, is something you do when you are trying to be busy, you have nothing else to do and you want to make yourself feel good by ticking off a few numbers. There is nothing in this. The Prime Minister said that 9,000 regulations and 1,000 acts will be repealed, but in order to reach 1,000 acts he had to go back to acts which repealed acts before 1969. There are over 1,000 acts being repealed in these bills, which repealed bills between 1901 and 1969. How astonishing! Of course, it is great that it is happening, but you want to put out a press release about this? This is the normal business of government. This is the usual business of government. We repealed 16,000 when we were in government—unlike the Howard years, by the way. The net increase in regulation under the Howard years was higher than it was under Labor. We added 21,000; we repealed 16,000. The Howard years saw a net increase in regulation that was higher by far than it was the Labor years. To walk in here and somehow try to take credit for this great repeal day, which actually only repeals bills that have not done anything for a very long time, is quite problematic. Mr Nikolic 137174 Why didn’t you do it when you were in government? Ms OWENS E09 The member asks why we did not do it when we were in government. Because we were actually governing. We were getting on with the job of governing. We still found time to do this stuff— Mr Nikolic 137174 Mr Deputy Speaker, under standing order 66A, I was asked a question. I seek to intervene under the same standing order. Mr Snowdon IJ4 No, she didn't ask you a question. The DEPUTY SPEAKER MT4 Member for Parramatta? Ms OWENS E09 I am not accepting the intervention. There are also some wonderful things in these bills which caused me to chuckle! Bearing in mind that we are seven weeks out from the budget, I wonder whether this is the best use of departmental staff time. I suspect that there are probably a few advisers that were shaking their heads and getting quite worried about the fact that there is real work to do. There are 11 different pieces of legislation that from now on will contain the word 'email' without a hyphen. Who in the department took time out from the important work of preparing the budget and preparing things for expenditure review to do that? Who in the department took time out from dealing with the budget emergency and from the extraordinary things this government had to do because things were so terrible, to do that? Mr Snowdon IJ4 And 'facsimile' to 'fax'! Ms OWENS E09 Hang on, yes: where 'facsimile transmission' appeared in 16 pieces of legislation, the legislation now says 'fax'. Small business all around the country is delighting in the fact that now, stylistically, they can type less. They can just put 'fax' now. They will not have to type two words; they can just type one. A member of staff—someone who works in the department—and then drafters actually took time— Mr Hutchinson 212585 One in; one out. Ms OWENS E09 One in; one out. So that is it? So you change 'facsimile' to 'fax' and that is one out? Goodness me, that is just astonishing! In part 4, paragraphs 92 to 99 amend six pieces of legislation to add a space in the middle of the word 'trademark' so that it reads 'trade mark'. Again, that is of incredible benefit to small business—not! All spin and no substance. Never mind red tape, what about waste of time? There are 10 instances that a staff member managed to find where the legislative assembly of the Northern Territory was referred to as 'for the Northern Territory', and they changed it to 'of the Northern Territory', and then someone had to draft it so that it could go into this Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 1) 2014. The amount of time that has been spent on this when there is, I assume, real work to do is quite astonishing. It is not surprising that those opposite are only speaking for five minutes, because there is not any more than that to talk about in this debate. If they thought that there was something to speak about in this debate, the other way to reduce their speaking time was to have a small number of speakers speaking fully and fulsomely on the wonderful changes that they have made in these repeal bills—1,000 bills that repeal bills which were obsolete in 1969. You had a target of 1,000 and that is how you have met it. There is not a single small business, a single person at home, a single school or preschool pupil, a single university student, a single pensioner or a single person living in an aged-care facility that will benefit at all from the repeal of 1,000 bills that repeal bills between 1902 and 1969. The hide of the government, to actually get up and brag about this, is amazing. They actually bragged about using the time of departments and the time of drafters to draft something that, quite frankly, you would only do when you did not have anything else to do. This hype about this repeal day, this hype about this removal of red tape today, is proving to be nothing more than a farce. One of the previous speakers spoke about the horrors of duplication. They have actually found a horror of duplication in this: they found that in one of the bills there were two commas in a row, so they took one out. I have to be fair here; there is another area where they have reduced duplication— Mr Frydenberg FKL What about aged care? What about telecommunications? Ms Owens E09 I was just going to aged care. They have actually removed the duplication where aged-care businesses had to register building approvals with both the Commonwealth and the states. The interesting thing about this is that 60 per cent of aged-care providers are from the not-for-profit sector. The ACNC, the charities commission which those opposite are abolishing, was tasked with removing duplication in aged-care regulations. However, it was tasked with fixing the hard-to-remove duplication—not the simple stuff that you can do in a paragraph, but the stuff that requires negotiation with the states, and you are removing it. You have managed to do one easy bit, but you are removing the body which would have worked on repealing the hard stuff. So you are actually making it harder to repeal red tape, not easier. This is all spin, all sugar and no doughnut. 13:07 Mr HUTCHINSON 212585 Lyons I rise to speak on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014 and related bills. I will give full marks to the member for Parramatta. We have had our differences in the past, but the detail and the work that she has gone to is a great reflection on and an insight into what small business goes through every day of their lives. She has gone through that in so much detail to highlight exactly the whole point of repeal day today. Ms Owens E09 Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene. The DEPUTY SPEAKER MT4 Will the member for Lyons accept? Mr HUTCHINSON 212585 No, we have got to get through a lot. If I could take you back to 2007, those opposite were going to be the one-in one-out administration. Twenty-one thousand new regulations later, that was a broken promise. It was not the most notable of the broken promises of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, but it was nevertheless a broken promise. They adhere to a thinking that Ronald Reagan put best: 'If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidise it.' This approach was clearly rejected by the Australian people in September last year. The first ever federal government repeal day will greatly benefit the smoother flow of business in my home state of Tasmania and my electorate of Lyons. Bad and redundant legislation will get government out of the lives of families and reduce the cost of living. What is it about those opposite? Both Labor and the Greens demand to have more and more control over people's lives. What sort of ideology rejects the notion of personal responsibility and seeks to stifle innovation and enterprise? The Australian Greens party, the member for Melbourne's party, was born in my home state. As I have said before, it was born of honourable and noble intent, but to listen to the member for Melbourne today advocating an ideology of control, of having a hand in every corner of people's lives, of controlling the conversation, in the belief that we know what is best for you and family—that government knows best—was truly something to behold. The Liberal Party believes that government does not know best and that families and individuals make the best choices. We believe in personal responsibility. The more that government gets out of people's lives, the better. Regulations and boundaries are important, but not regulations that stifle entrepreneurship, that make Australia less competitive and are a burden on our nation and businesses and a cost to family budgets. This first repeal day is a worthwhile and overdue commitment to get rid of redundant and inefficient legislation. Ten thousand unnecessary and counterproductive pieces of legislation and 50,000 pages of unnecessary and costly legislation and regulations will go, removing a burden of compliance on business, community groups and households of $700 million this year, next year and every year. Cliff Partridge runs aged-care facilities across my electorate of Lyons in Tasmania at Deloraine, at the May Shaw facility at Swansea on the east coast and South Eastern Community Care in Sorell. He will tell you how much easier life will become for his business with the government's streamlining of the pricing process for residential aged care. There has been a simplification of the proposed accommodation pricing process, and the government has increased the threshold for accommodation prices requiring approval to $550,000 from $455,000. Mr Nikolic 137174 That's real change. Mr HUTCHINSON 212585 This is real change. This will lead to annual savings of three-quarters of a million dollars in compliance costs for aged-care providers. Cliff says that the previous regulation on accommodation pricing created a huge workload for aged-care facilities. He said that it was more demanding than being in the hotel industry, where operators had to justify why they were charging every particular room rate. Building assessment procedures remain an ongoing issue of concern for aged-care operators. It is an overregulated system that demands reassessment of an entire facility every time a minor alteration is made to the premises. Charities will benefit. Even today, Jan Davis, the CEO of the Tasmanian Farmers & Graziers Association, welcomed the repeal bill. She has highlighted the disproportionate burden of regulations that primary producers face every day. To give a practical example of how they will be better off, importers of agricultural chemicals—and last time I looked they are used by primary producers—and of veterinary medicines such as pet worm tablets, and of household weedkiller and agricultural fertilisers will no longer need to re-register established products that have not changed. This is a practical way of reducing costs to farmers and farm businesses. Any rational and sensible person that has had anything to do with business or has been part of a family would agree that getting rid of unwanted and redundant legislation is a good deal. Repeal day is symbolic of the difference between ideologies. On one side are political parties who want to control us and tell us how to think and act and who want to regulate every nook and cranny of every family's life. The alternative is a party that offers a pathway to personal responsibility and is trying to move closer with this bill today. We are doing what we said we would do. We are well on the way to reducing the red-tape burden on small business by $1 billion annually, as we committed to during the election. I commend the parliamentary secretary for his diligence and work in putting together this bill today. I commend this repeal bill to the House. 13:13 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield I rise to speak on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014 and related bills. I had no idea I was speaking on a bill of such importance. You can tell its importance from the quality of the debate and the way that the galleries are packed full of people desperate to see the repeal of legislation! The parliament is packed! And we have heard these great philosophical statements by those opposite. I got to hear a great history lesson about North and South Korea and East Germany and West Germany, and I got to hear St Ronald Reagan's great voice being invoked in this parliament—what a wonder! And it is all for the member for Kooyong's wonderful repeal day. I am so hopeful! I must admit I sometimes rail about the complexities of the modern world. I am as concerned and as aggravated as anybody else when I have to fill in a bit of paperwork or when I take the dog for a walk in the morning and some council makes me pick up the dog's business in a plastic bag. What an imposition on my liberty—another bit of red tape getting in the way of me as an individual making my own decisions! What an imposition! We see this everywhere. And you can understand small business getting their hopes up, because we all know they have to deal with the Australian Taxation Office, WorkCover, ASIC, consumer protection and the environment. We know there is a section of business out there that is positively nostalgic for the good old days before regulation, before we had these problems and regulations. And the economy just grew—it just grew year on year on year. Without regulation, there was never even the slightest hiccup with the economy—1929 aside, not the slightest hiccup in the modern economy. So we can understand this nostalgia, and we can understand the grandiose application of rhetoric by those opposite—in particular, the member for Kooyong, who, extraordinarily on a repeal day, launches both a website and a handbook so that people can find their way through the regulations. But there is just one problem: it does not actually happen. Despite its title, despite the grandiose rhetoric, despite the website and the handbook and all the appealing to the Reaganite philosophy, it does not actually happen. It is a collection of grammatical corrections like the abolition of mules or donkeys in the military or changing a word from 'facsimile' to 'fax'—great, great regulatory reforms. We all know that from time to time you do have to repeal some regulations that are no longer relevant. Labor got rid of about 16,000 odds and sods of regulations that did not mean much to anybody. But we did not accompany it with some sort of huge rhetorical flourish. We did not name a national day, we did not invoke North Korea, we did not talk about free thinkers and micromanagers and knights and dames, and we did not encourage bigotry masquerading as free speech. While we should be about creating jobs in places like the northern suburbs of Adelaide, this government has just sort of disappeared into its own rhetorical world where repeal day somehow means something to people. I think simply having a repeal day is not quite enough. The parliamentary secretary, the member for Kooyong, should declare it a public holiday! We should have a public holiday on this day, and then we could have a big parade; we could call it the 'repeal day parade'! Ms Rishworth HWA We could call it Frydenberg Day! Mr CHAMPION HW9 Well, we would not want to name it after him, even though he is destined for greatness—we know he is the colt from Kooyong. But the repeal day parade could be led by a knight of the realm riding a big horse with a jousting stick, followed by the full range of the bunyip aristocracy, all tramping along—all these people who fancy themselves as born to rule. And we could have those espousing free speech—those brave journalists—behind them, espousing free speech and insulting the crowds randomly for whatever they really want to insult them for, with free speech reigning. Then we could have the people who want to poison the planet with carbon and to spray chemicals about with careless abandon. Behind them would be those who want to get rid of the penalty rates of workers and to underpay their workers. And behind them would be the people who want to sell tobacco to kids, and behind them the people who want to sell grog to problem gamblers— Mr Nikolic 137174 Mr Deputy Speaker, a point of order: relevance, under standing order 104. I shudder to think what this has to do with the bill under consideration today, and I would ask you to bring him back to the bill before the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER MT4 I thank the member for Bass for his help. Whilst this has been a robust debate entered into on both sides, I think the member for Wakefield may have been straying, but he has responded only to that which he has been offered. Mr CHAMPION HW9 I am just talking about the repeal day parade—it is going to be a great parade. I am even going to get into it. I am going to follow up the parade that the member for Kooyong is going to have. I will be driving my 1967 Cadillac El Dorado—hot pink, whale skin hubcaps, nice all-cow leather interior, getting about one mile to the gallon. I will cruise down there eating McDonalds out of those old styrofoam containers, railing against the modern world, chucking them out of the window—littering. That is what the repeal day parade should look like. It will be a great day, and it is all going to be because of the member for Kooyong and this great bill! We should all give thanks. And I know that small businessmen in places like Elizabeth and Gawler and those country towns like Kapunda and Balaklava will be holding their own parades today, knowing that the heavy hand of government has been lifted from them by this wonderful bill and this tremendous parliamentary secretary. 13:21 Mr NIKOLIC 137174 Bass As Tasmania's representative on the coalition's deregulation committee, which is capably led by the member for Kooyong, I have great pleasure in speaking on this legislation. It is legislation that repeals more than 10,000 unnecessary and counterproductive pieces of legislation that constitute a dead weight on Australian businesses, families and community groups. The savings in this first tranche of red and green tape reductions exceed $700 million, and we are committed to saving a billion dollars every year—and year on year, that is an enormous figure. When you consider that a billion dollars will build you a brand new teaching hospital in Australia, or that it costs $150 million to build a school, saving a billion dollars year on year is something that all Australians should welcome. I am struggling to understand why those opposite do not. These repeal days will become a regular feature of this government's program, and it must continue to be in the future. The Productivity Commission has shown us what is possible by identifying $12 billion of potential savings in red and green tape reductions. It will be a feature of this government's legislative agenda to mine as many of those savings as we can. We are also determined to embed the cultural changes necessary to make red and green tape reductions the new normal. Ministers have to meet targets in this area, which are considered one measure of their success. Public servants must give due regard to the regulatory impact of policy proposals and draft legislation. As a former senior public servant I can say that when you put that cabinet submission up, and you give due considerations to what savings can be accrued, then good evidence-based decision making results. We are absolutely committed to turning the tide on regulation, which those opposite never did. Former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd promised a one-off policy that came to nothing. In fact, contrary to what he promised, there were 21,000 new or amended regulations under Labor. That was not only an abrogation of Labor's promise to the Australian people, because former Prime Minister Rudd promised that policy to them, but it was also an abrogation of their responsibility as a government. As a consequence we have plummeted down the international rankings, and we have heard many speakers on this debate who have told us how far we have dropped—from 68th in the world, about the middle of the pack, to 128th. What that means is that regulation is clogging up the business landscape, enmeshing those who seek to invest. I know that people often talk about business power. The greatest power of business is its power to invest or disinvest. Every time we remove a regulatory obstacle to that investment we are helping our economy and helping our nation's future prosperity. Our efforts in this regard have met with approval. I have been watching those opposite throughout the day, and I have heard their comments that these are empty actions. Perhaps they should explain those actions to some of the people in my home state of Tasmania. I have spent much time in recent months talking to them—the businesses, the peak bodies, and the community organisations—about this issue. The examples they have provided to me about excessive or redundant green and red tape have been fed into our committee process, and ably incorporated by the member for Kooyong, wherever appropriate. As The Examiner newspaper reported on 19 March: The immediate, direct benefit from removal of regulatory obstacles will be considerable, in the region of $10 million for Tasmania. I believe that as we strip away ever more obstacles from the system, the longer term benefit will be much higher in terms of new investment. Put simply, fewer forms and more reforms means less costs and more jobs. It is a very simple proposition and I for one an staggered that during six years of Labor government they could not understand that simple proposition. Earlier today the member for Blaxland dismissed the measures in this bill as 'a clean-up exercise'. He should reflect on what businesses, industry representatives and not-for-profit organisations in my electorate of Bass are telling me. Their view is diametrically opposed to the member for Blaxland. The Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry put out a media release yesterday that welcomed the red tape repeal bill. In that media release they called it: …a breath of fresh air for businesses big and small So, far and away from the sort of commentary we have been hearing from those opposite, the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry thinks it is a great thing for business in Northern Tasmania. In his contribution to this debate we heard the member for Lyons talk about the head of the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association, who in a newsletter this morning also welcomed this repeal bill. I thank the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry for referring to my, 'inclusive approach' in engaging northern Tasmanian businesses to identify red and green tape issues that were causing them problems. Unlike the member for Blaxland and those opposite, we believe in smaller government. Over the last six years Labor pointed to the number of new regulations they had brought in as somehow being a measure of success. Let me say to the member for Blaxland, and his Labor and Greens mates, that this is not a quantitative but a qualitative matter. It is not the amount of regulation you bring in that is a measure of your success in government; it is the quality of it. Australia's judgment of Labor's efforts in this regard, on 7 September last year, was damning. We will act to remove duplication and unnecessary red and green tape. These are actions that are welcomed in Northern Tasmania, throughout the rest of Tasmania, and throughout the rest of this country, and I commend the bill to the House. 13:27 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Throsby The opposition looked forward to this debate with great anticipation. When in government we repealed over 16,000 acts and regulations. We thought this was the business of government each and every day and not just something you consign to one particular day of the year, preceded my mountains of press releases and lots of hyperbole. Mr Nikolic 137174 Why didn't you do it? Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B I hear the member for Bass. He sat down short when he had time to speak on this matter. He did not use all of the time allocated to him, so the dignified thing for him to do would be to be quiet now that someone else is at the dispatch box. We had great expectations when we were told that repeal day was coming up—19 March was going to be one of the most anticipated days in the parliamentary calendar. They banged on about it for weeks. They were going to be stripping billions of dollars of regulatory burdens from small businesses. It was going to remove the weight of legislation holding the country back. Understandably, we came to this debate in parliament, on 19 March, with great expectations. They were promising fireworks. An honourable member: A bonfire. Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B A bonfire. Ms Rishworth interjecting— Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B You can imagine our disappointment when they promised us fireworks, but, when we got here on 19 March, instead of fireworks we were all handed a few sparklers. There was nothing in the legislation. It was a great fizzer. Ms MacTiernan interjecting— Mr Frydenberg FKL Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not exactly sure what the member for Perth said, but she referred to Hitler in the context of the bonfires. I do not know exactly what she said, so I will give her the opportunity to either explain what she said or withdraw what she said. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 Order! The member for Perth would assist the chamber if she would withdraw the comment. I did not hear it, as the member did not. Ms MacTiernan L6P I was just— The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 No, I just ask you to withdraw to assist the procedure of the House. Ms MacTiernan L6P I withdraw. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 3197 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Human Rights: Sri Lanka 3197 13:30 Ms PARKE HWR Fremantle Today, the UN Human Rights Council will vote on a resolution on Sri Lanka that calls for an independent international inquiry into allegations of wartime violations of human rights and humanitarian law by both sides. This has been necessary because of the failure by the Sri Lankan government to independently or credibly investigate the allegations of war crimes or to implement many of the recommendations of its own Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission. Australia co-sponsored the previous two resolutions on Sri Lanka in the Human Rights Council but, according to human rights organisations, has been 'conspicuously silent' in the present debate, despite other like-minded countries, including the US, UK, EU and Canada, supporting the resolution. There is a stark contrast between the manner in which UK Prime Minister David Cameron has approached engagement with Sri Lanka on human rights issues, including using the occasion of CHOGM to call for accountability and visiting the war ravaged north of Sri Lanka, and our Prime Minister, who went jogging with one of President Rajapaksa's sons, gifted two patrol boats to the Sri Lankan navy and appeared to dismiss allegations of war crimes and torture by saying: … in difficult circumstances difficult things happen. The rule of law is also not being observed in Sri Lanka, as shown by the unconstitutional impeachment of the chief justice in January last year, as well as the continuing intimidation of human rights activists and journalists. I call upon the government to ensure that Australia participates in the debate in the Human Rights Council and co-sponsors the resolution. As an influential voice in the region, we have a responsibility to uphold human rights. Page Electorate: Disability Jobs Drive 3197 13:32 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page About four weeks ago, I joyfully took on the position of ambassador for a disability jobs drive in my community. The aim of this disability jobs drive was to offer 50 jobs in 30 days to people in my community of Page. It was coordinated by the Department of Employment, by Terry Watson and Christine Williams, who were ably helped out by the local chambers of commerce, including the local New South Wales business chamber head John Murray. I will give a preliminary finding of the jobs drive. The goal to get 50 jobs in 30 days for people with disability seems to be a success. At the moment, we have 93 job offers in the community and 27 have already been given placements as of last Friday. We are very confident that by Friday we will have more than 50. When I was approached to be ambassador of this project, I immediately said yes, not simply out of a sense of social justice but also because it is of real value to business and our local community. Businesses cannot afford to miss any opportunity to develop their workforces and increase their competitive advantage. I thank all the local businesses in our community who have offered these jobs. They have seen that people with disabilities are an important part of our community and can be of great value to their businesses, and I thank them for their support. Purple Day 3198 13:33 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham March 26 is the international Purple Day for epilepsy and is dedicated to increasing awareness about epilepsy worldwide. It is a day for us to dispel myths and inform those with seizures that they are not alone. In Australia, one in 25 people has epilepsy, including one of my electorate officers, Luke. Epileptics live in all electorates. They are often hidden from view and they suffer higher rates of depression and anxiety as a result of stigma, control over seizures and lack of employment. The Epilepsy Foundation of Victoria works tirelessly to raise awareness, reduce stigma and provide support for epileptics and their families. The foundation has 200 volunteers across Victoria and is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year. The area surrounding Hotham has strong links to the beginning of the Epilepsy Foundation. From 1907 to 1961, the Talbot Colony for Epileptics was located in Clayton. When it closed it left people with epilepsy to basically fend for themselves. In 1954, Mary Davis, a mother of an epileptic, lobbied politicians and health professionals for better support services. A politician told Mary that because she had her own house and family income, she should go home and look after her son. Refusing to give up, she worked with others to form the Epilepsy Foundation of Victoria. March 26 is a day to show support, remember a loved one, honour a friend or simply talk about epilepsy. I thank the Epilepsy Foundation of Victoria, Epilepsy Action Australia and their many volunteers across the country who reduce stigma every day by raising awareness about epilepsy. Braddon Electorate: McGrath Foundation and Pink Stumps Day 3198 13:35 Mr WHITELEY 207800 Braddon The prefects at St Brendan-Shaw College in Devonport have put their teachers to the test—on the cricket pitch that is. They have battled it out, students against staff, for Pink Stumps Day, raising funds for the McGrath Foundation. The staff and students donned the pink to raise awareness of the fantastic work the McGrath Foundation does in communities right across Australia, including in Tasmania. The foundation's goal is that every family in Australia experiencing breast cancer has access to a breast care nurse, no matter where they live or their financial situation. This year, they have hit their maiden 'ton' and have secured funding for their 100th McGrath breast care nurse. At the St Brendan-Shaw Pink Stumps Day, pairs of players went in to bat for an innings each on the school's oval, facing six balls in a fast-moving match on Friday, 14 March. Although many thought their sporting days had passed, the teachers won the match. They did admit, however, that the students were more agile and, I would say, recovered a little easier. The students dressed in pink, with pink hair and zinc on their faces, donated gold coins and raised $736 for this worthy cause. The priority of the day was to raise awareness among the school community about breast cancer and also to strengthen the St Brendan-Shaw school community. The St Brendan-Shaw cricket event was part of the Jane McGrath's Pink Stumps Day program, which is running from 22 February through to the end of May. This is a fantastic initiative and I encourage other schools and cricket clubs in my electorate to participate. National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness 3199 13:36 Ms MacTIERNAN L6P Perth Recently, the Prime Minister said on radio that he would not let the people of Western Australia down on the issue of homelessness support services. The best way the Prime Minister can show that he will honour this promise is to renew the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness before the Senate election on 5 April. St Bartholomew's House in my electorate is one of 14 service providers that received funding under the NPA on homelessness. This funding ensures that St Bart's is able to provide tailored services to those sleeping rough on the streets of Perth—a service called the Street to Home Program. One hundred and two Western Australians have been helped by this program to find appropriate accommodation. Fifty five per cent of them are in this accommodation 12 months later, and many others are working towards that 12-month target. The failure of the government to commit further funding means that St Bart's is not able to guarantee its employers that they will have a job beyond 30 June. Already, staff are looking elsewhere and some have left the organisation. I beg the Prime Minister to at least give St Bart's and service providers like them just a six-month extension on their contract. This would mean that at least if their services are cut in May there is time to make alternative arrangements. Leaving the organisation, staff and clients hanging on with no certainty for the future is no way to treat those people. (Time expired) Casey Electorate: School Leaders 3199 13:38 Mr TONY SMITH 00APG Casey On Friday morning, 14 March, I had the pleasure of attending the school assembly at The Patch Primary School in the electorate of Casey at the invitation of Principal Debra Herrmann. I was there to present certificates to their school leadership group and to see firsthand the great work that the school is doing. I also had the pleasure of presenting an Australian flag, an Aboriginal flag and a Torres Strait Islander flag to the school. I was pleased to see how seriously they take study of the history of all three flags. I particularly want to mention the flag monitors for the school, who have an important responsibility and are, obviously, doing a great job. They are Tameika Butler, Nyssa Walton, Ebony Huidobro, Alex Morrison, Indigo Sangster, Sophie Lee-Wren, Lily Margerison, Ashley Britton and Yasmin Page. Kingsford Smith Electorate: World's Greatest Shave 3199 13:39 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith I wish to congratulate the staff, students and parents of Chifley Public School for their wonderful fundraising efforts in support of leukaemia patients and leukaemia research through their participation in the World's Greatest Shave. On Thursday, 13 March, I was fortunate to attend Chifley Public School with supporters from the school community to view firsthand the ritual shaving of the heads of eight participants from the school community. Three parents, three teachers—one whose wife had never seen him before without a goatee beard—and two students shaved their heads in honour of leukaemia research. The school's P&C conducted a sausage sizzle and cake stall. Chifley Public School are a small school but with a significant Aboriginal population. They set out with a target of raising $2½ thousand for leukaemia research. They well exceeded that by raising $8½ thousand on behalf of their community. I wish to congratulate and thank Louise Stone, staff and students of the school, in particular Jane Tovey, whose family has been touched by leukaemia. The World's Greatest Shave initiative has so far raised $13½ million for leukaemia research. The goal this year is $20 million, so go online and donate to a worthy cause. Ingram, Mr Bob, Slack, Mr Doug 3200 13:40 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn I would like to say a few short words about the loss of a couple of large identities in the Emerald and Central Highlands region of Queensland—Mr Bob Ingram and Mr Doug Slack, who, sadly, passed away recently. Bob passed away on 14 March, only three months after turning 70. Doug Slack passed away on Thursday, 20 March, aged 74, a few weeks short of his 75th birthday. Central Highlands has lost two great identities. Both were prominent figures in the community and many in the region knew and loved them. Bob loved a good yarn. He contributed greatly to the cotton industry and worked tirelessly for the Emerald Show Society, which was his passion. Doug was a former councillor. A self-made man, he knew how to work hard and achieved so much. He had several businesses, mainly in the construction and gravel business and in the foundry business, in the region. I first met Doug in 1981, when I established my first business. Doug was very helpful and set me straight on running a business. Bob was then in the cotton industry. Both Doug and Bob were wonderful family men. I extend my condolences to Bob's wife, Anne, his five children and their families; and to Doug's wife, Dawn, their children, Kathleen and Andrew, and their partners and families, and all those people in Emerald who will miss those two guys very, very much. Lindsay Electorate: Palmerston Hospital 3200 13:42 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari I rise to express my concern at the decision by the Northern Territory government and the Abbott government here in Canberra to delay the construction of the new hospital for Palmerston, which is near my electorate of Lingiari. This hospital will primarily serve the Darwin rural area that is in my electorate and the second Top End city of Palmerston, which includes the NT electorate of Blain, which goes to a by-election on 12 April. There is a grave disappointment in the community at the announcement by the government that this hospital will not be constructed and will not be finished until 2018—a two-year delay in construction. The initial money was committed by the former, Labor government of $110 million. Had the Labor government been re-elected, we would have had that building commenced this year. Mrs Griggs 220370 Rubbish! Mr SNOWDON IJ4 This delay is a major concern to the community. The member for Solomon interjects. She said on ABC radio a day or so ago that the reason for the delay was the wet season. How ridiculous! Mrs Griggs 220370 I did not! Mr SNOWDON IJ4 The people of the Palmerston rural area are quite right to ask, 'What is happening here?' We know that the people of Blain are asking what is happening to them. They are suffering from the higher cost of living as a result of the CLP government. They want to see this building constructed and hospital services provided to the people of Palmerston and the people of the Darwin regional area. Dobell Electorate: Woongarrah Football Club 3201 13:43 Mrs McNAMARA 241589 Dobell Last Saturday, I attended Football Fest Day hosted by Woongarrah Football Club at their home ground at Hamlyn Terrace. The Woongarrah Wildcats Football Club was formed in 2008 by Kevin and Helen Wilson. They began with a mission to offer members and families a fair, honest and friendly club that everyone would be proud to be a part of.After many long hours of dedicated hard work from the committee, the Woongarrah Football Club has successfully completed six years of football with 640 happy players and families.I was approached by the club earlier this year by dedicated club committee member Karen Drinan to see if I would be interested in supporting their Cadet Referee Program. I must say I had no hesitation in agreeing, and on Saturday I was honoured to present the cadet referees with their jerseys. The Cadet Referee Program is a great initiative to provide support and confidence to young referees. What I witnessed there on Saturday was a great community club with a great community spirit. Community organisations such as the Woongarrah Wildcats are a great example of the outstanding sporting organisations that we have in Dobell. In Dobell we are very proud of our sporting talent and very proud of the many volunteers, like Kevin and Helen Wilson and Karen and Tony Drinan, who give their time every week to provide opportunities for particularly our young people to participate in their chosen sport. I commend the committee of the Woongarrah Wildcats for their achievement in establishing this club and for keeping community spirit alive and well in the Woongarrah and Hamlyn Terrace community. Lumb, Mr Martin 3201 13:45 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra I rise today to pay tribute to someone who has been of great assistance to us all, although we might not have realised it: Parliamentary Library staff member Martin Lumb, who last week retired from the library after more than 30 years of service. Martin began in the Parliamentary Library in 1983 and since 1985 had been the editor of the library's flagship publication, the Parliamentary Handbook of the Commonwealth of Australia. Martin was working on his 11th handbookat the time of his retirement—a remarkable achievement. Under Martin's watch, the handbook evolved from a hard-copy point-of-time publication to an electronically available resource that is revised on an ongoing basis. The handbook remains one of the primary sources of detailed information about the federal parliament today. Writing in The Australian in 2012, former minister Barry Cohen described the handbook as a 'must have' for political tragics and remarked, 'The arrival of a new edition guarantees hours of fascinating reading.' The editor's position requires meticulous attention to detail and an extensive knowledge of parliament, current and former MPs and political and parliamentary facts and figures. For nearly 30 years Martin managed to juggle the constant demands of updating the handbook over the life of each parliament, while answering a large number of client requests and producing other publications. On behalf of all members, I thank Martin Lumb for his outstanding service and wish him all the very best for his retirement. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 I thank the member for Canberra for that and would like to associate myself with her remarks about the wonderful work of Martin Lumb. I met him only recently. He has done some wonderful work. We are all very grateful for the dedication of the people in the library. We wish him well in his retirement. Military Superannuation 3202 13:47 Mrs GRIGGS 220370 Solomon I rise today to welcome the passage of fairer indexation legislation through this chamber last night and to note its significance to members of the Defence Force in my electorate. Through these changes, Defence Force personnel will have their DFRB and DFRDB benefits indexed to changes in the CPI. This move puts an end to a frustrating and unwanted anomaly, but it also sends a very clear message to the broader community, and that is that the coalition's election promises will be kept. I have spoken in support of the need for fairer indexation for our veterans in the past, during the dark, dark days of the Labor government. In March 2012 I signed a formal pledge to this measure on behalf of the people of Solomon. This pledge is in my office and reminds me of the promise that I made to veterans, a promise that this government has kept. This is not just about a fair go for our servicemen; it shows that this government, unlike the last one, will not break its promises when electoral expediency comes knocking at the door. I want to place on record my thanks to our defence personnel and let them know that I fully support them, as does the coalition government. Racial Discrimination Act 1975 3202 13:48 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I rise today to express my concern at the retrograde actions of this government in seeking to repeal section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act and failing to discuss section 18D, which protects free speech, and to express my concern that this government is sending a dreadful message to the people of Australia that bigotry is okay. In this place this week there has been faux horror that the 'bigot' word was used in questions, with scant regard for the fact that the word was used in the other place first, by Senator Brandis—not by those on this side—and that it was used accurately to describe what is at issue with this repeal. This government, for all its talk about zero bullying, has sent this country backwards in our most important debate. All over the country, kids in classrooms are listening, and I am really worried about the message they are receiving from the grown-ups—the grown-up government—about the way they behave toward one another. What they are hearing is that bigotry is okay, that the government said it was. What they are hearing is that it is their right to say racist things to their classmates. McKinnon, Mr Alex 3202 13:50 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter The horrific and tragic injury suffered by NRL player Alex McKinnon reminds us of the dangers of body contact sports. The young Newcastle Knights forward hails from Aberdeen in my electorate and is a local hero and a role model for younger players. The tackle which led to Alex's injury will no doubt spark a debate about rule changes, particularly in relation to the so-called three-man tackle. That is a welcome thing. It is a debate we should have, and I am confident the NRL will act to ensure the game is as safe as it possibly can be without undermining the excitement and the attractiveness of the code. Our thoughts and prayers are with Alex McKinnon and his loved ones. I know all members will join with me in wishing him a full recovery and a long and happy life. Humanise 3203 13:51 Ms SCOTT 165476 Lindsay It is with great pleasure that I rise to inform the House of a fantastic local organisation, Humanise. I would like to acknowledge the presence of my good friends Martin Rogers, Phil Grueff and Berni Jurkovic in the gallery today. Humanise is a fantastic local business networking group. This organisation works to build genuine friendships in our local business community. In the words of Martin Rogers, 'Business is still about shaking hands and saying hello.' The Humanise team have a great sense of giving back to our local community, and they have achieved this through the Humanise the Next Generation program. Western Sydney has one of the highest youth unemployment rates in the country. Long commutes to employment add to the barriers to finding local jobs for our local youth. Humanise the Next Generation offers a day program run in conjunction with local schools and provides essential transition-to-work skills through the business network. It further connects future employees to future employers, master tradesmen to future apprentices, and universities to future students. In the words of Tayla Armstrong, from Nepean Creative and Performing Arts High School: Before I went to the Humanise program I was very nervous about going into the workforce and all the skills I would need to have. Participating in 'Humanise the Next Generation' helped me build my confidence and inspire me to know that someone as ordinary as me can be something extraordinary. I would like to congratulate the boys and welcome them here today. Rogers, Mr Murray 3203 13:52 Mr NEUMANN ( HVO Blair ) ( ): I congratulate one of the great sporting figures of Ipswich, Mr Murray Rogers, who was recently awarded an Order of Australia medal for services to sports administration in the community of Ipswich. Murray is a familiar and a welcoming face at Ipswich Central State School in my electorate of Blair. He has worked at the school for 12 years, where he is a PE teacher and a regular acting vice-principal. He is one of those terrific teachers who can walk through the playground at lunchtime and greet students by name. I have observed him at sporting assemblies and at regular school assemblies in the school that, when Murray speaks with authority on sport, the children listen with respect. It was on the sporting oval, as a student, that Murray developed his skills and talents. He began his teaching career in 1980 and his work seems to provide students with the same opportunities to sport that he had—and he loved sport. Sport builds confidence, resilience and teamwork, and Murray's contribution to administration, to the coaching of junior sport at school, district and state levels has been immense. Think of any sport—athletics, swimming or others—Murray has participated and coached children in those sports. How many kids have hit a ball because Murray has instilled the value of having a go? How many champions have been set in motion after Murray has told them to do their best? How many futures has Murray inspired? He has been a great sporting champion and administrator at Ipswich, and I congratulate him for his service to the community. Launceston Cycling Festival 3204 13:53 Mr NIKOLIC 137174 Bass I rise today to highlight the Launceston Cycling Festival which comprises three major events. The National Junior Track Series unleashes our stars of the future. It started the careers of Macey Stewart, James Robinson and the current world junior track champion, Lauren Perry. Sally's Ride is Tasmania's largest community participation ride, with participants choosing one of five courses through the beautiful Tamar Valley ranging from 25 to 140 kilometres. The Stan Siejka Cycling Classic is a criterium-style event around the Launceston CBD. It includes categories for juniors, veterans, men and women. Last year's race attracted a crowd of more than 5,000, nourished by fine Tasmanian food and drink. Caleb Ewan won the 2013 Cycling Classic and has gone on to become a member of the ORICA GreenEDGE cycling team. The 2013 event was covered by SBS, with Tour de France host Mike Tomalaris stating: I genuinely believe this is one of the best, if not the best, crit in Australia. We look forward to prominent TV coverage for the 2014 Launceston Cycling Festival from 5 to7 December. I invite cycle-lovers from around the country to join me in Sally's Ride on Sunday, 7 December. You may also continue to stay and enjoy criterium racing at its very best and visit all of the delights that Northern Tasmania has to offer. Australian Honours 3204 13:55 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley In the same year that knighthoods were abolished in Australia, the UK band the Thompson Twins had a hit called King for a Day . So I dedicate my 90-second statement to the Prime Minister's announcement to bring back knights and dames and in turn transform this place from 'Club Fed' to 'Club Retro'. Since the heartbeats of those opposite have bolted off the chart at the prospect of popping a peerage, I thought I would come up with some candidates. Firstly, the Treasurer, who gives money to a chocolate factory to promote tourism while refusing to support the national carrier which actually flies the tourists here, is probably in line for a knighthood. The other possible nominee is the person who heads up one of the biggest portfolios in government but is rarely seen—a knighthood for the Minister for Defence perhaps. We might not have our own stealth fighters, but we sure have our own invisible defence minister! Next is the member for Wentworth. As Minister for Communications, the soon to be named 'Earl of Wentworth' has rolled out more gigs to consultants than he has optic fibre. But, if getting him a knighthood prompts monarchists across the country to drop into a foetal position clutching a portrait of the Queen, it will be worth it. You may notice I haven't recommended anyone as a dame. Since the Afghan cabinet has more women in it than Australia's cabinet, you can appreciate the challenge confronting me. However, an honourable mention has to go to the Assistant Minister for Health, who has a website providing information on healthy eating which was pulled down by a former lobbyist for junk food. That has to deserve a mention. The final honour goes to someone who has spectacularly advanced the cause of republicanism in this country: Prime Minister Abbott. I would like to table my speech printed on the back of an Australian Republican Movement nomination form. Leave not granted. Murray Electorate: Albanian Community 3205 13:57 Dr STONE EM6 Murray Last Sunday, I had the pleasure of attending the Shepparton Albanian Harvest Festival at Shepparton showgrounds. This week has also seen us look at some of the most recent research into multicultural resettlement programs. Concern was expressed that some of our new settlers might be a little less satisfied than those in the past. Let me assure you that the Albanian Australians in the Goulburn Valley are celebrating the fact that they retain a lot of their old cultural identity but glory in the fact that they have made Australia their home. They have been there more than 80 years. They built the first mosque in Shepparton—there are now three mosques in Shepparton. They have grown into a community where they are the captains of industry in our area. Many have established some of the most successful orchards, transport and retail businesses. They are role models for our newest arrivals. They have strong family values. They understand the importance of the rule of law, and we are proud to have our Albanian community, as numerous and as well established as they are, in the Goulburn Valley. At the Shepparton Albanian Harvest Festival we welcomed the Albanian Ambassador to Australia and also the candidate for the upcoming Albanian elections, where they are looking for an Australian member of the Albanian diaspora to contest those elections. We also welcomed the former Albanian minister for education. They were all very welcome on a glorious day, with the children enjoying the fine food and activity of the great Australian Albanian community of the Goulburn Valley. Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Special Broadcasting Service 3205 13:58 Ms BURKE 83S Chisholm On the week before the budget, I make a plea to the government to keep their promise not to cut the funding for the ABC or the SBS. These are vital services to my neck of the woods. Many people within my electorate are paid-up members of Friends of the ABC and many people in my electorate, where 47 per cent were born overseas, are duly reliant upon the SBS to bring them their news coverage from home every night and morning of the week. These services are vital to our community. They should not be put at risk, nor should they listen to the recent comments from the Prime Minister when he stated: It dismays Australians when the national broadcaster appears to take everybody's side but our own. The alternative, the Minister for Communications, at least did come out defending the ABC and the recent audit, commissioned by the ABC board, by Mr Stone, a well-known and respected journalist from his days at 60 Minutes, reported in The Australian: 'As an independent observer, I found no grounds for concern' in any measurements of bias or prioritising of particular viewpoints. The ABC should be preserved and the government should— The SPEAKER SE4 I interrupt the honourable member. In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 3206 CONDOLENCES Malaysia: Missing Aircraft 3206 Reference to Federation Chamber 3207 14:08 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt by leave—I move: That the resumption of debate on the Prime Minister's motion of condolence in connection with the loss of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 be referred to the Federation Chamber. Question agreed to. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 3207 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Abbott Government 3207 14:08 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister made two policy choices yesterday. He reintroduced knights and dames to the Australian honours list and his government voted in the House yesterday to cut $211 payments from the children of orphans. Prime Minister, don't these choices reflect the government's cruel and twisted priorities? 14:08 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah It is nice to get a question from the Hon. Bill Shorten, who has on his frontbench the Hon. Mark Dreyfus, Queen's Counsel. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 There will be silence on my left! Mr ABBOTT EZ5 This government's priorities are very clear— Mr Snowden interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Lingiari! Mr ABBOTT EZ5 we want to take the burdens off families that members opposite put on them. Mr Thistlethwaite interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Kingsford Smith! Mr ABBOTT EZ5 We want to get rid of the carbon tax. Last week, Labor voted to keep the carbon tax. Mr Thistlethwaite interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Kingsford Smith is warned! Mr ABBOTT EZ5 We want to get rid of the mining tax. Yesterday, Labor voted to keep the mining tax. We want to get rid of some 10,000 redundant regulations and acts of parliament, and I bet you this, Madam Speaker, Labor will vote to keep them. Mr Champion interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Wakefield! An opposition member interjecting — Mr Burke DYW Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. All day, the parliament has been saying that was bipartisan—all day! The SPEAKER SE4 That is not a point of order, and the member will not abuse the standing orders. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 We want to restore the rule of law in the construction industry, and Labor has voted against that. We want to clean up corruption inside the union movement, and Labor is opposed to that. This is a government which is focussed on doing the right thing by the families of Australia— Mr Burke interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Watson will desist! Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Always will be, and if the Leader of the Opposition is serious about focusing on the priorities of Australian families he will get with the government, scrap the carbon tax, scrap the mining tax and restore the rule of law in our difficult industries. Deregulation 3209 14:11 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde My question is to the Prime Minister. How will cutting red tape— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 Order! There is a wall of noise starting to mount. This is not to be tolerated. The member for Forde has the call. Mr VAN MANEN 188315 My question is to the Prime Minister. How will cutting red tape ease the compliance burden on small business and help create jobs? And how have the government's plans to remove red tape been received by business and community groups? Mr Pyne 9V5 Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister was unable to hear the question because of the pathetic noise coming from the opposition. I would ask that the member for Forde be allowed to ask his question again, and for the opposition to learn to behave like adults. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The Leader of the House has in fact made a perfectly valid point. There will be silence on my left, or some people might leave us. The member for Forde will repeat his question. Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Prime Minister. How will cutting red tape ease the compliance burden on small business and help create jobs? And how have the government's plans to remove red tape been received by business and community groups? 14:12 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I thank the member for Forde for his question, and I can reassure him and members opposite that every day—every day—this government is working to make the lives of Australian families easier. One of the things that most people abhor is the time spent filling out forms, because time spent filling out forms costs money and it prevents people from getting on with their lives. That is why today is red tape 'repeal day'. That is why the government will scrap some 10,000 unnecessary and redundant regulations and acts of parliament. That is why we will take 50,000 pages off the statute books, because we want to make the lives of Australia families, the life of Australian businesses easier. These changes— Mr Clare interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Blaxland with desist! Mr ABBOTT EZ5 These changes will save the businesses and the people of Australia $720 million a year, every year. That is real money thanks to the real reforms of this government. Honourable members interjecting— Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Scrapping the carbon tax will not just save a $9-billion tax hit on the economy, it will not just save every household $550 a year, but scrapping the carbon tax will remove $85 million—$85 million—in red tape costs from the backs of the businesses of Australia. This has been welcomed. This been widely welcomed. I quote Jennifer Westacott of the Business Council of Australia— Mr Watts interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Gellibrand will desist! Mr Danby WF6 Execute him! The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Melbourne Ports will withdraw those remarks! Mr ABBOTT EZ5 She said: The release today of the federal government’s repeal day legislation marks a turning point in dealing with the high costs and inefficiencies faced by businesses and consumers in our economy Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 We seem to have a new tactic of having an outburst of infectious laughter—which I suspect may become disorderly—and I suspect it might begin with the member for Franklin. The member for Franklin is warned. Mr Burke DYW I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. The SPEAKER SE4 It had better be a proper point of order. Mr Burke DYW Madam Speaker, are you ruling people out of order because they are laughing? The SPEAKER SE4 The member will resume his seat. The member for Franklin will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a). The member for Franklin then left the chamber. Mr Shorten interjecting— Mr Abbott EZ5 The Leader of the Opposition referred to what he called 'the royal comedy channel'. I think that is offensive and he should be asked to withdraw. The SPEAKER SE4 To assist the House, the Leader of the Opposition will withdraw. Mr Shorten 00ATG I withdraw the comment. I did not mean to offend the Prime Minister. I completely withdraw. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The Prime Minister has the call, and you can regard yourselves as universally warned. In accordance with practice, I will not hear the Manager of Opposition Business. He has abused the standing orders twice already. The Prime Minister has completed his answer. Education Funding 3210 14:17 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has chosen to break his pre-election promises on education—cutting money from schools, trade training centres and research and development. Prime Minister, don't these choices reflect the government's lack of vision and its twisted priorities? 14:17 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah This is not a question. This is a sneer. It is a false sneer. It is a sneer and a smear from a member from parliament who should know better. We have more than kept our commitments on school education. Labor cut $1.2 billion from school education in the pre-election fiscal outlook on top of the $3.9 billion that the Leader of the Opposition, then the education minister, cut from education and training in the 2012 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. We are keeping our commitments; Labor is breaking its commitments—even its saving commitments, the commitments that it took to the election and is now ratting on in the Senate. We are keeping our commitments. We have been and we will be a trustworthy government. That will be the contrast between this government and its predecessor. Budget 3211 14:19 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline the challenges for the budget over the medium term? Treasurer, how will fixing the budget assist families in Western Australia and elsewhere? 14:19 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney I thank the honourable member for his question. He is a former Treasurer of Western Australia and he is well aware of the challenge of inheriting a budget mess from Labor, as he did. The fundamental point is that if you get on with the job of fixing the budget, you have a chance of fixing the economy. When you have a weak budget that is consistently running deficits, that is constantly accumulating debt for the nation, then that, over time, can unquestionably weaken the economy. There have been many different surveys on this, but the truth is that it is good to have a strong budget. That is why we have to get back to surplus and a sustainable surplus at that. The Labor Party is in denial. They left behind deficits totalling $123 billion and debt increasing to $667 billion. They left a time frame that shows not a single surplus over the next 10 years. That is Labor's legacy. The fact is that they did not know how to control spending. Opposition members interjecting— Mr HOCKEY DK6 Don't believe me if you don't want to, but believe the IMF, which released a report in February this year that found that Labor's spending would rise to 26.5 per cent of GDP by 2023. That is up from today's 25.9 per cent, so it would increase as a percentage of GDP. The IMF said: … health and disability spending are expected to increase over the next decade by ½ percent of GDP each, and education, assistance to the aged and pensions by 0.2 percent each. That is the equivalent of an extra $32 billion a year in spending in today's dollars. That would take the budget deficit this year to well over $70 billion. Labor can be in denial about this, but it is a fact identified by the Treasury, by every credible commentator, by the IMF, by those people who are determined to tell the truth. Mr Swan 2V5 That's another lie! Mr HOCKEY DK6 The truth is your greatest stranger, I say to the member for Lilley. The fact is you never delivered it. The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Lilley will withdraw. He knows that that language is unparliamentary. Mr Swan 2V5 I withdraw. Paid Parental Leave 3211 14:22 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has chosen to splurge $5½ billion annually on a paid parental leave scheme which will give well-paid executives an extra $75,000 to have a baby. At the same time, the government will delay the rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which will hurt 460,000 people with a disability and their families. Prime Minister, don't these choices reflect the government's twisted priorities? Mr Pyne 9V5 Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The opposition has been given great licence with these questions. We understand that most of the cards are stacked on this side of the deck. Although questions sometimes may contain argument, the phraseology of the Leader of the Opposition is clearly not in order in a question. He should not be allowed to ask a question with that phraseology included. Mr Burke DYW Madam Speaker, on a point of order: the Treasurer used the unparliamentary term 'lie' by implying the member for Lilley failed to deliver the truth. The SPEAKER SE4 Did the Treasurer use that term? Mr Hockey DK6 I withdraw. The SPEAKER SE4 The Treasurer will not remain seated. He will come back to the dispatch box and withdraw. Mr Hockey DK6 I withdraw. The SPEAKER SE4 On the question of argument in questions, strict interpretation of the standing orders does say there should not be argument. However, traditionally, Speakers have given members some latitude and the standing order has been interpreted rather liberally. I consider, in this week, when we have had so much stress on the question of freedom of speech—particularly coming from the opposition—I will let the question stand. 14:24 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I will do my best to answer both elements of the Leader of the Opposition's question in a straightforward way. We are not delaying the rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the Leader of the Opposition should not try to put fear into the minds of people with disabilities by suggesting that we are. We are not delaying the paid parental leave scheme. The coalition took that proposal to both the last election and the election before it, and of course we stand by it. It was clearly part of our policy in 2010 and it was clearly part of our policy in 2013. We think that paid parental leave is a workplace entitlement in the same way that sick pay, holiday pay and long service leave are workplace entitlements. Because paid parental leave is a workplace entitlement, it should be paid at the real wage of the relevant worker. Members of the opposition maybe caterwauling, but business will be paying for it through a modest levy to be imposed on the 3,000 largest businesses in our country. Mining 3212 14:26 Mr SIMPKINS HWE Cowan My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline the importance of repealing the mining tax? How will repealing the mining tax assist families in Western Australia and elsewhere? 14:26 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney It is hugely important to repeal the mining tax. The mining tax represents sovereign risk to potential investors in Australia. It has been a disastrous tax from its very inception. The mining tax has been one of the great financial disasters of modern times. In its original form it was meant to raise $12½ billion in this current financial year, but it has barely raised a dollar. The most insidious part of all this is that the Labor Party committed $16 billion of expenditure against a tax that raises no money. They were spending money they were never going to receive. That is the fraud the Labor Party has imposed on the Australian people, including the people of Western Australia who rely so heavily on the resources and mining industry. The Labor Party are the architects of the worst tax in modern times; a tax that hits everyday Western Australians and everyday Australians. It is a terrible tax. Yesterday, I said in 100 years time they will be writing about the mining tax as the worst tax that was ever designed. I did not know how apt it was for me to make that reference at the time, so I went back to the budget papers of a hundred years ago. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 There will be silence on my left. Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Gorton will leave under standing order 94(a). The member for Gorton then left the chamber. Mr HOCKEY DK6 The mining tax, designed by the member for Lilley, actually raised 95 per cent less than was forecast. In 1914, it was also a Labor Prime Minister and Treasurer, Andrew Fisher, who designed a tax for the introduction of probate and succession duties that was meant to raise one million pounds but raised just 39,000 pounds—96 per cent less than what was forecast. So Labor introducing a tax raising no money seems to be a once in a hundred years event. But I bet Andrew Fisher did not have the hide to spend money he never received. Abbott Government 3213 14:29 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. How does the Prime Minister explain the following priorities: breaking election promises by cutting health and education, cutting payments to orphans of veterans but paying some Australians $75,000 to have a baby, cutting protections against bigotry but not fighting for Australian jobs, awarding knighthoods but cutting the wages of cleaners? 14:30 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is humming Rule Britannia across the table when in fact what happened yesterday was the restoration of knighthoods and damehoods in the Order of Australia. That is what happened. So I say to the honourable Bill Shorten—a title derived from the United Kingdom— Mr Burke DYW Madam Speaker— The SPEAKER SE4 Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Please refer to people by their correct titles, Prime Minister. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 I say to the honourable the Leader of the Opposition—a title derived from Britain—I say to the honourable the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition: start telling the truth. Start telling the truth for a change. Now, not one of the smears and slurs contained in the Leader of the Opposition's statement— Mr Thistlethwaite interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Kingsford Smith will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a). The member for Kingsford Smith then left the chamber. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 because it was not a question; it was a statement—not one of them is true. I will tell you what our priorities are. Mr Champion interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Wakefield will also leave the chamber under standing order 94(a). The member for Wakefield then left the chamber. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Our priorities are helping Australian families by scrapping the carbon tax. Labor wants the carbon tax to stay. Our priorities are helping Australian jobs by scrapping the mining tax. Labor wants the mining tax to stay. Our priorities are restoring peace in our workplaces by restoring the ABCC. Labor wants the ABCC to go. Mr Shorten interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 Order! The Leader of the Opposition will desist. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Our priorities are those of the Australian people. What the Australian people want is less tax, less regulation, more freedom and more prosperity, and that is what they will get from this government. Climate Change 3214 14:32 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne My question is the Minister for the Environment. Ronald Reagan said that the first duty of any government is to protect its country's people. However, since you became minister in September, you have raised the issue of climate change on only four occasions in this House. Do you accept that this government has a duty to protect the Australian way of life from the impacts of climate change and do you accept that you are failing miserably to meet this responsibility? 14:33 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders You know, as the days go on, I miss Peter Garrett more and more. He was the one, of course, who acknowledged that at least he had a short memory. This is the crossbencher, and this is the opposition, that in government took a real axe to the Australian way of life. They are the people who imposed a tax of $550 a year, when they went to an election saying that they would not. If you worry about Australian life, the first thing that you would worry about is truth in government. Truth in government would be fundamental. Ms Butler interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 Order! The member for Griffith will desist. Mr HUNT 00AMV What we heard throughout the course of the last term was a government built on a fundamental deception. As the member for Melbourne would remember, the opposition, when they were in government, went to the election pledging that there would be no carbon tax under the government they led. They pledged there would be no carbon tax. Mr Bandt M3C Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. My question was about the use of the term 'climate change'. We are a minute into the answer and the minister still has not mentioned climate change. Will you ask him to be relevant to the question? The SPEAKER SE4 There is no point of order. It was a very wide-ranging question full of argument, to be honest. Mr HUNT 00AMV In terms of the Australian way of life, starting with truth in government, starting with your commitments, starting with the fundamental contract with the Australian people would be an absolute essential for good governance in this country. The member for Melbourne struck a compact which caused the government of the day to breach their fundamental pact with the Australian people. Do you know the worst thing about it? Apart from the fact that it was a $550 tax, apart from the fact that it was an increase in electricity prices, apart from the fact that it was an increase in gas prices, it did not do the job on climate change. If you want to have an impact you would think that you would actually want to reduce emissions. The latest figures are that after a multibillion- dollar tax the decrease in Australia's emissions—these are not our figures—was 0.1 per cent from this great tax over the first year. So a multibillion-dollar tax, with a $550 a year impact on Australian families, came at the cost of a fundamental compact between Australian families, Australian pensioners, Australian voters and the government of the day. We are concerned about protecting Australian families. We are going to take actions which actually reduce our emissions, rather than a 0.1 per cent impact from a multibillion-dollar tax. I welcome this question from the member for Melbourne—come on down with more—but at the end of the day, if you want to do something for the Australian way of life, stand up for truth and stand up for the compact between the Australian people and the government. Mr Conroy interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Charlton is warned! Carbon Pricing 3215 14:36 Mr WILSON 198084 O'Connor My question is to the Minister for the Environment. I refer to figures released by the Clean Energy Regulator that show the carbon tax has hit Western Australia with at least $627 million in higher costs in the last financial year. How will repealing the carbon tax assist families in Western Australia and elsewhere and why has it not been repealed? Mr Conroy interjecting— 14:37 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders You are a genius—just a genius. We have a new Mensa! The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Charlton will leave under 94(a). The member for Charlton then left the chamber. Mr HUNT 00AMV I can understand why the member for O'Connor would want to know why a $550-a-year hit on Australian families has not been repealed and why the opposition would stand in the way of repealing something which they themselves have said they would want to terminate. It is a very interesting story this, because on the weekend, on Sunday morning, I was watching one of Labor's luminaries and guiding lights being interviewed. Here is what the interviewer said to this luminary: 'Explain this: I just cannot understand why Bill Shorten would defend a carbon tax for which Labor had no mandate and which it promised to get rid of. Why would you do something that idiotic?' 'Well,' says Bruce Hawker, 'it defeats me somewhat. I think one of the very few decent things about losing an election is you can say: "All right, that's over. The electorate got it right and now we're focusing on the future." I am lost for words as to why we'd do it.' Ms Butler interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Griffith will leave under 94(a). The member for Griffith then left the chamber. Mr HUNT 00AMV Just to repeat Bruce Hawker: 'I am lost for words as to why we'd do it.' But why do they do it? The answer is very simple. They said one thing before the election—they said they would terminate the carbon tax—and did the other thing afterwards. Interestingly, Prime Minister, they said one thing in Western Australia only last Thursday—their leading Senate candidate said they were going to scrap the carbon tax—and did another thing in Canberra four hours later. In terms of what they said before the election, let us remember that Kevin Rudd said, 'We will terminate the carbon tax.' He was flanked by the member for Port Adelaide, who went on to say, 'Labor supports terminating the carbon tax.' But they did not. He was flanked by the member for McMahon, who, very interestingly, on the cost of living said, 'We think this is an appropriate thing to do in the face of cost-of-living pressures faced by the Australian people'—and he was right. A $550 a year cost-of-living pressure, a nine per cent decrease in electricity prices, a seven per cent decrease in tax, a decrease in refrigerant costs—these are the things which will come from repealing the carbon tax. In terms of Western Australia, what is very interesting is that the Western Australian Senate candidate Louise Pratt said in the Senate, 'We are committed to scrapping the carbon tax,' and then they voted to keep the carbon tax. We have had Joe Bullock, their leading Senate candidate, make the statement only last Thursday that Labor is scrapping the carbon tax. So they say one thing in Western Australia in the morning, and four hours later they do the other thing here in Canberra. When it comes to the carbon tax, you cannot trust Labor, but you can trust the coalition. Australian Honours 3216 14:40 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Why does the government have a plan to bring back knights and dames, but no plan for Australian jobs? Prime Minister, why is the Abbott government's priority a plan to bring back knighthoods? 14:40 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah Well, Madam Speaker, this is— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The Leader of the Opposition's question was listened to in silence by those on my left. You will listen similarly to the answer. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 This is a government which is capable of doing several things at the same time. But our priority is lifting the burdens on Australian families, and last week we tried to scrap the carbon tax, and Labor made the carbon tax stay. Yesterday we tried to scrap the mining tax, and Labor made the mining tax stay. We are trying to clean up the building and construction industry; Labor is trying to stop that. We are trying to get rid of union rorts, rackets and rip-offs, and corruption of the sort that the former member for Dobell was engaged in; Labor is still protecting that kind of wrongdoing. These are our priorities; I am proud of them. Mr Burke DYW Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If there was ever a breach of standing order 104(a), it is what we just heard. The SPEAKER SE4 There is no point of order. Education 3216 14:42 Mr RANDALL PK6 Canning My question is to the Minister for Education. I remind the minister of his recent visit to the Ocean Road Primary School in my electorate, one of more than 240 independent public schools across Western Australia. What lessons can we learn from the educational policies in Western Australia and what is the government doing to help students achieve good outcomes at school? 14:42 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I thank the member for Canning for his question. I am happy to tell him that, in fact, there is much to be proud of in the Western Australian school education system, and, if the voters of Western Australia on 5 April return enough coalition senators to make sure that the Senate is a workable Senate for the government, we will be able to continue to support the Western Australian government in the good work that they are doing for school students in improving their outcomes. Contrary to the shadow minister's wrong assertions and her misinformation, the Western Australian state government have increased their spending on schools by 7.8 per cent this financial year. In fact, Western Australia has the highest level of funding per student in a government school of any state or territory in the country. In fact, Western Australia leads the country in school autonomy, with independent public schools giving more autonomy for principals, which we know improves the outcomes for students—so much so that Queensland and the Northern Territory are following their lead—and this is paying off, because they have the best results in the latest PISA data. The best results in Australia are in Western Australia in science, maths and reading. In all three of the things that PISA tests, Western Australia is leading the nation. So they are themselves investing in their schools rather than demanding Canberra does so, they are introducing independent public schools, and we are helping them with a more robust curriculum and with an independent public schools policy to expand independent public schools, and by putting $120 million back into Western Australian schools that the Leader of the Opposition ripped out in the PEFO—the Pre-Election Fiscal Outlook—when he was the Minister for Education. In fact, Labor ripped $1.2 billion out of schools before the federal election, but—thanks to the Treasurer and the Prime Minister—we found the money to support Western Australian education. The shadow minister cannot even be bothered turning up to question time because— Mr Shorten interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The Leader of the Opposition will desist. Mr PYNE 9V5 she is in Western Australia when the parliament is sitting, continuing to spread her misinformation, her deceit and her dishonesty in Western Australia. Her job is here in Canberra, doing her job as the member for Adelaide, but she cannot be bothered. She would rather be— Mr Burke DYW Madam Speaker, a point of order: it was unparliamentary language. It should be withdrawn. Mr Pyne 9V5 'Lie' is unparliamentary; 'dishonesty' and 'deceit' are not unparliamentary. An opposition member: That is not right. Withdraw! Mr Pyne 9V5 I will not have you bullying the Speaker by sounding off. Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 Madam Speaker, a point of order: the minister's responsibility in this place is to answer questions. If he wants to attack individual members, he should do so only by way of substandard motion. The SPEAKER SE4 What is the point of order? Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 That is my point of order, Madam Speaker. He is not entitled to use answers to questions to attack members— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Hunter will resume his seat. I have a good memory, and I remember when the opposition was in government and using language which was stronger than that and which was allowed. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 Indeed there was. Ms Burke 83S Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am loath to take this point of order. As you well know, it is within the direction of the chair as to what is unparliamentary besides the word 'lied'. If you want to impugn my reputation in my previous position in this place, then I think that is fairly baseless. Mr Pyne 9V5 I am happy to withdraw that. The SPEAKER SE4 The minister has withdrawn. I gave leeway to the member for Chisholm; I think as a former Speaker she is entitled to have expression, particularly in this week of freedom of speech. Mr PYNE 9V5 Madam Speaker, I am very proud of the record of this government in school education, and I look forward to continuing to work with the Western Australian government, which is achieving the best results in the nation through the policies that we support, like independent public schooling. I look forward to working with them in the future. Age Pension 3218 14:47 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. Given the Prime Minister ruled out scrapping his $5½ billion gold-plated paid parental scheme in question time on 27 February, will the Prime Minister now give senior Australians the same certainty, and rule out any cuts to the age pension? 14:48 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah What the opposition is attempting to do here is to spread fear in our community. The priorities of this government are clear, and for the pensioners of Australia, the priorities are very, very clear indeed. We will scrap the carbon tax and we will keep the compensation The people who are trying to prevent a benefit to pensioners are members opposite, who want the pensioners of Australia to keep paying the carbon tax. If we are talking about benefits to pensions, we want to take the carbon tax off the pensioners of Australia, and Labor is voting to keep it on them. Shame, Labor, shame! Give the pensioners of Australia a fair go by voting to take the carbon tax off their power bills. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 3218 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:49 The SPEAKER SE4 I would like to acknowledge that we have in the chamber with us today the Honourable David Bradbury, the former member for Lindsay and former minister. We also have with us the 8th Australian Political Exchange Council Delegation from the Philippines. We make you very welcome, as we do the Honourable David Bradbury. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 3219 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Road Infrastructure 3219 14:49 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. How will the government ensure that local councils continue to receive funds to upgrade and maintain local roads? How important is sound infrastructure to families and businesses in Western Australia and in my electorate of Durack and elsewhere? 14:50 Mr TRUSS GT4 Wide Bay May I compliment the member for Durack in her representations to deliver better roads to northern Western Australia. This government has responded with a substantial program of new roads and new construction projects in the region. Indeed, about half a billion dollars is being committed to new roadworks to benefit northern Western Australia, and that includes $307 million to upgrade the Great Northern Highway and $174 million to upgrade the North West Coastal Highway. Once more, this is real money. This is money that is budgeted for and funded—unlike the commitments that were made by those opposite, which the member for Lilley and the member for Grayndler said were conditional on funding from the mining tax. Labor was talking about projects, but they were never there to deliver them, because the funds were not available—they were conditional on money coming from the mining tax. But I am sure the member for Durack and the 47 councils that she represented would have been horrified earlier this week when they saw the Labor Party and the Greens combining in this House to oppose the continuation of the Roads to Recovery program. The Roads to Recovery program is vital for upgrading local roads and local streets, especially in the large areas represented by the member for Durack. Labor and the Greens voted against this program. I find that just incredible. The member for Grayndler was not able to be here yesterday, but it did not stop him issuing a press release after the debate. In it he went to great lengths to say that Labor had actually funded Roads to Recovery into the future. It may have been on the expenditure side of the budget, but on the other side it was only debt. The reality, and one would have thought the member for Grayndler would have known this, is that Labor's 2009 legislation terminates the Roads to Recovery program on 30 June this year. Their legislation terminates the Roads to Recovery program. This legislation is absolutely essential to implementing this side of the House's commitment to five more years of Roads to Recovery funding. The councils of Australia need to be aware that if Labor and the Greens combine in the Senate to vote against this legislation again then there will be no Roads to Recovery program. There will be no vital funding to support their roadworks and street works around the country. It is a clear choice. You vote for senators who will approve the Roads to Recovery program if you want this vital program to continue. Privatisation 3219 14:53 Ms MacTIERNAN L6P Perth My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to reports that the Treasurer will meet with state governments on Friday to discuss federal demands for state asset sell-offs. Will the Prime Minister rule out attaching conditions to funding that would encourage the privatisation of West Australian assets, including the Mandurah railway line, or our power and water assets? 14:54 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I certainly support efforts by the Treasurer to work with the states to improve the infrastructure of our country. That is what the Treasurer is doing. The Treasurer is working with the states to try and ensure that together the state governments and the Commonwealth government have the assets needed to fund the infrastructure that Australia needs. We want to ensure that we get the roads, the rail and the ports that this country needs. We want the infrastructure of the 21st century, because I want to be known as the infrastructure Prime Minister. In order for us to be the infrastructure national government, led by the infrastructure Prime Minister, we have to work with the states. Now, if we can help the states— Ms MacTiernan L6P Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order on the question of relevance. We really want to know about the asset selloff. Which ones are being targeted in Western Australia? The SPEAKER SE4 The member will resume her seat. I am listening very seriously to the answer being given by the Prime Minister. The question was about the meeting being held, and the Prime Minister is addressing what is to be discussed at that meeting. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 If we can help the states to deploy resources from a lesser priority to a higher priority, that is a very smart thing to do. The resources of this nation, whether they are held by national or state governments, should be optimally deployed. That means rebuilding our infrastructure and unclogging the great economic arteries of this country. That is what this government wants to do. Frankly, if members opposite had any sense whatsoever they would support it. Broadband 3220 14:55 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest My question is to the Minister for Communications. Will the minister update the House on the rollout of the NBN in Western Australia? How important is affordable broadband to families in Western Australia and elsewhere? 14:56 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for her question— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 There will be silence on my left! Mr TURNBULL 885 The Abbott government inherited a shocking mess in the NBN everywhere in Australia, but nowhere worse than in Western Australia. At the time of the election there were only 75 premises in the whole state connected to the broadband network. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Rankin will desist. Mr TURNBULL 885 Members opposite said that since the election the coalition has stopped the rollout of the NBN. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that in Western Australia there are not 5,482 premises connected to the fibre, which if my calculations are correct is an increase of 7,300 per cent on the Labor Party's effort. There are also now 34,582 premises that are actually serviceable. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Chifley will desist. Mr TURNBULL 885 I spoke yesterday in the House about the colossal failure in the Interim Satellite Service—5,600 residents who use that service are only getting dial-up, at a cost to the taxpayer of $7,300 each. I talked about how we are seeking to remedy that. Another matter we have been left with, which is a shocking and extremely difficult to solve mess, is the fact there are over 16,000 premises in Western Australia alone in areas that were promised broadband delivered by fixed wireless. The NBN Co, at the time those promises were made and now, does not own the radio frequency spectrum capable of delivering that service. So that was a complete falsehood. It was a totally false promise. The Conrovian promise had no basis at all. It was a complete fantasy. We are working on a solution to that. As I have said many times the messes that Senator Conroy left us are not susceptible to easy solutions. He is a master at making difficult messes for his successors. Yesterday the former deputy chair Diane Smith-Gander was asked about Senator Conroy. She was asked if the former board had recommended that he conduct a cost-benefit analysis, and she said— Mr Dreyfus HWG Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Relevance is an important part of the standing orders. This part of the answer has nothing to do with the question that the minister was asked. The SPEAKER SE4 The minister has the call. An honourable member: Everything in parliament is an important part of the standing orders! Mr TURNBULL 885 I am really surprised that one of Her Majesty's counsels, learned in the law, would not have been able to pick that up. But Diane Smith-Gander said, 'think about the notion of suggesting anything to Minister Conroy'. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 There will be silence on my left. Mr TURNBULL 885 I am a committed republican, but I did not see you on the barricades. You were missing in action. Mr Shorten interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The Leader of the Opposition! The minister will resume his seat. Mr TURNBULL 885 You were missing in action! Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The minister will resume his seat forthwith. The honourable Leader of the Opposition clearly lost control in that instance. To date, there has been a constant barrage and obviously a campaign is being waged today. The Leader of the Opposition is warned against another outburst. To the member for Watson, I know he has a motion coming up and I know he would like to be in the chamber to move it, so I think he should comply with the standing orders. Mr Burke DYW Madam Speaker, a point of order. The SPEAKER SE4 On? Mr Burke DYW I am asking whether or not a similar warning will be given to the minister who continued to talk while you were on your feet. The SPEAKER SE4 There is no point of order. Mr Burke DYW There is. Madam Speaker, if the standing orders matter, there actually is. The SPEAKER SE4 The member will resume his seat. The member for Bass has the call. Asylum Seekers 3222 15:00 Mr NIKOLIC 137174 Bass My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on the number of days that have elapsed since the last successful people-smuggling venture to Australia? Mr Bowen DZS Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister for Communications still had time left for his answer. I do not believe he had concluded it and the member for Bass rose, presumably, to take a point of order and has now asked a question. The SPEAKER SE4 Had the minister completed his answer? The minister had completed his answer and the member for Bass was on his feet. Mr Bowen DZS No. Madam Speaker, on a point of order. The member for Bass rose while the member for Watson was still on his feet making a point of order. If he was standing to raise a question then he was out of order at the time. In accordance with precedent, Madam Speaker, you should have called a member of the opposition to ask a question. The SPEAKER SE4 The fact of the matter was that the member for Bass was on his feet when there was no member from the opposition standing to ask a question. The member for Watson had already resumed his seat when I called the member for Bass. Mr Burke DYW Madam Speaker, on a point of order. The minister was interrupted during his answer for a point of order. You ruled on the point of order and at that point the minister has the call again. You did not call the minister, but after ruling he was entitled to the call. You simply moved on with no notice to the House. We are entitled to know whether the minister has concluded. Normally, the moment the Prime Minister concludes, we stand up! We had no reason to believe the member for Wentworth, the Minister for Communications, had concluded. The SPEAKER SE4 I am sorry that the Manager of Opposition Business seems to think that there is a need for clairvoyance to understand when a minister has finished his question. Quite clearly, he has indicated that he knows when the Prime Minister has finished but he does not know when the Minister for Communications has finished. The fact is the member for Bass has the call. Mr NIKOLIC 137174 My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on the number of days that have elapsed since the last successful people-smuggling venture to Australia? What level of support exists for the government's strong border protection policies? 15:03 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Bass for his question. In answering it, I would like to refer to a speech today by the Leader of the Opposition at the Press Club. I want to quote from a section that was 7½ minutes in. You may have already switched off by then and you may not have picked it up. Maybe the member for Lilley had switched over to MasterChef. They were doing reruns on ONE HD. This is what the Leader of the Opposition had to say: I do not look at policy through the prism of left-wing or right-wing ideology – I’m interested in what works … I am pleased to let the Leader of the Opposition know that Operation Sovereign Borders is working. I can back that up by referring to the comparative performances of those who sat in the role of ministers for immigration under the previous government, and I referred the House to this last week. Under the previous government, the largest number of cumulative days achieved by previous ministers for immigration where there was no successful venture to Australia was 61 for Senator Evans, for the member for McMahon it was 23 days, for the member for Gorton it was just six days—he could not get through a week—and the now Manager of Opposition Business could only get six days as well. What is interesting about that is if you lay all of that failure end to end, from one end of failure to the other end of failure, it is 96 days. If you add all of their cumulative efforts together, it is 96 days. I fear that the only honour those on that side of the House who served in that role would qualify for is services to people smuggling. Compare their record of 96 days cumulative to this side of the House. We have 97 days and—guess what?—we did it with one minister, one Prime Minister and just six months in office. For those on the other side, it was 96 days. They had three prime ministers, they were in there for 5½ years after their failures and they had four ministers, three of them in just six months. I am asked about the support for these policies. The support for the coalition's consistent approach over the years has principally been from those who came to Australia the right way. Those who came to this country the right way were offended and remain offended by the failure of the previous government's policies that rewarded those who came to Australia the wrong way and continued to penalise those who sought to come the right way. People who came to this country where everything was offered and who had to ask for nothing were all the beneficiaries. Those opposite gave the green light to illegal entry to this country for six years and they should be ashamed of themselves. Economy 3223 15:06 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Treasurer. Why has the Treasurer chosen to double budget deficits over the next four years in his mid-year economic statement by adding $68 billion in new spending and changes to economic assumptions? 15:06 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney The fact is our numbers tell the truth and Labor's did not. Labor's last attack on costings did not go too well. Remember the election campaign? Remember Labor came out and attacked our costings? I have another book from the library. I am becoming quite the accomplished library customer. Mr Bowen DZS Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question was about the Treasurer's $68 billion fiddle. It was about his mid-year economic statement. The SPEAKER SE4 The member for McMahon will resume his seat. There is no point of order, and you will not use the standing orders in that way. Mr HOCKEY DK6 I cite this book by Bruce Hawker; The Rudd Rebellion it is titled. It says: 'When Rudd, Bowen and Wong held a joint press conference attacking the opposition costings'—that is our costings—'and in doing so used out of date information, the response by the Treasury and Finance department CEOs was devastating. They said it was an invalid comparison and suddenly our costings attack on the opposition was in tatters.' So that was Bruce Hawker. And I thought to myself: surely Labor would learn the lesson that, if they are attacking our numbers, they have to be credible. Of course, the credibility of the Labor Party was lost when on more than 300 occasions they promised to deliver a surplus and they never did. I came across the budget newsletter from Bill Shorten MP. And it says here— Mr Dreyfus HWG Your $68 billion! The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Isaacs will desist. Mr HOCKEY DK6 This is his newsletter and it says 'Moonee Ponds', and it has got a nice photo—a much younger looking Bill Shorten, I might say. This is Labor. It says, 'This budget—' Mr Dreyfus HWG Your $68 billion! Mr Burke DYW Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order under standing order 104(a). The Treasurer is clearly not being directly relevant to the question that was asked. The SPEAKER SE4 The question was about budget figures and was very wide ranging. I am listening attentively to the Treasurer's answer, and the Treasurer has the call. Mr Pyne 9V5 Madam Speaker, on the point of order, the standing orders are very clear that the opposition can only take one point of order on relevance in each question and answer. That was designed to stop this kind of disruption of question time. Mr Dreyfus HWG You'd know all about disruption of question time! The SPEAKER SE4 Order! That was the second point of order on relevance. Only one is permitted. Mr HOCKEY DK6 And, of course, the newsletter from the now Leader of the Opposition said: This budget ensures that the benefits of the boom are spread to all corners of our country. We have brought the budget back to surplus on time, as promised … Mr Dreyfus HWG The question was about your $68 billion! The SPEAKER SE4 Order! The member for Isaacs will desist. Mr HOCKEY DK6 And just in case you missed it on the front page, it is on the back page as well. Mr Dreyfus HWG The question was about your $68 billion! The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Isaacs will desist. Mr HOCKEY DK6 'Back in surplus on time, as promised. We have delivered a surplus on time, as promised.' Now, the Labor Party has been out in the last 24 hours talking about their budget rules, suggesting that if we kept to their budget rules we would have the budget coming back in surplus. The problem is that Labor never kept to their budget rules. Therefore, they never delivered surplus. Mr Dreyfus HWG How about your $68 billion? The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Isaacs is warned. Mr HOCKEY DK6 They would never deliver a surplus. They have no economic credibility. They got every single number wrong, and they left the Australian people to pick up the bill from a very bad Labor government. The SPEAKER SE4 I call the member for McMahon. Economy 3225 15:10 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I have a supplementary question to the Treasurer— The SPEAKER SE4 I beg your pardon, the member for Tangney. Mr BOWEN DZS Madam Speaker, you called me. I was on my feet first. The SPEAKER SE4 Yes, I did. Mr BOWEN DZS Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have a question for the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the fact— The SPEAKER SE4 Will the member just pause for a moment. Mr BOWEN DZS Certainly. The SPEAKER SE4 It is the same principle that applied before, and the member for McMahon was on his feet before the member for Tangney. Mr BOWEN DZS Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the fact that budget deficits have doubled on his watch, adding $68 billion across the forward estimates. If the Treasurer believes we are in a budget emergency, why have you doubled the deficit? 15:11 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney Because it is your deficit—$123 billion of Labor deficit! And the numbers tell the truth. Mr Burke DYW Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Treasurer should be directing his comments through the chair. The SPEAKER SE4 It is getting very close. I call the Treasurer. Mr Burke DYW On the point of order, Madam Speaker, you just indicated that the point of order that I had raised was very close as though there was a problem with raising the most basic point of parliamentary behaviour, which is to refer to— The SPEAKER SE4 The member will resume his seat. He is not entitled to put argument. Mr Burke DYW We have made points of order. Mr Pyne 9V5 Stop bullying the Speaker! Don't you like having a woman in the chair, Tony? The SPEAKER SE4 The Treasurer has the call. Mr HOCKEY DK6 Let us be very, very clear: this is the last economic statement from the member— Mr Bowen interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for McMahon will remove himself under standing order 94(a), and resume some sensibility. The member for McMahon then left the chamber. Mr HOCKEY DK6 That has just increased the IQ of the Labor Party. Mr Swan 2V5 It's your number! Mr HOCKEY DK6 And if the member for Lilley goes out, that will double the IQ of the Labor Party. The bottom line is the Labor Party— Mr Swan 2V5 It's your number! The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Lilley will desist. Order! There will be silence on my left. Mr HOCKEY DK6 The Labor Party and the member for Lilley must be incredibly proud of the legacy. It was the member for Lilley that promised a surplus. Mr Swan 2V5 It's your number! Mr Pyne 9V5 Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member for Lilley is red-faced and screaming across the chamber, and we cannot hear the Treasurer's attempts at answering the question. I would ask you to get the member for Isaacs and the member for Lilley under control. Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 On the point of order, why wouldn't members on this side be excited when the Treasurer has conceded the assertion— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Hunter will resume his seat. There has obviously been a concerted effort of noise and an attempt to disrupt the proceedings of the House today, which is no doubt a precursor to the motion which the member for Watson is so anxious to move. I have been very careful to allow the member for Watson to remain in the chamber, because I would not want to deprive him of his opportunity. So we will have no more of the screaming and yelling. We will have quiet for the rest of question time. I notice that the questions from the opposition are listened to in silence and then the ruckus begins. So we will have some proper demeanour and some proper behaviour back in the chamber. Mr HOCKEY DK6 If economic performance is based on actually delivering a surplus, the Labor Party failed at every count. It was the member for Lilley that delivered a $27 billion deficit, then a $54 billion deficit, then a $47 billion deficit, then a $43 billion deficit— Mr Dreyfus HWG Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question was about the $68 billion that this Treasurer has added to the deficit, and there needs to be relevance in the answer. The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Isaacs knows he must not abuse the standing orders. The question was wide ranging, and the answer is in order. Mr HOCKEY DK6 So he must be immensely proud of his record of $190 billion of deficits. You are a winner, old Swannie! Mr Burke DYW Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask the Treasurer to direct his remarks through the chair. The SPEAKER SE4 The Treasurer has the call and will kindly address his remarks through the chair. Mr HOCKEY DK6 What an incredibly proud moment it must have been for the member for Lilley to have overseen, as Treasurer, every single year in deficit and then to have left a legacy of $123 billion of deficit and $667 billion of deficit. Mr Swan interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Lilley will desist. Mr HOCKEY DK6 How about throwing him out? Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Isaacs will leave the chamber, under the provisions of standing order 94(a). The member for Isaacs then left the chamber. Mr HOCKEY DK6 The member for Lilley is a genius! He should have been the world's worst Treasurer, because that was the decision of the Australian people. There was one consistent theme across the whole Rudd-Gillard government. It was that Wayne Swan was the Treasurer. The member for Lilley was the Treasurer. He was unquestionably the worst Treasurer. He designed taxes that never raised any money, he kept chopping and changing policy and he left a legacy that we have to fix. Well, we are determined to fix the budget, we are determined to undertake the repair job, we are determined to grow the Australian economy and we are determined to help the Australian enterprises and businesses out there to create the jobs of the 21st century. Mr Abbott EZ5 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 3227 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 15:18 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite I wish to make a personal explanation in relation to a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition during question time yesterday. The SPEAKER SE4 Does the member believe she has been misrepresented? Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Yes, I do. The SPEAKER SE4 Please proceed. Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition claimed that I had not fought for any worker at Alcoa or Blue Circle. This is false. With respect to Blue Circle cement, now Boral, in Geelong these 90 jobs were lost when Labor was in government. As the Liberal candidate, I advocated very hard for Blue Circle, particularly in relation to the impact of the carbon tax. With respect to Alcoa— Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Hunter will resume his seat. Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 But you understand the matter I am about to raise. The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Hunter will resume his seat. Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 She has clearly made clear where she was misrepresented. She is now arguing the case. The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Hunter will resume his seat. The member for Corangamite needs to establish where she has been misrepresented and then state what the true position is but not enter into argument. Ms HENDERSON ZN4 The misrepresentation occurred because the Leader of the Opposition claimed that I had not fought for any worker at Alcoa or Blue Circle. This is false. I have already said that in relation to Blue Circle I advocated very hard. In relation to Alcoa— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member— Ms HENDERSON ZN4 May I just finish my point? Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 Those on my left will show some courtesy. This is a new member, and members who have been in this place for a lot longer have done a lot worse on personal explanations. The member for Corangamite has made her point and showed where she has been misrepresented. She has shown what her true position is and she will conclude her explanation. Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Just in relation to Alcoa, I have also fought very hard for Alcoa workers and have worked— Honourable members interjecting— Ms HENDERSON ZN4 I would like to put this on the record. This is an important point. The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Corangamite has made her point. She may make that more broadly in the adjournment or in another form of the House. She has concluded this point. 15:20 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I seek to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER SE4 Does the member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Yes, I do, as leader of the Labor Party. The SPEAKER SE4 Please proceed. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Today in question time, the Prime Minister said that Labor is still providing a tick for this kind of wrongdoing, in reference to the conduct of the former member for Dobell. Labor never has and will not ever condone the conduct of the former member for Dobell. The SPEAKER SE4 This is argument. 15:20 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden I seek to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER SE4 Does the minister claim to have been misrepresented? Mr ROBERT HWT I do. This is the first time in seven years I have raised such an explanation against a journalist, in this case Mr O'Shea from the West Australian. In today's West Australian, he writes, on this day of all, that the renaming of the DSTO headquarters as the David Warren centre was a public relations opportunity, that it was a shameless attempt to cash in on the media attention with the loss of the aircraft and that Defence was clueless and did not realise the sensitivity. The timing of the event yesterday, attended by a wide section of the Australian community, was the 60th anniversary of the black box. This began three months ago, with a little 11-year-old girl called Eve Cogan, who began an online campaign, through change.org, to recognise the inventor of the black box by naming Canberra Airport after him. The decision was made to actually name a large building after him. Mr O'Shea did not check with my office. He did not speak to me about it. I think it is poor judgement on his part on this day, of all days, to reflect that a national memorial—of a building—to such a fine Australian should be seen as a public relations opportunity. Ms Plibersek 83M Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask the member for Lyons to withdraw the comment he made earlier. He knows what it was. Mr Hutchinson 212585 I made no such comment and I suggest that you withdraw your accusation. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 There will be silence! Mr PYNE 9V5 I think you were right earlier, Madam Speaker. I think it was a deliberate campaign today to disrupt the parliament. The SPEAKER SE4 It was. DOCUMENTS 3229 DOCUMENTS Presentation 3229 15:22 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt A document is tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the document will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 3229 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Budget 3229 15:23 The SPEAKER SE4 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Perth proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion namely: The government’s bad choices and wrong priorities evident in the lead-up to the May budget. I call upon those honourable 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— 15:23 Ms MacTIERNAN L6P Perth I believe that the problem with the Abbott government is that they are still operating as the feral opposition they were for the last four years. They are addicted to picking fights and lobbing grenades—not uniting a nation, solving problems and planning for a positive future, as a grown-up government should. Given this mindset, it is really not surprising that we are seeing the bad choices and wrong priorities that we mention in our motion today. Indeed, the government are sending this country backwards at such a furious pace that the ordinary Australians are having trouble keeping up. It is a priority for this government to throw a bomb into ethnic and Aboriginal communities, re-igniting a race debate and scaling back protections against hate speech, protections that have contributed to this nation's great record on community harmony. They have picked fights with Holden and goaded them into leaving Australia. They are savaging our capacity to keep 21st century manufacturing skills in this country. They pick fights daily with the ABC, punishing them for being something other than a cheer squad. They have a priority to reinstate the bunyip aristocracy, to return to tugging the forelock of colonial days, with sirs and ladies. In particular, this is about our important national symbols and there has been absolutely no dialogue with the community about this. We just see this autocratic decision being made. I believe that, regardless of what people may think of this decision, the fact that it is been made in this way will be marked down savagely by the electorate. It sure has been a government of surprises. This was a great surprise. The bunyip aristocracy was a great surprise. No-one saw it coming, not even in 'Turnbullistan'. Australia did not see coming the plan to pull the rug out from under Medicare, our universal healthcare access scheme which for decades has been an incredibly important part of the social contract in Australia. Australians certainly were not told about the proposal for the GP tax before the last election. Western Australians, in particular, did not expect, when Mr Abbott promised a unity ticket on Gonski reforms—a reform that promised more targeted money would be coming to all our schools—that he would allow the Barnett government to rip $180 million per year from Western Australian schools and then use the $110 million of Gonski payment to backfill, while, through that process, not even keep up with business as usual. I was actually quite amazed today by the contribution of the Minister for Education who said that this is simply not happening. Every government school in Western Australia is talking about the number of teaching positions they are having to cut, the education assistance they are having to cut, the number of resources they are having to eliminate. Lockridge Senior High School—one of the schools in an area that really struggles—has been forced to completely cut its literacy program, which was really beginning to turn around the outcomes for that school. Apparently, according to the Minister for Education, this is simply not happening. To use the favourite word of the government, it is a 'confection'—each and every one of those parent groups, those teachers, the principals of schools in Western Australia are making this up! This is not happening; they do not have less money! I can tell you it is happening and the Western Australia community is very angry about it. Western Australians did not see that we would lose 40 trade training centres—centres designed to ensure we skill up young Australians. We are taking down the architecture that is going to enable us to do that skill development at that same time as we start unlocking the protections which have been put around 457 visas. This is at a time of record unemployment in Western Australia—the biggest unemployment since the Howard days—where 84,000 Western Australians are out of work. The voters of Western Australia know there is now likely to be other surprises waiting for them, that there are 900 pages of deep cuts in the Commission of Audit report—a report the government has been sitting on and will not release before the WA Senate election. People understand that. They get the nasty surprises that have happened and they are very mindful that the Commission of Audit report is sitting there. Voters should also be alert and alarmed at the federal government's heavying the state governments into privatisation of important government assets, to fund critical infrastructure because what we are seeing here is a big plan. We actually do have a plan from the government. We have a plan to concoct a budget crisis so that their real agenda can be implemented. Their real agenda is an agenda of microgovernment. They want to go back to the style of government that we had in the 19th century where you did not really do that much. You were not actively engaged in creating a social contract and all of the apparatus of government that we need in the 21st century to ensure that we have the jobs, skills, social harmony and commitment to a shared vision. They want to wind it back. It is a 19th century vision. We are beginning to see a pattern. We are going to get the sirs and the dames and we are going to get a 19th century government. I just want to make a few comments on this confection. The Parliamentary Budget Office has shown that the decision by the government to ditch the previous fiscal rules has dramatically inflated the net debt by an incredible $260 billion. The truth is that we have three AAA credit ratings, something that was never achieved in the whole time of the Howard government. We have a net debt to GDP ratio that is one of the lowest in the developed world. It is not only this recent frolic into the lords and ladies that shows us that we are living in the past. I quote from Battlelines by Mr Abbott, as he was then: In Australia's biggest cities, public transport is generally slow, expensive, not especially reliable and still a hideous drain on the public purse. This obviously is the rationale. It is a view of what it was like in the days when trains had steam and they went put, put, put. This is the land he is living in and it is creating a real problem for us and our cities where 80 per cent of Australians live. We have a government that wants to go back to the 19th century. They do not want to recognise that. They have dismantled the major cities project and they have made a decision that they are not interested in nor prepared to fund public transport. They do not understand the basic economics of this. Economic study after economic study has demonstrated quite comprehensively that investment in public transport is going to get you a major productivity boost in your city. Indeed, the whole functionality of cities requires high levels of mobility. That is simply not deliverable without investment in fast public transport services. I invite the Prime Minister to come to Perth. I will take him on the Mandurah rail line. We travel at 130 kilometres an hour. It is not slow, it is not expensive and it is not inefficient. This is what we need around Australia. We need that investment. We need the $500 million that is going to be ripped out of the next budget in Western Australia restored so that we can invest in our cities. 15:33 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff How extraordinary for the Labor Party to come into the chamber with yet another MPI claiming that this government has the wrong priorities and that in some way we are not living up to the promises that were made. It takes a certain amount of gall for the Australian Labor Party to come in here and say: 'Don't trust the Abbott government. They're not delivering on what they said.' For goodness sake, this is coming from the Labor Party who famously, people will recall, promised there would be 'no carbon tax under the government that I lead'—the immortal words of former Prime Minister Julia Gillard—and then did a deal with the devil, in terms of the Australian Greens, and introduced the world's biggest carbon tax. Then we see the hand wringing from members of the Australian Labor Party as they say, 'Our priority needs to be on things like trades training.' The Leader of the Opposition, who considers himself a union man and a friend of the worker, is always waxing lyrical about the need to invest in trades training. What did Labor say? Labor said that they were going to build 2,650 trade training centres. Wyatt Roy M2X How many did they build? Mr CIOBO 00AN0 What a great question from the member for Longman. How many did they actually build? Instead of building 2,650, Labor unfortunately managed to get around to building only 241—around 10 per cent of what they promised they were going to do. The problem with the Labor Party is they think that everyone suffers from some kind of amnesia where, as of September last year, everyone forgot about their woeful track record, forgot about all the broken promises, forgot about Labor's projections of surpluses and forgot about the double drop-off. Remember Labor were going to end the double drop-off. Labor were going to build I think 226 childcare centres, but in reality they achieved virtually nil—I think it was about 10. A government member interjecting— Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Yes, remember Fuelwatch and GroceryWatch. The Australian Labor Party said, 'We'll put downward pressure on the cost of energy with Fuelwatch,' only to then introduce a carbon tax, which of course pushes prices up across the board. We on this side of the chamber are so fond of hearing about Labor's abysmal record with respect to GP superclinics. It always concerns me that Labor promised to build a GP superclinic in my own electorate of Moncrieff on the Gold Coast. Nicola Roxon, who was the then Minister for Health and Ageing, went on ABC radioon the Gold Coast and very solemnly said that the people on the Gold Coast could rejoice because Australia's sixth largest city was going to get its GP superclinic. Alas, like so many others and especially those in Western Australia, it was never delivered. In fact, I am not even sure they even have a block of land identified for it. Labor's track record when it comes to the so-called delivery of social policy is appalling. Australians know that. We on this side of the chamber do not even need to convince them, because they already fundamentally know what an abject failure the Australian Labor Party were with respect to their delivery of social policy. The most important thing is that Labor's economic track record is the clearest example of abject and total failure. I cannot help but notice that those on the other side have been very fond of trying to whitewash their track record out of history. This one here is a little bit bigger so that everyone can see it. We remember Bill Shorten MP—this is his budget news— Ms Macklin PG6 Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As you know, and as the member knows, there is to be no use of props. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 No. And that applies to both sides of the chamber. I remind both sides of the chamber of that. Also, the use of the word 'you' is one that I often pull both sides up on. Please, it is not me; you are talking through me to the other side. I remind the member for Moncrieff about props. Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is not a prop, it is just the notes that I am referring to, where in large print it says: Budget News Bill Shorten MP A budget surplus for a strong economy – spreading the benefits of the mining boom to all Australians. I will table that for the benefit of the Australian Labor Party. In addition to that we have: Australia's economic report card. There is a great big tick and: Back in surplus, on time, as promised In these uncertain global times there’s no clearer sign of a strong economy than a surplus. We’ve delivered a surplus, on time, as promised. Again, that is from the Leader of the Opposition's newsletter and I table that as well because this is what is fundamentally wrong with Labor. Labor has no credibility. The problem for the Australian Labor Party is that you cannot just whitewash history. Australians know that you cannot put out electorate-wide newsletters, you cannot run around on over 430 occasions and promise budget surpluses and you cannot tell people at school forums and at public forums that you have delivered a surplus if it is just not true. Labor can come in here and say, 'Well, here are the warped priorities of the Abbott government,' but the reality is that the fundamental difference between the coalition in government and the Labor Party in government comes down to this—and it was put very eloquently by the Prime Minister: 'When we were in opposition we fought hard to get Labor to keep their promises, but now when Labor is in opposition they're fighting hard to stop us from delivering on our promises.' And that is the fundamental difference! We are a government that is about delivering. We are a government that is about implementing the reforms that we undertook to the Australian people and said we would implement. We are a government of action! A government that is about repairing the fiscal damage that was left to us by the Australian Labor Party. The only people who stand in the way of us achieving our goals, of us delivering on our commitments, of us repairing the damage that was left to us by the Australian Labor Party is none other than the Australian Labor Party. Earlier today, down at the Press Club, the Leader of the Opposition said, 'Every budget is a window into a government's soul'. They are his words: 'Every budget is a window into a government's soul'. Well let's look at Labor's six budgets. Let's look at that window into the soul that the Australian Labor Party is all about. We know, for example, in the 2010-11 budget, Labor predicted that they would have a deficit of $40.8 billion. $40.8 billion! The actual final budget outcome was $47.5 billion. We know that in the 2010-11 budget, they said that the next year's deficit—that is the 2011-12 deficit—was going to be $13 billion. The actual deficit that year was $43.4 billion dollars. But in the 2010-11 budget, they said, 'Well, in 2012-13 we will be back in surplus, and it is going to be a billion-dollar surplus'. But the reality was that the actual final budget outcome was $18.8 billion of budget deficit. And this was Labor's gargantuan mountain that they need to overcome. No-one is going to take Labor seriously until they hold their hands over their hearts and they say, 'Mea culpa, we betrayed the people of Australia. We delivered budget deficit after budget deficit. We have indebted generations Australians to pay back that debt for years, for decades.' They will be paying back Labor's six years of reckless spending. We on this side of the chamber do not want to be lectured to by the Australian Labor Party. We on this side of the chamber say to Labor one clear consistent message: please, get out of our way. Respect the wishes of the Australian people. When the Australian people voted in clear majority to say, 'We don't want the world's biggest carbon tax, we don't want to export jobs overseas, we don't want to see a continuation of the debt and deficit of the last six years', respect their mandate! Free our hands through the Senate so that we can undertake the reforms that will put this nation back on the pathway to consolidating debt and paying down debt. We do not want to pay $12 billion a year in interest. We want to put $12 billion into roads, into health, into education, into defence—that is how we want use money. We certainly do not want to see a continuation of Labor's failed approach, and they need to own up their largess, own up to their failure and get out of the way so that we can be a government gets on with delivering. 15:43 Ms PARKE HWR Fremantle It is difficult to assess and discuss the priorities of a government whose objectives are so hard to find and whose stated aims, when you do find them, are so small-minded and mean spirited. The key characteristic of this coalition government is the continuation of its deep, intractable negativity. They are not 'for' anything. They do not have a vision of Australia's best future. They are resolutely against many of what should clearly be the nation's highest priorities: universal, affordable and high-quality health care, education and training, a national broadband network and a clean energy future Instead, all this government has is an abiding nostalgia for the trinkets of the past, a blind faith in market forces and the big end of town, and a list of friends and enemies to fix up along the way. On the basis of what we have seen so far, this government's priority is to re-hash old battles and re-heat old obsessions. They want to remove, through deregulation, key pieces of social, environmental and financial protection. They want to privatise every available public asset. They want to end the so-called age of entitlement, but only to the extent that it means removing the kinds of apparently objectionable largesse that exist in the form of measures like the low-income superannuation contribution and assistance to the orphaned children of veterans. For Labor, a strong economy means shared economic and social benefits, starting with the opportunity to have the best education and training, universal public health care and a labour market with good jobs and fair pay and conditions. For the coalition, a strong economy means anything goes at the top end and everything goes when it comes to public assets and social services. When it comes to the economy, the government's priority has been adding new items in the spending column, including billions of dollars the Reserve Bank did not ask for and a non-means tested Paid Parental Leave scheme that people do not need. We know there is an audit commission report that will detail cuts across the board. We do not know what is in the report, because it is being kept secret, and we do not know what will be in the budget papers, but we can make an educated guess based on the form this government has shown to date. It may involve a GP co-payment so that ordinary Australians pay more for primary health care. It will certainly involve measures to ensure that highly profitable mining companies pay less. It is likely to involve further reductions in the support available for renewable energy and energy efficiency measures. It will certainly involve changes that ensure carbon polluters pay nothing for their pollution. On the contrary, that is a tab the coalition wants the taxpayer to pick up. We do not need to make an educated guess about this government's priorities when it comes to jobs. We know this government has no interest in longstanding industries such as manufacturing and burgeoning industries such as renewable energy. This government believes the way to create jobs is to cut pay and conditions. We know that marine protection is out but the protection of bigotry is in. We know that health star ratings and preventative health agencies are out but tobacco donations for the National Party are in. There is one government priority that we have heard about repeatedly from those opposite. We have been told that Mr Abbott will soon come to be known as the infrastructure Prime Minister. That is a relief, because I can tell you that in my electorate of Fremantle, and indeed throughout WA, many people are looking forward to the continued delivery of the single most important infrastructure project in Australia in the 21st century, the National Broadband Network. Except, unfortunately, the NBN is out too. So I guess the kind of infrastructure we might expect in WA is investment in public transport to continue the former Labor government's historic level of contribution to those projects, but no again. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he is not interested in partnering with state governments to help create functioning, productive and vibrant Australian cities through the delivery of well-planned public and freight transport rail networks. So what infrastructure is it exactly that the Prime Minister expects he will come to be known for? In WA this week we had an indication, when the new Western Australian Minister for Transport announced a 'new' co-funded road project involving the widening of the Kwinana Freeway between the Roe Highway and Armadale Road, only for it to be revealed that this agreed and co-funded project was actually announced by the former federal Labor government last August. Three other transport infrastructure projects have been similarly re-announced. For all I know, the Abbott government will shortly announce and claim credit for building the Perth to Kalgoorlie pipeline, Fremantle Harbour and the 'Polly' Farmer pipe. The Abbott government has no discernible positive priorities. It has chosen to shape and guide itself by what it wants to cut and by what it wants to remove, unwind, deregulate, sell or abandon. In WA we have no great need for knights and dames; we need forward-looking and courageous policy to secure a clean energy future, to secure established and developing job opportunities and to create fairer and more effective social conditions through mechanisms such the National Disability Insurance Scheme and by addressing homelessness and the urgent need for affordable and social housing. Unfortunately, with this government, those priorities are nowhere to be seen. 15:48 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong One of the people we like to quote often on this side of the House is Ronald Reagan. He said that the 10 most dangerous words in the English language were: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.' That could not be more appropriate and apt for the performance of the previous Labor government, because in their nearly six years in office they not only recycled prime ministers in a world-record time but also left us with a budget that had deteriorated to the point that we are now facing $667 billion of debt. They gave us a mining tax which was unique in the world, because it did not create or raise any revenue. They gave us a carbon tax which was in complete breach of a fundamental promise that they took to the Australian people at the previous election. And they unravelled what were successful border protection measures that were put in place by John Howard, so we had more than 50,000 unauthorised boat arrivals, a massive $11 billion plus blow-out in the budget and the tragedy of losing more than 1,000 people at sea. That was the legacy of the previous government; that was the mess that they left us. When we had previously been in office, during the Howard years, we had gotten used to fixing up Labor's mess. Now Tony Abbott and his team are again getting used to fixing up Labor's mess. We have started strongly and we have started well. Firstly, we have made a priority of stopping the boats. It has now been 97 days since we have had an unauthorised boat arrival in this country—a very significant development. We have entered into a free trade agreement with Korea—one of our largest export partners—which is going to reduce the tariffs for agricultural products and many other products and could, therefore, increase export revenue for Australia. We have set up a Commission of Audit chaired by the head of the Business Council of Australia, Tony Shepherd—now to be replaced—a man who was well known in business circles for his work. By putting the head of the Business Council at the centre of our thinking for the Commission of Audit, we were sending out a broader message that we will think about business and the impacts on business and job creation at the heart of our policies. We are doing a review into competition policy. We are putting out a tax white paper and an agriculture white paper. We have a plan for Northern Australia. Importantly, we are bringing back of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, which was successful as a cop on the beat in reducing lawlessness in that sector which employs so many people. And, of course, we have a royal commission into union finances and some of the real problems that we have seen over recent years. We have a plan to bring back infrastructure into the places around this country that need it most. More than $35.5 billion has been committed in infrastructure projects—$6.7 billion for the Bruce Highway, $5.6 billion to finish the duplication of the Pacific Highway, $1.5 billion for the East West Link in my state of Victoria and another $1½ billion dollars for the WestConnex project. This is all real money that is having a real impact upon people on the ground. But of course one of the other important initiatives of this government is what we are debating in the chamber today, and that is repeal day: the first time the Australian parliament has set aside a day to debate the need to get rid of redundant regulations—more than 10,000 acts and regulations will be repealed. Productivity will be lifted right across the economy. I am talking about aged care. I am talking about small business. I am talking about the environment. That is where we are making a real difference to people's lives, because we believe at the end of the day it is not government that creates jobs; it is the business sector that creates jobs. We, in this place, have to get ourselves out of their lives to free them up to not only employ more people but help the people who are most in need. That is why the government has started strongly. Thank you very much. 15:53 Mr CONROY 249127 Charlton Governing is about priorities and choices. Governing is about making the right choices at the right time. Unfortunately, this government is all about the wrong priorities. In a period of significant instability in the world and where there are significant concerns in the general community about jobs and the future of work, we have seen this government making every single possible wrong choice, every single possible wrong prioritisation. What have we seen in the last two weeks from this government? What are the three headline issues that they want to debate in this place? They want to make it easier for dodgy financial planners to rip off customers, to make it easier for people to be racist in public, and the return to knighthoods and dames. It is truly a return to the past. I am thankful that the Prime Minister belled the cat on the return to the past yesterday with his announcement of knighthoods, because it has finally solved a real conundrum I have been facing: why was the government so intent on killing the automotive industry? Why did they take concerted action to destroy those jobs by cutting $500 million from the ATS? I finally worked it out from their decision to return to knighthoods. It is because they do not understand the auto industry. They do not understand cars. They do not understand the internal combustion engine—when people talk about horsepower in cars, they look under the bonnet for tiny horses. They think it is some form of witchcraft, and so it has to be killed off so they can return to the horse-and-buggy era for dames and knights. That is truly what this government is about: returning to the past—cutting penalty rates, not taking care of child care, not giving people a hand with child care and, most importantly, not showing a deep commitment to jobs. Under this government, we have seen 60,000 full-time jobs go. We have seen jobs lost in Holden and Toyota. We have seen job loss announcements by Forge. We are seeing a real debate about the future of the naval shipbuilding industry in this country where people on this side are searching for a constructive solution, and all we get from the other side is tired slogans. We have seen it in education—an issue of utmost importance to people in my electorate of Charlton, where we have many schools that are underfunded and are really struggling to allocate resources to really give our kids a good education. Before the election, we saw the government, the then opposition, saying, 'We understand this should be a priority.' 'We're on a unity ticket on Gonski.' The education minister was calling it 'a conski', and he cuddled up to Labor. He said, 'We're going to support Gonski.' And what do we see after they come to government? They are cutting Gonski, guaranteeing only one year of funding. And what do we see in WA, for example? A green light to Barnett to cut $180 million in funding for education—350 teachers' jobs gone, 350 teacher aides' jobs gone—all because this government have the wrong priorities. They want to help dodgy financial planners. They want to give the green light to racism. They want to return to knighthoods but they do not want to support education. They do not want to support jobs. On infrastructure, another important topic in WA and the rest of the country: instead of leaving infrastructure planning in the rational, apolitical hands of Infrastructure Australia, we see it being returned to the member for Wide Bay, the minister for pork-barrelling, returning it to the National Party, where we will see more regional rorts affairs. On health—something of enormous importance to the people of Charlton and I believe the whole country—we do not see them debating how we can get more resources into hospitals; we see them debating how we can add a $6 GP's tax, a tax that will hit working families and pensioners the most. It will be an additional cost of $21 million to the people of the Hunter. It is great disgrace and it shows yet again the priorities of the government. Whenever they talk about priorities, it is about supporting their backers, not helping ordinary Australians. Yet they are not being up-front. They have the 900-page audit report but they are hiding it. It has now been turned into a draft report, because they do not want the people of Western Australia to see it before the election. We know what will happen; after the election, they will slip it out in the middle of the night and we will see more cuts, more attacks on health, on education, on the Public Service, because fundamentally these people over there do not want to build Australia. They want to bring it down. They want to return to the past. They want to call their business mates 'Sir This' and 'Lady That' instead of really talking about the priorities that will build Australia. I am proud to come from a party that is all about building this nation. All they want to do is tear it down with their false priorities and their wrong choices. 15:58 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce This motion, as was last week's, is all about a reference to the impending Senate legislation that Western Australia will face alone. Poor old WA—I understand that when you win a lottery, not that I have ever had that pleasant experience, you find all of these estranged relatives coming out of the woodwork and being your best mate. That is pretty much how Western Australians feel at the moment, because every conceivable minor party is all of a sudden the best friend of the state. Labor are having their crack as well, and I will say this for Labor: they are much improved from last week's effort of pretending to be the best friend of the state of Western Australia. In last week's motion on WA, they could not manage to rustle up a single speaker from Western Australia; in fact, with all of the speakers and all the time they had, they only managed to mention Western Australia twice. Maybe it is just me but I think, 'If you're going to try to move a motion that pretends you're the best friend of a state before an impending Senate election, you might want to at least find a Western Australian or, in the absence of one, try and mention the state perhaps more than twice.' It is much improved, best improved performance on-ground: we did actually find a Western Australian this week. Unfortunately, she forgot about it and was late turning up for the motion. Nevertheless, it is a significantly improved effort from last week. I want to sum up what I think, from my brief political experience, is emblematic of the attitude of Labor to Western Australia. It goes back to a story in 2011 when I had the great privilege of delivering a budget as state Treasurer for Western Australia. I increased a tax, or, as I indicated at the time, I removed a concession that existed on a tax, which is a much more pleasant way of putting it than 'increasing a tax'. I will admit that when I was at university I thought all tax was theft, but I took a slightly different view when I became the Treasurer of Western Australia. It is a necessary part of any economy. This was a tax that applied to iron ore royalties. There was a longstanding 40-year discount that had been offered to a type of iron ore called fines iron ore. The rate on fines iron ore was 5.625 per cent and the rate on lump iron ore was 7.5 per cent. They are as they sound: their ferrous content is essentially the same but lump iron ore is lumpy while fines iron ore is more like a powdery substance. Traditionally the reason one was valued more highly than the other was that smelting mills in China and Asia and elsewhere were geared up for lump ore. That had changed over a 40-year period and fines was just as valuable, but this discount remained. We removed the discount. We thought we gave Labor proper notice of the fact that that was an impending move. It was a logical, common-sense move and removing the discount brought in over the four out-years of the budget $2 billion worth of much-needed revenue to the state of Western Australia. There is much complaint in WA, of course, and I have been part of that complaint, about the distributive system of GST. But as the Commonwealth Grants Commission operates, that removal on that fines iron ore could have been treated as either a low-royalty mineral or a high-royalty mineral. This is one of those bizarre complexities of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. If the removal of the discount on fines were treated as a low-royalty mineral then, over the longer sweep past the out-years, WA probably would have lost in the diminished GST receipts about 60 to 65 per cent of that $2 billion worth of revenue. That would have been shared with our brethren from the other states and would have built hospitals in South Australia and other structures in Tasmania. If it were categorised in the high-royalty mineral rate, WA would have lost in excess of the total amount raised; it would have lost more than the $2 billion that was raised in revenue. I think that points out that one of the difficulties with the Commonwealth Grants Commission is that if WA had thought that would happen then what incentive would there have been to remove the discount, raise $2 billion and share 65 per cent of it with the rest of Australia? What a bizarre system. In any event, the then Treasurer, the member for Lilley, made public statements that he would ensure that no direction was given to the grants commission, which would have the effect of ensuring that that change would be counted as a high-value royalty mineral and that WA would lose all $2 billion. In addition, both the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and the then Treasurer, the member for Lilley, of federal Labor, indicated that because of the move they may withhold hundreds of millions of dollars worth of infrastructure funding that had been earmarked for the state. So, the new best friend of the state today, not that long ago—when there was a legitimate increase in royalty rates to earn revenue for both the state and the rest of the nation—threatened to direct that all of those be taken back from the state and that previously earmarked funding to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars be withheld from the state. So when we hear the member for Perth and the member for Fremantle get up with what looks like a straight face and try to pretend that Labor is all of a sudden, on the eve of a Senate election, a great friend of the state that it imposed a mining tax on, that it imposed a carbon tax on and that it extraordinarily directly threatened to remove revenue from previously earmarked, I think that is unbelievable. 16:03 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I rise to speak on this matter of public importance, the government's bad choices and wrong priorities evident in the lead-up to the May budget. Government members may well want Labor MPs to get out of the way, but I can assure you that the people of Newcastle did not vote for the Liberal candidate at the last election and they certainly do not what their voice to be silent in this House. Last year, when I was campaigning for the then federal election, knocking on the doors of thousands of homes, making those calls and meeting people at street stalls and out at community events, a number of issues certainly did get raised with me. What were the priorities for the people of Newcastle? Some of those were matters that went to issues of jobs and job security, education funding and access, the need for a high-speed National Broadband Network and the rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. But, of the thousands of conversations I had at that time, not once was I approached with a question about where I might have stood on the issue of knights and dames. Indeed, the only Knights that we Novocastrians care about are those that run out into the Hunter Stadium on a weekend. Not once was I asked about what I thought about the need to rewrite the free speech laws in Australia or whether we should cut protections against bigotry. Not once was I asked about whether I believed a hyphen should have been removed from the word 'e-mail' to unleash the burdens for small business, or whether it was wise to deregulate the charity sector and remove the charity regulator. Neither was I asked whether it would be necessarily a good idea to have a new tax every time we went to visit our GP. And I certainly was not asked whether it was going to be a good idea to sell off Medicare Private to the highest bidder, as was just announced by the Minister for Finance. These are not the priorities of Novocastrians, and I am sure that at least those of us on this side of the House agree that they are not the priorities of the Australian community at large. But, as evident through their actions this week, these are the twisted priorities of the Prime Minister and his government. This is a government that claims to have a vision for Australia, but we struggle to find that vision. It is a vision that is focused backwards, looking back in time for inspiration, bereft of ideas for our future. I would like to take this opportunity to remind the government of some of those priority issues that Australians are in fact talking about. Firstly, there is the issue of education. Some of my colleagues have raised this before. Before the election, we were apparently on a unity ticket when it came to better funding for our local schools. This was a government that promised, as we all remember, 'no surprises, no excuses'. But no amount of spin can hide the fact that the present government's commitment to the Gonski funding agreements that they went to the Australian public with before the election completely collapsed post election. On 2 August, the now Prime Minister, who indeed promised that no school would be worse off under his government, said: We will honour the agreements that Labor has entered into. We will match the offers that Labor has made. We will make sure than no school is worse off. We think that money is important. His assurances were confirmed by the now education minister, 19 days later: Every single school in Australia will receive, dollar for dollar, the same federal funding over the next four years whether there is a Liberal or Labor Government after September 7. But we now know that they have changed the rules, meaning state governments can cut school funding, just like Colin Barnett has done in Western Australia. We now get commitments like this from the Prime Minister in December: We are going to keep the promise that we made, not the promise that some people thought we made or the promise that some people might have liked us to make. We are going to keep the promise that we actually made. Clear as mud, but that was confirmation of their pre-election promise. The other important issue for the people of Newcastle is of course jobs. This government stands by, watching jobs get lost, every day— (Time expired) 16:08 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest It is great to be able to speak to the House today about the need to make good choices instead of bad ones, and to have the right priorities in government. It is so great, that I am astounded that the Labor Party would be silly enough to raise it as a topic. But let us look at the choices being made by this side of the House compared to that side. The coalition has chosen to scrap the carbon tax. The Labor Party and the Greens have chosen to keep the carbon tax, even though it hurts Western Australian families and business to the tune of at least $627 million, and has not measurably lowered our emissions. The coalition has chosen to get rid of the mining tax. The Labor Party and the Greens have chosen to keep this direct tax on the Western Australian economy and on Western Australian jobs. The member for Perth, the mover of this ridiculous motion, is even on the record as saying last week that Labor should 'go back to the drawing board' on the mining tax. The Labor strategy on the mining tax sounds like an episode of Mr Squiggle: 'Hurry up, member for Perth, hurry up!' The result of the September election was the result of the Australian people no longer being able to believe what Labor said. Labor has lost the trust and respect of the Australian people. The Australian people want the truth, not more Labor manipulations. The member for Perth should reflect on that. The community of my electorate of Forrest remember well her election statement that a deal had been struck to save the Greenbushes to Bunbury rail line in 2008. This rail line had actually been shut down by the member for Perth as the WA Minister for Transport in March 2005. But, as is the Labor way, it was not true. No deal had been struck, because no agreement had been reached on who would pay the additional cost of putting logs on rail. It was a fallacious statement designed to win votes; a little like what we have seen today. My constituents could not trust the member for Perth back then, and the Western Australian people should not trust her now. Cutting red tape is a great priority for this government, and we have spent the day in just such a debate. Getting our economy moving by enhancing our trade with Asia is a great priority, and the government is doing just that. Getting the national budget back under control is a great priority of this government, and that task is massive. Nobody on our side underestimates the size of that task. Yet it has almost been treated as a joke by the other side. This is thanks to the budget mismanagement of six years of Labor government. The Rudd and Gillard Labor governments have left a legacy of gross debt. These are figures that are out and being discussed, but people often forget just how much it is; it will peak at over $667 billion—a huge amount—thanks to $123 billion in accumulated deficits. That is the Labor way. Our priorities are: to create jobs by boosting productivity; to develop northern Australia; to boost productivity and reduce regulation, as we are doing today; to create jobs; to boost manufacturing and to enhance growth in small business. Small business is the very engine room of our economy; it employs nearly half of our Australian workers. This is a great set of priorities. And the people of Western Australia know it. One of the things that Labor and the Greens have voted against, which is critical in Western Australia as it is right throughout rural and regional Australia, is the Roads to Recovery program, and it terminates in June this year. This is an absolute disgrace. Every local government out there that relies on this funding will be in absolute dismay at this. Labor and the Greens have underestimated the effect that this will have at the grassroots level. I say to the voters in Western Australia: in the run-up to the upcoming Western Australia Senate election, if you want Roads to Recovery, you need to vote accordingly for the coalition. 16:13 Mr GRIFFIN VU5 Bruce I rise to stand and speak on this matter of public importance about the fact that this government is making bad choices and has wrong priorities in the lead-up to the May budget. When we look at what this government is trying to do, we see a government with training wheels, a government that is looking to try and set the tone for how they intend to try and govern and, through the process of that, demonise those who came before them. We have seen them juggle the figures around the budget expenditure calculations. We have seen them try and set the tone about the future with respect to the Commission of Audit. I would like to make a couple of comments about the Commission of Audit and the circumstances around that. We know that there is a 900-page document in the hands of the government and we know that it has a range of recommendations, but we do not know the detail. Why is the government not releasing that report? Why is the government not prepared to be fair dinkum with the voters of Western Australia in the lead-up to biggest by-election/re-election in the history of this nation? Those on the other side will say, 'There were reports held by the previous government for longer than this', in a situation where details were not provided publicly. There is one big difference. By the time there was an electoral contest of any significance, post things like the Henry tax report, the details were out there in the open and those who were having a democratic say were able to consider whether they agreed or disagreed with what was being proposed. Some of the speculation that has occurred around that audit commission—and frankly some of the things have not been ruled out—is around things like cuts to the age pension. The Prime Minister has been asked repeatedly to rule that out. He has refused to do it. The chairman of the commission, Tony Shepherd, has made a point of saying repeatedly, 'Everything is on the table.' They are looking at everything; they have made recommendations—we think—on many things. We have also heard speculation about retirees facing a crackdown on eligibility for the Seniors Health Card that will potentially impact on the cost of medicines and cash payments. There is a lot there and it ought to be out in the open. One of the previous speakers, the member for Kooyong—my friend Mr Frydenberg—said that on that side of the House they like to quote Ronald Reagan. He noted a particular quote, which is in the Hansard. I will give a couple of more, which I think have more to do with this government. As Reagan said, 'It's true hard work never killed anybody, but I figure, why take the chance?' and, 'I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself.' At the Republican convention in 1988, he said, 'Facts are stupid things.' One that I think is very much in line with the actions this government has taken on climate change is, 'Trees cause more pollution than automobiles.' The thing about Reagan, which I think is indicative of the way this government looks like it is going to operate, is that there are some facts about Reagan which need to be remembered as against the legend. Reagan was a serial tax raiser. As President, he raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office. Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. Unemployment soared after his tax cuts in 1981. It jumped to 10.8 per cent. And Reagan as President grew the size of the federal government tremendously. I happen to think that Reagan made a number of significant achievements. The funny thing is: there is what he said and there is what he did. There are the issues he faced and there are the things that he talked about. Frankly, modern conservatives seem to remember what he said he would do rather than what he actually did. My message to the voters of Western Australia is: have a look at what this government is not telling you about what they intend to do after you have voted. Let's remember that there is a need to have checks and balances within our political system, and one of the biggest checks and balances is the circumstances within the Senate, and they have an absolute role in determining that in only a few days. Let's remember that a government that is only doing what it said it would do is also now doing a range of other things, including giving knighthoods and other imperial honours as a step down a track to a 'back to the future' that makes John Howard look like a forward-thinking revolutionary, and even a republican, such as the minister at the table, Mr Turnbull— (Time expired) 16:19 Mr IRONS HYM Swan It is good to follow the member for Bruce, who just gave us some quotes from Ronald Reagan, one of which was 'Facts are stupid'. That is what the Labor Party think as well, because they hate the facts. Every time you bring up the facts in an argument they just turn away. They are very good with motherhood statements and being nice and all that sort of thing, but when you quote facts to them that is when they back off. The member for Bruce also talked about looking not at what Reagan achieved but what he actually said. That is what the Labor Party do as well. They seem to have forgotten what they did in the last six years. They have a very poor memory, because it was 'promise the world'—but I will go into some of those quotes later. I see the member for Bruce is now exiting the chamber; he does not want to hear the end of this. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this MPI put forward by the member for Perth. It is the second one she has done in three weeks, and it is all about focusing on the Western Australian Senate election. Last time her MPI was based on infrastructure, and members on this side of the chamber quoted to her all the infrastructure promises that were made to Western Australia and that failed. So I can understand why in today's MPI she did not mention infrastructure at all. One of the things we mentioned during the infrastructure MPI was the fact that in 2007 Kevin Rudd promised the Western Australian people an infrastructure fund of $100 million per annum while he was in government. Did we ever see that $100 million per annum? Never. Not at all. The Labor government promised a lot of other things as well. I see the Minister for Communications is in the chamber. I know he loves Western Australia. He has a sense of entrepreneurship that he shares with most West Australians. I know that when he has been to Western Australia and particularly to my electorate of Swan we have been aghast about what was supposed to have been said and delivered with the NBN into my electorate of Swan. We did a hunt for those promises and outcomes and what did we find? I can see the Minister for Communications shaking his head. We found nothing. We were promised the world by the Labor Party. They seem to have a memory loss when it comes to situations like this. They have been out of government for only six months now and they have conveniently wiped what happened the previous six years and they are now saying that we have got our priorities wrong. Our priorities are correct, and I think that in the time we have left we need to say that the government has a plan to repair the budget. It has a plan to boost growth and create jobs. The next instalment of our budget repair plan will come in the May budget, when we will outline our comprehensive budget strategy to fix Labor's mess—and what a mess it is. We are committed to ensuring that spending is directed to the highest priority areas, particularly to productive infrastructure that will boost growth and create jobs. We can see that in the plans of the Minister for Communications for the NBN, prioritising where the money needs to be spent in the areas of need, which is something that the Labor government failed to do. As we have heard repeatedly in this chamber from the Minister for Communications, in the world of Conrovia it was more about promises and wearing red underpants on their heads than it was about delivering the real outcomes for people in Western Australia. We already have around $20 billion of savings sitting before the parliament as a down payment on the full budget repair plan. Legislation to abolish both the carbon tax and the mining tax has passed the House of Representatives and now sits in front of the Senate waiting for the Labor senators to stop standing in the way of the coalition implementing the will of the Australian people from the last election. I would just like to give some quotes to Western Australians about the member for Perth as well, so that they know where she actually stands on the mining tax. As we know, the mining tax is an anti-Western-Australian tax, and 100 per cent, I would say, of the mining tax that has been raised has come out of Western Australia. In regard to that, Western Australians need to know of this. This is a quote from Alannah MacTiernan. Alannah MacTiernan has failed WA. Less than 24 hours after her appointment to her new position, she reiterated her support for the mining tax, saying that she stood by the principle of the mining tax and that 'there are strong arguments in favour of a profit based tax'. She said: … the idea of a profits based tax is a sound one. On 23 March, in a television interview, she stated: 'Certainly I support the mining tax.' When they are in Western Australia they say one thing, but when they are in Canberra they say a different thing. So what I need to say to the people of Western Australia is: vote for the coalition in the coming Senate elections, or tell your Labor people that they need to go to the other chamber and tell their senators to scrap the mining tax and scrap the carbon tax. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 Order! It being 4.24 pm, the discussion has concluded. BILLS 3244 BILLS Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill 2013, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2013-2014, Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2013-2014, Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2014 3244

Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill 2013

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2013-2014

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2013-2014

Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2014

Returned from Senate 3244 Marriage (Celebrant Registration Charge) Bill 2014 3245

Marriage (Celebrant Registration Charge) Bill 2014

Report from Federation Chamber 3245 Third Reading 3245 16:25 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Marriage Amendment (Celebrant Administration and Fees) Bill 2014 3245

Marriage Amendment (Celebrant Administration and Fees) Bill 2014

Report from Federation Chamber 3245 Third Reading 3245 16:26 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014, Amending Acts 1901 to 1969 Repeal Bill 2014, Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 1) 2014 3245

Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014

Amending Acts 1901 to 1969 Repeal Bill 2014

Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 1) 2014

Second Reading 3245 16:27 The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to. 16:27 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Throsby Before the debate was interrupted, I made the point that, in the lead-up to 19 March, the chamber, the House and the Australian community were given great expectations of the contents of this omnibus repeal bill. We were going to be invited to a bonfire, and it was as if every kid in the neighbourhood was going to be witnessing a magnificent fireworks display. You can imagine their disappointment when they turned up on 19 March and, instead of fireworks, all they received was damp sparklers. It was a great flop. If only it had been only the kids that were let down, but I have to say that it was millions of small businesses as well. If you had listened to the rhetoric of the parliamentary secretary, if you had listened to the rhetoric of the Prime Minister, you would have been led to believe that after 19 March a yoke of government regulation and unnecessary red tape was all of a sudden going to be lifted from the shoulders of millions of small-business men and women around the country. Can you imagine their relief when they picked up a copy of the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014 and they turned their eyes to magnificent sections such as the repeal of the Flags Act 1953, which redefines the size of the Commonwealth star on the Australian flag? It has within it those overburdensome regulations that the federation flag should be three-tenths the size of the width of the flag. You can imagine the excitement of the fish and chip shop down in Dapto! They would be saying, 'We'll double the order of flake. Good times are upon us. Free pineapple fitters for everybody, because we are no longer going to be weighed down by the burden of the Flags Act, this horrendous government regulation which is stopping the queues forming outside our shop every day.' But it did not end there, because those guys over there are modernisers. They wanted to ensure that they removed from our statute books every anachronism that was standing in the way of small businesses in this country. They wanted to ensure that the Commonwealth legislation kept up with the most modern in electronic communications. That is why they have ensured that the word 'fax' is consistently used in Commonwealth legislation instead of 'facsimile'. You can imagine companies right throughout the country, on receiving news of this, all of a sudden were putting 'Positions Vacant' ads in their local newspaper: 'We are being freed up from this burdensome red tape! Thank God that this regulatory burden has been lifted from our shoulders!" But it did not stop there, because we know that regional Australia has not been left out. Those North Queensland MPs have been on the job as well. They have indicated the importance of repeal day having something in there for them and ensuring that government gets off the shoulders of tourism operators in Cairns and Port Douglas. They are now anticipating a bumper year, because they are going to their boards and saying, 'We've got good news. The government is on the case and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act had a typo removed from it to ensure that the word 'committed' is now spelt with two t's instead of one.' It is a manna from heaven for those tourism operators in North Queensland. Never mind the fact that climate change is having a dramatic impact on the tourism operators in North Queensland, there is bleaching of the coral and there are unexpected weather events. These are small and trifling issues when it comes to the things the government should be focusing on. Running a spellcheck through our Commonwealth statute book is far more important on repeal day than dealing with the big issues. This morning I had the great benefit of attending a policy breakfast hosted by the remote rural doctors network. They presented me with a lot of useful information, including this document here, which shows the number of forms that a doctor has to fill out before they are able to gain access to a Medicare provider number. If you look at this document, which contains these forms, you will see that there are well in excess of 15 to 20 forms. I can only imagine what those doctors would have thought, if they were in the chamber on the day that the parliamentary secretary, invoking the spirit of Sir Robert Menzies's great speech in 1946, declared: 'We want fewer forms and more reforms,' and said that these were the ethics that motivated this government. Far from fewer forms and more reforms, far from removing red tape, they are running a spellcheck through the statute books but doing very little, when it comes to removing red tape and removing regulation. So we are led to think: what is the purpose of all of this? When you have a look at the contents of this legislation, the only conclusion that you can make is that it is a huge smokescreen for their intent to reform the future of financial reform legislation that was introduced by the previous Labor government. They did not like the fact that, when in government, Labor made it a requirement on financial advisers that they must honour a statutory obligation to act in the best interests of their clients. They did not like the fact that we got rid of conflicted remuneration, kickbacks and trailing commissions. They made a promise, before the election, that they were going to reintroduce it. In fact, we were told that over $1 billion worth of savings was going to be realised as a result of these reforms. They were terribly unpopular. The United Investors, indeed financial advisers themselves and many others within the community, are against the minister and against the government on this issue. Despite the fact that these were being trumpeted as their big reforms with $1 billion worth of savings, it has all collapsed like a house of cards. So that is the reason for the omnibus reform bill. If the whole reason is that it is a smokescreen for getting through this unpopular legislation, you have to ask yourself: what is it all about? There is serious work to be done when it comes to looking at the regulatory burden on businesses. We should be focused on the big issues that are impacting workers, their families and business itself. We should be ensuring that workers are paid a living wage and that dignity at work and retirement are looked after for all Australians. Fairer funding for schools, reliable access to decent broadband and keeping health care affordable for all Australians: these are the big issues. You will not see any of them dealt with in the omnibus reform legislation. All of it is just a huge smokescreen, a damp squib, to get through unpopular reforms contained in the FoFA repeal legislation. The only way it makes sense is that the whole thing is a great charade, a series of press releases covering up the fact that there was no policy substance whatsoever. Obviously the government has a plan to win government but not a plan to govern, because otherwise we would be seeing more substance in the omnibus repeal day legislation. There is no substance whatsoever. There are no big ideas, no reform agenda, no legislative agenda. Their big initiative of the week is to reintroduce royal honorifics, such as the titles of Sir and Dame. Commas, hyphens, typographical errors and honorifics are as good as they could come to. What people are left with is a pretty empty piece of legislation—far from a bonfire and far from fireworks. There are a few damp sparklers. The people of Australia, let alone the people of Western Australia, who are going to the polls very soon, must be asking themselves: is this the government that we were told we were going to be electing? I am sure that they will be concluding: the fact is, no. There are no big ideas. They had a plan to get into government, but no plan to govern. The government have talked up this omnibus reform bill as the answer to small business's woes and problems, but there is nothing in there for small business. Particularly, there is nothing in it for the residents of Western Australia. Is it any wonder that, when the voters go to the polls in Western Australia in a few weeks time, on 5 April, they will question if they did the right thing in voting the coalition into government at the 2013 election. I am not the only person saying this, because we can see that Western Australians themselves, including members of the coalition, are running away from the Prime Minister at a great rate of knots. The Prime Minister was not able to add to the coalition vote in the by-election for the seat of Griffith, and he probably assisted in losing the Liberals the state election in South Australia. It is little wonder, when you cast your eye over some of the paraphernalia the coalition candidates will be handing out—the how-to-votes, for example—that in a few weeks time at polling booths in Western Australia you will not see a picture of the Prime Minister on anything. He is in witness protection. The people of Western Australia have realised, as the coalition parties in Western Australia have realised, that he had a plan to win government but no plan to govern, and that the people they elected were not the government they were told to expect. The government's priorities are all wrong and their policies are hyped-up hyperbole with no substance, and we see that in the legislation before the House today. 16:40 Mrs McNAMARA 241589 Dobell I rise to support the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014. The Abbott coalition government is committed to assisting Australia's businesses and community groups by removing $1 billion in red and green tape costs. For the first time in history, two days of parliament each year will be dedicated to removing red tape. Today marks the first of these two days. Today, 10,000 regulations and pieces of legislation are being repealed, resulting in over $700 million in savings, less compliance and fewer hours spent completing paperwork. This represents the largest-ever single bulk repeal in the history of the Commonwealth. This is in stark contrast to the 21,000 regulations introduced in the past six years by the Labor government—as well as the toxic carbon and mining taxes. As a result of Labor's pro-regulation approach to government, Australia has been ranked 128 out of 148 countries surveyed for burden of government regulation by the World Economic Forum. I have listened to the small businesses and community groups of Dobell who have told me of their struggle with the costs of compliance, which impact on their productivity and ability to grow, invest and create new jobs. No-one would argue that business regulation is essential for ensuring the rights of employers, employees and the general public are protected. Unfortunately, business regulation that is inefficient or unnecessary imposes undue costs on business. The costs of compliance are seen as a major barrier to growth. The average Australian business deals with eight regulators in a given year, spends close to four per cent of their total annual expenditure on complying with regulatory requirements and spends approximately 19 hours a week on compliance-related activities. I would like to acknowledge in the parliament today the delegation from Dobell, comprising Mr Daniel Farmer from the Central Coast NSW Business Chamber, Mr John Mouland and Mr Phil Walker from Regional Development Australia Central Coast, and Ms Christine Hornery from the Dobell Women's Business Forum. Their presence today demonstrates the support in our community for our government's commitment to removing unnecessary red and green tape. Ms Hornery, CEO of a local financial advice business, the FMS Group, has applauded the government for its FoFA changes, saying: Without the removal of this red tape, the financial impact on small financial advice businesses in setting up systems, training, supervision, monitoring and reporting would have been significant. Ms Hornery informed me that the estimated additional costs of compliance would be equivalent to one full-time employee's wage. FMS Group can now retain an additional employee and will not need to pass on additional unnecessary costs to their clients. This is just one example of where the government's deregulation initiatives will have a positive impact on local businesses by strengthening their capacity to grow and deliver more jobs, which we desperately need on the Central Coast, where we have an unemployment rate of 6.88 per cent and a youth unemployment rate of 34 per cent, both well above the national averages. Mr Mouland stated: It is great to see the Commonwealth introduce measures to simplify or completely remove unnecessary or duplicated regulation that directly adds to the spiralling cost of compliance that local Central Coast businesses face. Mr Mouland, Mr Walker, Mr Farmer and Ms Hornery, while in parliament today, have had the opportunity to meet with ministers and advise them that the majority of local businesses on the Central Coast are micro-, small- or medium-sized enterprises that will greatly benefit from the repeal of these burdensome regulations. This, in turn, will drive productivity improvements and boost further regional economic growth. Red and green tape is being cut across nearly every government portfolio to the tune of $700 million. It is worth highlighting that the broader economic benefit will be much larger than this. It has been said that regulation must never be the default option for government but only a means of last resort following genuine consultation with stakeholders. The risk of failure when it comes to deregulation reform is too great to bear. Australia has a $400 billion investment pipeline which represents thousands of potential new jobs in regions such as the Central Coast and around the nation. In closing, I would like to thank those from Dobell who have travelled to be here in parliament today to mark this special occasion and share in this government's resolve to ease the burden of unnecessary red and green tape, enabling regions such as the Central Coast to prosper under a stronger economy where everyone can get ahead. I commend this bill to the House. 16:44 Mr RIPOLL 83E Oxley This has to be one of the most laughable and hilarious wastes of time of this parliament. It has to be one of the biggest stunts that any government could foist on the Australian people. It is the normal business of a government to do this as a regular part of their work. It is not something that you would crow about. If anybody who is listening to this debate turned up to their job, they would not make a big show and dance of the fact that they merely came to work. That is their job. The job of this parliament is to actually deal with a whole range of legislation and regulations while trying to make Australia a better place. Every once in a while, part of making Australia a better place ought to be about getting rid of a whole heap of old redundant acts and regulations, and that is done all the time. That is what Labor did when we were in government. We set about the task of getting rid of some of that old legislation, but we did not overly focus on that to the detriment of doing other, more important things—particularly looking at a seamless national economy and particularly looking at the vast range of things needed by people and by small business to make their lives easier. We took it seriously. This goes beyond just being a joke: it is an insult. The government are talking about the biggest bonfire in Australian history, and they believe that the bigger pile of paper you burn, somehow, the better you have done. It might feel good for five minutes. For five minutes those opposite are going to beat their chest; they are going to crow about how much regulation, red tape and burden have cost small business. They are going to crow about how much better everyone is going to feel. But that feeling of good is not going to last a really long time, because the next day, after the bonfire burns out, when people ask themselves, 'What has changed in my life?' the answer will be very little to nothing at all. This is the problem. This is just a stunt. They are repealing a whole heap of redundant regulations that are meaningless to anyone—regulations that have no impact. The vast majority of the measures that we are discussing have no impact at all—none. For example, take a look at the 12 acts in the Finance portfolio: old appropriation acts from 2010-11, 2011-12 and so on. These have already been implemented; they have been spent and they are expired. They do nothing. This government think that they can just pick up something that does nothing, burn it and say, 'Look at all the things that we have done'. Removing this legislation from the statute books really has no tangible effect, not for anyone—not small business, not anyone. People will not feel anything; they will just see a big cloud of smoke and a big fire. Nothing at all will have changed. How ridiculous is this? Well, let me give you some examples. They are repealing two acts that ceased to be effective by the end of 2011. They are also including a single word; in three locations in two acts they are inserting the word 'former'. That is it: from 'was' to 'former'. I do not see how this is going to relieve a whole heap of cost or burden from anyone. In the Employment portfolio, they are repealing an act that administered an agency that was abolished nearly 20 years ago. Good on them! I am sure that will have a massive impact! I can still see businesspeople knocking down my door to say, 'Get rid of that redundant act from that agency that disappeared 20 years ago; it is burdening me in some particular way.' It is really hard to see how much, if any, of this contributes to the very wobbly, jelly-like number—$700 million-odd—that they claim they are going to save. Curiously, though, the single biggest saving they were going to make was going to be to remove consumer protection for people under FoFA, the very important Future of Financial Advice reforms that Labor undertook after so many tens of thousands of people lost their life savings. They have now hit the pause button. Apparently they had an epiphany last weekend. They had been determined to push through on this no matter what, but something happened over the weekend—whether it is Western Australia, some really bad polling or something else—that made them think, 'Hang on a second, we just might be wrong on this.' They have hit the pause button, but nobody should be misled about what that means. It means they are coming back to it. If I read the minister's words correctly, he is coming back to it full steam ahead to rip away consumer protections to the people that most need them, the most vulnerable in our society: retirees and people saving for their retirement future. One of the curious pieces of legislation that they are burning on this funeral pyre is a section of the Flags Act which specifies how large the stars on the Australian flag are to be. That is right: they are getting rid of a whole bit of paper that specifies the size of the star on the Australian flag. An enormous cost saving to small business! An enormous impact on the lives of ordinary Australians every day! When they sit around the kitchen table doing their budget they say: 'But, Mum, Dad, what about the size of the star on the Australian flag?' 'It's okay, son, the government has taken care of it. It has been thrown onto the pile to be burnt with all the other acts that do nothing at all.' What else are the government doing? The Spirits Act of 1915 amended the Spirits Act 1906. It ceased to have effect in 2006. They are going to get rid of that one as well, because—yes, you guessed it—it does absolutely nothing. The Judiciary Act 1914 declared the High Court of Australia to be the Colonial Court of Admiralty. I did not know that it had any impact today, but it must be appropriate given that in the last 24 hours we have seen Tony Abbott and the government revisit the past and revisit history. Joe Hockey came in here with a budget paper from the 1900s. It is appropriate when we are bringing back lords, dames, knights and all sorts of things. These are the big-picture issues, aren't they! Isn't this what Australians were begging for at the election? Isn't this what they said their highest priority was? I do not think so. Earls, lords, graces and bringing a 'grace note' back to Australia are perhaps important to a few people—I do not deny that—but I did not think that it was a priority for government. I did not think that lords, dames and knights were going to make a whole heap of difference to small business. But it is, again, something that this government sees as a priority. They are also repealing the spelling of the word 'e-mail'. No longer will it be law in Australia that email is 'e-mail'; it is now, by law 'email'. Good job! I know that that is going to save me an absolute fortune! When I type my next 'e-mail' I will make sure to omit the hyphen, which I have not used for a decade. Thank you for clarifying that piece of red tape and regulatory burden. In a piece of heavy lifting so immense that I cannot even think of the weight of it, in 16 pieces of legislation the words 'facsimile transmission' will be outlawed! It will be substituted by the word 'fax'. My lord, the weight of burden relieved from my shoulders—this is a glorious day! I feel an inch taller; this is good news! On the bonfire of regulation in history: no more shall it be 'facsimile transmission' it shall be 'fax'. This a great government! I can remember the emails and letters I received saying, 'When will the government change the word facsimile to fax?' Well, it has been done. Thank you, Tony Abbott. It is true that there are a large number of acts and regulations that will disappear, and all of us hate red tape. Don't we want to get rid of red tape? Don't we want to get rid of regulation? Of course we do. It is what Labor did in government. We just took it a bit more seriously. We thought, 'If you're going to get rid of red tape, make it about something that people aren't going to laugh at you for; make it about some regulation that actually has an impact, something that is going to be lasting.' We talk about legacies that we leave in this place—well, I am glad that the legacy that Tony Abbott and the Liberals are leaving behind is changing the word 'fax'. We can see that, in 100 years time—as Joe Hockey likes to say—they will be recounting this great regulation repeal day bonfire stunt because they managed to respell the word 'fax'! Let us get a little bit serious in this place about our precious time, the cost of parliament and all the things we have got to do. The government is in the mode of: 'We just can't afford anything'—we can afford to waste time in here, of course, because that is different; they do not count what we get paid—'We can't afford anything in the budget; we can't afford to help support orphaned children, veterans, a whole range of people in disability areas or pensioners.' We asked the question today, 'Will you guarantee that pensioners won't be affected in the budget?' That is not a question, apparently, so we did not get an answer. They talk about all this, and yet they have got time to waste on whether we are going to have new lords, knights and dames. We are going to spend a whole heap of time, effort and money. I would like to know how much it costs. Let us do an RIS on how much it costs for each minister of the government to go to the departmental head of all the departments they administer and say to them: 'Find me something—I don't care what it is: a comma; a full stop in the wrong place. Pore through every single page—thousands and thousands of pages—but find me something I can repeal, because we want a big bonfire.' And so the Public Service diligently follows the instructions of the minister to the letter. I hate to think how much that cost. How much money was wasted in going through this sham of a process? It is the biggest bonfire that nobody cares about. I will grant them this. If for five minutes they actually think this is going to be really well accepted—the red tape is gone and all the rest of it—then I will give them some red tape that they could look at. What about BAS statements? Now there is a problem for small business and business. What is the government's view on BAS? Or tax, for that matter? Let us have a look at the things that really impact on people. What Labor did in government was substantial. It had weight and it had purpose. Most small businesses—more than half of them—turn over less than $200,000 a year. That is not a lot of money. One of the biggest things we did for small business and for ordinary people when we came to government was to triple the tax-free threshold from $6,000 to $18,000—now there is doing something serious. That impacts on low-income families, middle-income families, high-income families, small businesses, micro businesses, large businesses—everybody. Now that is something to crow about. We went in there and said: 'We want to do something about your cash flow, so we are going to give you an uncapped $6,500 instant asset tax write-off. Every time you want to buy a piece of equipment, we are going to help you. Government is going to be there.' That was $4 billion worth of direct assistance to small business ripped away by the Liberals and the Nationals, who earbash us all to death saying that they are the friend of small business. They go up to small business, look them in the eye, shake their hand and then knife them in the back—thank you, friend! These are the friends of small business: the Shakespearean, Camelotian thespians that we see on the other side, who like to come in here and talk about mystical worlds that do not exist—and I am sure the minister at the table knows what I am referring to. There is also a whole heap of other things that we did in terms of reducing red tape for small business, such as the seamless national economy or business names registration. Instead of having to register right across the country in all the different jurisdictions, do all the paperwork and pay $1,000, we got it down to a single point where businesses can register online seven days a week, 24 hours a day, for $70. That is red tape reduction. That is reducing costs for small business. That is doing something meaningful. How do you want to be remembered in this place—as the joke ministers who turned up here with blank pieces of paper and said, 'We're going to halve your regulation'? Let me tell you one place they halved regulation. There was an act where there were two commas, one following the other. They removed one. There you go—they halved regulation! 'It is done; we took away a comma.' You think I am kidding—I am not. This is serious; this is real. This government wants people to take it seriously, and this is one of the things that it has done. And the litany goes on, with a list so long—this bonfire of ridiculous proportions, this having a go at people, this taking the mickey, this thinking that the Australian public are somehow too stupid to realise that after the fire has died down nothing has changed. It is Monty Pythonesque, because there are parts where they have changed things—and these are massive changes, such as changing 'approval of care recipient principles' by adding a single letter or changing the order of the words! I am a big fan of Monty Python, and I remember that really good segment where the Judean People's Front were the splitters from the People's Front of Judea. That is the sort of government we have been given. This is a mob that went out there on some big-picture stuff and said: 'We won the government, so we can do whatever we like. We might've mentioned it before the election—and now here is the detail, by the way, of all the things we are going to do to you.' Is getting rid of the schoolkids bonus one of those things? Sure, you might have mentioned it before the election, but I am not sure people understood fully that you would actually do it—or maybe they did, but they may not be happy about it. The government has come into this place under the pretence of helping small business, helping families and doing something concrete, and instead is being a laughing-stock. Over time—and I am not talking about a long time, but in the coming days, weeks and months—people will feel no impact. None. Zero. What you are doing with this repeal day stunt is nothing but a joke. 16:59 Mrs MARKUS E07 Macquarie I rise to speak on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014 and related bills. This is a momentous occasion for our parliament and the future economic growth of our nation. This day represents one of two days to take place in parliament every year that will be dedicated to removing red tape—a measure that has never before been executed in our parliament. This bill is a clear indication that the coalition government has indeed listened to the Australian people, and I am a bit concerned that those people on the other side have not really understood what the Australian people and Australian business—particularly small business owners—are really calling for. We heard the cry of frustration, we promised to do something, and now we have begun to deliver. There are some key figures that are significant today—10,000 pieces and 50,000 pages of legislation and regulations, and savings of more than $700 million in compliance costs. We live in a nation of innovation, of enterprise and creativity, and small business is the foundation of that innovation and productivity. However, bad regulation and too much regulation hurts productivity, deters investment and innovation, and costs jobs. This is the legacy we have been left with by the former Labor government, which did nothing to stem the tide of rising regulation and compliance. In fact, they added to the burden, introducing more than 975 new or amended pieces of legislation and more than 21,000 additional regulations in little more than 5½ years. This has had a tangible effect on our economy. In the five years from mid-2007, Australia's multifactor productivity declined by nearly three per cent. This bill implements a range of minor streamlining measures across 10 portfolios which include the amendment of 14 acts to streamline regulatory requirements to reduce regulatory burden or to make minor technical corrections and reference updates. It also sees the repeal of 43 spent and redundant acts and the amendment of 27 acts to repeal spent and redundant provisions. This is just the start of the measures to be implemented by the coalition. This bill is significant for the future productivity of our nation, but it is also important for the small business owners in my electorate. In the electorate of Macquarie there are more than 10,000 small businesses. These businesses vary from tourism to agriculture to retail and manufacturing. Macquarie is a product sector economy driven by small business and tourism, and many small businesses are struggling and crying out for change. Recently I hosted the Minister for Small Business, the Hon. Bruce Billson, for two roundtables with small business owners and stakeholders—one in the Hawkesbury and one in the Blue Mountains. The message the minister and I were given at those discussions was clear: red tape and compliance burdens are hurting small business. We heard that some businesses and organisations are required to hire someone full-time purely to deal with compliance. Small business owners are also having to be full-time administrators rather than having the freedom to do what they do best: grow their business. Di Sherrington is the president of the Windsor Business Group and owner of Dinky Di Cleaning Supplies with her husband, Roger, in Windsor. Di spoke out at the round table, saying there was an increasing frustration at the hurdles small business had to jump through: It is the compliance requirements that do nothing but create red tape that is killing small business. Jo Bromilow, president of the Blaxland Chamber of Commerce, who also attended the forum, agreed. Jo said that it would be renewing to see how the coalition plays out in abolishing red tape and allowing small businesses to grow, to move forward without the constant usage of paperwork that achieves nothing for their business. She says: Small businesses play a significant role in the Australian economy and it is already apparent that the optimism is returning to small businesses which will only lead to employment growth and investment into this crucial area of the economy. The measures announced in this bill as well as measures to come that have been previously announced will have a tangible impact for the people of Macquarie. The change of identity verification requirements for pre-paid mobile services will help retailers. Around 30,000 retailers nationwide will no longer have to photocopy ID for pre-paid mobile phone customers, who will not need to prove their identity twice—at point of purchase and at activation. The streamlining of agricultural chemical and veterinary medicine approvals will, among other changes, remove the expiry of AgVet chemicals approvals and registrations and the need for businesses to apply for re-approval or re-registration, which would impose additional costs on industry. This will be of great benefit to the men and women of the Hawkesbury who are involved in the agricultural industry. The small business owner down the road in Windsor will no longer have to administer paid parental leave employers. Paid parental leave will be administered centrally by the family assistance office, removing nearly $50 million in paperwork from employers and having access to a dedicated Fair Work Ombudsman hotline for small business users. And of course the carbon tax—which has already caused so much unnecessary stress and financial burden for small businesses in the electorate of Macquarie—will be repealed. This legislation goes to the heart of what the coalition stands for. We want to create the best environment for people, for families and particularly for small business to thrive in. We want to remove the shackles and the load and to allow them to dream, create and live without being burdened by unnecessary bureaucratic practices. I commend this bill to the House. 17:05 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I rise today to speak on the package of bills that was in the big repeal day stunt last Wednesday, when we got all the fanfare, all the trumpets, the big carnival atmosphere—how happy we were to see all this regulation go. But when you go through the detail you see that there is a lot to be questioned in this approach. If you believe the government, the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014 and related bills repeal more than 1,000 acts of parliament and make all kinds of amendments to existing legislation across a whole range of bills. And I want to make it clear from the outset that we come to these sorts of matters with an open mind, because we will always support the removal of legislation that is redundant, irrelevant or no longer applicable. It is a position we have always held. In the last Labor government we repealed more than 16,000—something like 16,794, to be precise—pieces of spent and redundant acts, regulations and legislative instruments from the statute books. We are up for this kind of effort, and we have got some form given those 16,000 plus pieces of deregulation we did ourselves. We are always up for getting rid of useless or redundant regulation. The fact is regulation is not useless or redundant if it protects consumers, small businesses or the environment. Once you make the decision to repeal this legislation do not over-claim that it has some tremendous compliance cost-benefit for business. I want to get back into that in a moment, because there has been an extraordinary amount of exaggeration in this debate that needs to be cleared up. In my mind the repeals legislated for in this package fall into one of three categories. Firstly there are worthy repeals, which is legislation that genuinely makes it easier for business to operate without an impact on consumers. The second category is the trivial repeals, like the legislation that corrects typographical errors or removes reference to programs that lapsed a long time ago. The third one, the one that concerns me the most, is the mean and tricky category—the attacks to the FoFA regulations; the abolitions of the Charities and Not-for-profits Commission; and the heartless attacks on cleaners wages hidden inside this package, which were brought to my attention by a colleague. The package of bills before us today contains repeals of each of these three types. Sadly, the trivial and mean repeals far outnumber the worthy ones. Let me just briefly touch on each of those categories so that you know what I mean. The first one is the worthy category. A sensible starting point for a discussion of the worthy stuff is to look at the deregulation agenda undertaken by the last Labor government. As I said before, we repealed over 16,000 redundant acts, regulations and instruments from the statute books. What distinguishes Labor's deregulatory agenda from the so-called bonfire of regulations undertaken by the Abbott government is that Labor's reforms were targeted towards the Seamless National Economy objective. We did not over-claim about the benefits and we did not make a big deal of it. As a result of Labor's regulation reforms, Australians are now protected by a single national consumer law instead of 20 separate acts, which ensures more consistent protection for consumers. Our Commonwealth scheme to regulate the licensing and supervision of trustee corporations commenced, replacing eight complex state and territory regimes. I could go on, but you get the point. All in all, the Productivity Commission estimated that the completion of just the first half of the Seamless National Economy agenda lowered business costs around Australia by a total of $4 billion per year. That was really big achievement of the previous Labor government. I want to pay tribute to a guy who was in the chamber today: the great man David Bradbury, who did a lot of that work for the last Labor government. He has just been appointed to a big job, and we congratulate him. He was a very diligent reformer in the last two terms of the Labor government. Hidden among the punctuation corrections and spent legislation repeals that make up the bulk of this omnibus bill, there are a few example of good deregulation that Labor will support. These are things like the amendments to the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act, which will improve efficiency of the framework. There are things like the certification requirements in the Aged Care Act, which can conflict with the National Construction Code and accreditation standards. That is in line with the PC recommendation to get rid of it. Labor will support these types of amendments, and they would have been high on our agenda if we had won government last September. But these worthy repeals are largely lost amongst the second type of repeal, which is the huge sea of trivialities that make up most of this package. I thought the member for Oxley did a very good job a moment ago running through some of those trivialities. We have this bonfire of regulation, and a supposed $700 million of savings that was introduced last week. It is worthwhile to consider the nature of some of that particular legislation. We have the 33 instances of replacing 'facsimile transmission' with 'fax'. We have got the 47 instances in this legislation where we are replacing 'e-mail' with 'email'. We have 50 instances of grammatical and spelling errors, missing comas, forgotten capital letters, the occasionally missing hyphen, and that kind of thing. That is the sort of farce that a great deal of this bill is about. Whatever—make these changes, but do not over-claim that they have some big compliance cost saving for business. It is a far cry from the biggest bonfire of regulations in our history, as the Prime Minister described it a week ago. We have had a bit of ancient history this week with the whole knights and dames issue yesterday afternoon. We have some more ancient history here, in the sense that something like 1,120 acts of parliament from as far back as 1904 are being removed in this package. I do not know what this government's obsession with the deep past is, but there you go. All of these acts are currently spent or redundant. No need to have them, but there is no harm in them being there either, and there is certainly no compliance cost saving in them. Many of those pieces of legislation that we wave goodbye to refer to organisations that were wound up long ago. In one case it was the Colonial Courts of Admiralty, which ceased to exist in 1988. In those sorts of redundant acts the bottom line is that they have no effect on business, government or ordinary Australians. In certain cases they have not had any impact for some decades. It is pretty difficult to understand the explanatory memorandum of the amending acts, which claims they will reduce the regulatory burden, a claim that is repeated regularly by the Prime Minister and the member for Kooyong. Given that these acts do not affect any business, any government or any ordinary Australian, I cannot understand how there will be any reduction in the regulatory burden. To understand it a bit better I had a look at the member for Kooyong's flashy new website, cuttingredtape.gov.au. In the little red book of deregulation on there he defined regulation as: Any rule endorsed by government where there is an expectation of compliance. I think he fails his own test. There is no expectation for those 1,120 pieces of legislation that anyone must comply with them. So you cannot claim it as a compliance savings. They cannot be tape of any colour, red or green or otherwise, if they do not bind anyone. A big number of those do not bind anyone. The Prime Minister claimed that the repeal package will save $700 million. If there is no compliance burden on a big chunk of these regulations, it is hard to see how they save money. Indeed, the explanatory memoranda of two of the bills claim they will have no financial impact at all. The Prime Minister likes to describe this package as lighting the biggest bonfire of regulation in our history. I was a bit more enamoured with the way the member for Watson described it. It is like getting excited that we vacuumed the spare room that nobody walks into anyway. All this talk of bonfires, red tape and $700 million in savings has served to obscure the noxious attacks on good regulation hiding in this package. The government's cutting red tape agenda is all predicated on the assumption that every law and every regulation is bad for business and is pointless red tape. As Ross Gittins, a very smart man, wrote in The Sydney Morning Herald this week: … red tape is in the mind of the beholder: it's red tape if you don't like it and good governance if you do. Or as President Obama's former chief regulatory policy adviser put it: Smart regulations save lives and dollars. I think there are several parts of this deregulation that could seriously affect people's lives and dollars. Of course, the most topical one in the last little while is the removal of the Future of Financial Advice legislation. That repeal is now frozen. They should dump the repeal entirely. It has been a shambles. That regulation was designed to protect people, to protect older people and their savings and people in the financial system from unscrupulous activity and from collapses—all of that. It is good that that has been frozen but that repeal now needs to be dumped because that is the sort of regulation that is good regulation. It is just another case of vested interests getting their way on the other side. They get in the ear of the government and before you know it consumer protection goes out the window. These repeal changes were opposed by many of the relevant stakeholders representing small- and medium-sized financial institutions, including the peak financial advice body, the Financial Planning Association. I am pleased to see it is on ice, but the government should go one step further and promise not to make these harmful changes to FoFA regulation in the future. Also, according to the website, the FoFA repeal was worth about $200 million of the $700 million in savings that is claimed. So I hope we do not hear anything more about the $700 million in savings. It was probably a rubbish figure in the first place, but now it is at least $200 million less. Another nasty thing in the package is the removal of Commonwealth regulation allowing cuts to the wages of government cleaners. This is the bit that I find really offensive about the package. Sure, have a deregulation package, have an argument about it and have the debate in this House, but do not use it as a smokescreen to harm some of the most vulnerable people in our country, the people who clean government office buildings. It is a disgraceful thing that hidden amongst thousands of pages of stuff is what can only be characterised as an attack on vulnerable people. I have a lot of low-income workers in my electorate. My colleague next to me at the table does as well, the member for Blair. It is a disgrace when the Prime Minister stands up and says, 'How great is this deregulation?' It is not great if you are a low-income cleaner in a government building. There are thousands of cleaners who will be hit by these changes, each one of them missing out on between $172 and $255 a week in an already small pay packet. It is disappointing that a cut of that nature, one that will have such a devastating impact on cleaners, has been included in this legislation. There is also the repeal of the Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. My colleague the member for Fraser has gone through that at some length. I think it is worth noting again that charities overwhelmingly support this regulation. It is the good kind and it should not be repealed for political reasons. The political stunt that is repeal day has not lived up to the hype and the hyperbole of the government's announcements. As I have said before, the Labor Party will always support the removal of legislation that is redundant, irrelevant or no longer applicable. But it is not any of those things when it hurts people like low-income workers. It is not any of those things when it makes charities more effective in this country and better regulated. We need to be very careful to go beyond the spin, the bluster, the smoke and mirrors, the trumpets and the fanfare of repeal day, and make sure that we are not doing anything that will hurt people in our community who are currently protected by the good kind of regulation. For this reason, the opposition have moved an amendment. It does not decline to give the bill a second reading but does allow us to highlight some of the key problems with the legislation. The main issue with the package is that amongst the trivialities and the few instances of genuinely worthy deregulation it contains there are several really concerning and callous amendments that have been slipped in. When we discuss deregulation, it is important that we do not confuse so-called red tape with genuinely useful regulation which protects small business, protects our environment and protects ordinary Australians, and then having made those announcements do not overclaim the compliance costs for small business. 17:19 Mrs GRIGGS 220370 Solomon It is with great pleasure that I rise today to lend my support for the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014 and related bills. This is a significant step along the path of deregulation and another example of how the coalition are honouring the promises we made before the election. In opposition, we said that we would cut $1 billion in red and green tape from the statutes, and that is exactly what we are doing. This is the first of two repeal days we are going to have each year. Today, we are removing over 10,000 pieces and 50,000 pages of legislation, saving businesses, NGOs and other operations over $700 million in compliance costs. The previous Labor government introduced more than 21,000 additional regulations, which served only to stifle investment, dull job creation and anchor the Australian economy. Too much regulation hurts productivity, deters investors, stifles innovation and most importantly costs jobs. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry 2012 red tape survey identified that 44 per cent of businesses spend between one and five hours a week complying with government regulatory requirements; 72 per cent of businesses said that their time is spent on red tape and that increased in the last two years; and 54.3 per cent said that complying with government regulations has prevented them from making changes to grow or expand their businesses. The coalition believe that before regulation is passed we must ask what the purpose, cost and impact is on productivity. I will not answer those questions, instead I will leave it to those affected by regulation. The National Farmers Federation recently threw its support behind the government's changes. Its general manager of policy, Tony Mahar, says: Effective regulation is necessary. It safeguards businesses, the environment and our communities. Poorly designed regulation, however, can act like a tax on business, raising costs and stifling innovation. A particular focus on improving regulation surrounding transport of agricultural goods, on-farm labour and environmental assessments could realise significant benefits for farm businesses and should be prioritised by policy makers. To assist in achieving deregulation, senior public servants will have their remuneration directly linked to their performance in reducing red and green tape. The Northern Territory, like the rest of Australia, will benefit from today's repeal of legislation. For example, aged-care building certification at a federal level will be removed. Currently, aged-care residences in the Northern Territory must comply with both the territory and the federal building requirements. This is a wasteful duplication of regulation, given that the Northern Territory has such a high building standard because of its occasionally unruly weather. This measure alone will result in an estimated $3.42 million in compliance savings. The coalition will also focus on streamlining errors and costly processes such as removing the requirement for universities submitting capital asset management surveys requiring information on size, use, management and maintenance of assets and spaces. I know the Charles Darwin University, from my electorate, will be really happy about this. Equipment hire firms and their customers will also benefit. The wacker packers, which are used for compacting soil and can propel themselves at the speed of five kilometres an hour, will no longer be considered a motor vehicle needing registration under the Personal Property Securities Act. And neither will cement mixers. The common sense continues. As some of my colleagues have already stated, after this legislation is repealed around 30,000 retailers nationally will no longer have to photocopy ID for prepaid mobile phone customers, who will not need to prove their identity twice at point of activation. I wholly support this bill and congratulate many of my coalition members, whose hard work played an important role in delivering on this very important election promise. Those on the other side could just listen and learn. Get on board and stop being so negative. I heard someone make the comment that these things do not impact business. Everything that we do in this place affects business. We on this side know that because many of us are from a private sector background. The burden of red tape and regulation has an impact on business. That is why I am proud to be supporting these measures here today. 17:25 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I am going to have to keep my remarks short because, unfortunately, the government has gagged this debate, which is appalling. But, of course, we all know that it is an absolute stunt being pulled today by the coalition. I rise to speak on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014 as well as the two other bills before the House. What we have seen from the coalition today are big promises that they would lift the burden of red tape. Indeed, we have heard those on the opposite side evoke American heroes, like Ronald Reagan, as people to hold up high as big deregulators. Of course, if Ronald Reagan were here in the chamber, I think he would be a little embarrassed to have his name invoked by the speakers opposite on this bill, because the focus really has been on a range of legislation that has been on the books—never used—and, indeed— Ms Rowland 159771 They are nearly as old as Reagan! Ms RISHWORTH HWA Almost as old as Reagan—and even older, indeed. These laws go back to 1901. They have not been used. But, of course, here the coalition are championing these as big reforms saving large amounts of money et cetera. We see in the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill that, in terms of Defence, this repeals three acts which were redundant and amends another due to the repeal of a redundant act. It repeals an act that administered an agency in the employment area which was abolished in 1995. In finance, it once again has no financial impact. It repeals 12 older appropriation acts that have no effect as government agencies have already appropriated the funds. So you can see here that there has been a lot of bluster. There has been a lot of chest beating and a lot of claims made by the opposition, but today they have not delivered. Indeed, rather than a bonfire, we have seen, perhaps, a tiny bit of kindling—if that. Buried in some of this absolute rubbish that we are hearing from the coalition, unfortunately, we have a couple nasty things. In particular, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the repeal of the Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines, which were set up to regulate minimum pay and conditions of cleaners. Mr Frydenberg FKL Very important; market rates. Ms RISHWORTH HWA It is interesting. I hear the member for Kooyong say 'market rates'. I am sure he would like to abolish all minimum protections of wages and conditions and allow workers to be out there as individuals and seeing what the market will pay them. On this side of the House, we believe in a minimum wage and we believe in the protections that are associated with it. While there has been a lot of guff, a lot of typos corrected and a lot of repeals of acts that have not made a difference at all to business, at all to the community or, indeed, at all to the workings of government, we do see a few little sneaky things here. I am very disappointed that the repeal of the Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines makes cleaners in this place and, indeed, throughout the Australian government very, very vulnerable. I have met many cleaners who work at this place. They are always here with a friendly smile, and, indeed, one of the lovely cleaners dropped over some cucumbers to my office the other day. They put in so much effort and show so much kindness to us to make sure that we can do our jobs. All this government can do is, under a buried mound of pieces of legislation that mean nothing, rip away their pay, conditions and protections. I call on the government to reconsider this nasty and tricky act. This is very concerning. I do not have time because, as I have said, I have been gagged by the government, so I cannot talk about— Ms Rowland 159771 It's meant to be repeal day! Ms RISHWORTH HWA It is meant to be repeal day, but they are gagging me at 5.30. I had a lot to say, and I would like to talk about the Australian charities— The SPEAKER SE4 It being 5.30, in accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier today I call the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. 17:30 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong It is with great pleasure that I take the opportunity today to sum up on the bills before the House: the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014, the Amending Acts 1901 to 1969 Repeal Bill 2014 and the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 1) 2014. This is very hard for the Labor Party to stomach. We have come up with an idea that you did not think of first. We have come up with an idea to deregulate the Australian economy, not re-regulate the Australian economy. On the omnibus bill, we have heard from the members on our side—not from the members opposite—of how aged-care building certification will no longer be duplicated at the federal and state level and how Telstra will not have to provide 70,000 pages of wholesale contracts to the ACCC because now they can just provide a list of the contracts they enter into to the ACCC, with the opportunity for the ACCC to ask for those individual contracts as they wish. All the measures within the omnibus bill, together with the legislation that we introduced last week in the House, and a whole range of other measures that we have either previously introduced or have done in an administrative manner, have produced a $720 million pay-off for the Australian economy, for small businesses, for families and for not-for-profit organisations. This has got rid of more than 10,000 unnecessary and redundant regulations and acts. Why didn't you think of that? The reason the Labor Party did not think of this is that their default position is to regulate. The default position in their DNA is to increase regulation. Twenty-one thousand additional regulations were introduced under the previous Rudd and Gillard governments. That is a shameful legacy. And what did it mean? It meant that multifactor productivity in this country fell by around three per cent in the five years from mid-2007. The World Economic Forum did a survey of 148 countries and found that Australia was a pitiful 128th in terms of the overall regulatory burden. The Economist Intelligence Unit did a survey of 51 countries for productivity growth, and where did Australia come? Fiftieth out of 51, only marginally ahead of Botswana. Ms Rishworth interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Kingston is not in her correct place and is not entitled to interject. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL That is the legacy that the previous Labor government left us. This is despite Kevin Rudd promising a 'one in, one out' policy when it came to regulations. This is despite Craig Emerson, who was then the minister for small business, one of six small business ministers that Labor had, saying in 2008 that he would take a giant pair of scissors—how big?—to cut red tape. Instead, they gave us 21,000 additional regulations. There was the independent Borthwick-Milliner review. The member for Watson should listen to this. Your own previous government commissioned the Borthwick-Milliner independent review into the operation of regulatory processes, and it found that your government was disregarding the need for a RIS process, a regulatory impact statement process. There are more than 80 examples of noncompliance by the previous Labor government when it comes to regulatory impact statements. They include some of the biggest and most important legislative changes that they brought into place: the carbon tax, the mining tax, the Fair Work changes, FoFA, the NBN. All of those were shamefully exempted by the then Labor government from the regulatory impact statement process. You were not interested in understanding the impact on business, on the not-for-profit sector, on compliance, on productivity, on new entrants, on jobs, on jobs, on jobs. That is why, under your government, we saw an increase in unemployment and a slowdown in productivity—because the previous Labor government did not pay attention to the true impact of the regulations that they were introducing. As I have met with industry groups, with not-for-profit organisations and with small businesses around the country as part of this government's deregulation effort, I have identified five key areas which we need to tackle in our deregulation fight. The first is volume. There is too much volume of regulation, and the previous Labor government gave us 21,000 additional regulations. The second is that there is massive duplication in our federal system between federal and state governments. We are trying to tackle this, because we do not want to see companies go through the process which the BCA documented for one environmental approval, which cost the company more than $20 million, took more than two years, required 4,000 meetings and a 12,000 page report, and then, when the approval came through, had 1,500 conditions attached, 1,200 at the state level and 300 at the federal level. We have said, 'No more do we want that level of duplication between federal and state.' Greg Hunt, the Minister for the Environment, should be congratulated, because he has succeeded in getting signatures from all states and territories, even from the Labor states and territories, onto the MOUs for one-stop shop environmental approvals. The third area that we must tackle as part of our deregulation effort—in addition to the volume, in addition to the duplication—is the need for better forms of consultation with those who are most affected by regulations. Under the Labor government that the Australian people were subject to over the last six years, there was no genuine consultation. The Labor government presented their 21,000 new additional regulations to those stakeholders as a fait accompli. There was a little bit of negotiation around the edges, maybe, but there was no genuine consultation. So as a government we have said that we will have a RISprocess and we will genuinely consult with those parties who are most affected by any new regulation. Fourthly, we are going to ensure that we have mandatory post-implementation reviews and a greater use of sunset clauses. Under the previous Labor government there were no mandatory reviews. The Minister for Social Services, the Hon. Kevin Andrews, sitting alongside me, knows that in his own of area thousands of regulations were introduced by previous Labor governments that have lived on the statute books long after their use-by date. We want to ensure that statutes and regulations do not live on beyond their use-by date. We need better use of sunset clauses. We need to ensure that there are mandatory post-implementation reviews and, if we do need to review or renew a regulation, then let us do it, but let us not leave redundant regulations on the statute books. Finally, a key area for our deregulation effort is dealing with the role of the regulators. Yes, the regulations on the statute books are important but equally important is how those regulations are administered. The member for Watson may laugh. He thinks this issue is funny, but this issue is not funny. This is a very serious issue because the roles of the regulators need to be looked at. We commissioned a Productivity Commission report, which was released last week, which provides us with a framework for auditing the performance of the regulators. We say to the ACCC, to APRA, to the ATO and to ASIC, you do a very important job but you must get the balance right between risk and cost because, if you blindly administer regulations without understanding the impact they have on stakeholders, you will drive up the costs to business to the point where they are counter-productive for the economy. The Commonwealth has 75 external regulators and 68 internal regulators. This Productivity Commission review provides very important information about how we audit the performance of the regulators. For example, do they distinguish within the organisations between their licensing and advice functions and their enforcement functions, which is consistent with good governance? Do they encourage self-regulation where it is appropriate? Do they have good regular dialogue with key stakeholders who are affected? We are going to tackle the role of regulators. As I said, we have introduced measures which will produce a dividend, a compliance saving to the Australian people of more than $700 million. We have done that by avoiding duplication between federal and state levels but also between state levels. One of our great initiatives is NOPSEMA's offshore petroleum approvals process because we do not want two federal regulators duplicating there. We have streamlined existing measures—for example, in the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014, which deals with overlapping building certification requirements for the aged care sector. So we now will not have duplication. We have said on the Personal Property Securities Act 2009, how can you define a motor vehicle as being equivalent to a whacker packer or to a scissor lift, which is currently the definition under the PPSA, meaning that the compliance burden on small hire firms is very prohibitive? We have said to the not-for-profit organisations—like the Brotherhood of St Laurence—when you are managing a $100 million Commonwealth program like HIPPY, which provides education support for disadvantaged families around the country, you should not have to report in detail to the Department of Education on a monthly basis. You can do it on a quarterly basis and that can save you up to half a million dollars. We have taken a number of measures which have dealt with duplication and streamlining. We have also taken an axe to those regulations which are producing very silly outcomes. The member for Watson may be a great fan of Kung Fu Panda, but I bet he did not know before our repeal day that Kung Fu Panda required four sets of classifications because it was on DVD, in 2-D, in 3-D and in Blu-ray. We have said that we just need one set of classifications to save thousands of dollars. We have said job service providers no longer need to keep paper records of job applications—one job service provider had 336 cabinets full of paper records—when they can keep those electronically online. We have said to the university sector—where they face a $280 million annual compliance burden—through the Minister for Education, we will do something significant to cut that regulatory burden. It was Universities Australia who said that this government is now 'walking the talk' on deregulation. Universities no longer have to report in detail to the federal departments about how they use their lecture theatres, their tutorial halls and their academic offices. These are just some of the many measures we have introduced. But more important than the legislative measures and the administrative measures that we have introduced are the processes we are adopting—like the regulatory impact statements which will be adhered to by our government in a way that will ensure we will better understand the true impact of overregulation on the taxpayer, on small business, on families and on the not-for-profit organisations. It is something the previous government had their heads in the sand about, and they gave us 21,000 additional regulations. I am very confident that, as we move towards our $1 billion annual red tape reduction target, as the deregulation units are set up in every minister's department and as the Prime Minister is now taking responsibility, we will not only save money for those people who create jobs or help those most in need but be upholding freedom, encouraging personal responsibility and ensuring that the nanny state lives no longer in Australia. The SPEAKER SE4 The original question was that these bills be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Watson has moved as an amendment to the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014 that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question, therefore, is that the amendment be agreed to. Question negatived. The SPEAKER SE4 Pursuant to the resolution agreed earlier today, I will now put the question that the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014 and two related bills be now read a second time. Question agreed to. Bills read a second time. Consideration in Detail 3264 17:46 Mr BURKE DYW Watson We were told this morning by the Leader of the House that it was to be like a school carnival. Well, the carnival is well and truly over at this stage of the debate. There has been a change in enthusiasm since when these bills were introduced a week ago. The tone of resignation that we just heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister really does say it all. When you have to say to somebody who is sitting in silence, 'You shouldn't be laughing at this; this is serious,' you are really at the far edge of desperation of verballing. I will wait until the parliamentary secretary returns to the table before I ask him a question. I do not want to, in the forms of the House, put him in a difficult position when he is not ready for it, so I will make a couple of other remarks while I wait. There was a moment—only a brief moment—when the parliamentary secretary referred, in his concluding comments, to the bills before the chamber and said that some $720 million in savings would occur as a result of repeal day. He then gave the examples of the FOFA legislation and the charities bill. We can have a different policy argument with those proposals, but none of those are being debated today. I ask the parliamentary secretary: how much of the $720 million of savings claimed comes about as a result of these bills today? 17:49 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong Many millions of dollars. What the opposition does not like to hear is that we are still very much committed to our FOFA legislation. It was introduced last week. Our overall deregulatory effort is $720 million. From the document we have put forward you know that there is a $13 million saving attached to the omnibus bill. You also know that in the bills that we are discussing today we are getting rid of more than 1,000 redundant acts. The opposition also know that our $720 million figure has been verified in a public document based on costings by the Office of Best Practice Regulation, as well as by individual departments. This is across a whole range of measures which have significantly reduced the amount of duplication that exists in the regulatory framework that is currently in place. As well as dealing with the duplication of NOPSEMA and the duplication in terms of one-stop shops, I remind the House that we have introduced another piece of legislation that is extremely important in our deregulation framework. That is to open up the Comcare scheme to ensure that companies— Opposition members interjecting— Mr FRYDENBERG FKL The opposition asked me about our $720 million target. The Comcare scheme will provide a saving of more than $30 million. The Labor Party and their friends in the union movement ensured that when they first came to office at the end of 2007 there was a moratorium put on the Comcare scheme so that companies had to enter into expensive different systems in every state. Those opposite shake their heads. Mr Burke DYW Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The SPEAKER SE4 There is no point of order. The member will resume his seat. Mr Burke DYW Madam Speaker— The SPEAKER SE4 Do not argue with the chair. Take your seat! Mr FRYDENBERG FKL No, there is no point of order. The member for Watson should check the video tape because his colleague at the table was shaking his head. The opposition is not interested in the substance of repeal day. The opposition wants to have a bet each way. On the one hand, the opposition is saying that 'repeal day' is just a stunt: 'You are getting rid of regulations that are decades old and which have no impact out there in real life.' But on the other hand, those opposite get up at the dispatch box and say. 'We disagree with what you are doing on the ACNC.' Right? They are saying, 'You are having a disagreement with what the government is doing on FoFA. We have a disagreement with what the government is doing on Comcare. We have a disagreement with what the government is doing in terms of cleaning services.' I want the opposition to understand that the more than 30-page document that we released publicly detailed more than 80 initiatives in the deregulation space— Mr Burke DYW Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the debate on the second reading, a second reading amendment had been moved which significantly broadened the scope of the debate. The SPEAKER SE4 We have moved on since then. Mr BURKE DYW Now that we are in consideration in detail, that full breadth of relevance is no longer relevant to the debate, and while this would have been completely in order from the parliamentary secretary during the second reading debate, it is not relevant during the consideration in detail. The SPEAKER SE4 The parliamentary secretary will relate his comments to the bills before the House. But there is still, in consideration in detail when you are answering propositions put by the opposition, scope for you to answer in the terms you see are relevant. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Thank you, Madam Speaker. In terms of the bills before the House, they have got rid of more than 1,000 redundant acts. In terms of the legislative changes that are contained in the omnibus bill, they will get rid of some of the duplication in the aged-care space so that building certification, for example— (Time expired) 17:54 Mr RIPOLL 83E Oxley I note that there is so much interest in this 'repeal day' stunt and the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014 and related bills. I turn to the galleries, and I look for just one face—just one face. But sadly, there is none. If I turn to the press gallery, sadly, there is none. The SPEAKER SE4 Perhaps I could ask the member at the dispatch box to address his remarks to the bill. Mr RIPOLL 83E In relation to the three bills that are before the House today, can the parliamentary secretary explain to the House the proportion—that is, the percentage—and number of regulatory requirements for business and small business between local government, state government and the Commonwealth? And what proportion of those are we actually debating today? Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Madam Speaker, just an issue of guidance here: is it right that members on our side are able to speak as part of this debate— The SPEAKER SE4 Of course. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL And then I can then answer and sum up their questions? The SPEAKER SE4 You can choose to answer whenever you wish. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Okay. Then I will allow the member for Hindmarsh to speak. 17:55 Mr WILLIAMS 249758 Hindmarsh We all know that deregulation and red tape are issues that we need to do something more about. We know in this bill that there are significant provisions that cover things like removing the superseded standard form agreement provisions that are outlined in the Telecommunications Consumer Protections Code, which requires carriers to maintain duplicate summaries for each product and service. I could go on. When I have been out talking to businesses—and the members opposite would be talking to businesses too if they were engaging with their communities—and whether it is Business SA, or the resources sector; whether it is the Royal Automobile Association, the South Australian Freight Council Incorporated, the Manuale Engineering or the Master Builders Association—the list goes on—they all say the same thing. They are all over the red tape and the compliance, and want greater it deregulation and the removal of these barriers that restrict their opportunity to do business. We know that the Business Council of Australia has reported that an environmental approval process for one of its members cost the company more than $20 million, required more than 4,000 meetings and led to a 12,000-page report. These are the types of examples that we get when we are out there talking to businesses—small businesses. We are all about making it easier for businesses in the community. It is better for them to get on with doing what they do best, and that is their core business. It is not filling out forms. It is not filling out regulatory burden. That is why we are looking at removing these types restrictions on their businesses. I will give you another one: the removal of Telstra's standard marketing plan and policy statement requirements— Ms Rowland 159771 That's because contestability failed under you! The SPEAKER SE4 Order! The member is not in her seat and may not interject. Mr WILLIAMS 249758 It was these types of burdens that led the Business Council of Australia chief executive, Jennifer Westacott, to say recently: The release today of the federal government’s repeal day legislation marks a turning point in dealing with the high costs and inefficiencies faced by businesses and consumers in our economy. Businesses know that we need to do some indifferent and they are welcoming the changes that we are making. It could be the Personal Property Security Act 2009 and the regulatory burden that falls upon that industry in terms of the length of time that goods need to be leased to be automatically subject to the PPSA. I worked for a law firm before and I know that changes like this were causing major problems for companies that were releasing goods and equipment. They were getting burdened by this extra demand. We heard the parliamentary secretary mention before the workers compensation scheme, and the opposition has asked about the benefit for that. We will just remind them of the benefit. For the PPSA it was $11.2 million and for the workers compensation scheme it was $32.8 million. The list goes on—over $700 million of benefits have been calculated. I want to congratulate the work of the parliamentary secretary, Josh Frydenberg , and the Prime Minister, and also of Greg Hunt on the one-stop shop—he did a great job in making that a one-stop approval process. When I was talking to SACOME about the resources industry, that is the one thing that they mentioned. They did not want the duplication between the state and federal bodies, they wanted the one-stop shop to improve the approval process for the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Once this one-stop shop is implemented, businesses will have a much speedier and cost-effective environmental assessment process in place although it will still maintain high environmental standards. This is what it is all about: maintaining what we need and also giving businesses the best opportunity to progress and to do things in an expeditious manner. In closing, I want to reiterate the great work done by Josh Frydenberg and our side. Finally we are doing something that is recognised by businesses, and recognised by small business in particular, giving the businesses a better opportunity to do what they do best and get out and run their businesses. 17:59 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I was listening to the parliamentary secretary, earlier, when he was talking about repeal day and I thought: why didn't we think of that? I have looked at the number of statute stocktake bills that went through the 43rd parliament. In a round figure, how many times did he speak on them? Zero! We had the Statute Stocktake Bill (No.1) 2011, the Statute Law Revision Bill 2012, the Legislative Instruments Amendment (Sunsetting) Bill 2011 and the Statute Law Revision Bill 2012—which was one of my best. Amongst other things, I would like to ask a question of the parliamentary secretary. The people who bothered to speak on this from the then opposition included the member for Goldstein. Every now and then, one of them would get up and make a contribution. I went through the contribution of the member for Goldstein actually referred to one item which he believed needed to be repealed. He said: Mr Deputy Speaker, I will give you an example of regulation gone mad … He said he wanted to talk about— a secret directive to our top financial services companies requiring them to complete an 800-question audit—800 questions. One of the questions I would like to ask is: where is the piece of legislation today in this House to repeal the item that so offended the member for Goldstein? I would like to see the member for Goldstein's wishes adhered to in this bill. I will go onto the previous speaker, the member for Hindmarsh, who started talking about some items in telecommunications regulation. He said the standard form of agreement determination changes resulted in a number of savings. The only reason those changes could be made is that Labor enabled the Telecommunication Consumer Protections Code to be enacted under part 6 of the Telecommunications Act, which removed the requirement to have these legislative processes in place. While the current minister goes and prances around with CEOs in suits, Labor, in government, consulted with industry and consumer groups to make this happen. That is the only reason it is able to be repealed. A government member interjecting— Ms ROWLAND 159771 I will talk about a classic one that was just mentioned by the member opposite about the universal service obligations. Part of the repeal of these items in the universal service obligation relate to the really successful Howard government initiatives for universal service contestability, which even the International Telecommunications Union concluded was an absolute, utter, 100 per cent dud. So we are actually repealing legislation that the Howard government put in that was not serving any purpose whatsoever. There is one more question I want to ask the parliamentary secretary. I have gone through the Australian Government Guide to Regulation. As I went through, I thought, 'A lot of this sounds very familiar.' So I went back and had a look at some of my other regulatory best-practice books, including the Australian National Audit Office Best Practice Guide of March 2007 Administering Regulationand the Legislative Instruments Handbook put out by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. All of these look extremely similar. For one of them, I thought, 'This sounds very much like the Office of Best Practice Regulation handbook 2013.' Last night, I went to the Office of Best Practice Regulation's website. There you can click on a link for the Best Practice Regulation Handbook. What happens? You do not get the Best Practice Regulation Handbook; you are automatically referred to this document, the Australian Government Guide to Regulation, despite the fact that, in this document, it explicitly says that the Office of Best Practice Regulation is independent from government. This division is located in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and maintains day-to-day independence from government in its decision making. How is the member for Goldstein's request contained in the legislation before the House, considering he was one of the only ones who bothered to speak on this legislation in the 43rd parliament? Where is the Best Practice Regulation Handbook 2013, or has that been censored because some people might be a bit sensitive about plagiarism? Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 I call the honourable member for Wright. Mr Dreyfus HWG I was on my feet! The SPEAKER SE4 No, you weren't. Mr Dreyfus HWG You did not look in my direction, Madam Speaker. The SPEAKER SE4 Oh, shame! We call from either side, in case you hadn't noticed. Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 Don't argue with the chair. 18:04 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright There are three cognate bills before us: the Statute Laws Provisions Bill, the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill and the Amending Acts 1901 to 1969 Bill. It is a pleasure to follow the previous speaker, the member for Greenway. In the opening parts of her comments, the member alluded to members of the House on this side who had spoken on previous debates on statute bills and appropriation bills, when they were putting them up. Luckily, I have with me my copy of the Statute Stocktake (Appropriations) Bill 2013— An opposition member interjecting— Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Your humbling dulcet tones do soothe me. I think it is farcical to have those on the other side make those soft allegations that we were missing in action, or unable to contribute to the debate. I remind the House that this debate is on a non-controversial bill. You, for all intent, will be supporting this part of the bill. I also want to help the House understand that this is the first step of many in our government's plan to reduce over $700 million worth of legislation. This is step one. This is roughly around $17 million worth of savings in this legislation. You are not going to find the whole $700 million in here—that would be like getting the draw at the beginning of the football season and wanting to find out who has won the grand final. You need to understand the procedures of this House. This is step one. We advocate for small business, because most of us on this side of the House belong to small business—we have either come from small business or we own small businesses—and we understand what a BAS looks like. The other side of the House come from unions, they belong with the unions and they are intrinsically linked at the hip to the union movement. Put your money where your mouth is with reference to this bill. It is generally a housekeeping bill, as most statute revision bills are. I acknowledge the commentary from the other side of the House, but step-one revision bills are predominantly housekeeping bills. There will be bills that come before this House which we will also be looking for the opposition's support on. If the opposition truly believes in getting rid of red tape and assisting small business, as the member for Greenway alluded to, then when we introduce bills such as the Corporations Amendment (Streamlining of the Future of Financial Advice) Bill into the House, you should give your support. If you truly wanted to help small business we would expect your support on that. We will also expect support on the agricultural and veterinary chemicals bills, when they come. We will ask for your support on the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Repeal Bill. All these bills will come to the House in the near future and that is where the money will be saved. We will also ask for support on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014 and the Personal Property Securities Amendment (Deregulatory Measures) Bill when they come to the House. At that point, feel free to stand at the dispatch box and squawk—but not today, as this is a non-controversial bill. Who is best served to implement over $700 million worth of savings? Look at the record of those on the other side of the House and then look at ours. Looking at the history of Labor saying one thing before an election and doing another after, the words 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead' will haunt them for many decades to come—it will be the Achilles heel of credibility for the opposition. There are more bills to come before the House and I encourage those in the House to support them all, but I now remind them that this one is a non-controversial bill. I encourage those on the other side of the House to support the measures that will have many millions of dollars of savings linked to them so the coalition government can reduce the shackles and burdens that currently impinge on our small businesses and Australia can return to some level of prosperity. 18:10 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I have a question for the member for Kooyong. By way of preface to that question, I feel I should point out that I have had occasion to look at several of the 1,120 amending acts that are to be repealed by the Amending Acts 1901 to 1969 Repeal Bill, one of the three bills before the House. One of those acts, No. 180, is the Statute Law Revision Act 1934. This act happens to be the first statute law revision act ever put through this parliament. As the member for Kooyong's great predecessor, the then Mr Latham, the Attorney-General, said in his second reading speech introducing the bill, the practice of using a statute law revision bill had been in place and had been actively pursued in England since 1861. He referred to no fewer than 37 occasions where similar acts had been passed by the British parliament. He also said, on the first statute law revision bill passing through this parliament: The object of this bill is merely to cut away the dead wood on the statute-book. It is not a consolidation of the statutes, but a Statute Law Revision Bill. There are various circumstances which make acts no longer useful, and which justify their removal from the statute-book. This bill is designed to remove obsolete and useless matter, and will correct a few mistakes that have been discovered in the legislation passed by the Commonwealth Parliament during the last 34 years. He went on to say that it was an 'entirely routine action', saying, again: It is the purpose of this bill to repeal such obsolete and unnecessary acts. There was not, in the long list of acts that one sees in the Statute Law Revision Act 1934, anything that had continuing effect. The same applies to the Amending Acts 1901 to 1969 Repeal Bill, before the House now. Not one of the acts in this bill has the slightest effect, because all of them are spent, all of them are obsolete and none of them have the slightest legal effect. The only effect removing the more than 1,000 acts will have is to liberate some pixels from the duty of representing, in digital form, the names of these spent and obsolete acts. Nothing in the speech of the former Attorney-General and member for Kooyong, then Mr Latham, suggested savings to the people of the Commonwealth. It did not suggest in any way that red tape was being eliminated. They were perhaps simpler times, but there were none of the circus tricks and stunts that we have seen in the exercise here today, on repeal day, when the government pretends that the repeal of these 1,120 acts—let alone what is in the Statute Law Revision Bill, which is also before the House and which is all about the removal of hyphens and commas—will save money. There was not the slightest suggestion made in 1934 that the routine housekeeping exercise was going to save anybody any money. I ask the member for Kooyong, who is apparently the member of the executive responsible for this stunt of repeal day, to identify a single cent of savings to any Australian business or any individual in our country derived from the Statute Law Revision Bill or the Amending Acts 1901 to 1969 Repeal Bill, both of which are the bills under debate. I am not asking a question about the omnibus bill. I am not asking a question about any of the other bills that have been spoken on, none of which are before the House. I am asking the member for Kooyong to identify any savings and specify what those savings are—not to speak in generalities and fluff, which is all we have heard from the member for Kooyong up until now. I ask whether he can identify, with precision, what are the savings for an Australian business from the Statute Law Revision Bill—concerned with removing hyphens and commas and correcting the spelling of 'committing' in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act. I would also challenge him to do the same for any individual in the community. I challenge him to explain to the House how these are to be properly regarded as some massive exercise of removing red tape or implementing savings for the Australian community. 18:14 Mr WHITELEY 207800 Braddon I am delighted to be able to speak about these repeal bills in detail. The honourable member who just resumed his seat is allegedly a QC. I do not think he is real smart, to be quite frank. I think he should give his QC back. You just do not get it. You have sat here with your colleagues today in this place and mocked everything that we are trying to achieve. You just do not get it. The Productivity Commission themselves said that there are billions upon billions of dollars to be saved when a government with courage stands up and deals with red and green tape. You just do not like detail. The problem with those opposite is that they detest detail. They are impatient and they will always skim over the detail. Concepts like methodical and considered are foreign to these people opposite. You only have to look at their track record to see that. They have opened the debate on detail, so let us talk about the detail that they continue to look over. Maybe we should look at some of the transcripts from the royal commission currently underway into the pink batts scheme, which demonstrates that these people opposite have no idea about detail. They rush to the endgame with no consideration about the impact. We consider the impact. We are working methodically through the savings that need to be found for this nation's future. Whether it is pink batts, superclinics or the NBN, you know nothing about detail. It is all a sweeping dream for you over there— Mr Dreyfus HWG Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Nothing of what this member has said is relevant to the debate before the House. He should be drawn back to the subject matter. Mr WHITELEY 207800 I thank the honourable member. He should definitely give the QC back, because he still has no clue. You would not know what detail was if it fell down and hit you on the head. The bottom line here is that we are going about what we said we would go about—that is, to save business, to save communities, to save charities, to save everybody in this country from red and green tape and to deal with the regulation issues that face this country. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, the honourable member for Koorong—Kooyong, rather—recently penned a very good piece in the Herald Sun— Mr Thistlethwaite 182468 Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. One would expect members of the government to know the seats of members— The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Order! There is no point of order. Mr WHITELEY 207800 Next time you should stand up. I could not see you. The Parliamentary Secretary wrote a very good piece for the Herald Sun. It was entitled 'We must loosen the ties that bind'. Nothing could sum up what we are about better than that title. Those few simple words sum up what this government is about: loosening the ties that bind our nation. Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, you lot over there had six years and you bound up this country in 21,000 additional regulations. Well, in six months this parliamentary secretary is going to do more than you ever dreamed of. The legislation that we are debating today will save us over $700 million. The opposition has an attitude of mistrust in the ability of individuals in our society to go about their business without constant intrusion by the state, and it is this attitude that has led to an unprecedented unwillingness on the part of Australians to trust their own government. We get in their way each and every day. It is time to get out of the way. Regulations that overreach send a message to our citizens that we do not trust them. They send a message that bureaucrats in Canberra are the answer, rather than those people actually running our businesses on a day-to-day basis, the people that employ workers in this country or volunteer their time and money for charities. There is no doubt that we need processes in place to guard, but we have to do what we have to do to deregulate in this economy. We must find ways to save business time and money. We must take on board recommendations from the Productivity Commission and take on board the fact that these sorts of regulations are standing in the way of our economy. They are costing us billions upon billions of dollars. This government is going to do something about it. You might not like the detail, but you should catch up. 18:20 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand We have heard a familiar refrain from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and those opposite about how we are going to cut red tape, how we are going to save costs for small business and how we are going to save costs for big business. This is rhetoric that we have heard from every government for the last 20 years. We saw similar statements under the Howard government in the responses to the Bell report in 1997 and the Banks report in 2005, a report that the parliamentary secretary may be familiar with, given his professional role at the time. The Banks report projected that there would be 55,000 additional pages of regulation by the end of the noughties. That was a figure that was extrapolated from the level of regulatory growth that we saw in the period between 2001 and 2004, when the Howard government was in office. Clearly regulatory growth is not a partisan issue in this respect. As Gary Banks, the former chair of the Productivity Commission, acknowledged in his 2005 report: Most regulation did not just happen… Each got there because a problem or need was brought to government’s attention, to which it responded. In fact, the Banks report cited the knee-jerk regulatory response of the Howard government and gave it a title. It called it 'Alan Jones syndrome'. It stretches credibility to think that the Abbott government will be any less susceptible to the Alan Jones syndrome, identified by Gary Banks, a former chair of the Productivity Commission, than the Howard government. Does anyone here seriously believe this? The reality is that reducing the impact of unnecessary regulation on our citizens and businesses is not easy. It requires tough choices, sometimes offending stakeholders or media outlets in the name of best practice regulation. It requires a government willing to make the tough choices necessary to make it happen. The Abbott government seems to think that it can make this happen without making tough choices. The parliamentary secretary made this clear when he stated that previous governments had promised deregulation and failed to deliver, but this time the government is serious and the reforms are real—very real. This time is different. Unfortunately, the substance of these bills does not match the member for Kooyong's rhetoric. In fact, the government has delighted in making the most trivial of changes in these bills. After all, I am sure we all understand the importance of the Statute Law Revision Bill's vital changes to legislation—changing 'facsimile' to 'fax' and 'e-mail' to 'email'. For too long have unnecessary hyphens existed in our legislation! For too long have the Australian people suffered while these hyphens impeded the nation's economic progress! Small business owners in my electorate are rejoicing at being freed from this tyranny! I only ask why the bill under consideration did not wade into the controversy of the Oxford comma. What is the government's position on the use of semi-colons, colons and ellipses? This is to say nothing of the bonfire of inanities that is the Amending Acts 1901 to 1969 Repeal Bill. This bill makes the vital step of repealing 1,000 acts which were used to repeal other acts, but no longer have a substantive effect. Unfortunately, overarching all this triviality is a superstructure of hypocrisy. The Abbott government claims to be genuinely interested in reducing the administrative burdens of regulation on everyday Australians, but, if you look at the overall actions of this government, you see a lot of noise over trivial regulatory cuts and silence over substantive regulatory increases. Take the regulation in the communications sector that has come up in this debate. The member for Kooyong claimed, and I quote: … we are determined to reduce duplicative regulatory requirements that exist between federal and state agencies and also between different federal agencies. Some small cuts to the comms sector are included in these bills, I admit; yet, at the same time, other members of the coalition are proposing the introduction of an entirely new regulator in the comms sector, the e-safety commissioner. This commissioner would be empowered to order the removal of offensive content from social media sites should the operators not pull this content down in time. This regime would supplant a voluntary regime currently under operation between Google, Facebook and Microsoft, as signed with the previous government. Not only that but, as the IPA's Chris Berg has pointed out, this new proposal ignores the plethora of criminal law, defamation law, antistalking laws and harassment laws that already cover this area. So, in the same month that we see these repeal bills, we see proposals from the government for new regulation that duplicates existing laws and usurps an existing voluntary scheme. The Abbott government is also proposing additional regulation of the comms industry to force ISPs to enforce copyright against end users and to retain customer data for national security purposes. Labor believes that genuine red tape needs to be reduced. However, this takes hard choices—which brings me to a few accounting questions for the member for Kooyong. I went to his red tape website, which includes a handy track of the progress of the government in reducing red tape. It kicked off at $350 million of savings—and I am not sure how that started—but when the Prime Minister made his announcement on 19 March it surged to $700 million. After the speech, at 10.30 last Wednesday, the tally kept creeping up, to $720 million in savings, but, mysteriously, there was a false alarm at 11.30 and the coalition had apparently decided to cut too much and put it back to $700 million. My questions to the parliamentary secretary are: (a) is this tracking going to need to increase with the new regulatory burdens that the government is imposing; and (b) when are you going to take the FoFA reforms out of your progress tracker on your own website? 18:25 Mr BALDWIN LL6 Paterson I rise to speak on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014 and related bills. I, like most of my colleagues on this side, refuse to be lectured on deregulation by an opposition who, when in government, introduced more regulation. Remember one in, one out? The problem is that they suffer from relevance deprivation syndrome and have absolutely no understanding of holding costs or of business operational costs, because none of them have had skin in the game. They do not understand what it is like to actually put their money, their house and their lives on the line to employ fellow Australians and to provide business opportunities, because they have just suckled off the teat of the union movement. They have been delivered their income, day in and day out, without any hesitation. They can pull an entire workforce out on strike and not lose any money themselves, because they have no understanding and no responsibility. By reducing the amount of regulation red tape, we are delivering prosperity for this nation. They do not get it because they have never been there, done that, bought the t-shirt and worn it out. What we want to do is create a business environment where the government is off the back of business and, in particular, small business. The major employers in this country are mum-and-dad operations who have the family house on the line—everything on the line—trying to create an opportunity and an environment to employ more people and provide prosperity for our nation. But the Labor opposition stand in their way. I have listened to the objections they have raised today, and their objections and their speeches broadly speak of no understanding of the business environment in which people have to compete and survive, because they have never been there. Kevin Rudd stood up as the Prime Minister and said 'one in, one out'. The reality is that it was one out and thousands in. They do not understand the opportunities that they put in jeopardy as a nation. I say to members opposite: embrace the opportunity that lies before you. Join up to the cause and get rid of redundant regulations and legislation which are a burden upon the Australian people and a disincentive to business. I expect the members sitting opposite—and, of course, the leader of the Greens sitting over there—to never have had any exposure to the business environment, except in opposing everything they have done. Today we have issues. There is a broad lack of confidence in the business environment driven by six years of a Labor government. Businesses need to be enthused and inspired to invest and create those jobs that many of us require. But what have Labor done? They will do everything they can to stand in the way of opportunity and enterprise. Why? Because they have had no exposure to or experience in the business environment. It is not their house on the line; it is always someone else's, and when it is someone else's you do not have that characteristic understanding of the exposure and the feeling in the hip pocket. Maybe more of them should have had a real job instead of going to school, to university and then to the union movement with no exposure to reality. I will give you one example of getting rid of these regulations. Our position of having a one-stop shop for environmental processing will save hundreds of millions of dollars per annum for our national economy. There are so many examples of streamlining processes and getting government out of the way, and that is what is critically important. Labor's exposure to small business is explained today, when all they want to do is stand in the way. I notice that the member for Brand or the Greens' leader in this House—one of them—is going to stand up and talk about how terrible this is for the environment. I have got to say to you: if you actually understood business, you would get out of the way and create the opportunities where people with money to invest can create jobs for our fellow Australians. You keep talking about fellow Australians, but you do not understand their basic, fundamental needs, and that is for jobs so they can create enterprise and support their families and fellow Australians with the taxes they pay. You live in a communist-socialist world where you do not understand the realities of life. Opposition members interjecting— Mr BALDWIN LL6 Well, you do. I look at your brochures; I look at your advertising. You understand absolutely nothing about the business environment and investment. So get rid of these regulations, repeal all of these acts that are redundant and then create the opportunities for each and every Australian to achieve their maximum potential. Or don't you understand that, members opposite? 18:30 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne Those opposite seem to have trouble working out which decade or century in history they are landing on at any particular point in time. But I am pleased that at least there is one instance where the members of the crossbench have had the opportunity to contribute to this debate, because the government has treated this chamber with absolute contempt today. It is completely the government's right to bring this bill on and to ask for it to be considered. But, as far as I am aware, in the one day of debate that we have had, not one member of the crossbench has had the opportunity to contribute, despite seeking to contribute to the debate. And here we are now at five minutes to midnight with the opportunity to make a very small contribution and to ask a question of the minister. This is critical because the government has said that this is cornerstone legislation for it and that it has been working towards this for some time. The government has also said that there are some 10,000 regulations and some 50,000 pages of regulations that are affected. On my calculation—and I would stand to be corrected, and maybe the member for Kooyong can correct me on this—this House has had 1.7 seconds of debate per regulation. That is 1.7 seconds to debate each regulation that has come before it. The problem is that when you have 10,000 regulations and only a very small period of time to debate it, it is impossible to work out what the consequences of repealing each of those regulations is, without proper scrutiny from the parliament. Some have said that one of the regulations in question may have the effect of reducing the take-home pay for cleaners who work on government contracts. This is a point that the Leader of the Opposition made, and it was made in public, but I note that the opposition is coming in here today saying it is all a stunt. Well, in the newspaper a few days ago the Leader of the Opposition said that one of the regulations stank, because it was going to cut contract cleaners' pay; so I will be interested to see why the opposition is preparing to support that particular regulation. So my question to the relevant minister is this: given the reports and claims that have been made, and the fact that you have not allowed adequate time for debate here and that there has not been parliamentary scrutiny of this bill, can you guarantee that no person's pay will be affected negatively by any of the regulations or any of the elements of any of the bills, given the claims that have been made to the contrary? 18:33 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I am delighted to be speak during this consideration-in-detail stage of the debate on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014 and related legislation. At the outset, I would like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and his committee on deregulation for the good work they have done in introducing these bills into the parliament, because it is important in this place that we reduce redundant and unnecessary red tape and regulation. And at this point this is a down payment—10,000 pieces, 50,000 pages worth. Those on the other side ask why this is important—in fact, they belittle it. It is important because individuals, business and not-for-profits are all being strangled by unnecessary compliance costs and opportunity costs. Today we have the opportunity to make a down payment on reducing some of that—about $700 million in savings on compliance costs when you include the single biggest component of that, which is the reform of the future of financial advice, at about $198 million. It is a significant thing we are doing in the parliament today. But listening to the member for Isaacs, you would not necessarily think that to be so. A number of times he stood up in the parliament and called this bill a 'routine piece of housekeeping'. He has gone on to say that it is completely 'unremarkable' and 'largely clerical', and he has talked about obsolete regulation not being all that important. Well, I have done a bit of digging on what the member for Isaacs said previously when it came to getting rid of redundant regulations. In the press release with Penny Wong on 24 July 2013 he said that it was important to reduce red tape and regulation. In fact, he talks about their legislation and says: Reducing red tape and removing redundant laws, particularly in the customs portfolio, improves the efficiency of businesses engaged in importing and exporting and makes things simpler for all Australians. That is a direct quote. But he seems to have forgotten this in his commentary in the House. He seems to have something of a faulty memory, as so many of those opposite do. The previous minister, the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Penny Wong, also talked about the importance of removing red tape and regulation. She said: By removing unnecessary regulations, we are reducing the burden on business and helping to lift business efficiency and productivity. Well, I ask the question: why is it then that those opposite do not want to see it done, and done more effectively, under our watch? You have to understand what we inherited from the previous government. I have some insight into this, because I was part of the coalition's deregulation task force, along with Senator Arthur Sinodinos and Senator David Bushby. In talking to business and not-for-profit organisations we found that during the time of the previous government, instead of living by their statement that they would have a 'one in, one out' approach to regulation, they introduced, at a conservative estimate, more than 21,000 pieces of new regulation. That is why it is so important that we not waste any time in getting on with the task of actually making it easier for business—particularly small business—to get on and invest in their business, to be able to grow jobs, and to be able to improve our economy and our nation. That is what we are doing here today. This is the first step in what will be a long journey. I am very confident that the parliamentary secretary will not just be coming in here and repealing a billion dollars of red tape and regulation every year. I am confident we will go even beyond this, because this government knows how important it is to enable business to grow jobs and invest in their business, and to be able to spend the time to do that. There is a lot of detail in these bills that I will not have the opportunity to go through in the 20 seconds I have remaining. However, I would encourage members of the public to look closely at these bills and the benefits they will bring. It will be to the benefit of all Australians that we get rid of redundant and unnecessary red tape and regulation. 18:38 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I am very pleased that the member for Higgins has such confidence in the economic outcomes of the deregulatory agenda the parliamentary secretary is pursuing. On the evidence to date there is no basis for any such confidence, given his answer to the question about the financial impact of the legislation that is before us. I think he pleaded to about $13 million today. Mr Hartsuyker 00AMM It is a public document! Mr GILES 243609 Indeed. So, what a red-letter day this has turned out to be. All the hype and triumphalism of last week has just faded away. But, there still remains this discordance between the incredible language we hear in this debate, which sits so poorly next to the substance of the matters before us. I think it is worth reflecting on this. All of us in this place are opposed to unnecessary regulation. Mr Nikolic 137174 Hear, hear! Mr GILES 243609 Thank you, Member for Bass. Mr Nikolic 137174 Not very genuine! Mr GILES 243609 On this side of the House— Mr Nikolic 137174 Why didn't you do it over six years? Mr GILES 243609 Listen for just a moment and you might learn something. I do not think so, but you might. On this side of the House we focus our attention on the question of necessity, not blind opposition to regulation per se. We recognise there are real choices to be made in this place, and rhetoric can be no substitute for those choices. As the member for Fraser said earlier today, it is not the number of regulations but their quality. That fact has become more and more true through the course of what has passed for today's debate on this subject. It is interesting that before I came here I was— Mrs Prentice 217266 In the union movement— Mr GILES 243609 at an event in this House that showed the bipartisanship can take place in this House from time to time. It was a fantastic event. I was listening to a great trade unionist, as the member for Ryan can say. It was the president of the Australian Medical Association, the sort of union that gets some kudos—and I see the nods. That great unionist, Mr Steve Hambleton, was talking about very significant social issues relating to alcohol abuse, with a particular focus on foetal alcohol spectrum disorders—matters that I think are of genuine concern to all of us in this place. What is really leading us as decision makers in this place? Is it blind faith in the market—that the alcohol manufacturers and the supermarkets are going to fix this great social problem? We are being asked to explore some regulatory solutions, as we should, as we must, and as I hope we will. As the member for Isaacs said, legislation of this type has a very long tradition in this place, going all the way back to a former member for Kooyong, who also had some other attributes in his public service. We are all supportive of ensuring that the statute books are kept in order and up to date, in an efficient manner. This is appropriate and it is supported by Labor. But this time we are told that it is apparently different. We are having a bonfire. In fact, according to the member for Wright we are doing housekeeping and having a bonfire, which strikes me as a difficult combination. But it is more than that. In the second reading we also had this this sepia-toned homage to Sir Robert Menzies—and I think it is important on this day to note the honorific—a paean to the founding myths of the Liberal Party, accompanied by that great straw man of members opposite: the nanny state. What we should reflect on, if we are interested in deregulation, is that Labor in government actually had a real deregulatory agenda—not ideological rhetoric dressed up as something more than what it is. The Seamless National Economy effectively did tackle the cost of inconsistent and unnecessary regulation. The Productivity Commission, as the member for Gellibrand was touching on upon in a slightly different context, quantified the impact of the Seamless National Economy reforms on productivity as having increased GDP in the order of $6 billion per annum. I would like to make a more wide-ranging contribution to this debate, but obviously the government's confidence in it has meant that our consideration has been caught short. I would like to go back to two questions of deregulation for the parliamentary secretary. I will start with knights and dames and the restoration of yesterday, which gives us to a very useful pointer to some necessary deregulation. I asked myself how unsatisfactory it is that Australia's Prime Minister needed the sign-off from the Queen to effect this signature reform of the government. I ask if there is any consideration on behalf of the parliamentary secretary to remove this imperial impediment to good governance and attend to this deregulation and end this unnecessary duplication. Perhaps this would also enable an Australian head of state. Perhaps he could also consider how the changing Approval of Care Recipient Principles to Approval of Care Recipients Principles— (Time expired) 18:43 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong Can I first thank all those members and colleagues on this side of the House for their terrific contributions over the course of the day. It has been an extremely important day in the history of the parliament, the first ever repeal day. It is a day that dedicated the minds of parliamentarians to the responsibility of cutting red and green tape, and therefore boosting productivity, investment and jobs. Some specific questions have been put to me today. The member for Greenway has asked about the Australian Government Guide to Regulation. I can confirm this is a new guide. We needed this new guide, with new requirements on the public service, because we are now mandating that all cabinet submissions that have a regulatory impact require a regulatory impact statement. We needed this new guide because of the 80 examples of non-compliance by those opposite. The member for Isaacs raised the question about the savings that are attributed to the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 1) 2014 and the amending acts. He obviously has not read the document, because on page 18 it refers to the $0.21 million in compliance costs that will be saved every year by the Amending Acts 1901 to 1969 Repeal Bill, and the $0.35 million in compliance costs that is saved by the Statute Law Revision Bill. As a QC he should pay attention to the detail. The member for Gellibrand referred to the IPA—that was quite unusual for the member for Gellibrand. They made out as if all these regulations were uncontroversial. If the repeal of redundant regulation is so uncontroversial and the efforts that we are making on repeal day are so uncontroversial, I look forward to those opposite supporting the abolition of the ACNC. I look forward to those opposite supporting our reforms to FoFA. I look forward to those opposite providing support for us to open up the Comcare scheme to save business costs. And I look forward to those opposite ensuring that the Personal Property Securities Act is not a burden on small hire firms around this country. If it is so noncontroversial, why didn't those opposite come up with these ideas and why didn't they universally endorse them? The member for Scullin wants some changes made to imperial honours and relevant honours. That is not going to happen. The Prime Minister has made a decision and we are very comfortable with that. The member for Melbourne asked whether workers will be better off by the deregulation initiatives that we announced today. I can emphatically tell the House that they will be far better off because, as a result of the Green thumb and the blue collar, the last parliament gave us 21,000 additional regulations. Shame on you, member for Melbourne. Shame on you, member for Scullin. Shame on the previous Labor government, because it put a burden and a shackle on business and the not-for-profit sector. Through our changes, we will ensure that we will have more employment, higher productivity and more investment and, of course, we will spur on innovation. Those opposite cannot have it both ways. They cannot on the one hand say that this is a stunt, where the regulations mean nothing, and on the other hand accuse us of taking away protections. On this side of the House, we are about getting the balance right between risk and cost. On this side of the House, we want Australia to be better off in the world rankings for overall regulatory burden than the pitiful 128th out of 148 countries which was the legacy of the previous government. I commend the bills to the House. (Time expired) The SPEAKER SE4 Pursuant to the resolution agreed to earlier, the time for debate on the detailed stage has concluded. I now put the question that the bills be agreed to. Question agreed to. Third Reading 3280 Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014 3280

Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014

Second Reading 3280 18:48 Mr NIKOLIC 137174 Bass At the time that I was stopped by the adjournment debate, I was commenting on some mendacious claims that have been made about payments to Green Army participants and I would like to put the facts on the record in relation to those payments. The Green Army allowance is higher than Labor's Green Jobs Corps and Green Corps program, and the Newstart allowance and the youth allowance. For example, under the Green Army program, a 21-year-old participant will receive a fortnightly allowance of between $885.60 and $987. The Green Army participants will also receive up to 10 days personal leave during their placement. The hourly rate of the Green Army allowance is commensurate with minimum trainee hourly wage rates. Participants will only be engaged for up to 30 hours a week. Frankly, comparisons with the minimum wage and weekly incomes are highly misleading. On the evening of 24 March, we heard the member for Scullin's contribution on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014. He was transfixed by UN conventions and the right to social security. He wanted more detail about how Green Army project participants could lodge complaints about their supervisors and complained that the minister had only mentioned the words 'climate change' once. The member for Parramatta made the quite extraordinary claim about the risks to participants who are 'unskilled, unfit and involved in a job they haven't done before'. You do not need to be Einstein to understand that the way you overcome a lack of skills, fitness and job unfamiliarity is by actually doing a job. That is exactly what we will do: deliver skills, knowledge and positive work attitudes to young people. The comments that I have just articulated tell you everything you need to know about the Labor Party. We seek to provide an opportunity for young people to work and develop new skills. Members opposite want to provide avenues for them to complain and explore their UN-mandated rights to social security. It is little wonder that the once proud Labor Party drifts further every day from its connection to the Australian people. I would also like to talk about transition to and from income support. Arrangements will also be put in place to ensure that the transition to and from income support is seamless. Upon timely notification by the participant, the arrangements ensure that they receive their allowance as soon as they exit the Green Army program. Participants will have a minimum of four weeks and up to 10 weeks upon completion of their Green Army placement to reconnect with their income support arrangements without a new claim being triggered. This is a unique arrangement implemented for Green Army participants. Service providers contracted for the program will be required to develop and agree a training plan with each participant, taking into account their skill level, project activities, training desires and career goals. These training plans will ideally assist participants in moving on from their Green Army placement. It is in the area of health and safety that claims by Labor are most mendacious, particularly that Green Army participants will have inadequate safety protections. This is, of course, the axiomatic response of those with a union background—throw up safety concerns as a cover for naked self-interest. Consider the irony—OH&S concerns from a Labor Party that presided over the ill-considered pink batts scheme. What extraordinary hypocrisy. How sad that some people might be dissuaded from participation in the Green Army program because of these false claims. The truth is that the health and safety of participants engaged in the program remains governed by relevant statutes, regulations, by-laws and the requirements of the state and territory regulations in respect of workplace health and safety laws. The Commonwealth will also implement a WHS audit scheme for the program, involving independent WHS audits of service providers and the projects that they deliver. Insurances will also be held by all required parties, and the Commonwealth will take out personal accident and public and, or, products liability insurance for Green Army participants. This is consistent with practice for the previous National Green Jobs Corps. In summary, the Green Army is a wonderful initiative. In Bass, it will make a real difference to the environment and local communities through projects such as restoring and protecting habitat, weeding and planting, cleaning up creeks and rivers and restoring cultural heritage places. In addition, participants will be paid an allowance and gain valuable skills in conservation management, teamwork and discipline. Waking up each morning with a purpose, with something to think about for the next day or the next week or the next month, will give them that spark that they need to move on to bigger and better things in their future. In my electorate of Bass, the $3 million Tamar River Recovery Plan, the $6 million that I have secured for the North Bank investment and the initial $340,000 contribution for the Green Army projects that I have mentioned together demonstrate that this government will get things done. I am proud to be a member of a coalition government that has restored sustainable development to an integrated approach that demonstrates the real linkages between social, economic and environmental issues. This integrated approach will support significant social and economic opportunities at a regional level, well beyond the initial environmental challenge identified in the Tamar Estuary—long neglected by state and federal Labor. 18:54 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne The Green Army has been repeatedly touted—including in the speech introducing this bill—as Australia's largest environmental workforce ever. One would think that when you are calling something a workforce the people in it would be workers. But it should come as no surprise that somehow Prime Minister Tony Abbott has managed to create a workforce where the workers are not legally workers and have no workplace rights. But that is exactly what this bill represents. In fact, most of this bill is dedicated to saying that the people who participate in the program, in the workforce, are not workers. It goes through and removes the protections that they otherwise might have. The bill makes it clear that these are not people who are workers that might get the protection of the Fair Work Act. The minimum standards that might come with that: the right to recourse if you want to make complaints; the basic ability to have information about your minimum rights and conditions—the people in this Tony Abbott workforce are entitled to none of those things. It also makes clear that they are not entitled to the protections against discrimination that other workers might have. In other words, if you stick your hand up for this scheme, when you are participating in it do not expect to have the same kinds of protections against discrimination on the basis of race, for example, that another employee might have—because you just do not. One of the few things the legislation does is strip away from you, as a worker, those rights. It also makes it crystal clear that, when it comes to safety, the people who are participating in this program do not have the same rights as ordinary employees. This is critical because what we hear is that this so-called workforce, where the workers are not legally workers, is going to be spending a lot of its time doing things that involve significant physical activity. We see, according to the second reading speech and other media, that these workers are going to be spending time doing things like building lookouts. What kind of scheme would provide that someone who can be engaged in manual physical labour using tools and working in potentially dangerous situations is not going to be covered by national workers compensation and health and safety laws? But that is what is being set up here. You know that that is clearly the intent because not only is there a section saying, 'If you just happen to be someone who has stuck up your hand to participate in this process you have no safety rights,' but there is an exception. There is an exception that says the supervisors in this scheme, or certain classes of employees, have the same rights as other employees in Australia. So, under this scheme, someone who sticks their hand up to participate in the program can be working side by side with their supervisor—perhaps building a lookout, as it has been suggested, or perhaps wielding a pick, or perhaps doing other work—and, if they both get injured, only the supervisor is covered by workers health and safety and compensation laws. And the other worker? Well, you are on your own to look after yourself. You do not have the same rights as the person working next to you because this government has said you are not legally a worker. All of this comes with the establishment of a scheme that just will not work. It will not do any of the things that it has been said it is going to do and will not achieve them at scale. We are told that one of the things that the Green Army can do is plant trees and that that is somehow going to contribute to this country dealing with climate change. That is a claim that the government has repeatedly made, including in the introduction of this bill. It has been made clear by Monash University that to achieve the pledged return of an annual 85 million tonnes of CO2 captured would require the equivalent of a plantation with a minimum size more than twice the size of Melbourne and an increase in wood production of an additional 300 per cent. On even the most incredible of projections, this is not something that this Green Army is going to be able to deliver. As Murdoch University has made clear, if it is really just a weeding-and-tree-planting scheme, similar to the sorts of things that were done under the former Howard government's programs, a lot of that work, particularly in periods of savage drought, was simply undone because there was no long-term follow-up. This comes at a time when we have in existence a $1 billion Biodiversity Fund, which was set up in the last parliament. It is funded by this country's biggest polluters, so it not does not come out of general taxation. This Biodiversity Fund is aiming in a systematic way to encourage people on the land and those who want to help support the land to ensure that trees and ecosystems stay there for the benefit of all of us. And it is working. The government come in here and say, 'We're going to rip down that scheme,' and they come up with something that, even on the best outcome, is only ever going to do a fraction of its work. Then they have the gall to say that this has got some kind of environmental credentials behind it. This is not about the environment. This is not about protecting the land. If that were the case, then the Biodiversity Fund would stay and it would not be facing the chop, as this government wants. No, this is not about the environment at all. It is a cynical exercise in institutional greenwashing. It is about this government being seen to be doing something about the environment, because it knows it has been caught short. As we know from earlier today, the Minister for the Environment has come into this place and, of his own volition, raised the question of climate change and its impacts on Australia on a grand total of four occasions since becoming minister. That speaks volumes about this government's priorities. If we are really serious about protecting the Australian environment and its people from the impacts of global warming—which are going to include more bushfires through the places in which, presumably, the trees under this program are going to be planted, and more droughts and biodiversity loss in the areas where these people are apparently going to be working—we would understand what the scientists are telling us, and that is that we have a very short period of time within which to address global warming or the effects on this country are going to be disastrous. They are going to be disastrous on our productivity. They are going to be disastrous for the Murray-Darling Basin. They are going to be disastrous for our environment. I do not want to have to worry, every time it gets to the Christmas holidays, about which area of Australia is going to burn in a bushfire. I do not want to have to worry, when we decide to go camping, whether my family and I are at threat because there is an increased risk of heatwave or bushfire. I do not want to have to worry, every time it comes to the end of the year, whether people living in Housing Commission flats in Melbourne are going to be facing 50-degree temperatures because of heatwaves, which we know kill more people in this country than the bushfires that sometimes accompany them, as happened during Black Saturday. All of that should be the top-order concern of this government. This government should have as its No. 1 duty the protection of the Australian people and the environment, but it is abdicating that. When it comes to climate change, we in this country need a climate change Churchill, but we have got a climate change Chamberlain in this Prime Minister. The government is turning its back on the protection of the Australian people and the Australian way of life which should be the first duty of any government. So this bill cannot be supported. It cannot be supported because it has Tony Abbott's fingerprints all over it: the creation of a workforce where the workers are not even legally workers and have no legal protections at work. If that is the government's idea of creating the workforce of the future, then everyone else in this country ought to be very, very worried, because you are next. 19:05 Mr WILLIAMS 249758 Hindmarsh I rise today to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014. I do not want to speak for long, but I feel it is important because this piece of legislation resonates in my electorate of Hindmarsh. I was most interested in the comments made by the member for Melbourne. Somewhat disappointingly, although he is for the environment, he was not at all constructive in what he had to say. This is a great program for young people and for the environment, so I expected more from the member for Melbourne, given that he supposedly represents a constituency that looks for positive environmental programs such as this. This amendment will allow the Green Army to build on the Howard government's successful Green Corps program, established back in 1996. The Labor government rebadged this program and then proceeded to terminate it. This has left young people without the opportunity to gain practical skills and improve our local environment. Under the Weatherill state government and under the last federal Labor government, we have seen the youth unemployment rate rise rapidly, to around 18 per cent. This is one of the reasons why this bill will be so important—to help these young people gain great experience in a worthwhile work program. Just as these young people who are missing out on jobs, training and experience have been disadvantaged, so has our environment. The introduction of the Green Army will deliver tangible benefits for the environment and skills for thousands of young Australians. In my electorate of Hindmarsh, we have a beautiful coastline, beaches, parks and gardens. In the House today, I am happy to reaffirm my commitment, as part of a coalition government, to deliver projects in my electorate along the River Torrens. The Torrens has an iconic place in the electorate, running from the city to the sea. The projects may involve restoration and maintenance of the coastal environment of the River Torrens mouth, including dune revegetation, habitat enhancement and the repair of the river and banks, including weed removal and native plantings at suburbs like Kidman Park, Lockleys, Underdale, West Hindmarsh, Torrensville and Flinders Park. Over the last year I have been talking with local councils and community groups on how we can work together utilising the physical resources of the Green Army. The Tennyson Dunes Group is one of the dedicated volunteer conservation groups whose prime objective is to provide a safe sanctuary for all the flora and fauna, and to improve and share the 22 hectares of coastal dunes with the community. Trees for Life is another not-for-profit organisation which is looking at restoring our natural environment through revegetation and conservation, establishing and helping to protect wildlife habitat and working to re-establish biodiverse plantings on private land. It was pleasing to see Trees for Life members attend an environment forum with Greg Hunt when he was shadow minister for environment, climate change and water. I look forward to working with Trees for Life, who have also expressed an interest in the Green Army program. Earlier this year I met with GetUp! in Hindmarsh. Some of their members indicated an interest in being involved in the Green Army program. As you can see, there are many different community groups who want to be involved in this program because they see that it will benefit their membership and the environment. Other initiatives I have been involved in recently include Clean Up Australia Day and Planet Ark's National Tree Day. Such initiatives may provide other avenues for the Green Army to make a contribution. By committing to work on a day-to-day basis and working in a team, participants will gain valuable life skills and work experience. They will be making a contribution to the environment and to their local community. The Green Army will foster volunteerism, teamwork, local ownership and community spirit in the young people who participate. But it is just not for the young people; it is also for retirees, many in my electorate, who have shown a keen interest in maintaining the environment in their local areas. The Green Army will become Australia's largest-ever environmental workforce, building to 15,000 participants, capable of delivering 1,500 on-the-ground environmental projects. We care about the environment, about our youth and about meaningful work. This is another example of where the coalition is working towards a better environment. The coalition is focused on meeting our emissions target. We will not do this through tax, destroying jobs, such as the carbon tax, but through direct action—a unique approach to climate change. As you can see, we are committed to working on great environmental programs to achieve outcomes. I look forward supporting this bill and working with the local community to achieve results. 19:10 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014—an important debate, because it goes to whether the government is legitimate in relation to assisting with the reduction of carbon and whether the government is legitimate and sincere when it talks about fulfilling its aspirations for the environment. While the opposition do not, in any way, want to impede the capacity for young people to participate in environmental action and have applauded schemes which enable young people to acquire skills and to have accredited training, we are concerned that many questions arise out of the bill's construction. Firstly, we would say—and it is reflected in the amendment moved by the member for Port Adelaide—we are concerned about the interpretation of the so-called 'participants'. Clearly there is an issue about the relationship between the participants and the sponsors or the sponsoring organisations, given that the participants are in workplaces. We are concerned, for example, that workers compensation and occupational health and safety issues may be adversely affected as a result of the participants not being deemed to be employees. The government has sought to assure the opposition that the legislation—which is primarily state legislation—will deem participants to be employees for the purposes of workers compensation and OH&S if compensation is sought as a consequence of a participant being injured. The opposition want to be assured that the occupational health and safety standards and rehabilitation and workers compensation laws that apply to employees across the nation would apply to these participants. These matters are yet to be sufficiently clarified and there are public liability concerns for new workers who might be confronted by challenges of rough terrain or potentially dangerous work in the rehabilitation of rivers. The amendment moved by the opposition asks the government to clarify with some certainty that the protections which they assert exist for participants of this program indeed do exist, so that we can be assured that the participants are deemed to be employees. Another concern with this proposed legislation is the extent of the training afforded to participants in this program. We think the purpose of the government in relation to this matter is to fulfil two functions—one is an environmental function and another is to provide opportunities for young people to become job-ready and to acquire skills that might be in demand when they are looking for other work. We would hope if there is training provided to the participants of this program that the training is worth something, is accredited and is of a standard that prospective employers would value so that their chances of being employed, dare I say it, in a real job would be more likely and the prospective employers would say that they have the right skills to fill existing or future vacancies. That seems to me to be left wanting in the proposed legislation. There does not seem to be sufficient explanation of the nature of the training. The opposition cannot be assured at this point that the training will be formal and have accreditation that the participants can present to future employers. We think it is critical that the young participants are able to acquire skills. I argue that this program needs to fulfil that obligation to them. I do not argue against the notion, particularly for young people who may not have had much work or any formal work, that they will definitely get job experience as a result of engaging in these activities. Working in teams and working under direction are real life skills needed for the workforce. I think it is only reasonable in this day and age for those participants to be given proper training and for that training to mean something, and for the skills that are acquired under such training to be in demand so that they are more valuable to employers. Whilst we can see some benefits with the initiatives that are contained within the legislation, we have some serious questions that need to be answered before we can support the proposed legislation. If I can just repeat the concerns we have. We have concerns about whether these participants will be endangered because they will not be fully covered by federal or state legislation with respect to workers compensation rehabilitation and occupational health and safety, and whether the training afforded to them during these weeks will be proper and accredited. I also think there has to be a question—and I have not touched on this yet—about whether the design and construction of this program could lead to the displacement of existing workers. I am someone who understands the importance of labour market programs and environmental activities programs that have worked in the past and I can see the benefits, particularly for entry-level employees, but what we do not want to see happen—and I am not suggesting for a moment that the government wants this to happen, but I want to be assured that this will not be a consequence of this legislation—is participants of this program undertake work that is currently undertaken by existing workers. Instead of increasing the capacity for people to be employed, you could, if you are not careful, end up having people on very low allowances, not wages—and these people are not even deemed to be employees for the purposes of their remuneration—performing the tasks of people who are paid full wages. That should not be entertained by the government. This is about getting people into work, getting them the work experience and proper training, and fulfilling some environmental goals, however limited those goals might be. We do not want to see, for example, council workers being displaced by participants in those programs who receive allowances that are far lower than the payments that were being made to those full-time workers. We would not want to see that form of displacement. Whilst we are not going to be prescriptive about 'additionally'—and by that I mean making sure that the participants add to the people performing work, not displace existing workers—we would say that the government should have regard to the design and implementation of the program so it does not endanger the jobs of other workers. That can cause conflict, particularly in small communities. A form of resentment can build when something undertaken by a full-time worker is then undertaken by people who are not even deemed to be employees. The last thing we want to have is any enmity aimed at young people who just want to participate in a program, become job ready and acquire accredited skills for prospective employers. There are a number of caveats manifest in the amendment moved by the opposition. It asks the government to clarify those matters. We ask the government to make sure that those questions are answered fully and guarantee, without qualification, the health and safety of participants and the potential workers compensation rehabilitation that may arise—and we hope it does not—if any of the participants are injured in a workplace. Finally, we hope some thought goes in to ensuring that we do not see the program's participants displace existing workers who are performing functions on full-time wages. We do not think that would be in the best interests of the participants or the organisations involved in the programs—and certainly not existing workers' interests, who may feel they have been displaced. They are the things we need answered before we can support the bill in toto. We ask the government to focus on that and, indeed, the Minister for the Environment to respond in due course to those matters. 19:22 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin It gives me great pleasure to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014. The member for Gorton is right: this Green Army Program has two fundamental objectives and both are complementary. Firstly, it is to provide an opportunity to young people for training in an area that they would seldom have the opportunity of receiving without this policy. It is also to provide practical environmental benefits to our regions and local suburban areas, such as my own. Looking firstly at the training opportunities: targeting this at 17 to 24 year olds is recognition by this government that young people often find it difficult to find that first opportunity—that first breakthrough. There are many young people who are considering, or potentially interested in, a career involved in horticulture or other related areas, and this sort of program will give them fantastic exposure and mentoring to determine whether they have an aptitude for it and whether they enjoy it. And it will obviously give them the practical benefits of teaching them the relevant skills. Obviously, there are also other benefits that sit outside that, even for people who are not necessarily interested in pursuing a career in horticulture. For lots of young people, some of the barriers to employment are things as simple as working in a team, being able to take instructions, learning to cooperate and work with other people in a team environment and having the discipline to show up at a certain time every day for work. I suppose these are 'soft' skills but they are crucially important to anybody seeking to make a start in any field of employment. The opportunities that will be given to 17 to 24 year olds from the Green Army Program will greatly benefit people who have a desire to start a career in complementary areas like horticulture, land management, working with local government in land management and other areas like that, and also people who just need that first start—that first opportunity in their career that can give them some of the skills that they will then have on their CV and be able to take forward into other careers, other professions and other jobs. Looking at the second aspect of the Green Army Program—putting aside the training aspect for young people—the practical environmental benefits are something that I think we will look back on with great pride. If I look at my electorate of Deakin, we have some fantastic natural areas—remnant forests in the area, parks and creeks—that local governments find very, very difficult to maintain within their own budgets. Indeed, most of those areas have big teams of volunteers—people who get out on Saturday and Sunday to do the weeding and to clean up the creeks. These are people who do it on a week-by-week basis. I have spent time with people at the Blackburn Lake Sanctuary and the Heatherdale Creek in my electorate, and the volunteer base just cannot keep up with the demands of that kind of work. So they have applauded us as a government—and they were certainly very excited when we announced the policy when we were in opposition—for the opportunity to work with a team of young people for six months who would come in, under supervision, to do a lot of the work that they had so diligently been trying to do themselves. The Green Army project will enable those young people to work hand in glove with those who have responsibility for the land management of the relevant project. In my electorate of Deakin that will primarily involve Maroondah City Council and Whitehall City Council. For each of the three projects that I have in my electorate, which are the Blackburn Lake Sanctuary, the Heatherdale Creek Rejuvenation Project and Eastville Park in Croydon, our Green Army teams will work extraordinarily closely with the relevant local government. It is an opportunity to ensure that the volunteers get the help they need and that the young people get the training and the first start—the opportunity that is so important to them. In recent weeks there has been a clamouring of excitement in my electorate with people putting themselves forward as potential participants and as volunteers on the relevant advisory committees of the projects, who are keen to get an understanding of the time frames of the projects that will be in place. There has also been excitement at the local government level that they are going to be able to have some assistance in these land management projects. To address one of the concerns of the member for Gorton—responsibly raised—I do not think that in any of the projects in the Deakin electorate you will see Green Army projects substituting for work that is otherwise being done. I think it will be work that, quite frankly, is unable to be done within current resources and that our volunteers are unable to do themselves. It will be important to ensure that they complement each other. I am confident that they will, and speaking from the Deakin electorate perspective—and I am sure all electorates around the country would be similar—there is a commitment on this side of the House to ensure that the Green Army projects work with local communities, complement what they are already doing on the ground and try to obtain those two crucial benefits: firstly, the training and opportunities given to young people and secondly, the practical environment benefits as well. ADJOURNMENT 3289 ADJOURNMENT Education Funding 3289 19:30 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith Earlier this year, my eldest daughter started school. Like all parents, my wife and I want to give our kids the best education they can possibly get. Education is the foundation to a fulfilling and rewarding life. Living in a wealthy nation with high living standards, Australian parents deserve a government that is committed to a quality education system, to making a greater investment in our kids' education and to investing in needs based funding, better quality teaching, better resources for schools, more information for parents, a quality national curriculum and, importantly, supporting parents to meet the costs of sending kids to school. Unfortunately, the standards of numeracy and literacy in our schools, compared to other nations over the last decade, have been slipping. While Labor was in government, we determined that that was not good enough and that something needed to be done to arrest the decline in our kids' standards when it comes to education. To do this, Labor asked a panel of experts chaired by David Gonski to consult widely with the community and develop a plan to arrest the decline in our schools. That is what they did. They developed a new model for funding our schools that was based on the needs of students, removing disadvantage and boosting standards. Unfortunately, when the Abbott government came to office, it completely sabotaged the Gonski school reforms by not ensuring that states are required to put additional funding into the system and not requiring states to invest in a needs based model. In my community, the cost-of-living pressures are enormous. Labor developed a scheme to assist parents in meeting the cost of sending their kids to school—the schoolkids bonus. The payment is $410 each year for primary school students and $820 each year for secondary school students. This payment supports 4,850 families in the electorate of Kingsford Smith. It supports 8,550 students in my community, ensuring that they are supported and have the best chance at a quality education. It helps to meet the costs of sending kids to school. It is targeted at the most disadvantaged students so that they receive the support. Only families receiving family tax benefit A and B benefit from this targeted payment. Recently, the Abbott government decided to cut the schoolkids bonus. This will make it tougher for families in my community to meet the cost of sending their kids to school. It will remove vital support for education in Kingsford Smith and throughout the country. Over the past six weeks, I have been visiting schools in my community, talking to parents about the importance of the schoolkids bonus. The parents have said to me that the schoolkids bonus is a big help in meeting those important costs of sending kids to school, such as for uniforms, books, shoes and the like. But the schoolkids bonus is more than that. It is a demonstration of Labor's commitment to education. It is the basis of the necessities for a good education. Many in my community are outraged by the fact that the Abbott government is getting rid of the schoolkids bonus. So far, 360 members of my community have signed a petition opposing the removal of the schoolkids bonus from families. The schoolkids bonus is funded by the minerals resource rent tax. That is a tax on the wealthiest foreign-owned mining companies, asking them to pay a fair share for the profits they derive. Last year, a company like BHP earned a $10.8 billion profit. For that, they pay a small amount of tax to fund the schoolkids bonus. The Abbott government is giving a tax break to the wealthiest mining companies in the world and asking the families of the poorest school kids in the country to take a hit, while it removes the schoolkids bonus. In anyone's language, that is unfair. That is not investing in education. I call on the Abbott government, on behalf of my community, not to remove the schookids bonus. (Time expired) Ludlam, Senator Scott 3290 19:35 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce The people of Western Australia face a historic Senate election. For the second time since Federation, WA will be the only child of Australian politics. Minor parties and independents of near infinite variety have emerged to each claim status as the greatest friend of the state. Ten candidates in the election do not even live in WA. One recently said that he might visit, if there was a compelling reason to do so. Whether it is a compelling idea to represent 2.5 million people—I think you should at least meet one of them—that will be for the Western Australian people to decide. Perhaps the most dubious minor party claim to best-friend status has received the greatest attention, that made by the Greens Senator Scott Ludlam. As a Western Australian, I found his short speech sufficiently distressing to warrant this even shorter response. Senator Ludlam, you criticise the Prime Minister for using three-word slogans but then explain the Greens' vision as for a country that values 'education, innovation and equality.' Aside from being characteristically vague and, perhaps, a little trite, this is a three-word slogan. Another three-word slogan springs to mind: four legs good, two legs bad. That is six words, but you get the point. In any event, double standards are not the issue. Senator, you criticise the Prime Minister for taxpayer funded travel in the course of doing his job, but you did so in a speech you wrote on a plane, which was a part of the taxpayer funded travel that allows you to do your job. But cheap shots can be lived with. Senator, the closest you come to economic analysis is to characterise the world of government as a binomial choice between what you call 'predatory capitalism' pitted repetitiously against the public interest. In this zero-sum game, you claim the Abbott government consistently chooses against the public interest. This is because, in your words, it is on the side of a number of groups that appear in your speech as the villains of the piece: biotech corporations, oil and gas companies, uranium miners, a US intelligence agency, and, last but not least, the very scary sounding Hollywood copyright industrial complex. The truth is of course more complicated. Capitalism is not always, or even particularly often, a purely malign predatory force that consumes the environment and destroys individuals. Neither is it, of course, always perfectly beneficial. The predominance of government tempered free-market capitalism in our social and political systems has acted as an engine of amazing growth and prosperity. The harnessing, by the free market, of humanity's natural desire to better their personal circumstances by growing wealth has led to fantastic technological and scientific advances and the immense improvement of the human condition, in direct parallel. To me, Senator Ludlam's economic analysis is unsatisfying because it is more simple caricature than complex economic reality. But, importantly, this disagreement can be aired without calling you names. What I find so thoroughly depressing about Senator Ludlam's speech was the swift and casual descent into deeply serious personal abuse—the type of mean spirited vitriol that represents the worst excesses of poor parliamentary conduct. Outside the confines of the privilege that protects parliamentarians, if one citizen called another a racist or a homophobe, it would be a very serious defamatory matter indeed. But, in parliament, Senator Ludlam accused the Australian Prime Minister of being a homophobe and a heartless racist. The only basis for the accusation of homophobia appeared to be his personal and temperately expressed view on the statutory definition of marriage. The accusation of heartless racism the listener must infer, rested simply on the basis of the coalition's policies designed to stop the people smuggling trade to Australia's shores. Reasonable people can disagree on the wisdom of marriage law reform. Likewise, disagreement may be expressed on the merits of offshore processing—although dispute with the proposition that coalition policy has so far worked to stop people smuggling, and is thus saving lives, is increasingly hard to reasonably sustain. However, surely even the most robust disagreement does not require labelling those that take alternative views on such issues as racists or homophobes. Border protection was a central election policy supported by a solid majority of Australians. Senator Ludlam's disagreement with the views of such Australians does not warrant them being labelled as racists. Change to the definition of marriage involves a complicated intersection of public policy, faith and conflicts between group and individual rights. It is a deeply personal issue for many and those Australians who have reservations about such a change do not deserve, on Senator Ludlam's standards, to be called homophobes. The last parliament was tainted by a slide away from civil argument and a descent into personal abuse. Senator Ludlam's speech was no doubt aided in 'going viral', by favouring the later over the former. In my view, there are prices too high to pay for publicity. Kingston Electorate: Community Services 3291 19:39 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I rise tonight to speak about an urgent matter that concerns many in my local community in the southern suburbs of Adelaide. In recent weeks I have heard from numerous local organisations and residents who are feeling very anxious because funding for critical social services in our region is under threat. Indeed, we have heard that the government has a choice. Today we on this side of the House are concerned that the choice made is somewhat twisted. I want to start by highlighting the impact that savage funding cuts to legal assistance in my local community will have. Particularly, I would like to highlight the Southern Community Justice Centre that provides important high-quality legal services to individuals and families in the community, including free specialist child-support services and free alternative dispute resolution services for neighbourhood disputes. The decision by the Abbott government to slash funding across the sector means that funding for community legal centres will be reduced by approximately $19 million over the next four years. This will have significant detrimental effects on the ability of many Australians, including those in my local community, to access justice. Already, uncertainty caused by the decision has led the Southern Community Justice Centre not to proceed with employing additional staff in 2014, as was previously planned. Further, it has meant that work with family violence services, including the provision of staff for legal education within support groups, is now unlikely to continue. I urge the government to reconsider this short-sighted decision not to support community legal centres such as the Southern Community Justice Centre, and to continue to expand the important work that they do. My correspondence to the Attorney-General on this matter earlier this year remains unanswered. These funding cuts will hurt communities right around the country and they are a step backwards in a society that must value justice. The cuts to community legal services is not the only example of this government's failure to reassure important social services in my local community. Locals have contacted me wanting to know whether or not they will be able to continue to access the Carer Support respite centre in the southern suburbs of Adelaide after 30 June 2014. Carer Support has been providing services to carers in our region for over two decades and currently receives federal funding to help ensure that our carers are well supported and able to continue in their important roles. They provide social events, groups for sharing and caring experiences, overnight trips for respite, information courses and counselling, often to people who are incredibly isolated because of their caring responsibilities. The response to my correspondence seeking urgent confirmation that the Abbott government will continue to fund this service has come as cold comfort to local carers who rely on this service and who have been left in the dark about whether or not they will be able to continue to rely on this funding. The Assistant Minister for Social Services has not been able to confirm, at this point, that funding will be extended past 30 June. This uncertainty around whether or not carers in the southern suburbs of Adelaide will have access to federal financial support in a few months time is simply unacceptable. Social services on the ground are being affected by this government's retrograde decision to slash funding or not make decisions to extend funding contracts in our region. Last week in this place I also called on the Abbott government to extend funding for the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness, which is due to expire very shortly. This uncertainty in funding, as I have previously said, has generated considerable anxiety amongst organisations who firmly believe that they should be able to continue their important work to assist some of our most vulnerable Australians escape things such as domestic violence or to find a home of their own. These organisations are saying they will be forced to cut up to 30 per cent of their services and reduce their workforce through redundancies if this funding is not extended. I have also raised in this place the important issue of Commonwealth-funded financial counsellors in my community. This is essential assistance for people who find themselves in difficulty and ensures that we do not see more crime or the development of other desperate situations. This independent advice, negotiation services with creditors and assistance with budgeting is essential. Once again, the Abbott government has refused to commit funding past 30 June. We need these social services on the ground, yet the government continues to pursue their extravagant paid parental leave scheme. (Time expired) Western Australia Senate Election 3293 19:45 Mr SIMPKINS HWE Cowan In 10 days time, Western Australians will have to vote, again, for the Senate. This is a choice that is absolutely clear. The voters have three clear policies that are of great concern to them, according to feedback in recent years to my office, and only one side that will deliver for the people. The first issue of concern is the boats. The voters can back the Liberal Party and see the boats stopping for the first time since 2008 and integrity returned to the immigration system. If the voters have had enough of Labor and the Greens, who designed, oversaw and in every way presided over policies that saw over 800 boats and 50,000 people arrive, then Labor and the Greens should be rejected again. The billionaire Palmer United Party is also on the record as wanting to open up the borders. The second concern is the carbon tax. Again, there are very clear differences between us and our opponents. We said we would repeal the carbon tax and Labor and the Greens are defending it, fighting tooth and nail to save it. They are blocking the repeal that the people of Western Australia voted for in September, and on 5 April the people of Western Australia have the chance to say again to the Labor Party and the Greens that they do not want their anti-Western-Australia carbon tax. As Western Australians know, Labor, the Greens and the Independents brought in the carbon tax after the 2010 election, after the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, said that there would be no carbon tax under a government she led—infamous words, because some months later they were slapping each other on the back triumphantly when the carbon tax was passed here in this chamber. That was when the carbon tax was passed, and it endures to this day. Throughout the last parliament, the carbon tax endured, and at no point did the Labor Party abolish or get rid of the carbon tax. It endures and is doing what they wanted it to do: driving up the cost of living, to this day, in Cowan, in Western Australia and across our country. The carbon tax is a reality for every Australian, because Labor votes against us and the will of the people here and in the Senate. In Western Australia, the people can only support one team that will look after them. That Liberal Senate team is the team of Senator David Johnston, Senator Michaelia Cash, Linda Reynolds and Slade Brockman. On the opposite side of politics, Western Australians should reject Labor's Louise Pratt, be­cause she cannot be trusted. She distributed a flyer at the last election in September that was designed to deliberately mislead voters—self-interest above principle. I have a copy of that flyer and it says on the front and back, 'Kevin Rudd and Labor remove the carbon tax'. I make the point that at the time that the flyer was produced, and every day since, the carbon tax has been in operation, and that not only did Labor not try to remove it, they have fought to keep it. Therefore, the flyer is a fraud, a falsehood, and is designed for the sole purpose of trying to get Labor more votes. And who was it that authorised it? At the bottom of the second page it reads, 'Authorised by Senator Louise Pratt'. Labor is a party defined by the guiding maxim: 'Whatever it takes'. I therefore make the point that Labor and Senator Pratt cannot be trusted on what they say before an election, because they will say anything to get a vote. Finally, the third key concern is the mining tax. There are many examples of massive policy failure from the previous government, but the Labor Party's mining tax is an example of the worst of excesses. It raised hardly any money, yet they spent massively against it, creating a huge budgetary problem. The only thing they achieved was to undermine investment in Western Australia. The Labor Party and the Greens wanted to fleece Western Australia, and they have damaged the opportunities for Western Australians and for my constituents specifically. Another example of the Labor betrayal of Western Australians and taking advantage of our state. Labor made the decision and planned to attack Western Australia and attack our productive capacity by establishing the tax, and then just very recently, voting in the House and the Senate to keep the mining tax. Meanwhile, over in Perth, Labor candidate, union boss Joe Bullock, is saying that Labor is against the mining tax—example after example of the Labor Party and its candidates, saying one thing in Perth but doing the complete opposite in Canberra. They cannot be trusted and should not be supported by anyone. I say again that there is only one solid choice and that it is a choice for integrity. A vote for the Liberal Party team of Johnston, Cash, Reynolds and Brockman is a vote for four Western Australians committed to the people of Western Australia, to defend our borders, to increase the work opportunities and to lighten the cost-of-living load on their fellow Western Australians. In contrast, you have the Labor Party, who will say anything false for a vote; a billionaire, who wants a multimillion-dollar tax refund in exchange for his party's support in the Senate; and the Greens, who want open borders and more taxes on every Western Australian. The choice is clear: go to column R and vote for the Liberal Party. Afghanistan 3294 19:49 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra Since the fall of the Taliban regime in late 2001 we have witnessed significant advances in human rights across Afghanistan. Millions of Afghan girls and boys are now going to school. Many women now have access to education, employment, basic health care and other essential services that previously were off limits to them. A vibrant civil society has emerged and media have been freer to voice the concerns of the Afghan people. As we all know, Afghanistan now has a higher percentage of women in parliament than Australia. Of course things are not all that rosy—not even close. Poverty remains rife in Afghanistan, as does insecurity, corruption and violence—including violence against women. Both the rule of law and the system of justice are weaker than they should be. There is still a great deal of work to be done in this area. As Australia and our ISAF partners withdraw, Afghanistan faces an uncertain future. Perhaps—and I hope—it will continue down the path of progress and reform, furthering these advances in human rights to improve quality of life and economic prosperity. However, there is also a real threat to Afghanistan: that it will regress, and that the many and significant human rights advances that have been made over the last 12 years will be degraded or even entirely lost. There is evidence that this regression is already occurring. In the context of the ongoing peace talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government, the rights of women and girls in particular are at risk. In just nine days time, on 5 April, Afghanistan will hold a presidential election. The result of this election will be fundamental in determining the future for the people of Afghanistan. My very great fear is that the newly-elected president will not uphold the rights of women and girls as his predecessor has, and that it will be the rights of women and girls that are lost. President Karzai has recently blocked attempts by Afghan authorities to repeal protection for women and introduce laws which would, firstly, introduce stoning for adultery and amputation of hands and feet for theft, and, secondly, prevent effective investigation and prosecution of gender-based violence. President Karzai's intervention—supported by international and domestic pressure—was fundamental in protecting the rights of women in this instance. His successor must be prepared to make the same interventions. Already, Afghan civil society groups have sounded the alarm to Amnesty International and others about a newly deteriorating women's human rights situation in the country. In areas currently under Taliban control, the human rights of women and girls are severely restricted, including their freedom of movement and political participation. Meanwhile, Afghan women, including female human rights defenders, remain sidelined from key national and international deliberations on ways to advance peace, security, development and human rights in Afghanistan, despite the requirement of Security Council Resolution 1325 and others that require women's participation in peacemaking and peace building. The nine women appointed to the 70-member High Peace Council, set up to negotiate with elements of the Taliban, are largely excluded from key discussions, and some of the small steps that have been taken to ensure the protection of women have been undermined. In May 2013, after some conservative members of parliament attempted to weaken the Law on Elimination of Violence Against Women, its parliamentary endorsement was deferred. A new criminal procedure code passed by both houses of the Afghan parliament in January 2014 introduced a provision prohibiting relatives of the accused from testifying in criminal cases, which would effectively make impossible prosecuting cases of domestic violence. As the presidential election approaches, the international community—including Australia—must make it clear to presidential candidates that the rights of women and girls cannot be traded away or degraded. They are hard-fought-for and highly valued. As the pen holder for Afghanistan at the UN Security Council, Australia has, to date, played a significant role in driving the adoption of strong language in support of human rights and women's rights in Afghanistan. This role cannot end now. The Australian government should: call on the incoming Afghan president to commit to implementing in full the elimination of violence against women law, support the meaningful participation of Afghan women in peace talks, support Afghanistan to develop its own 1325 action plan, and address the low conviction rate of perpetrators of gender based violence. We cannot let this election be the end of rights for women and girls in Afghanistan. They now enjoy the right to travel alone and freedoms only dreamed of 12 years ago. I urge the Abbott government and the international community to remain vigilant to ensure women in Afghanistan have a meaningful role around the negotiation table and do not just end up being dinner. Western Australia: Infrastructure 3295 19:54 Mr RANDALL PK6 Canning Two days ago, on 24 March, a joint media statement was made by Jamie Briggs, the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, and the new Minister for Transport in Western Australia, Mr Dean Nalder. This joint statement announced that Perth motorists would have some good news: that the Kwinana Freeway congestion would be addressed through an extension and widening of the freeway between Roe Highway and Armadale Road in Western Australia. This is fantastic news for Western Australian motorists, and it is even more fantastic news for the motorists that come from the south of the city, from suburbs such as Atwell, Beeliar, Success and Honeywood. Even my constituents in the city of Mandurah will benefit from this widening of the Kwinana Freeway. Just to put it in context, this road is five kilometres long, or thereabouts. However, onto it merges the Roe Highway, and the Roe Highway is a busy highway that pours two lanes into another two lanes onto the Kwinana Freeway, where they merge. So it produces quite chronic bottlenecks in the morning for those going to work in Perth, and for those leaving Perth in the evening, and it has been the bane of those who try and use this magnificent freeway heading south. You would not have read about it in The West Australian newspaper, because that paper and the journalists here in Canberra are more interested in scuttlebutt and innuendo than good news. But this is really good news, because $31 million from the state government and $31 million from the federal government is going to make a huge difference to the infrastructure and the productive time that people spend on the road, it will lower business costs and it will improve the economy and help to create jobs, because people will not be spending so much time on the road. It will also help environmentally, as people will not be sitting there spewing out massive amounts of greenhouse gases, so those amongst us who have an issue with that should be happy as well. The issue here is that, if this government had not done this under the infrastructure Prime Minister, Tony Abbot, it would not have been done, because the Labor Party, as we know, were borrowing $100 million a day from China to pay for their works. They had to, because they said they were going to get the money from the mining tax and we know the mining tax does not raise any money, so it had to be found elsewhere. A government that is interested in balancing the books and finding money in the proper places through our proper budgetary process has come up with at least $30 million to co-fund this with the Western Australian government. The peripheral issue to this is the spin-off that will happen to cities like mine in the electorate of Canning, the City of Armadale. Between the Kwinana Freeway and the City of Armadale, there is a road that is a normal suburban road with one lane each way. It needs to be dual carriageway all the way through to the Tonkin Highway. There are matrixes of highways and roads that now need further work, and to make this dual carriageway right through to the Tonkin Highway will be of huge benefit to those living in the south-east corridor in my electorate in places such as Piara Waters, Hilbert, Harrisdale and of course the City of Armadale itself. So this is fantastic news. In addition to this, the expansion of the Fremantle outer harbour is expected to be in operation and will create further pressure on the freeway and the capacity needed, so this upgrade is also going to address the heavy trucking industry that relies on the smooth flow of traffic in the southern corridor of Perth. The issue that has also been raised in relation to this widening is that, as I said, no-one has heard about this. But those out there listening who do not read The West Australian newspaper, but might be listening to the radio, will be happy about this today in Perth, because they have been asking: 'When is this going to happen? When are we going to know about the widening of this road?' So here we are, coming to a Senate election in a few days. We are the party—in conjunction with the state government, the Barnett government, in Western Australia—that is going to provide this necessary infrastructure. We have been ignored previously by those opposite, and this is now finally going to be delivered for those long-suffering motorists. The SPEAKER SE4 Order! It being 8 pm, the debate is interrupted. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 3297 NOTICES

Wednesday, 26 March 2014

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

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 3299 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Charlton Electorate: Eraring Public School 3299 09:30 Mr CONROY 249127 Charlton Eraring Public School will celebrate its 90th anniversary on Saturday with a range of activities to commemorate the school and celebrate its special place in the town. Nestled amongst the trees on six acres of land, Eraring Public School is unique in both its natural environment and its learning environment. Located on the land of the Awabakal people, over time Eraring has been an area of many different land uses—from market gardens and chicken farms to camping areas—and is currently the location of Eraring Power Station—the largest power station in the country. The school was officially opened in 1924 by the then minister for education, Mr Albert Bruntnell, in front of almost 200 people. It was originally built to cater for 15 pupils and 90 years later is a single-teacher small school with a total enrolment of just 10 students. Eraring Public School is proud of the individual learning programs offered to its students and it has a record of achieving quality outcomes for students. I am told that last year the school achieved two top-ranking positions in the prestigious Newcastle Permanent Primary Mathematics Competition, with year 6 student Samantha Johnson coming equal fifth overall and year 5 student Gino Pavy reaching 23rd position from a field of over 8,600 participants. Eraring is a school that celebrates its history. Located on the school grounds is the original Eraring post office building which was carefully transported to the school and restored by volunteers in 1994 and now operates as a community museum. A replica of the school of arts hall has been erected nearby to house the school's ever-growing collection of historical objects. It is with this spirit of community and heritage that the school will celebrate its 90th birthday this weekend. The festivities will kick off with an old-style fair complete with arts and crafts, market stalls, trash and treasure and even an old-fashioned lemonade stand. The vast collection of school memorabilia will also be on display. Neighbouring schools will also be part of the celebration with the unveiling of the Eraring Public School Unity Garden. Students from Wyee, Cooranbong, Bonnells Bay, Morrisett high and primary, Dora Creek and Wangi Wangi public schools have each contributed to the garden by designing a commemorative pole which will be placed in the unity garden by their principals as a symbol of unity between the schools and a celebration of education in the region. The school will also launch a book on the history of Eraring and its school, penned by local author Doug Saxon. Doug is renown for his work and has written extensively on the history of schools in Lake Macquarie including a hundred-year history of Bonnells Bay Public School, of which he was principal during the 1980s. Last but by no means least, the day will end with a big bush dance at the school, which I have no doubt will be enjoyed by all. I wish Eraring Public School a very happy 90th birthday and congratulate principal, Leanda Guy, for her efforts in commemorating this special occasion. Macarthur Electorate: Rotary Police Officer of the Year Awards 2014 3300 09:33 Mr MATHESON M2V Macarthur Today I rise to pay tribute to the outstanding police officers of Macarthur who were recognised for service above self at the Macarthur Rotary 8th annual Police Officer of the Year awards. These awards recognise the fantastic work being done by men and women serving in the New South Wales Police Force on behalf of the local community. It is with great pride that I acknowledge the recipient of this year's Police Officer of the Year award, Leading Senior Constable Eleanor Jenkins. LSC Jenkins has been a member of the New South Wales Police Force since 2003. She consistently sets high professional standards in her duties and is an excellent role model to others, in particular to the junior police officers that she mentors. Her significant workload shows her commitment and professionalism. She consistently leads the pack in terms of proactive arrests and street-level drug detections and interventions. LSC Jenkins balances these results in the field with her other role as a loving mother. She works full time while supporting her family and our community. She is highly respected and has received many letters of appreciation from victims of crime for assistance and support. LSC Jenkins is a perfect example of the dedication and commitment that our police officers give to the job every time they go to work. I am also proud to acknowledge the other award recipients who have demonstrated service above self in their respective fields: in the traffic and highway patrol category, Leading Senior Constable Robert Ryan, for leading by example and his enthusiastic approach to policing and mentoring junior members of staff; in the detective category, Senior Constable Detective Brent Piggott, who shows great initiative, dedication to duty and persistence in getting the job done; in the crime management category, Senior Constable Mark Scambary, for his untiring efforts in respect to youth education, intervention, support and mentoring; in the probationary constable category, Douglas Brennen, for his level of maturity, commitment to duty and the exceptional customer service he provides to victims of crime; and, in the unsworn officers administrative staff category, Patricia Morrison for her invaluable source of knowledge and assistance that comes from experience and the desire to be the best at what she does. I wish all of these outstanding police officers the best as they continue their fight to make our communities a safer place to live. I would also like to praise the Rotary clubs of Camden, Campbelltown, Narellan, Wollondilly North, Ingleburn and Macarthur Sunrise for organising these awards. Recognising police officers who protect our local community is very close to my heart. I served in the New South Wales Police Force for 25 years and I know from personal experience the trials and tribulations of life in the police force. Each day brings new challenges as well as opportunities to help the community. I thank all of the police officers in Macarthur for approaching their work with professionalism, excellence and dedication. I wish them a safe journey and all the very best as they continue their careers in the New South Wales Police Force. Road Safety 3301 09:36 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler I rise today to strongly urge the government not to abandon the efforts initiated by the previous Labor government to improve the safety standards for our road transport industry. Late last year, the Abbott government commissioned a review of the road safety remuneration system, and it now appears that the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal may be one of the first victims in an effort to reduce regulation in the industry. The tribunal, established two years ago, was put in place to create an effective safe rates system to improve the safety in what is widely known as Australia's deadliest industry. There are approximately 25 deaths per 100,000 workers in the road transport industry, which is 10 times higher than the average for all industries in Australia. Accidents involving trucks result in the death of 330 Australians and many more injuries every year. This is in addition to the very high economic cost of $2.7 billion as a result of road accidents involving heavy vehicles. Rather than developing strategies to strengthen the safety standards in what is clearly our deadliest industry, this government appears to be determined to wind back regulations and put more lives in danger. Earlier this week they rejected the proposal for the heavy vehicle safety and productivity program, which was introduced by Labor to fund the construction of new rest stops and parking bays designed to provide safer and more productive work environments for the heavy vehicle sector. Clearly, there is a connection between remuneration rates and safety in the road transport industry. Financial pressures from the top of the supply chain are causing reckless behaviour, endangering drivers and all other road users. Our truck drivers work hard to make a living but they should not have to die to make a living. I would like to acknowledge Lystra Tagliaferri and Suzanne de Beer, who are visiting Parliament House today. Lystra and Suzanne are widows. Their husbands, David and Albert, were tragically killed on the Old Coast Road in Western Australia in February 2011. They were both hit by an oncoming truck. These two families know all too well the price of compromised and unsafe practices in the road transport industry. This is not about blame but about addressing the bigger picture, the overall conditions and safety standards in this industry. I urge the government not to abandon the efforts of Labor over the last couple of years to strengthen and support safety on our roads, and I congratulate Tony Sheldon, general secretary of the TWU, for sponsoring these women to visit the parliament today to talk to members. Broadband 3301 09:39 Mr BRUCE SCOTT YT4 Maranoa I rise today to discuss the Labor Party's poor policy management when they were in government. When members opposite launched their National Broadband Network satellite with great fanfare they promised people in rural and remote Australia connection capacity for more than 500,000. The reality has been that it has been a great mess, just another one of Labor's messes. A total capacity of only 50,000 is the result when it is fully subscribed. What does this poor policy under Labor mean for people in my electorate? Di Brand from Ardgour, south-east of Charleville in the west of my electorate, could tell you. Di is currently supporting five children through the School of Distance Education. At present the family cannot access a satellite connection to download lessons and other basic learning resources. They have never had a satellite connection before. The School of Distance Education in Charleville prescribed the family four gigabytes per month to download basic school resources. For an immediate connection Telstra quoted Di some $500 per month to maintain the service plus $1,300 for installation and an additional $1.10 per kilometre one way for a technician to travel to install the service. If you do the maths, Deputy Speaker, what that equates to is approximately $7,000 per year for this family in rural and remote Australia just to be able to get access to internet to be able to educate their children through the School of Distance Education. But there is a better way forward, the coalition's way forward, and I want to thank the Minister for Communications and his staff because they recognise this, as well as the Prime Minister and the leadership team. Under our plan the Brand family will be able to access a much better deal. They will be able to access and get the same satellite connection capped at a price of $50 per month with an unlimited text and data capacity. It is a similar story for the Windorah State School. They have been unable to get a satellite connection, which means they cannot teach the national curriculum. Those children are denied access to the national curriculum because they could not get a satellite connection under the Labor Party's mismanagement of the internet service that they launched with such fanfare when they were in government. The same applies to some pastoral properties, which are required, when cattle leave their properties, to send to Canberra the national livestock identification tag numbers of those heads of cattle. They have been unable to access the interim satellite and that has caused enormous angst for those families out there. But, as I said earlier, there is a better way forward. It is the coalition's plan that will address this issue. We are providing some $18.4 million so that the initial satellite will be able to take more. It is only the coalition that understands the people in rural and remote Australia. (Time expired) Indi Electorate: Sustainable Community Gardens 3302 09:42 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi I would like to support the comments of the member for Maranoa. It is totally the same in Indi, so good luck to you in your work on that. In early February I was delighted to launch the Sustainable Gardens Community Manual at Toolangi and Castella Community Garden on the southern boundary of the Indi electorate. The manual grew out of a bushfire community gardens project and it was established to assist bushfire affected communities in their recovery from the 2009 fires. It was funded through the Helen MacPherson Smith Trust with practical assistance from Sustainable Gardens Australia. The new community gardens manual will assist other rural and regional communities to create their own community gardens. This gardening project has proven itself as an initiative that brings communities together across Victoria. It has demonstrated the importance of assisting rural communities to heal after the impact of the February 2009 fires. It demonstrates how communities benefit greatly when individuals, groups, local government and philanthropy work together. In Indi two other community gardens were established in bushfire affected communities, in the beautiful Yackandandah and Beechworth communities. The planning, designing and building of these gardens became a way of building hope and connections as these communities progressed towards recovery. Neighbours worked with neighbours and new friendships were built. People forged new connections and over time, as the new gardens began to take shape, the community started to recover and learn new skills. The community garden manual is a 90-page how-to guide. It covers topics such as planning and design, building the infrastructure and all you need to know about managing risks, budget and governance—in short, everything you need to know about setting up and sustaining a community garden. I wish to congratulate all those involved in designing, building and planning in the Toolangi and Castella Community Garden and all those who contributed their learning experiences into this magnificent resource manual. I would especially like to congratulate the Toolangi and Castella Community Garden Working Group and the coordinator, Tabitha Barclay; the Beechworth Community Garden Working Group and their facilitator, Donna Page; and the Yackandandah Community Garden Working Group and facilitator, Leanne Benson. Lastly, I would like to acknowledge the support from the Helen MacPherson Smith Trust and Sustainable Gardens Australia, especially the project officer, Elaine Shallue, from Sustainable Gardening Australia. To download this free manual please visit the web pages of Sustainable Gardens Australia, the Helen MacPherson Smith Trust website and also the cathymcgowan.com.au website. Corangamite Electorate: Telstra, Broadband 3303 09:45 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite I rise to address a serious matter about the conduct of Telstra in my electorate of Corangamite. Across Geelong in suburbs like Highton and Marshall and in towns such as Ocean Grove and Torquay, I have received many, many complaints from residents who have little or no access to broadband. In the largest regional city in Victoria some of my constituents are receiving little more than dial-up speeds. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 0 9:46 to 0 9:59 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 As I was saying, I have received many, many complaints from residents who have little or no access to broadband. In the largest regional city in Victoria, some of my constituents are receiving little more than dial-up speeds. For others, there is no ADSL at all. Their only access to the internet is via an expensive wireless dongle. Across our nation, 1.6 million people suffer poor or no broadband. Labor's NBN has been a disaster. It was uncosted, rolled out at glacial speed and was not even being delivered to Australians who needed it the most. That is what we are doing—prioritising broadband in rural and regional areas. That is why I have been fighting so hard to ensure that some of the worst-affected parts of my electorate are included in our first rollout announcement. In the meantime, local residents are being overcharged for broadband speeds that Telstra knows it cannot deliver. Mr Will Tang, who lives in Marshall in Geelong, pays a contracted $80 a month for 200 gigabytes of ADSL broadband. However, most of the time, Will receives little more than dial-up speeds. This has been mapped on the government's myBroadband website. Over a month, Will can only download about 40 gigs—less than half of what he pays for. This is compounded by the fact that up until a few weeks ago Telstra wrongly advised on its website: 'Great news: you can get ADSL broadband—that means you can enjoy the faster speeds in your area.' After I suggested to Telstra this conduct may be misleading or deceptive, this message quickly disappeared and the speed suddenly improved. My office has investigated many similar complaints. When I asked Telstra if it would compensate residents it declined. As a strong local voice for Corangamite, I say this is not good enough, so today I am calling on Telstra to refund customers who have entered into broadband contracts for internet speeds they cannot get. Some who complained have been compensated, but all of Telstra's customers deserve the same treatment. Then there is the case of Julia Keady. Before she bought a house in Ocean Grove she entered the address of the property on Telstra's website and was advised that ADSL was available. When she went to install her service, she was told there were no more ports at the local exchange. This is happening everywhere. I do note that Telstra's investment in its network has waned because Labor promised the NBN seven years ago, but Telstra is prohibited as a matter of law from misleading or deceiving its customers. Telstra should not be telling prospective customers it can deliver when it cannot and it should not be charging for a service or selling a product when it knows it cannot provide. Fraser Electorate: GP Superclinics 3304 10:02 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fraser This week saw the opening of the GP superclinic in Bruce. Residents in Canberra's north now have better access to general practitioners, nurses, pathologists, dieticians, counsellors and a range of other allied health practitioners. The facility is located on the grounds of the University of Canberra, which means it can integrate teaching, training and research. There are already eight GPs treating patients in the new clinic in Bruce, and there is capacity to expand to 18 doctors and related supporting services. The superclinic will help to meet the expected demand coming from the growth in Canberra's northern suburbs. It will provide improved access for northsiders to vital health services. I celebrated the opening of the clinic; I helped turn the first sod last year with former health minister, Tanya Plibersek, who is a passionate supporter of GP superclinics, unlike the current health minister. The GP superclinic was established with financial assistance from federal Labor under the superclinics program. It is a great facility and a most welcome one for my northside constituents. What do this government see when they look at something like the Bruce superclinic? When the now Minister for Health saw the shape of things to come back when Labor introduced the program in August 2010, as shadow minister he began to talk with fear and loathing of the 'great big new monstrosities that would rise up in our communities'. Now that the superclinics are here, the community sees convenience and a vision for affordable health care, and the Minister for Health sees 'crazy schemes and new bureaucracies'. Mr Dutton is still spooked by the 'monstrosity' of convenient health services in local communities. Why? In his words: When you scratch below the surface of the GP superclinics scheme … you do not have to scratch too much before you see that is a nasty program … You do not have to poke too much into the GP Super Clinics Program to see a really nasty undertone to it. But when you do scratch the surface, as Mr Dutton asks us to do, you do not see the 'great big new bureaucracies' that haunt the Minister for Health's febrile imagination. You see health professionals on hand to serve the community. What kind of thinking can find something nasty in that? I would like to congratulate the team at the clinic and thank them for the services they will be providing to the community: practice manager, Jasdeep Phull, a highly trained team of registered nurses and the frontline GPs, Dr Paresh Dawda, Dr David Voon, Dr Chris Harrison, Dr Doug Rogers, Dr Karen Pahlow, Dr Michael Brown, Dr Mrin Ponnamblam, Dr Sivaprasad Sunil and Dr Esther Hyams-Elijah. The GP superclinic will make modern health services more accessible to the people of Fraser. It is a great Labor achievement and one which is benefiting my local community. Petrie Electorate: Military Cadets 3305 10:05 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie The words leadership, initiative, courage and integrity are words all parents would love to use when describing their children. When put to action, these words become deeds that can build wonders, inspire nations, cure disease and feed thousands. Leadership, initiative, courage and integrity are words engraved into the crest of the Military Cadets; they are a reminder that greatness starts from within. A few weekends ago, I had the chance to join the Bracken Ridge Military Cadets on a camp on the Sunshine Coast. I went up there on the Friday night at the start of the camp. Military Cadets only started a few years ago in the Petrie electorate, and have already become very popular. Since attending the camp, I can see why. On the Friday afternoon I met Military Cadet leaders and instructors Mr Tom Bere and Mr Damion Pascoe—both former military personnel themselves. Some parents were parting nervously with their kids. Most of the children who attend these camps are between 11 and 18 years of age. For some of the younger cadets, this was their first time away from home. The camp itself was a combination of physical exertion, leadership activities and routine. The kids learned to make their beds military-style—I did not know there was a difference but there is—and iron their uniforms. They were up for a run at five in the morning. The camp is a great opportunity for young boys and young girls to attend. After a couple of days they come away a little bit closer to being young men and young women. One of the boy's mums, who was particularly anxious about dropping off her son at the start of the camp, Facebooked me a few days later and said how proud she was of her son that he had developed a little more confidence because of the camp. The Military Cadet instructors do a fantastic job. Some of the young people who have been there before then go on to help the new cadets who come through. There is a strong emphasis on personal development. The life skills military cadetship instils include self-discipline and motivation, working within a team environment, using the chain of command, writing lessons, public speaking, respect of self and others, a willingness to challenge yourself, and the acceptance of discipline. All staff and volunteers are ex-military people themselves. They are 100 per cent volunteers. They are doing a wonderful job in helping raise some of our young children. I am so pleased that the Military Cadet program is operating in the Petrie electorate, where they first started in Australia, and that this is available to the youth in my electorate. Abbott Government 3306 10:08 Ms HALL 83N Shortland Never has it been more obvious that the Abbott government has serious problems than last night when the Prime Minister announced his back-to-the-future policy of reintroducing dames and knights and of going back to imperial honours. This parliament has been deluged with government rhetoric: with their focus on crises that they perceive exist or crises that they try to create; in health, with the need to 'rein in' the budget; with their decision to create a crisis as far as welfare payments are concerned; with their support for bigotry; with their decision to get rid of the charities commission; with their action in the area of the financial planners, a decision that they have now had to put on hold; and with its focus on cuts—cuts, cuts, cuts. These are cuts that hurt the people that I represent in this parliament. I will fight these cuts all the way. We are going to learn more about cuts when the budget comes down as well as their decision to implement a co-payment on Medicare and their decisions that are going to impact on pensioners. The Prime Minister was asked on two occasions whether or not pensions would be affected by cuts, and he refused to answer. So all I can assume is that this announcement on imperial honours last night is to take people's attention away from the series of crises that have engulfed the Abbott government: the spectacle of Minister Fiona Nash appointing an industry lobbyist as a chief of staff; the spectacle of the Assistant Treasurer being called before ICAC. I question very seriously the motives for this back-to-the-future announcement that the Prime Minister made last night. It is a decision that was made by an arch monarchist, somebody who has his feet well and truly in the fifties and a person who really is not in tune with the things that are important to the Australian community. The people that I represent want services. They are not interested in dames and knighthoods and imperial honours; they want a government to govern, not a government that tries create distractions. Pearce Electorate: Health 3306 10:11 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I rise to congratulate five recipients of recent Home and Community Care Program—or HACC—grants in my electorate. In February this year, the Northam Silver Chain group, the Shire of Northam, the Share and Care Community Services Group in Northam and the York District Hospital, as well as the Rise community support network in Mundaring, received nearly $1 million in funding from the coalition government to boost their services to older Australians and younger people with a disability who wish to stay in their own homes and remain independent in the community. I am particularly pleased that, of the $9.4 million made available in total for the new care activities in the grants program, in the latest round of the HACC program Pearce received $927,982, or nearly 10 per cent of the total funding. This funding means that people living in and around Northam, York and Mundaring will benefit from improved services such as nursing, domestic assistance, social support, food services, allied health care and Indigenous assistance. Specifically, the people in my electorate living in the wheat belt will now benefit from a new regional assessment serviced by Silver Chain Northam to provide independent assessment and coordination of care, thanks to an HACC grant of $387,602. The Silver Chain group in Northam also received $160,000 for a new nursing and allied health service in the wheat belt. The funding will enable Silver Chain to employ professional allied health staff and a therapy assistant to work across the region. They will also be able to commence their home enablement program and personal enablement program that assists people to be as independent as possible. Due to the grant, Silver Chain will now be able to grow its nursing services in the wheat belt, giving them the ability to commit to clinical services in the region as well as increasing their nursing care at home. Indigenous and non-Indigenous aged people, people with a disability, youth at risk and people living with a mental health condition in and around Mundaring will now receive new and better services thanks to more than $330,000 in funding. The Rise network in Mundaring received recurrent funding of $317,000 to support both mainstream and Aboriginal services; $197,000 will support the Aboriginal program Moorditj Mia. It will enable growth in the program by opening the centre for an additional day. It will enable the succession plan for service coordination by mentoring a young Aboriginal community worker and will provide appropriate support to assist older Aboriginal people to remain safely in their homes. A further $119,000 has been granted to the Rise network in Mundaring to add to existing services for frail, elderly people. A further $15,000 in non-recurrent funding will go toward a storytelling project to enable Aboriginal elders to tell their stories through art and to use their positions to improve wellbeing in the community. I also note that the York District Hospital received an HACC grant of $11,000 for new gardening and home maintenance equipment, and a new trailer. The Northam shire received $40,000 for building feasibility funding; and the Share and Care Community Services Group in Northam received in excess of $5,000 for office equipment. It is critical that older Australians and people with a disability are able to live healthy, active and independent lives wherever possible. Once again, I congratulate these organisations on receiving this important funding to better service the people most in need in my electorate. Corio Electorate: First World War Centenary 3307 10:15 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio This year marks the centenary of the outbreak of the First World War. Next year will mark the centenary of Anzac. As everyone in this chamber knows, a program has been put in place to provide small grants to people within our various electorates to pursue projects which seek to commemorate and illuminate the activities of the First World War so that the younger generation can know exactly what the outstanding deeds of our forefathers and indeed foremothers were in the First World War. Geelong has a very significant history when it comes to the First World War. There were four people with Geelong connections who won Victoria Crosses during the First World War: Albert Jacka, Percy Cherry, James Newland and Rupert Moon. Percy Cherry and James Newland won their Victoria Crosses defending the same ground in France at Lagnicourt. There are similarities amongst all of those Victoria Cross recipients. Three of those, Newland, Cherry and Jacka, all fought in the one battle at Pozieres. All four VC recipients fought first at Gallipoli and then on the Western Front. There is an intriguing question, in looking at the history of those people, as to whether or not those Geelong VC recipients actually met each other when they were in France and in the battle. Osborne House is another great example of the connection that Geelong has with the First World War. Osborne House is a beautiful historic building in Geelong. From 1913 to 1915 it was Australia's first naval training college and from 1919 in the aftermath of the First World War was a naval convalescent hospital for those who had received injuries during the First World War. The Geelong Peace Memorial is the principal war memorial in Geelong. It was built after funds were raised through a public subscription after the First World War to commemorate those who had lost their lives during the First World War. It is an important moment in our history. It goes to the core of the Australian identity. It is something which we need to commemorate. I have set up a committee consisting of Rod Macdonald, who is a Geelong city councillor, Bob Marmion, who is a local historian, and Brian Dunn, who is the secretary of the Geelong RSL sub-branch, to look at applications for projects for this funding. But today I really make a call for everyone in Geelong who has had an idea about how we can commemorate these events and how we can better explain them to a generation who live 100 years after to come forward. Applications close on 31 May. We would love to see your ideas. Gilmore Electorate: National Broadband Network 3308 10:18 Ms SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore Last Friday I had the great privilege to meet Merryn Joske and also to meet up with a Rotarian mate, Ken Wheatland. Merryn is blind in one eye and lacks full vision in the other eye. She had her companion assistance dog, Toby, with her. You may wonder why I was so pleased to meet up with both of these people, particularly when I tell you that this meeting took place in relation to the NBN. Over the last 12 months I have been tempted to rename the National Broadband Network the 'national broadband nightmare'. Gilmore has an almost unique internet broadband profile, with state-of-the-art fibre connections happening or not in Kiama but not actually being welcomed by all the residents because all new technologies have teething problems—and, believe me, I am pretty sure this is effectively the test site for NBN connection strategies. Yet in other parts of Gilmore we have inadequate ADSL, a lack of 4G capacity for wireless connection—or non-connection, in reality—and a mishmash of fibre pathways with a disconnect between the NBN and other service providers. Imagine if you will my absolute delight when Minister Turnbull came to Kiama just over one week after my local forums had been held that highlighted the problems of the 'switch to fibre' action that was being created. This NBN event was to launch the NBN Register. For months residents in Kiama have been concerned that their medical alarms, MedicAlerts and even back-to-base security connections would disappear when the copper system was disconnected. I am proud to be associated with the announcement made by the Minister for Communications and I thank him for making Kiama the launch location. Merryn Joske has offered to be my ambassador to assist other local residents when they express their concerns relating to the medical alarms. Merryn is comfortable and secure now in the knowledge that her call and a simple process resolved the disconnection issue. In addition, Kenn Wheathand has been a trial user of the new NBN telehealth system with Kathy McKeown as his consulting telenurse. This is an exciting process and adds dimension to the potential of the NBN. It was reassuring to hear how Kenn was able to monitor his own health for diabetes and heart health without having to leave his own home. It was news that was well received by people attending the launch. A small group of seniors had come to claim a library for a virtual art gallery tour after the launch—yet another NBN application that is welcomed by the community. As a follow-up to the launch of the great initiative of the medical alarm register, I have consulted further with the NBN chief communications officer and staff about extending the concept to ensure that banks' and medical insurance companies' phone-linked services are also treated in the same way. I have been contacted by health professionals and small businesses, all telling me that, at the moment, the NBN system is totally incompatible with these types of services. I welcome the positive response and commitment to follow up on these additional teething problems. I thank Merryn for her promise of assistance. I thank Kenn for sharing his experiences with the new technology. Petition: Health Services 3309 10:21 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith On behalf of my community I present 10,000 signatures on a petition from members of the community opposed to cuts to services to our local community hospital, the Prince of Wales Hospital in Randwick, by the O'Farrell Liberal government in New South Wales. Early last year the Prince of Wales Hospital closed 30 beds in various wards. Despite the fact that emergency department presentations have increased over the last two years by six per cent, the New South Wales Liberal government has only funded the hospital for growth in emergency department presentations of two per cent, leaving a four per cent deficiency. Last year 26 staff in operational and administrative positions were made redundant in December. They also included allied health professionals, with two physiotherapists at the hospital made redundant. Last year I spoke to hardworking nurses at the hospital who told me that between 30 and 40 nurses have left the hospital and have not been replaced, putting additional pressure on staff and leading to a reduction in service levels for health delivery in our community. This year the New South Wales government has told the hospital that they need to find another $15 million in savings and cuts to budget if they are going to meet their commitment to the New South Wales government. Both of my children were born at the Prince of Wales Hospital. The largest demographic in our community is young families. Families in our community expect better health services. In a modern Australian society they want access to better health services, not cuts to services, and the proof of that is in these 10,000 signatures that I present today. Our community deserves better health services, not cuts to services, and these 10,000 signatures prove that. Recently I have been working with hospital management to work through these issues they have with the New South Wales government, and I must pay tribute to the hospital's administrator, Jon Roberts, who is doing his best in a difficult situation to try to ensure that they continue to deliver adequate services to the community while facing cuts to their budget from the New South Wales government. They have been requesting that governments look at installing a hybrid operating suite, which will much improve the efficiency of the hospital. A hybrid operating suite is considered a one-stop shop by the medical fraternity. It is a theatre that provides surgeons and their patients with access to comprehensive diagnostic and imaging equipment which will improve the efficiency of the hospital. On behalf of our community I call for the government to stop the cuts in New South Wales and to provide better health services to our community. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 96430 Do you seek leave to present the petition? Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Not at this point. I will later. Purple Day, Epilepsy 3310 10:24 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson It is not every day that I wear purple in parliament, as I am doing today, but today marks Purple Day, which is all about epilepsy and epilepsy awareness. Epilepsy is a disorder of the brain's functioning that is most commonly thought of as a recurring convulsive seizure, but it is not always a convulsive seizure. It is actually the world's most common brain disorder. In Queensland alone, over 90,000 children and adults live with epilepsy. Ten per cent of the population will have an epileptic seizure in their lifetime. Only about three or four per cent will actually be diagnosed properly with epilepsy—not that it is a restriction on your abilities. Certainly there are many high achievers and well-known people who have had epilepsy, including Vincent Van Gogh; Julius Caesar; Henry Winkler, the Fonz; and Wally Lewis, who, along with being the greatest rugby league player of all time, is Epilepsy Queensland's patron. There is no single cause for the condition. There is no cure. However, 70 per cent of people with epilepsy can control their seizures with medication, leading a normal, healthy life. I know a fair bit about this condition because my mother is an epileptic. She medicates and is controlled through that. Purple Day is 26 March every year, when this grassroots campaign is led around the world. People are asked to wear purple and spread the word about epilepsy. They wear purple, host a purple awareness or fundraising activity in their town, community or city and have the oppor­tunity to become a 'purple hero' through the website everydayhero.com.au/event/purpleday. They can do fundraising. I have to congratulate my own community in my home town of Mackay. The fountain outside the council chambers has had purple water in it for the last week, and on the Saturday night just gone 135 people gathered and raised around $10,000 for epilepsy awareness. Beryl Nielsen, from the Mackay Epilepsy Support Group, was in charge of that. She founded the Mackay Epilepsy Support Group three years ago with her sister. I congratulate these local champions who are raising awareness of epilepsy. It is a condition that, because of my mother's epilepsy, is very close to my heart. I congratulate them on this initiative. Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh 3310 10:27 Mr BYRNE 008K0 Holt Today I am here to inform this chamber of the significance of constructive international unionism and the efforts made by the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association, known as the SDA, to improve conditions for workers not only here in Australia but around the world, particularly in places where workers do not have the rights or the representation or the protections that people in Australia have. On 24 April 2013, tragedy struck Bangladesh when Rana Plaza, an eight-story garment-manufacturing factory, collapsed, killing over 1,100 people and leaving many more seriously injured. More than half of those killed were women and their children, who had been in a childcare facility in the building while their parents were working. Ninety-two per cent of the survivors, and there were many, have not returned to work, with many having lost limbs or having suffered complete paralysis and continuing to suffer psychological trauma. Perhaps the most shocking part of this tragedy is that it could have been prevented. The day before the collapse of Rana Plaza, workers noticed cracks that appeared in the building. However, upon notifying the relevant authorities, they were told that they would lose a month's pay if they did not turn up for work the next day. And so, in spite of the dangerous conditions, workers returned to work, fearing that they would lose their pay or their jobs. Sadly, they lost much, much more. Bangladesh is the second largest garment-producing country in the world behind China and is a major supplier for the international fashion industry, Australia particularly included. Although no Australian companies were found to have direct links to Rana Plaza, the disaster has had a profound impact here. Through its affiliation with the Union Network International, UNI, a global network of retail unions, the SDA chose to act in partnership with the global manufacturing union, IndustriALL, and establish the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh, commonly referred to as the Bangladesh accord. The accord is a legally binding independent agreement seeking to ensure all garment factories in Bangladesh are safe workplaces. The International Labour Organization acts as an independent chair and various non-governmental organisations are witness signatories to the accord. The Bangladesh accord insists on independent inspections and public reporting of inspection results, and when safety issues are identified retailers are responsible for ensuring repairs are funded and carried out and that workers continue to be paid. A number of Australian companies are signatories to this accord, including K-Mart, Target, Woolworths, Pacific Brands, and Cotton On Group. This accord is very significant, and I would like to commend the work of the SDA and its officials for their significant efforts not only here in Australia, where it protects workers' conditions, wages and rights within the workplace, but also around the world, particularly through its affiliation with Union Network International. The Bangladesh accord now covers one-third of the Bangladeshi textile industry, protecting workers in 1,600 factories across Bangladesh. It is a significant achievement. Banks Electorate: St George Christian School 3311 10:30 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I am pleased to rise today to congratulate St George Christian School on its recent open day. St George Christian School is a large school with the main campus located at Hurstville in my electorate. Last Friday, 21 March, it held its annual open day, and I was privileged to be able to attend and address the audience of staff, students and parents. The school takes a broad approach to education, with a whole-person approach to intellectual, social, physical, emotional and spiritual development. One of the distinguishing features of the school is its approach to community service. It strives to ensure that its students form a strong understanding of the world around them so that they may best take their place within it. On my visit to the school I was shown a display which students had prepared related to Australia's involvement in World War I. This display, which has been prepared to commemorate the centenary of the war, helps students to understand the sacrifices that were made in that most awful of conflicts. The display is detailed and moving, and it is a credit to all who were involved in putting it together. The theme of the open day was 'service'. I was privileged to address the assembled audience on this theme. It was an appropriate theme, given the great service that the school provides in the community. In a society with so much emphasis on personal advancement, it was good to take the time to reflect on the importance of committing to activities that are bigger than oneself. Of course, it is easy to get consumed by our daily lives. It is easy to lose sight of the broader picture as we work through our daily schedules. But we know that communities are built by those who show up. Whatever the stage, big or small, society gains a lot when people put their hand up to help. The theme of 'service' is particularly important in the context of the school's broader spiritual mission. In encouraging its students to consider the broader world around them, the school is reminding them of one of the important tenets of Christianity. There is much to be done in this life, and we all have a responsibility to do our part. As John F Kennedy said in his inaugural speech, 'Here on Earth, God's work must truly be our own.' St George Christian School is very well led by its principal, Mr James Honour. I have visited the school twice in recent months and have been struck on both occasions by the professional nature of its staff. I was also pleased to meet a number of members of the school board, and in particular its chairman, Mr Bruce Meller. School communities are not built without the active participation of parents, and the hundreds of people in attendance at the open day demonstrates the close link between the parent community and the school. One of the great things about being the member for Banks is having the opportunity to meet the many organisations in the electorate. St George Christian School is a wonderful example of the strength of our community. I thank the school for all of its work and wish it every success for the year ahead. Canberra Electorate: Radio Licences, Online Broadcasting 3312 10:33 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra Over the past few months I have been contacted by dozens of frustrated Canberrans. The reason for their frustration is that, despite being in the 21st century, despite living in Australia's national capital, they are unable to listen to radio online. 'Why?' I hear you ask. 'Streaming radio online is relatively commonplace in this day and age; surely it has made it to Canberra by now.' Unfortunately, it is not a technological barrier preventing them from listening; it is an Abbott government barrier. The Minister for Communications, the member for Wentworth, has had on his desk for nearly seven months the recommendations of the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee calling on him to resolve ambiguity that currently exists around whether online broadcasting is a simulcast or a separate broadcast. But in nearly seven months he has done nothing to resolve this ambiguity. While this ambiguity exists, radio stations are paying double for their licensing fees, which has forced nearly 200 regional radio stations, including many right here in Canberra, to cease online broadcasting altogether. The Canberrans who have contacted me about this issue have said they listen to radio online on their phones as they exercise, while they are on the bus or while they are studying. They listen to radio online at their computer while they are at work, or they use online streaming to record their favourite programs and listen to them later on, or they tune in from overseas to keep in touch with what is happening at home. They have said, 'It seems ironic that I can listen to stations from all over the world, but just not my local DJs doing their thing.' They have also said: 'It seems unfair that radio stations are expected to pay additional payments for online broadcasting. These additional payments would make sense if radio stations paid additional payments for each car tuned in to their station.' They have also appealed to me: 'Could you please help the public regain the simple pleasure of being able to listen to radio stations online. I'm confident that you appreciate technology moves so quickly that people now use their phone to access radio online all the time.' Listening to radio online is an everyday part of their lives that, thanks to the minister's inaction, has been indefinitely interrupted. The same has occurred to hundreds of thousands of Australians who live in remote and regional areas, because the stations that have been switched off are almost exclusively regional stations. Of course, the great irony is that it is regional Australians who benefit most from being able to use the internet to overcome the tyranny of distance. I guess it is now back to scratchy old wireless for them. On behalf of these many frustrated Canberrans and the many more frustrated people throughout regional Australia, I urge the minister to implement the committee's recommendations as a matter of priority. In 2014, it is not too much to ask to be able to listen to radio online. Barton Electorate: Youth 3313 10:36 Mr VARVARIS 250077 Barton It was a great honour to address the Asian community at Cahill Park recently, on the auspicious occasion of the Summer and Falgun Festival, organised by Desperate YOUTH Australia. I was among representatives from Rockdale City Council and the St George Migrant Resource Centre, and the President of Desperate YOUTH Australia, Mohammed Abu Saleh. I was certainly privileged to witness and take part in the community's cultural celebration of the month of Falgun, a season in the South Asian calendar. Falgun brings with it merry celebrations of spring, friendship and new life. The organisers of this festival, Desperate YOUTH Australia, provided the community with an opportunity to meet together in a colourful and enjoyable setting. More than just enjoying a social community occasion, it was a privilege to witness the vital work that Desperate YOUTH Australia does for youth across my electorate. Its South Asian Youth Group of St George provides migrant youth with the opportunities they need to thrive and connect. The earliest stages of life are the most formative, and isolation during the teenage years can often be a stumbling block to growth and the ability to flourish. The isolation that can accompany migrant experiences in Australia can serve to compound the challenges that young people face. As a government, we must be looking out for social initiatives that will prevent complex and irreversible social issues in the future. Migrant-focused schemes, such as resource centres and ethnic groups, are working at the grassroots level to mitigate huge potential costs to governments in the future. That is why youth groups, and initiatives that focus on engaging with migrant youth in particular, are so invaluable to the wellbeing and future of the youth who participate, and to the prosperous future of the community as a whole. I really cherished the opportunity to engage with the diverse groups that make up my local community at Cahill Park from South Asian nations such as Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Pakistan and Indonesia, as well as the broader Barton electorate. Through my attendance at this and other cultural events over summer, I am constantly reminded that members of our community have come from many different places, with their own stories and journeys, but today we make up one nation that can live together in peace and prosperity. I commend the tireless efforts of Desperate YOUTH Australia and other charitable groups in providing vital services to the community. I commit myself to a partnership with them in assisting them in helping the community within the diverse Barton electorate. It is so important that government continues to partner with community organisations such as these. It is our shared efforts that will make our nation the best it can be for our youth, our migrant Australians and the wider community as a whole. Lalor Electorate: Department of Human Services Offices 3314 10:39 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I rise this morning to highlight a growing concern in my electorate of Lalor. Over the past few weeks my office has been contacted on numerous occasions regarding the wait time for people who attend the Werribee office of the Department of Human Services. The complaints are becoming more frequent. We know that Human Services offices provides Centrelink and Medicare services. The Werribee site is about 500 metres from my office in Synnot Street and is the second busiest office in Australia. Over 3,000 people walk through their doors every week. People in Lalor are frustrated that for a simple Medicare claim they are waiting for over an hour. I know the argument is that most services can now be completed online but that does not take into consideration those people who are not able to do that. And there are many: the aged, the disabled, the mentally unwell, the illiterate or those too frightened to make a mistake, and those who simply want the comfort of personal contact. These are people at their most vulnerable, some coming from specialist appointments—you could say on the worst day of their lives. They feel and communicate to me that they are being punished for being sick. There are similar waiting times for Centrelink services. Again, it is the most vulnerable who feel that they are being punished for being unemployed. This goes to their dignity, to their self-esteem. I visited the Werribee office two weeks ago, to see the impact on my neighbours and to watch the staff who face the lines every day. By 8.30 am, the line already extends to the end of the street, and all day long it is a constant flow. The staff at Werribee do a terrific job with the resources that are available to them. I watched them go about their normal routines with enthusiasm and I applaud the way they work with their clients. I know they too face challenges when people take their frustrations out on them, and this is on the increase. Put simply, my community deserves to be better resourced. In fact, the Point Cook pop-up shop closed on 31 January. Yet in Wyndham more staff are needed or, better still, another office needs to be established. My electorate of Lalor and the city of Wyndham are amongst the fastest-growing communities in the country. Resourcing for these essential services is critical. So at a time when the Abbott government is looking towards cuts, I implore them to provide the human services that Lalor needs. Defence Veterans' Superannuation 3315 10:42 Mr HUTCHINSON 212585 Lyons Legislation was passed last night in this place to deliver equity for veterans and their families. Finally this government has acted to deliver fair indexation for Defence Force superannuants. Is there any greater commitment to our nation than that made by the men and women who serve in our Defence Force? I think perhaps not. Two of my mother's brothers saw active service, Des Cordell in World War II and Alan Cordell as part of the Fleet Air Arm in the Korean War. Rightly, we have days set aside each year to recognise and show respect for those who have returned, as well as those who have fallen in the foreign fields, deserts and jungles and those who paid the ultimate price defending our nation at sea. For too long veterans and their families were treated differently and manifestly unfairly when compared with indexation of other pension and superannuation schemes. The government has recognised this injustice and as early as 27 June 2010 committed to fair indexation for our Defence Force retirees. We took this commitment to the 2010 election. In opposition we introduced legislation in another place to provide the long overdue equity for DFRB and DFRDB superannuants. The response from the government of the day was to set up another inquiry, which we opposed as six previous inquiries had all supported fair indexation. Guess what? Labor and the Greens used the inquiry to oppose the legislation put forward by the coalition. Shame on you to have been the first parliament to oppose fair indexation for Defence Force retirees' pensions. Prior to the 2013 election I was proud to sign the coalition's pledge to deliver for our veteran community fair indexation. The pledge highlighted the coalition's clear commitment to our veterans. It said that a coalition government would deliver fair indexation to 57,000 military superannuants and their families. The coalition would ensure DFRB and DFRDB military superannuation pensions are indexed in the same way as age and service pensions. All DFRB and DFRDB superannuants aged 55 and over would benefit. Only a coalition government will deliver fair, just and equitable indexation of DFRB and DFRDB pensions. With your support, Australian veterans and their families will get the fair go they deserve. In my electorate of Lyons, we estimate that there are up to 300 families that will be the beneficiaries of this legislation. These changes are more than justified. They recognise the unique nature of military service. Delivery of this legislation has been an article of faith for this government and I feel privileged to have been part of a government that has delivered for our veterans something that was so long overdue, and to be part of a government that keeps its commitments, in this case to our veterans and their families. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 96430 Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 3315 BILLS Marriage (Celebrant Registration Charge) Bill 2014, Marriage Amendment (Celebrant Administration and Fees) Bill 2014 3315

Marriage (Celebrant Registration Charge) Bill 2014

Marriage Amendment (Celebrant Administration and Fees) Bill 2014

Second Reading 3315 10:45 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman In considering in this place the marriage celebrant charge, I recognise an increasing tendency of governments, both state and federal, to charge significant fees to Australians who are participating in the private sector. It is something we are aware of at state level, particularly in Queensland, where the Bligh and Newman governments have introduced significant charges—first, under the Bligh government, for locksmiths; and then, most recently, for tattoo artists, of all people, by the Newman government. This concept of charging $690 for the privilege of being a tattoo artist can only be sustained under the grounds that we are trying to identify and remove bikie gangs from this sector. Once we have identified that tattoo artists are not members of bikie gangs, with respect, I do not think they should be paying that charge. This rapacious tendency to move into all levels of public life and invent government charges is of great concern. I am glad that next to me is the member for Kooyong, who I hope will take a closer look at this tendency. What we are doing here today is simply recognising the fiscal booby traps introduced by the previous, Labor, government and the necessity for us to meet our obligations to the Australian people and stick to our election promises, and that means introducing and supporting this bill—but this is a Labor bill at its heart. I do not care what the excuses are; this federal government is receiving way too many phone calls from marriage celebrants about details under the act and the fact that, while it was once two per cent, now 71 per cent of weddings in this country are presided over by celebrants. There are certain things you should be able to do with general tax revenue and this is one of them. With great respect, I do not see anything like even an ephemeral connection between marriage celebrants and bikie gangs. I do not see that there is a need to register them in just the same way as we do doctors and specialists and health experts. I understand that need for registration, but, finally, a new government with a new vision in this area should be looking to peak bodies to do this job and not involve government in this area. As a person who believes in small government, I hope that this legislation, difficult as it is to swallow, will eventually be repealed. I apologise to the over 10,000 marriage celebrants, who, in small country towns, only do two or three weddings a year and are obliged to charge those new couples around $200 just to recover their own costs. I do not support that at all. I know many people in this building do not. It is unfortunate we have been left in this fiscal position and I hope that, as quickly as possible, this very bill ends up in the lap of the member for Kooyong, to be repealed at some date in the near future. 10:48 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong Congratulations, Mr Deputy Speaker Jones on your election to high office. Together, these two bills, the Marriage Amendment (Celebrant Administration and Fees) Bill 2014 and the Marriage (Celebrant Registration Charge) Bill 2014, implement cost-recovery measures and improve the operation and efficiency of the marriage celebrant program. In terms of cost-recovery, as was noted in the explanatory memoranda to the bills, aspiring marriage celebrants will be required to pay a registration application fee unless an exemption from the application fee has been granted. From 1 July 2014, the application fee will be $600 and will cover the costs of processing and assessment of the application. Registered marriage celebrants will be required to pay an annual celebrant registration charge. From 1 July 2014, the charge will be $240 and will cover the cost of, among other things, providing a dedicated phone service and online portal for celebrants. Aspiring marriage celebrants and registered marriage celebrants may apply for an exemption from the registration application fee, annual registration charge or annual ongoing professional development obligations. From 1 July 2014 the fee for seeking an exemption will be $30 and that will cover the cost of processing an assessment of the exemption. These fees and charges will be indexed annually for CPI and regularly reviewed to ensure they are recovering only the cost of administering the program. In terms of improving the operation and efficiency, as was noted in the explanatory memoranda to the bills, aspiring marriage celebrants will now have the option to apply and pay for registration online. Performance reviews of marriage celebrants will be conducted on a more selective and targeted basis. The registrar will no longer be required to conduct performance reviews on every marriage celebrant every five years. Australian passports will now be able to be used as evidence of the date and place of birth of a party to a marriage. These will be in addition to birth certificates, statutory declarations and passports issued by governments of other countries. The majority of forms currently prescribed in the marriage regulations will become forms approved by the minister. These changes to the Marriage Celebrants Program follow extensive consultation with marriage celebrants, and the government considers them the fairest and most practical way to implement cost-recovery measures and improve the operation and efficiency of the program. I commend the bills to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Federation Chamber adjourned at 10:53       QUESTIONS IN WRITING 3318 QUESTIONS IN WRITING Australian Charities and Not-for Profits Commission (Question No. 42) 3318 42 Dr Leigh BU8 asked the Minister for Social Services, in writing, on 11 February 2014: In respect of the planned abolition of the Australian Charities and Not-for Profits Commission (ACNC) (a) what is the timeline for consultations, (b) who will be consulted, and (c) if the ACNC is abolished, will a discussion paper be released on the Government's proposals for regulating charities and not-for-profit organisations. Mr Andrews HK5 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) I have, and will continue to consult with the sector and across Government on the abolition of the ACNC. Timelines regarding future consultations is a decision for Government. (b) Arrangements for consultations are a decision for Government. (c) Considerations on the release of a discussion paper is a decision for Government. Richmond Electorate: Infrastructure (Question No. 48) 3318 48 Mrs Elliot DZW asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, in writing, on 12 February 2014: In respect of the Government's election commitment to allocate $3.3 million to the resurfacing of Kennedy Drive at Tweed Heads, (a) will the funds be allocated in the 2013-14 budget as promised; if so, from which funding program will they come, (b) what additional funding requirements will be imposed on funding recipients for them to receive the funding, and (c) what is the status of the National Party's progress on meeting its remaining 2013 election commitments in the electoral division of Richmond Mr Truss GT4 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) and (b) The Australian Government made a commitment to contribute $3.3 million towards the upgrade of Kennedy Drive in 2014-15. The Australian Government is working with the NSW Government to finalise the Infrastructure Investment Programme. (c) The Government is funding its election commitments through the Community Development Grants (CDG) programme, with $342 million provided for a range of community projects to support economic growth and liveability. The Government has allocated $435,000 from the CDG to the electorate of Richmond through the Tweed Shire Council including $185,000 for the Murwillumbah Football Club upgrade, and $250,000 for the Joan Nicoll Tennis Centre – Stage 1 and 2. My Department is working with the Tweed Shire Council to ensure that sufficient information on the projects is provided to allow a value with public money assessment to be undertaken prior to entering in a Funding Agreement with the Tweed Shire Council. Standing Council on the Environment and Water (Question No. 71) 3318 71 Ms MacTiernan L6P asked the Minister for the Environment, in writing, on 6 March 2014: (1) Is there a plan for an ad hoc meeting on the Standing Council on the Environment and Water; if so, for when is it scheduled. (2) Has he been nominated by the Prime Minister as Chair of the National Environmental Protection Council (NEPC); if so: (a) on what date, and (b) when does he plan to convene a meeting of the NEPC in his role as Chair. (3) What assessment and/or reporting is the NEPC undertaking in respect of a potential national container deposit scheme. (4) What is the status of the decision made by the Standing Committee on Environment and Water in August 2012 to push ahead with work to find better ways to manage Australia's packaging waste. (5) Has a Decision Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) been developed on packaging impacts by the Standing Committee on Environment and Water to undertake a more detailed analysis of the seven options contained in the Consultation RIS including regional and other distributional impacts. Mr Hunt 00AMV The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Standing Council on Environment and Water was abolished by the Council of Australian Governments on 13 December 2013. An ad hoc meeting of environment ministers is scheduled to take place on Tuesday 29 April 2014. (2) Yes. (a) 17 October 2013 (b) Tuesday 29 April 2014, concurrently with the ad hoc meeting of environment ministers. (3) None, this work had been undertaken by the Standing Council on Environment and Water. (4) This work is in progress. (5) Yes, the draft Decision Regulation Impact Statement is currently with the Office of Best Practice Regulation for clearance.