2014-05-29 44 1 3 House of Reps 0 0

Thursday, 29 May 2014

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

BILLS 4779 BILLS Australian Citizenship Amendment (Intercountry Adoption) Bill 2014 4779

Australian Citizenship Amendment (Intercountry Adoption) Bill 2014

First Reading 4779 Second Reading 4779 09:01 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill is another step in delivering reform to intercountry adoptions. For too long, adoption had been in the too-hard basket. For too long, it has been too hard to adopt and for too long, this has been a policy no-go zone. It should not be that way—because adoption is all about giving children a better life. There are too many children who have no parents, or no effective parents, and they deserve a better life and adoption is a way of giving it to them. The government wants to make it easier to adopt when it is in the best interests of the child. We do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past, but we do want to remove the red tape and reduce the delays—that do not benefit anyone. It is red tape that impacts on children who legitimately need a safe and loving home and Australians who dream of providing that home. So in December last year I announced that the government would improve overseas adoption by the end of this year. We have been delivering on that commitment. Already, the government has considered a report by senior officials on options to reform overseas adoption which was informed by over 100 submissions from the public. We have announced improvements to the process for families adopting children from Taiwan and South Korea. We have opened a new overseas adoption program with South Africa—and are commencing discussions with seven other countries about possible new overseas adoption programs. COAG, the Council of Australian Governments, has also agreed in principle to a new national overseas adoption service from 2015; and the minister for immigration is developing options to reduce waiting times for visas for adoptive children from overseas. This bill is another important element of my government’s commitment to reform intercountry adoption. The purpose of this bill is to facilitate the grant of Australian citizenship to children adopted by Australian citizens under bilateral adoption arrangements between Australia and countries that are not party to the Hague convention on intercountry adoption. Under such bilateral arrangements, Australian citizens have, for several years, been able to adopt children from South Korea, Taiwan and Ethiopia. Although the intercountry adoption program with Ethiopia is now closed, there are a number of families who are awaiting the finalisation of their adoptions. At present, children adopted under bilateral arrangements require a passport from the home country and an Australian adoption visa to travel to Australia. This imposes additional complexity and cost on the adopting families. Under the amendments to be made by this bill, children will be able to be granted citizenship as soon as the adoption is finalised. They will then be able to travel to Australia on an Australian passport, with their new families, as Australian citizens. This bill will place children adopted by Australian citizens under bilateral arrangements in the same position as children adopted by Australian citizens under Hague convention arrangements. The overarching requirement from Australia’s perspective is that a potential partner country, first, is willing to participate in an intercountry adoption arrangement with Australia and, secondly, will meet the standards and safeguards equivalent to those required under the Hague convention. Where a non-convention country meets these standards, there is no reason why adoptions should not be recognised in the same way as adoptions in convention countries. The government has recently given effect to this principle by amending the Family Law (Bilateral Arrangements-Intercountry Adoption) Regulations 1998 to provide for automatic recognition of adoptions in partner countries once the adoption is finalised and an adoption compliance certificate has been issued. Children adopted from Hague convention countries which issue adoption compliance certificates are already able to obtain Australian citizenship as soon as the adoption is finalised. This has been the case since the enactment of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007. The adoption compliance certificate provides assurance that the adoption has been carried out in accordance with the ethical and legal framework required by the Hague convention. As the process for children adopted under bilateral arrangements, including automatic recognition under Australian law, is in substance identical, there is no reason why those children should be treated differently in the Australian Citizenship Act. The key feature of the bill is an amendment to subdivision AA of division 2 of part 2 of the act. The amendment simply expands the scope of the existing Hague convention provisions, so that they also cover adoptions in accordance with bilateral arrangements. The decision-making framework remains the same. An application must be made to the minister for the child to become an Australian citizen. The application can only be approved if the adoption has been finalised in the overseas country and an adoption compliance certificate issued by the authorities of that country. The adoption must also have the effect of terminating the legal relationship between the child and his or her previous parents. Importantly, the minister retains a discretion to refuse an application which meets the requirements. This would be relevant if fraud or some other irregularity came to light before citizenship was granted. Similarly, the minister must not approve a child becoming a citizen if the minister is not satisfied of the identity of the child. The amendments made by the bill will apply for the benefit of all children adopted under bilateral arrangements, whether the adoption was finalised before or after the amendments come into force. I am pleased to undertake this real action to bring families together. Without pretending that everything is going to be simple and straightforward immediately, I hope that this bill and my government’s other reforms to intercountry adoption will provide significant new hope for parents without children and significant new hope for children without parents. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Textile, Clothing and Footwear Investment and Innovation Programs Amendment Bill 2014 4781

Textile, Clothing and Footwear Investment and Innovation Programs Amendment Bill 2014

First Reading 4781 Second Reading 4781 09:09 Mr BALDWIN LL6 Paterson I move: That this bill be now read a second time. As announced in the budget, the government has identified savings from the 2015-16 funding allocation of two programs aimed at the textile, clothing and footwear, or TCF, industry. Those two programs are: the Clothing and Household Textile Building Innovative Capability Scheme, also known as the BIC Scheme; and the TCF Small Business Program. These two programs are legislated under the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Investment and Innovation Programs Act 1999. To facilitate the identified savings, the government proposes a number of changes to the act through the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Investment and Innovation Programs Amendment Bill 2014. Government funding support has been provided to the TCF manufacturing industry for many years. The TCF Small Business Program (obviously aimed at small businesses) and the BIC Scheme (aimed at medium to large businesses) were created to help the TCF manufacturing industry transition to a lower import tariff regime. TCF tariffs have been lowered in stages over many years. The tariff on clothing is now 10 per cent and this will fall to five per cent on 1 January 2015. The tariff on textiles and footwear is already at five per cent. There are no plans for further reductions. In many cases these tariffs are already effectively further reduced by the range of trade agreements Australia is a party to and by concessions provided to some trading partners which qualify under developing country status. The TCF Small Business Program is a competitive, merit-based grants program that aims to improve the business enterprise culture of established TCF businesses that have not received grants or qualify for assistance from other TCF programs. Grants of up to a maximum of $50,000 have been available for eligible projects. The program is based on annual rounds with $2.5 million allocated for each round. Round 9 of the TCF Small Business Program (for which applications are currently being assessed) will be the final round of this program. Grants made under round 9 would be funded from the 2014-15 funding allocation. The BIC Scheme is aimed at fostering the development of a sustainable and internationally competitive clothing and household textile manufacturing and design industry in Australia, by providing grants, available on an entitlement basis, for research and development including innovative product design activities, innovative process improvements, market research and some industrial property rights expenditure. Grant payments are made in arrears for eligible activities conducted in the previous financial year. The BIC Scheme registrants have already spent substantial funds in 2013-14, in the expectation that much of this will be reimbursed in 2014-15. After making such reimbursements in 2014-15 no further grant payments would be made under the scheme. Passage of the bill by 30 June 2014 would close the TCF Small Business Program and the BIC Scheme one year earlier than originally intended. Therefore the amendments detailed in the bill are essentially the bringing forward of end dates by one year and the reduction of the total of grants paid under both the TCF Small Business Program and the BIC Scheme, combined, by $25 million. The details and requirements of the TCF Small Business Program are provided for by the legislative instrument, Textile, Clothing and Footwear Small Business Program Determination 2005. This instrument will be amended to reflect the legislative amendments to be made by the bill for the closure of the TCF Small Business Program. The details and requirements of the BIC Scheme are provided for by the legislative instrument, Clothing and Household Textile (Building Innovative Capability) Scheme 2010. This instrument will be amended to reflect the legislative amendments to be made by the bill for the earlier termination of the BIC Scheme. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Regulatory Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2014 4782

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Regulatory Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2014

First Reading 4782 Second Reading 4782 09:15 Mr BALDWIN LL6 Paterson I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This b ill will ensure the effective commencement of important amendments to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (OPGGSA) to strengthen the offshore petroleum regulatory regime in respect of compliance, safety, integrity and environmental management objectives. The Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Compliance Measures) Act 2013 and the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Compliance Measures No. 2) Act 2013 received royal assent on 14 March 2013 and 28 May 2013 , respectively. These a cts include amendments to the OPGGSA that seek to clarify and strengthen the compliance, monitoring, investigation and enforcement powers of the national offshore petroleum regulator, and ensure that enforcement measures for contraventions of the a ct are appropriate in application and severity in the context of a high-hazard industry. Unfortunately, the relevant s chedules to those compliance measures acts have not been able to commence. Commencement of those s chedules was linked to commencement of the proposed Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2013 , as provisions in the s chedules would have triggered provisions in that a ct; however , the b ill for that a ct did not pass p arliament before it was prorogued prior to last year ' s f ederal election. On 20 March 2014, the g overnment introduced the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Bill 2014, which provides a framework of powers for general application across regulatory schemes for monitoring compliance with, investigating breaches of, and enforcing Commonwealth laws. The Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment Bill includes amendments that will link commencement of the compliance measures acts to the commencement of the proposed Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 . The g overnment is committed to ensuring that the important amendments to the OPGGSA to be made by the compliance measures acts can properly commence. Incidents such as the blowout at the Montara wellhead platform on 21 August 2009 off the northern coast of Western Australia, and the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon on 20 April 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico, highlight the need for a strong, effective and properly resourced offshore petroleum regulatory regime to safeguard both human health and safety as well as the Australian marine environment. The amendments made by this b ill will also continue to ensure that the relevant standard provisions, now contained in the proposed Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 which is currently being considered by the p arliament, are triggered for use within the offshore petroleum regulatory regime. Use of the standard provisions in that a ct will prevent unnecessary lengthening of the statute book and duplication within Commonwealth legislation by negating the need to include those provisions in the OPGGSA itself. This demonstrates the g overnment ' s continuing commitment to reduce regulation and make Commonwealth laws clear and accessible. The b ill also includes consequential amendments to the OPGGSA to support amendments that I am introducing today to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Act 2003 (the regulatory levies act). The amendments to that a ct would adjust the application of annual titles administration levies to ensure that the National Offshore Petroleum Titles Administrator is able to fully cost-recover its activities undertaken in relation to titles under the OPGGSA. The consequential amendments made by this b ill will insert a regulation-making power into the OPGGSA to provide for regulations to be made to enable amounts of annual titles administration levy to be remitted or refunded in the event that the whole or part of a title is not force for a full year. Providing for refund or remittal in these circumstances will ensure that the Titles Administrator receives sufficient levy to cover its functions in relation to titles while a title is in force, but also that titleholders are not required to pay levy in relation to periods during which the title is not in force. Other minor policy and technical amendments in this b ill will: remove the ability for the regulator to apply an infringement notice for a breach of the requirement to ensure that there is an operator's representative present at a facility at all times when one or more individuals are present at the facility, given that such a breach is considered a serious offence with consequent health and safety risks to persons at the facility; amend provisions relating to applications for a greenhouse gas holding lease by the holder of a petroleum retention lease, for consistency with similar provisions; remove the requirement to provide a copy of the application with an application for approval of a transfer, application for approval of a dealing, and provisional application for approval of a dealing, given that this requirement is burdensome and duplicative in most cases; and correct drafting errors in section 649 of the OPGGSA. In summary, through a range of measures, this bill underscores the government's commitment to the maintenance and continuing improvement of a strong, effective framework for the regulation of offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage activities. Debate adjourned. Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment Bill 2013 4784

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment Bill 2013

First Reading 4784 Second Reading 4784 09:22 Mr BALDWIN LL6 Paterson I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This b ill amends provisions in the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Act 2003 (the Regulatory Levies Act) relating to the imposition of annual titles administration levy and environment plan levy. The amendments in relation to annual titles administration levy aim to ensure that the National Offshore Petroleum Titles Administrator is able to fully cost-recover its activities undertaken in relation to titles under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (the OPGGSA). Currently, levy is imposed for each year of the term of a petroleum or greenhouse gas title. A year of the term is defined by the OPGGSA as a period of one year beginning on the day on which the title comes into force or any anniversary of that day. However, in certain circumstances, a title may remain in force for a period of less than one year. This may include, for example, when the term of an exploration permit or rete ntion lease is extended by the j oint a uthority following an application made by the titleholder resulting in a decision to suspend or exempt a titleholder from compliance with any of the conditions to which the permit or lease is subject. In this and other circumstances resulting from applications made by the titleholder, a ' part year ' in the life of the title may be created —in other words not a neat 12 - month period. Although there may be less than 12 months remaining in the life of the term of a title, the Titles Administrator is still required to conduct administration activities in relation to that title. To ensure the Titles Administrator is fully cost-recovered for its activities, this b ill amends the Regulatory Levies Act to ensure that annual titles administration levy is imposed for a year of the term of a title, even if the title does not remain in force for the full year. I have also introduced supporting consequential amendments to the OPGGSA to insert a regulation-making power to allow for a refund or remittal of levy, as appropriate, in the event that the title is not in force for a full year. Regulations to be made under this power will ensure the Titles Administrator receives sufficient levy to cost-recover its functions in relation to titles while a title is in force, but that titleholders are not required to pay levy in relation to periods during which the title is not in force. The a mendments made by this b ill in relation to environment plan levy take account of recent amendments to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009 (the Environment Regulations), which enable an applicant for a petroleum access authority, a petroleum special prospecting authority, a pipeline licence, a greenhouse gas search authority or a greenhouse gas special authority to submit an environment plan to the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority. Environment plan levy is currently imposed on submission of an environment plan, or a revision of an environment plan, under the Environment Regulations, where the activities to which the plan relates are authorised by one or more titles. The amendments to the Regu latory Levies Act made by this b ill will impose levy on submission of an environment plan where the plan is submitted by an applicant for a title. The b ill also amends the Regulatory Levies Act to ensure that environment plan levy is imposed on submission of an environment plan, or revision of an environment plan, where the activities to which the plan relates will be carried out under a petroleum scientific investigation consent or a greenhouse gas research consent. Recent amendments to the Environment Regulations have clarified that the holder of a consent is required to have an accepted environment plan prior to carrying out a petroleum or greenhouse gas activity under the consent. Extending the application of the levy will ensure National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority can recover its costs of assessing the environment plan and on-going compliance activities undertaken in relation to the activities carried out under the plan. Appropriate cost-recovery by both the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority and the National Offshore Petroleum Titles Administrator is critical to ensure that these entities are resourced to effectively administer the offshore petroleum regime. Debate adjourned. Tax Laws Amendment (Implementation of the FATCA Agreement) Bill 2014 4786

Tax Laws Amendment (Implementation of the FATCA Agreement) Bill 2014

First Reading 4786 Second Reading 4786 09:27 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill amends the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to require Australian financial institutions to collect and report information to the Australian Taxation Office about their accountholders who are United States persons or United-States controlled entities. These amendments will give effect to Australia's obligations under the treaty-status intergovernmental Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America to Improve International Tax Compliance and to Implement FATCA, which was signed by Australia and the United States on 28 April 2014. The bill and the intergovernmental agreement will enable Australian financial institutions to comply with the United States Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act(FATCA)without breaching Australian law. FATCA is a unilateral anti-tax evasion regime aimed at detecting United States taxpayers who use accounts with financial institutions located outside the United States to conceal income and assets from the United States Internal Revenue Service. FATCA will commence on 1 July 2014 and will affect a large number of Australian financial institutions. The bill will require financial institutions to identify and report relevant accountholder information—as specified in the intergovernmental agreement—annually to the Australian Taxation Office which will subsequently forward it to the Internal Revenue Service under existing taxpayer information-sharing arrangements authorised by the Australia-United States tax treaty. In the absence of these requirements, and the intergovernmental agreement, Australian financial institutions would be exposed to significant economic costs; including the possibility of a 30 per cent withholding tax on their United States sourced income. The bill will help to minimise those costs for financial institutions. For this reason, Australian financial institutions strongly support the bill and the intergovernmental agreement. The bill and the intergovernmental agreement will also improve cooperation between Australia and the United States for the purpose of preventing tax evasion. This will help to enhance the integrity of both countries' tax systems. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2014 Measures No. 2) Bill 2014 4787

Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2014 Measures No. 2) Bill 2014

First Reading 4787 Second Reading 4787 09:30 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Schedule 1 to this bill amends the Medicare Levy Act 1986toincrease the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for families in line with increases in the consumer price index. These changes will ensure that Australians who did not pay the Medicare levy in the 2012-13 income year will continue to be exempt if their incomes have risen in line with or by less than the consumer price index. All other thresholds have previously been increased by more than the growth in the consumer price index between 2011-12 and 2013-14, and therefore do not require a further increase at this time. The increase in thresholds will apply to the 2013-14 year and future income years. Full details of the measure in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Schedule 2 to this bill introduces a measure to protect taxpayers who have self-assessed on the basis of particular announced taxation measures that the government has decided not to proceed with. The decisions not to proceed with the particular measures that will be covered by the protection measure arise from the government's decisive action to restore integrity to the taxation system by clearing the large backlog of announced but un-enacted measures left by the previous government. The protection provision will provide ongoing certainty for taxpayers that were impacted by an un-enacted announcement. Schedule 3 to this bill amends the tax law to deny an entity the benefits of any additional franking credits that an entity receives as a result of distribution washing. To distribution wash, an entity sells an interest shortly after becoming entitled to receive a fully franked distribution in respect of that interest, then shortly after purchases a new and substantially identical interest that also provides a second entitlement to another fully franked distribution. The imputation system contains integrity rules to ensure that franking credits only benefit the true economic owners of shares, and to ensure that franking credits are only available to shareholders in proportion to their shareholdings. Distribution washing contravenes both these principles by enabling sophisticated shareholders to effectively 'trade' their franking credits, and by enabling some shareholders to receive two sets of franking credits for effectively the same parcel of shares. It effectively allows foreign shareholders who cannot use franking credits to sell their franking credits to domestic investors. Since announcement of the policy, there has been a significant decrease in activity that could be perceived as distribution washing. Of course, this affects only a small portion of the market. Overall trading activity has continued to grow with the value of trading increasing by five per cent since this policy was announced. Addressing distribution washing by closing the loopholes will support investment by improving the efficiency and integrity of the tax system. t will also help ensure the long-term sustainability of the imputation system for all Australians. I give credit to the previous government for initiating this measure. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2014 Measures No. 3) Bill 2014 4788

Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2014 Measures No. 3) Bill 2014

First Reading 4788 Second Reading 4788 09:34 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill substantially removes the immediate deduction for the cost of mining, quarrying and prospecting rights and information first used for exploration in section 40-80 of theIncome Tax Assessment Act 1997. The cost of acquiring a mining, quarrying or prospecting right or information first used for exploration will be deductible over 15 years or the effective life of the right or information, whichever is shorter. The immediate deduction will remain for the cost of rights acquired from a government issuing authority, the cost of geological, geophysical or similar information acquired from government authorities and the cost of data packages acquired from private providers. An immediate deduction will also be available for farm-out arrangements, and the treatment of interest realignments in joint venture common developments will be clarified. These will be covered in a separate bill but apply from the same time as the measures in this bill. This bill also provides an alternative means for writing down the cost of mining rights or information first used for exploration where that exploration has been 'unsuccessful'. The scope of unsuccessful exploration has been widened to cover the discovery of resource deposits that are not commercially viable to mine. This bill is an integrity measure which is designed to ensure that the immediate deduction for rights and information fulfils its original purpose of encouraging genuine exploration. There was evidence that the immediate deduction was being used to obtain a deduction for the value of resources already discovered rather than for the right to search for yet to be discovered resources. This is outside the policy intent of supporting genuine exploration. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Excise Tariff Amendment (Product Stewardship for Oil) Bill 2014 4789

Excise Tariff Amendment (Product Stewardship for Oil) Bill 2014

First Reading 4789 Second Reading 4789 09:36 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This b ill amends the Excise Tariff Act 1921 and is part of a package of b ills that will give effect to the g overnment’s commitment to restore the Product Stewardship for Oil Scheme to being budget neutral over the forward estimates. The Product Stewardship for Oil Scheme aims to ensure the environmentally sustainable management, re - refining and reuse of used oil and to support economic recycling options for used oil. The s cheme offers a subsidy for the proper recycling of old oils, funded by a levy on new oils and greases. The s cheme was intended to be self-funding, with the levy covering the anticipated cost of stewardship rebates. However, in 2013-14 the s cheme is estimated to run a deficit of approximately $10 million , which is expected to grow. This b ill increases the rate of the s cheme’s levy payable by oil producers for petroleum based oils and their synthetic equivalents from 5.449 cents per litre of oil or kilogram of grease to 8.5 cents. The g overnment intends to separately make corresponding amendments to the Product Stewardship (Oil) Regulations 2000 which will ensure that c ategory 8 oils, being those which are a low risk to the environment, continue to not be affected by the rate of the levy. Further details of this b ill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Customs Tariff Amendment (Product Stewardship for Oil) Bill 2014 4789

Customs Tariff Amendment (Product Stewardship for Oil) Bill 2014

First Reading 4789 Second Reading 4789 09:38 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill is part of a package of bills that will give effect to the government’s commitment to restore the budget neutrality of the Product Stewardship for Oil Scheme over the forward estimates period. Specifically, this bill amends the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to increase the excise-equivalent customs duty on imported petroleum‑based oils and grease and their synthetic equivalents to 8.5 cents per litre of oil or kilogram of grease from 5.449 cents. Further details of this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Asset Recycling Fund Bill 2014 4790

Asset Recycling Fund Bill 2014

First Reading 4790 Second Reading 4790 09:40 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Asset Recycling Fund Bill 2014 and consequential amendments establish a new fund as a vehicle for providing financial assistance and incentives to states and territories to invest in infrastructure. The Asset Recycling Fund is part of the government's infrastructure package announced in the 2014-15 budget to support economic growth. Under the bill, the Asset Recycling Fund will receive an initial contribution of $5.9 billion at commencement, comprising of: $ 2.4 billion of uncommitted funds from the Building Australia Fund; and $ 3.5 billion of uncommitted funds from the Education Investment Fund. The government will make further contributions to the Asset Recycling Fund in the future, including the proceeds from the sale of Medibank Private and from other potential privatisations. The capital and earnings of the fund will be available to fund new infrastructure priorities. It will assist the states and territories to sell existing assets and allow the sale proceeds to be reinvested into new infrastructure. The fund will also facilitate the government's investment in nationally significant infrastructure projects. The Asset Recycling fund will support the government's Asset Recycling Initiative. The Asset Recycling Initiative provides $5 billion as incentive payments to unlock capital in state-owned assets and reinvest the proceeds in productivity enhancing infrastructure. The Australian government will pay the states and territories an incentive payment of 15 per cent of the sale price of the asset, to give states and territories an immediate benefit if they recycle their capital investments. This program is time limited, closing in 2018-19. Payments from the Asset Recycling Fund will also be made to the states and territories for investment in infrastructure under National Partnership Agreements. The fund will also accommodate other infrastructure payments, to be administered by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, including $350 million for the Roads to Recovery Program. The Asset Recycling Fund will be invested and managed by the Future Fund Board of Guardians, which has a proven track record of managing investment portfolios on behalf of the government, and maximising returns over the long term. The bill requires the finance minister and Treasurer to issue directions to the Future Fund Board to articulate the government’s expectations for how the fund will be managed and invested by the board. The Asset Recycling Fund will support the substantial infrastructure package announced by the government in the 2014-15 budget. This package is part of the government’s investment in building Australia’s infrastructure, improving productivity and building a stronger, more prosperous economy. Debate adjourned. Asset Recycling Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2014 4791

Asset Recycling Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2014

First Reading 4791 Second Reading 4791 09:43 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Further to the Asset Recycling Fund Bill I have just introduced, the Asset Recycling Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2014 facilitates the establishment of the Asset Recycling Fund through amendments to the: the COAG Reform Fund Act 2008; the Future Fund Act 2006; the Nation Building Funds Act 2008; and the DisabilityCare Australia Fund Act 2013. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment Bill 2014 4791

Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment Bill 2014

First Reading 4791 Second Reading 4791 09:44 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I move: That this bill be now read a second time. T he stewardship of public resources by Commonwealth entities is surely one of the most important topics to anyone with an interest in good government. The Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment Bill 2014 would, if enacted, amend the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act) to clarify specific resource management and governance matters for Commonwealth entities and ensure the effective implementation of the rules that will support the operation of the PGPA Act and the broader financial framework of the Commonwealth. The PGPA Act will replace, from 1 July 2014, the existing model for Commonwealth financial management established through the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997. The PGPA Act consolidates under one law the governance, performance and accountability framework for the Commonwealth and relevant entities, with detailed arrangements on how these principles will be applied to be set out in the PGPA rules. The PGPA Act was passed in the last days of the last parliament. While the government, in its then capacity as the opposition, supported the aims of the act we did not support its passage. The detail of how its underlying principles would be applied was not available and we had concerns about the speed with which such important reforms were being pushed through. The government continues to support the aims of the PGPA Act but we will ensure that it is properly implemented and we will be vigilant in monitoring its efficacy in practice. On 13 February 2014, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA) resolved to inquire into the development of the PGPA Act rules. The JCPAA confirmed that it believes that 'the PGPA Act and the implementation of the first set of PGPA rules, establishes a solid foundation for efficiencies and the framework for cultural change in Commonwealth resource management in future years'. The JCPAA has however made a number of recommendations in its report. These are currently under consideration by the coalition government. As presented to this House, the bill clarifies one matter raised in the JCPAA report, in that it includes a note to put beyond doubt the continuing powers of the Auditor-General to conduct a performance audit of a Commonwealth entity at any time. This will ensure that there is no doubt about the Auditor‑General's ability to perform one of the core functions of that office. This bill arises from the development of the detail needed for the implementation of the PGPA Act, and is an outcome of consultation within government. The contents of the bill can be summarised as: amendments to correct drafting errors in the current act; technical amendments to improve the operation of the act's provisions as a result of more detailed consideration since June 2013; and adjustments to ensure that the rules that support the PGPA Act are able to operate as effectively as possible, consistent with the aims of a simplified and streamlined framework. While the changes are technical in nature they provide greater certainty in relation to the operation of the act as well as supporting the design of more operationally effective supporting rules. Such clarity is important if the act is to live up to its aims. The bill, if enacted, will contribute to long-term public sector efficiencies by improving governance, transparency and accountability arrangements for Commonwealth entities (including both non-corporate Commonwealth entities and Commonwealth entities). This bill is, accordingly, another crucial step to help ensure the smooth transition to a more effective financial framework for the Commonwealth. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Mental Health and Other Measures) Bill 2014 4793

Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Mental Health and Other Measures) Bill 2014

Second Reading 4793 09:48 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra I will continue my remarks on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Mental Health and Other Measures) Bill 2014. 'There is a wave of sadness coming our way, and the system—DVA and Defence—needs to be ready for it. I wonder whether we are.' PTSD is one of the most common psychiatric disorders in Australia. The Australian Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health says that between five and 10 per cent of Australians are likely to experience PTSD in their lives, while up to 12 per cent of serving and ex-serving members will be affected by PTSD in any given year. The Department of Veterans' Affairs says that 1,713 veterans of recent conflicts are suffering from PTSD—it is a huge figure—and, of those, 955 are veterans of either Afghanistan or Iraq. However, in reality this number is likely to be much higher. Many sufferers often develop symptoms years after their service, and many more remain undetected because they never seek the help they need to treat their PTSD. Of Afghanistan, General Cantwell says, 'We have exposed thousands of young and old Australians to some pretty brutal experiences.' The numbers of returned soldiers suffering PTSD will 'grow, and grow exponentially'. As policymakers, we must be ready. It is our responsibility to ensure that the system—Defence and Veterans' Affairs—is ready. Families too must be ready and aware of the risks of PTSD. One thing Scott Hannaford does very well in 'The silent war' is detail the fact that PTSD affects not only returned service personnel but their families as well. He tells the story of Rebecca Clark, who calls herself a 'second generation veteran'. Rebecca has never been to war. She has never had a gun pointed at her face, never had to take a life or endure any of the unspeakable horrors of combat. But, as the daughter of a Vietnam veteran, Rebecca not only had to deal with her own father's undiagnosed PTSD and the resulting volatility, temper and mood swings but she herself developed PTSD in her early 20s. As our soldiers return from Afghanistan, families must be on the lookout for signs of stress in their returned loved one and among themselves. Some signs of PTSD to watch out for include trouble getting along with colleagues, family or friends; angry or violent outbursts; increased alcohol or drug use; more physical complaints than usual; and poor performance at work. As the wave of sadness approaches, to use General Cantwell's phrase, it is all the more important that the government does everything in its power to ensure we are ready. I also want to take this opportunity to mention The Long Way Home, a play that was showing around Australia earlier this year. Just as media has an important role in raising awareness, so too do the arts—and this was achieved through this wonderful production, The Long Way Home. The play was written by Daniel Keene in collaboration with the Australian Defence Force, and it takes the words and experiences of soldiers and builds them into a work that acknowledges the damage of conflict alongside the mundanity and sometimes thrill of soldiering. It highlights the unique challenges faced by our service men and women in their return to everyday life after operations around the world. I was fortunate enough to see this play when it was in Canberra earlier in the year. The play actually sold out across the country, as it did here in Canberra, so I do feel really honoured and privileged to have seen it. It was an incredibly moving experience. What really touched the audience was that it showed not just the experience of combat in Afghanistan but also the soldiers' experiences at home, so it provided the opportunity to get a glimpse into the domestic environment and what women in particular face with the return of their loved ones in terms of the stress, the lack of communication. These men wanted to completely isolate themselves, to hide from the world. It sent a very powerful message about the fact that these are damaged people and that we do need to care for them. It also underscored the enormous strain it puts on relationships and those back home, the loved ones who are trying to support those who have experienced combat. The play received a standing ovation here in Canberra. At some points, there was not a dry eye. The play also highlighted the camaraderie among the troops and that they provide a strong support network for each other. But, in a way, they just hunker down among themselves and do not actually share the grief and depression they are going through. That is why it is so important for not just the families but also the soldiers themselves to be aware of those PTSD symptoms. It was a very powerful production. I commend the Sydney Theatre Company for putting it on. I think it was Belvoir Street who actually produced it. I thank them for producing them for producing this incredibly powerful work and I also thank the ADF for sharing and divulging their knowledge of and the experiences of soldiers. It was a story that had to be told, it was a story that was incredibly timely and it was a story that resonated with everyone who was in the audience, as well as those who read about it. So I commend all involved, particularly the actors, because a number of them were amateurs and a number of them were from Canberra. They did a great job. You could tell who the professionals were, but the amateurs did a very, very good job; they almost appeared to be professionals. So I do commend them for donating their time, as much as anything else, to the production. There are also a number of community organisations, such as Soldier On and Young Diggers, that provide support for returning soldiers, and a number of Defence and DVA programs that are designed to assist in the transition, and I urge returning soldiers and their families to make the most of these. Soldier On is a Canberra based organisation that facilitates Australians coming together to show their support for our physically and psychologically wounded soldiers. It is a great outfit. I remember going to the launch a couple of years ago, down at the returned services club site—'site' because the club burnt down a few years ago. It was in a tent and there was great attendance by a broad range of the community but particularly returned soldiers. Again, it is a timely organisation in that soldiers returning felt they needed a support network among themselves and hence they set up Soldier On. Founded in 2012, it was inspired by the death of Lieutenant Michael Fussell, who was killed in an IED blast in Afghanistan in 2008. His friend John Bale looked for a way to support those who survived the blast. He quickly realised there was no easy or accessible way for members of the defence forces, or the public, to show their support for those wounded in battle. With his wife, Danielle, they reached out to his fellow soldiers and enlisted the help of Cavin Wilson, who had been posted in Afghanistan, involved in returning soldiers killed or wounded in action. Together they decided it was time to start an organisation that connected these men and women to the wider public, ensuring these brave men and women could be cared for and lead fulfilling and successful lives. Since then, Soldier On has worked tirelessly to ensure our wounded are able to overcome the obstacles caused by their injuries; enjoy happy, fulfilling lives; and feel proud of the sacrifices they have made. Soldier On also serves as the link between wounded Australians and their communities, allowing people from all walks of life to support our wounded men and women and help them succeed in their rehabilitation and beyond. Community organisations such as Soldier On play a vital role in supporting our physically and psychologically wounded soldiers and their families, and I commend them for this work. It would be remiss of me not to note that, while this legislation makes good changes, really worthwhile changes, that will make a real difference to the lives of veterans and their families, through its budget the Abbott government has attacked our veterans community. Prior to the election, the government said: The Coalition is committed to ensuring fairness for our retired military personnel and easing the pressure on their cost of living. And Senator Ronaldson said on the day of the budget: The Government will continue to respond to the changing needs of veterans and their families. However, when the budget was delivered, it was clear that the Abbott government had walked away from these commitments and shamefully betrayed Australia's war veterans by slashing the indexation system for Veterans' Affairs pensions. The budget contained changes to the current indexation system for pensions meaning that, from 1 September 2017, indexation will be linked to the CPI only. The current indexation system links pensions to whichever delivers the higher pension rate out of the CPI, male total average weekly earnings or the Pensioner and Beneficiary Living Cost Index. This current indexation system was introduced by Labor to better reflect the actual daily cost of living for those on Veterans' Affairs pensions and to help veterans keep up with the cost of living. It has been a proven success, with pensions increasing by up to $5,300 per year under Labor. By contrast, if the changes to indexation made by the Abbott government in its budget had been in place for the last four years, a veteran on a single pension would be $60 a fortnight worse off or $1,560 a year worse off over four years. Veterans and veterans' organisations say this change will cost them thousands annually. The very great irony is that, at the same time the Abbott government are cutting indexation to the veterans pension, they are improving the indexation to military superannuation. We were very pleased to support the Defence Force Retirement Benefits Legislation Amendment (Fair Indexation) Bill 2014 which allowed the triple-indexing of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits and the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits military superannuation pensions for those aged over 55. I say again, Labor supports this policy. But what we do not support is the fact that this is paid for by cutting the indexation to veterans' pensions, which the budget has revealed to be the case. When it comes to veterans, the Abbott government is robbing Peter to pay Paul. The coalition's policy for veterans and their families in the September 2013 policy document states that the government does not increase Centrelink pensions just by the CPI so it is not fair to apply only that index to the pensions of those who have risked their lives for our country. Yet that is exactly what the Abbott government has done—reduced the indexation of veterans' pensions to be CPI only, cutting the veterans' pension in real terms. The Abbott government's budget of broken promises cut funding to veterans' affairs also by more than $100 million—down from Labor's record $12.5 billion in our 2013-2014 budget. There is a great deal of distress emerging from veterans' groups about this budget and, while I commend the government for the legislation we are debating today, I ask them to look at their policy toward veterans as a whole and to realise that cuts to veterans' pensions are unfair. They are a broken promise and must be reversed. It is impossible to exaggerate what we owe to our service personnel and their families. In thanking them for their sacrifices and showing our gratitude for the work they do in securing our nation and preserving the democracy here, we have to ensure that we provide the highest standard of care for them when they return. 10:01 Ms GAMBARO 9K6 Brisbane Tackling mental health challenges for veterans and their families was one of the four pillars of our plan for veterans that we took to the last election. The Abbott government recognises the unique nature of military service and this bill reflects that commitment. The Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Mental Health and Other Measures) Bill 2014 will improve access to mental health services for current and former members of the ADF and their families and it will enhance the operations of the Veterans' Review Board and make other improvements to the veterans' affairs services and administration. With Gallipoli Barracks at Enoggera adjacent to the Brisbane electorate, this will further strengthen our commitment to look after our veterans following on from the introduction of legislation to cover fair indexation introduced to the parliament in March of this year. Other groups that are based in my electorate of Brisbane who will benefit from this bill are: Legacy Brisbane; the head office of the Returned and Services League of Australia, Queensland Branch; the RAAF Association, Queensland Division; the Queensland association of the Australian Federation of Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Ex Servicemen and Women; the War Widows Guild of Queensland; the Australian Region of Ex Servicemen and Women; and the Defence Community Organisation. While there are other organisations that have offices based outside of the Brisbane electorate, there are many members in the Brisbane area who reside there and they include members of the Submarines Association, the Naval Association of Australia, Gallipoli Barracks, Victoria Barracks and of course we have St Andrews War Memorial Hospital. The number of individuals deployed since 1999 to 1 March 2014 is 72,376. We have had a huge number of our servicemen and women deployed on operations overseas in border security operations and including deployment in Operations Resolute, Relex, Cranberry, Teebone, Dirk, Mistral, Celesta, Sutton and Stanhope. We have had operations in the past in support of East Timor, operations supporting the Solomon Islands, and of course, Operation Slipper, the military contribution to the international campaign against terrorism, maritime security in the Middle East area of operations and countering piracy in the Gulf of Aden. There have also been many operations in support of Iraq including deployments. Many of my constituents have been deployed to Operations like Falconer, Catalyst, Riverbank, Blazer, Bastille, Desert Storm et cetera. The bill contains several schedules and I want to go through details of each of these schedules as there is a particular aspect of how this bill will improve access to mental health services for current and former members of the ADF and their families. From 1 July 2014, there will be access to treatment under nonliability healthcare arrangements. These will be expanded to include diagnosed conditions of alcohol use disorder and substance use disorder regardless of whether that particular condition was service-related. From 1 July 2014, eligibility to treatment under nonliability healthcare arrangements for members of the Defence Force with peacetime service only will be expanded by removing the current cut-off date of 7 April 1994. That is very good measure. This measure will allow all of those with at least three years of continuous full-time and peacetime service to be eligible for that nonliability health care for post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depressive disorders and alcohol and substance use disorders. Members who discharge before completing their three years continuous full-time service may also be eligible where discharge is on the grounds of invalidity or physical or mental incapacity to perform their duties. This means that treatment for mental health conditions of PTSD, anxiety and depressive disorders and alcohol and substance use disorders will be available without the need for the condition to be accepted as related to the member's service. Mental health services for veterans, members and their families, in all those areas, will be further improved through the expansion of the client groups eligible for counselling through the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service. And I just want to add to some comments made previously by the member for Canberra that many veterans' families are affected when veterans return home suffering from any of these disorders and the families also suffer with them. From 1 July 2014, current and serving members with certain peacetime service will be eligible for counselling through the specialised services of the VVCS. This includes border protection service, service in a disaster zone either in Australia or overseas, service as a submariner and personnel involved in training accidents and members medically discharged. There will be access to counselling services from the VVCS, and it will be extended to partners and dependent children up to the age of 26 of these newly-eligible groups, to partners' dependent children and to parents of members killed in service related incidents. It is recognised that military peacetime service has its own risks for exposure to traumatic events, and this impacts greatly on mental health. Amendments relating to the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card and seniors supplement in schedule 3 will reduce the administrative burden on clients who travel overseas for more than six weeks. Currently, one of the requirements to regain eligibility for a seniors supplement for a person who is a holder of a Commonwealth Seniors Health Card and who travels overseas for more than six weeks, is a written claim and proof of that person's income details. The amendment will mean that card holders will be eligible for the seniors supplement on their return from overseas without needing to reclaim the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card. In schedule 4 there are other significant measures. The bill will enhance the operation of the Veterans' Review Board. The Veterans' Review Board provides merit reviews of conditions relating to disability and war widow pensions, compensation and other entitlements under the Veterans' Entitlement Act and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. The bill also introduces a legislative framework for alternative dispute resolution processes, including conferencing and mediation. Additional improvements relate to case management, and the administration and procedural practices of the board are also expected to enable more effective management of the function of the board. Some might view the changes in this view as 'legalising' the board, or turning the board into a replica of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal but that is not the case. These changes are designed to give the board a more modern and a much more efficient process. They will enable the board to supply alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and to resolve matters much more quickly and much more satisfactorily. This will prevent the need for hearings in many cases. There was extensive consultation with ex-service organisations on these matters in 2013, and there has been a wide degree of support for these particular reforms. In schedule 5, the bill will make a technical amendment to the end date for the period of service in an operational area in schedule 2 of the Veterans' Entitlement Act. The amendment will not disadvantage any veteran, as the change to the date will align the period of service for that operational area with the dates of the instrument for allotment for that operational area, which is dictated by the Department of Defence. There are other amendments in schedule 6 to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act which will expand the circumstances under which an eligible young person is to be taken to be wholly dependent on a member. The expansion will include an eligible young person for whom the member is liable to pay child support. These eligible young persons will have the same wholly dependent status as an eligible young person who lives with a member. It should be noted that these situations are not exhaustive, and other circumstances that meet wholly dependent status for an eligible young person will continue to be determined on a case-by-case basis. There are further amendments to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, which will enable chief executive of Comcare to be nominated for appointment to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission. This measure rectifies the inadvertent disqualification in 2012 of the chief executive of Comcare from nomination for appointment to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission. As I have said, our commitment to looking after our veterans and recognising their unique nature of military service was something that we took to the last election and it is now being delivered by the Abbott government. My electorate of Brisbane has a proud military history. We are very proud of our veterans, and that is evidenced by the large number of applications made by community organisations to, and recommended by, the Brisbane electorate committee for the ANZAC Centenary Local Grants Program. It included some outstanding and wonderful applications from the Queensland Jewish Board of Deputies; the Mates for Mates family recovery centre, which is based in Albion; Saint Andrews Uniting Church in Brisbane; St Mark's Anglican Church, Clayfield; New Farm State School; Military Brotherhood Incorporated; the Royal Brisbane Hospital Nurses Association; the Naval Association of Australia; Windsor State School, which has a proud military history, with the service of many of its former pupils dating back to World War I; the Museum of Brisbane; and the Submarines Association Australia, Queensland. As a nation, we should never turn our backs on veterans who have defended our country. The blunt truth is that we live under an umbrella of freedom that their service has provided to us. This fact was brought home to me in very stark and real terms when I attended a veterans' forum with my parliamentary colleague, Wyatt Roy, the member for Longman, on Wednesday 21 May at The Hub Medical Centre in Morayfield. This was organised by its principal, Dr Raymond Huntley. I had the opportunity to hear firsthand about the difficulties that too many veterans have in obtaining and receiving advice—to hear their frustrations, what they have to go through and, sometimes, the trauma that this causes them. We need to do things a lot better. Many of the veterans at that particular forum spoke about their individual circumstances and what it was like to transition into civilian life from the military. Many of them spoke about the fact that they were not informed of their entitlements and benefits. There needs to be a better way of doing that and whether to engage more DVA officers at military bases to make sure that the transition is much smoother. I heard, with anguish, a particular incident of one veteran, who needed to receive counselling for PTSD. He found out that he was entitled to transport to the counselling service two years after he had been going to receive counselling. That would have benefited him, if he had been informed that those conditions and entitlements were there and were available for him. Of course, he was undergoing treatment at the time and that must have made it very difficult for him to drive himself to those particular appointments. Listening to veterans become traumatised about what they have experienced and then having to listen to them about navigating their way through a system that sometimes is not user friendly were very chilling moments for all of us who were there. It is not an acceptable situation. We must change the way that we look after veterans and the way that their entitlements are administered. We talk about the ultimate sacrifice that so many ADF personnel have made throughout our country's history. We always, rightly, pay homage to them on Anzac Day. Our gratitude should not be confined to just one day of the year. We should always pay homage to them. We should look forward to ways that we can display that gratitude in how we give back to our veterans who have given so much to us. This bill is the first necessary step, but it goes some way to demonstrating that gratitude and extending to our veterans the very, very best respect that they so richly deserve. I commend the bill to the House. 10:15 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari Firstly, let me say how pleased I am to be able to contribute to this debate and to acknowledge the contributions that have been made thus far, by the previous speaker, the member for Brisbane, and by the member of the Canberra whom I have listened to this morning. I think it demonstrates and gives expression to how strong the bipartisanship is over these issues. I am proud to say that, as the former Minister for Defence Science and Personnel and former Minister for Veterans' Affairs, I initiated these proposals during the last government and they were accounted for in the previous budget. I am very pleased that this government has chosen to develop them further and to introduce this legislation into the parliament because we do have an obligation, as has been said by previous speakers, to serving personnel and veterans and their families. The importance of this legislation is that it acknowledges an ongoing piece of work around how we adequately develop programs and policies to deal with current and emerging issues with defence members and their families and in the transition phase after they have separated from the Defence Force. I have long taken the view—and I think it is acknowledged—that once someone goes through the recruitment gates, goes out to Kapooka and does their recruitment training they are potentially a client of the Department of Veterans' Affairs for the rest of their life. What we have to acknowledge is that once we accept someone into the Defence Force we see them as part of the family that we need to look after, ultimately until they are dead. That means ongoing care not only of them but also, in particular circumstances, their families. I am happy to say that there has been a great deal of work done between the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Department of Defence around working closer together to make sure that defence personnel understand their current entitlements and also working closer together to make sure that the transition space is filled, that we have got people on the ground on defence bases around this country who are able to inform defence members of their proper and current entitlements whilst they are in uniform and during the transition phase. Much has been done around placing DVA officers on defence facilities around the country and by the various services taking their own initiatives to make sure their personnel are properly informed about what their entitlements are. That is as it should be. I have made the comment before that I am sorry this current government has chosen to separate the Veterans' Affairs portfolio from the defence personnel part of the Defence portfolio. I think it makes a great deal of sense to combine the two. My experience of being a minister in both portfolios allowed me to be able to drive the two organisations closer together and make sure that these issues, which are of such import, were given the priority that they properly deserve. That is what it should be like. I would just counsel the government, if there are ministerial arrangements to be reorganised at some future point, that the Prime Minister might think about reuniting Veterans' Affairs with Defence in terms of the responsibility of a minister not only for veterans but also defence personnel. It makes a great deal of sense. I also want to say that these initiatives have come from our acknowledgement, our parliament's acknowledgement, the current government's acknowledgement and the previous government's acknowledgement of the need to understand the stresses and the health needs of defence members and their families as a result of their service and to understand that, in the recent campaigns which have cause much distress to the Australian community, we have had an emerging issue to do with defence members and mental health issues. As we know from studies which have been done by both the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Department of Defence, we do not have a high prevalence of mental health issues in the defence community as opposed to in the rest of the community. That is not to say that people do not develop, once they have separated, mental health issues which need to be addressed. The member for Brisbane talked about that transition space. She mentioned are going to Enoggera and talking to people who had had a poor experience through the transition phase. The problem, frankly, that we have in part is due to the fact that many defence members, once they have decided to separate from the Defence Force, do not want anything to do with Defence—which is not surprising, in a way. And often they will separate without having anything to do with their former comrades, so they lose contact. The problem we have is that it is difficult for government, the Department of Defence, the various services or the Department of Veterans' Affairs to put a tail on people who do not want to have a tail. If they do not want to be connected once they leave it is very difficult to connect them. Subsequently, when issues emerge around either a physical disability or a mental health issue as a result of their service, it is often very difficult to get them the service they properly require because they have lost that attachment. So one of the challenges is to ensure that defence personnel, whilst they are in service, understand that retaining this attachment is in their interests. That is why we have promoted the idea very strongly that there needs to be engagement with the veterans community whilst they are in defence. One of the issues that I raise with the RSL on a continuing basis—and I appreciate the fact that they have acknowledged the need for this—is that they have to play a bigger role. They have to make themselves relevant to current and serving members. We heard the member for Canberra talk about a number of organisations—Soldier On, Young Diggers, Mates 4 Mates, Walking With The Wounded. These are all organisations which are dealing with current, serving members or people who have recently left the Defence Force. That is really good. What we want them to do, though, is make sure that they continue to proselytise the idea that there are benefits and systems in place to look after their interests. What this piece of legislation does, in substantial manner, is to provide additional services to people who we believe will need them. The changes will include adding alcohol and substance abuse disorders to non-liability health care, and extending non-liability health care to those with peacetime service only. The legislation will provide for treatment of PTSD, anxiety disorder, depressive disorder and the new conditions of alcohol and substance use disorder for people who are not otherwise eligible for such treatment and who were discharged on the grounds of invalidity or physical or mental incapacity to perform duties. These changes are very important, but the legislation also amends the Veterans' Entitlements Act to enable eligibility for counselling services for veterans to be expanded to additional client groups. There are currently restrictions. It will involve people from the border protection service, people who serve in Australian or overseas disaster zones, members involved in training accidents, members who are medically discharged and submariners. It will also involve their eligible children, up till the age of 26. They will also be eligible for these services. This is vitally important, because we have people going overseas and doing the most dangerous things whilst putting this uniform on for us. When they go away they are involved in activities, and we have had 40 deaths in Afghanistan. There have been over 200 wounded. We have large numbers who have come back with mental health issues. Their families suffer consequently and we have an obligation to make sure those families—the spouses, the parents, the children—have access to those services which they properly require. It is part of our national responsibility. It is part of our national obligation to make sure that, when we put that uniform on someone, we tell that someone that we will look after them and their family. If we do not, we are abrogating our responsibility not only to them but to the nation. I feel very strongly about these matters and I am very pleased with this piece of legislation. One of the things that I think we need to comprehend is that there has not been a tsunami of mental health issues out of service, but that is not to say that there will not be a radical or a dramatic increase in the number of people who require services for mental health and other disorders in the future. The thing that concerns me most is that we have had people doing seven, eight, nine or 10 rotations in and out of Afghanistan, especially in the special forces arena. Once they separate, my concern is that some of the issues which they have needed to confront and deal with properly whilst they have been in service may be issues that they find difficult to deal with at some time down the line. It is therefore very, very, very important that we implement the changes which are in this legislation. We have forgotten this previously. We have really not dealt with the fact that people on border protection—these brave men and women who are doing the border protection work for our nation in a very high-stress situation—were not covered. Submariners were not covered. We have to say to ourselves that that is an obligation we failed. Now we have fixed it. We owe those young men and women who are doing this border protection work, who potentially suffer as a result of seeing the most horrendous things and being involved in very difficult set of circumstances, a great debt of gratitude, clearly. But we have an obligation to them and an obligation to their families. We need to make sure that those obligations are properly met, and I think this legislation does that appropriately. When we talk about the nature of service, the young men and women who put on a uniform and go to war are doing it for the best of reasons. They are often very naive young people when they start, but they become very hardened and understand the difficulties of war once they have been in that situation. Those of us who have not been there, those of us who have not had the uniform on and been involved in one of these conflicts or in border protection, those of us who have not been submariners or been involved in peacetime operations such as at Aceh, cannot appreciate the difficulties that these young men and women have confronted. I want to pay my respects to those men and women for their service but also genuinely acknowledge the great leadership which has been shown in the defence community and in the Department of Veterans' Affairs by the senior leaders of those organisations. I think they have done tremendous work over the last few years to bring the Defence Force community on, to make sure that we are addressing their particular needs and to understand that we do have an obligation. The member for Canberra talked about that wonderful play The Long Way Home. I want to thank the Chief of the Defence Force, General Hurley, because without him that would not have happened. He was prepared to commit the resources out of defence to make sure that The Long Way Home happened. The brave men and women who participated in that program need to be acknowledge also. I want to particularly mention the families. I mentioned Soldier On and all of those other organisations previously, but there is another organisation called Families of the Fallen, which has been an initiative of Ray Palmer and his wife, Pam. Ray and Pam lost their son, Private Scott Palmer, in a helicopter crash when he was with the 2nd Commando on 21 June 2010. Recently they had a walk from Mataranka, which is south of Katherine, to Robertson Barracks to raise money for Families of the Fallen. There are 40 families. Think about that. Ray and Pam lost their son as did another 39 parents. All those parents, brothers, sisters, kids and partners are adversely affected by the fact that those sons sacrificed their lives for our great country. I want to acknowledge the Families of the Fallen and Ray Palmer in particular for his massive work and the Kokoda tracks that they have put in place to assist veterans who have been part of this conflict. 10:31 Dr STONE EM6 Murray I too rise to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Mental Health and Other Measures) Bill 2014. The bill reflects the view of this government—and I know it is a view shared by both sides of the House and by most Australians—that our men and women who have given service or are still serving in our military forces deserve to have any adverse consequences of that service, whatever they might be, adequately dealt with. Too often there are mental health consequences for veterans and their families during or following the period of active service or when training in Australia. This bill addresses mental health support for our defence forces as one of its key aims. The government's current expenditure on mental health services is not capped but, rather, it is demand driven, as it should be. Some $166 million a year is currently spent on veterans, serving members and their dependants. This bill goes further in expanding access and the services that are required to make sure that no-one, whether man or woman, serving is left with mental health or other conditions that impact on their own lives, their own wellbeing and the lives of their families. Key measures in this bill aim to strengthen mental health services through increased access to non-liability health care and the expansion of access to the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service, or the VVCS. Currently online mental health information and support, GP services, psychologists, social worker services, special psychiatric services, pharmaceuticals, PTSD programs, inpatient and outpatient hospital treatments—all of those—are provided annually, but from 1 July 2014 access to treatment under non-liability healthcare arrangements will be expanded to include diagnosed conditions of alcohol use disorder and substance use disorder regardless of whether the condition is service related. My father is a legatee. He is just about to turn 90. He has been a member of Legacy since he returned from the Second World War, ironically himself very seriously injured. I can remember all through my early days the struggles he would have in trying to help one of his war widows to get a pension. He would argue that the husband's death was smoking related which in turn was related to his war service or that it was related to some other substance abuse which in turn was related to his war service. These arguments would go on for months and sometimes years while the widow was denied any real means of support. It was often a terrible business trying to argue that what the serviceman—sometimes they were ex-prisoners of war—who had come through the World War II experience alive but with serious mental or physical injuries, prematurely died of was related to his war service. We are going to do away with that sort of argument and distinction by acknowledging that there is support for someone who has been in our defence forces without having to directly relate their service to the condition. I am also very concerned that we understand—and this bill picks up this message—that it is the partners, children and sometimes the grandchildren of our Defence Force personnel who also carry the burden and impact of the mental health consequences of their loved one. This bill understands the importance of access to counselling services through the VVCS for dependants. I strongly support these measures. There are a number of Vietnam veterans in my community, and I am proudly the patron of the Goulburn Valley Vietnam Veterans. Their partners and their children talk to me about the lifelong impacts that they have experienced since their loved ones served and how their lives have been altered and often damaged by the consequences of the way we treated our Vietnam veterans, in particular immediately after that war. Scorn was poured on the heads of our Vietnam veterans as they came home, having done the task the country asked of them, proudly wearing our uniform. They were told to get out of that uniform as fast as possible and not mention their Vietnam War experience. They were often told to hide themselves away because there was a suggestion, particular through the media, that there was shame on their heads as participants in a struggle that was trying to preserve the democracy and peace of the South Vietnamese. We have in Australia come a long way in understanding that, if someone puts on a uniform for Australia, whether a man or a woman, whether Army, Navy or Air Force, and they do the heavy lifting for our nation that we ask of them as we try to support others, whether it is East Timor, a peacekeeping mission or an actual armed conflict like in Iraq or Afghanistan, we accept responsibility for the health and wellbeing of that person and their family for the rest of their lives. I certainly support the previous speaker the member for Lingiari, who was himself responsible in the portfolio for many of these matters, in saying that this is a lifelong responsibility we owe to our serving men and women and those serving men and women after they have left the service. I suppose I am particularly focused on this matter because my own son continues to be in the Army, and for a time I shared accommodation with him out at Duntroon and was regularly in conversation with his fellow serving officers. I am very aware of the pressures, the strain upon serving families as they are expected to be more than the average Australian man and woman when it comes to their decorum and the way they manage their professional as well as their after-work life. While there have been a number of studies done in the United States looking at the prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder, particularly following a number of deployments in Afghanistan, we have also been doing serious work in Australia. The University of Adelaide undertook a prevalence and wellbeing study of mental health in the Australian Defence Force in 2010. Their report was provided to the Vice Chief of the Defence Force to better inform how we should respond to mental health matters. The key findings included that 22 per cent of the ADF population—that is 11,016 people, or one in five—had experienced a mental health disorder in the previous 12 months when the study was undertaken and that the ADF lifetime prevalence rates of mental health issues are higher than in the Australian community sample that was used, but that their experience of mental health issues in the previous 12 months were similar to the community at large. Anxiety disorders were the most common mental disorder type in the ADF, with higher prevalence amongst females. We know that the working environment for women in the Defence Force has been under close scrutiny in the past few years—the business of sexual harassment has been highlighted and carefully dealt with by our most senior Defence Force personnel—and there is no doubt that women who choose to join the Army, Navy and Air Force do enter into a traditionally male domain and often the expectations of them, operating as women in those environments, can, as they found in this study, lead to a higher prevalence of common mental disorders amongst women in the Defence Force. We need to be very conscious of that and make sure the culture of our Defence Force continues to change to make it as comfortable for women as it is men as they undertake their service in uniform for our country. As I said, from 1 July 2014 the access to treatment under non-liability healthcare arrangements will be expanded to include diagnosed conditions of alcohol use disorder and substance use disorder regardless of whether the condition is service related. Also from 1 July 2014, eligibility for treatment under non-liability healthcare arrangements for members of the Defence Force with peacetime service only will be expanded by removing the current cut-off date of 7 April 1994. That is a very important change given that peacetime service can often involve very intensive and sometimes traumatic training and it can also mean that families are separated for long periods of time. It is important that we recognise the peacetime service of Defence Force personnel and the need for them to also have proper healthcare. This will mean that all those with at least three years continuous full-time peacetime service will now be eligible for non-liability healthcare for post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depressive disorders and alcohol and substance abuse disorders. From 1 July 2014 we will include support for border protection services, services in a disaster zone—whether in Australia or overseas—service as a submariner, and personnel involved in accidents while training and members medically discharged. Of course this is only right and proper, and I applaud these changes. We also have mental health services for veterans, members and their families being further improved through the expansion of the client groups eligible for counselling through the VVCS. I have referred to the fact that families also share in the impacts on their loved ones. Whether that is abuse of alcohol or other substances, whether it is anger, depression, suicide or thoughts of suicide, it is the families that must live with and try to nurture and support their loved ones. If those are their experiences, then obviously extending counselling to families is very important and an important part of this new bill. Another significant measure in the bill will enhance the operations of the Veterans' Review Board, also known as VRB. The VRB provides merit reviews of decisions relating to disability and war widower pension compensation and other entitlements under the Veterans' Entitlements Act and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. This bill will introduce a legislative framework for alternative dispute resolution processes, including conferencing and mediation. This is an important new direction and I applaud it. I want to return to the findings of the University of Adelaide's prevalence and wellbeing study in my final remarks. It is very important for us to understand that while our ADF population in many ways is very like the non-ADF population in how it responds to stress, the findings were that deployed personnel were 10 times more likely to seek care for mental health or family problems. Forty-three per cent of ADF members have multiple deployments, 19 per cent only one and 39 per cent have never been deployed. But despite how often you have been deployed, it is significant that this bill ensures that all personnel will be eligible for support and treatment, that access to support will not be confined to those who have had a certain number of deployments or if they have been deployed at all. In the previous year of the University of Adelaide study, 17.9 per cent of ADF members sought help for stress, emotional or mental health, or family problems. The problem ins that while 17.9 per cent sought help, many others chose not to seek that help because of the stigma associated with identifying yourself as anxious or perhaps considering doing yourself harm. We found in this study by the University of Adelaide that 47.6 per cent believed that they would be treated differently if they reported their mental health issues, while 26.9 per cent believed it would harm their career. I think that is a problem. We have got to change the culture in the defence forces so it is not stigmatising if you present with mental health issues or substance abuse issues. The highest rated barrier to seeking help was concern that it would reduce deployability—that was 36.9 per cent. There you have our Defence Force personnel wanting to do their job, wanting to be deployed, but aware that if they report their mental health issues that it might affect their chances of being able to be deployed, which is a very important part of their career. I applaud this bill. It is a very important one and I acknowledge the bipartisan support for it. 10:46 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I rise today to support the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Mental Health and Other Measures) Bill 2014. I believe we do in this country owe a huge deal of gratitude to our veterans and our ex-service men and women. It is so important that we recognise that we do have a duty to ensure that they are looked after in times of need. That is why I am very pleased to be supporting this piece of legislation. This bill will support the expansion of mental health services for veterans and members of the Defence Force and, importantly, their families. The mental health measures in this bill will help build on existing support already available for veterans, members and their dependents. It will also improve access to mental health services for current and former members of the Australian Defence Force and their families. It is very, very important that we focus on mental health. It is not always our focus but it is so important that we do focus on the mental wellbeing of our veterans as well as their physical wellbeing. It is also important that we focus on their families. We only have to turn the pages of history, back to conflicts of the past, where the physical and mental injuries of those who served were not recognised. We only have to look back at the Vietnam War to see the impact warfare had on those veterans' physical and mental health. However, there was not a good recognition of post-traumatic stress disorder or the debilitating effects of depression and anxiety. So many of those veterans did not get the support that they needed. This mistake made then not to support our veterans when they came back to Australia was one we should all be very concerned about. Importantly, we should make sure that this does not happen again. The reality for many veterans at that time was that they did need help. They needed help getting back into their daily lives when they returned, but the assistance they needed was ignored and it was expected they would just come back and just get on with life. That was not to be the case for so many people. It is pleasing today that we do have a focus on mental health for our veterans and families. Unfortunately, it was too late for some of those veterans in past wars who suffered so many years with what were often very private conflicts. Since 1999, more than 45,000 Australians have served overseas and put their lives at risk for this nation. In Afghanistan alone, 40 Defence personnel were killed and more than 260 wounded in action, many of them seriously. This does not recognise the figures of those who have come back but have had difficulty readjusting, that may be suffering from other physical injuries or symptoms as well as mental health symptoms. I want to focus on the mental health impact. Speaking at this month's recent AMA national conference, Navy psychiatrist Commodore Duncan Wallace said that many personnel not only suffered physical injuries and ailments but had also developed mental disorders. He said research showed anxiety disorders were more common among ADF members than the broader community, with soldiers suffering depressive disorders at twice the rate of all Australians. This is why we have a duty to support our brave service men and women and their families every step of the way, to help them through these tough times, and to offer them better access to the services they need, and importantly, when they need it. This legislation is an important step towards that. It offers improved support to veterans and their families. From 1 July 2014, access to treatment under non-liability healthcare arrangements will be expanded to include diagnosed conditions of alcohol disorder and substance use disorder, regardless of whether the condition is service related. The eligibility for treatment under non-liability healthcare arrangements for members of the Defence Force with peacetime service only will also be expanded by removing the current cut-off date of 7 April 1994. This means that all those with at least three years continuous full-time peacetime service will now be eligible for non-liability healthcare for PTSD, anxiety and depressive disorders, as well as alcohol and substance use disorders. Members who discharge before completing three years of continuous full-time service may also be eligible where discharge is on the grounds of invalidity or physical or mental incapacity to perform duties. Veterans and members who have been unsuccessful in previous liability claims may be able to access mental health treatment under the expanded non-liability healthcare initiative. This means that treatment for mental health conditions of PTSD, anxiety and depressive disorders, and alcohol and substance use disorders will be available without the need for the condition to be accepted as related to the member's service. The financial impact of the measures dealing with non-liability health care is just $14.6 million over four years. This is an important investment that should be made. It is a good investment of the taxpayers' money. This legislation also enhances the operation of the Veterans' Review Board as well as making minor improvements to Veterans' Affairs services and administration. Mental health services for veterans, members and their families will be further improved through the expansion of the client groups eligible for counselling through the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service—a service founded by Vietnam veterans. Established in 1982 to provide counselling services to Vietnam veterans, this organisation has helped Australian veterans of all conflicts and peacekeeping operations; partners; ex-partners; and dependent children of veterans and peacekeepers with issues arising from the veterans' service, and sons and daughters, regardless of age, of Vietnam veterans with issues relating to their parents' service. Services are provided by qualified psychologists or social workers who have experience working with veterans, peacekeepers and their families. Services include a wide range of treatments and programs for war and service-related mental health conditions. This bill will now help even more current and former members who have completed peacetime service to access this vital service. This includes those from border protection services, those who have served in an Australian or overseas disaster zone, members involved in training accidents, those who were medically discharged and submariners. Access to counselling services from VVCS will also be extended to partners and their dependent children, up to the age of 26, of these newly eligible groups, and to the partners, dependent children aged up to 26, and parents of members killed in service related incidents. The financial impact of this measure is likely to be $6.4 million over four years. Once again, I think it is an incredibly good investment for taxpayers to be making. It is important that this bill supports the veterans' families. The anxiety and stress that family members suffer is all too real. I had a brother who served in Afghanistan twice. I saw the anxiety it caused my mother; it became quite debilitating for her. She was constantly concerned, upset and worried about my brother while he was over there. It certainly became quite difficult for her to manage. It really has an impact on families when they send their sons and daughters overseas. We need to make sure that families are well looked after on all occasions. This bill also amends the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 to expand the circumstances under which an eligible young person is taken to be wholly dependent on a member to include those for whom the member is liable to pay child support. This legislation also makes a technical amendment to the end date for a period of service in an operational area, particularly the territories of Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore and the waters adjacent to those countries. These are common-sense measures that will support the lives of our veterans and their families. As I said, we should be very proud of the contribution of our veterans and incredibly grateful for how they have helped protect our nation and its interests. I think it is important to say that Labor has always had a proud legacy of looking after veterans and serving ADF personnel. I was very pleased that when we were in government we funded an additional $26.4 million over four years to expand access to mental health services for current and former members of the ADF and their families. We expanded eligibility for treatment of certain mental health conditions on a non-liability basis. Labor had dedicated staff from the Department of Veterans' Affairs as part of its On Base Advisory Service, which operates in more than 35 Defence bases around Australia. This is very important because stigma plays a critical role as a barrier for people getting help. Time and time again, we have seen that the stigma associated with mental health has a significant impact on people, whether they are in the ADF or the general community. Stigma stops people from accessing health. It is important that services and contact people are taken to where those people that need it are, because that will help break down some of those barriers. We have to continue to address the issue of stigma. That is why it is so important that we continue talking about the issue of mental health in our defence forces and send a signal, by providing extra services, that we understand that mental health issues can be a by-product of serving in the defence forces and that there is nothing wrong or embarrassing about getting those issues dealt with. In fact, I think a person who addresses mental issues and speaks out is braver. I am very pleased to be supporting this bill, as is Labor. This is an important step in ensuring that we are serving those who have served us. I commend the bill to the House. 10:58 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan I rise to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Mental Health and Other Measures) Bill 2014. This legislation will improve the mental health services for veterans and their families by expanding eligibility for non-liability healthcare for veterans and ex-service people, as well as access to the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Services. The challenges facing the nation from veterans' battles with mental illness are real and our nation must prepare for those challenges. The coalition is fully committed to working with the veteran and wider community to ensure veterans needing treatment for mental health conditions can access that treatment. It has been widely recognised that military personnel may experience mental health issues following deployment. Although much attention is paid to post-traumatic stress disorder—PTSD—evidence suggests that depression, anxiety, and alcohol-use disorders are just as common. After the Vietnam War the Australian government established the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service—VVCS. This service aimed to provide help for psychological and emotional difficulties as a consequence of military service. Today, VVCS is a primary provider of Australian community based mental health services to veterans and their families. The service was recently renamed the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service in recognition of the broader client group including contemporary, post-Vietnam, veterans and family members. VVCS operates within the Department of Veterans Affairs' mental health policy framework focusing on improving access to a comprehensive range of mental health services for veterans and their family members. There are currently 17 VVCS centres across Australia that provide both individual counselling and group programs to Australian veterans, their families, and eligible Australian Defence Force personnel. Services are provided for a wide range of war and service-related issues such as relationship and family problems, alcohol and other drugs problems and psychological problems such as PTSD, depression, anxiety, problematic anger and sleep difficulties. Access to these services is based on self and/or family member referral, or medical practitioner referral. Counselling is provided by registered psychologists or social workers across a range of programs that include individual therapy, couples/family therapy and case management. Informal client feedback indicates that the counselling interventions provided by VVCS are effective, but there has never been an independent, longitudinal examination of the mental health outcomes. As Paul MacPhie, the vice-president at my local VVCS at Toowong said, 'There is certainly a need to be looking at improved mental health services and support for our veterans, especially those now returning from the Middle East.' The Toowong VVCS provide a wonderful service, and they say that these amendments are much needed. The United States observed that veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom were returning with high rates of mental health disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, substance abuse disorders and a sequel of traumatic brain injury—which is a pathological condition resulting from a disease. Of those veterans who enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration, VHA, services from 2002 to 2008, 37 per cent received mental health diagnoses, including 22 per cent with PTSD, 17 percent with depression and 10 percent with substance use disorders. These main mental health conditions can limit readiness for civilian employment as well as contribute to impaired job performance among those working. Available data shows that returning Middle East veterans have considerably higher unemployment rates than people in the general population. It is suspected that rates of unemployment in this veteran population are even higher because of mental health conditions. Thus, while most Middle East Veterans are young adults at a developmental stage emphasising work or career development, many are experiencing unemployment and concomitant mental health challenges that may contribute to their unemployment. With high rates of mental health conditions and unemployment, and the over-representation of veterans in the homeless population, effective vocational services to help veterans return to the workforce and increase income are urgently needed. Homeless veterans cite mental health treatment and job assistance among their top six unmet needs. VHA has provided vocational services within its mental health programs since 1976, guided by the concept of work as a bridge to recovery from the effects of mental health disorders and as having a necessary role in the adult development stage of life. In Australia, the Department of Veterans' Affairs has been quite proactive in assisting with veterans' mental illness and supporting them to gain employment. This bill is an extension of that support. As at March 2013, the department was supporting about 148,700 veterans with one or more service related disabilities under the Veteran's Entitlements Act 1986, the Military and Compensation Act 2004 or the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. Of these, about 46,400 had an accepted mental health disability. The most common conditions are generalised anxiety disorder, depression, stress disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorder and alcohol dependence. Some have more than one accepted disability. While veterans of contemporary operations currently constitute only a small percentage of the overall mental health cohort, they are a growing number and must be considered in overall data patterns and trends. The coalition government has a four-pillar approach to veterans affairs: One, recognising the unique nature of military service; two, maintaining a stand-alone Department of Veteran' Affairs; three, tackling mental health challenges facing veterans and their families; and four, providing adequate advocacy and welfare support for veterans and their families. This legislation assists the government to deliver its agenda for veterans and their families. I commend the action of this bill—standing up for those who stood up for us, our rights and our freedom. 11:05 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I rise to speak on the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Mental Health and Other Measures) Bill 2014 and, in doing so, acknowledge the important role that the military plays in my Riverina electorate. Indeed, my home town of Wagga Wagga is home to three military bases: the Army Recruit Training Battalion at Kapooka, the Royal Australian Air Force Base and, indeed a Navy base. Even though we are a long, long way from sea water, we have an important Navy training base which does a lot of good work with HMAS Albatross at Nowra and works in conjunction with the RAAF base at Forest Hill. I speak to a number of veterans and their families about post-traumatic stress disorder and about the stresses and strains that Army, Air Force and Navy life place upon them and their families. When they are serving, as well as when they finish their service, many do feel the strain of that service. Certainly these people place their lives on the line on behalf of our nation each and every day when they are in uniform. We as a parliament send those men and women to conflict, to places where many of us would not like to go—certainly places where many of us would not like to visit, let alone take up active combat participation in those places. It is incumbent upon us as a parliament—as the people who send them to war and into combat zones—to look after them during their time of service and after their service has finished. The Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Mental Health and Other Measures) Bill 2014 does this in part. As well, the coalition's other measure regarding proper and fair indexation has also gone to helping veterans who have served and are serving our country so well. This legislation will improve and enhance mental health services for veterans and their families by enlarging eligibility for non-liability health care for veterans and ex-service people as well as providing access to the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service, the VVCS. There are a series of other minor amendments to legislation affecting veterans and their families. The bill implements recommendations from the review of military compensation arrangements and other measures announced in the 2013-14 budget. These measures are noncontroversial and they are very beneficial in nature. The government has a four-pillar approach to veterans affairs. Firstly, recognising the unique nature of military service; secondly, maintaining a standalone Department of Veterans' Affairs; thirdly, tackling mental health challenges facings veterans and their families; and, finally, providing adequate advocacy and welfare support for veterans and their families. This legislation assists the coalition to deliver its agenda for veterans and their families. I might digress a little to talk about Kapooka, which I mentioned before. On 21 May 1945—just months from the end of World War II—a tragic event occurred at the engineers training base at Kapooka. While being shown demolition and explosive procedures, an enormous explosion occurred in a dugout killing 26 personnel. The Daily Advertiser—the local newspaper—described the funerals which followed as 'Wagga's saddest day'—and indeed it was. The Kapooka camp had been established by the Australian government as the main Royal Australian Engineers training facility in eastern Australia just three years earlier. On 21 May 1945, two instructors were taking 26 young conscript sappers through training in the use of explosives. They were located in a dugout, where men usually waited while an explosion occurred above ground level. This and two other underground rooms were located a large distance away from the Kapooka buildings—towards today’s suburb of San Isidore. An enormous explosion occurred in the dugout at about 2.45 pm and 24 sappers died plus the two instructors. Two men who were just outside survived. The sound of the explosion could be heard in the city of Wagga Wagga, more than 10 kilometres away. If that event happened today you could just imagine what would transpire. It would be of enormous consequence to this parliament, to our nation and to the military. This event occurred during a time of conflict, the Second World War and, sadly, it did not receive the attention, the respect and the dignity that it should have. It was only in recent years that a formal memorial has been placed near the site where this occurred. The actual site is now in private farming hands, but the memorial is just a stone's throw from the actual site. Each and every year now on 21 May Kapooka and the community of Wagga Wagga come together to acknowledge and to commemorate that dreadful event. I say this in the context of this debate because the stress, strain and mental anguish that surely followed that awful occurrence back in 1945—when times were, admittedly, a little different—would be considered far differently if it happened today. The families back in the 1940s and even the decades after, sadly, did not receive the due respect, treatment and provisions that the current government would provide. Indeed, all members across the House would acknowledge that such an event deserves to have the respect and certainly the financial provisions for those affected families. But, of course, life was much different back in those days. We talk about World War I and we talk about World War II and the tens of thousands of Australians—indeed, 102,000 Australians—who have died in conflict. But in World War I and World War II many of the people who came back were expected to get on with their life as per normal. They were expected to just fit back into society, fit back into their families and fit back into the social fabric of society. We now know that they must have suffered the same sorts of stresses and strains that our current serving men and women feel. But, as I say, life is very different these days and emotions are different. We as a government and we as a parliament—because I know this has cross House support—should treat our former military personnel with utmost respect and provide the financial assistance, the counselling and the care that they deserve. They do, as I said, place their lives on the line each and every day. I stand here giving this speech with the Parliamentary Secretary for to the Minister for Defence alongside me. I know the efforts that he has gone to in his role as the parliamentary secretary for defence to ensure that fairness is provided to our veterans. I know the role he is playing to ensure that our service people are well catered for, not only whilst they are still wearing the uniform but also when their retirement has come and they have packed the uniform away and their career is done and dusted and they are getting on with their life. He has spoken to many, many families and many, many people to see what he can do in his capacity as parliamentary secretary to help them to adjust to normal civilian life. The Abbott coalition government has delivered on its 2013 election promise—indeed, it was also our election promise in 2010—to the 57,000 military superannuants and their families. This is a responsibility that I know the parliamentary secretary takes very seriously. It is certainly something that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator the Hon. Michael Ronaldson, and Assistant Minister for Defence, the Hon. Stuart Robert, the member for Fadden, also take very seriously. On 27 March this year they welcomed the passage of the Defence Force Retirement Benefits Legislation Amendment (Fair Indexation) Bill 2014 through the Senate, giving effect to the coalition's commitment to give veterans a fair go—which is also what this legislation is doing. That day, 27 March, was a day of fairness. It showed, it exemplified and it underlined that the government had fulfilled its pledge to give veterans the compensation and the indexation that they deserved. 'We made a promise and we have kept it to the letter,' Senator Ronaldson said, in announcing the fact that it had gone through the Senate and had become legislation. From 1 July 2015 Defence Force Retirement Benefits Scheme—DFRB—and Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme—DFRDB—military superannuants aged 55 and over will have their pensions indexed in the same way as age and service pensions. The fair indexation provisions will also extend to reversionary widow pensioners aged 55 years and over. This is very important. It has been a long-fought campaign for justice, for equity and for fairness. Bert Hoebee, a former deputy commandant at Kapooka, has made innumerable representations to me, via both email and telephone and certainly in person, to ensure that their pensions were fairly indexed. He would argue now that it still does not go far enough to providing what they require and what they need, but it is a big step in the right direction. It is certainly something that we have delivered upon as a coalition government and certainly something that the previous government had not delivered upon, despite their promises. At the time of this superannuation indexation going through the Senate, the Assistant Minister for Defence, the member for Fadden, said that from 1 July this year military superannuants and their families would benefit from the change in indexation arrangements—and I say not before time. The Assistant Minister for Defence further said: The passing of this legislation today confirms this Government’s recognition of the unique nature of military service and the sacrifices military personnel and their families make on behalf of all Australians. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence, who is at the table, would certainly agree. This legislation is an investment in fairness. It will ensure the purchasing power of DFRB and DFRDB military superannuation pensions is maintained, which is something that Bert Hoebee, retired now from the Army but certainly not retired from active service of sorts, was stressing to me all along. Through the passing of this legislation, veterans and their families have finally been delivered the fair go that they deserve and that this parliament should have provided many, many years ago. The Veterans Affairs Legislation Amendment (Mental Health and Other Measures) Bill expands eligibility for non-liability health care to current and former members of the Australian Defence Force with three years continuous full-time peacetime service from 7 April 1994. It addresses an anomaly in eligibility and will provide early intervention treatment. The high rates of comorbidity between existing mental health conditions and alcohol and substance use disorders are a driver for extending treatment coverage of these conditions. We heard the member for Ryan a little earlier talk about this very fact. Schedule 2 of the bill increases access to counselling from the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service. The previous budget allocated $6.4 million to expand services to include members of the Australian Defence Force with service in border protection roles as well as submarine and disaster zone personnel, along with their families. Newly eligible members and former members will be advised of the changes once they are passed by parliament, and hopefully that will be very soon. These people, who put their lives on the line, who put their lives on hold and their families on hold for the time that they provide such sacrifice and dedication on behalf of our nation, deserve to know very quickly that this legislation is going through. Schedule 3 takes away the requirement for Commonwealth seniors health card holders to reapply for their card if they travel overseas for more than six weeks. Currently when a CSHC holder travels overseas for more than that period their associated seniors supplement is cancelled. They must reclaim it, as well as their CSHC, upon their return to regain the benefit that is provided. The amendments will suspend payment for a six-week period and reinstate it upon the recipient's return to Australia, and that is necessary. Schedule 4 makes a series of changes to the Veterans' Review Board. These measures introduce alternative dispute resolution to help define the issues in dispute and identify any additional evidence required for the appeal. That too is important. The amendments also intend to give the Veterans' Review Board greater case management powers to resolve matters before it more efficiently, and that is necessary. Schedule 6 aligns the wholly dependent status of an eligible young person not living with the member but for whom the member is liable to pay child support. Finally, schedule 7 will again allow the Chief Executive Officer of Comcare to be nominated for appointment to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission, which rectifies inadvertent disqualification of the CEO from nomination for appointment—which occurred in 2012 and arising from changes to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. This legislation is important. Our military people do have unique responsibilities to our nation. We, as a parliament, have unique responsibilities to them. Fair indexation has gone part of the way to providing our responsibility back to those veterans. This particular legislation enhances that. It is important. Mental health is a big factor for these people. I commend the bill to the House. 11:20 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I want to pick up on a line that the member for Riverina just mentioned in his address to parliament, which for me goes to the essence of what the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Mental Health and Other Measures) Bill 2014 is about. This bill is about making sure that we care for our service men and women not only when they are wearing a uniform but also when they are not. That, for me, is the essence of what this bill is about. It has been mentioned that a big part of this bill is to improve the access of our service men and women—both current and former members of the Australian Defence Force and their families—to mental health services. This is one of the four pillars of our plan for veterans that we took to the last election. From July, access to treatment under non-liability healthcare arrangements will be expanded to include diagnosed conditions of alcohol and drug use disorder regardless of whether people think that condition was service related. Changes contained in this bill also mean that all those with at least three years continuous full-time peacetime service will now also be eligible for non-liability health care. It is very well documented now, and a lot of research has been done into post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depressive disorders and alcohol and substance use disorders. I want to digress just quickly. This legislation is obviously going to have more effect and be of more import to our recent vets, our young vets. There are probably a couple of hundred young vets who live in my community, but there are also older vets. Probably a year or so ago, I was at a Vietnam veterans dinner, acknowledging the contribution they made to our society all those years ago. I was sitting on a table with four Vietnam vets and their wives. I had known most of these guys for decades but had never really sat down with them and spoken about their stories in relation to their service in Vietnam. We know about these stories, we know they are real, but it was quite humbling to hear them. Obviously, these were guys older than me that I had known from around our community. They were contributors to our community; they were good people in our community. Not by design but just by coincidence they all told me their stories—what happened to them in Vietnam. These were their stories. One of them I knew had a bit of a gammy arm. He had come home from Vietnam but he had been shot in the arm. Obviously, that meant he was disabled in that arm for the rest of his life. He had had a very successful football career. Even without the full use of his arm, he had been a successful businessman in our community. He had suffered a lot physically from this wound, but a lot of people in the community would not have been aware of that. The next veteran I spoke to at the table—again, he just started talking about his time in Vietnam—was again a guy I had known a long time. He was alive solely by luck. He was in a jeep that got blown up. No-one else in the jeep lived. The only reason he lived was that he was thrown so far into the air. The shrapnel and everything flying around killed everybody else, but he lived because by the time he came back down and hit the ground it had all dissipated. He had been deeply affected by this. The third guy I spoke to that night told me—and you could tell he was still struggling very much with this experience in many ways—he had gone into the jungle with 19 of his fellow servicemen. Two days later, only six of them came out. The rest did not come out, and he was still very deeply affected by that. The fourth vet on that table had also returned from Vietnam with a serious physical wound. Maybe it was because it was a dinner honouring them and their fellow soldiers who served in that war, but all of them were very happy and very emotional sharing those stories, and it was very emotional to hear them. We have got better at this, but we know that when they came back from Vietnam we did not do a lot to help them. Since then, we have done a lot of good work in diagnosing the conditions that they come back with. It was interesting that all of these guys said they had to be active to maintain their health of mind as best they could. One of them would get in a kayak every morning and just paddle. He said he had to keep moving. Another said that he just was not coping that well when he first got back. They had a young family. They got in a caravan and they just started driving. They all had this physical need to move. They all had their own ways of trying to cope with their experience. The effect that such experiences had on those men was very real, and it was a privilege that they shared their stories with me. The bill before us also means that members who discharge before completing their three years continuous full-time service may also be eligible for non-liability health care, where discharge is on the grounds of invalidity or physical and mental capacity to perform duties. This means treatment for mental health conditions such as PTSD, anxiety and depressive disorders, and substance abuse will be available without the need for these conditions to be accepted as related to the member's service. Again, that is very important. PTSD affects around one million Australians in any year, and 12 per cent of Australians will experience PTSD in their lifetime. Anyone can develop PTSD following a dramatic event. As I said, our medical and mental health professionals are much better at diagnosing and treating this. Obviously, it is not hard to work out that people who experience active service are more at risk of PTSD. They are trained to be at war. There can be a lot of triggers for PTSD; it can be a noise, it can be a sound, it can be a smell. A lot of things will trigger in them an anxiety response. After asking our men and women to serve their nation in theatres of war like Iraq and Afghanistan, we owe it to them to provide the support needed to beat this disorder. Unfortunately, PTSD has already taken too many of the lives of our service people. It is a very sad fact that the ADF has lost more than 60 members to suicide since 2003—about half the number of deaths of members on the front lines of Afghanistan over the same period. These deaths are not mere statistics. They were men and women who served our nation well. They were fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, brothers and sisters. And, while they are not counted as such, they are in effect casualties of war. This was the very unfortunate experience of a well-known family in our community, the Wood family, from the Coraki-Casino district. Last May, I attended the funeral of David Wood, who had done two tours of Afghanistan and suffered from depression afterwards. Again, the great tragedy of this is that no-one really knew how depressed he was. His family, a good family, did not realise how depressed he was. He left his family home in Casino one morning and, after searches, his body was found close to his home two weeks later. The whole community was grief stricken by that event. I have a good friend whose son went to Afghanistan. Her line is: 'I sent them my brave young man and they have given me back a wounded soul.' She is always on the lookout for him and watches him closely. We as a nation must do whatever we can to help our young men and women who return from front lines with these mental health disorders. This bill also recognises that peacetime service has its own risks in relation to the exposure to traumatic events and the impact on mental health. It extends the eligibility for counselling through the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service to include, among others, members who serve in border protection, disaster zones and those involved in training accidents. Counselling—and I think this is a really important element of it too—is extended to partners and dependent children of these newly eligible groups, as well as the partners, dependent children and parents of service members who are killed in service-related incidents. We know that when these people return to their families and to their homes, they are not same people that left and this can affect the immediate family and, indeed, the extended family. Another significant measure in the bill will enhance the operations of the Veterans' Review Board, also known as the VRB. The VRB provides merit reviews of decisions relating to disability and war widow pensions, compensation and other entitlements under the Veterans' Entitlements Act and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. The bill will introduce a legislative framework for alternative dispute resolution processes including conferencing and mediation. Additional improvements relating to case management and the administrative and procedural practices of the board are expected to enable more effective management of the functions of the board. Some might view the changes in this bill as 'legalising' the board or turning the board into a replica of the Administration Appeals Tribunal. This is not the case. These changes are designed to give the board more modern and efficient processes. They will enable the board to apply alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to resolve matters more quickly and satisfactorily so as to prevent the need for hearings in many cases. There was extensive consultation with ex-service organisations in 2013 on these matters and there is broad support for these reforms. I know that many of the RSL groups and sub-branches and veterans in my community gave great input to this and I thank them for that. Another important aspect of this bill is that it relieves the burden on service people who have the Commonwealth seniors health card or are on seniors supplement when they travel overseas for more than six weeks. Currently, one of the eligibility requirements for seniors supplement requires the person to be the holder of a Commonwealth seniors health card and, if that person travels overseas for more than six weeks, to regain eligibility for the seniors supplement the person must reclaim the Commonwealth seniors health card, which requires a written claim and proof of the person's income details. The amendments will mean that cardholders will be eligible for the seniors supplement on their return from overseas without needing to go through this bureaucratic process. This bill also expands the circumstances under which an eligible young person is taken to be wholly dependent on a member under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. The expansion will include an eligible young person for whom the member is liable to pay child support. These eligible young persons will have the same wholly dependent status as an eligible young person who lives with a member. It should be noted that these situations are not exhaustive and other circumstances that meet wholly dependent status for an eligible young person will continue to be determined on a case-by-case basis. These are a couple of the pillars we took to the last election concerning what we want to do with our veterans. Obviously, one important one was the fair indexation of DFRDB, which has happened. It was very important and we are very happy to have met that promise. When we are talking about budgets, I think that it is very important to acknowledge with this bill and obviously with the indexation of the DFRDB, that there is a lot of government money going out into the community. It was mentioned by the previous speaker, the member for Riverina, that this government, or any government, of Australia cannot do too much to support our veterans. These people—and I have given you some examples earlier—have paid service to this country like no other person has. They have literally put their life on the line. They have very often been physically wounded and, unfortunately at worst, been mentally disturbed by the service that they have given our country. So when they come back, any government—and I am very proud to include this government—cannot do too much for them. This bill with the adjustments and amendments that it is making to the provision of mental health services and for fair indexation and the other measures that I have mentioned, I commend to the House. I think that this is a very important part of what we are doing in this chamber to legislate to improve the health, physical and mental, of our veterans. Thank you. 11:34 Mr EWEN JONES 96430 Herbert I rise to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Mental Health and Other Measures) Bill 2014. Stress is everywhere. I see that there is a bunch of schoolkids up behind the glass and I say g'day to them up there as we speak about this. I would like to ask them a question. There will be kids up there who have left home for the very first time. Some of their parents may not be all that happy about their kids being away for this length of time and may be suffering stress. If you kids up there think about what it must be like for your parents to worry about you, then that is stress. This is what this bill is about. But imagine what it was like in Afghanistan where the soldiers suffered green-on-blue attacks where, inside the perimeter of the camp where they should feel safe, insurgents got in and just shot people up. They killed a number of them and wounded a number of them. So when you woke up in the morning—and you think about this—and you wanted to go to the bathroom or go downstairs for breakfast, you had to first think about putting on your body armour. You had to first think that if you stepped outside your tent or outside your quarters, you might be shot. That is stress. That will affect your mental health. They say that one in five adults during their lifetime will suffer their mental health being challenged. That is just one in five of us who just go through normal jobs with normal stress levels and all that sort of thing. When you put those levels into what it must be like in the Defence Force, especially the serving Defence Force where they are put in situations of extreme stress, think about what the levels of challenge must be. As a society we must understand that we have just been through the longest military engagement our country has ever seen. Those of us who have been here for the last parliament and before will know what it is like to do condolence motions on soldiers who have not made it home, who have paid the ultimate sacrifice so that we may have the life we have here. The stress levels in their lives and the lives of their families are through the roof, and we must look after them. I am proud to say that I am the member for Herbert; I am the member for the great City of Townsville. And in that great city, Townsville, we have Lavarack Barracks, the largest Army barracks and the largest Army installation in the country. We are also home to RAAF Base Garbutt. We also have Ross Island Barracks, where 10FSB is housed. We will be a major customer of the new LHD craft coming out, with the Army and the Navy working together. We are a proud defence city. Part of that is that we must face these things in our society all the time. There have been issues recently where people who have been discharged from the ADF and who have served overseas have suffered breakdowns and the like, and when people go down they look for anything they can to help them in the short term. Too often, that is drugs and alcohol, which only exacerbate the problem. We are aware that there are issues out there, and we as a society are doing what we can. Townsville, as a community, are doing as much as we possibly can. I will be saying a few 'thank yous' through this speech, and the first is to DHA, for the work that the Defence Housing Authority does in Townsville and the way that they have worked since the early nineties and the Somalia campaign. They have taken defence housing out of set suburbs and put it in amongst everybody in the town, and that has been a wonderful gift not only for defence families but also for those people who are not defence related. I have never served, and it never even crossed my mind that I would look good in a uniform, but I do understand what it is like to be a defence family. As a child, you come through life with a collection of acquaintances, as opposed to great friends, and a great collection of school uniforms as your father, or mother or guardians go around the country to serve their nation and to improve their own career. So all the way through, the family unit is under stress. Carol, the wife of the previous Brigadier, Shane Caughey, who is now a major general in Canberra, shifted something like 18 times, and Shane was there for one of those. When you are shifting your family around like that all the time, they are doing it on their own. And you have to worry about what is happening with your family; it is not just the veterans themselves. So the ability to make defence families part of our community has been a great benefit not only to the city but to defence communities. The parliamentary secretary summed it up pretty well before. They used to call PTSD 'shell-shock'. As a society, we used to deal with it by sending them to the pub and if they could not fix it up there we would send them to the fringes of society. That is wrong. Now, we look at them and try to make it better and better. Defence will always tell you that they are not perfect and that they miss things. But they do get better; every time there is an engagement it is also a training exercise for them when it comes to this and the things we do with veterans' health when they come back home. The Vietnam veterans will always tell you that they were brought in at midnight and told, 'Get out of here before the sun comes up. Make sure that you are out of here before anyone can see you.' The way that we dealt with them then as opposed to the way that we deal with them now is different. Now, we bring them back, we debrief them, we make sure that they are okay, we check them all the way through and try as much as we can. Mental health is a major issue in Australia. It affects every corner of our society. It affects this place; my good friend the Minister for Trade and Investment, Andrew Robb, wrote a book about his challenges when it comes to mental health—when it comes to being able to deal with your family and being able to work through it. Black Dog Days is a very good read for those people who have actually had to front up to these sorts of things. There have been all sorts of people going through this and I will say now that I am on antidepressants, and have been for an awfully long time. It got to the stage where my children were afraid of me, and my wife had to sit me down and tell me that the kids were afraid of me. That is very confronting. My wife called me 'Cleopatra' because I was the 'queen of denial', and when I went to the doctor I was still fully expecting that my doctor would sit down and say that it was Linda's—my wife—fault, that there was nothing wrong with me and that it was if only my wife would be nice to me. But you have to face up to these things about what has to happen. I see the assistant defence minister walking into the chamber now and say that this is the way that defence will improve and this is the role that we can play. That green-on-blue attack that I spoke of in Afghanistan: one of the soldiers was wounded. He was in hospital by himself—alone in a ward. He said that he could not get better properly if he were not with his family. His wife was coming in, but she was still having to deal with the family and still having to deal with getting kids to school while her husband was in hospital. He had a badly injured leg—badly shot up. He said, 'If I can get out of hospital and go home and finish my recuperation there then No. 1, I will be back to work soon; No. 2, I will be able to help a little bit around the house; and No. 3, my kids will see me.' But as soon as he left the hospital his benefits dried up. I spoke to the then shadow assistant minister for defence, and in an address in reply to a ministerial statement he raised the issue with the then Minister for Defence, Stephen Smith. Stephen Smith said, 'That sounds like something we can work on,' and between the two sides of parliament's we actually did something good on this. I think that is what was good about it. When it comes to the people who serve in defence it comes down to the type of person. This is why we must treat mental health in defence differently. When you are lining up to be a soldier, an airmen or a sailor and you have that type A personality then you are bulletproof. You are a strong person, whether you are male or female and even if you are behind a desk: you still fit that personality type. It is very hard for them to admit that something is wrong. You will find that these sorts of people will run around with sore knees and ankles. You will find that when you are an infantry man you carry a 50-kilo pack for most of your life. So we are talking about a very particular type of person. It comes to admitting that something may be wrong—and anyone can see when blood is pouring down their sleeves or out of their leg—when they have to sit down and think that something might be wrong inside their heads and you cannot actually see it. Through the sheer will of being a member of our Defence Force they are able to just chuck it out and get on with it. But they may have an issue, and it takes a great deal of passion, common sense and hurt actually to confront it. That is what this bill does. That is what we have to do. I would like to read something said by Corporal Ben Roberts-Smith when he attended a Mates for Mates facility opening in Townsville. He is a VC winner and he said these words: … the centre has opened at the right time. Now that our Defence men and women are home from Afghanistan, many need our support more than ever. We don't want them suffering in silence with problems such as post-traumatic stress disorder which can be treated and overcome. The budget places the mental health needs of our veterans at the centre of the government's commitment to the veteran community. Senator Ronaldson's four-pillar approach to veterans' affairs includes: recognising the unique nature of military service, maintaining a stand-alone Department of Veterans' Affairs, tackling the mental challenges facing veterans and their families, and providing adequate advocacy and welfare support for veterans and their families. Note that both the last two clauses included 'and their families'. I want to give a special mention in this speech to the staff at the Department of Veterans' Affairs in Townsville, especially the ones we deal with, who are fantastic, and especially those in the VVFCS, the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service, who are in my building. I do not know how we can ever repay the work that they do. This government recognises that more effort is needed. The government is proceeding with the implementation of a number of mental health initiatives from 1 July 2014, so this is right upon us. This year we will be spending more than $166 million on dedicated mental health services for veterans and their families. We have all sorts of people doing all sorts of things in recognition of this. There is Mates for Mates. There is Ian Bone from ANZAC Warriors who recently did a walk from Townsville to Proserpine. You do not choose the time when your mental health will be challenged. No soldier, now airman, no sailor chooses to say, 'I will be affected now.' Some of these things will manifest for years and years and years. We must, as a society, understand that these things may happen and will happen. They will happen in our streets, in our families, in our schools. What we must do is recognise that this is part of life, post Afghanistan. We as a parliament must be prepared to support those who have put themselves in harm's way to help us. You do not have to be on the front line to suffer PTSD. As I said before, the Green on Blue attack in Afghanistan was the thing that really brought home to me just how stressful it must be if you are walking target. If you are overseas in an action, whether you are behind the lines or on the lines, if you are wearing a uniform you are target. We have to recognise that we have put a lot of people in harm's way—and there will be a bill for that. We have to be up-front with these people and assist them on their journey back to health. I have said to anybody who deals with mental health that depression and anxiety are tunnels through which you go, not caves in which you live. That is the key here. If you can diagnose it early, if you can be up-front about it and open about the challenge then you can get through. I know in the case of the sergeant who got his leg shot—I do not want to use names—that his wife carried the can. His wife was fantastic in dealing with us and she never let up and she never forgot. When they finally got their benefits back, as we promised they would—and that came through under the last government, which should be recognised as well—she came and said thank you. That is the key here, that we are in this together. This is a very serious bill and it is very close to home for me, for my city and for my community. I think it should be very close to home for this entire parliament. We make some tough decisions in here and we have to live with some of those things for a long time. They say Eisenhower stressed more over a three-foot putt than he did over sending troops in on D-Day. I doubt that very much. This is a great bill and it should be supported. I thank the House. 11:49 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden This bill, the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Mental Health and Other Measures) Bill 2014, will give effect to important initiatives that address mental health challenges for veterans and members of the ADF and their families. Tackling mental health challenges for veterans, members and their families is a key pillar of the government's plan for veterans affairs. At the last election, unlike those opposite, we released a sound, detailed and considered policy for veterans and their families built around four pillars: firstly, recognising the unique nature of military service; secondly, maintaining a stand-alone Department of Veterans' Affairs; thirdly, tackling the mental health challenges of veterans and their families; and, fourthly, supporting veterans through adequate advocacy and welfare services. As the Minister for Veterans' Affairs has said, the government's decisions and actions will be underpinned by the unique nature of military service. It is a theme that has come through very strongly from those on our side speaking in this debate, and I certainly acknowledge the member for Herbert for his outstanding contribution and his very personal and heartfelt words as he is concerned about the serving men and women in his electorate. It is for that reason that, in addition to measures to improve mental health being funded in the budget and enabled by this legislation, the government is also: exempting gold and white treatment card holders from the $7 co-payment to see a GP; reimbursing veterans who are eligible for the Veterans' Pharmaceutical Reimbursement Scheme from any additional out-of-pocket expenses arising from the increase to the pharmaceutical co-payment; restoring advocacy and welfare funding that was cut by those opposite, increasing by $4 million over the forward estimates funding for the Building Excellence in Support and Training, BEST, program; and delivering our commitment to index DFRB and DFRDB military superannuation pensions by CPI, PBLCI and MTAWE from 1 July 2014 for superannuants aged 55 and over. Unlike what is being suggested by those opposite, the government is not cutting pensions nor taking away entitlements in the budget. This legislation is proof positive of the government's commitment to veterans' mental health and to further strengthening our world-leading repatriation system. Each year, DVA spends more than $166 million on dedicated mental health programs for veterans and their families. This is part of the government's $12.3 billion commitment to veterans which includes more than $6 billion on income support and compensation pensions and more than $5 billion on health care. The mental health needs of veterans and their families are at the forefront of the government's commitment to the veteran community, providing: greater support through the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service for ex-serving members and their families;    enhanced treatment paths for diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression, without having to establish that their condition is related to their service; access to treatment for diagnosed alcohol and substance abuse disorders; and availability of a new physical and mental health assessment for ex-service members, to be delivered through Medicare. These initiatives build on our commitment to the mental health of our veterans made at the 2013 election and the establishment of the Prime Ministerial Advisory Council on Veterans' Mental Health announced earlier this year. I will elaborate further on each of these important measures. Mental health services for veterans and members will be strengthened through greater access to non-liability health care and to the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service, the VVCS. Through these arrangements, the government pays for mental health treatment for eligible veterans and members without the need to establish that their mental health condition is related to their service. This means they will be able to receive treatment for these conditions even though the condition is not service related. Currently these arrangements include treatment for diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression. From 1 July 2014, eligible veterans and members of the Australian Defence Force with diagnosed conditions of alcohol use disorder or substance use disorder will have access to treatment for these conditions through non-liability healthcare arrangements. Also from 1 July this year, non-liability healthcare arrangements will be extended to members with at least three years continuous full-time peacetime service that finishes on or after 7 April 1994. The second mental health initiative in this bill will expand the client groups eligible for counselling through the VVCS. From 1 July 2014, current and former serving members with certain peacetime service and their families will be eligible for such counselling. This includes border protection service, service in a disaster zone either in Australia or overseas, service as a submariner and personnel involved in training accidents and members medically discharged. Access to counselling services from the VVCS will also be extended to partners and their dependent children, up to the age of 26, of these newly eligible groups and to the partners, dependent children aged up to 26, and parents of members killed in service related incidents. These measures will assist these groups and former serving members to seek treatment and service earlier, which has the potential to prevent or minimise the negative impacts of mental health conditions. Another significant measure in the bill will enhance the operations of the Veterans' Review Board, or the VRB. The bill introduces a legislative framework for alternative dispute resolution processes including conferencing and mediation, which avoids the need for a costly hearing. Additional improvements relating to case management and the administrative and procedural practices of the board are expected to enable more effective management of the functions of the board. These changes are designed to give the board more modern and efficient processes. Alternative dispute resolution processes encourage early identification and clarification of issues and the gathering and consideration of necessary evidence aimed at resolving the appeal at the earliest possible stage. Where a matter goes to a hearing, the same informal and non-legalistic approach to hearings will continue, appreciated by many in the veteran community. There is broad support among the ex-service organisations for these reforms. Amendments in the bill to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act will expand the circumstances under which an eligible young person is taken to be wholly dependent on a member. The expansion will cover an eligible young person for whom the member is liable to pay child support. This will mean that an eligible young person who lives with a member and an eligible young member for whom the member is liable to pay child support will have the same wholly dependent status under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. I would point out that these situations are not exhaustive and other eligible young persons may be determined to be wholly dependent on a member, on a case-by-case basis. This reflects the government's care for children of veterans. The bill will also act on the advice of the Department of Defence and change the end date for a period of service in an operational area in schedule 2 of the VEA, the Veterans' Entitlements Act. This change will not affect the entitlements of veterans. Further amendments to the MRCA will enable the Chief Executive of Comcare to be nominated for appointment to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission. This measure rectifies the inadvertent disqualification in 2012 of the Chief Executive of Comcare from nomination for appointment to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission. The amendments reinstate the original intention of the MRCA so that the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission may benefit from the expertise of a member with whole-of-government knowledge on workers compensation issues. Amendments relating to the Commonwealth seniors health card and seniors supplement will reduce the administrative burden on clients who travel overseas for more than six weeks. Currently, one of the eligibility requirements for the Commonwealth seniors health card is that the person must be in Australia or temporarily overseas for less than six weeks. If that person temporarily travels overseas for more than six weeks, the person must reapply for the Commonwealth seniors health card on their return to Australia in order for payment of seniors supplement to recommence. This requires a written claim and proof of the person's income details. The amendment will mean that cardholders will not lose eligibility for the Commonwealth seniors health card if they travel overseas temporarily for more than six weeks. However, eligibility for seniors supplement will still cease as a new eligibility provision will be introduced for the senior supplement, requiring the person to be in Australia or temporarily overseas for less than six weeks. On return to Australia, the person will simply need to notify the department of their return, with no need to lodge a new claim. This government is committed to reducing red tape and this measure will help older Australians to access benefits from the Australian government. The measures in the bill will benefit veterans, members of our Defences Force and the families of our military personnel. The bill achieves this by giving effect to additional treatments and services for mental health conditions and support for mental wellbeing. It will also improve the operations of the Veterans' Review Board by legislating a framework for proven alternative dispute resolution processes and provide easier access to the Commonwealth seniors health card for cardholders who travel overseas for more than six weeks. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Third Reading 4824 11:59 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014 4824

Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014

Second Reading 4824 12:00 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga It is a great pleasure to rise and speak on paid parental leave again in this House. It is a policy area that has been very close to my heart for many years. Of course, it was Labor that introduced this country's first-ever national paid parental leave scheme, in January 2011. I was very pleased to be the minister responsible at the time. A fair and affordable paid parental leave scheme is one that serves the interests of working women right across the country and based on solid economics—solid economics and policy design by the Productivity Commission and extensive consultation. It seems extraordinary now but before 2011 Australia was one of only two OECD countries without a national paid parental leave scheme. That is why, when Labor came to office in 2007, I was determined to examine ways of improving the lives, particularly for working women so that they could better balance work with the important job of adjusting to parenthood, and bonding with their newborn child. Remember that at this time the now Prime Minister was known to have said paid parental leave would only occur 'over his dead body'. In 2008 it was Labor that asked the Productivity Commission to look at the economic, productivity and social costs and benefits of paid maternity, paternity and parental leave. The Productivity Commission looked at the evidence from Australian surveys and international research. It undertook far-reaching public consultation on proposals for the scheme. This included a process of public submissions and public hearings. The Productivity Commission recommended the introduction of a government funded statutory scheme of paid parental leave, paid at the level of the national minimum wage for up to 18 weeks. The commission recommended a scheme based on comprehensive evidence, designed to be fair and affordable—and that is exactly what we introduced. Since the introduction of Labor's scheme, more than 340,000 families have benefited from Labor's paid parental leave scheme. An additional 40,000 dads and partners have benefited from Dad and Partner Pay since it began in January last year. Of course it is not just about the number of families benefiting but the types of families. Labor's scheme was designed to benefit all Australian families, but in particular those on low and middle incomes, many of whom are in casual and part-time work—and the paid parental leave scheme is doing precisely that. Around 55 per cent of working mothers had no access to paid parental leave before Labor's scheme was introduced, and the mothers who previously missed out were typically lower paid and in insecure work. The only choice available to these women was to take unpaid leave. Too often, mothers were forced to leave the workforce altogether when they had a baby. Today I am pleased to say that access to paid parental leave now stands at around 95 per cent of all working mothers. The median income of these women is around $45,000. This is no accident. It is hard to think of a reform that better demonstrates Labor values. Labor's scheme ensures the majority of taxpayers' money goes to those who need it most. Our scheme ensures women who did not get paid parental leave now do. They can now have a baby with financial security. As the Productivity Commission report stated: The design of the Commission's proposed scheme (particularly the setting of the payment rate at the adult federal minimum wage) will provide proportionately greater financial relief for women on lower incomes (especially those working part time) and should elicit the greatest extension of leave duration from that cohort. The same certainly cannot be said for the government's unfair and unaffordable paid parental leave scheme. The Prime Minister's scheme lacks all of the hallmarks of Labor's scheme and, most notably, it lacks fairness. Whereas Labor's scheme gives every eligible woman 18 weeks of leave at the minimum wage, the Prime Minister's scheme will give up to $50,000 to very wealthy women to have a baby—$50,000 to women earning over $100,000; $50,000 to women earning over $200,000, and so it goes on. The unfairness is astounding. There is no evidence, as the Prime Minister claims, that this proposal will support more women back to work. In fact, we know from ABS data that more than 80 per cent of high-income earners already have access to employee-funded paid parental leave. This scheme will simply be more money in the pockets of these high-income earners. The Prime Minister's claim that this is a participation measure for these women is frankly rubbish. It is not only that the scheme is unfair; it is economically irresponsible. The Prime Minister's scheme comes at a cost of around $5.5 billion a year—that is $21 billion over the next four years. The gross expenditure on the Prime Minister's scheme more than anything highlights the hypocrisy of this government as they cynically claim a budget emergency. If there were a budget emergency, they would scrap this unfair and unaffordable paid parental leave scheme entirely. Instead, the Prime Minister seems determined to move ahead with what can only be described as an unfair and unaffordable scheme. This legislation seeks to transfer the responsibility for the administration of paid parental leave from the employer to Centrelink. This is just the first step in the government unwinding the solid, evidence based scheme that Labor introduced and transforming it into an unfair and unaffordable cash splash for high-income women. The Prime Minister's Paid Parental Leave scheme is bad policy and it is unfair. It certainly shows in stark relief the twisted priorities of what can only be described as 'a cruel government'—a government that is cutting the age pension, cutting the disability support pension, cutting the carer payment, cutting support to young jobseekers under 30 and cutting family tax benefit. The Prime Minister has just delivered a horror budget for many ordinary Australians, a budget that will hurt those people. But true to form, at the same time the government is determined to proceed with a paid parental leave scheme that will give $50,000 to wealthy women to have six months off to have a baby. The reality is that Tony Abbott's Paid Parental Leave scheme goes to the core of Liberal values—prioritising the wealthiest in our community. When we came to government there was no income limit on family tax benefit B or on the baby bonus. It took a Labor government to introduce income limits for these payments and, when we did, those opposite fought us every step of the way. The Prime Minister likened the means testing of family tax benefit B to 'class warfare'. What hypocrisy in the face of cuts to family tax benefit B in this budget! Carers, people with disability and age pensioners on about $20,000 a year are going to have their payments cut, at the same time as this government proceeds to give very wealthy women up to $50,000 to have a baby. You would have to say it is taking from the poor and giving to the rich. That we are still debating this government's Paid Parental Leave scheme I find extraordinary. Just about everyone agrees that it is wrong and unfair, including friends of the government, people in the business community. I gather former Liberal Treasurer Peter Costello personally advised the Treasurer to scrap the scheme. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry has slammed the coalition scheme and called for greater means testing. Chief Executive of the Australian Industry Group said, when talking about paid parental leave: They talk about the end of the age of entitlement and we can't see how that entitlement stacks up. We don't believe this is the way to go. It doesn't make sense on any real policy level that we can see. There's questions about its equity. There's questions about its value to the economy as a whole and there are other ways that you can bring women into the workforce. Heather Ridout, the then chief executive of Australian Industry Group, said that on any measure 'this is bad parental leave policy and it's bad tax policy'. Among his own coalition colleagues, the Prime Minister's signature paid parental leave policy is even less popular. National Senator John Williams has refused to rule out crossing the floor to vote against the legislation in the Senate. The Liberal member for Mitchell, said: The question is, is this good economic policy at this time, and my answer is no. Criticism of the Prime Minister's scheme is not just limited to current members of the coalition. Former Liberal minister Peter Reith said: It is obviously bad policy. Former finance minister Nick Minchin said: I have been on the record many, many times as saying that I'm not a supporter of the paid parental leave scheme. They know, just as Labor knows, that this scheme is fundamentally flawed. Nobody seems to support it, except the Prime Minister. The only thing the government should do on paid parental leave is not bring to the Australian people the legislation before us today; rather, the government should scrap their unfair scheme. But instead, today the government is moving to change the scheme that Labor designed by removing the employer role. They have decided to start amending a scheme designed by the Productivity Commission, after a comprehensive investigation and extensive consultation, so that the employer role was included to help employers retain skilled staff. When in government, Labor's commitment to consultation with key stakeholders was one of the reasons for the strength of our scheme. During 2009, 32 consultation sessions were held with over 200 key stakeholders, including major employer groups and trade unions, representatives of small business, family and community stakeholder groups and tax professionals. We listened to what all these people had to say and they provided valuable feedback. Our scheme is fair to business. That is why business supports Labor's Paid Parental Leave scheme, which is fully funded by government and does not apply any new taxes to Australian business, unlike the scheme proposed by the Prime Minister. Significantly, Labor's scheme was designed to complement family-friendly arrangements that have been put in place by many employers. Labor listened to the community, we adopted an evidence based approach and analysed how best to balance the interests of parents, employers and the wider community. The end result is that today we have a fair and affordable scheme that has improved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Australian families. A central feature of our scheme was to ensure we found a way of enabling women to remain connected to work and their careers when they take time out of the workforce to have a baby or adopt a child. Overwhelmingly, employers have said that they support the employer role. They support it because it helps them retain a connection with their staff. It helps them to support that staff when they are ready to return to work. That is why we designed it that way. Both women and business have overwhelmingly supported this aspect of the design. Labor understands that small businesses need to be able to devote their scarce resources to expand their businesses. That is why we listened to the concerns of small business and why during the 2013 campaign Labor took to the election a policy to enable businesses with fewer than 20 employees to streamline administration and have Centrelink make paid parental leave payments to their employees while on maternity leave. This was a sensible balance between the need to maintain a relationship with their employers while they are on paid parental leave and the need to give small businesses the option of having their paid parental leave administered by Centrelink. This legislation takes this a step further, abolishing the role of the employer in its entirety. It does not strike the right balance. Rather, it cuts the crucial link between an employer and its employees. It is not good for parents, it is not good for employers and we will not be supporting it. It stands in complete contradiction to the rhetoric of this government. It seems that at the heart of this government's proposed amendments to the Paid Parental Leave scheme is a transfer of responsibility from business to government. This Prime Minister is actually planning to force government to adopt greater responsibility for the management of businesses' employees. When has the Liberal Party ever said that a government bureaucracy can do better than business? Labor will introduce amendments in the Senate which will make sure that only employers with fewer than 20 employees can have their paid parental leave administered by Centrelink. This is sensible. It reflects the evidence as outlined by the Productivity Commission and the consultation that Labor did when we designed our Paid Parental Leave scheme. That is how Labor develops policy, based on solid economics and consultation. This bill is based on neither, and we will not support it. 12:16 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I rise to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014. In the time allowed, I would like to address two specific issues: firstly, the importance of this change to small business and, secondly, why paid parental leave is important, especially for the future. In the six years of the previous Labor government, we had no fewer than six small business ministers—six separate ministers in charge of small business in this country, coming in through a revolving door. The chief of the Council of Small Business of Australia, COSBOA, Peter Strong, had a media release on his desk which said, 'I am extremely disappointed that once again we will have a new small business minister.' He had that media release on his desk because he knew that every couple of months he would need to use it again because there would be another change of small business minister. Let us have a look at what Labor actually did to small business in that six years, how small business was smashed by the previous Labor government. We know that the unemployment queues, over the six years of Labor government, lengthened by 200,000 people, but the biggest hit was on small business, where 412,000 people lost their jobs. You could fill up the MCG four times with the number of people who lost their jobs in small business under the previous Labor government. We also saw a shift from small business to big business during that time. In private sector employment, we saw, for the first time in our nation, the proportion of small business fall to under 50 per cent. At the end of the Howard years, 53 per cent of people employed in the private sector were employed in small business. After six years of Labor government, that had declined to 43 per cent. So we had six years of failure from six small business ministers under Labor—complete and utter, hopeless, hopeless failure. Why did that failure occur? We know that Labor, with their central planning ideology, have the idea that they know better than the small business community how things should be done. We know that almost every policy they had was an attack on small business, from the carbon tax on. One of the attacks they made was forcing small businesses to act as pay clerks to administer their Paid Parental Leave scheme—just more red tape for small business. The difference between the coalition and the Labor Party could not be any clearer than in their approach to this issue. The Labor Party saw the small business community as a group of people that could just be there and carry out extra work and deal with extra red tape, and they imposed this extra paperwork burden on them. We in the coalition want to take that red-tape burden off small business, because we want those small business people to be out there using their creativity and their entrepreneurial skills to drive innovation and to create the new jobs in our society, rather than sitting down dealing with red tape. Labor simply do not understand the basis of small business. They do not understand that history has shown that small business are the best innovators. Throughout history, it has been shown that the new jobs in the economy, the new innovations, are all driven by small business. Some of the largest companies in the world today started off as small businesses. We just have to look at a few. Amazon is one of the most famous companies in the world. It was only back in 1995 that it was started by one guy working at home in his garage. It is the same with Apple computers. It was started by two guys working at home in their garage. And of course everyone knows about Google, one of the wealthiest and most prosperous companies in the world today. It was only in 1998 that that company was started by two guys working in their garage. That is why small business is important, because it is the small businesses of today that will create the innovations and drive the jobs of tomorrow. But what we saw under Labor was a complete attack on that sector, with 412,000 jobs lost in the small business sector because they smashed them with red tape. This bill takes away that red tape burden, that extra pay clerk burden, from the small business and passes it on directly to the Department of Human Services. Of course, it is not compulsory. If the employer wants to provide that Paid Parental Leave scheme that the government has mandated then they are able to do that, but they are also able to pass that paperwork burden on to the Department of Human Services. That is exactly what this coalition wants to do: to cut that red tape, to free the hands of our small business people. Also, this is important for our migrant communities. Throughout the great history of migration to Australia we have provided our migrant communities with the opportunity to go in and start their own small business. That has been an essential mechanism which has given millions of migrants who have come to this country the ability to enter the mainstream of Australia—our economic mainstream and our social mainstream—by giving them that opportunity to go into small business. That is why it is important. And that is why removing the burden of being pay clerks and processing the government's Paid Parental Leave scheme is just one of the many important steps that we in the coalition are taking. In the time remaining, I would also like to talk about why Paid Parental Leave is necessary. Many of my constituents have come up to me and said, 'I was never given any paid parental leave. I had to raise my kids without the government giving me anything. Why is it necessary today? Isn't it just a great handout?' Well, we have to look at the demographic changes and what is down the track for this country, because the decisions that we make here in this parliament today will affect the prosperity and the welfare of our children and our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren. When I was born, back in 1963, the fertility rate was 3.5—the average woman was having 3.5 kids. That is what it was back in 1963 when I was born. But we have seen a decline since then, and today we have actually fallen below the replacement rate for our population. Our fertility rates in this country are down to 1.87. So we, as a society, are not even having enough babies to keep up our population; we are declining. We cannot go on like this. Also we have an ageing population. Because of the many great medical breakthroughs that we have seen, because of our prosperity and because of improvements in the environment, we have been able to increase the lifespan of Australians. So at one end we have increasing lifespans and an ageing population, and at the other end we are not even getting a replacement rate of children being born. If we continue with this low rate of fertility in our country, what are we going to see in 30 years time? We know that the number of people aged over 65 will double—it will go from 3½ million people to seven million people; that is another 3½ million people over the age of 65. And that will actually be 25 per cent of the population. So we are looking at a future where we will only have 2.4 people of working age to provide the income and lifestyle support for people over 65 who have not funded their own retirement. So if we add that burden on top of the debt burden that is growing every day and every week—and which will keep growing unless the changes are made which the coalition has started in this budgetary process—we are going to condemn our future generations to a lower level of prosperity and a lower level of opportunity and to lower levels of freedom than we inherited in this country. So we have to look at what policies we can come up with to increase the fertility rates of this nation. It is easy for the member for Jagajaga—and, I am sure, the other members of the opposition who will speak on this bill—to take a cheap political shot and say that the coalition's policy gives $50,000 to wealthy women, and to go down the class-warfare line. That might resonate within some pockets of the population, but it does our nation's future a great disservice. The reason for what the coalition plans is this. We are not handing $50,000 to anyone. What we are doing is to address a specific issue, to attempt to increase the fertility rates of this nation. One of the reasons for our low fertility rate is the high cost of living in our major cities—mainly, our house prices. Most young couples today simply cannot afford a mortgage unless they have two incomes. They rely on those two incomes to service that mortgage. The wife might decide that she wants to have time off to have a baby, but many couples are putting that decision off because they say, 'How will we continue to service our mortgage during that period of time?' That is one of the reasons why women are putting off the decision to have kids. So the government is saying that we want to treat Paid Parental Leave in the same way as we treat sick pay and holiday pay. We are saying that during that period you are entitled to a replacement wage, and that is what we are doing. Up to a cap of $100,000, you will be paid that replacement wage—in exactly the same way as if you were sick or on holidays. That way, we are saying to women who are considering being mothers, 'You can have six months off and you will continue to get your wage paid for a period of six months, up to a limit of $100,000.' That is what we are doing, with the entire aim of increasing the fertility rate. Secondly, the way in which this scheme will be paid for will, perhaps, be the greatest boost to small business that we can give them. We have a very lopsided and inequitable system at the moment. Depending on what sector of the economy you work for, females can get different levels of paid parental leave. So if you are a government employee or if you work for one of the larger companies, you are getting much more generous paid parental leave than if you are in a small business. The coalition's scheme actually levels that playing field. There will be a 1.5 per cent increase in the company tax for only our largest companies. That will actually help, because that will give us a two-tier company tax rate, one for larger companies, one for smaller companies. That, again, is a great boost for those entrepreneurs, those small business people who actually drive the economy. It will also allow for the first time for many years, when a young talented female who is looking at going out into the workforce and contributing to our society, for her decision not to be distorted by what paid parental leave scheme a larger company has or the Public Service has. A small business will be able to go out there and bid for the services of that talented young female. That woman will know that she will get the same paid parental leave scheme, whether she works for the largest firm in town, the Public Service or a small business. I commend the bill to the House, which takes away the obligations of small business of being a 'pay clerk'. The proposed amendment, to be moved by the opposition, with respect to businesses with fewer than 20 employees, should be rejected. It should be for all businesses. There should not be a cap. I commend this bill to the House. 12:31 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand I rise to speak on the first bill which will surely become the Prime Minister's biggest personal policy failure, his signature policy failure: his Paid Parental Leave scheme. The bill under consideration, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014, is the first part of a botched policy job that will not be good for working women, our economy or our society. It takes the previous Labor government's carefully constructed Paid Parental Leave scheme and it strips it of its balanced approach. It is another example of a lack of policy know-how in this increasingly blunder-prone government. Effective policymaking does not happen by luck or serendipity; it requires careful planning, wide consultation and an appreciation of how a single policy fits into a wider framework. The Labor Party understands how effective policy is implemented. From Medicare to the introduction of HECS, we have guided Australia through some of the most significant reform periods in our history, to effective policy measures, which, I might incidentally add, are currently under attack by the Abbott government in the light of their recent budget. When the need became clear for a mandatory paid parental leave scheme, to ensure that Australia's working women were being provided with the support that they needed when taking time off to start a family, Labor took a considered approach. We decided upon realistic objectives, explicitly seeking to establish a paid parental leave that would 'signal that taking time out of the paid workforce to care for a child is part of the usual course of life and work for both parents'. And, secondly, 'promote equality between men and women, and balance between work and family life'. We undertook two years of policy development consultation, referring the issue to the Productivity Commission so that we could get an independent analysis of what would work best in this policy area. The Productivity Commission report on this matter was thorough. It received over 400 submissions and held 16 public hearings. After this thorough period of policy analysis, in May 2009 the Productivity Commission released its final report. It concluded that the most effective paid parental leave scheme would be for 18 weeks, paid at the minimum wage and would only be available to parents earning less than $150,000. This scheme would not only strike the best balance for getting Australian women back into work but also have the least impact upon business and the overall economy. In the 2009-10 budget Labor implemented the recommendations of the Productivity Commission report and allocated funding for a national paid parental leave scheme. After a careful implementation process, the scheme was introduced in January 2011. The impact of Labor's Paid Parental Leave scheme on the lives of thousands of working women around Australia is undeniable. Before the scheme was introduced, only 55 per cent of working mothers had access to paid parental leave. Today, this figure has increased to 95 per cent. That is 40 per cent more working women who are able to take the appropriate time off needed after having a child before heading back to the workforce. Moreover, the scheme implemented by the Labor government has, overwhelmingly, helped women on lower and middle incomes, who are often in casual or part-time work. The median income of workers now covered by the Paid Parental Leave scheme is $45,000 a year. Many of these women are in casual or part-time jobs whose employers would not voluntarily provide any form of paid parental leave. These women needed government to step in to ensure that they received a fair go and could take time off from the workforce while having a baby. But Labor was not satisfied with the successful rollout of the Paid Parental Leave scheme. As with all good policy processes, the previous Labor government demanded feedback and consulted on the scheme, once it had been implemented. Labor initiated a formal review of the Paid Parental Leave scheme process. It consulted and listened to the community. It heard the voices of small business, which found that the burden of administering the scheme was too significant. It understood that, when trying to grow a small business, there is less time to spend on administrative activities. The previous government realised that government, too, can play a role so that these administrative costs are not too steep and that employees can still access the paid parental leave that they deserve. So the previous Labor government made changes to the Paid Parental Leave scheme, a key part of the 2013 federal election campaign, proposing a scheme administered by Centrelink for businesses with fewer than 20 employees. This would have allowed employees of small businesses to receive paid parental leave without small businesses suffering under the current administrative burden. It also would have ensured that, for most businesses, employers continued their payments to employees on maternity leave. It allowed the connection between employer and employee to remain open during the maternity leave process, making it easier for the new mother to transition back into the workforce. Anyone who has managed staff in the private sector would understand the importance of this direct connection between managers and staff, ensuring the return of women to the workforce. But the legislation before us today destroys the balance constructed by the previous Labor government by removing the role of the employer entirely from the Paid Parental Leave scheme process. It takes legitimate criticisms from small business and then goes too far, applying a one-size-fits-all solution. It gives no thought to how the changes will impact larger businesses where the administrative costs of the PPL scheme are diminished due to their size. Labor will move to amend this legislation in the Senate so that only small businesses with less than 20 employees will have access to the government administered scheme, as originally intended. But such a ham-fisted move occurring as the coalition begins to roll out its own Paid Parental Leave scheme should not be surprising, because every aspect of the coalition's Paid Parental Leave scheme has been an example of blunderous policymaking. I wrote recently in the Australian about Anthony King and Ivor Crewe's excellent new policy study The Blunders of Our Governments. In this book Anthony King and Ivor Crewe examine cases of 'horror policymaking' which not only fail to achieve their aims but also do so at significant economic cost. What is clear about the Abbott government's vaunted Paid Parental Leave scheme, or perhaps I should say the Prime Minister's Paid Parental Leave scheme, is that it falls into every one of the traps that King and Crewe identify in this book. Let us start with the blunder of a policy rooted in 'cultural disconnect', or ignorance of how others lead their lives. The lack of gender, cultural and economic diversity within the Prime Minister's inner circle leaves him particularly vulnerable to this kind of blundering. Perhaps for the Prime Minister $150,000 a year may seem very typical as an income for a working woman and so a government subsidy of half this amount may seem perfectly justifiable. But in reality a woman in this income bracket would actually be earning more than 95 per cent of Australians. Even in the Abbott government's revised policy, payments under the scheme are capped at $100,000, which is more than 80 per cent of Australian income earners get paid. It is no wonder that the public reaction to the Paid Parental Leave scheme from interest groups, experts and the general public has been one of overwhelming condemnation. This condemnation was compounded by the second classic blunder of the Abbott government, a failure to adequately consult with stakeholders or, as authors King and Crewe put it, 'a deficit of deliberation'. Effective policies are those that engage in wide community consultation with the public and interested stakeholders, processes that make sure that the proposed policy reforms are well supported by the community before they are rolled out. If they are not supported, smart governments make changes or engage in the persuasion necessary to ensure that there is buy-in from all stakeholders. Yet the Paid Parental Leave scheme proposed by the Prime Minister is notable for its absence of consultation, even within the party room of those opposite. This policy was announced at an International Women's Day event in March 2010 and took many by surprise. There are allegations that even the shadow cabinet had not been consulted before the Prime Minister, the then opposition leader, made the announcement of this policy. In failing to consult with his party room the Prime Minister was perhaps guilty of another classic policy blunder, that of prioritising symbolism over substance. The timing of this announcement on International Women's Day does lead one to speculate. This 'deficit of deliberation' continued for more than three years with little consideration of the policy within the caucus room of those opposite. As late as May 2013, three years after the initial policy had been announced, the member for Tangney stated: 'There hasn't been a detailed policy debate on this issue within the party room.' That lack of debate led to a vague policy constantly shifting in its aims and goals. First we saw a six months Paid Parental Leave scheme capped at $75,000 and paid for by a 1.7 per cent levy on companies. This was projected to cost $2.7 billion. By 2010 this policy had shifted to a 1.5 per cent levy on companies and the cost had blown out to $8.8 billion. As late as April 2013 the shadow Assistant Treasurer admitted that the funding plan for the scheme had not yet been finalised. The Prime Minister relaunched his paid parental leave policy in August 2013 now with a projected cost of $5.5 billion. It defies belief that the government can claim to be competent economic managers when their funding model for just a single policy can shift so much in scope. Adding to those problems was a tendency within the Abbott government to engage in 'groupthink', shutting out the voice of dissenters and thereby ignoring legitimate criticisms of the PPL scheme. We saw this occur to prominent Liberals like the member for Higgins, whose initial opposition to the PPL scheme was quickly stifled and her legitimate criticisms ignored. What this meant was that the flaws in the Prime Minister's Paid Parental Leave scheme were not uncovered while the policy was being developed. The result of this bungled policymaking process was a policy that is unpopular, ineffective and unsuitable for Australia. Its unpopularity within the business community is widely known. Business groups have long attacked the Prime Minister for the exorbitant cost of the scheme and argued that it would be an ineffective way of getting women back to the workforce. As recently as February of this year the Australian Chamber of Commerce and industry called for a rethink of the scheme. They argued for greater means-testing, saying that this would 'considerably improve both the scheme's affordability and fairness'. The Australian Industry Group too believe that 'the current system works well. There is no need for it to change.' It is not just business that dislikes the scheme: even key Liberal members have come out from the sidelines to condemn this policy. Peter Costello, the man many Liberals turn to when they think of sound economic management, dismissed the idea as 'silly' in the Sydney Morning Herald when it was first announced. He argued that 'increasing tax would be as foreign to the Liberal Party as voluntary unionism was to the local ALP branch'. Those are important words to remember in the days after parliament has passed the Liberals' deficit levy. He is not the only former Howard government minister who dislikes this policy. Former finance minister Nick Minchin will go nowhere near the scheme. He said last year, 'I have been on the record many, many times are saying that I am not a supporter of Tony Abbott's Paid Parental Leave scheme.' Former Howard government minister Peter Reith too has described the scheme as 'obviously bad policy'. But it is not enough that the policy has been condemned by those in the Prime Minister's own party; it has been condemned by those in his own caucus room as well. Let us read some of the highlights from last year. From the member for Tangney: 'I do have significant concerns about the scheme.' From the member for Mitchell: 'The question is, is this good economic policy at this time, and my answer is no.' From Senator Eggleston: 'I think it should be supported but there seems to be widespread concern that the cost is pretty high at the current time.' Let us not forget Senator Bernardi and Nationals senator John Williams, who dislike the scheme so much they have canvassed voting against it. But what is most damning about this policy is that ultimately it will be ineffective. The policy's stated objective when launched in March 2010 was clear. It was to 'enable more women to stay in the workforce and thus boost national productivity'. Yet studies by the Grattan Institute and the Productivity Commission show that the most effective way to get women back into the workforce is to provide them with affordable child care. Indeed, the Grattan Institute stated in their June 2012 report Game changers: economic reform priorities for Australia: … international experience suggests that government support for childcare has about double the impact of spending on parental leave. It is a long-term vision that the Abbott government does not seem to understand. We have seen in the latest budget, with the freezing of family tax benefits A and B, that making life easier for Australian families is simply not their priority. The previous Labor government's paid parental leave scheme was the model of good public policy making. It was a result of an extensive consultation process and the recommendations of independent policy bodies. It was widely supported by the business community, interest groups and the general public. Most importantly, it allowed 40 per cent more working women to take time off when they started their families. Of course, no policy is perfect and necessary adjustments needed to be made, particularly to mitigate the costs of the scheme to small business, but this is no reason to take the one small criticism of the scheme and implement it indiscriminately. The bill before us today is the beginning of a process that will result in a vastly inferior paid parental leave scheme for Australia's working mothers. It is a scheme that is unpopular, expensive and completely ineffective. It is a blundering policy from a government that is prone to wink first and think later when it comes to women's issues. Perhaps if the Prime Minister had spent less time in opposition reading Fifty Shades of Grey, in a similarly misguided play for the female vote, and more time studying up on the practice of good policy making then the Australian people would be spared such a significant policy blunder in the future. 12:46 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson I rise today in support of the coalition government's Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014. Paid parental leave is an important productivity measure that is good for families, good for workplace productivity and assists women in the workplace with realistic choices if they want to combine work with family and still continue their career. However, the current paid parental leave scheme introduced by the former Labor government in 2010 is not actually so good for businesses in Australia because in its current form it requires employers to be the pay clerks for a scheme that is government funded for eligible long-term employees. The coalition government support the provision of paid parental leave, which is why we took to the election a commitment to deliver a genuine paid parental leave scheme that will give working mothers six months or 26 weeks leave based on their actual wage rather than the former Labor government's scheme, which is paid at the minimum wage for 18 weeks. It is a good policy and I support it because it is good for women, it is good for families, it is good for the economy at large and, as such, it is good for families and workplaces in my electorate of Robertson on the Central Coast. Part of our paid parental leave policy, in contrast to the former Labor government's policy, ensures that paid parental leave can be paid directly by the Commonwealth government and not just via their employer. The bill we are debating today fulfils this commitment by legislating to remove from 1 July this year the mandatory requirement from employers, including small businesses, who struggle under the weight of red tape and regulation that took a stranglehold on this nation over the last six years of the former Labor government, and place it back onto the Commonwealth, through the Department of Human Services, unless there is a prior mutual agreement with both the employer and employee to opt in for the workplace entitlement to be paid for by their place of work. Labor's scheme has imposed an unnecessary administrative burden on employers and businesses. I know from talking with hundreds of businesses in my electorate of Robertson that the current requirement to act as a pay clerk has increased costs for businesses. Many have had to absorb and wear the costs that have arisen as a result of additional paperwork and doing things like restructuring their businesses and their record-keeping systems to comply. It is no small cost. It has come with a hefty price tag of around $48 million, a price tag that is being worn by our small business sector and our not-for-profit sector for far too long. In New South Wales alone the estimated cost of compliance borne by businesses for the fiscal year 2012-13 was almost $14.4 million. Many business owners I have spoken with on the Central Coast have shared their frustrations about the additional workload that the current administration of the paid parental leave scheme places on their staff and, often times, on themselves in the absence of being able to absorb the financial or human resource costs of the current arrangements. This bill is a sensible amendment to the current scheme. Indeed, there is absolutely no reason why the paid parental leave scheme should not have continued to have been administered by the Family Assistance Office, which performed the task for the first six months when the scheme started. The coalition government is determined to cut the red tape and regulatory burden on business in Australia—to get the monkey off the back of business owners, who are the job generators of our nation—and to reduce the impact of the weight of the burden of more than 22,000 new or amended regulations imposed on Australians, Australian businesses and not-for-profit organisations by the former government. We support better regulation not more regulation, and this bill is a sensible amendment to an important productivity provision for Australia. Perhaps it is because this bill is such a sensible amendment to the current scheme that Labor have previously blocked it—voting it down twice when they were in government and then moving to block the amendment again in the Senate earlier this year. But it is a fact that unnecessary regulation and red tape increase costs on business, which in turn cost families and people in my electorate of Robertson. Too much red tape and too much unnecessary regulation costs jobs. I point out that this bill does not remove the right of employers to continue to administer the payment of paid parental leave. If they have found this to be beneficial to both their business and their employee or employees, they may continue to do so. What we are doing is creating an opt-in approach, not an all-in requirement. So this bill provides choice. In empowering business owners to make choices that they deem to be best for them and their employees we are empowering them to spend more time building their businesses, supporting their employees and giving them even more opportunity to grow, thrive, succeed and prosper. In doing so, our government is helping businesses create even more jobs and more opportunities for Australians. Creating more employment opportunities is something I am particularly passionate about, because in my electorate, and indeed across the Central Coast, our youth unemployment rate is just too high and local job opportunities are not where they need to be. Today 30,000 to 40,000 commuters left their homes early this morning and they will return home late at night to their families because their job opportunities require them to work in Sydney or Newcastle. That is why it is important that this bill be supported in the House. We do not want to waste a single minute of opportunity for businesses who may no longer want to be pay clerks because they want to be pay creators. I commend this bill to the House. 12:53 Mr CONROY 249127 Charlton I am very pleased to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014 because it gives me a good opportunity to talk about the importance of paid parental leave and the other associated factors with workforce participation of females, particularly childcare assistance. I have a particular interest in this area as my first child, Rachel, has just turned one and my wife and I are very conscious of the importance of government support for new mums and dads as well as the cost of child care. One of the most significant achievements of the last Labor government was the introduction of Australia's first national paid parental leave scheme. The scheme was created on the basis of recommendations from the Productivity Commission. The commission supported a flat rate minimum wage payment as the fairest and most effective way to design a paid parental leave scheme. Since the scheme was introduced on 1 January 2011, more than 340,000 families have benefited from Labor's scheme, including my own family. Until this scheme was introduced, approximately 55 per cent of working mothers did not have access to paid parental leave. The majority of women who did not have access to this leave were working in low-pay jobs or were casual or self-employed workers. Today, because of Labor's scheme, around 95 per cent of working mothers have access to paid parental leave and Labor can also be proud of the fact that 40,000 dads and partners have benefited from dad and partner pay since that began in January last year. The current scheme is financially responsible and socially fair. I was bemused by the previous speaker's, the member for Robertson, complaint about the compliance costs of this scheme. There are compliance costs for this scheme, and the previous speaker for Labor, the member for Gellibrand, acknowledged that, but to try to compare the $48 million of compliance costs of Labor's scheme to the $5½ billion that the rolled gold, gold-plated scheme of those opposite will cost the economy every year is just ridiculous and shows how out of touch the coalition government is. And this is a surprise since the Prime Minister, in the past, has stated that a paid parental leave scheme would be introduced in Australia over his dead body. Like many other matters, he is weathervane and he will do what is electorally popular or what he assesses will secure votes from certain segments of the population rather than make good policy. On the other hand, I am proud that a Labor government introduced this historic reform. It contrasts quite markedly with the coalition plan, which demonstrates the warped priorities of the Prime Minister and the government. Under the current proposal from the coalition, we will see millionaires receive $50,000 of taxpayers' money for having a child while a woman on the minimum wage would only get $16,000. At every level this is fundamentally unfair, and the proposal is a blatant insult to low- and middle-income women and their families. It clearly prioritises and benefits women in high-income jobs at the expense of all taxpayers. Eighty per cent of women of child-bearing age in Charlton, my electorate, have an income of less than $42,000—this is a very conservative estimation as this $42,000 figure includes government payments—therefore, 80 per cent of my constituents would receive less than $21,000 if they had a baby under the coalition's scheme. In fact it is likely to be well under $20,000. Yet millionaires will receive $50,000. I ask: why is a baby in Charlton worth $29,000 less than a millionaire's baby? The truth is it is not, and it demonstrates the fundamentally inequitable nature of this policy. This is the type of scheme that has also been criticised by the Productivity Commission, which concluded: Full replacement wages for highly educated, well paid women would be very costly for taxpayers and, given their high level of attachment to the labour force and a high level of private provision of paid parental leave, would have few incremental labour supply benefits. So from an equity point of view and from a policy efficacy point of view, this is an awful policy. And it is an awful policy highlighted by division within the coalition. For example, the member for Mitchell, before the last election, wrote: Women I have spoken to on high salaries understand that this is a stretch. Their attitude is a quintessentially Australian response: 'If you are offering, I'll gladly take it-but do I think it's right, no. Do I need it, not really.' The member for Mitchell, in the same article, also noted that the coalition's scheme will cost more than three times Labor's scheme in its first year alone. The member for Dawson has stated: I have significant concerns about introducing this scheme without a significant policy that would assist stay at home mothers. And the Deputy Prime Minister has acknowledged opposition to the scheme amongst the Nationals. If their own party room opposes this policy, why should Australia cop it? We should stick with the current tried and true Paid Parental Leave scheme, which gives equity as well as assisting mothers stay at home to look after their babies for a certain amount of time. I would also draw the attention of the House to the fact that although there is considerable division within the coalition about the Prime Minister's scheme, the Australian Greens support a similar scheme. The Prime Minister has previously stated that the Greens have 'fringe economic policies to put it at its kindest', yet this is a fairly apt description of his leave proposal. It yet again demonstrates the hypocrisy of the coalition—that is, they are prepared to side with the Greens rather than the Productivity Commission in providing an efficient and equitable Paid Parental Leave scheme. I would also draw the attention of the House to the fact that this scheme is not a workplace entitlement, as the workers' employer is not paying for the scheme. It is taxpayer funded. The proposed increase in the company tax rate will not cover it. As the Parliamentary Library stated: The designs of both the current and Coalition … [scheme] contain elements that make them as much like an Australian Government welfare payment as they are workplace entitlements. For example, rather than being funded and run privately by employers or funded (as occurs in most OECD countries) through a social insurance scheme, they are: fully or substantially funded from taxation revenue and fully or substantially administered by the Department of Human Services. In fact, in the bill we are debating the, the government is trying to centralise administration of paid parental leave as we speak. Yet again we need to emphasise this point. This is not a workplace entitlement; this is a form of welfare, and why should a family in Charlton received $29,000 less welfare for having a baby than a millionaire in the Treasurer's seat of North Sydney? It is fundamentally inequitable and based on faulty principles. If I can come to the cost of the scheme, the coalition has long talked about Australia facing a budget emergency and the need to drastically cut government spending. It should be stated that this is a false and confected budget emergency. Leaving that aside for a second, why then, if they believe their own rhetoric, would they want to introduce a $5 billion a year parental leave scheme which overwhelmingly benefits those people who are employed and in relatively high-paying jobs? This huge cost should be seen in the light of cuts that have already been made as well as those proposed by the government. They have abolished the schoolkids bonus for working families; they are cutting the payments of Australia's 2.3 million aged pensioners; they want to impose a GP tax on all Australians, which will mean the end of universal health care in Australia; they are cutting $80 billion from schools and hospitals; and they are attacking families through their draconian revisions to the family tax benefit B arrangements. Contrast this with the $5½ billion they are going to be spending on the Paid Parental Leave scheme each year. The Treasurer has famously declared that 'the age of entitlement is over'. Given the introduction of this scheme, this statement should be qualified: the age of entitlement is over for everyone except the wealthy. In his age of entitlement speech the Treasurer stated: The road back to fiscal sustainability will not be easy. It will involve reducing the provision of so called "free" government services to those who feel they are entitled to them. What an insult to the millions of Australians who rely on Medicare, on public hospitals and public schools, as well as the aged pension, they should be on notice that the Treasurer believes that these government services need to be reduced but that wealthy families are entitled to unfair Paid Parental Leave scheme. In the same speech, the Treasurer also declared: As a community we need to redefine the responsibility of government and its citizens to provide for themselves, both during their working lives and into retirement. Given the proposed scheme, the Treasurer is clearly of the view that this re-defining means wealthy Australians get extra support from government, whilst everyone else needs to provide more for themselves. It is unconscionable to be drastically cutting funding to health, education, the aged pension and family support at the same time as giving extra support to the most well-off Australians. This is why we need a general debate on the Paid Parental Leave scheme and this bill offers a good opportunity to start that. I would like to draw to the attention of the House, recent comments by the Treasurer that women will only qualify for paid parental leave if they guarantee that they will return to work. While we are yet to see concrete details of this thought bubble, it is clearly impractical, as child care is still a luxury in some areas and we need to be providing more resources to child care. I would also say, by contrast, that the current scheme, places no obligations on the 95 per cent of women who access it to return to work. They can access the leave if they qualify for it. This is only fair. This is an entitlement to help, usually, young mums, but often fathers, spend time with their baby before returning to the workforce if they choose. That is an equitable and efficient way of administering a scheme rather than draconian the provisions that the Treasurer has highlighted, which would see money being clawed back from people after they receive payments. This leads to my next point around child care funding. This is a very important aspect in this debate—whether we have Labor's tried and true Paid Parental Leave scheme, which we are debating now, or the rolled gold unconscionable scheme that the coalition is proposing. In the debate you need to look at the child care provision that accompanies it. Labor has a proud record on child care. The last Labor government increased the Child Care Rebate from 30 per cent to 50 percent of out-of-pocket expenses up to $7,500. In contrast, the Abbott government will freeze the child care benefit threshold, which will cut access to child care. Indexation of the child care rebate will also be stopped. The heartless budget we saw delivered a fortnight ago has cut over $1.3 billion in support for child care. Under their ridiculous scheme, how can mums return to the workforce if they cannot find child care? Importantly, in her submission to the Productivity Commission's inquiry into child care and early childhood learning, my colleague the member for Adelaide requested that the commission examine whether the funding for the government's Paid Parental Leave scheme could be distributed through an alternative scheme to achieve its objectives more effectively and equitably, and whether some of these proposed funds could be better utilised in the childcare sector. This is a very important point. A study by the Grattan Institute has demonstrated that childcare funding is twice as effective as paid parental leave in promoting workforce participation amongst women. If those opposite were really serious about increasing workforce participation amongst women they would maintain a Labor's tried and true Paid Parental Leave scheme and invest the excess money into child care. But they won't, because it is all rhetoric. Their scheme was designed to try and lock in the vote of women and families before the last election rather than really tackle serious problems. Their scheme is a clear example of an out-of-touch government introducing an expensive new entitlement at the same time as it is attacking Medicare, putting up fuel excise, and cutting pensions and support for families. The feedback from my constituents in Charlton is abundantly clear: they oppose the government's unfair and inequitable Paid Parental Leave scheme. They would rather keep Labor's scheme. The contrast is even more marked as we have seen the impact of the budget. As I said earlier, the coalition scheme would pay a millionaire $29,000 more to have a baby than 80 per cent of women in my electorate. When we add into that the draconian cuts to family tax benefit, where we see a family on $60,000 a year losing over $6,000 of family income, which represents 11 per cent of their income, we see what this government really is about. This government is about attacking low- and middle-income Australians, attacking pensioners and people who want to go to doctors and instead supporting the wealthy by paying them $50,000 to have a baby. Labor stands for fiscally responsible and socially fair paid parental leave scheme. The current scheme delivers this. The coalition's proposal is an outrageous and ideological scheme being introduced at a time when the government is cutting services and telling us we need to provide more for ourselves. Labor will continue to oppose the unfair scheme and support our equitable and efficient scheme. 13:06 Ms SCOTT 165476 Lindsay It is with great pride that I rise this afternoon to speak in support of the Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014. Paid parental leave has featured as a signature policy of the Abbott government at both the 2010 and 2013 elections. Lindsay is the fourth youngest electorate in Australia, with a median age of just 34. As a young woman I am proud to support this bill that also supports young families right across my region. This makes me think about all the conversations that I have had, during these two elections, with so many young and talented women right across the electorate. I think about a young woman by the name of Tracey who was newly engaged when she found out that she was pregnant. The pregnancy was unplanned but she was very excited about it. Not having the financial or economic position to take on the responsibilities of a young family, Tracey was forced back to work in three months. Like so many people in my electorate—two-thirds of my electorate have to commute every single day—Tracey, three months after giving birth, had to commute to Parramatta to resume her duties as a PA, which is not a highly paid position, so that she could help support her family. Tracey and Phil were really lucky because their mothers could both step in and help babysit their young son. But I recall seeing Tracey at train stations. She would be in tears because she had to leave her baby behind to go back to work. She was also forced to make a vast array of family choices that she really did not want to make. She wanted to breastfeed for six months. She could not do that; she had to go back to work. All of a sudden she was looking at options like expressing and using baby formula. She had to put in place all of these different things when she really just wanted to be at home with her son. Tracey's and Phil's experience is not unique. We see this right across our country. And this paid parental leave scheme is about providing fairness and equity. Providing for a young family is a challenge that keeps families up late at night. This bill is designed to give these families a leg-up and support them at a really critical time. This bill will give mothers six months of paid leave based on their actual wage—not a minimum wage. They will not be penalised for having a child, as they will receive their actual wage. This afternoon I also want to tell the story of Nicole, a very talented accounts clerk that I met when I was door-knocking in Jamisontown. For five years Nicole had enjoyed her job working with a local small business. When she wanted to have a family her employer did not have the capacity to pay her paid parental leave at her salary. So Nicole made a decision: she would change employer. Rather than working for the local small business she got a job in North Sydney as an accounts clerk. Nicole was a huge loss to her employer, who now does not have the ability to compete on an even playing field within the Labor market. This paid parental leave scheme gives small businesses right across the Lindsay electorate—and right across our country—the ability to compete and have talented employees stay within their businesses. So this is about fairness. I would like to give credit where credit is due. Early today we heard from the member for Gellibrand, who pointed out that the opposition did, in fact, introduce Australia's first paid parental leave scheme. But it was not fair and, quite frankly, it did not go far enough. It is a bit rich for the party which made outrageous claims against our Prime Minister to devalue women across our nation to the minimum wage. The member for Gellibrand used phrases to describe the opposition scheme as a 'balanced approach' and setting 'realistic objectives'. Let me ask this: how balanced is it when we are replacing the salary of a young working woman with the minimum wage? How realistic is it for a family that has to manage their budget—something the opposition clearly knows nothing about—to be paid at the minimum wage? Quite frankly it is not fair. It is just not fair. This bill also supports small businesses. It will reduce the burden of red tape—another key priority of the Abbott government. By taking control of the administrative process, small businesses will be free to get on with the job of doing what they do best. I would like to applaud the vision in the design of this measure to ensure that it does not—I repeat this: it does not—increase the administrative burden on small businesses. Under this legislation, employees would be paid directly by the Department of Human Services. Doing this ensures that there will be no additional paperwork for employers or cash-flow problems for small businesses. I would like to reflect on the paid parental leave scheme introduced by the former, Labor government. In contrast with our plan, Labor's paid parental leave scheme imposes an unnecessary administrative burden on employers, particularly small businesses. Under Labor's scheme, with few exceptions, employers are required to act as paymasters after receiving an employee's entitlement from Centrelink. This system is unnecessarily complicated and forces small businesses to bear the cost of restructuring their payroll and accounting systems. But, unsurprisingly, the now opposition just do not care about the impact their measures and policies have on small businesses right across our country. These businesses are the engine room of our economy. This measure will save businesses in Australia $44 million a year, and will further save the not-for-profit sector $4 million a year. As a result, the coalition's policy has broad-ranging support from the industry. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry conducted a survey of its members on the paid parental leave scheme in May 2013. In the survey, 84.3 per cent of the businesses either agreed or strongly agreed that the government should not require employers to be the paymasters for the paid parental leave scheme. I also take the opportunity to echo the sentiments of John Osborn, the chief operating officer of the chamber, who has welcomed the Abbott government's scheme. He said: Small business people should not be forced to be the unpaid 'pay-clerks' for government schemes. This responsibility should be funded and administered by government. The Abbott government is trying to do the right thing by small businesses in cutting red tape, and the opposition should support this. I echo these sentiments. There is no reason why businesses should have to act as the pay clerk when the family assistance office, a part of the Department of Human Services, can do this job like it did when the scheme first started. Labor' resistance to this measure proves that they just do not get business, and they have no understanding of how unnecessary costs adversely affect jobs and business viability. It is imperative to kick-start the economy. We need to release the handbrake that hinders our national prosperity and cut the red tape that previous governments have placed on our small businesses. We need to support working mums, and this is a crucial reason why I am proud to rise here today in support of this amendment bill, because it will actually deliver a genuine paid parental leave scheme to give mothers six months leave based on their actual salary. My community is made up predominantly of young families and young professionals. Unlike our more densely populated neighbours closer to the city, the people in Lindsay, Penrith, St Marys, Glenmore Park, Colyton and even in Cranebrook enjoy the benefits of living in a regional hub that is close to one of the best cities in the world. Young families choose to live in Lindsay. They choose to make Lindsay their home. They choose to take advantage of its accessibility and, if I do say so myself, the availability of a region where it is great to live, work and play—but, even more importantly, to raise a family. This amendment bill will finally give families the chance to get ahead and it will give women a more realistic choice so that, if they so choose, they can combine work and family and continue in their careers and in their jobs and make real choices about supporting their family income. I hear these concerns every single day. For the last four years I have heard these concerns from so many families right across my region. Under the coalition's scheme mothers will be provided with 26 weeks of paid parental leave at their actual wage or at the national minimum wage, whichever is greater, plus superannuation. In contrast, Labor's paid parental leave scheme is at the minimum of 18 weeks. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, around 80 per cent of Australian women earn less than $62,400 and the average salary for women who work full-time is around $65,000. This means that those women who earn the average full-time salary will be more than $21,000 better off under the coalition's scheme because they will receive their actual wage over 26 weeks—around $32,000—instead of the minimum wage for 18 weeks, which is around $11,200. For families with a mortgage and bills to pay, and who understand the importance of managing a budget, receiving their actual wage will make a significant difference. It will reduce the financial pressure that can come with raising children. It is also important for Australia to remain competitive internationally. Of the 34 countries in the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development, the OECD, 33 offer paid parental leave schemes. Of these 33 countries, Australia is one of two that fails to pay leave based on a replacement wage. By offering only minimum wage, Australia is left economically behind major OECD competitors. Due to this, we risk losing the productivity gains that come from greater participation by women in the paid workforce. There is no doubt that a ready way to increase Australia's productivity is to increase the participation of women, both part-time and full-time, in the paid workforce, which is why paid parental leave is an economic driver. I commend this bill to the House. 13:20 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I rise to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014. Chris Richardson, from Deloitte Access Economics, described this budget as the toughest since 1997. There is $27 billion in spending cuts and $8.3 billion in increased taxes. This is from a Prime Minister who said when in opposition that there would be no cuts to education, no cuts to health and no changes to pensions. Certainly he said almost solemnly that there would be no increase in taxes without an election. The now Treasurer says that everyone has to do the heavy lifting. In fact, they do not. This proposed Paid Parental Leave scheme is a clear demonstration of how they get their priorities out of whack. In fact, the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling shows that the top 20 per cent of income earners have in effect a 0.3 per cent reduction in their incomes—and only for a short period of time, for only a few years. The bottom 20 per cent of income earners, in contrast, have a five per cent reduction in their income. In a budget which has been described by Annabel Crabb as having 'a complicated relationship with some of humanity's most ancient themes: birth, life, and growing old', this legislation is something that the Labor Party does not agree with. It demonstrates that, as part of their whole package, paid parental leave is not understood by those opposite. Nor do they understand what the Productivity Commission recommended to the former federal Labor government. For the benefit, education and edification of the member for Lindsay, the Productivity Commission, commenting on replacement wage schemes, said the following in their report: Full replacement wages for highly educated, well paid women would be very costly for taxpayers and, given their high level of attachment to the labour force and a high level of private provision of paid parental leave, would have few incremental labour supply benefits. What is so outrageous and so wrong about the Paid Parental Leave scheme of the coalition is this. Under their proposed scheme, women on $100,000 or more would receive $50,000 in taxpayers' money while a woman on a minimum wage would get $16,000. So they get about $2,000 per week and a woman who is on a minimum wage gets only $16,000 in total. Even millionaires will be given $50,000 to have a baby for the six-month duration. This is a huge gap inequity in this country—and it is fundamentally unfair. It is money that belongs to the taxpayers and, like so much of the rest of this budget, it is unfair. We brought in a paid parental leave scheme in this country. It was designed firmly on the footing of the recommendation of the Productivity Commission. In 2008 the Productivity Commission reported that a flat-rate, minimum wage payment was the fairest, the most equitable and the most effective way to design a paid parental leave scheme. The Productivity Commission is not an affiliated body to the Australian Labor Party. It is made up of economists. We on this side hold it in fairly high esteem, but we do not agree with every decision it makes. It would have few incremental benefits to bring in the Paid Parental Leave scheme those opposite propose to bring in. According to ABS statistics, more than 80 per cent of high-income earners already have access to employer-funded paid parental leave scheme. In this country now, as a result of Labor's reforms when in office, 340,000 families have benefitted—for the very first time—in having a paid parental leave scheme. We have also seen 40,000 dads and partners benefit from the Dad and Partner Pay since it began in January last year. Before Labor brought in a paid parental leave scheme, only about 55 per cent of working mothers had access to paid parental leave, and about 95 per cent of working women now have access to such a scheme. So, on the grounds of it being taxpayers' money, on the grounds of equity and on the recommendation of the Productivity Commission, Labor's scheme is better, fairer, more effective and in accordance with the best practice and the recommendations of the experts. Those opposite are not keen on listening to experts, whether it is economists, the Productivity Commission or climate scientists. They are just not interested in listening to the experts—because apparently they know best. The arrogance and inequity of the budget are demonstrated by their paid parental leave scheme. When you claim that there is a budget emergency and a budget crisis, why would you spend about $5.3 billion on a paid parental leave scheme when you have already got one that is operating in accordance with the recommendation of the Productivity Commission and which is supported already by 340,000 Australian families? Why would you do it? It is because you have your priorities wrong and you do not understand it. Years ago this Prime Minister said that he would bring in a paid parental leave scheme over his dead body and he would fight against it when he was a minister in the Howard government. The government proposes to amend the Paid Parental Leave Act to remove the requirements for employers to make payments to employees under the national Paid Parental Leave scheme from 1 July 2014. The payments of parental leave will then be made by Centrelink directly to eligible employees, unless the employer chooses to opt in to manage those payments and their employee agrees for their employer to pay them. The government claim—and they make great claims in the budget and in here—that this will 'ease administrative burdens on business' while costing government $7 million over five years. According to the Abbott government, removing employers from the Paid Parental Leave scheme will reduce the average annual compliance cost on business by $44 million. But, as with many of the government's numbers, there is no evidence at all of how this was arrived at. This bill removes employers from the current PPL scheme and it signals the beginning of the government's very dramatic changes, as I said before, to the very successful scheme that Labor brought in. It is the first step on their wrong priorities gold-plated scheme. Currently, in most cases, the Commonwealth funds employers to provide instalments of paid parental leave to their eligible employees. An employee's eligibility is determined by Centrelink. Labor provided a role for employers in their current PPL scheme partly to help employers retain skilled staff—and we did it on the recommendation of the PC. A role for the employer helps sustain the ongoing connection between women and their workplace when they take time out of the workforce to have a baby or adopt a child. It helps make sure that these women are able to return to work following their leave. The Productivity Commission in its report recommended the current scheme and said that it would promote ‘employment continuity and workforce retention’; and, second, it would signal that ‘a genuine capacity to take a reasonable period of leave from employment to look after children is just a normal part of working life’. Further, it said: ... the more that parental leave arrangements mimic those that exist as part of routine employment contracts, the more they will be seen by employers and employees as standard employment arrangements. The Productivity Commission could not have been more crystal clear in its statements. As I said, the Productivity Commission was sceptical about claims from some employer representatives about the perceived administrative burden of the scheme—which the Labor government continued to monitor following its introduction. We listened to business and we heard the challenges they faced. We understand small business much better than those opposite give us credit for. We understand that small businesses have scarce resources. I know that personally, because I ran one for 20 years before I was elected in 2007. We know that small business needs to grow. It needs to be profitable, it needs to engage with its workforce and it needs to work hard and well for the benefit of the country. That is why, during the 2013 election campaign, we announced that, if we were successful, we would amend the PPL scheme to remove the requirement that employees— The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the honourable member will have leave to continue his remarks at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 4845 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Fitted for Work 4845 13:30 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga Last week I was very pleased to visit the women's employment service Fitted for Work in Melbourne. I talked with clients and staff about the incredible work they do helping disadvantaged women to get work—and to keep it. Last year alone, Fitted for Work assisted more than 3,000 women to get a job. I had the great pleasure of meeting two of those women on my visit—Carol and Claudia, two women who are currently reskilling and retraining themselves and looking for work. Their stories were of great strength and perseverance. And they described their experience with Fitted for Work as truly transformative. With the help of Fitted for Work, these two women are now ready for work, and they looked great. I have no doubt that they will go on to take up new opportunities and build successful careers in whatever they choose to do. Across Australia, women of all ages face barriers to work that are different to those faced by men. Fitted for Work's dedicated team of volunteers is assisting these women to overcome these challenges. Their results speak for themselves. Around 75 per cent of the women assisted by Fitted for Work find employment within three months of their first visit. It is a remarkable service, run by a group of remarkable women. I want to give them huge congratulations that they are delivering so much for so many. (Time expired) McCarthy, Bishop Michael 4846 13:31 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia I rise to inform the House that a major ceremony has been conducted at the historic St Joseph's Cathedral in Rockhampton today. The new Bishop for the Catholic Diocese of Rockhampton, Bishop Michael McCarthy, was officially ordained this morning. Bishop McCarthy is the 10th Bishop of Rockhampton and succeeds retiring Bishop Brian Heenan. The Catholic Diocese of Rockhampton is one of five in Queensland and covers over 414,000 square kilometres. There are 31 local parishes, which include Rockhampton city, Mackay, Bundaberg and as far west as Longreach. Bishop McCarthy completed some of his schooling at Downlands College in Toowoomba and was first ordained a priest in Brisbane in 1978. More recently he was the Vicar for Clergy of the Archdiocese of Brisbane and parish priest of Hendra and Northgate. He holds a Bachelor of Applied Science from the University of Southern Queensland and a Master of Arts in Theology from the University of Queensland. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse 4846 13:33 Mr DANBY WF6 Melbourne Ports I am making this statement on behalf of Nicky Davis, who is a survivor of years of child sexual abuse and a spokesperson for SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. Survivors around Australia are horrified that, despite the heartbreaking stories of abuse being heard for the first time, the Abbott government sees the precious funding that is being used for this royal commission, reversing the years of neglect of previous decades, as a piggy bank to be raided. Nicky says: 'We are accustomed to betrayal by those in authority, and to those who should help us turning their backs on our suffering. But there is one thing survivors will never accept. We will not, can not, stand by and knowingly allow other children to be exposed to the same danger that stole our future and devastated those around us. And neither should our Government.' She continues, 'By diverting funding from the Child Abuse Royal Commission, the government demonstrates a lack of commitment to child protection.' Ms Henderson interjecting— Mrs Griggs interjecting— Mr DANBY WF6 These are not my words; these are the words of Nicky Davis, survivor of child sexual abuse. She concludes: 'The Child Abuse Royal Commission is a unique opportunity for Australia to finally put child protection first. But only if it is funded at a level appropriate for the size of the task.' These are the words of a survivor of child sexual abuse. Petition: Mobile Reception and Wireless Broadband Signal 4846 13:34 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I rise today to table a petition on behalf of the good residents of Caltowie in the mid north of South Australia. The petition read as follows— To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives This petition of citizens of Caltowie, Jamestown and surrounding areas draws to the attention of the House: Improved reception for Internet and Phone Service to enable local business to operate more efficiently. We therefore ask the House to: Implement a strategy that will provide a Receiver and Booster Aerial to be erected on top of the Caltowie Silos, located in the Township of Caltowie. This will boost our Mobile Reception and Wireless Broadband Signal whereupon instigating an improvement in communications. from 89 citizens Petition received. Mr RAMSEY HWS In the short time available to me I might just say that the government of course is investing $100 million in mobile phone towers around Australia, a program that has been sadly missing over the last six years. Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, you would remember that the previous Howard administration put money into extending the mobile network across Australia, that we left a $2 billion fund for the expansion of electronic services across Australia to meet new challenges, and of course this was vacuumed up by the Rudd government to be put into the NBN, which has led to some problems. (Time expired) Indi Electorate: Kinglake Communities 4847 13:36 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi I would like to say hello to the teachers, students and families of the communities around Kinglake West. How pleased I was yesterday to welcome you all to Parliament House, and how sorry I was that I had to leave you to come and vote in the House on amendments to the government legislation. I was so pleased that my sister Helen could fill in for me. She told me that you were all very clever, very well behaved and answered all her questions to a very high standard. I think Kinglake, Kinglake East and Kinglake West is a very precious part of the electorate of Indi, and I am so looking forward to coming to visit you at home soon. Please look after your certificates, and I hope they remind you of the wonderful time that you had in Canberra and how important the nation's capital is. Dobell Electorate: WyConnect 4847 13:36 Mrs McNAMARA 241589 Dobell I rise today to congratulate an outstanding organisation that I met with recently in Wyong called WyConnect. WyConnect provides family mental health support services in Dobell. Its primary focus is on building resilience in children and young people who are struggling with mental health issues, and also strengthening families in our community. WyConnect is built on the foundations of Interrelate, a community based not-for-profit organisation with a network of centres across New South Wales. Support is provided to young people suffering from anxiety due to changing schools, starting high school, bullying or trouble coping with other adolescent issues. WyConnect identified a gap in service delivery and tailored its programs to address a shortfall in mental health services for young people. WyConnect is a referral service, with many young students being referred by local schools. A case worker is allocated to the young person and their family. The support is immediate and assesses the need for further assistance. Depending on the complexity of the case, there may be a need for longer-term support. If this is the case, WyConnect provides practical whole-of-family assistance for six to 12 months. Through early intervention and the development of a family action plan, WyConnect is able to properly plan for the future care needs of both the young person and their family, as well as engagement with appropriate service providers. I would like to congratulate Elise Dunn and her team at WyConnect for developing and delivering this service and for the fantastic work that they do for people within Dobell. (Time expired) Newcastle Electorate: The Regal Cinema 4848 13:38 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I rise today to pay tribute to the Regal Cinema at Birmingham Gardens, a Newcastle institution that has been reborn. I especially want to congratulate Friends of the Regal, the community group behind the recent reopening of the cinema, for the two National Trust Heritage Awards they received earlier this month. The first award was for their 7½-year advocacy campaign, which led to the reopening of the cinema; and the second award was in the built heritage category, for the actual renovation of the building. The Regal Cinema first opened in 1950 and had a loyal patronage of more than 34,000 a year. For many years, it was a one-person commercially operated single-screen cinema that showed a unique mix of new, old, foreign and art-house films, frequently with extended seasons. Despite the hard work of Friends of the Regal, the cinema sadly shut in October 2006, in need of extensive refurbishments and repairs. The next 7½ years were tough, but the loyal and determined Friends of the Regal never gave up and, in February this year, their goal was finally realised with the grand reopening of this wonderful cinema. Following a very long tradition of introducing each film that is screened at the Regal, this Saturday I will have the pleasure of introducing the special Reconciliation Week screening of Robyn Davidson's memoir, Tracks. Like Tracks, the reopening of the Regal Cinema is an epic Australian story. I thank Friends of the Regal for their tremendous efforts to retain this wonderful heritage-listed community-based cinema in Newcastle. Long live the Regal. Solomon Electorate: Merrepen Arts 4848 13:40 Mrs GRIGGS 220370 Solomon I rise to pay tribute to yet another fantastic Northern Territory organisation, Merrepen Arts. Merrepen Arts produce fantastic and unique Indigenous textiles that are sold for various uses around the Territory and indeed nationally. I was introduced to Merrepen Arts by Raw Cloth, another wonderful organisation. I wear many of their designs; in fact, I am wearing one of those designs right now. This design is called Frog Dreaming. I am a fierce champion of Merrepen and, during the recent visit by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, I was able to present them with a number of pieces of fabric that were designed by Merrepen. The Duchess was very impressed with them. I hope that, when she returns to Australia and visits the Northern Territory again, she might be wearing a dress made from Merrepen fabric. This weekend is the annual Merrepen Arts Festival, held at the Daly River. Unfortunately, due to my electoral commitments I will not be able to attend, but I wish Liz Bott and her team the very best for the weekend. Liz Bott is a strong advocate for Merrepen, and I know that she will put on a spectacular weekend. Territorians may want to keep an eye out for more on these fabulous Indigenous textiles, because the ABC will tomorrow night be showcasing this wonderful product. (Time expired) Brand Electorate: Building Technology Centre 4849 13:41 Mr GRAY 8W5 Brand I rise to speak on the subject of trade training and the importance of trade-training centres. Next week will see the opening of a nearly $30 million trade-training centre in Rockingham, funded in the main by the Commonwealth government—over $20 million worth of funding from the Commonwealth government to build the new Building Technology Centre on Dixon Road in Rockingham. This centre will not just be state of the art; this will be the most modern trade-training centre in the Commonwealth. It supplies trade skills to the industrial strip of Kwinana but, most importantly, it will supply the skills and the training to build the careers of the people who build the houses that house Western Australians. I am extremely proud that this facility is the result of a Commonwealth government investment in trade training in a community for whom skills, apprenticeships and trade training are so important. With the electrical trades skills, roof-fixing skills and plasterboarding skills that are so important to the homebuilding of the future, an investment like this in brand-new technology for over 350 young apprentices or pre-apprentices in Rockingham, Kwinana and the Kwinana area is so very important. It is important too that it opens next week. We all celebrate that fact. (Time expired) Corangamite Electorate: Kids Plus Foundation 4849 13:43 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite It was my great pleasure to visit the Kids Plus Foundation in Geelong last week. Kids Plus is doing an incredible job, providing one-on-one early intervention therapy for babies and children with cerebral palsy and other similar disabilities. During my visit, I met a wonderful little girl called Tulli, who is 2½. She was with her mum, Bek Seabert, and grandmother Debbie. They were working on some exercises to improve Tull's mobility. It was so uplifting to see this fantastic work in action. Prior to the commencement of the Barwon region trial of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, Kids Plus received no government funding. All moneys raised were through private donations. But now many clients are using their services as part of NDIS funded support packages. While Kids Plus still needs more support and larger premises, this has made a real difference. Several weeks ago, Prime Minister Abbott opened the national headquarters of the National Disability Insurance Agency, in Geelong. Despite the scare campaign run by Labor, as confirmed by the budget our government is proudly funding the full rollout of the NDIS within the agreed funding envelope. There are lessons to be learned from the trial sites, but already there are some 2,700 participants in the Barwon NDIS trial. In delivering more independence, more dignity and more funds to people with a disability, this is making an extraordinary difference in our community. (Time expired) Budget 4849 13:44 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin Since the Abbott government handed down its budget of broken promises, my office has been inundated with concerned constituents worried about their children's future. One in particular stood out and affected me. It was Cath, the sole parent of two teenage boys, one in high school, the other in TAFE. Cath works part time and she sometimes struggles making ends meet. But she manages through careful budgeting and going without life's luxuries, making the really tough choices. Cath's son, who is 17, would like to attend university. However, he is already having second thoughts since the budget announcement as he said feels that he would be a 'burden' on his family if he did so. This is a young person with a bright future, already worried about this government's stripping away opportunities for his generation to receive an education, without having to place his parent at breaking point. Cath said: I want to be able to tell him that everything will be OK and that he need not worry about how people like him will access university, but I honestly cannot do that because I am also scared for his future and for the future of his older brother, who may never be able to progress his studies in such a climate of uncertainty and fear. It saddens and scares me to think of the untapped potential that may never be realised. Cath, my message to you is this: Labor will vote against these cuts to university funding and student support. Labor will not support a system of higher fees and bigger debt, reduced access and greater inequity. Labor will never tell Australians that the quality of their education depends on their capacity to pay. Budget 4850 13:46 Mr BROAD 30379 Mallee I rise to talk to the House today about the importance of our defence system. We have now committed to spending $12.4 billion on F-35 Lightning aircraft. I think that it is important to reflect on our history whilst we need to spend money such as this even in difficult times. The first role of the government is of course the security of its people, and threats to security do come quickly and often unexpectedly. It was 7 December 1941 when Japan first entered the war with the bombing of the American Navy fleet in Pearl Harbor. It was 15 February 1942 that Singapore fell and the capture of 80,000 British and Australian troops, arguably one of the darkest days in our military history, and it was 19 February 1942 when Darwin was bombed for the first time. From the entry of Japan in the Second World War to the defence of Australia was a period of 10 weeks. So a standing defence system, whilst expensive, is essential. I, like all peace-loving Australians, hope and sincerely pray that we will not have to use this aircraft in conflict. However we do live in the real world not the ideal world and I am proud that our government takes the defence of its people seriously. PAL Buddhist School 4850 13:47 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler Today I rise to talk about PAL School, the first Buddhist high school in the country. I am honoured to have visited this school, which has been established in Canley Vale in my electorate of Fowler. During my visit I learnt that the academic and life skills education of this school follows the teachings of Buddha, emphasising compassion, philosophy and kindness. The school encourages a positive outlook based on peace, harmony and continual learning. I am also aware of the students' high degree of involvement in charitable works and volunteer work throughout our community. Innovatively, this school has also tried to create a paperless school environment, saving natural resources and engaging with students to adopt quicker new technologies to access the most up-to-date information available to them. I would like to acknowledge the hard work of the principal, Panha Pal, and the board of directors, Helen Lam, Huy Vu, Son Long Ha and Renata Ratzer. I would also like to thank the teachers of the school, who do invaluable work, and the various volunteers, particularly those in the P&C, people such as Phuong Dao, Sophie Hong, Muoi Huynh, Nghia Ho and Thao Kieu. Only last weekend the school opened a temple on the school grounds, which will be available for all in the community during weekends. I look forward to working very closely with the PAL Buddhist School over years to come. Banks Electorate: Australian Coptic Community 4851 13:49 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks The Australian Coptic community is a very important part of my electorate, and recently I have held a number of meetings with its leadership. The Coptic community makes a tremendous contribution to Sydney. Members of the community assist our city and the broader world in many ways including raising funds to support families in Sudan. In recent months I have visited the Coptic community's St Marks Church in Arncliffe, and St Mary and St Joseph which is located at Peakhurst in my electorate. Both congregations display a powerful community spirit. I also met recently with Bishop Daniel, the Bishop of Sydney and Affiliated Regions, and other community leaders including Mr John Nour, the head of the Coptic Public Affairs Council of the Diocese of Sydney. The Coptic community has grave concerns about the situation in Egypt where Copts often suffer from persecution due to their religion. It is critical that the government of Egypt takes steps to ensure the safety of Copts. All Egyptians should be entitled to freely practise their religion without fear of persecution. The Egyptian government should move to ensure that all Egyptians regardless of their religion are able to live in peace in their own homes. I thank the Coptic community for its tremendous contribution to our nation and look forward to continued cooperation in the future. Baratta, Mr Bruce Francis 4851 13:50 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra It is with great sadness that I rise today to pay tribute to a friend and long-serving member of the ACT Labor Party, Bruce Francis Baratta, who passed away unexpectedly on 8 May. Bruce was a dedicated public servant and a Canberran who gave tirelessly to his community. He was active in the Weston Creek Community Association and then Community Council, and more recently he was an active member of the Yarralumla Residents Association. In fact, Bruce was somewhat of a legend around the suburb of Yarralumla, where he lived until his recent passing. Bruce was a dedicated member of the Labor Party and an active member of the Telopea Sub Branch. He was not only passionate about politics but he was also dedicated to democracy and counted votes for the Australian Electoral Commission at every election from 1971 until he joined the ALP. Bruce was an avid sports fan—in fact he was crazy about sport—and I am assured by his sons that he would have been thrilled with the results of last night's State of Origin. On a personal note, Bruce was an enormous support for me over the last four years. He could always be relied on to show up to a mobile office, a pre-polling station or wherever he was needed to help out. As members here all know, without volunteers like Bruce, campaigns simply do not happen. I will be forever grateful for his unwavering support. Most importantly, however, Bruce was a family man. He loved his family with a gigantic passion and my thoughts are with them at this sad time. I thank his sons, Julian and David, for being here today and congratulate them again for a warm, funny send-off for Bruce just last week. Rest in peace Bruce Baratta. You will be greatly missed by your Canberra community, your Labor family and your adored and adoring children. Infrastructure 4852 13:52 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan The coalition government is making an historic investment in the 2014-15 budget to get on with building Australia's infrastructure. A core element of the government's Economic Action Strategy is the commitment of an additional $11.6 billion in the budget to the Infrastructure Growth Package. This investment will also generate significant additional state and private sector participation to build the infrastructure that Australia needs. The $11.6 billion Infrastructure Growth Package is expected to catalyse over $58 billion worth of new infrastructure investments. This is on top of the coalition government's existing Infrastructure Investment Program, which will generate some $68 billion in infrastructure investment when combined with the expected state and private sector funding. Taken together this will create an additional infrastructure investment in excess of $125 billion. This investment will transform infrastructure across the country and lay the foundations for future growth. When the construction projects supported by the government's infrastructure are completed, they will add one percentage point to GDP. The coalition government is responding to the needs of the economy by building infrastructure that will drive economic growth, create jobs and improve productivity. I am proud to stand on this side of the chamber with the knowledge that the coalition government is investing in the infrastructure of the 21st century. Balkan Peninsula Floods 4852 13:53 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley Three months' worth of rain falling over a few days has triggered the worst flooding in a century sweeping through Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia. While the death toll is, thankfully, low, thousands of homes are destroyed, multiple numbers of people are displaced, roads are ruined and there is a repair bill in the billions. These countries might sit in Europe, but they are not the strongest economically. Their need is great. Please consider this point: the after-effects of this flood are explosive—literally. Last week alone there were seven instances of exploding mines and ordnance set off by floodwater currents. Fortunately there were no deaths, but imagine being a rescuer working in that? This is not a normal flood, but the silence and lack of world reaction is definitely unusual. Australians of Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian backgrounds are deeply distressed that these floods have failed to get anyone's attention or care. But they are working arm in arm to help. Last week I personally tried to get some non-government organisations to set up local funds to funnel the local support that is surging forward to aid people in need. Amazingly, these NGOs and said 'no'. Locals are fundraising furiously. In Dandenong, the local Serbian community has raised over $200,000. I visited the Bosnian community in Canley Vale and they are gearing up to donate nearly $50,000. But they are being told to donate to agencies in country or to make their own arrangements. I have appreciated the chance to talk with foreign minister Bishop about this. I understand that the government has pre-positioned funds, but something terrible is unfolding here and we need to be ready to provide meaningful support to help people help themselves. Petition: Cyclist Safety 4853 13:55 Mr NIKOLIC 137174 Bass I present a petition to the parliament that has 29,101 signatures and which has been approved by the Petitions Committee. It is focused on better protecting bicycle riders on our roads Last year 48 riders were killed and nearly 10,000 seriously injured. This is a terrible and unacceptable toll. Cycling promotes good health and wellbeing and continues to grow as a sporting and recreational activity. It is a sport that I enjoy personally, like hundreds of thousands of others. But it should not be an activity that puts the lives of its participants at risk. Sadly, that is what is happening on our roads today. Just this month, while travelling to Parliament House, I encountered a serious accident involving a bicycle. It was, like so many others, the result of a bike rider being struck from behind, without warning, by a car. We can and must do more to ensure safer use of our roads by bike riders. We must amend the Australian road rules so that drivers allow a minimum of one metre when overtaking bicycle riders in speed zones up to 60 kilometres an hour and 1.5 metres when overtaking riders in zones over 60 kilometres an hour. This petition seeks our help to improve the safety of bike riders and reduce the trauma and cost of accidents. These measures, together with the government's cycling and road safety strategies, action by the states and a public information program can make a real difference. I thank the principal petitioner, Colin Burns, from Cycling Tasmania. I also thank the Amy Gillett Foundation for their support, and commend this most worthy petition to the House. The petition read as follows— To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives This petition of certain Citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to need for the Australian Road Rules to require drivers to provide a minimum overtaking distance when passing bicycle riders. In 2013, 48 bicycle riders were killed, the highest number of bicycle rider deaths since 1997. Every year over 9,500 bicycle riders are seriously injured. While the overall road toll is decreasing, this is not the case for bicycle riders. The human trauma costs of cycling in Australia are unacceptable. Request: We therefore ask the House to use all tools at its disposal to ensure the Australian Road Rules are amended to require that: drivers allow a minimum of one metre when overtaking bicycle riders in speed zones up to 60km/hr drivers allow a minimum of 1.5 metres when overtaking bicycle riders in speed zones over 60km/hr This amendment, together with a public information and enforcement program, would significantly improve the safety of bicycle riders on our roads and maintain effectiveness and efficiency of the road transport system. The amendment will also contribute to the Government's current Cycling and Road Safety Strategies, helping more Australians enjoy a safe cycling environment. from 29,101 citizens Petition received. Live Animal Exports 4854 13:57 Mr KELVIN THOMSON UK6 Wills It is remarkable that the Minister for Agriculture, Mr Joyce, can resume live animal exports to Iran on the basis that we have entered into an appropriate animal welfare protocol with Iran, when his department is incapable of enforcing the existing animal welfare protocols we have with Middle Eastern countries and is overwhelmed by the breaches which have already been brought to their attention by Animals Australia and other animal welfare groups. Livestock Shipping Services—LSS—is a likely beneficiary of the opening of the live trade with Iran. Yet LSS is subject to 11 serious ESCAS breach investigations, including six in Gaza and four in Jordan. Even worse, there is a criminal investigation going on over the falsification of export documents arising from the disgraceful debacle which saw 22,000 sheep that were rejected by Bahrain ending up brutally slaughtered in Pakistan. The criminal investigation could well have consequences for LSS, yet even today LSS is loading a ship in Fremantle to send more cattle and sheep to Israel and Jordan. The animal welfare protocol with Iran will be worth less than a coalition election promise unless this government starts handing out meaningful rather than Mickey Mouse penalties for the numerous breaches of the protocols we have already put in place. We should stick with the boxed meat trade we already have with Iran. Hasluck Electorate: Manufacturing 4854 13:58 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck I want to place on record my sincere thanks and appreciation to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry on behalf of local manufacturers in my electorate of Hasluck. Last week, the parliamentary secretary, the Hon. Bob Baldwin MP, visited Hasluck and hosted a roundtable discussion on the topic of intellectual property. Hasluck has many innovative and creative local manufacturers and it is vital that we protect their ideas and products. I have had many discussions with local manufacturers on how we can strengthen the protection of Australian designs and products. Those who were able to meet with the parliamentary secretary were impressed with his knowledge, insight and advice. One manufacturer who we visited said that he felt that, Bob Baldwin MP was a very professional person in his approach, based on his years of experience in the metal industry and engineering. That is one of the great things about members on this side of the House: the wealth of real life knowledge and experience on these benches is a great asset to the government and to the people of Australia. That is why people trust this government to do the right thing. As evidenced through the parliamentary secretary's visit to Hasluck last week, we on this side of the House listen to all of the hard-working Australians in the local community and will continue to seek ways of giving people a hand up, rather than a handout. I look forward to working with the parliamentary secretary to build a stronger local manufacturing industry in Hasluck. The SPEAKER SE4 It being 2 pm, in accordance with standing order 43 the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 4855 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Medicare 4855 14:00 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister explain why Medicare's hotline right now is advising: 'From 1 July 2015 a patient contribution of $7 will be introduced.' Is this Prime Minister so arrogant that his government is telling people that they will have to pay his GP tax when it hasn't even passed the parliament? When will the Prime Minister finally wake up to himself and realise that Australians don't want your rotten GP tax? 14:01 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah It is the government's intention that there will be a GP co-payment from the middle of 2015. This is the government's intention. It is also the government's intention that we will put the legislation into the parliament and we expect that, after appropriate consideration, the parliament will understand that Labor's debt and deficit disaster has to be brought under control and that we need to make Medicare sustainable for the long term. That is what this co-payment is all about—it is about making Medicare sustainable for the long term. Mr Burke DYW Madam Speaker, on a point of order: the Prime Minister is now claiming it is going to the bottom line when the Treasurer is saying it is going to a research fund. The SPEAKER SE4 There is no point of order. The member will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 As members opposite in their hearts know, a modest co-payment is perfectly appropriate and sensible policy. Ms King interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Ballarat will desist. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 It was members opposite in government under Bob Hawke that brought in a PBS co-payment. If it is perfectly right and proper to have a PBS co-payment, it is perfectly right and proper to have a modest Medicare co-payment. Let me just remind members opposite of what the then health minister and Deputy Prime Minister, Brian Howe, said back in 1991 when introducing a GP co-payment: 'The measures being introduced in this budget relate to the preliminary findings of the national health strategy. They are the first steps in dealing with the structural problems in the healthcare system.' He said this strategy outlined as a priority for reform, 'the judicious use of price signals to encourage both doctors and patients to be more selective in their use of medical services'. Who ran the national health strategy? Ms Macklin PG6 I did. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 So not only do we have Bob Hawke as the father of the co-payment, we have got the member for Jagajaga as the mother of the co-payment. The real authors of the co-payment are over there. The SPEAKER SE4 The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Jagajaga on a point of order—it had better be a proper one. Ms Macklin PG6 It had better be a proper one, Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister should not mislead the parliament. I opposed the co-payment. The SPEAKER SE4 Before I call the Prime Minister, I would say to the member for Jagajaga: there is no point of order and you know well that you may not say 'misleading' when there are proper forms of the House to deal with those questions. Ms Macklin PG6 I may use that one too— Mr Morrison interjecting— Ms Macklin PG6 and I will ask the minister for immigration to withdraw his parliamentary remark. Mr Morrison E3L I withdraw. The SPEAKER SE4 The Prime Minister has the call. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Just to remind the member for Jagajaga, the 'judicious use of price signals to encourage both doctors and patients to be more selective in their use of medical services' was part of the national health strategy, which the member opposite helped to author. Ms Macklin PG6 Don't mislead the parliament! The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Jagajaga will desist. Economy 4856 14:04 Dr SOUTHCOTT TK6 Boothby My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline the government's plan for a stronger Australia? How will reducing Labor's debt strengthen the economy in the long term? 14:04 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I do thank the member for Boothby for his question. The government's plan for a stronger Australia is quite simple. It was outlined again and again and again before the election and after the election. It is to stop the boats; it is to scrap the carbon tax; it is to build the roads of the 21st century; and it is to get the budget back under control. I can assure this parliament that this government is delivering. For almost six months there have been no successful people-smuggling ventures to our country, thanks to the fine work of the minister and also the professionalism of the naval, customs and police personnel on Operation Sovereign Borders. We are scrapping the carbon tax because that will make the average household $550 a year better off. We are cracking on with building the roads that Labor neglected. And this budget does tackle Labor's debt and deficit disaster. The budget had to tackle Labor's debt and deficit disaster because we just cannot go on borrowing $1 billion every month just to pay the interest on the borrowings. That is $1 billion in dead money. Without this $1 billion a month interest bill we could fund in just a month the north-south road which the member for Boothby is so naturally concerned about. We could fund the Midlands Highway duplication in just two weeks without the $1 billion a month interest bill. We could fund the Gateway Motorway upgrade in Brisbane with just one month of Labor's interest bill. We could fund the rebuild of the Bruce Highway in just seven months of Labor's interest bill. But we cannot spend more on schools, hospitals and roads because of Labor's interest bill. That $1 billion a month is the price that all Australians are paying for Labor's six years of incompetence and waste and debt and deficit disaster. I want to assure this parliament, and through this parliament the people of Australia, that this government will take the hard decisions necessary to put our country back on track. We will not squib them. That is what people elected us to do. Higher Education Contribution Scheme 4857 14:07 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his comments this morning in which he claimed that the government has ruled out collecting student debt after death. Does the Prime Minister stand by his Treasurer, who just this morning said that student loans should be collected after death and that they 'should not be treated any differently to any other loan'? 14:08 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I do not assume for a second that the shadow Treasurer has accurately characterised the comments of the Treasurer, but let me answer the question. Mr Burke DYW Madam Speaker— The SPEAKER SE4 I think that is a document already on the public record. Mr Burke DYW No, Madam Speaker, I'm not seeking to table it. There has been a question about the authentication of the question that was asked. The SPEAKER SE4 What is the point of order? Mr Burke DYW I am happy to pass this via the attendants to the Prime Minister. We know what the Treasurer said. The SPEAKER SE4 I am sorry—this is not a debate. No. There is no point of order. The member will resume his seat. This is not a debating period; it is a question and an answer period. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 The government has no plans whatsoever to collect student debts from dead people. What we do certainly intend to do is to make stronger efforts to collect student debts from living people, because that is what the taxpayers of this country have a right to expect. Budget 4857 14:09 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline the importance of fixing the budget, and what will 'living within our means' mean for my constituents in Ryan? 14:10 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney I thank the honourable member for Ryan for her question. I also welcome the interest of the Labor Party in paying back debt, because now they have a new-found interest in repaying debt—something they never had. But all of a sudden we discovered today that they are really concerned about people paying back their debts. The only problem is that the Australian Labor Party has made the debt worse for everyone. In just six years they wreaked havoc on the Australian economy and left us with a debt growing to $667 billion. That is $25,000— An opposition member: Come on! Mr HOCKEY DK6 I know—'Come on!' I know it is hard to believe. I know that is a big number for you guys over there. There are a lot of zeros. But let's narrow it down to what it means for every single Australian. It is $25,000 of debt for every man, woman and child in Australia in 10 years, whether they went to university or not. So people who are the poorest of the poor in the nation have the same debt liability under Labor as the wealthiest person—and why? Because that is Labor's approach to debt. They pick and choose the moments they want to talk about it. The great challenge is that without action in our budget the interest on that debt would be $3 billion a month, and 70 per cent of that interest is paid to people overseas. Because we are borrowing money from people overseas, we have to pay interest back to those people, and 70 per cent of the interest bill is paid to people living overseas. The Labor Party want to make this issue worse. They do not want to improve the debt problem; they actually want to make it worse. That is why they are opposing $40 billion of savings, including $5 billion of their own savings, which is quite remarkable. But, what is more, it is even worse than that. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs pointed out, the member for Sydney wants to increase it by a further $16 billion. She wants to go back to the full foreign aid program that Labor had—$16 billion extra in foreign aid with borrowed money. Of course, the Labor Party will not deny it. An opposition member interjecting— Mr HOCKEY DK6 Are you denying it? No, they are not denying it. You are committed to it—an extra $16 billion. In fact, she put out a press release. Ms Plibersek 83M Madam Speaker— The SPEAKER SE4 The honourable member for Sydney, on a point of order? Ms Plibersek 83M No, on indulgence, because the Treasurer has asked— The SPEAKER SE4 There is no indulgence in question time. The member will resume her seat. Mr HOCKEY DK6 $16 billion on top of $40 billion. The pain of Labor just keeps going on and on and on, and every Australian is going to have to pay back that debt. Higher Education Contribution Scheme 4858 14:13 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday in question time the Prime Minister would not rule out $100,000 science degrees. Today his ministers cannot give straight answers on the government's plans to collect student debt after death. So which is it, Prime Minister? Does the Prime Minister not know, does the Prime Minister not care or is the Prime Minister just not being honest? The SPEAKER SE4 That is a question that is full of argument, and I think perhaps rephrasing the question just to make it a simple, straightforward question would be a good idea. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Yesterday, it is a fact, the Prime Minister would not rule out $100,000 science degrees. Today it is a fact, no matter what shouting we hear from the government, that their ministers cannot give a straight answer on collecting student debt after death. So what is it, Prime Minister? Is it that the Prime Minister does not know about his unfair budget, he does not care about his unfair budget or he is just not being straight about his unfair budget? The SPEAKER SE4 The Prime Minister has the call. The question can stand. Mr Pyne 9V5 He always has to smear, Madam Speaker. The SPEAKER SE4 The question stands. Mr Pyne 9V5 Madam Speaker— The SPEAKER SE4 The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call. 14:14 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I am happy to deal with these matters, as you would expect, Madam Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition is speculating on debt. Let me give him this fact. Under Labor's policy a family of four would face a $100,000 share in Labor's debt bill of $667 billion. Look at the budget figures. Under Labor's policy our gross debt would have maxed out in 10 years time at $667 billion—$25,000 per Australian man, woman and child. Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Isaacs will desist. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 That is the debt that this government was elected to address and that is what we are doing. We are addressing Labor's debt and deficit disaster. We are responding to Labor's interest bill. We are letting this country know how we will respond to Labor's debt and deficit disaster, how we will clean up Labor's mess. The challenge is for 'Interest Bill', sitting over there, to tell us how he would deal with Labor's interest bill. The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Fairfax has the call. Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Isaacs will not shout at the chair. The Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Burke DYW Madam Speaker, just quickly: the Prime Minister should refer to members by their title. At the end he did not. It is a very simple practice. The SPEAKER SE4 The member will resume his seat. The member for Fairfax has the call. Budget 4859 14:16 Mr PALMER LQR Fairfax My question is to the Treasurer. As the world knows, the average debt in the OECD— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Fairfax will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition has a point of order? Mr Shorten 00ATG The Manager of Opposition Business just wants this Prime Minister to act like a Prime Minister. The SPEAKER SE4 There is no point of order. That is an abuse of the standing orders and the Leader of the Opposition knows it. Mr Pyne 9V5 Madam Speaker— The SPEAKER SE4 The Leader of the House will resume his seat and we will have the member for Fairfax ask his question. Mr PALMER LQR My question is to the Treasurer. As the world knows, the average debt in the OECD for advanced economies is 73 per cent of GDP. According to the OECD and the Parliamentary Library, Australia's debt is 12.1 per cent of GDP. How can the government justify the repressive measures it has introduced in the budget, including the co-payment for doctor visits, which pensioners, young people and single mothers cannot afford to pay, and the abandonment of young people under 30 years of age? Why doesn't the Australian government tell the people the truth? Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 There will be silence on my left! 14:18 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney I thank Professor Palmer for his question. I do want to note that, as he would know— Opposition members interjecting— Mr HOCKEY DK6 No, just listen. As he would know, Australia is a net importer of capital. As Professor Palmer would know, we have essentially been a net importer of capital since 1788 because we have a very large country that relies on a lot of foreign investment— Mr Marles HWQ You know he is the crossbench? The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Corio will desist! Mr HOCKEY DK6 such as from China from CIDIC. We rely on foreign investment to develop the mines. We rely on foreign loans in order to build and construct our activity. Every year we import around $40 billion in net terms from the rest of the world to fund our growth. Mr Bowen DZS Madam Speaker— Mr HOCKEY DK6 No, no. This is an education for you as well, so just listen. The SPEAKER SE4 The Treasurer will resume his seat. The member for McMahon on a point of order. Mr Bowen DZS Madam Speaker, I note that ministers can refer questions to other ministers. If the Treasurer has not been briefed, I understand that the Minister for Communications has been. The SPEAKER SE4 There is no point of order. Resume your seat. The next person who abuses the standing orders in that way will remove themselves under standing order 94(a). I call the Treasurer. Mr HOCKEY DK6 So as a nation on an annual basis Australia does not fund itself like other nations, like Japan, which has an enormous pool of domestic savings, the UK or even Italy, which have much higher government debt—yes, they do—but have a very large pool of domestic savings that funds the needs of the government. Whereas in Australia we do not fund ourselves on an annual basis, so when we borrow money, be it from our banks, or when the federal government runs deficits and it borrows money from the rest of the world to help to fund its everyday living costs, then that increases our exposure to international capital market volatility and it increases the exposure of Australia to movements around the rest of the world that some other countries do not have to do. So our lower level of debt does not necessarily excuse us at all from some of the challenges in global financial markets because we import money to build the mines, to build the ports and to build the railways, because we import money every year. The reason we want to get back to surplus is so we can start lending money to Australians instead of borrowing money from people overseas to fund our needs. We want to become a self-sufficient nation. We want to ensure that we fund our demands. We want to ensure that we live within our means. We want to make sure that as a nation we can stand proudly and independently on our own two feet, that we are not relying on anyone in the international market to fund our needs and fund our future. The coalition government stand for the independence and the resilience of Australia, and we will not apologise for that. Infrastructure 4861 14:21 Ms SCOTT 165476 Lindsay My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. Will the minister update the House on what the government is doing to improve infrastructure in Western Sydney in order to support the growing population in my electorate? Mr Husic interjecting — The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Chifley is warned! 14:22 Mr TRUSS GT4 Wide Bay I thank the member for Lindsay for her question. As one of the champions of Western Sydney, she knows that Western Sydney will play a vital role in the economic growth of our country in the years ahead. It is already, with two million people, Australia's fourth largest city. It is an area that will continue to grow. One in two people living in Sydney will be living in Western Sydney before too much longer. That is why that region needs a major capital investment, a major commitment to building better infrastructure. It is a call that has been crying out for some time and which the previous government left unanswered. But this government, the government that is going to build the infrastructure of the 21st century, has answered the call. There is a commitment for $3.5 billion worth of new road and infrastructure activities in that area. This will transform Western Sydney: upgrading its existing roads, building new motorways and building the kind of infrastructure that a city of two million people has a right to expect and, in particular, also building for them an airport. What cities around the world of two million people do not have an airport of their own? A key part of this major investment will be the new Badgerys Creek airport— Mr Husic 91219 This is the one Tony said wasn't being built? Mr TRUSS GT4 which will provide an opportunity for those who want to live and work in Western Sydney to connect to the rest of the world. Our road program includes upgrading the Northern Road and the construction of a new four-lane motorway between the M7 and Northern Road and building the Bringelly Road up to a four-lane standard from the Camden Valley Way to Northern Road. And there will be a $200 million package for local roads in Western Sydney to help provide the infrastructure to service that rapidly growing part of the country. I am pleased to report also to the House that work on these projects is proceeding at speed. The project office will be opening very shortly. We will be calling tenders next month for the work on the Bringelly Road as the first project, a $500 million project, to start improving the infrastructure that Western Sydney needs for the future. We have a commitment, a $3.5 billion commitment with the New South Wales government, to Western Sydney to build the infrastructure that it needs to give Western Sydney the opportunity it wants to contribute to our nation and to help build a stronger local economy. Budget 4861 14:25 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to ACOSS analysis which shows that the Prime Minister's changes to pension indexation will leave single pensioners $160 per fortnight worse off after 10 years. Prime Minister, how is a reduction of $160 per fortnight not a cut to pensions and not a broken promise? Government members interjecting— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 There will be silence on my left! Mr Butler interjecting— A government member interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Port Adelaide will desist, and whoever he is interjecting with will also desist. 14:25 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah The government has, as the member suggests, changed indexation rates at various times from male total average weekly earnings to the consumer price index. We have done it because we want pensions and other benefits to be sustainable for the long term. I do not necessarily accept the analysis that the member cites, and obviously we will be looking at that piece of analysis and we will be coming up with a response at the right time. There is nothing wrong with changing the indexation from male total average weekly earnings to the consumer price index. And why do I know there is nothing wrong with changing the indexation from MTAWE to CPI? Because Labor did it. Labor did it in the budget couple of years ago. In budget measures 2009-10, they changed the family tax benefit family payment indexation from MTAWE to CPI. That is what they did. So not only is the member for Jagajaga the mother of the Medicare co-payment, she is the mother of CPI indexation. Ms Macklin interjecting— Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Madam Speaker, I am not going to mislead; I am going to quote what the member for Jagajaga said at the time in 2009. She said, 'These reforms'—that is, changing indexation to CPI—'are designed to ensure the current system is sustainable and provides continuing support for families who need it most and encourage participation and productivity'. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 There will be silence on my right! Mr ABBOTT EZ5 She was honest then. She was telling the truth, and now I think she is just having— Mr Dreyfus HWG You need to tell the truth! The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Isaacs is warned! Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Well I just think she is playing politics now. Budget 4862 14:28 Mr TONY SMITH 00APG Casey Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Health. I remind the Minister for Health that a Medicare co-payment was introduced in 1991 by the Hawke government, and I ask: is the minister aware of advice received by the Hawke government at the time, and is that advice still relevant to the challenges faced by the health system today? 14:28 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the member for Casey for his question. The problem in the 1990s with Medicare, as Prime Minister Hawke pointed out, was that it was unsustainable without a co-payment, and that is why Labor supported a co-payment when it came to our medicine scheme. We have a co-payment there to make our medicine system sustainable and we are arguing, as Bob Hawke did then, that we need a co-payment to make our system sustainable going forward. I want to get a better understanding of why there was common sense in the Labor Party then, but there is not now except of course for the member for Fraser, who is supportive of a co-payment as well, but I will come back to him in a second. Mr Husic interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 I would remind the member for Chifley that he is warned. Once more and he is gone. Mr DUTTON 00AKI Why would the Labor Party be so sound in their policy thinking, why would they want to support a sustainable Medicare system in the 1990s but in 2014 the Leader of the Opposition is opportunistic and does not want to support a sustainable Medicare? Obviously it is because of the people that were around at the time. I looked to the then Minister for Health, Brian Howe. He had to say this in 1991 when the Labor Party believed in something and they produced a co-payment to keep any care sustainable. He said: It was to enact a number of changes designed to ensure that Medicare remains a sustainable, equitable and efficient universal health insurance system. They were wise words from the then Labor health minister. But where would he have got his advice? I had a look at some of the comments that he had to make and he said at the time: The measures being introduced in this budget related to the preliminary findings of the National Health Strategy. The 'National Health Strategy'? I thought: who put that piece of work together? Who put those wise words together? If you have a look at the member for Jagajaga's website, she is happy to skite that: Prior to entering parliament, Jenny was the director of two major strategic reviews reporting to Brian Howe, including the National Health Strategy. I thought: let me seek further confirmation. The SPEAKER SE4 The minister will resume his seat. The member for Ballarat on a point of order? Ms King 00AMR Thank you. The first point of order is obviously he needs to refer to members by their name— The SPEAKER SE4 It better be a proper one, because you have been warned. Ms King 00AMR I know you are having trouble selling your policy and you have been told to trot it out, but is this the best you can do? The SPEAKER SE4 I advised the chamber that the next person who abused the standing orders would remove themselves under 94(a). The member for Ballarat will remove herself for one hour. The member for Ballarat then left the chamber. Mr DUTTON 00AKI All I ask is that Jenny Macklin, as she then was, who is described as the director of this particular body that advised Brian Howe. It says, 'For further information about the advice …'—to the then government—'in relation to the co-payment, contact Jenny Macklin, the director of the National Health Strategy.' All I ask is that common sense prevails in the modern Labor Party. If Jenny Macklin was the mother of the co-payment and Bob Hawke was the father of the co-payment then the political love child of the co-payment should stand up and in this place again commend the co-payment so that we can make Medicare sustainable into the future. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 4864 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:32 The SPEAKER SE4 I advise the chamber that we have with us in the gallery today 50 Indigenous youth parliamentarians participating in the 214th National Indigenous Youth Parliament Leadership Program. We make you most welcome. Honourable members: Hear, hear! Mr Husic 91219 Don't try this at home! The SPEAKER SE4 We also have in the House, Mr Barry Haase, the former member for Durack, and we welcome him. Honourable members: Hear, hear! The SPEAKER SE4 I would advise the person who made that wise comment that, indeed, there is some behaviour in this place today that you would not wish to emulate, but there are others that you may. I call the member for Jagajaga. Mr Tehan interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 Was that the member for Wannon? Government members: No. Opposition members: No. 2! Mr Ewen Jones interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 In that case the member for Herbert is warned! I must say that today I am being particularly lenient on Queensland people! They did take such a beating last night. Go the blues! There are two more games to go but today I am being very lenient on the Queenslanders. Is the member for Herbert standing on a point of order? Mr Ewen Jones 96430 I am, Madam Speaker. The SPEAKER SE4 It had better be a good one; otherwise you will go under as well. Mr Ewen Jones 96430 It is a very good one. New South Wales only scored more points than us last night, Madam Speaker—they didn't beat us! The SPEAKER SE4 I am very sorry, Member for Herbert, but under the same criteria that the member for Ballarat had to go, so do you—for one hour. I call the member for Jagajaga. The member for Herbert then left the chamber. Ms Macklin PG6 In the same vein, if I could just join with you in welcoming the students that are here today to join the Indigenous youth parliament. It is wonderful to have you all here. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 4865 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Budget 4865 14:35 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, if there are no cuts to pensions in this budget, why do the Prime Minister's own budget papers show a $449 million cut? 14:29 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah Pensions are going up every six months. They are going up every six months now, they will go up every six months in the future. They are going up. I just think it would be much better for our country, it would be much better for the pensioners of Australia, if the alternative government of our country stopped scaring pensioners and started to tell pensioners the truth. And the truth is that pensions will go up every six months— Ms Macklin PG6 Why is there a cut— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Jagajaga has asked her question. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 The difference, as the member the member for Jagajaga well knows, is that indexation changes— Ms Macklin interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Jagajaga will desist! Mr ABBOTT EZ5 The difference, as the member for Jagajaga well knows, is that indexation changes from male total average weekly earnings or CPI, whichever is the greatest, to CPI. That is the difference. Ms Macklin interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Jagajaga is warned! She has asked her question. She will listen in silence. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 As the member for Jagajaga well knows, what this government is doing is applying to pensions the same indexation that she applied to family tax benefits. Let me tell her very softly, because I do not want to be accused of shouting at anyone, that we are doing for pensions exactly what she did for the family tax benefit. It is exactly the same thing. Mr Champion HW9 Throw him a lifesaver! The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Wakefield is warned. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 I ask the member for Jagajaga: if it was fair for her to do this to the family tax benefit— Mr Champion interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Wakefield will leave for one hour. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 how can it be unfair for us to do it for pensioners? How can it be fair for her to do it and somehow be unfair for us to do it? Mr Burke DYW I rise on a point of order. I refer you to page 551 of House of Representatives Practice. It has become the practice of ministers in this House to constantly be sending questions across to private members. As you know, the House of Representatives Practice states that there are very specific circumstances where questions can be asked of private members. And that does not include during the answers of ministers. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 The Prime Minister has the call and will answer the question as it has been put to him. I have been asked a question about the indexation of pensions and I am just pointing out that the indexation system that this government is applying to pensions is exactly the same as the indexation system that the member for Jagajaga applied to the family tax benefit—exactly the same. The member for Jagajaga cannot help herself. What she does not like is the fact that she has been caught out in utter hypocrisy. What members opposite cannot stand is the fact that this government has been honest and true. Members opposite are utterly, completely hypocritical. Hypocrisy, thy name is Labor. Schools 4866 14:39 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong My question is to the Minister for Education. Will the minister inform the House how the government is supporting Australian school students. Are there any alternative approaches? 14:39 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I am very pleased to answer a question from the member for Bennelong about the support that the government is giving to school students in the budget, because the truth is that we are keeping all of our election commitments in this budget to school students. Funding to school students goes up every year of the next four years in the forward estimates, peaking at $18.1 billion in 2017, which is a 3.1 per cent real increase in spending on schools. In fact, it is $100 million more than would have been the case if Labor had been re-elected, because of the $1.2 billion cut that Australia's No. 1 whinger visited on Australian school students when he was the Minister for Education. Because we are also funding school chaplains to the tune of $246 million, we are doing more for schools than Labor would if they had been re-elected. The member for Bennelong asked me if there were any alternative approaches. I can say to the member for Bennelong that the Leader of the Opposition—Australia's No. 1 whinger—said in Perth, on 31 March, in answer to a question from a journalist on radio— Mr Burke DYW I rise on a point of order. I am just referring to your earlier comments about decorum for the House. I think that name-calling is not consistent with it. The SPEAKER SE4 I think I have heard a bit of name-calling in some of the questions, today. I have been tolerant and let them stand. Perhaps the minister could desist from using that term again in the answer. Mr PYNE 9V5 The journalist asked the Leader of the Opposition: You have committed and you still will commit to the next election for those years five and six? These were the so-called Gonski spending measures. On 31 March the Leader of the Opposition said, 'Yes.' He said: We budgeted for this when we were in Government and furthermore, what does it cost Australia if we short change our kids? That commitment did not seem to last very long did it, Leader of the Opposition—did it, Interest Bill? The Leader of the Opposition said, in an answer to a similar question at Moonee Ponds on 22 May: We will reveal all our policies in good time before the next election … And on 18 May, the shadow Treasurer said: In terms of what we would do in office, well, we would look at the proposals, we would look at the state of funding of schools and hospitals that we inherit. The hapless shadow minister, the member for Adelaide, in 158 words to the Christian schools conference on Monday just this week, the word 'yes' did not appear once in the answer. Ms Kate Ellis DZU Why don't you read out what we did say? Mr PYNE 9V5 In fact, the parents of Australia, I always suspected were being conned by the previous government in terms of their so-called blue-sky promises that they made before the election. The Leader of the Opposition committed, on 31 March, to billions and billions of dollars of new spending. Only his shadow Treasurer, his shadow minister and himself have all pulled back on the leash— Ms Kate Ellis interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Adelaide will desist. Mr PYNE 9V5 because they know that the economic credibility will be shredded. Ms Kate Ellis interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Adelaide is warned. Mr PYNE 9V5 They are offering not only $16 billion in foreign aid spending but $7 billion in school spending and tens of billions of dollars in health spending. They have to choose, and the choice they have made is to be dishonest with the Australian people. Prime Minister: Official Residences 4867 14:43 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is the Prime Minister. I refer to evidence revealed in Senate estimates that the spending on the Prime Minister's official residences will increase by 5.3 per cent to $1.7 million next year. Why is the Prime Minister increasing spending on his official residences while cutting indexation of pensions? Why should pensioners get a lower indexation rate than the Prime Minister's residences? Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 There will be silence on my right. 14:43 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah This really is pretty low from the Leader of the Opposition. It really is pretty low for the Leader of the Opposition to come into this parliament and ask this kind of question. The decisions in respect of the official residences are all made on the basis of departmental advice. One of the very first things that I did on winning the election was to say to the departmental officials that I was not going to occupy the mansion that they had rented. Of all the various charges that could be levelled against this government, this is absolutely the least sustainable. Asylum Seekers 4867 14:45 Mr WHITELEY 207800 Braddon My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister inform the House of the benefits to taxpayers of the success of the government's border protection policies? What is the importance of sending a consistent message on protecting our borders and managing the integrity of our migration program? 14:45 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Braddon for his question. He was elected to this place at the last election because his now constituents know a mess when they see one, and they saw one under the previous government on our borders; and it is our task to clean up that mess. We have been doing that in a consistent fashion and we have been communicating that in a consistent fashion. In fact, it is now 161 days since the last successful people-smuggling venture, and I have heard that some members opposite have been concerned about the monotonous way in which I have been reminding the House about these results. I can report that it does seem to be having an impact with those opposite. In a blinding statement of the obvious yesterday, the shadow minister for immigration said to Ben Fordham on Radio 2GB what he has finally accepted: 'I accept that there hasn't been a venture that has come here since December. And I accept that they are turning back boats.' There he goes. He has not connected the two in any way, shape or form. Later tonight he may well confess and admit that tomorrow is Friday. He could come to that conclusion but he is not going to make any link to the fact that today is Thursday, because those on that side do not understand cause and effect. They do not understand that you cannot spend and spend and spend and not rack up deficit after deficit after deficit and create debts. They have no understanding of the link between spending and deficits. They have no understanding that if you want to stop boats, you have to stop boats. You actually have to turn back boats where it is safe to do so, and they are in complete denial about the cause and effect and about the success of the policies of this government. Yesterday the shadow minister could not bring himself to acknowledge the success of our turn-back policy. He could not do it. If he cannot acknowledge the success now, if six months of the success of this policy is not enough to convince him, it never will be. That is why they on the other side will never follow through with the policies that have been successful under this government. They will turn back on turn-backs, they will roll over on offshore processing, they will honour the promise of people smugglers, and they will return to the policy of providing permanent visas when it comes to those who have come illegally by boat. I have got some advice for him. If he wants to know how to go forward, don't look to the left down there where the Greens are; don't look to the right over here, where you have two failed immigration ministers. Look this way. Look on this side of the House where successful policies are saving lives and stopping the boats. Budget 4868 14:48 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo My question is to the Prime Minister. In the seat of Mallee, 19,959 age pensioners will have their concessions cut for electricity, water, council rates and public transport. In addition, they will be $160 per fortnight worse off after 10 years because of this Prime Minister's budget. Why should the people of Mallee pay for their local member's failure to stand up against the Prime Minister's broken promises? 14:49 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah Pensions in Mallee, and everywhere else, are going up under this government. There are 36,208 households in Mallee. Let me repeat that. There are 36,208 households in the seat of Mallee that the member who asked the question is so concerned about. Every one of those households could be, on average, $550 a year better off if the member for Bendigo would do the right thing by those 36,208 households. Indeed, there are probably 36,617 households in her own seat of Bendigo. Come on, Member for Bendigo, help those 36,617 households. Take the carbon tax burden off their backs and do it now. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 4869 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:50 The SPEAKER SE4 I advise the chamber that we have with us a group of Commonwealth truancy officers who are here today observing the chamber. Their task is to ensure that children go to school. I hope those children do not take any lessons from what is going on with some of the noise here today. We make you most welcome. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 4869 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE National Broadband Network 4869 14:50 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins My question is to the Minister for Communications. Will the minister outline to the House the government's plans for financing the National Broadband Network? How does this differ from the previous approach and why is it important to minimise debt and to build sustainable public finances? 14:51 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for her question. We know that had the Labor Party continued in office with their NBN plan, it would have cost $73 billion—an enormous cost to the taxpayer—and it had the consequence of raising internet prices by up to 80 per cent. Every aspect of the Labor Party's financial management involved a denial of reality and a refusal to acknowledge the need to maintain sustainable finances. The honourable member asked what we are doing. We are completing the project three and a half years sooner and $32 billion cheaper—and therefore more affordably. The previous approach by the Labor Party is very, very well illustrated by a recent press release put out by the member for Blaxland and the member for Greenway. It is a very modest release. The titles of the two members take up more than half the page. They are in about 20-point type—no doubt out of deference to those with poor eyesight. But what is remarkable here is the denial of any type of financial responsibility. They say here that under Labor's approach only $30 billion would be paid for by the government—only $30 billion. So where would the $43 billion come from? Where would it come from—junk bonds? Who knows? They suggest that it could be borrowed by the NBN Co with no government guarantee—that you could borrow $43 billion on $2.6 billion of free cash flow. It would not even be enough to pay the interest. As I read this I became angrier and angrier at the incredible profligacy of the Labor Party. But then I was filled with a warm glow. This press release made me feel young again. It reminded me of shoulder pads, Duran Duran and Bruce Springsteen. It went back to the eighties! This, Madam Speaker, is the financial gospel of Alan Bond and Laurie Connell. Oh, Madam Speaker, remember those halcyon days of the America's Cup, margaritas at Fremantle—it was all coming back—and when you could borrow tens and tens of billions of dollars and never have to pay it back; when it was all fantasy money. Oh, Madam Speaker, this is a retro party indeed. They are going back into the past. Sadly, I compared them to Laurel and Hardy a day or so ago. That was unfair, because at least Stan Laurel fessed up with his famous line, 'What another fine mess I got you into.' Budget 4870 14:54 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has said that this was a budget of tough choices. How tough was it for the Prime Minister to choose between ripping away more than $6,000 from a single mother with two children earning $55,000 as a nurse while handing $50,000 to a millionaire plastic surgeon to have a baby? 14:54 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition well knows, it has been the consistent policy of this coalition to have a fair dinkum paid parental leave scheme— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 There will be silence on my left. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 because we believe that paid parental leave is a workplace entitlement not a welfare one. I should point out that the parent earning some $55,000 would be much, much better off under the coalition's paid parental leave scheme than under that put in place by the former government. Budget 4870 14:55 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Why is it important that the government deliver a responsible and affordable aid program in the context of fixing budget deficits and debt? 14:56 Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P Curtin I thank the member for Deakin for his question. In the recent budget the government confirmed that Australia would spend more than $5 billion on development assistance in the year 2014-15. Australia will continue to be ranked in the top 10 group of major donors in the OECD world and 92 per cent of Australian aid will now be spent in our region—an increase over previous years. I want to contrast the approach that we have taken—the affordable, responsible, sustainable approach—to aid with that of the former government. Former Labor foreign minister, Bob Carr, has shed light on Labor's handling of not only the economy but also the aid budget. Behind closed doors, Labor admits what it refuses to tell the Australian people. I quote from Bob Carr's travel log. He said: 'Wayne Swan told me the fiscal situation is ruinous.' That is the only truth that Wayne Swan ever told when he was in government. He certainly got that right: the debt and deficit legacy under Labor would have been ruinous had they stayed in office. According to Bob Carr, the former Treasurer had no option but to announce increases in the aid budget—not because of any concerns about poverty but because of factional fights within Labor. I quote again from the shadow minister's mentor, Bob Carr, who said about increases to the aid budget that Swan 'would have risked a Ruddite revolt otherwise'. So, no sooner had the shadow minister for foreign affairs shift her support from Julia Gillard to Kevin Rudd, that he cut a further $878 million from the aid budget—taking Labor's total budget cuts in the aid budget to $5.7 billion over the last 15 months. Having the left the country with record levels of debt, of some $667 billion— The SPEAKER SE4 We have a rule about charts. We put the chart down. Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P I am prepared to share this document to which I am referring. The opposition deputy leader has now committed Labor to finding an additional $16 billion. Here it is; here is her press release of 14 May. They have to find an additional $16 billion for the aid budget. The member for Sydney owes it to the Australian people to reveal what areas of the budget Labor will cut to find this $16 billion additional funding for the aid budget. Coincidentally, $16 billion is what the government spends on higher education. So I call on the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to rule out cuts of $16 billion to higher education. What about ruling out $16 billion— Mr Thistlethwaite interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 Member for Kingsford Smith! Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P Where else are you going to find the money? What fantasy world do you live in? You had better let your friends in the Socialist Alternative know of this plan—because they will have something to protest about then. Affordable, responsible, sustainable—that is the mantra of the coalition. (Time expired) Budget 4871 14:59 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has said that this was a budget of tough choices. How tough was it for the Prime Minister to choose between ripping $160 billion a fortnight out of the pockets of single pensioners— Government members interjecting— Opposition members interjecting— Mr SHORTEN 00ATG $160 per fortnight out of the pockets of pensioners, or giving $50,000 to multimillionaires who do not need it? Mr Pyne 9V5 Madam Speaker, on a point of order, apart from the shouting and the argument, the Leader of the Opposition said that there was $160 billion in the pockets of pensioners, in which case I doubt they would be getting the age pension. He might want to rephrase the question. The SPEAKER SE4 The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition might take the opportunity to correct his figures. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG I certainly will. How tough was it for the Prime Minister in this budget of tough choices to rip $160 per fortnight away from single pensioners—$450 million overall in cuts—while at the same time paying $50,000 in paid parental leave to people that Australia knows do not need the money? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 I call the Prime Minister, and I will have silence on my right and left. Mrs Griggs 220370 Lucky you weren't the Treasurer. The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Solomon! Mr Shorten 00ATG You don't have to worry about it! The SPEAKER SE4 And the Leader of the Opposition will desist. The Prime Minister has the call and we will have silence. 15:01 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah The Leader of the Opposition should tell the truth to the Australian people— Mr Dreyfus HWG From you! Mr ABBOTT EZ5 and the truth is that pensions will go up every six months. The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Isaacs has been warned, I would remind him. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Pensions will go up every six months. The only difference is that, from 2017, pensions will go up by the same indexation method that the shadow minister for social services applied to family tax benefit. That is the truth, and the Leader of the Opposition should stop scaring the pensioners of Australia. As for this Paid Parental Leave scheme, which the Leader of the Opposition is a little obsessed with—and I do not know why he is so frightened of letting the women in the workplaces of Australia get a fair deal at last. I mean, why are the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition so against the women in the workplaces of Australia getting a fair deal at last? Mr Hockey DK6 She got it! Mr ABBOTT EZ5 That is right. When the public servants who used to work with her as a minister took paid parental leave, they got their paid parental leave at full pay. What was wrong with that for them? If they got paid at their full pay, why shouldn't the women working for supermarkets and factories and small businesses right around our country? Why shouldn't they get the same deal that has long been given to the public servants of Australia? Mr Snowdon IJ4 They won't get $50,000 a year. The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Lingiari will desist. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Let us scotch this myth that somehow paid parental leave is going to benefit wealthy women. Ninety-eight per cent of the women in the workforce of this country earn less than $100,000, and they deserve a fair go, and they will get a fair go under this government. Agriculture 4872 15:03 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne My question is to the Minister for Agriculture. Will the minister please inform the House how putting spending in agriculture on a sustainable footing will help reduce Labor's debt and deficit? Mr Conroy 249127 Who'd you go for last night, Barnaby? 15:04 Mr JOYCE E5D New England Fortunately I do still support Queensland, and it was a bad night. I thank the honourable member for his question. As a gastroenterologist, he is probably in the right place to deal with any blockages that we might have over there in the Senate. It is very important that we understand that, just with the money that it is costing us in interest a month, I know they are expanding the Bruce Highway in your electorate, and that is about a billion dollars—we could do that every month with the interest. I know you have got Bucketts Way over in your area as well. We could do that 57 times a month with the money we are spending on interest. If we had $10 notes, on the interest, we could lie those $10 notes end to end. We could start in Melbourne, go through your electorate in Lyne and all the way to Cairns. You know what would happen when we got to Cairns? We could turn around and keep lying the $10 notes down and go all the way back to Melbourne. Do you know what would happen when we got to Melbourne? We could turn around and go back up to Cairns. And do you know what happens when we get to Cairns? We turn around and go back to Lyne. But they say there is not a problem! Mr Albanese R36 Commiserations on last night. Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The member for Lyne asked a question about a contribution to his electorate. The minister is talking about the Bruce Highway. I know he is confused about Queensland and New South Wales— The SPEAKER SE4 This is not a place for argument. The member will resume his seat. The Minister for Agriculture will address the question asked of him. Mr JOYCE E5D The issue is, of course, that they believe it is not a problem. Even though we could go from Melbourne, through to your electorate, up the Pacific Highway, up the Bruce Highway, back and forth, they say it is not a problem. So I do not know what is a problem. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse turning up for dinner—maybe that is a problem. Who would know? Vikings on your pond—maybe that is a problem. What we do know is that Pascal Lamy, who is a socialist, said quite clearly the other day that what we have to do, because we are a commodity based economy, is move commodities. If we do not move commodities we have got a real problem. That is why Pascal Lamy says our debt problem is vastly different to the debt problem of Japan or Germany—because we are basically relying on commodities. So, in relying on commodities, it is agriculture that is really putting its shoulder to the wheel, and I am happy to inform the House that we have moved over 585,000 head of cattle in the last week and in excess of 1.3 million sheep in the live trade. About three weeks ago, we loaded 4,000 litres of milk— Opposition members interjecting— Mr JOYCE E5D you should be interested in this—and we sent it to Shanghai. We are getting paid between $7 and $9 a litre, and it was only costing us about $1.26 to move it there. That is a good way to make a dollar. That is agriculture. We have also moved in excess of four million tonnes of barley. We have moved more than 671 tonnes of veal and beef. All of these things— Opposition members: More! More! We want more! Mr Burke DYW On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I am sure they have not been published yet, but we would love to have those notes, if they could be tabled, please. I have no idea what he just said! The SPEAKER SE4 Was the minister reading from—I call the Chief Government Whip. Small Business 4873 15:08 Mr RUDDOCK 0J4 Berowra Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister for Small Business— Mr Shorten 00ATG Madam Speaker— The SPEAKER SE4 The Chief Government Whip was on his feet. Mr Burke DYW The Leader of the Opposition was on his feet. The SPEAKER SE4 I think it has to stand with the Chief Government Whip. Mr Burke DYW No. The SPEAKER SE4 Yes. I will come back to Mr Shorten. Mr RUDDOCK 0J4 Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister for Small Business, and I was very enthusiastic about asking it. Will the minister outline how fixing the budget will help small business and build a stronger economy? 15:08 Mr BILLSON 1K6 Dunkley Five hundred and nineteen thousand: that is the number of jobs, in the latest figures, lost under the Labor government from the small business community of Australia—519,000. Now, that might not interest those opposite. They might not be union jobs, they might not be important to the opposition leader's job, but they are crucial to the livelihoods of so many Australians. Five hundred and nineteen thousand livelihoods have been lost from what is the engine room of our economy because of the indifference, the neglect and the harsh measures introduced by Labor when in government. When we are faced with having to deal with the consequences of six horrendous years of Labor, all we get is complaint and obstruction. We need to fix the budget, a task that now nobody contests. Even the former Treasurer recognises the need. The Parliamentary Budget Office said this week it is time to start this repair job, saying: … otherwise the longer you leave it the more exposed you become and the harder it is to wind it back … What we have seen in this parliament all of this week is example after example of how the Abbott government's economic recovery strategy, our plan to repair the budget and get our finances on track, will make a material difference to the lives of Australians and the opportunities for the future, and all we run into is obstruction from those opposite. We heard the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. It said: The budget goes a long way to restoring all important business confidence that will drive investment and job creation, particularly for Australia's two million small businesses … Now, if we are to start the task of restoring that jobs vitality in small businesses and family enterprises, we have to get the economic conditions right. To get those economic conditions right, we have to stop the runaway debt and deficit that we have inherited from the former government. We have to implement our economic action strategy, those many measures that are there to support small business to recruit and retain— Opposition members interjecting— Mr BILLSON 1K6 I hear those opposite mocking the Paid Parental Leave scheme, a scheme they are happy to have for the public servants and they are happy to have for the big end of town. What is wrong with offering those same benefits to small and medium-sized enterprises? What is wrong with that? Is that your strategy—to gut small businesses of their capacity to employ, to show no interest in those 519,000 jobs lost from small business under Labor and then to deny them the many measures in this budget to support innovation, growth, the chance to recruit and retain staff, to get involved in exporting, to use technology, to grow prospects and to improve jobs and economic vitality for the future? Why are you against this, Labor? We have Captain Complaint talking out of both sides of his mouth on these budget measures. As you go home to your electorates, think about how many of those 519,000 jobs were in your community. We are trying to get them back. Budget 4875 15:12 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's words this morning, when he said, 'The fact that something is false won't stop a desperate politician repeating it over and over again.' Is that why the Prime Minister continues to claim over and over again 'no broken promises', 'no changes to pensions', 'no cuts to health and education' and 'no new taxes'? 15:12 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah There are no changes to pensions in this term of parliament. All savings in health are being reinvested in health, and overall health spending increases. I am happy to say that, yes, the top marginal rate of tax goes up by 2c in the dollar for three years, and that will impact on people earning over $180,000 a year, which is less than three per cent of all taxpayers. And indexation— Mr Burke DYW What about petrol? Mr Shorten 00ATG What about petrol? Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Yes, we have fuel excise indexation; and, yes, in the first year that will cost the average family between 40c and 60c a week. The truth is that all of us have to contribute to the budget repair job. We all have to contribute to the budget repair job. The sad truth is that every single Australian is paying the price for Labor's debt and deficit disaster. Every single Australian is paying the price for Labor's debt and deficit disaster. Labor's interest bill is $1 billion every single month. This is the sad price that every single Australian is having to pay to repair six years of incompetence, debt and deficit deceit. That is the price. Do I regret this? Of course I regret it. We are all having to pay the price of Labor's incompetence. Of course I regret it, but I make no apologies ever—ever—for doing what is necessary for this country. I make no apologies whatsoever for doing what is necessary for this country. The people of Australia elected us to fix the mess that Labor left, and fix it we will. I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 4875 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 13:52 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER SE4 Does the honourable member claimed to have been misrepresented? Ms MACKLIN PG6 Yes, most grievously by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health today in question time. The SPEAKER SE4 Please proceed. Ms MACKLIN PG6 They wrongly accused me of supporting a Medicare co-payment. This is completely untrue. As correctly reported in the Australian today, I was opposed to a Medicare co-payment in 1991 and I am opposed to it today. This was confirmed in the paper today by the then Secretary of the Department of Finance, Dr Michael Keating. 15:15 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER SE4 Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? 15:15 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I do, Madam Speaker. The SPEAKER SE4 Please proceed. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M I have been misrepresented by the Treasurer today, by the Minister for Foreign Affairs today, and by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in question time on 26 May and again on 28 May. They said that Labor would be putting an extra $16 billion into the aid budget. The facts are these: I said that the coalition's decisions on aid would reduce the aid budget by $16 billion— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Sydney must show where she has been misrepresented— Ms PLIBERSEK 83M I have. The SPEAKER SE4 and then show how it is the case, and not argue the point. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M I am not arguing the point. They have said that we are putting an extra $16 billion into the aid budget. I am explaining that what I said was that the coalition's decisions on aid would reduce the aid budget by $16 billion. The SPEAKER SE4 This is debate. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M They have made a claim about what I said. I have stated our commitment to reaching the 0.5 per cent target, but the eventual cost— Mr Pyne 9V5 Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition might want to ask member for Grayndler, who has great experience in this House on how to take a proper personal explanation, to ensure that she states the fact that misrepresents her and why it is misrepresentation. She is not allowed to argue the case as though she were doing a press release. The SPEAKER SE4 Just show where you say you have been misrepresented and why it is not true—without argument. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M They have said that we are putting an extra $16 billion into the aid budget. That is not true. I have said that they have cut $16 billion from the aid budget. What we will do in restoring the aid budget will depend— The SPEAKER SE4 I am sorry, the member for Sydney is arguing the case now and will resume her seat—and we will have no across-the-table chat. Mr Burke DYW Madam Speaker, on the point of order, the personal explanation that was being offered was where what had been said was a statement by the government claiming that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had said particular things. She cannot establish where that is wrong without explaining to the House what in fact she said. There is no other way of correcting the record. The SPEAKER SE4 The member will resume his seat. I have to say that there are other forums of the House where you want to argue those points. Believe me, I am far more lenient with regard to personal explanations than have been previous speakers. But you may not use it as a point of argument. There are other forums of the House. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 4877 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Reports Nos 33 and 34 of 2013-14 4877 15:19 The SPEAKER SE4 I present the Auditor-General's Audit reports for 2013-14, audit report No. 33, Indigenous Employment in Australian Government entities: Across Agencies, and audit report No. 34, Implementation of ANAO Performance Audit recommendations: Department of Agriculture; Department of Human Services Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 4877 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Budget: Rural and Regional Areas 4877 15:19 The SPEAKER SE4 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Hunter proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The pain that the Prime Minister's Budget is inflicting on rural and regional areas. I call upon those honourable members who approve the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:20 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter Sadly, the Prime Minister's first budget was a shocker for rural and regional Australia. It is fair to say that those on the other side of the chamber spend a fair bit of time talking about the interests of rural and regional Australia, but they are all talk—very rarely do they deliver. The minister is at the table and he will stand up and say, 'Well, we saved the diesel fuel rebate.' They saved the diesel fuel rebate. They create this straw man and then we are all supposed to breathe a sigh of relief or, indeed, thank them on budget night for not abolishing this important subsidy for rural and regional Australia. They will tell you that there is $100 million in the budget over four years for additional research and development in agriculture. But they took more than that back out from research and development elsewhere and in areas which are critical to rural and regional Australia, for example, the rural industries' RDC, the CSIRO, various other RDCs and our CRCs. They will tell you about the $370 million new quarantine facility in Victoria. There he is, the minister, turning the first sod. This was fully funded by the former Labor government. He will tell you that there is drought assistance in the budget, announced after a well-publicised drought tour by himself and the Prime Minister—plenty of pictures, plenty of television cameras involved. Then there was a big announcement: $280 million for farm finance—and I have a picture here of the Prime Minister out there with the farmers and with the minister, looking very concerned about the impact of the drought on our farmers. The SPEAKER: That isn't a prop, is it? Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 And yet here we are, three months on after the television news pictures and the newspaper shots, and not one cent of that money has flowed on to struggling farming families. He will also get up and say, 'We had to do these things to rural and regional Australia because the former government left us with debt.' We do not have time for that debate today but it has been prosecuted by others pretty well, including by the shadow Treasurer and the Leader of the Opposition. And we will continue to have that, no doubt. There is no doubt in my mind that it is a confected budget emergency and that these are unnecessary cuts. But there is one area which is absolutely uncontested. Indeed, no-one from the government has sought to contest it. It is the fact that this budget, with its tax increases and its funding cuts, falls disproportionately on rural and regional Australia. If you put up fuel taxes it adds to transport costs, and that fuel tax becomes embedded in everything we purchase in rural and regional Australia, including our food. This is a big hit on people who live in the bush. Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you add a GP tax— The SPEAKER SE4 The Deputy Speaker is coming. Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 it falls disproportionately, because in rural and regional Australia we do not have as many GPs, there is less competition and therefore we have lower bulk-billing rates. This will exacerbate that situation, Madam Speaker. If you are going to cut funding to schools, where will that hit? It will hit those small rural schools which lack critical mass. They will be the first ports of call for the state governments when they are seeking to save money. The same applies to hospitals. If you cut hospital funding then the states will go looking for savings and you can bet your last dollar that they will go to the smaller rural and regional hospitals—some older hospitals—for those savings. The list goes on and on, Madam Deputy Speaker—Madam Speaker, I am sorry. There is the tough crackdown on welfare and the unemployed, which they over there think are popular. But think about kids in rural areas where there simply are not the jobs and there are not necessarily the training places. It is easy for someone living in a capital city to think about a kid walking down the road to a TAFE, but in rural and regional Australia the courses are not always available. Worse than that, nor is the transport. There might be a TAFE course in the next town 100 kilometres away but there is no bus or train in most instances. So this is a real hit on people who live in these communities. There is an economic concept known as 'dynamic decline', and this is what they do not understand. Typically, an abattoir, say, closes in a rural area. What happens? There are job losses and there is a knock-on effect in the regional economy. The suppliers to the abattoir feel the effect as well, and what happens? Those who are most capable and best placed to go and get a job elsewhere in another town leave. And who is left? The elderly, who are not producing an income in the local economy, or the real hard cases who are not able to leave for whatever reason. So what happens? The economy further declines. It is a downward spiral. What does the Prime Minister say? 'Earn or learn. Let them go and get a job in another town.' What does the Minister for Social Services say? 'Send them out grape picking in the state nearby.' This reflects a total non-understanding of how regional economies work and how this is going to impact so badly on regional communities. But do not worry: the agriculture minister has a plan. He has a plan—he has a decentralisation plan. He is going to move his ministerial office from Sydney and put it in Armidale. This is the minister's plan to revitalise regional economies. It is an interesting plan, because I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that it is a plan to rejuvenate his own political fortunes. This will give him an electoral office in Tamworth and an electoral office in Armidale. Not a bad deal, I would suggest! Not only that, he is going to move the research and development corporations out of Canberra and into the regions. Now, that sounds a good thing at first glance. Most people will say, 'Oh, that sounds all right. Regional development corporations, let's get them out into the regions where they belong.' For example, he will take the fisheries RDC down to Tasmania. It sounds like a pretty good idea. But is it going to be the RDC for salmon only now, Minister? Is it really going to encapsulate the broad-brush involvement of the fishing industry? The RDC for forestry—is it going to Tasmania too, Minister? Mr Joyce interjecting— Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Oh! You are going to sell? That is a very good idea, Minister! That would not surprise me! Nothing you would or could do would surprise me, Minister! I am sure Senator Colbeck is pretty happy about the idea that the forestry components of the department and the RDC might be moving down to Canberra. This is a budget based on a lie. This is a budget which was made possible by a government which was elected by promising not to cut health, by promising not to cut education, by promising not to cut pension payments and by promising not to raise taxes. Again, all these things are hurting rural and regional Australia most. Rural and regional Australia is where we get our coal, where we get our iron ore and where we grow our food. When we get up in the morning we turn on the light, it comes from coal or gas produced in regional Australia. When we put our cornflakes into the cereal bowl, it comes from food grown in rural and regional Australia. When we put the sugar on top the same applies. We have our beef or chicken for lunch and it has come from rural and regional Australia. Rural and regional Australia is the heartland of this nation. I am sure that rural and regional Australia felt pretty confident that this government would acknowledge that in this first budget, because that is what they promised to do. They promised to rejuvenate regional Australia. Let's think about it: they have never really had an interest in regional development. Chifley was the first to really get involved in regional development. Menzies and the Tories that followed him showed no interest at all. Whitlam, of course, kick-started the idea, and had big regional development programs. Fraser came along and showed no interest at all. The Hawke and Keating governments, again, kicked off regional development with gusto. John Howard came along and all he knew was pork-barrelling that produced no structural reform, making no long-term impact on the economic fortunes of rural and regional Australia. Then the Gillard and Rudd governments came along and, in particular, the member for Grayndler and the former member for Hotham spent most of their time here pursuing the interests of rural and regional Australia, developing policy that produced structural reforms that were uplifting for rural and regional Australia. On the other side, there is none of that. We have a Deputy Prime Minister sitting here with regional development in his title, but I have not seen much. I have seen some road re-announcements, projects that were fully funded by the former Labor government, but I have seen no real plan for a rejuvenation of rural and regional Australia and an acknowledgement of the economic contribution of rural and regional Australia. All we have seen is a budget which hits rural and regional Australia and is bad for rural and regional Australia. 15:30 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I would like to agree with some of that speech. Regional Australia is the heart of Australia, I agree with you. Hear, hear! Well done! And I agree that the GDP of this nation would disappear were it not for the contribution of regional Australia from dairy, from wheat, from grains, from sugar, from beef and from mining, which the Labor Party does not support, bringing in the mining tax and the carbon tax. But there are other parts of that speech that are just factually incorrect. At this point we have approved over 1,179 applications for the interim farm family payment, which is direct assistance, so when they say that not a dollar has gone out that is factually incorrect. On the second issue, we have had two iterations of the drought package. The first was the realignment of the farm finance package, which went through, with $10 million also for water. The second iteration includes $280 million of concessional loans at four per cent, which is great, and we have now got the agreement signed off. I said that would be done by June and it will be done in June. So the money is going out. In fact, we have got $420 million going out at 4½ per cent, we have over 1,100 payments of the interim farm family payment and we have approved $20 million to go towards water infrastructure. While I was here in the chamber I have already got a thankyou from a former member, Sandy Macdonald, who has managed to get access to some of that money— Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 Good bloke! Mr JOYCE E5D Yes—to assist in basically doing one of his watering points. So the money is going out. But when they say, 'You don't have a vision for regional Australia,' well, what's $300 million on the inland rail? What is that—a block of flats? That is real vision because that creates a corridor of commerce from south-east Queensland through to Melbourne, a corridor of commerce that actually advances the interests of people, especially in the seat of Parkes— Mr Coulton HWN Yes. Mr JOYCE E5D and right down through Shepparton. This is real vision. Do you know how much the Labor Party had put towards that for the next 10 years? $30 million. What were they going to do with that? That is the sort of vision you get! So we have 10 times vision that they had. What vision do you call $6.7 billion on the Bruce Highway? What do you call that? A lady in a nightie? That is real vision. What do we call it when we managed to actually turn around the live cattle trade, when we have record numbers going through Townsville? I call that real vision and real direction. What do we call it when we open up the trade to Egypt? I call that real vision. What do we call it when we open up the trade to Bahrain in live cattle? I call that real vision. What do we call it when we get the protocols through so we can open up the trade into Iran? I call that real vision. What do we call it when we have record numbers moving out, in live sheep and live cattle? I call that real vision. What do we call it when we are getting record increases in the movement of chilled and frozen beef into China? I call that real vision. I call it happening in agriculture, and it is happening under our watch. What do you call it when in January they suspected that we may have a $100 million deficit, and we got a $1.4 billion surplus, so we got a $1½ billion turnaround, and it was predominantly driven by agriculture and it happened under our government? I call that real vision. This is how we actually start getting the money coming back in. This is how we get the money coming back in, and it is under us that it is happening. What do you call it when a government brought in tree-clearing laws? Who did they come in under? Labor Party. That is the sort of vision you get with the Labor Party: new caveats on closing you down. They came in with tree-clearing laws and when they were not doing that they decided to change the temperature of the globe, single-handedly. The carbon tax. I remember that. I don't know how it is going. We have got a carbon tax. It has been awfully warm lately, so I don't know whether it is working. We are certainly paying for it. And we have still got it, even though we won an election on it. What vision have you got for regional Australia on that? I will tell you what it is. Your vision is that when a person gets up in the morning and turns on the electric radio they pay the carbon tax because you believe you can change the temperature of the globe. When they decide to go out and knock in a steel post, the steel post is made out of steel, so that has a carbon tax on it. When they want to roll out some barb to keep the cattle in, that is made out of wire that is made out of steel, so that has the carbon tax on it. When they move diesel onto the place, that comes in under the carbon tax. You are putting the carbon tax on it everything. This is the vision of the Labor Party: basically, taxing every mechanism of production. You are trying to say that is a vision. Well, I tell you what, it was so visionary they kicked you out of government—that is how visionary it was. What we are trying to do is basically remove the impost so we can get the economy going. We are doing this in a position where you left us with this absolutely incredible debt. To think that when we handed government over to you we were actually lending money to the world. We were rich. We had money. But by the time you handed government back to us we were going out the back door. We were going broke. That is the predicament you have landed this whole nation in. Now we have this ridiculous scenario where at this point in time we are paying a thousand million dollars a month in interest, 70 per cent of it going overseas. That is a thousand million dollars a month that we will never see again. We could be spending it on hospitals, on roads, on so many things, but we are spending it on interest. Yet they say that is not a problem, that is not an issue, that is contrived, that it does not exist. As I said, you have stolen most of my thunder because you gave us a great rendition of the other things we have done, such as the quarantine facility. I accept that we are building an in excess of $300 million quarantine facility and I think we are doing a splendid job at that. That is real investment in biosecurity. We do admit that we did keep the diesel fuel rebate. I accept that we have gone into bat for regional Australians and have kept the diesel fuel rebate. Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting— Mr JOYCE E5D They would not have much luck under you guys. I admit the temerity that I personally would move an office from Sydney, God help us, to Armidale. That cannot possibly be helping regional Australia, to move it to a regional town. Let us leave it, let us put it where former minister Joe Ludwig had it, in Brisbane. Correct me if I am wrong, but the Leader of Opposition Business, who was the minister for agriculture at the time, had it at Kogarah. There is a big rural centre if ever I saw one. Every time I go through Kogarah I cannot help but think of cows and sheep and sunflowers. Mr Coulton HWN A lot of hydroponics. Mr JOYCE E5D There may be hydroponics there but it is certainly not a big regional area. We have said that we want to move part of the ministerial office into a town with a university known for being at the forefront of agriculture. I do commend the shadow minister because for once the Labor Party's vision has involved having a person in the portfolio who comes from the area. That helps. I do not know how much agriculture is done in Mr Burke's area but I do not think it is an awful lot. Mr Truss GT4 He has a least number of farmers. Mr JOYCE E5D The least number of farms. What other visionary things are we doing in agriculture? We have got Roads to Recovery. That is predominantly in regional areas. Who is responsible for that? The Leader of the National Party. That is the sort of vision you get. Look at the free trade agreement we got with Korea—that is pretty visionary. We have got a great advancement in the prospects there. Who is also currently negotiating to finalise the agreement with China? We are. Who could not finalise it? Those opposite. Who could not finalise the Korean agreement? They could not. Who could not finalise the Japanese agreement? They could not. Who brought us the carbon tax? They did. Who gave us the mining tax? They did. Who thought of the Roads to Recovery? We did. What exactly is your vision? What exactly is the vision of the Labor Party when it comes to regional Australia? Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting— Mr JOYCE E5D I tell you what, you built yourself a freeway to your electorate. I noted that. He is worried about me moving an office to Armidale but built a freeway to his front door. The last time I saw something like that it was in New Orleans. That was a great outcome and you are to be commended for your work. But these are the visionary things that are showing that people in regional Australia believe that now they have a regional development minister and an agriculture minister who actually has lived the experience, who lives in the area and who is bringing agriculture forward. I absolutely thrilled and proud of the job we are doing and I am absolutely thrilled and proud to be given the ministry to look after it. Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 Mr Deputy Speaker, on indulgence, I plead guilty on the Hunter Expressway. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 That is an abuse of the standing orders. I call the honourable member for Franklin. 15:40 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin It is great to be up here talking the rural and regional Australia but not so great to be talking about the detrimental impact the budget will have out there in our regions. This budget is built on broken promises and wrong priorities and all it will do is increase the divide between the city and the bush. This budget is no friend to regional Australia. The minister, who is not in the chamber anymore, ought to be ashamed of this budget and its impact on rural and regional Australia. Minister Truss said just two weeks before the budget that to ignore regional Australia's needs for investment and growth is to turn our backs on opportunities for the future. For once I agree with him, but this budget, sadly, does not do that. It does actually turn its back on rural and regional Australia. It was confirmed in Senate estimates this week that the Abbott government did not carry out an impact study by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development on the impacts in regional Australia of this budget. They have not done one and they do not plan to do one, and one wonders why they will not do it. They will not do it, of course, because of the adverse impact on rural and regional Australia. As we have heard, there is the impact of the increases in the price of petrol and the impact of the GP tax. Then there are the cuts to the financial assistance grants with almost $1 billion over four years being ripped out of councils, and we know that this will impact more on smaller councils in rural and regional areas. What will those councils have to do? That was also revealed in Senate estimates this week when the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development officials said that local councils would need to reshape their budget in terms of no longer having access to the indexation. That means that local councils, particularly smaller ones in rural and regional Australia, will have to consider council rate increases or cutting staff or reducing services or not building roads in regional and rural areas or maintaining their roads. This will have a disproportionate impact on those regional and rural councils which cannot afford this cut by this government. Higher council rates are be in addition to the GP tax that I talked about before. The Rural Doctors Association has said that this GP tax will have a detrimental effect on rural and regional Australia. In fact, Tamworth GP Dr Ian Kamerman has said that the scrapping of a program designed to attract more doctors to country areas is 'crazy'. He said the program provided valuable community exposure for junior doctors and attracted more doctors to rural practice, and the scrapping of this program in the Abbott government budget could undo gains that had been made in rural practice. Shame on those on the other side for cutting this program. It was vital to get doctors into rural areas right across this country. Dr Kamerman said that the GP tax would mean more paperwork for GPs, and of course this means more work for them. The higher education changes will impact more adversely on regional and rural students and campuses. Professor Peter Lee, who is chair of the Regional Universities Network which represents six regional universities and is the Vice-chancellor of Southern Cross University, said that he fears that the cost of university education for many regional university students, including a large number who are of mature age, might dissuade them from pursuing further education. Again, shame on those on the other side for causing a disproportionate impact on rural and regional Australia from this policy as well. We heard just yesterday more contempt for regional Australia with the closure of 10 regional ATO offices across Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and my home state of Tasmania. They have confirmed that they are closing offices in Toowoomba, Rockhampton, Mackay, Cairns, Port Macquarie, Grafton, Orange, Sale, Bendigo and Launceston. That is ripping public servants out of regional Australia as the ATO closes those offices. Of course, the slashing of public sector jobs is not finished yet. I am sure we will see more coming out of rural and regional Australia. They have cut $350 million out of our Regional Development Australia Fund. That is not going down very well with rural and regional councils either. Of course the Stronger Regions Fund is not starting for another year and a half. Where is that money coming from? It was confirmed in Senate estimates that it has come from the regional assistance grants cuts. It is just a transfer of money, but there is nothing for 18 months. 'You could call it a transfer,' I think is what the department said. Then of course there are the cuts to the ABC. We have not got any guarantees until they know their funding envelope that this also will not affect regional services that we know are critical, particularly for emergency services in regional Australia. (Time expired) 15:45 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I rise to speak on this matter of public importance. I am going to be followed by the member for Bradfield, who was in my electorate last week talking about the $100 million black spot telecommunications program that the coalition is putting in place. It is going to fix mobile black spot problems throughout rural and regional Australia. He will be followed by the member for Hume, a good rural politician, who will be followed by the member for Durack, who represents the interests of people in Western Australia. They are all good members. We heard the Minister for Agriculture, the member for New England, talk up regional Australia. All we ever heard in the last six years was that side of politics, who were actually on this side then, talking down rural and regional Australia. The only time the Prime Minister ever really cared about rural and regional Australia was when there was an election looming. She got brand-new RM Williams and went to some peri urban centre and made a miniscule announcement that really did not affect rural and regional Australia. It was just about the only time she really ever cared about rural and regional Australia. Let us compare our record to Labor's record. When we had the Asian bee incursion Labor did absolutely nothing. It took David Mumford from my electorate to go to Queensland to help eradicate the Asian bee incursion. We had the live cattle fiasco. There was a program on Four Cornersand what did the then Prime Minister do? She cut the live cattle trade off forthwith. It is an absolute shame. Then we had the Murray-Darling Basin fiasco. It took 8,000 people the first time at Griffith to protest and then 14,000 people to protest, to use people power, to get the Labor government to do something and to care about the people who grow food and fibre rather than just let all the water go out of the mouth of the Murray. It was an absolute travesty by that side of politics. The people who grow the food and fibre were treated like second-class citizens. It took people power and Tony Abbott to say he was going to cap the buyback at 1,500 gigalitres, which means that there is only 249 gigalitres to be recovered, to bring about some fairness and equity in the Murray-Darling Basin fiasco. People in rural and regional Australia understand that you cannot spend more money than you earn. I represent 4,615 farms in the Riverina, all of which are affected by your carbon tax. The very week that the carbon tax was introduced Cement Australia closed its doors at Kandos. It was in the member for Parkes's electorate then, but it is in the member for Hunter's electorate now. One hundred jobs. Over 100 years that cement factory was producing cement on behalf of Australia. Did we hear the member for Hunter complaining about those jobs? No, we did not, just like we did not hear Labor members give two hoots about the farmers who have cattle, about the people who grow food and fibre in the Murray-Darling Basin, who I represent in the Riverina, and about the beekeepers in Australia. They could not care less. They might get all chirpy now. We heard the member for Perth a minute ago. I am not quite sure how many farmers she represents. We on this side represent farmers. They are the lifeblood of this nation and they deserve better than what they cop from you lot. Farmers right around Australia were deserted by Labor. It was an absolute disgrace what you people did to rural and regional Australia, particularly to farmers. They have not forgotten and they will not forget next time there is an election. They will vote for a National-Liberal coalition that provides hope, that provides surety, that provides confidence and that gets on with the job of paying back the debt. It is $1 billion a month in interest alone to fix up the mess that we inherited from your mob. That would build a hell of a lot of hospitals and a hell of a lot of schools in rural and regional Australia, but what do you care? You could not care less. We had six years of mess, six years of economic disaster. We are getting on with the job of fixing it on behalf of rural and regional Australia, the people who trust us with the job of fixing your mess. We will do it. We will do it methodically. We will do it with calmness. We will do it on behalf of future generations. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 Order! I am reluctant yet again in this chamber to remind members on both sides to refer their comments through the chair, not at the chair. The use of the word 'you' is a reflection on the chair. It happens on both sides. Please, otherwise I will pull people up even if they are mid flight and they will lose speaking time. 15:51 Ms MacTIERNAN L6P Perth I want to comment on the contribution by the member for Riverina on the MPI. The biggest deceit that has been perpetrated on the people of rural Australia is that there is no climate change problem for us to deal with. Who are the people who are going to be most severely compromised by the failure of this government to address these key issues of climate change? It is going to be the farming community. You can tell a lovely story and make them feel happy that this is not something they have to take into account—'We don't have to deal with the problems in the Murray-Darling Basin. It's all going to be fantastic. We make everyone feel happy'—but one day you have to wake up and find out that there is no Santa Claus and you have missed the opportunity to deal with this very important issue. I am just astounded by the hypocrisy of the other side. We had the Prime Minister last night addressing— Mr Robert interjecting— Ms MacTIERNAN L6P yeah, yeah, go on, go on—the Minerals Council and he was talking about the importance, the centrality, the economic sense of price signals. So you get a price signal when you are sick: do not go to the doctor too early. You get an economic price signal when you might need to have your prescription filled: do not have it filled too early. These are important price signals to tell people that they are not really as sick as they think they are. But the price signal that tells industry that polluting the environment with carbon, well that does not work. That is a completely different thing apparently. I do not understand that; I do not understand that logic. I would have thought that the alternatives available to industry to develop alternative strategies to minimise or reduce their carbon were far more profound than the opportunities that were available to someone who is sick, which is just going to the GP. I want to talk about a couple of smaller issues, but issues that really profoundly concern me about the cuts. The first one I want to talk about is what is happening in the Kimberley and the Pilbara. As part of the northern Australia committee, recently we have been right across northern Australia. It is so evident to all of us, cross-party, that we need to deal with the profound dysfunction of so many of those Aboriginal communities. They really, really need detailed and urgent assistance to strengthen those communities. We have heard some wonderful stories and seen some wonderful successes. We understand that the work that women like June Oscar and Emily Parker are doing in Fitzroy Crossing in getting behind and developing alcohol bans and using that period of relief then to strengthen the community is so important. And they have a family and learning centre. In fact there are Aboriginal child and health centres—there are four of them—in the Kimberley and the Pilbara. They are all getting their funding cut, all getting their funding removed. Ms Price 249308 They never had it in the first place. Ms MacTIERNAN L6P The national partnership funding is being removed! Ms Price 249308 You cut it, not us! Ms MacTIERNAN L6P The state government has said that they will give them interim funding for six months, but there is no longer any money in that budget. We are paying wealthy women in Sydney $50,000 to have a baby— Ms Price 249308 Oh, don't be ridiculous! Ms MacTIERNAN L6P to make sure that they can bring that baby up in a loving and nurturing environment. But those women in Fitzroy Crossing, those women in Roebourne, those women in Halls Creek, those women in Kununurra that are utilising those family and child services—well apparently their need is not as great because there is no longer any national partnership money for them. And if the state government does not cough up and fill the gap, those centres will close. Ms Price 249308 Where's Labor's commitment to those centres? Ms MacTIERNAN L6P I do note my good friend the member for Durack, and I do like the member for Durack, told the local media that this was to cut out duplication and waste. Hello? There are hundreds of miles between Kununurra, Halls Creek, Roebourne and Fitzroy Crossing! You cannot have a mother from Kununurra taking her kids off to the family centre in Roebourne. This is an absolute disgrace! This is an area of great need— (Time expired) 15:56 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I am very pleased to rise to speak about the member for Hunter's motion this afternoon, the premise of which is that the budget is apparently inflicting pain, we are told, on rural and regional areas. I thought to myself: 'Communications? Telecommunications serving rural and regional areas is a very important issue of priority.' And I thought to myself, 'Well if this budget is inflicting pain, for example when it comes to the $100 million that the Abbott government has committed to spending on improved mobile coverage in regional and remote Australia, then how does that compare to the amounts of money that the previous Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government spent in its budget each year on regional and rural mobile communications'? I went back and looked at the 2008 budget and there was not one dollar spent on mobile communications by the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government in regional Australia in 2009. So then I turned to the 2010 budget, not one dollar there; 2011, not one dollar there either; 2012-13, not one dollar spent by the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government on improving mobile telecommunications in rural and regional Australia—despite the fact that there is a clear sense when you speak to people in rural and regional Australia that they want to see better mobile communications. Ms Chesters 249710 They want the NBN! Mr FLETCHER L6B I hear somebody from the other side asserting they want the NBN. When you talk to people in regional areas about communications, they say to you a couple of things. They say, 'We really want improved mobile communications', and then they say: 'When is this NBN going to appear? We heard so much about it under the previous government, that it was the universal answer to everything, but what was actually delivered was a long way short of the rhetoric.' And that, I am sorry to say, is the sad story of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government when it came to regional communications. The fact is the coalition has always had a stronger commitment to improving communications networks in rural and regional Australia as far back as the time, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, when you were instrumental in the $150 million commitment to removing the areas of untimed local calls—a very important reform in regional communications. And there have been so many others. There have been so many programs over so many years that the coalition government has committed to that have helped to improve rural and regional communications. And in this budget there is a commitment to spend $100 million on improving regional and rural mobile communications. So far from this project inflicting pain in the area of regional and rural mobile communications, this budget contains a strong financial commitment by the Abbott government reflecting our determination to see Australians in regional and remote Australia getting improved mobile communication services. One of the things we are going to do is allocate this money through a well-structured, competitive selection process—competitive as between locations and competitive as between the mobile carriers that will be invited to bid in the competitive selection process. The purpose of that is to make sure that we get the best possible value for taxpayers' money, to ensure that the spending goes to the sites where it can make the biggest difference and do the most good, and to ensure that we leverage the maximum amount of money out of the carriers. We expect a co-contribution and we expect that will get at least as much as the $100 million of public money which is being put in. Again, this importance in structuring the funding that we are providing to underpin additional services stands in stark contrast to the chaotic mess of the process that the former broadband minister, Senator Conroy, followed with his 2008 tender process, which ultimately collapsed and led in turn to the rushed decision in April 2009 which has created so much difficulty when it comes to the atrocious performance in implementing the previous government's National Broadband Network mess, something we are now busy seeking to clean up. So when you separate the rhetoric and look at the reality, this government has identified its priorities. When it comes to regional and rural Australia we have heard a very strong message that people want improved mobile coverage for safety reasons—road safety, farm accidents, natural disasters in bushfires and floods; and they want it for economic participation reasons. For all of those reasons the Abbott government is committing significant expenditure in this budget to improve regional and remote mobile communications. That is a budget commitment consistent with serving the people of regional and remote Australia. 16:01 Ms HALL 83N Shortland I would like to commence my contribution to this debate by congratulating the member for Hunter for the fine job he did in getting the Hunter Expressway built. That was vitally important for rural and regional Australia. It shows that he really understands the needs of rural and regional Australia. It shows that he understands that coal needs to be taken from the mines to the port, and that produce needs to be taken from the farm to the port and to markets. It really demonstrates what a fine shadow minister for agriculture he is and what a fine minister for agriculture he was. Unfortunately, it is quite a different situation with those of the other side of this House. Year after year, parliament after parliament, government after government they have taken rural and regional Australia for granted. They believe they will get their support so they do not really try very hard. They inflict pain on them each and every budget, be it ripping money out of agriculture or be it ripping services out of rural and regional Australia. This budget is very bad news for rural and regional Australia. You only have to listen to the contributions made by the Minister for Agriculture today to see why it is bad news for rural and regional Australia. His answer in question time was incomprehensible. He goes on to talk in this debate about live export as if it was the only issue impacting on the lives of people living in rural and regional Australia. Well, Minister for Agriculture, there are a lot of other things impacting on the lives of people in rural and regional Australia. One of the issues is health and the simple fact that this government is hitting all people with a GP tax, a co-payment, when they go to visit the doctor. This will particularly hurt people in rural and regional Australia. There was already a chronic doctor shortage in those areas and that doctor shortage tends to lead to higher fees. I would like to refer to my bible when it comes to health—The blame game report that was brought down in 2006. Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 A very good report! Ms HALL 83N Yes. I would like to share with a House a quote from that report : If you are in metropolitan Sydney, or if you are in New South Wales, the further you are from the Harbour Bridge, the greater the impact of the shortage of trained doctors, nurses and allied health staff brought about by the restriction on places in universities and other colleges. A workforce shortage. What is going to happen under this government? A greater workforce shortage, because, guess what they have done? They have got rid of Health Workforce Australia. Apart from the fact that 130 jobs have gone, it will mean that there will be a further maldistribution of both doctors and other allied health professionals in rural and regional Australia. That is not something that people living there will thank this government for. Then there is the fuel tax. Everyone knows that if you live in rural and regional Australia you have to travel a greater distance to get to the doctor, to transport your produce and to go shopping. The fuel tax is going to have an enormous impact. I will conclude by referring to the $483 million that has been ripped out of Landcare, something that will be debated in detail in this parliament next week. Forty per cent of all farmers take part in this program and this government is defunding it. This government has absolutely no commitment to rural and regional Australia. They always take them for granted and they have done so again in this budget. (Time expired) 16:06 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume It has been pretty difficult to spend the last 45 minutes being lectured by the Labor Party on regional and rural Australia. But we have heard from the member for Hunter that, by building a highway to his front door, he was going to save rural Australia. We heard from the member for Perth that she was going to— Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 I did not say that. Retract that. I did not say anything about it. The SPEAKER SE4 Order! Mr TAYLOR 231027 We heard from the member for Perth that she was going to save rural Australia with a carbon tax. And we heard something from the member for Shortland. I am not quite sure how she was going to save rural Australia but I sat here wondering how many sheep yards she has in her electorate, how many live-cattle exporters she has and how many broad-acre grain growers she has. However, I am proud to represent a rural electorate, and I am proud to be a member of this coalition that is supporting rural and regional Australia with this budget and with its broader policies. In one of the great speeches of modern political history, in 1942 Robert Menzies described the extraordinary failure of the Left in Australian politics to acknowledge the role that lifters play in Australian society. The focus of his speech was on Australia's forgotten people—the great and growing Australian middle class. But between 2007 and 2013 that speech might just as easily have applied to the great lifters of modern Australia: the men, women, children and businesses of rural and regional Australia. The reality of modern Australia is that the majority of our export growth, the majority of our business investment and the majority of our best growth prospects are based in regional Australia. The people of rural and regional Australia have always driven our largest export industries, and that is more true now than ever. But the Labor-Greens government's forgetfulness of the people of regional Australia was absolutely breathtaking. The list of forgetfulness and failure was long, and it started with the introduction of a failed mining tax in an attempt to create the highest taxed mining industry in the world. Then there was the extraordinary attack on the live export trade, the complete failure to open up new export commodity markets, and the abysmal failure of the Murray-Darling Basin plan as the Labor Party paid their dues to the Greens with a badly-thought-through attempt to recreate a Murray-Darling Basin that never existed. There was the total failure of the regional NBN, particularly fixed wireless, and their so-called interim satellite solution, which is no better than dial-up. We had the introduction of the carbon tax, which disproportionately hampered our exporters against ferocious competition, and we had the failure to make meaningful investment in regional transport infrastructure. The coalition government is the great friend of the bush. We always have been, and we always will be. We stand shoulder to shoulder to enable these great lifters of regional Australia. We stand shoulder to shoulder with commodity producers and exporters, with country university students needing to live away to home, with commuters on long stretches of highway needing safe roads on which to travel, and with regional businesses trying to grow their companies and asking for internet and phone services equal to their city cousins. I want to spend just a moment on one of the greatest failures of the last Labor government—the failure in trade. Over the Christmas holidays I was very lucky to read a book about the economic history of Australia. It was a wonderful book because the point it made was that our prosperity was built on opening up great commodity export markets. In the 1820s it was the wool industry. It moved to the gold industry in the 1850s and then back to wool. By the 1950s and 1960s we recognised the extraordinary opportunities in selling iron ore and coal to Japan. Most recently, we have seen opportunities again in mineral exports and energy exports to China. Today, there are extraordinary opportunities to open up agricultural exports to China and the rest of Asia. Labor not only forgot those markets but destroyed the most important and fastest-growing agriculture market in recent Australian history—the live export market. We are the friends of regional Australia; the Labor Party is not. 16:11 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I will start by commenting on some of the points made by the member for Hume. I think it was interesting that he and other speakers did not talk about the budget. That is quite fascinating. Those on the other side of the chamber are pretending it did not happen. Because they are really embarrassed they did not mention anything about it, but this is what this matter of public importance is actually about. I would assume that most of those on the other side of the chamber are highly embarrassed. They have to go back to their electorates now and talk about some of the measures that are devastating—particularly for regional and rural Australia. That is why I am very pleased to be speaking on this matter of public importance today. When I look at electorates like mine in regional New South Wales I see that people there are feeling very betrayed by the Liberal Party and the Nationals and what they have done in this budget. It is a very cruel and unfair budget in many of the measures that are being brought in. It is full of broken promises that will hurt pensioners, families and people who are really struggling to make ends meet. Many people in regional and rural Australia are struggling to make ends meet and this budget has made it so much harder. I have been approached by so many people that are particularly concerned about the suite of measures that this government has brought in with this budget—particularly the GP tax, the petrol tax, and the cuts to pensions and family benefits. Indeed, the people in my region on the North Coast of New South Wales feel particularly betrayed. I imagine that Australians right across the country, including in regional and rural areas, feel equally betrayed by this Liberal-Nationals government. But this is what we get from Liberal-Nationals governments. We get cuts to pensions. We get services slashed. We get higher taxes. And people in the regions are really angry about it. In my area they are so upset about it that we are going to have a big rally on 12 June. We are calling it the 'fighting for a fair go' rally. I will touch on the public reaction in relation to that rally in just a second. We hear from this government lots of talk all the time about regional and rural Australia but they never actually deliver anything for them. It is all just talk. That is because the government—particularly the Nationals—take the country for granted. And this budget really shows that they do, because the cuts in this budget are hitting harder in country areas—so much harder. Bringing in a petrol tax hits people in country areas harder; people in country areas have to drive further. It pushes up the costs of many things they have to buy as well. When you have a GP tax it hurts the people in the country a lot harder. When you cut funding to hospitals it hurts those people in regional and rural areas so much more. When you cut funding to universities and deregulate fees it is the kids in the country that are hit hardest because they will not be able to get to university. That is the reality of their futures. And when you reduce assistance to areas like local governments that will severely impact all regional and rural areas. If we have a look at some of those cuts when it comes to local government, we see a $1 billion cut in funding to the financial assistance grants and there is also the termination of the national partnership for concessions for seniors. That also impacts a lot of the rate rebates that a lot of senior citizens get. On top of those cuts to financial assistance grants, that will severely impact so many of our councils and their ability to provide services. This government has just walked away from regional and rural Australia. That is really going to impact all of those councils. In my area, if you go from Bellingen right to the New South Wales-Queensland border, there are about $20 million in cuts there—a huge amount—which will really impact on the ability of the councils to provide really important services. I spoke before about the rally that we are having in my electorate. Indeed, it was highlighted today in a great local publication, the Tweed Sun. The front page says 'Grey backlash'. The headline is: 'Rally and petition planned to send message to Canberra: pensioners rally to fight the budget'. The article refers to the Vice President of the Affiliated Residential Park Residents Association, Ken Cummins. He started a petition for low-income earners who are upset with the new budget, so that they can register their disapproval, and he has been taking copies all around the place. He is saying that people are concerned about their ability to afford things like going to the doctor and they are concerned about the petrol tax as well. I thank Ken for the great work that he has been doing with his community. Another great publication, the Tweed Valley Weekly, had a major story—'Rally to protest budget planned'. The article refers to a pensioner, Pat Withers from Kingscliff, who holds strong concerns for what the budget means for people in his position. He said: This just makes things a lot worse for pensioners, in lots of different ways … power bills, phone bills, council rates, vehicle registration, all these will go up along with … the GP tax and the petrol tax which are just going to drive up the cost of living. Pat is very much aware of how difficult it is going to be. He said: I'm too frightened to work out how much it's all going to cost and terrified to think about what will happen to pensioners. Remember that many of our seniors live in regional Australia, and they are being severely impacted by this budget because a lot of them have retired there. It is such a huge impost upon them. The fact is that this Liberal-National government have walked away from rural and regional Australia for so many reasons. We see this budget compounding the already difficult situation that many of these people are in. It really is shameful. (Time expired) 16:16 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I rise today to speak on this matter of public importance. Let me start by saying that it is a bit rich for those opposite to question this government's commitment to rural and regional Australia, when the opposition leader, in his budget-in-reply speech, made no mention of supporting people in the bush. Actually, he made no mention of supporting any Australians. My electorate of Durack is made up of 47 councils, and every one of those councils is based in what this government would deem a rural or regional area. Therefore I think it is safe to say that I understand the needs of these areas, unlike the Leader of the Opposition—and perhaps we can throw the deputy leader in there at the same time. I note that this government has done what it can to support my Durack constituents. I also want to say that it is a bit rich for the member for Perth—and, yes, we cannot quite understand what rural and regional area she is referring to—to discuss the lack of funding for child and family centres in the Kimberley when Labor failed to provide the long-term funding that was needed for these very important Aboriginal family centres. While I am at it, let's talk about the member for Richmond. Let me assure you that this government is supporting my constituents while those opposite continue to criticise the necessary budget measures that the Treasurer and the Prime Minister had to implement to get this country back on track—not just rural and regional areas but also urban areas. Let me repeat: we are getting this country back on track, because those opposite put Australia on a path of waste—waste which has left every Australian with five record deficits and $123 billion in future deficits. Instead of letting this government get on with the job that it is tasked with—creating a sustainable and prosperous Australia for all Australians—those opposite continue to make these false statements. Rural and regional Australia, I am pleased to say, is very much at the forefront of this government's mind and the mind of the Prime Minister. That is why key budget measures were implemented to enhance the regions and it is why this government went to the last election in September with a policy to develop Northern Australia. I am pleased to say that I am a member of the Northern Australian committee, which has been working hard over the past couple of months to conduct inquiries across Northern Australia before developing the white paper. A key industry in Northern Australia—and therefore in Durack—is agriculture. Recently we have seen weather conditions that have gone from one extreme to the other: drought to flooding. That is why this government is committed to supporting our farmers and pastoralists through such funding measures as the drought assistance package and the concessional loan scheme. This government has also implemented other funding measures in the budget to support our agriculture industry. We have heard from the Minister for Agriculture so I will not repeat it all, but there is some $100 million with respect to grants programs for improvements in technology, $20 million to build a stronger biosecurity and quarantine system, another $15 million to support small exporters, and the list goes on. This government's commitment to rural and regional Australia did not, however, stop with agriculture. In the budget Durack, my electorate, received $850 million for local infrastructure projects, including much-needed upgrades to the Great Northern Highway, the North West Coastal Highway and the commencement of the feasibility study on the PortLink Inland Freight Corridor concept plan, and it goes on. I was particularly pleased to see the recommitment of $339 million for the Oakajee project in Durack, which was very much welcome. We see a further $550 million committed to the Roads to Recovery and Black Spot programs, largely benefiting road safety in rural and regional areas. Let's talk about health—something we have not heard much about this afternoon. Regional areas have also fared well from a health perspective, including an additional $6 million for the Royal Flying Doctor Service, and an additional $35 million over two years for the General Practice Rural Incentives Program, which provides incentives for medical practitioners to work in underserviced rural, regional and remote areas. And there is more: another $13.4 million over three years to fund an additional 500 nursing and allied health scholarships—scholarships with a value of $30,000 each. These will target workforce shortages in rural and remote areas. As I said yesterday, when I was speaking on the government's appropriation bills, regional areas are continually faced with a shortage of medical practitioners— 16:21 The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 Order! Unfortunately, the time for the debate has expired. The discussion has now concluded. BILLS 4893 BILLS Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014 4893

Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014

Second Reading 4893 16:21 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair As I was saying before the 90-second statements commenced at 1.30 pm, Labor understands that small businesses have scarce resources and that is why they must employ people to build their businesses and improve profitability. That is why during the 2013 election campaign we announced that we would amend the Paid Parental Leave scheme to remove the requirement for employers with fewer than 20 employees to make the PPL payments. These businesses would then be able to opt for the Department of Human Services, through Centrelink, to manage the PPL payments for their employees on maternity leave. We saw this as a sensible balance between the goal of maintaining the relationship between the employer and the employee on maternity leave while giving small businesses the option to streamline their administration and reduce their costs. But this bill goes much further than that. It actually abolishes the role of the employer entirely for all businesses regardless of size. While some interest groups, such as the Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, have expressed some support in removing the employer, especially in small business, from the PPL, it is not always the case. In fact, some in the business community do not support what the government has had to say. The Australian Industry Group in a submission to the Senate inquiry stated that it: … understands the logic behind the Government-funded parental leave payments being channelled through employers, for employees who are not short-term and who remain attached to the enterprise. Such an approach should reinforce the employee's link with the workplace, and achieve better return to work outcomes. Labor certainly does not believe that this bill before the House, which abolishes the employer's role entirely, strikes the right balance. We will move to amend the legislation to ensure that only businesses with fewer than 20 employees can have their paid parental leave administered by Centrelink. I waited during the Treasurer's budget speech to hear fanfare about the Paid Parental Leave scheme but, in fact, the Treasurer barely mentioned the scheme that is the subject of debate before the House. He had plenty of surprises to spring and plenty of promises to break, like ripping $80 billion out of Australian schools and hospitals; having to pay the GP tax of $7 every time you go to a doctor; cutting assistance to low- and middle-income families; making life harder for pensioners through changes to indexation; a tax hike on petrol; forcing unemployed people under 30 to wait six months for Newstart; making university places more expensive; cutting funding to the ABC and SBS; cutting trade trading centres; slashing funds from the CSIRO; and cutting more than half a billion dollar of Indigenous funding, including to Indigenous health. But there was barely a whisper about this issue in the Treasurer's speech. In the middle of the speech he slipped a single line about the coalition's gold plated Paid Parental Leave scheme. I suppose that was better than the National Broadband Network, which went unloved and unmentioned entirely. Perhaps the Treasurer was embarrassed. Perhaps he foresaw the difficulty government MPs, particularly marginal seat holders, would face explaining this back in their electorate. It is simply inconsistent with his oft mentioned 'end of the age of entitlement' for the Treasurer then to be splurging $5.3 billion on this Paid Parental Leave scheme which is unfair and inequitable. It does not gel with the 'end of the age of entitlement'. It is inconsistent. No doubt people have expressed—as they have certainly expressed to me when I have been doing mobile offices—their anger about the budget, not just with the new taxes and the broken promises but also in relation to the Paid Parental Leave scheme. I have been doing mobile offices for a long time. At the Ipswich Show, across three days, after the GP tax and the pension age, the issue that was raised most often was this Paid Parental Leave scheme. People are furious that we are splurging over $5 billion on this. They feel betrayed and they raised this because of its inequity. Former Liberal icons like Peter Costello, former Treasurer, described this new scheme of the coalition as 'silly'. Peter Reith, someone for whom John Howard had great regard, labelled it 'obviously bad policy'. Even former finance minister, Nick Minchin—the bloke who actually helped install the now Prime Minister in his current role—said: I've been on the record many, many times as saying that I'm not a supporter of the paid parental leave scheme. He even said that he would vote against it. More and more of those opposite should think about what Nick Minchin has said, and vote against it. (Time expired) 16:27 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite I rise to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014. This bill is very much in keeping with the coalition's commitment to reduce $1 billion of red tape on businesses every year. Already our 'red tape repeal day' has delivered in excess of $700 million in savings. This bill ensures that business no longer carries the burden of having to act as the pay clerk for the Paid Parental Leave scheme. This will save businesses $44 million a year and make life easier for small business owner-operators. This measure will also save the not-for-profit sector $4 million a year. Earlier in this debate it was suggested by a member opposite that there was no evidence for these savings. I say to that member: read the explanatory memorandum; the detail is there. But Labor has not been very good at getting its head around the detail. We just heard from the member for Blair, who claimed that employers will have no role under our amendments. We have actually made it very clear that, where an employer has administrative capacity and has found the role to be beneficial for their organisation, with the agreement of the employee, they can opt in to take on this role voluntarily. So, again, we hear from the other side of the chamber a deficiency by Labor in understanding the detail of the bill before this House. The savings to businesses in my home state of Victoria will be around $11.67 million alone. That is a very significant measure. You would think that Labor would get behind these reforms to help small business, because it is common sense. But, like the billions of dollars of savings that Labor is blocking—including $5 billion of its own savings—Labor is once again standing in the way. In 2011 Labor voted down the private member's bill of the member for Dunkley—now, of course, the Minister for Small Business—to remove the pay clerk burden from the PPL scheme, and Labor has continued to block this important measure. The bottom line is: Labor does not understand how important this is for small business, because it does not understand that, taking the cost pressures off small business helps jobs and drives prosperity. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry conducted a survey of its members on the Paid Parental Leave scheme in May 2013. In that survey it found that 84 per cent of businesses either agreed or strongly agreed that the government should not require employers to be the paymaster for the Paid Parental Leave scheme. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 4895 ADJOURNMENT Foreign Aid, Girl Guides Australia, Chris O'Brien Lifehouse 4895 16:30 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney The Minister for Foreign Affairs asserted in question time on 26 May and again on 28 May and again today—and the Treasurer asserted today—that I had personally said that Labor would be putting an extra $16 billion into the aid budget. The facts are these: I said that the coalition's decision on aid would reduce the aid budget by $16 billion because it abandoned the previously bipartisan commitment that aid would reach 0.5 per cent of gross national income. I have stated that our commitment to reaching the 0.5 per cent target remains but that the eventual cost will depend on timing and any further changes made by the coalition. Today I want to talk about two great organisations. The first is the Girl Guides Australia. The Guiding movement supports girls and young women to grow into confident, self-respecting, responsible members of the community. Guides are girls and young women who take action on issues that are important to them—important in their communities and important to the world. They seek to understand the world, its peoples and its cultures. The modern Guiding movement embodies the same determination that led to the formation of the Girl Guides over a century ago. In 1909 the Girl Guides 'crashed' the first Boy Scout Rally at Crystal Palace, attracting the attention of Scouts founder Robert Baden-Powell. They asked him to offer 'something for girls too'. In 1910 the Girl Guides Association was formed—a separate organisation for girls—led by Agnes Baden-Powell, Robert Baden-Powell's sister. Since then the Guiding movement has made important contributions to the advancement of women and girls locally, nationally and internationally. For the past 57 years, Australian Girl Guides have been raising funds by selling biscuits, and they are doing it again this year. This year Girl Guides hope to sell more than 13 million biscuits, and to raise more than $1.7 million. The money is used to help fund local guiding activities, camps and events, purchase guiding supplies and program materials, and support disadvantaged girls to enjoy guiding. I know members opposite would have received a complimentary packet of Guides biscuits. I hope they were well enjoyed. Many have told me that they were delicious. One terrific Girl Guides project that I have seen first-hand is the work Guides are doing making breast care bags. These beautiful bags have been made by members of the Girl Guides in New South Wales and the ACT as a service project. The bags hold drains and allow more freedom of movement for patients after breast surgery. Last month I was very pleased to accept a donation of these breast care bags from Girl Guides Australia on behalf of the Chris O'Brien Lifehouse. I would like to table an explanation of what the bags do. Leave granted. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M That is a perfect introduction to the second excellent organisation I want to speak about today—the Chris O'Brien Lifehouse at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Camperdown. A key priority of the former Labor government was to ensure that Australia became a world leader in cancer care. Between 2007 and 2013 Labor invested $4.1 billion in initiatives to support better prevention, detection, screening and treatment of cancer. We also made an unprecedented investment in research into the prevention and treatment of cancer. The outcome of our investment was profound—Australia's overall cancer survival rates are now the best in the world. Between 2008 and 20I3 the Labor government contributed $169.5 million in funding to build the Chris O'Brien Lifehouse. Of course, the fundraising done by the community was also magnificent. It was a magnificent effort by the community and the government working together to build an integrated cancer centre, delivering a range of vital services in the one location, including clinical care, surgery, medical and radiation oncology, research, integrative medicine, and support services for patients, their families and carers. Lifehouse is part of a national network of wonderful facilities that are ensuring better outcomes for people living with cancer and better support for the people who love them. It is a great example of over 220 projects funded by Labor's Nation Building Health and Hospitals Fund. Health and Hospitals Fund projects are now providing vital health services right across the country. I am very pleased to have been able to speak today about two wonderful organisations—Girl Guides and Chris O'Brien Lifehouse—that are working together to contribute to a better, more caring community. National Institute of Complementary Medicine 4896 16:35 Mr MATHESON M2V Macarthur Today I rise to speak on a leading research institute hosted by the University of Western Sydney in my electorate of Macarthur and the wonderful investment opportunities it has to offer Australia. I am speaking about Australia's National Institute of Complementary Medicine and its remarkable international reputation in the field of Chinese medicine. The Institute is hosted by the University of Western Sydney at its Campbelltown campus and is currently funded by the university, industry partners, philanthropy, and research grants and contracts. This institute's advanced research and policy work in the field of complementary medicine is translating contemporary research into better health outcomes for Australians, increasing high-quality manufacturing and farming opportunities, capturing international export prospects and delivering new knowledge based jobs for Australians. Since the National Institute of Complementary Medicine's establishment in 2007 by our own Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, when he was Minister for Health and Ageing, its reputation as a world-class leader in its industry has well and truly flourished. The institute's national and international reputation for high-quality, high-impact research earned it the highest possible rating by the Commonwealth's external review mechanism, which signals research well above world standard. In particular, the institute is an international leader in Chinese medicine research, with more than 50 staff and research students performing world-class clinical trials, preclinical studies and research. Recently the institute has been working on gaining approval from the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration for the first prescription drug in Chinese herbal medicine and is currently leading a phase 3 clinical trial in the treatment of vascular dementia. Australia's reputation regarding Chinese medicine has been considerably recognised and embraced by the People's Republic of China. For many years the institute has conducted high-quality collaboration with its Chinese partners and has established close working relationships with many of China's leading pharmaceutical and herbal medicine companies, hospitals and universities. These relationships have opened up a range of investment and innovation prospects for Australia, and this trend is most likely to only get stronger in the future. Strong government and industry support for Chinese medicine in the People's Republic of China is evident from its economic and policy prioritisation. As a leading global research entity and regulator of Chinese medicine, Australia's national institute is the key to unlocking this market potential in China. In addition to its scientific research, the institute's significant role in policy research has led to Australia being the first nation to regulate the practice of Chinese medicine, which has been highly regarded in the People's Republic of China. This regulation means that Australia has provided the Chinese herbal medicines industry an unrivalled regulatory framework through which clinical therapeutic claims can be accredited. As a result, Australia provides the best and most quality controlled access to Western markets. The institute also has significant domestic investment and innovation opportunities. The complementary medicine industry is one of Australia's fastest growing industries. Two out of three Australians use complementary medicine, spending more on complementary products than on out-of-pocket pharmaceuticals. The government collects in excess of $200 million per annum in GST from sales of complementary medicines and/or services. As a result, the complementary medicines industry is worth $3.8 billion, with an annual growth rate of four to five per cent that will support nearly 40,000 jobs by 2018. It is also important for me to highlight the benefit to Australians. More than 40 per cent of users take complementary medicines for chronic medical conditions where current treatments may be expensive, ineffective or have unwanted side effects. The Macarthur based institute also plays an important role in expanding opportunities for tertiary study in this growing industry. At the University of Western Sydney's Campbelltown campus, students can undertake bachelor and master courses in complementary medicine. The institute equips graduates to become nationally registered practitioners of traditional Chinese medicine and work within the healthcare system as independent primary care practitioners. UWS also offers postgraduate training to current traditional Chinese medicine practitioners to assist them to grow as specialists in their clinical practice. The Master of Health Science/Traditional Chinese Medicine course is the only one of its kind in Australia and is sought out by a wide variety of practitioners. These facts tell us that the complementary medicine industry offers significant health, employment and domestic and international financial opportunities for the Australian government as well as the Australian people. I would like to both commend and congratulate Australia's National Institute of Complementary Medicine on their ongoing hard work in bringing these opportunities to fruition. I am sure they are definitely looking forward to the Medical Research Future Fund that we are about to establish. Thank you. International Day of United Nations Peacekeepers 4898 16:39 Ms PARKE HWR Fremantle Today the UN Parliamentary Group, chaired by Senator Chris Back and me, commemorated the International Day of United Nations Peacekeepers, which occurs on 29 May each year. Our special guest was Peter Drennan, AFP deputy commissioner, who has just been appointed as the new UN Under-Secretary-General for Safety and Security. This position will make Mr Drennan the most senior Australian in the UN system. As I said to him today, he has a very tough job ahead of him, keeping 145,000 civilians in the UN safe from harm. On previous occasions in this place I have talked about my former colleagues and dear friends from the UN who were killed on duty, some through violence as with the terrorist bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad in August 2003 that killed 23 people, including Sergio Vieira de Mello and my good friend Jean-Selim Kanaan. Other UN staff have been killed through disasters such as the Haiti earthquake in January 2010. One hundred peacekeepers died that day in Haiti, including four of my friends, along with 200,000 Haitian people. Unfortunately, we can say with some certainty that the task of keeping UN staff safe is only going to get harder, with increases in attacks on humanitarian workers as well as more severe and frequent extreme weather events throughout the world that impact most heavily on poor countries, where UN staff tend to be based. But, as I noted at the UN Parliamentary Group meeting today, danger can come in other ways too. I want to just briefly relate the experience I had in Kosovo as a civilian in the UN peacekeeping mission. I had delayed my departure from Australia to Kosovo for one week in order to finish marking exam papers at the university where I was lecturing. The flight I had originally been booked on was a World Food Programme charter flight from Rome to Pristina, the capital of Kosovo. That flight, on 12 November 1999, crashed on landing in Kosovo, killing all 24 passengers and crew, due to inadequate and unsafe facilities and procedures for civilian aircraft at Pristina airport. I had had a lucky escape, thanks to those exam papers. The UN staff on the plane were not so fortunate. I arrived in Kosovo via Skopje a week later. It was the middle of winter, and that winter of 1999-2000 was terrible. There were no snowploughs to clear streets of snow, so the roads and footpaths became extremely icy and dangerous. Cars would slip off roads onto footpaths and people would slip off footpaths onto roads. I was covered in bruises from having fallen over so many times and was terrified of breaking a limb and being sent home, as others had been. There was no running water or electricity. We relied on candles for a bit of light and warmth at night-time. My Japanese friend Yoshi fell asleep one night in his house, with the candle burning. It went on to burn down the house, and he was lucky to get out alive. A Spanish friend, Jose Luis, lived in an apartment where the landlord had just installed a generator in the stairwell. He was trying to be helpful, only he did not leave any outlet for the carbon monoxide fumes. Jose Luis was lucky to have woken up in the middle of the night and staggered out onto the road. He spent the next three days in hospital on oxygen. When I saw him, he said, 'You know, Melissa, there are a thousand little ways to die in this place.' Last year, a Filipino peacekeeper died of malaria in Liberia. He was one of 106 peacekeepers who died while carrying out their duty under the UN flag in 2012, bringing the total number of lives lost in the history of peacekeeping to more than 3,200. As the UN Secretary-General noted in his message for the International Day of UN Peacekeepers: Today, more than 116,000 UN personnel from more than 120 countries serve in 16 peacekeeping operations. At great personal risk, these military, police and civilian personnel help stabilize communities, protect civilians, promote the rule of law and advance human rights. …   …   … Over the past year, the Security Council has established two peacekeeping operations—in Mali and the Central African Republic—again highlighting its trust in UN peacekeepers to take on tough challenges. The UN … Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo helped the Government defeat the 23 March Movement rebels that had preyed upon civilians in the country’s east. In South Sudan, for the first time in UN peacekeeping history, our peacekeepers systematically opened the gates of their bases to tens of thousands of civilians, saving their lives and protecting them from either Government or opposition forces. In a historic breakthrough, a woman was named the first female Force Commander of a UN peacekeeping operation. Earlier this month, the Security Council established the “Captain Mbaye Diagne Medal”, named after an unarmed Senegalese peacekeeper who lost his own life after saving as many as 1,000 people during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. This medal will honour UN personnel who demonstrate exceptional courage. It is clear that the UN's new Under-Secretary-General for Safety and Security will have his work cut out for him in terms of the obvious and the not so obvious dangers to UN staff. We wish Peter Drennan well in this critical task. Debate interrupted. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 4899 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Malaysia: Missing Aircraft 4899 16:44 Mr TRUSS GT4 Wide Bay by leave—Honourable members will be aware that Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 with 239 people on board disappeared on 8 March on a flight en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing. Australia has led the biggest search operation in history because it is believed that this aircraft has come to grief in Australia's search and rescue zone, but as yet there has been no evidence of the missing Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 arising from that search. Yesterday afternoon Bluefin-21 completed its last mission searching in the remaining areas in the vicinity of the acoustic signals that were detected in early April by the towed pinger locator deployed from ADV Ocean Shield. This submersible autonomous vehicle was contracted by the US Navy and operated by their personnel. The data collected on yesterday's mission has been analysed and, as a result, the Joint Agency Coordinating Centre has advised that no signs of aircraft debris have been found by the autonomous underwater vehicle since it joined the search effort. Since Bluefin-21 has been involved in the search it has scoured over 850 square kilometres of the ocean floor looking for signs of the aircraft. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has now advised that the search in the vicinity of the acoustic detections can be considered complete and in its professional judgement the area can now be discounted as the final resting place for MH370. Ocean Shield departed the area last night and will be arriving in Fleet Base West on Saturday. As I mentioned earlier this month, the search for MH370 continues, but now it has to move into a different phase. There is an extensive review being undertaken of the data and that review will also be peer-reviewed so we can be absolutely certain that any information of importance is identified and then able to be followed through. We are continuing to study the transmissions which led to the detailed research in the area where the latest activities have occurred. We concentrated the search in that area because pings, the information received, was the best information available at the time. That is all you can do in circumstances like this—follow the very best leads. The next part of the exercise also involves reviewing all existing information and analysis to define the search zone up to 60,000 square kilometres along the arc in the Southern Indian Ocean where the aircraft is believed to have travelled in its last hours. We are also conducting oceanographic surveys to map the seafloor in the defined search area, and acquiring the specialist services required for a comprehensive search of the seafloor in that area. We are still very confident that the resting place of the aircraft is in the Southern Ocean and along the 7th ping line. The expert satellite working group will continue to review the evidence and, on the basis of that advice, help inform the next stage of the search. A Chinese survey vessel, the Zhu Kezhen, has already begun conducting this oceanographic survey, mapping the ocean floor, because the area is largely unmapped. It is being supported by other Chinese vessels and Malaysian vessels which are helping to transport the data on the survey vessel to shore so that it can be effectively examined. We will also be moving to call tenders for suitable equipment to undertake the next stage of the search and that will be undertaken by AusTender, the Australian government tendering system. It is anticipated that the next stage of the search will begin in August and take up to 12 months. Hopefully, there will be a breakthrough earlier and so it will not take that amount of time. But unfortunately, this is a painstaking effort in a very large ocean. The area to be searched during the next stage could be as big as 800 kilometres in length by 70 kilometres wide. Hopefully, the study will define that area a little more closely but in reality a very large area is potentially going to require searching. We remain as a nation committed to the search. We remain determined to do everything we possibly can to find this aircraft. It is our responsibility to the families of those who are involved but also to assure the safety of the flying public into the future. Australia will be working with other countries to make sure we have the best available resources so that everything that can possibly be done to locate this aircraft will be done. I thank the House. 16:50 Mr BURKE DYW Watson by leave—I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for advising the House. The hopes of many have been dashed. Once again we offer our condolences and words of comfort to the families and friends of passengers on MH370 who still await more news. Our thoughts and the thoughts of all Australians are with you. ADJOURNMENT 4901 ADJOURNMENT State of the World's Mothers 2014 4901 16:51 Dr STONE EM6 Murray I am sure that all of us in the House are very much saddened by this news about the failure to find the lost plane. Globally it remains unlikely that we will meet the fourth Millennium Development Goals of a two-thirds reduction in child mortality by 2015. The Save the Children Fund has just released its Mothers Index which ranks countries from the lowest to the highest in respect of the numbers of preventable child deaths. This index is a part of its annual State of the World's Mothers 2014,Saving mothers and children in humanitarian crises report. Six of the 10 of the lowest-ranked countries in the index are affected by recurring natural disasters, and it is always the poorest mothers who are the worst affected within these countries ravaged by floods, tornadoes or droughts. Of all the countries that have ever ranked in the bottom 10 during the 15 years of this report, 18 of the 28 can be characterised as experiencing persistent natural disasters. The safest places to raise children—the top 10 countries—include Finland, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Spain, Germany and Australia and Belgium are equal ninth. These countries all ranked very highly in scores for mothers' and children's health but also in scores for women's education, economic and political status. The bottom 10 out of the 178 ranked countries in this index were—not surprisingly—Cote d'Ivoire, Chad, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, the Central African Republic, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and, finally, Somalia. In the bottom 10 countries, on average one woman in 27 dies from pregnancy related causes and one child in seven dies before his or her fifth birthday. The 10 toughest places for mother and child survival also have a recent history of armed conflict and are fragile states. The Save the Children report found that contemporary violence and conflict are tearing apart more families than at any time in our history. By the end of 2012 more than 45 million people were forcibly displaced due to conflict or persecution, and natural disasters had in the same year displaced 32 million. We are all very familiar with the terrible trauma that is currently afflicting those in Syria: both the numbers of women and children who have already died and the numbers who are fleeing to neighbouring countries, which are still showing extraordinary humanitarian support in taking in and keeping an open border for refugees. Globally, eighty million are projected to be in need of humanitarian assistance in 2014, and over three-quarters of those are women and children. Australia is more than pulling its weight in trying to address these humanitarian crises. We have more than $5 billion committed in foreign aid annually to be directed particularly to places in our own region, but also to where there is an extraordinary crisis—and we have just heard about the efforts Australia has made to try and locate a lost plane, something that happened out of the blue for us. In fact, we have two key ways in which we direct our aid. The first is investment in building capacity in a fragile state or in a desperately poor country—an undeveloped country. This will be an investment over a long time frame. For example, it could be in agricultural production support or in ongoing governance development. It could be in trying to improve education and health service provision or systems of provision. Australia works with NGOs, both Australian based and internationally, as well as the governments of these countries and the United Nations to help countries address and overcome their poverty. The second of our key responses is when there is a humanitarian crisis. For example, the Haiti earthquake, or the Indonesian and PNG severe cyclones, or tornadoes or floods in Bangladesh. This response requires urgent provision of food and water, medical supplies, clothing and shelter. It is a matter of how quickly we can get that support to those countries, how appropriate that support is and how we can make sure that those supplies get to the right places. This is where I am pleased to say that we are now committed to cash as well as in-kind support in supplying aid, whether it is food, clothing, water purification systems and so on. This is a move from where we were during the previous government, where only cash tended to be sent. It was then used to tender for products being bought—often subsidised products from other countries. I think this is a great move, that we are now making sure that we have best value for money and that we also have the national interest served at the same time as we look after those who find themselves in a dreadful catastrophe. Port Hedland: Employment 4902 16:56 Ms MacTIERNAN L6P Perth Earlier this week in the chamber the member for Canning once again made a disgraceful attack on hard-working blue-collar Western Australians. This time his focus was on the guys steering the big ore ships in and out of Port Hedland. I want to set the record straight. The member for Canning claimed that those working on tugboats towing ships out of Port Hedland get paid $135,000 a year, that they work for just six months a year and that they want a 40 per cent pay rise. Yes, they do get paid 135,000 per year—much less than the member himself is paid— Ms Bird DZP Better buy a house in Cairns! Ms MacTIERNAN L6P Yes, that is right! I am sure they all want to buy a house in Cairns! But it is not an outrageous sum for FIFO workers. But everything else the member said was wrong. Like most in the mining industry, the tugboat workers are rostered on swings. They work 28 days on and 28 days off. But their 28 days are not regular nine-to-five hours, Monday to Friday. They work a minimum of 12 hours a day, seven days a week and often in split shifts. In fact, if you do the maths, they work around 39 hours per week every week of the year. Like most workers, including miners and workers on offshore oil and gas projects and like many of the fly-in fly-out workers in the seat of Canning, they are asking for four weeks leave each year. Their pay claim is for a maximum of 15.5 per cent over four years, or 3.8 per cent—not the 40 per cent claimed by the member for Canning. I ask the member for Canning to stop demonising these hard-working Western Australians and to realise that the availability of well-paying jobs for hard-working people who are prepared to do the hard yards and to work those long hours is really part of why we support the minerals industry so strongly. Indeed, it is why the community supports it. If you take away those jobs you will take away that support. The SPEAKER SE4 It being nearly five o'clock I declare that the House stands adjourned until 10 am next Monday. House adjourned at 17:00   The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) took the chair at 09:00.

Thursday, 29 May 2014

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

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 4904 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Melbourne Ports Electorate: Reclink 4904 09:30 Mr DANBY WF6 Melbourne Ports In this budget, one of promises that was broken was to continue a program in my electorate for the support of Reclink. Reclink started out as a South Melbourne based organisation but it has developed nationally. It provides outstanding support and community initiatives to disadvantaged Australians nationally. Around 100,000 people across Australia benefit from the sporting and cultural activities for people suffering from mental health problems, homelessness, substance abuse, disability, language barriers and financial difficulties. These programs foster self-confidence, bring people out of isolation, develop skills and establish connections and friendships. I have had a longstanding relationship with Peter Cullen, the marvellous individual, who is the force behind Reclink. Since I became a member of parliament, I have been privileged to introduce him to members of the now government and members of the previous government. I had thought that this program was relatively modest and was so manifestly in the interests of bringing these people into the mainstream that it would have been supported; however, it has not been—cut by $560,000. I had the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Albert Park, and our well-known local personality, Father Bob Maguire with me last week as we were down at Peanut Farm Reserve speaking to Reclink's chairman, David O'Halloran who said that 'disadvantaged people have been regarded unfairly in programs designed to improve the community's social inclusion, health and wellbeing. Unless we can find another $500,000, we are going to have to make very hard decisions about whether we continue to operate.' We were working with the Salvo Hawks training session, and I do not want members of the government to say that the local community does not put into this. There is now a function that takes place annually at Elsternwick, which I am pleased to throw the coin at to open the game where nearly 15,000 people attend. There is massive local support, including financial support, for the wonderful work that Reclink does. It is just a shame that its program to take its work right across the country and our electorate is being undermined by the cuts in this current budget. Reclink Australia makes a huge difference to so many lives. Its vital work deserves long-term support. I am sorry that it has been abandoned by this government. The disadvantaged in our electorate will have to be supported by locals, philanthropists and businesses to the tune of another $500,000, if we can raise it. (Time expired) Local Sporting Champions Grants 4904 09:33 Mr EWEN JONES 96430 Herbert I rise to speak on Local Sporting Champions. I think it is a great thing that government is doing— Ms Hall interjecting— Mr EWEN JONES 96430 Here we go—there are lots of good things about being the local member, and Local Sporting Champions is one of them. Local Sporting Champions is a grant that we give to individuals to pursue their sporting dreams. I would like to put the government on notice that I think making if for individuals only and not team based is short-sighted. A couple of months ago we were able to give Arcadian surf lifesaving teams support to go away. Things like rescue and resuscitation are clearly about being a part of the team—and that is what is good about sport. It is very expensive for parents these days to support their children's sport. When I was a kid you did not need boots and you certainly did not need the right shorts or the right uniform—all you had to do was turn up. You did not even need a mouthguard. When you played cricket you did not have pads or gloves and if there was a protector floating around you had to share it with everyone. You certainly did not have a helmet or arm guards or anything like that. Local sporting grants and Local Sporting Champions help parents out there by recognising the cost of sport. We are looking at the disengagement of people around my city and the disengagement by youth, and a lot of it has to do with the fact that they simply cannot afford to join a local sporting club anymore because of the costs associated with it. Joining a team is something they will miss out on. Insurance is a major issue in this. My good friends now are mates that I played rugby and all sorts of other sports with 20, 30 and 40 years ago. I would like to thank my committee—Greg Reddington, who is a founding father of Townsville football; Claudia Bressard, an Olympian for Canada and an absolutely legendary basketballer for the Townsville Fire and a fantastic mother; and Pat Ernst, who was a Foley Shield and country Queensland Rugby league representative and a champion bloke. I would like to say to all parents: when you are putting these applications in, please have your child give us their story; please have them say why it is important to them and let them address the issue of their family and what it means to them as a group to be able to participate in this. Local Sporting Champions is a great part of being a member of parliament, and I support the organisation greatly. Holt Electorate: Multicultural Youth Project 4905 09:36 Mr BYRNE 008K0 Holt I would endorse those comments. Last week I had the pleasure of meeting with Sarah Williams, Alice Gomez and Heather Stewart from the Centre for Multicultural Youth which is based in Dandenong. They came to discuss a great project which is called 'Our Patch–Social Cohesion'. The Centre for Multicultural Youth was established over 25 years ago as a not-for-profit organisation that supports young people from multicultural backgrounds to build better lives in Australia. This organisation works with young people in a range of settings including settlement, education, employment, housing, sport, justice and health. The centre's new program works with young people of all backgrounds, aged between 16 and 25 years. It aims to increase participation in social and community life for all and to strengthen the leadership capabilities of young people in our region. In late 2013 the first phase of this project began. It involved a series of conversational workshops in the city of Casey with young people whose background is African, Pasifika, Afghan, Koori or Anglo-Australian. The conversations focused on the highlights and challenges of living in the area and explored their for the local community. One participant, Ariana Tugaga, described Our Patch as being about 'breaking the chains of cultural stereotypes'. Youth facilitator TeHeapera Nikora stated: 'For me impacting the world could be as simple as understanding that I got through to one person and that one person will now spend their life understanding and considering other cultures.' A series of conversations from the African community and the Afghan community centred on two particular issues. One was a meeting places for young people in the area. The city of Casey covers a vast area; it is dispersed but it does not have anywhere for the youth of these two communities to meet on a regular basis. The other issue which came mainly from the Afghan participants was the presence of protective service officers and CCTV cameras at train stations. For the Pasifika community there was a concern about the separation between young people and older adults. Young people want to feel more included and to have their schools understand their particular culture, because there was some concern that some schools did not identify their culture. Each of these conversations has produced outstanding feedback for the Centre for Multicultural Youth. This is about integrating our community and making the community a better place to live, and these projects should continue to be supported and spoken about in this place. Casey Electorate: Metropolitan Traffic Education Centre 4906 09:40 Mr TONY SMITH 00APG Casey I rise this morning to talk about the great work of the Metropolitan Traffic Education Centre, otherwise known as METEC, in Bayswater North in the federal electorate of Casey that I have the honour of representing. For over 40 years METEC has provided a safe closed-road training and education facility for particularly younger drivers. It is built on 10 hectares of land, has four kilometres of private roads and has all of the usual traffic features: intersections, traffic lights, roundabouts—everything required to provide an ideal learner training facility. Over those four decades METEC has saved countless lives by training many thousands of young people to drive more safely, many doing their courses prior to receiving their licences. I have worked with and supported the centre for many years. It is playing a vital role in our community. All of us know the importance of teaching young people in particular safe driving and this facility provides an opportunity to do just that prior to young people getting their licence and travelling on the roads. I know that my colleague on the other side who represents a regional electorate will agree with me that particularly in outer suburban and regional electorates it is all the more important because young drivers receiving their licence can that very first day drive on dangerous country roads in dangerous conditions. So I want to pay tribute to the staff of METEC. During the last election I pledged that if the coalition was elected we would contribute a grant of $100,000 to enable them to expand their car control area, otherwise known as a skid pan. I am pleased that that funding will be forthcoming very soon, in the coming weeks and months. That will enable them to roughly double the size of their skid pan, as I understand it, and train even more drivers in a safer environment. Corio Electorate: Youth Connections Program 4906 09:42 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I speak today on behalf of some of Geelong's most disadvantaged young people who are in real need of support to connect with education, training and secure employment opportunities. Last week's budget scrapped three vital educational and transitional programs which support the participation of young people in education and in the workforce. They are Youth Connections, Partnership Brokers and National Career Development. These cuts are a clear indication that the Abbott government is determined to make life even harder for young people who are struggling with education and employment. At a time when the government is already seeking to deny young job seekers the right to Newstart, pulling the plug on those vital services is undoubtedly a short-sighted move. When a young person is having a tough time with education or finding a job, the worst message that a government can send them is, 'You're on your own,' but that is exactly what Tony Abbott is saying to the thousands of young people facing this challenge. In my electorate of Corio we are fortunate to have the Barwon Youth as our excellent provider of the Youth Connections program in the Geelong region which plays a critical role in reaching hundreds of young people across the region every year that are at risk of falling through the cracks. The program has successfully helped over 600 young people with education and employment since Labor established Youth Connections nationally in 2010. In addition, Youth Connections has supported more than 2,000 young people across the region through a range of excellent grassroots initiatives. Sadly, the Abbott government's ruthless cuts to this program will leave Geelong's young people with no support and the ramifications will hurt young people across the region. Fewer students will complete year 12, early school leavers will have nowhere to go and businesses will not have the skilled workers they need now and into the future. Axing this program, which has a proven success rate of over 80 per cent nationally, simply does not make sense. Not only will this deny Geelong's business sector with the skilled workforce of tomorrow; it will contribute to youth unemployment and increase the risk of youngsters in Geelong becoming disengaged. As I said, Labor set up Youth Connections in 2010, to support those young people in our community who would otherwise be left to face a lifetime risk of higher unemployment and, in turn, lower earnings. Scrapping this program sends a clear message that the Abbott government is prepared to turn its back on some of the most marginalised young people in our community, a heartless and irresponsible move that will benefit none but will, in the process, hurt many. Anzac Centenary Commemoration Project: Marangaroo Primary School 4907 09:45 Mr SIMPKINS HWE Cowan The list of Cowan Centenary of Anzac projects will be delivered today to the Department of Veterans Affairs. I would like to thank the members of the Cowan Centenary of Anzac grants committee who could participate in assessing the applications last week: Mike Gilmour, of the Ballajura RSL; Wendy Tuffin, of the Wanneroo and Joondalup RSL; Councillor John Chester, of the City of Joondalup; and Councillor Mel Congerton, of the City of Swan. One particular project that certainly caught my eye was the project application from Marangaroo Primary School. This proposal was for a World War I memorial site to be constructed near the undercover area, with the existing flagpole to be removed and reinstalled as the centrepiece of the monument. Twenty-two limestone blocks will create a mini-amphitheatre, paved with limestone bullnose pavers. The area will be flanked by two solid jarrah bench seats engraved with the Australian coat of arms. A commemorative brass plaque will also be installed in the limestone. I would particularly like to thank Mr Glenn Ross, the teacher who helped put this project together and also principal Karen Loan. But, above all, the way in which Marangaroo Primary School went about this was very engaging with the student body. They put it out to the students and asked for applications and proposals. The winning proposal was that of the year 6 head girl, Shynique Bicknell. Shynique wrote on her proposal: If my design gets built I think it will change the way people think and see the school. Everyday people just walk past and not take any notice of the flag pole, but with my design the pole will stand out with pride. It will make everyone look and even think. You will be able to sit on the benches to relax/talk and think. My design will honour those soldiers who died and or survived the war for us. If you are struggling the flag pole memorial will motivate you to keep going because they did too, for us.' This is a very important project. My committee were certainly very interested in it and I hope that the department will sign off on the proposal. Through this sort of approach we will see a real focal point for commemoration not only at Marangaroo Primary School but also in the whole suburb of Marangaroo. In the future we might very well see many dawn services take place at Marangaroo and lots of local community involvement. I particularly congratulate Shynique Bicknell for being the winner of 87 proposals from within the school. That is a great endorsement for young people, who obviously have great respect for Anzac Day. Charlton Electorate: Nikinpa Aboriginal Child and Family Centre 4908 09:48 Mr CONROY 249127 Charlton The Nikinpa Aboriginal Child and Family Centre in Toronto is at risk of closing its doors next month because the government failed to commit further funding in the budget to the National Partnership Agreement on Indigenous Early Childhood Development, which expires next month. When in government Labor provided $6½ million through the agreement to build the facility, which is opposite Biraban Public School, in Toronto, and which services the high Indigenous population in that area. The centre provides clinic rooms for GP services, as well as antenatal care and education; child health check-ups and immunisation; chronic healthcare services; family referrals; counselling and parenting classes, as well as child care for over 30 kids. These are services that are improving the early childhood outcomes of Indigenous children in the local area, giving them the best possible start in life. In addition to this, the centre is home to an IT room used to teach computer skills to seniors, and meeting rooms which are used to provide Aboriginal employment services, tenancy advice and a meeting place for Westlakes elders. Also opened recently is the centre's four-room early education and care service, which runs in conjunction with Hunter TAFE to provide on-site delivery of certificate III in children's services. When I visited the centre last week, on my second visit there, I was very impressed not only with the quality of the facilities and the care provided but with their focus on preparing and empowering Aboriginal children and families for their transition to mainstream schooling. This is a really valuable service for our community, one which we simply cannot afford to lose. The NPA was a COAG initiative which was aimed at closing the gap for Indigenous people. The agreement was supposed to be reviewed at COAG next month, but, with the budget, Tony Abbott has made clear his intentions. He is abandoning the families and communities in Toronto that rely on this centre. It is a cop-out to say that, because these centres have been built, the federal government have kept their end of the bargain. That is not the intent of the agreement. They are shifting the cost of keeping this centre running to the New South Wales government but, more unforgivably, they are shifting their responsibility on closing the gap as well. Tony Abbott declared himself the Prime Minister for Indigenous affairs, but his budget of broken promises has gutted $500 million from programs that support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. There is very little detail about where the axe will fall, but we do know that more than $165 million has been ripped out of Indigenous health programs over the next four years, more than $15 million has been cut from the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples and, of course, the failure to renew the NPA will have a devastating and long-lasting effect on our Indigenous communities, including those in my area. Closing the gap requires more than just words; it requires support and commitment. With this budget, the Prime Minister has delivered neither. Longman Electorate: Longman Awards 4909 09:51 WYATT ROY M2X Longman Last Friday night, a record 450-strong audience packed the Caboolture Memorial Hall to honour volunteers and other outstanding local achievers at my annual Longman Awards. Frankly, I was overwhelmed by both the turnout and the calibre of the more than 75 finalists. The Longman Awards are a tradition which, first and foremost, goes to recognising the often unheralded deeds happening every day in my community. The doers of these deeds, both individuals and community groups, sacrifice pursuit of the personal to be there for the less abled and less fortunate. They are the emergency service workers, the volunteering seniors, parents putting in time at schools and sporting clubs, meal service providers and protectors of our beautiful natural environment. They extend love unconditionally, they feed, they clothe, they comfort, they raise money and they ply their skills to improve the material, social and emotional wellbeing of so many people. It is no overstatement to say that, without them and the wide array of services that they provide, our community would simply not be able to function. We would literally be at a loss. I am often heard proclaiming that my region is the best place in the world to live. I mean it—not only because of our stunning natural landscape, our beaches and our hinterland, not just because of our much-envied climate, but because of our proud sense of community and our ability to work together for the good of all. It was there in every corner of that hall on Friday night. The Longman Awards also recognise accomplishments in fields such as small business, sports and the environment. Yet even here the emphasis falls on giving back, with this year's successes including former Narangba Valley State High School students Jamie Fordham and Jesse Kelly in the youth achievement category. Two years ago, when they were 16, the pair started Moreton Bay Regional Community Response to provide meals, job seeking and housing help and other services to those in need. They now oversee a volunteer army of over 60 people which offers dinners from Burpengary Community Hall and breakfasts at Redcliffe to homeless and disadvantaged people. The other 2014 Longman Award winners are: in seniors achievement, Janet Kirkley; in environment achievement, Jim Pulsford; in sports achievement, Ryan Hoy; in small business, the great team at Murri Medical; in community achievement, Bribie Island Lions; and the great winner overall, David Greig. Every finalist is a gem, and I thank them for letting our region sparkle. Double Canonisation: Pope John Paul II and Pope John XXIII 4910 09:54 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin On Sunday 27 April, I attended a special church service at John XXIII Catholic Church in the Makin electorate to celebrate the canonisation of Pope John Paul II and Pope John XXIII. The service was led by Archbishop Philip Wilson with the support of parish priest Father Peter Milburn and several other priests from neighbouring parishes. For the John XXIII Catholic parish it was an extra special occasion with the person whom the parish was named in honour of being made a saint. John XXIII is a relatively new church having been officially opened in 1975. The double canonisation mass was celebrated by Pope Francis and co-celebrated by Pope Benedict XVI in St Peter's Square at the Vatican on the same day, 27 April, in Rome. People from around the world converged on St Peter's Square to witness the historic double canonisation ceremony. It was also the first time that a current Pope and a former Pope co-celebrated mass. Pope Francis's decision to canonise two of the 20th century's greatest spiritual leaders could be described as a delicate balancing act, giving both the conservative and progressive wings of the Catholic Church a new saint. John Paul II became an icon to the conservative Catholics, while Pope John XXIII developed a reformist reputation, overhauling archaic beliefs and promoting peace and unity in more up-to-date thinking. Regardless of one's personal views about Christianity, the Catholic Church or sainthood, there can be no denying that both by Pope John Paul II and Pope John XXIII were extraordinary men who overcame great adversity and rose to head the world's singularly largest religious organisation. Having risen to a leadership position, they both went on to vindicate their selection as heads of the world's Catholic community. Both men served as Pope in the 20th century. John Paul II served from 16 October 1978 until 2 April 2005, and Pope John XXIII served from 28 October 1958 until 3 June 1963. Their backgrounds were, however, very different as was their individual achievements when in office. Pope John Paul II, born Karol Jozef Wojtyła, on 18 May 1920 in Wadowice, Poland, died on 2 April 2005. He was the youngest of three children. By the age of 21, his mother, father and siblings had all died and in the year following his father's death he made the decision to study for priesthood. He is perhaps best remembered as a charismatic, globetrotting conservative Catholic who clamped down on leftist movements within the church. Pope John XXIII, born Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli on 25 November 1881 in Sotto il Monte, Italy, died 3 June 1963. He was a fourth child and the eldest son in the family of 14 and his upbringing was filled with the religious teachings of his family and parish. Elected as Pope at the age of 76, John XXIII is best remembered as a peacemaker who not only saved thousands of Jews when he was a Vatican envoy in Turkey during World War II but he also helped end Catholic prejudice against Jews. (Time expired) Maranoa Electorate: Drought 4910 09:57 Mr BRUCE SCOTT YT4 Maranoa I rise to bring to the attention this parliament an issue that is still of great concern to me—that is, the situation of drought still gripping many parts of rural and remote Australia. Many parts have had some patchy relief rain, and I say very patchy, over the summer period and many of course missed out completely and that is the issue I want to address. Much of the cropping lands of my electorate have very limited soil moisture. Very little wheat has been planted, which is the cash flow that will be vital to the many communities and families at the end of this year. Queensland now is something like 75 per cent drought declared and it is worsening. With the climate forecasts saying that we are moving into an el nino, I feel very much that this winter is going to be a very bleak one with the situation worsening for many families and country towns. It is not just the families on the land because, without a profit, without cash flow that would come from good season, that money is not circulating in many country towns. The Queensland government has already allocated something like $31 million towards this drought to support families. We as a federal government are going to provide another $300 million in a drought package at the start of July this year. But I am not quite sure that this is going to be enough. I weekly, if not daily, get emails from producers who forward me the letter that they have had from the Queensland Rural Adjustment Authority rejecting their application for the financial package that we have provided as a federal government. It leaves these producers with very little option. They are looking down the barrel of perhaps exiting the land through, so often, no fault of their own—drought conditions and the impact that the live cattle debacle had on the capital value of these assets. I am concerned as we go into this winter with the worsening el nino situation that I am going to receive more and more of these emails. I think we are going to have to do more, and next weekend I will be north of Longreach, where I know many properties are looking at partially or totally destocking. This situation is worsening across many parts of Queensland, and I think we have to revisit this area to make sure we are not only providing the necessary support for the families and making sure country towns have some support but also making sure banks are playing their part. I get letters from people who are saying that the banks are in many cases not prepared to refinance notwithstanding they have had accommodation in terms of debt reduction, and I think there is a concern that we have to raise with our banks as well. I will be watching this very closely. I will be with producers next weekend, talking very closely with them and feeling the impact as I do every day. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230886 Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 4911 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2014-2015, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2014-2015, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2014-2015, Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2013-2014, Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2013-2014 4911

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2014-2015

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2014-2015

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2014-2015

Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2013-2014

Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2013-2014

Second Reading 4911 10:01 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter I am very pleased to follow the Deputy Speaker and to comment on his contribution on drought. I have a high regard for the Deputy Speaker. He is a good local member. He has a good and thorough understanding of rural and agriculture issues, and I too share his concern about the ongoing nature of the drought and the el nino which is ahead, so I cannot understand that within his agriculture white paper the minister has not included resource sustainability or climate change. How are we going to produce more food and increase farm productivity with the same limited and, indeed, in some cases depleting food, water and people resources? This is the really big question for the agriculture sector and those who survive and rely on it. It amazes me. Whatever the causes of climate change might be—there are certainly different views about that—climate change is very real and should be part of the white paper. I also cannot help but make the point that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Agriculture in great fanfare undertook a drought tour three months ago. There was plenty of television footage and plenty of picture opportunities, and straight after a big announcement, the centrepiece of which was a $280 million farm financing package for drought affected farmers, three months on, sadly, not one cent of that money has gone to struggling farming families. That is very disappointing. I just hope that in the not-too-distant future the minister can prove to the parliament and to the farming communities that are being affected that he is capable of putting a drought package in place. I am here to talk about the budget. Never before has an electorate felt so misled and let down by a Commonwealth budget. I have been here for 18 years. My first budget was 1996. It was a tough budget delivered by Peter Costello, the Treasurer in the Howard government, but this one is extraordinarily worse. It is full of inconsistencies, it is full of mixed messages and it is full of bad priorities. It has inconsistencies in that it is spending big money on programs like the Paid Parental Leave scheme, feeding big money to high-income families while cutting the lowest-income families and people in this country. They say it is about fiscal consolidation, but we are seeing very little consolidation. We are feeling the pain. A government member interjecting— Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 I am going to take the interjection. People say, 'It's not coming from the taxpayer, because the Paid Parental Leave scheme is coming from an extra tax on companies.' But it is a revenue measure foregone. It is money that is collected by the Commonwealth which could be spent elsewhere. This is the point they do not seem to understand. There are two things that really set this budget apart from many others. First of all, the groundwork for this budget was this. This is a government which, before the election, promised anything and everything to the Australian electorate, and of course denied there would be any cuts: 'No cuts to education, no cuts to health, no cuts to pensions'—those were almost exactly the words of the now Prime Minister, on the eve of the election. And a lot of people relied on those words. I am happy to concede that a lot of people voted for the coalition in my electorate—more than ever before. Of course, it is complex and there are many reasons for that, no doubt. But, more than anything, they were relying on a Prime Minister who gave them very solid commitments, and they are commitments that now he has reneged on. So they are angry. The baseball bats, to use the political vernacular, are well and truly out. So who is angry? Well, it is pretty hard to find someone who is not angry. The list is very, very long. Talking of voters in my own electorate, my National Party opponent in the last three elections, who happens to be the Mayor of the Upper Hunter Shire, is out there defending the government's budget in his electorate. In other words, he is putting the interests of his party ahead of the interests of those who live in his local government area. So that list is long. The elderly are upset because they were promised there would not be changes to pensions, and there are—a whole range of them, all the way from the indexation to the rebates they may not now get from councils and water authorities et cetera. Low-income families are upset because their income support is being slashed. Families generally are worried about the future of their children's education, partly because Gonski—the schools education reform put in place by the Labor government—is being cut, and partly because of the changes to universities, and, in particular, what will be happening with HECS debts. Young people are angry, partly because of education but also because assistance is being pulled out from under them. Unemployed people—people looking for work—will be forced to struggle on much less money. Labour market programs are being pulled out from under them—some very good labour market programs, some of which I spoke about in the House earlier this week. Local government is upset because the money from the states is going to be reduced because the money from the Commonwealth to the states is going to be reduced. The states are upset because their money is being reduced, and the deals they had done through the COAG process with the Labor government are being torn up. Just about all of us, if not all of us, are concerned about the health system. People are concerned about the GP tax. They are concerned about what is going to happen with the public hospital system. One thing Kevin Rudd did as Prime Minister which he gets very little credit for is the deal on hospitals. Kevin Rudd could see that, with the diminishing revenue bases of the states, almost all of their budgets were going to be taken up by the public health system in the years ahead. So he went out there and gave them a deal and a commitment to fund 60 per cent of public hospital costs in the states. That has just been torn up. So, given that the problem the former Prime Minister identified was real and remains real, how are the states going to fund the public hospital system? I can tell those in this chamber with an interest in rural and regional Australia that the hospitals that will be hit hardest and first will be those in rural and regional Australia, if the past form of state governments generally is followed in the future. So this is a bad budget for everyone, and of course it is based on a lie—this confected lie that we have a budget emergency, notwithstanding the fact that we have a AAA rating from each of the international credit rating agencies. Of course we need to consolidate the budget. There is a thing called the budget cycle, where you go into debt and spend money when things are tough—and I remind the chamber that we are one of the few Western nations that did not go into recession—and then you start saving again as things improve, which was exactly the former Labor government's plan. There is no budget emergency. Budget consolidation can take place without perverse priorities and without hurting people in society who can least afford these cuts. In the last six years, prior to the election of the Abbott government that is, my electorate enjoyed record levels of infrastructure funding. The list is very long and I do not have time to go through it. The biggest example is the $1.7 billion Hunter Expressway, which has made an extraordinary difference in the Hunter. It has been transformational, providing a bypass for many towns, improving transport safety, improving economic efficiency, bringing investment to the valley and improving travel times for commuters everywhere. Another example is the new $28 million bridge over the Hunter River in Aberdeen. This was a project fully funded by the Commonwealth, an important project in economic efficiency terms. You can imagine my astonishment when on Wednesday afternoon of this week, I received an invitation from Duncan Gay, the New South Wales transport minister, to the official opening of that bridge to be held at 11 am this Friday in Aberdeen. I do not expect everyone in this chamber to understand the geography, but that is an hour and a half north from my electorate office in my home town of Cessnock. Obviously, parliament is sitting this week and we will be here till five o'clock this afternoon. I have commitments tonight, tomorrow morning and tomorrow afternoon, and it would be impossible for me to get to Aberdeen at 11 o'clock tomorrow morning. Duncan Gay says, 'I note parliament is not sitting on Friday.' I do have a diary and it is constantly pretty full and I need a little more notice than Wednesday afternoon. Not only would I have to get to Aberdeen by 11 o'clock; I have to get back south for other things in the afternoon as well. As I pointed out, it is a long way back. I just cannot get to Aberdeen tomorrow. I think it is very disappointing and extraordinarily discourteous for the New South Wales government to do this. I am not going to fight to have the date changed. I am not going to delay the opening to traffic on that bridge. That would be childish of me. I will not do that. But I am going to express my disbelief and anger at this decision. Duncan Gay, whom I wrote to yesterday, says, 'It's the Commonwealth's decision when it opens.' That is not true. The Commonwealth minister approves the date put forward by the RMS through him. The RMS and the minister in New South Wales would have known for weeks, if not months, when this opening was going to occur. Why has this happened? I do not know. But if it is a political game, it is a very childish one. I think my electorate will stand by me and agreeing with that comment. This is a New South Wales government which put $200 million into the $1.7 billion Hunter Expressway. Yet there was Duncan Gay cutting the ribbon with the Commonwealth minister, with me in the background. I was not offended by that either; I do not care. The people of the Hunter know who takes responsibility for the success of the Hunter Expressway. And here we have an even worse example of political games being played where the former Labor government was the primary deliverer of these infrastructure programs, and in the case of Aberdeen the only funder of the program. This takes me to the New South Wales government and its performance. It is not in a position to play games, I would suggest. This is a New South Wales government which is making a very bad decision on the location of a new hospital it had promised, denying services to my people in the upper Hunter and some parts of the lower Hunter. This is a government that is selling the port of Newcastle. It originally said it would get about $700 million for it and said it would give Hunter half the money from the sale for infrastructure in the Hunter region. But now the government tells us it is going to get $1.7 billion but we are still only going to get $340 million of the proceeds. That is a disgrace. This is a government that failed to deliver a reasonably priced electricity contract to the Hydro aluminium smelter, which could have saved that smelter in the face of a high Australian dollar and dramatically falling metal prices. This is a government that says it has a resources to regions program, yet denies the Cessnock and Maitland LGAs designation of a mining affected region. It is just ridiculous. This week it has reversed that decision but two years have now passed. Cessnock and Maitland have missed out on two years of funding under the Resources for Regions program. This is a government which reacted to the mining tax by raising its royalties against an agreement. This is a government that is not doing enough to assist the coalmining industry generally, at a time when prices are plummeting in that area. This is a government that is not doing very well out there. It has better things to do, surely, than play political games like not inviting me, with sufficient notice, to a bridge opening in my electorate—a bridge which was fully funded by the Commonwealth. It is childish at best. I congratulate the Victorian government, which is not something that I do all that often. I want to congratulate it on its $2 million program for cattle underpasses in Victoria. These underpasses take dairy cattle, for example, off our roads. It is enormously helpful to the farmers; and, of course, it is very important in safety terms. It is not a lot of money at all, but it will provide big outcomes. I appeal to both the federal government and the state government in New South Wales, if they can get anything right, to look at that program and consider doing the same in New South Wales. I have situations in my own electorate where this would be very helpful, including around the Jerrys Plains area. I appeal to New South Wales to have a look at this program and to consider replicating it in New South Wales. 10:16 Mr HUTCHINSON 212585 Lyons I note the comments from the member for Hunter. His passion for and interest in regional and rural Australia—we like Joel—in particular agriculture, is long term. I am a positive person and my contribution today is really about highlighting the positive aspects of this budget, which is a very forward-looking budget. The trouble with the party which the member for Hunter is a member of is that they have never seen a dollar that they did not want to spend. They do not understand the fundamental that governments, including theirs, do not have their own money. Governments have money that is raised by the good people and the good businesses around this country that pay tax. Unfortunately, after the party of the last six years, somebody has to clean up the mess. Unfortunately, Labor just simply will not go home after the party. The initiatives to clean up the budget, to fix the budget and to reinvigorate the Australian economy are being blocked in the Senate. It is time for the Leader of the Opposition to get his senators back to work. The Labor Party is in denial. We simply cannot keep paying the mortgage on the nation's credit card with more borrowed money. This is a budget for the future. It is about Australia. It is about Tasmania. In my case, it is about my electorate of Lyons—and I will touch on the good things in the budget for my electorate in more detail later. It is also about my children and my grandchildren, as it is about yours. So many good aspects of the budget have been overlooked by those on the other side because of their ideological pursuits. Here are some general budget facts. The government is currently paying $1 billion a month in interest on the money borrowed during the six years of Labor, and the debt repayments on this borrowed money is forecast to grow to $3 billion every month. This simply cannot go on. The underlying cash deficit for this year is estimated to be $49.9 billion in 2013-4. This was the budget that the member for Lilley, for those who have a memory, said was going to deliver a surplus. Under the coalition's plan, the budget is forecast to be back in balance by 2018-19 with surpluses building to at least one per cent of GDP by 2023-24. This is a plan for the future. The face value of Commonwealth government securities debt on issue is expected to fall from the previous estimations, if nothing was done, of $667 billion to fall by almost $300 billion with the initiatives we put forward in this year's budget. There is a long-term plan to get the Australian economy on a sustainable footing by asking everyone who can to help. Higher income Australians on incomes of more than $180,000 will contribute through the Temporary Budget Repair Levy. Individuals will contribute through indexation changes in pensions, means-testing the family tax benefit, changes to Newstart eligibility and new patient co-contributions for standard GP consultations. This is about all as Australians making a contribution to this nation. Businesses will contribute through a reduction in industry assistance, the public sector will be rationalised and politicians and senior public servants will have their wages frozen. There will be no change to pensions during this term of government. There will also be a wage subsidy for mature age job seekers with up to $10,000 available to bosses and businesses who hire mature job seekers over the age of 50 who have been out of work for at least six months. This is in addition to the initiatives around the Tasmanian jobs plan. The Higher Education Contribution Scheme, HECS, will be extended from degree courses to sub-bachelor and diploma courses and a new $20,000 loan for trade apprentices introduced. These are such important measures and such important initiatives, particularly in regional areas of Australia and particularly in my home state of Tasmania. One of the key aspects of the budget was the investment in infrastructure. Tasmania will share in the single biggest investment, a $50 billion investment in infrastructure across Australia over the next seven years to deliver vital transport infrastructure for the 21st century. With contributions from the private sector, with contributions from state governments, this amount can be leveraged up to over $120 billion. The investment will transform infrastructure across the country and lay the foundations for future growth. The budget is a structural document to move us away from perhaps I would argue 10 years of short-term consumption, accelerated enormously in the six years of the previous government, to a budget that is building for the future, to a government that is restructuring investment on the medium and longer term time frames. To further leverage private sector investment, the government will use its balance sheet to help manage risks that might otherwise impede private sector financing. Key projects in Tasmania include the Midland Highway upgrade and the freight rail revitalisation to upgrade the rail network to secure the safety, reliability and competitiveness of rail freight operations. Even as recently as last week there was an announcement of the upgrade of the Brooker Highway between Hobart and my electorate of Lyons at Bridgewater. In the case of Lyons, more than $500 million will be spent on local infrastructure projects in road and rail. $400,000 has been contributed to a new strawberry venture near the northern Midlands town of Longford. $3.5 million has been contributed to Huon Aquaculture to increase their capacity to value-add in one of my state's most important and quickest growing industries, the salmon industry, at Parramatta Creek in the municipality of La Trobe. There is $1 million for the upgrade of the Port Sorell Road and $1.5 million for the Port Arthur penitentiary restoration, one of the nation's icons, a World Heritage site on the Tasman Peninsula in my electorate. There is $300,000 for solar communities in Lyons and a share of the $400 million that has been committed for the Midland Highway upgrade. Most of that will benefit people living all around the state, from the electorate of Bass of my colleague here, from the electorate of Braddon of my colleague also here today and those people that live in the electorates of Denison and Franklin in the south. But most of that money will land in my electorate of Lyons. A large share of the $120 million to be spent on freight rail will also be spent in the electorate of Lyons, not least of all on the Rhyndaston upgrade. A share of the $26.9 million is earmarked for upgrades of north-east freight roads, which will include some contributions in the electorate of Bass, and replacement in the north-east of timber bridges in Mathinna and the Evercreech area of my electorate. Another $3.2 million has been allocated for land acquisition for the proposed Bridgewater Bridge development, on top of the $3.2 million already provided. There was $250,000 for the Dunalley community hall, to rebuild an important piece of community infrastructure after the devastating bushfires on the Tasman Peninsula in 2013. It is important to understand that these are benefits that are recognised. These are accessible funds for councils all around Australia. The 13 municipalities that I have within the electorate of Lyons will no doubt be able to share in the $200 million extra for road black spots. An extra $350 million has been added to the Roads to Recovery program, which is significantly important in an electorate the size of Lyons, which covers 36,000 square kilometres—nearly 50 per cent of the state of Tasmania by area. In the budget, $43 million has been committed to tourism infrastructure. As tourism is one of the most important industries in my home state and in my electorate, we will certainly be working with the Minister for Trade and Investment to seek what share of that money we can. Also, $100 million has been committed for mobile phone black spots. Those of you who travel around Tasmania will understand that there are many areas of the state where mobile phone coverage is very poor. This $100 million is effectively a subsidy to encourage the private sector—be that Telstra, Vodafone, Optus or anybody else who wants to put up their hand—to construct infrastructure, or enhance existing infrastructure, to put mobile phone communications in areas where, if it were just based on economics and population, it simply could not be justified. There are a lot of myths about health funding in this budget, but the fact is that next year health funding will increase by nine per cent. In the following year, it will increase by another nine per cent. In the following year, it will increase by another nine per cent. In the final year of the forward estimates, it will be six per cent, over the four years. In education, over the forward estimates funding will increase by 34 per cent on funding levels from 2013-14—$4.6 billion every year between 2013-14 and 2017-18. This is a good outcome. As we all know, there are many things that go to making a child's education a worthwhile education. That includes parental engagement and the ability of a principal to have greater autonomy within the school he runs. It is important that we have quality teacher training and it is important that we have a robust and flexible national curriculum. Yes, funding is important, and funding will increase over the forward estimates by 34 per cent, but it is not the only measure of student success. Briefly, in the time that I have left, I want to highlight some facts around higher education. I truly believe that the reforms that have been proposed within the higher education sector will substantially benefit young people and people looking to benefit from tertiary education within my state of Tasmania, particularly at UTas, which has a high proportion of students accessing university in non-degree courses—sub-bachelor and diploma courses. These are the stepping stones that many students use to go on to further degree courses. I just cannot overstate how important this reform is for providing the opportunity to another 80,000 students every year around Australia—many from low-socioeconomic circumstances—which currently only those attending university in a bachelor degree have, with no up-front costs no matter what your background, no matter where you come from, to go to a higher education institution of your choice. I also wish to compliment the government, the ministers and the departments that have also extended the Higher Education Contribution Scheme to the $20,000 loan for trade apprentices. Again, it is a game changer in my state of Tasmania. This is providing flexibility by removing the impediments that young people might have to studying a trade, so we are doing everything we possibly can. Yes, we are proud of the fact that we do not think that it is right that young people who are leaving school should be able to go straight onto Newstart. But we are putting everything we can and every resource that we can into supporting employers to take on young people who have been unemployed for more than six months. We are putting in place pathways for young Tasmanians, for young Australians. If they are unable to earn through work that is available, we are supporting them and will make it as easy as we can to help them get into tertiary education. I truly believe that this is a landmark document. This is a document for the future. It is a document for Australia, Tasmania, my electorate, and my children and my grandchildren for the future. 10:31 Mr CONROY 249127 Charlton Members in this place will often talk about the values that define them and their political party. I am a member of the Labor Party, because it is built on the principles of fairness, equality and social justice. It is incumbent on members of the Labor Party to fight against those acts that seek to destroy, inhibit or remove fairness, equality and social justice from our society. This budget is not fair. This budget will worsen inequality in our society. This budget will deepen the divide between the privileged and low- and middle-income Australians. True to our fundamental values, Labor will fight this budget. Let me start by calling out the deception of the Prime Minister and his confected budget emergency. There is no budget emergency. Australia has a AAA credit rating, one of only 10 economies in the world. Our net debt is 12 per cent of GDP compared to the average of 74.7 per cent of GDP in advanced economies around the world. Our deficit is 1.2 per cent of GDP compared to the average of advanced economies of nearly five per cent. Spending is not out of control; in fact, between 2009 and 2013, this period was the lowest four-year period of real spending growth in 23 years. Designing a budget is about choices. This government has used a confected budget emergency to resurrect Margaret Thatcher's infamous 'There is no alternative' doctrine. This doctrine was used by Thatcher to rip apart the social fabric of the UK, and this is clearly the intention of the Prime Minister and Treasury. The fact is there are many ways to place the budget on a trajectory to return to surplus in a reasonable time frame. There is no justification for the vicious cuts and targeting of the most vulnerable contained in this budget. For example, if the terms of trade follow the trajectory closer to that forecast by the market or indeed the Reserve Bank, Commonwealth revenue will be significantly higher than that forecast in the budget. Another part of the budget surplus would involve scrapping stupid and expensive policies such as Mr Abbott's 'rolled gold' paid parental leave scheme or Mr Hunt's subsidies for polluters scheme. For that matter, scrapping the emissions trading scheme not only destroys any chance we have of reducing carbon emissions effectively in this country; it also removes the source of revenue for the Household Assistance Package. These are all choices. There are alternatives. To suggest otherwise is a falsehood, one that is made by a patently heartless and mendacious government. A fortnight has passed since this budget was delivered. I, like many members in this place, have spent much of the time in the community talking to people about the impact it will have on them and those around them. At street stalls, in meetings and telephone calls, in letters and emails, the message is clear: this budget is unfair. It is unfair because it asks less of the privileged and the powerful than it does of ordinary people and those less fortunate. It is unfair because it supports multinational corporate tax minimisation, while young people looking for work suffer. It is unfair because it destroys egalitarian principles which are the bedrock of our society. Every person is entitled to quality health care and education regardless of how much money they have or where they live. Take for example Betty, a pensioner from Blackalls Park in my electorate. Betty contacted me and told me that for her the most important part of living on a fixed income is planning ahead. She works out her budget well in advance, factoring in the cost of household bills like water, energy and rates. Betty is worried about the changes to indexation of her pension because she knows that this means her bills will go up but her pension will not rise in line with the increase. She is fearful of losing concessions on her bills as a result of the 1.2 billion cut to the national agreement which supports these measures. In her last quarterly electricity bill, Betty received a seniors discount of $57. Her water bill for the last quarter was reduced by $87. She received discounts on her council rates, car registration and she is entitled to reduced fares on public transport as a result of these concessions. On Sunday night when asked about concession changes, the New South Wales Treasurer, Andrew Constance, a Liberal said: I think it is a cruel and callous cut. It is one which needs to be reversed. There are 18,400 people in Charlton like Betty who live on a pension. These people have contributed to our country, have raised families and have paid taxes. They deserve our support. Instead, they face having their pensions and concessions cut as a result of this budget. In the words of Betty, these pensioners have been 'deceived by the Prime Minister and his budget of lies'. This is just one example of the cost shifting embedded in this budget, which transfers responsibility from the federal government to states and territories for a range of measures. Principal among them is the combined $80 billion cut to health and education, a move the New South Wales Liberal Premier has quite rightly called 'a kick in the guts'. In the Hunter region alone, almost $220 million will be ripped from public hospitals over the next five years. As the husband of a nurse, I know of the wonderful work doctors, nurses and health professionals do in our health system. I also know that this system is under increasing pressure. Why would this government abandon their responsibility when it comes to the health and wellbeing of people in my area? Because they are ideological opposed to public health care. This budget cuts funding for public dental services and bulk-billed optometry. This budget raises the cost of medicines for all Australians through changes to the PBS, including for some 42,000 health care concession card holders in my electorate. This budget destroys Medicare. It asks every person, regardless of their circumstances, to pay $7 every time they visit a doctor, a measure which will cost the people of Charlton around $6 million in the next year alone. This budget clears a path for states and territories to charge the copayment for general practitioner attendances in hospital emergency rooms. The destruction of the Medicare system has been condemned by countless health academics and economists, including the AMA, the College of Emergency Medicine, the Doctors' Reform Society, the Public Health Association, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, the Consumer Health Forum and the Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association. The arrogance of Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey, who believe they know the health system better than those who work in it or, indeed, rely on it, is astonishing. Let me quote a doctor from the GP superclinic in my electorate, Dr Wolf Du Plessis, whose practice in Morisset bulk bills around 600 patients a day. An article in the Newcastle Herald last week stated: … the $7 tax … will cause 'death, disfigurement and disability'.    …   …   …    'Some people will end up dead,' Dr du Plessis said. …   …   … 'Many people who come here don't have the money to pay. Often single mums come in with three children all sick.' His practice saw people in their 90s, who did not have enough money for food. 'GPs are not supposed to be tax collectors,' he said. Last week, the architects of Medicare publicly contradicted the Minister for Health by making clear that bulk billing is not a safety net; it is intended to be universal. They also said that there is no such thing as too much bulk billing and made clear their views that there is no evidence that people who will be most persuaded by price are the ones who are less sick. I will now speak about the shocking cuts to Australian schools, which represent a very clear betrayal of Australian parents, students and teachers. This budget cut $30 billion from education. This is the biggest cut to school funding in Australian history and is clearly visible from the budget papers. In my electorate, schools are angry, parents are angry, teachers are angry. They have 30 billion reasons to be angry. A government member interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230886 Whilst robust debate is encouraged, the member should be heard in silence. Mr CONROY 249127 Not content with making schools suffer, the budget will also punish universities and those people who want to get a degree. There will be a staggering $5 billion cut to the tertiary education sector by this Liberal government. By deregulating universities, the Prime Minister and his government are making it abundantly clear that they do not believe in fair and affordable higher education. They want to take us down the path of an Americanised university system, where you are paying $100,000 to get a university degree. Well, this is Australia, and we are proud of our fair and accessible university system. These cuts are a disgraceful betrayal of Australian children and their families, who should be able to access a world-class higher education. These cuts mean more student debt, and changes to indexation in relation to HECS balance will make it even harder to get a degree, particularly for rural and regional students. There are around 20,000 students from across the Hunter region who attend the University of Newcastle, and we are rightly proud of our uni. In fact, the Times Higher Education World University Rankings recently named the University of Newcastle as the best Australian university under 50 years of age. This draconian deregulation model has been widely criticised by vice-chancellors, some of whom broadly support deregulation. The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Technology, Sydney, Ross Milbourne, has stated: I don't support this budget package because it is a badly designed model of deregulation plus the biggest funding cuts in history to higher education. The University of Adelaide Vice-Chancellor, Warren Bebbington, observed: … it is starting to look as if the student debt burden for many under the proposed reforms might well be worse than in the US. Deregulation would become mis-regulation. And the University of Canberra's Vice-Chancellor, Stephen Parker, noted: I also think it is unethical for a generation of leaders who by and large benefited from free higher education to burden the generations behind them in this way. This is a damning condemnation of the government's plans from those who know the system best. Of course, not every student wants to go to university, but the government has proposed similar severe cuts for trade and skills training. Almost $2 billion will be taken out of skills programs, over $1 billion of which was funds to support apprentices. The government committed to create one million jobs before the election but is now abolishing essential services for apprentices and workers. Nearly $1 billion in support payments under the Tools For Your Trade program will be cut, a particularly harsh blow for young Australians trying to get a start in a trade. Many apprentices have contacted my office voicing great concern about this measure. It is not just apprentices who will suffer under this harsh budget. Families will also suffer. At the same time as their family tax benefits are reduced, they will need to find extra money in their household budget to cover the impost of a GP tax, higher medicine costs and the fuel tax every time they fill up at the bowser. Families on family tax benefit part B will have their payment cut when their youngest child turns six. The government also plans to freeze the rates for family tax benefits and has reduced the threshold for payments from $150,000 to $100,000. This will mean that a single-income family on $65,000, well below the average, with two children aged eight and 14 is going to lose over $6,000 by 2016. These are figures from the independent National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, NATSEM, a centre that Prime Minister Abbott was lauding when he was in opposition as the greatest repository of family income modelling in this country. This cut equates to an 11 per cent cut in that family's income. Why is it fair that someone on $180,000 or $200,000 a year will pay $400 extra in tax but a family on $65,000 will lose over 11 per cent of their income? And this cut will be permanent because of this heartless and cruel government. Finally I would like to speak about the cruel changes to Newstart for people under 30. The overwhelming message to these people from the Abbott government is: 'You're on your own.' Young people under 25 will now be shifted from Newstart payments onto the youth allowance, leaving them $48 a week worse off. After 1 January next year, job seekers under 30 who need Newstart and youth allowance will be forced to wait six months before receiving any support. This is right-wing conservative ideology at its worst. It is victim blaming and it is fundamentally unfair. These appropriation bills are the first step in bringing in some of the harshest budget cuts we have ever seen. These bills are peppered with callous cuts, but, whilst essential services and supports are slashed, making life hard for those on low and middle income, there is money in the kitty to pay wealthy women $50,000 to have a baby and increase the non-concessional superannuation cap to $180,000. This budget is about choices: Tony Abbott and the Liberals have chosen to hurt the most vulnerable whilst protecting the interests of the wealthy. Labor has made a choice too. We have chosen to defend our legacy of Medicare, of historic levels of funding for schools, of the social wage, of representing the interests of workers and families. We will fight against the abolition of universal health care, increases to the costs of medicines, the petrol tax and the unfair cost to families, students and pensioners. Labor will fight these measures because they attack the very values on which our movement is based—fairness, equality and social justice. I will stand up for the 100,000 pensioners in the Hunter region who will suffer cuts because of this heartless government; I will stand up for the patients in the Hunter Valley who will pay an extra $28 million because of the GP tax. Budgets are about choice. I have a one-year-old daughter, and I want her to grow up in a society that is fair and equitable, where she has the best chance of advancing, based on her hard effort and her intelligence—not on the size of the bank balance supporting her. How is it fair to have $100,000 debt when coming out of university while those opposite enjoyed a free education? It demonstrates the hypocrisy of this government that this Treasurer was protesting against a $200 fee for university education 20 years ago, but now is trying to impose an American level of debt on university students. This budget is an attack on the Australian way of life; it results in a 12-per-cent cut to family income for people on well-below the average wage while giving a free kick to the wealthy. Labor will not support it. Labor will oppose it because that is what the Australian people elected us to do—to fight for lower-income Australians, to fight for pensioners and to fight for those who need Medicare most. 10:46 Mr WHITELEY 207800 Braddon I wanted to be a member of parliament since I was 12, and some would say that my parents should have sought therapy at that time. Was it for the title? Certainly not. Was it for the pay? No. Was it for the travel? No. It was to try to make a difference—to be part of the democratically elected to team who would always put the interests of our nation above our own interests. It was to bring my values to the community debate; to be part of a robust national discussion about the future of all Australians—our families, our businesses and our communities. It was to confront the tough and challenging issues—not to run from them. It was to ensure that the excellent services that Australians have come to expect are sustainable into the future. This budget fulfils those aspirations. Yes, it is a challenging budget, but we live in challenging times. I would ask the good people of my electorate to reflect on the road ahead—a road not yet travelled by our children or grandchildren. It is a road that already includes 832,000 people on the DSB, 2.4 million people on either a full or part pension, 695,000 people on Newstart, 112,000 on youth allowance. It is a road that will include a massive increase in the number of our fellow citizens who will be aged over 65. Over the next 35 years, the number of people aged between 65 and 84 will more than double, and the age of those older than 85 will more than quadruple. It is a road that will include 2.8 working-age people for every person over the age of 65. Fifty years ago, shortly after World War II, that ratio was 10—10 working-age people to every person over 65—and today it is five. It is a road that will include the paying of $68 billion in the next 10 years for people relying on a pension, an increase of 70 per cent from what it is today. It is a road that will include people who will live on average a life beyond 80, compared to very few people reaching the age of 60 just 90 years ago. It is a road that will include an ever-increasing number of people visiting their GPs with a Medicare bill increasing significantly every year. Ten years ago it cost $8 billion; today it costs $20 billion; and in 10 years' time it will cost $34 billion. With an ageing and welfare dependent demographic, it begs the question: who will pay for it? With an ageing and welfare-dependent demographic, it begs the question: who will pay for it? Despite the best efforts of our opponents to dismiss concerns about debt and deficit, I believe that the people of Australia, in their heart of hearts know that the current trajectory of spending cannot continue. If we are to have a bright and sustainable future for our children and grandchildren it cannot continue. Does any sensible person believe for one minute that it is a wise idea to get another credit card to pay off your mortgage and your other credit cards? No, they do not. Nothing in life is free. The hardworking taxpayers of this nation are the wealth creators of our nation, and they contribute their taxes. They are the Australians who provide the money to deliver one of the world's most accessible health systems. They are the Australians who provide the money for the world's most generous welfare system. They are the Australians who have been providing the money to pay the first 60 per cent of university student fees—the money that will never be paid back. They are the Australians who work hard to earn their income, often a very good income, and they are growing increasingly tired of those people who depend on their taxes for the payment of welfare, saying that they should carry even more of the debt and deficit burden. We should not forget that, in addition to the new debt repair levy, a person earning $180,000 contributes $55,000 in income tax and pays a further $2,700 as a Medicare levy. This nation would not survive if it were not for ordinary Australians paying their share of income tax. I have a fundamental question. How can you cut funds from a program that was never budgeted for and never funded? You cannot. It is financially irresponsible to suggest that this budget has cut funding to health, education and foreign aid. This is a deceitful message that Labor continues to propagate. Labor expects this government to live up to its pie-in-the-sky unfunded policies that it knew full well in the dying days of its government the nation could not afford. Labor never budgeted for these programs in the out years. The state and territory governments certainly have not budgeted for these illusionary funds, because they only budget for four years in advance of their current budget. They have not employed people on the basis of those illusionary funds. They have not built infrastructure or introduced programs on the back of these illusionary funds. Everybody should get real about what is actually happening. Let me make it clear for the people of Braddon. There is no cut to the pension. The pension will continue to increase each six months as it has. The scaremongering needs to end. Older people around this nation, particularly in my electorate, are scared because Labor is putting out messages that are absolutely deceitful. Let us talk about the introduction of the co-payment to visit the GP. There are currently 263 million free services provided through Medicare, with this number growing significantly each year. The system is unsustainable. We all need to share the responsibility to ensure that it remains sustainable. The idea that health care is free is a myth. Many people already pay a gap fee every time they go to the doctor. The previous speaker said bulk-billing is universal. That is simply wrong. The issue of unsustainability in health system was identified by Prime Minister Bob Hawke in the 1990s. That reforming Labor Prime Minister introduced a co-payment $3.50, which would be approximately $7 in today's terms. He was strongly supported then by minister Jenny Macklin and he is strongly supported even today by the current Labor shadow Assistant Treasurer. It was also a Labor government that introduced the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme co-payment. Labor should cut the rubbish, cut the crap, about this government's co-payment being the first ever introduced. It is not true. It was a Labor reform by a courageous, reforming Labor Prime Minister. The budget papers clearly show that there is no cut to hospital funding in the budget—quite the opposite. Funding to the states for hospital services increases by nine per cent each year for the next three years and six per cent after that. The other important point that I will make is that an element of the funding of the states and territories was activity based, incentive driven. In the case of Tasmania, our state then under the leadership of the Giddings-McKim partnership failed to deliver on increased activity. Hospital funding in Tasmania next financial year will increase by $45 million from $292 million to $337 million. Over the next three years, that amount will increase to $391 million. I have made this point before in this place but let me make it again. Just because you throw money at something does not mean for one minute that the outcomes are better. Take Tasmania for example. Over the last 10 years there have been record levels of health spending. But what have we got? We have the longest waiting lists in the nation, chronic illnesses at disgraceful levels and a half-built Royal Hobart Hospital, a project out of control and thankfully now in the hands of a new and competent state Liberal government. It is very deceitful for Labor to suggest that funding for our schools in Braddon has been cut, when it was Labor in fact, under their education minister, Bill Shorten, who ripped $1.2 billion from the forward estimates just months out from the last election. The coalition have put that $1.2 billion back and we have met our commitment to provide certainty for schools over the next four years. We have met our commitment. From this current year through to 2017-18, total Commonwealth funding will increase by 37 per cent or $4.6 billion. Needs based funding will continue. From 2018, funding will increase by CPI and will also take into account the growth in school enrolments. Taxpayers currently pay the first 60 per cent of all university fees in this country. Unbelievably, last week I spoke to university students in my office who did not know this vital fact. If your degree has a fee of $40,000 then the taxpayers of Australia pay the first $24,000—never, ever to be repaid. The remaining $16,000 has in the main been paid for by HECS—that is, the student only has to start paying that debt back when they earn over $50,000, and even then at a modest rate of just two per cent of their income. So the member for Franklin's hysterical contribution in the MPI yesterday and last night's appearance on Richo by the shadow minister for education were both intentionally misleading and show their deficiency and knowledge in this sector. They both say that students are scared and they will not be able to pay the uni fees. This is ridiculous. Any student currently studying will not see any change to their fees as their existing arrangements will remain in place until 2020 or when their course is completed. The exciting improvements to the higher education sector will see an additional 80,000 places by 2018. I look forward to the University of Tasmania, especially the Cradle Coast campus in my electorate, taking full advantage of these changes. The community is divided on the issue of providing foreign aid. Many of my constituents would like to see far more funds provided and even more constituents would like to see the amount reduced; some, sadly, would even prefer that no funds be allocated at all. Let us get to the facts on the table before I address some of the finer points. In the last 15 months of the previous Labor government, they removed $5.7 billion of aid funds from the forward estimates—fact. So, please, stop the crocodile tears and have a look in the mirror. Just like every other aspect of the last Labor budget, we find that a financial skeleton falls out of every cupboard we open. To those in my community, especially those of my brothers and sisters in the Christian faith, please try to familiarise yourself with the facts before you start demonising the coalition. This does nothing but show a lack of your balance or fairness. It has been said by many that we have broken an election promise on foreign aid. This is not correct and even the formal response from the coalition prior to the election on the Australian Christian Lobby website proves this. It says: The Coalition supports and is committed to the Millennium Development Goals and the target of 0.5 per cent of gross national income in overseas development aid. However, the Coalition is unable to commit to a date because of the uncertain budgetary position that any incoming Coalition government is likely to inherit. There have been massive blowouts in debt and deficit under Labor and the Coalition will review the budgetary position if elected to Government. We have made that commitment. Regardless of the size of the overseas development aid budget, the effectiveness of aid delivered must always continue to be the overriding priority. Gone are the days when hundreds of millions of dollars of aid money will be spent on detention centres to house tens of thousands of asylum seekers after Labor played into the hands of the people smugglers. Gone are the days when aid funding will be spent on building a parliament house in a foreign country to gain some credibility for a seat the UN Council. Gone are the days when we would spend aid on an ineffective program just because an NGO has the most polished lobbyist. Gone are the days when hundreds of millions of dollars of hard earned taxpayers' money has been wasted in aid due to self-centred efforts to gain a seat on the UN Council. Gone are the days when millions of dollars to help save the Sumatran rhinoceros will be spent. We should be focused on reducing poverty in our region. Overseas development should always be about reducing poverty. Gone are the days when a government would want to spend more than $100 million of its aid budget to join the African Development Bank and the International Fund for Agricultural Development. Let's drag this debate back to where it should be: giving our resources to those fellow humans that need our help, ensuring that we have an outcome focused humanitarian aid program. Labor has got a fair bit to say. Their deceit knows no bounds. Their desperation is placing political populism above the interests of the elderly and the vulnerable in our community. They say there is no debt emergency; they say there is nothing to see here, everything is okay and we should keep spending money we simply do not have. I encourage the people of Braddon to look at what Labor has done in the past, not what it says and then look at the what the coalition has done in the past, not what we say. Before people jump to a conclusions about this budget, based mostly on the fear campaign of the Labor Party, they should stop for a brief moment and reflect on who they can trust to deliver a strong economy and sustainable financial future for our children and our grandchildren. 11:02 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham Like all MPs, I have spoken to literally hundreds of people about the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2014-2015 before us today. One of the most common reactions I have had from people is confusion and perplexity. Why would a government take the most from the people in a community who can least afford to pay? Why attack the foundation institutions of our nation like Medicare and the age pension? Why implement a university funding system that will stop working-class kids who could be the first in their family to go to university or to dream of higher education? What I am realising is this: our Treasurer, Joe Hockey, and our Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, do not get it; they just do not get it. Their lives are so divorced from the experiences of the ordinary Australian, the experiences of a person who lives in my electorate of Hotham. Let us have a look at some of the numbers: 82 per cent of the cabinet that created this budget went to a private school. In my electorate of Hotham, just 14 per cent of residents did. Most of these cabinet ministers went to university for free or on very heavily subsidised HECS. You know what? They are going to ask students in my electorate of Hotham to stare down the barrel of $80,000 to do nursing at Melbourne University. The income of a senior cabinet minister is around $7,000 a week. Do you know what the median income of someone in Hotham is per week? It is about $518. That means for the ordinary person in my electorate to make what the Treasurer earns in an hour, they need to work for almost two full days. We are learning a lot about the Treasurer at the moment. We are really getting to know him as a public. Many of you would have seen his performance on Q&A couple of weeks ago. He was asked how he kept in touch with the lives of ordinary Australians. In response, he told a story about his family history, how we went from rags to riches and how his parents came to Australia and built what they have through hard work in the private sector. I am very admiring of that story; I am very admiring of Australians who come here with very little and who have managed to build something from nothing. The critical point here is that all this Treasurer knows is his own life experience. It is a very aberrant life experience and that is what he believes is all that he needs to know about the Australian public. This really explains a lot to us. It explains their genuine incredulity of a Treasurer who cannot understand that a $7 GP co-payment for every family member, every time they go to the doctor, is a significant sum. It tells us why, instead of listening to the concerns of Australians, Joe Hockey suggests that those struggling spend less of their money on beer and cigarettes. It is comments like these that show us just how completely divorced this cabinet is from the ordinary Australian. I want to take the opportunity this morning to talk to the House about how the budget will affect ordinary families who live in my electorate of Hotham. I will talk about some key areas of change. I cannot possibly cover them all in 15 minutes. However, I want to tell the stories of some families I know and how they will be touched by this budget. I want to start with health because, of all the things in this budget, the health changes will affect every single one of us in the Australian community. Bulk-billing in my electorate is very high. It is, by and large, a working-class electorate, so about 82 per cent of all doctor visits are bulk-billed. The $7 GP co-payment will see almost $6 million raised each year in additional tax across my electorate. That is an additional $6 million collected from sick Australians by the $7 GP tax. It is regressive, it is unfair. One of the best things I will be able to do, as a first-term member of parliament, is to vote against its implementation in this House. The Treasurer is so confounded and so frustrated by his lack of understanding of how anyone could feel that such a tax is unfair, so I want to tell the story of a constituent of mine, Danny. Danny was born with some significant health problems. As a child he suffered from kidney reflux. He was quite ill as a young person, but he managed to complete university and find a job. Later in his youth, he was diagnosed with brain cancer and the surgery, which saved his life, has left him with significant short-term memory problems. Danny battled on. He found a job and got married. Then later he, sadly, lost his wife and his unborn child to cancer. His kidneys packed up and he was forced onto dialysis at night. It was an expensive period for him and he had to remortgaged his house. Eventually, he was able to get a kidney transplant and he now works as a forklift driver and manages a warehouse. He is on low medication and requires significant and frequent medical treatments. He pays $139.70 for medication a month. He will face an additional $25 imposed by the government for his drugs, an additional $7 a month for pathology reports and an additional $7 a month for each doctor's visit, which are monthly but sometimes more often. Danny earns about $500 a week. He works but he struggles and the changes to this budget will see him struggle a lot more. It is so unfair that Australians like Danny are being shouldered with the burden. Let us talk about education. We are very lucky in Hotham to live in quite close proximity to Monash University. Almost a third of my residents in Hotham are students at one level or another. And, boy, will they be hit hard by this budget! There are billions of dollars of cuts in school funding, there is the cowardly backdown on the supposed unity ticket that we went to an election on on the Gonski funding that would, for the first time in Australia, see school funding follow the children with the greatest need and then there are changes to university funding. I have had the chance to really think about the budget changes over the last couple of weeks and it is the university changes that are, increasingly, making me the most sad because it is university education that provides the skills in this modern economy where skills are what really matter when you go out into the workforce. It is university education that provides us social mobility in this country. I just cannot fathom how a government would make changes that will very much affect Australians, particularly those in families in low-income brackets. The coalition has argued that young people from low socioeconomic backgrounds will not be more affected by the changes. That is inane, nonsensical and completely lacks common sense. It is absolutely out of step with the research, which shows that students in lower income brackets are affected by fee changes all over the world. We have even seen that in Australia when changes have been made to HECS over time and how in fact almost 100 per cent of enrolment changes have been from students in lower income brackets. I have spoken to a number of school principals about the changes to education and how that will affect students in their schools. One conversation struck me in particular. I called a principal who runs a very good school in one of the lowest income parts of my electorate. It is also one of the most multicultural parts of my electorate. When I talked to this principal, he was genuinely devastated by the changes that are being made to higher education, because he and the teachers at that school work so hard to try to make a culture of excellence and to help these students, who come from sometimes quite difficult backgrounds, to believe that there is actually a hope that they will be able to go on into higher education and go into a profession, which many of them dream of. He is the principal of a school where a lot of the students come from families that are from cultures where debt is very unusual and you would never normally take on debt. They are brought up in households where they are already under pressure to go out into the workforce quickly after they finish school so that they can help bring in income for the family. He said to me: 'For these families, a sum like $100,000 is a TattsLotto win. Remember, these families have a family income of $40,000 or $50,000. They rent their homes. Their kids are already under pressure to get out into the workforce quickly and contribute. Of course this will make a difference.' We talked about some specific students, but one of the biggest imposts that this principal is concerned about is around the impact on culture. How can he try to build the sort of culture of excellence that he wants to see in that school when university is effectively being put out of reach for many of his students? And for people who do not believe that these impacts are real, I really invite you to come to Hotham, to come down to this school, and to talk to the principal and to some of the students. I know that life in Warringah and life on the North Shore perhaps does not reflect these realities, but they are the realities of electorates like ours—all of us who are here in this chamber at the moment. I would be very remiss not to talk a little about the changes to pensions. I have about 23,000 residents in Hotham who are pensioners, and they have been probably the most virulent in their opposition to this budget. To be fair, the pensioners are contacting me not just because of changes to the pension but because they are so worried about things that will affect their own grandchildren and some of the changes that they see which reflect very different opportunities and life chances from those that they feel they have had as Australians. ACOSS has estimated that pensioners will lose about $80 a week by 2024, due to their payments being linked to CPI. So there is obviously an income impost here. But what really frustrates me about this pension change is what this is saying about our country. By linking the pension to CPI instead of to wage growth, what we are saying is that, as our country grows more prosperous, there is no need for us to share that prosperity with age pensioners—that they should stay basically living, and, many of them, struggling, on those same incomes, despite the wealth of other Australians increasing. This just does not reflect the way that we do things in Australia. As a nation, when we grow everyone should benefit. That is just how we do things in this country. There are also changes to the pension age that are going to really have a significant impact on people in Hotham. About 35 per cent of my constituents who are in work, work in blue-collar jobs. Shifting the pension age arguably could be workable for people who work behind a desk, who spend most of their time in white-collar industries. But for manual labourers, this is an extremely rough change. Increasing the age pension age to 70 will make Australia's the highest pension age across all of the OECD countries. That is interesting, because I think we have the lowest or at least one of the lowest debt levels in the OECD. Again, Labor will oppose this change, and I will be very proud to stand up for the older Australians in my electorate who rely on a pension, and there are so many of them. Before I close I will make some brief comments about the impact of this budget on women. In so many ways, but for women in particular, this budget absolutely fails the fairness test. Some of these measures will impact very disproportionately on women. I am talking here about female students, who will pay significantly more for their education. It is women who will usually pay the price of losing family tax benefits. Lower-income women—and this is no surprise, given the values in this budget—will be the hardest hit. An unemployed single mother with one eight-year-old child will lose 12 per cent of her income as a result of this budget. All of us have single mums in our electorates and we know that these are the families who are watching every dollar. Can you imagine—12 per cent of their income will simply disappear. A single-income couple with two school-age children and average earnings will lose about six per cent of their disposable income. Again, these are families that in many instances are struggling a great deal. For any of us, dealing with a five or 10 per cent sudden reduction in our income is going to be very difficult to manage. For women at work and women trying to balance the cost of child care, the freezing of threshold and indexation for childcare rebates and fee relief is going to have a fast impact. For a government that is supposedly so concerned with the participation of women in the workforce, I see this as absolutely regressive and contrary. If you are interested, have a look at the numbers for education, because the impact on women is absolutely shocking. A woman who does an accounting degree at the University of Melbourne will pay $120,000 for her degree. That will include $45,000 in interest and, if she takes off the usual amounts for part-time work with kids, she is going to be paying off her degree for 36 years. How can this be considered fair? I am absolutely staggered. One of the best things about this budget, though, is the significant empathy that I have had for other Australians who are concerned about the impact on their fellow Australians. I have more and more stories that I could share with you, but I want to tell you that a Mrs Swallow contacted me. She was acknowledging she is comfortably off and will not be affected by the budget but is worried about those who will be. Jeannine, another constituent, stated the budget would not impact her personally but she is deeply troubled by what it will mean for those who are struggling. These are people who do not want to live in a society which makes it harder for people like Danny, for people like students in the low-income school. They do not want to see those kids get a second-rate education. They do not want to live in a country where families have to make tough decisions about whether or not to take their kids to the doctor. This is ridiculous. This is life in Australia. It is not what we know and expect given we are one of the richest countries in the world. It does not make sense to me. It does not make sense to so many Australians. That is why I will be fighting with Labor as hard as I can against the changes that we have discussed. 11:16 Mr NIKOLIC 137174 Bass I appreciate the opportunity to speak in support of the coalition's first budget in the 44th Parliament. It is a budget that charts a real course to surplus, a budget that addresses the dual problem of unsustainable spending and fast-growing debt. Finally, after six years of hard Labor, Australia has a budget that starts to address the damage inflicted on our economy since 2008 and sets the conditions for regaining Australia's economic freedom of action. It is a budget the Australian people know is necessary to ensure we do not steal the prosperity of future generations to fund our unsustainable debt and spending today. It is a budget that delivers some outstanding projects in my electorate of Bass which help support the brighter future that our citizens deserve. I would like to touch on just a few of these projects which will create both economic activity during the construction stage and also an enduring benefit for the people of northern Tasmania. We have $6½ million to revitalise North Bank on the Tamar River. There has been silt removed from the Tamar River for over 100 years. Some form of mechanical removal of silt has been a feature of the river's management strategy for over 100 years. We have $2½ million to make sure we can keep the Tamar River silt free, to remove the silt built up over the years and to fulfil the promise that Labor made but never delivered on. Prior to the 2010 state election the then Tasmanian state environment minister, Michelle O'Byrne, promised $6.65 million for silt removal in the Tamar River and never delivered it. There was $1 million put in that was spent on permits and all sorts of things but they never delivered. In a very cooperative way with the Launceston Flood Authority, the Launceston City Council, TasWater and others we have put together a plan that last year shifted some 242,000 cubic metres of silt and that in the next three years will continue to take away that silt accretion and promote the healthier Tamar that our community deserves. We have $500,000 that will be provided to look at the sewerage infrastructure problem we have that also affects a healthier Tamar River. There are seven sewerage infrastructure plants in and around Launceston. It is a fairly archaic system. We are going to fund a study that charts a critical path to work out how we can get a First World sewerage infrastructure system so that at times of heavy rain we do not have sewage going into the Tamar River. The silt money and the sewerage infrastructure money will work together. Some of that money will also be used for quick wins. For example, we might build a retaining structure around Ti Tree Bend to make sure that during times of heavy rain we do not get sewage going into our river. It is a very important project for my community. In the budget we also saw $2.7 million allocated to the Major Projects Approval Agency in Launceston. This is yet another important project announced by the Prime Minister on 15 August last year as part of the economic recovery plan for Tasmania. It is an authority that will promote more investment in Northern Tasmania, a one-stop shop for major projects based in Launceston and a single Commonwealth entry point. If someone has money to invest and they have a regulatory problem, whether it is a tax, occupational health and safety or environmental issue, we are going to help them remove obstacles impede that investment, to work with the Coordinator General, which was a promise of the Tasmanian state Liberal government at the last election, with a similar function at state level, to make sure that there is coherence in a policy sense between the way that we approach investment at a state and federal level. As the Tasmanian representative on the coalition's Deregulation Taskforce, this is one of the most important things we can do for a community that has the highest unemployment rate in our country—I am talking about both adult and youth unemployment here—and the lowest participation rate in the country. We will benefit from the $6.5 million trial Jobs Program also announced as part of the economic recovery plan that Prime Minister Abbott put up before the last election. There is a $3,250 incentive specific to Tasmanian employers who put on someone who has been on Newstart for six months. I note also the welcome announcement in the budget of an incentive of $10,000 for employers who hire mature workers. In my community of Bass, both of those incentives will be very well received. We have $2½ million for a mountain bike trail in Derby in the wonderful municipality of Dorset, which also extends into the Blue Tier in the electorate of my colleague the member for Lyons. I walked the first couple of kilometres of that new mountain bike trail earlier this month, with the mayor of Dorset, Barry Jarvis. It is going to be a world-class facility—some 80 kilometres of world-class mountain bike trails that will pull tourists into the that area, a depressed area of Bass, and make sure that Northern Tasmania becomes more of an entry point for our state. It is a very important project. We have $1½ million to improve the drainage and lighting at Invermay Park—one of the most used sporting facilities in Northern Tasmania. This is where Ricky Ponting first started his career. Young people who aspire to be like Ricky Ponting will be able to use Invermay Park for many, many more weeks each year. During winter, it is often boggy and unusable. We are going to improve the drainage and the lighting so that that much used sporting facility becomes even more accessible to people in my community. Out of the $9 million that was allocated to regional airfield upgrades, we have almost $1 million of that for the Flinders Island airfield and the Cape Barren Island airfield. These remote island communities desperately need these upgrades. As we know, everything that comes onto and off Flinders and Cape Barren Island comes on and off by either air or sea, so this is a very popular project in my community. As you can see, Deputy Speaker, this budget has a lot of good news for my community of Bass. It encapsulates a whole range of things both during the construction phase and later that will be of enduring benefit for the people of Bass. But there is much to do to ensure that the budget is repaired to make sure that we can keep doing these sorts of things into the future. There is an old adage about history repeating, and it has never been truer than in the context of the 44th Parliament. Yet, again, the Labor Party has left government with the detritus of the Australian economy in its wake. Yet, again, the Liberal Party has the task of restoring our economic fortunes, restoring our economic freedom of action. When I say 'freedom of action', I am talking here about the sort of freedom of action that former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had when the global financial crisis came along. He was able to drink deeply from the economic well left to him by the Howard government and the regular surpluses delivered by Peter Costello. He was able to drink deeply from that reservoir in order to respond to the challenges of the global economic crisis. That is what we want to do: we want to pay down debt. We want to make sure that the budget is on a sustainable footing and we want to make sure that in the future we are able to respond should there be a downturn in our international or national circumstances. The evidence for what I am saying is compelling, yet those on the other side of the House refuse to admit the damage that they have caused. We on this side of the House will not let them forget that damage. Most Australians will have heard of Bernie Madoff and the massive Ponzi scheme that he ran in the United States for over 20 years. As we now know, Madoff's asset management scheme had no foundation to it or plan. Increasing risk was built into the scheme, which was like a deck of cards built on the hopes of gullible people. There are some similarities there with what has been happening to the Australian economy and the Australian budget over the last six years under Labor, and then Labor-Greens, government. They told Australians not to worry about Australia's economic foundation of debt and unsustainable spending. They borrowed and borrowed, and not just against the income of current Australians but against the income of future taxpayers. Those who are going through school now will get that debt and be responsible for that debt into the future. The day after the budget I did a live-cross to a KPMG breakfast in my home city of Launceston. The room had some 270 people in it, and we had a great discussion about the budget. About an hour later, they filled the room with young year 11 and 12 children. The analogy I drew for them was: if your parents spend unsustainably, borrow to the hilt and die with a massive debt, the laws of our country say that you are not responsible for that debt when they die. Sadly, that does not apply to government debt, because every dollar we borrow today is a dollar that has to be repaid in the future. With gross debt due to peak at $667 billion, those children who I was talking to will be responsible for that debt when they enter the workforce. We heard from the previous speaker that Labor often likes to talk about debt as a percentage of GDP, but why are we comparing ourselves to the sick men of Europe—countries that have been spending unsustainably for decades and countries like Greece that have a debt-to-GDP ratio above 100 per cent? Why is that a benchmark that we want to apply to our country? Is it not better to pick a benchmark that is more contemporary and relevant to our circumstances? What about the economy that John Howard and Peter Costello left the country at the end of 2007 with a $20 billion surplus, money in the bank, a Higher Education Endowment Fund and a Future Fund that provided the economic freedom of action for the Labor Party to respond to the global financial crisis? It is a matter of record that in the annual budget papers Labor never delivered a surplus in six years despite promising to do so on over 600 occasions. Key figures, including Bill Shorten and Chris Bowen, even bragged that a surplus had already been delivered by Labor. In fact, Labor left us with below-trend growth, falling resource investment and rising unemployment. The economic legacy of the former Treasurer, the member for Lilley, was $191 billion in achieved deficits, another $123 billion in deficits across the forward estimates—anticipated in the four years after they left government—and gross debt due to peak at two-thirds of a trillion dollars. We borrow a billion dollars every month just to pay that debt. Imagine going to your bank manager and saying, 'I'd like to borrow the money that I need to pay my mortgage each month.' He would kick you out, just as the Australian people kicked the Labor Party out on 7 September last year. It is unsustainable and it has to stop. This budget puts a stop to it and sets us on a path to a sustainable surplus. The budget situation that Labor left us was significantly worse than they chose to admit when they released the 2013 economic statement just days before the election was called. They left myriad issues that should have been addressed while they were in government, including an offshore processing black hole of $1.2 billion, a secret cut in education spending—another black hole of $1.2 billion, which we have restored—and 14,500 job cuts in the public service when they had only funded 800 redundancies, along with the Reserve Bank requiring an $8.8 billion injection in part due to Labor taking dividends from the RBA against the wishes of the RBA governor. We have started the budget repair process, yet Labor is standing in the way. They are opposing tens of billions of dollars of savings put before the parliament, including $5 billion of savings that they themselves promised the Australian people that they would implement if they were successful. I can think of no greater deception than ruining our economy and then standing in the way of those who are trying to restore our economy, to restore the budget and put us on a sustainable path to surplus. If we do not act now, the problem becomes worse. It is like a skin cancer. That analogy I made before about comparing ourselves to Europe, it is like saying that my skin cancer is smaller than yours. The problem with skin cancers, the problem with budgetary problems is that if you do not address them they get bigger and worse over time. So I would say to those opposite, get out of the way of what we need to do and what Australia knows we need to do to restore our economic fortunes into the future. Our economic action strategy delivered through the budget will strengthen the economy, create jobs and reduce Labor's debt by $300 billion, but only if we show resolve and all contribute to that outcome. Without our plan, Australia will keep borrowing $1 billion a month every month just to pay the interest on the debt and that will get worse. This would almost triple to $2.8 billion a month in a decade if nothing is done. This is a budget that the people in my electorate and across the country know is needed to get Australia back on track. If we act now, if we cut gross debt almost by half, we solve a problem that our children and their children potentially have to address. We reduce the deficit in a manageable way and an honest path to surplus. We take our hands out of the pockets of future generations and we create the conditions for a brighter future our children and grandchildren deserve. 11:32 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley The Australian public do not play word games. They do not hedge, they do not engage in clever verbal moves that frequently dominate this domain. They are direct. They were with our side of politics last September. That is why we are on this side of the House. We respect their decision, we accept the umpire's call, but in the election two spotlights are always working the field. The focus is on the two major sides of debate, and the public watched and made up their minds. They took into account the pledges, the commitments and the promises made and their fresh memories are being used as a basis to judge this budget. The public, the same umpire that made the call with us, is speaking authoritatively about the coalition's budget and about the coalition's values as demonstrated by deed in government. Remember that before the election when you turned on the TV you would see the Prime Minister doing two things: he was either wearing a fluoro vest or he was making a promise. These days he does not wear the vest and he does not keep the promises. I could literally fill up my entire speech recounting the long list of broken promises, but I won't. I am going to use the speech to talk about how the budget hurts the nation and hounds the Chifley electorate. There are two critical quotes I think are important to remind the House of. One is a quote deliberately and specifically designed to create an impression in the minds of the public about how the Prime Minister would behave in government. The other is a promise built for full effect, purposely repeated, delivered right as the public were about to cast their vote. The first defining quote is this: It is an absolute principle of democracy that governments should not and must not say one thing before an election and do the opposite afterwards. That was spoken by the Prime Minister in 2011 as opposition leader. The second commitment, promise, pledge or vow uttered last September is this: I want to give people this absolute assurance: no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no changes to pensions and no changes to the GST. I need not add any commentary or observation of my own. Why? Because the public has made its own mind up based on what they saw and heard. This budget has either transformed or confirmed their view of the Prime Minister. The budget shows that the Prime Minister has gone from being chief promise maker to chief promise breaker, and we can see the reaction within the public domain. After all the sweat and all the effort to sell this budget, this work has delivered nothing. The verdict does not just sit in the minds of the public; it sits on the minds of their own. It is their own side that has been revealed to have said 'the budget is a stinking carcass', and Chifley residents are telling me so too. Some of these residents spoke sharply to me when I was in government and they are now scathing of this government. One emailed: When I last night saw and confirmed this morning on the internet that the seniors supplement of $60-plus per fortnight ie. $1,560 per annum is going to be abolished as of 1 July 2014, I decided I will never ever vote Liberal again. A government never takes anything away from age pensioners. It will give but never take away. Let me add his earlier quote: You will remember me from before the last federal election. Over the past 48 years, I have voted without fail for the Liberal Party both federal and state. So within the minds of their own side and within the minds of their own voters outside this place, the budget has failed. It has stained the Prime Minister and it is set to smear everything this government touches or does over the term of this parliament. It is a budget that will be spoken about for many years to come, and rightly so. The public is already speaking loud and clear. For example, Fairfax Media found in a survey of voters overwhelming rejection of some of its key measures: 76 per cent disapprove of the budget's cuts to public hospitals; 62 per cent reject paying more for prescriptions; 61 per cent reject the twice-yearly increase of the petrol excise; and there was substantial rejection of any move to increase the pension age to 70. And the public is sending a signal about their views of the Prime Minister. In other work conducted by Central Media, it was shown that more than two-thirds of respondents, 67 per cent—an increase of 11 percentage points—said that the PM was 'out of touch with ordinary voters'; less than one-third of voters agreed he was trustworthy; and 63 per cent—up five per cent—said he was arrogant. The trust of the Australian public has been smashed. Their sense of fairness has not only been abused but has been stomped all over by an uncaring coalition government. We knew what was coming in this budget. We got a taste of it in the release of the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, MYEFO, before the election. In August, the independently compiled pre-election fiscal outlook showed we would have a deficit of $30 billion. By December when the coalition brought down MYEFO, the deficit blew out by an extra $17 billion. Sixty per cent of the blow-out was attributed to decisions the coalition took. When the coalition keeps talking about debt and deficit, I did not realise their own guilt was speaking for them. When in opposition, the coalition told us we did not have a revenue problem; we had an expenditure one. In this budget they are bringing in new taxes and tax increases. When in opposition, the coalition told us not to trust Treasury figures. Now we are told we will get to a surplus under the coalition based off the same group of Treasury officials that framed previous budgets using figures that were disputed by the coalition. I do not criticise Treasury here; they are professionals—dedicated and committed. But I do seek to spotlight the duplicity of the government and, through this, seek to show why the public has rejected their first budget. Australians for weeks if not months before the budget were told they would be equally required to join in the 'heavy lifting' to restore the budget to surplus. Now, look what is occurring. A sole parent with an income of $55,000 with two children—one in primary, one in high school—will face a $20,000 hit to their family budget. By just 2015, this family will face a 10 per cent annual hit to their current family income or more than $5,700 a year. A couple on a single income of $75,000 with two kids—one not yet in school, one in primary school—will face a $2,000 decline in annual family income 2015. By 2017-18, this family will have $7,400 less income than they would have had prior to this budget. I mention these particular groups of families because they make up a big part of the Chifley electorate that I am proud to represent in this place. As I have said numerous times since the budget announcement, the electorate of Chifley, which I represent, has been hit hard and probably harder than many others in country on so many levels. Much has been said in this place and in the public about the impact of $7 GP tax. The insult to the Australian public was soon followed by the Treasurer referring to that impost of a GP tax as equivalent to two small beers. In defending the indefensible, the Treasurer said: One packet of cigarettes— Not cigars, mind you— One packet of cigarettes cost $22. That gives you three visits to the doctor. You can spend just over $3 on a middy of beer, so that's two middies of beer to go to the doctor. It's just bizarre to say that in a public space. In the two weeks since the budget I have had cases of long-time, long-serving doctors come up to me and say that the GP tax is simply an attack on the medical profession. One GP told me last week that his practice does not have the resources necessary to become a tax collection agency for the Abbott government. Then there is the issue of security with cash now being kept on premises, and any new costs to be borne by small practices in changing their security arrangements. What about the valuable time lost with staff forced to travel to the bank to deposit that cash? These small businesses, these GP practices, will line up to be the first to dispute the coalition's claim that it is both the best friend of Medicare and small business. Practices in Mount Druitt, Woodcroft, Glendenning, Rooty Hill and Blacktown have seen drops in the number of patients presenting for help—people scared away from health because of the GP tax. These clinics are SMSing patients reminding them to see the doctor because the GP tax has not come in yet. Many of the GPs in my area, especially the ones who practise in residential areas, are close to retirement age. They stay in practice to help neighbourhoods that they know will struggle to get medical help close by—suburbs like Whalan, Tregear and Emerton already struggle with a lack of local GP services. Any drop in patient numbers coming through the doors of GPs will bring forward decisions for retirement. They cannot afford to bear those losses; nor should they carry those losses into retirement. The GP tax will not only make health care less affordable, but it will make it less accessible. This week we see reports that imposing on struggling families a $7 hit every time they visit a GP will threaten immunisation rates, and that is a very dangerous move, but that, sadly, is a reality. What about the billions cut from hospitals in this budget? State governments were already making terrible decisions when it came to health care, for instance, in Mount Druitt—an area where heart disease is a major killer. The New South Wales Liberal government is shutting down our cardiac ward and replacing it with a methadone clinic. We have many avenues available to help those afflicted with substance abuse, but we do not have enough to help us with heart disease. Now the state government has made that decision, it is expected to manage with billions less for its health budget. Remember that in MYEFO the Abbott government callously cut the funds that were expected to be used in securing an MRI for Mount Druitt Hospital, which had been fought long and hard for. I shudder to think what comes next as a result of budget pressure that the Abbott government is loading onto its state counterparts. It is not that I need to be reminded, but today I looked back over the last census of the Chifley electorate conducted in 2011 at the unemployment rates. Back then, national unemployment was running at 5.6 per cent, while local unemployment stood at nine per cent. It has always been the case that unemployment in our area runs higher than the national average. Chifley's unemployment rate continues well above that average, and youth unemployment is much worse. It is not only a heartless move but a dangerous one to target young unemployed in this budget. It is simply unconscionable to say to an unemployed person under 30 in our area: 'Bad luck if you haven't got a job and, by the way, we won't allow you access to unemployment benefits for six months.' Who among the unemployed can last six months without help while they are trying to find work? What parents these days have the resources to carry an unemployed child during that time, especially with the changes to family tax benefits, the GP tax and the fuel tax straining budgets. What about those young people not lucky enough to have parents to support them? Telling young people still residing at home that they will have to move elsewhere for a work-for-the-dole program is not the answer. It will just not work the way people think it will. This is a budget that threatens to pressure families beyond limit. Things like the de-regulation of university fees and the huge debt swamp loaded up on the young are causing concerns in the minds of middle Australia who worry about the future of their young and the next generation. That generation will be forced to carry debt well into their working years and will be handicapped in their efforts at the start of their working lives. Chifley motorists, among all other Western Sydney motorists, will also feel the pain from this budget as fuel excise indexation makes its unwanted return after being frozen for 13 years by then Prime Minister John Howard. On my way to this place this week, I passed service stations where signs heralded unleaded fuel at $1.60 a litre, which is much higher than the point at which the excise was frozen. But its reintroduction will bit and bite again not only when the motorist pays at the browser but also when they buy anything that is dependent on transport moving them to market. The double-whammy effect on households will be that costs will be sent down the line from transport companies, who will also be slugged with the twice yearly fuel indexation. Those costs will flow on to everything you buy. If you try to sidestep that cost by using public transport, you will be hit again because the Abbott government refuses to fund public transport infrastructure that could be used to move people, particularly across Western Sydney. Labor are opposed to fuel excise indexation. The anger that remains in the community more than two weeks after this budget is clear evidence of its unfairness. It is a budget that squarely puts low- or no-income earners, the elderly or the vulnerable squarely in its sights. Pensioners have been cruelly lined up for attention by this Abbott government. In my home state alone, $450 million in joint funding with the New South Wales government has been axed across the forward estimates that was intended for concessions for pensioners on transport and for council rates, water and electricity bills. To strip pensioners of these simple but vital means of assistance is cruel and it is little wonder state governments are howling about the burdens suddenly placed on them by the Commonwealth. My electorate office has been swamped and people are furious. Pensioners are angry over the fact that the seniors supplement, a vital leg-up for a couple, will be wiped out from September. And there will be the sting in the tail of deeming draw-downs on superannuation and indexation changes that will rob pensioners of future earnings. Welcome to retirement, Abbott government style. The pain of this budget, the unfairness of this budget and the way that it affects low and middle Australia yet leaves those well off untouched and potentially gaining under a Paid Parental Leave Scheme that is squarely unfair in its architecture and its operation will leave a bitter taste in the mouths of the public, and they should not be forced to bear this cost. 11:47 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin It goes without saying that there is a great deal at stake in the debate we are having in this place. What is at stake is the future of our country, the future of our children and the future of our children's children. That is why I rise to add my comments to the debate because I believe sincerely that the decisions the government have made in this budget are decisions made to preserve the future of our children and our children's children. There are clearly difficult decisions that have been made in this budget, but they are absolutely the right decisions. We have not taken any difficult decisions lightly, but we have taken them responsibly. We know that if we do not stop the reckless spending and if we do not cut the Labor waste then the future is looking very grim for all Australians. You cannot speak about this budget without putting into proper context the position that Australia finds itself in after six years of Labor. As much as members opposite would like everybody to have a significant case of amnesia and forget about the absolute waste, reckless spending and complete mismanagement of the economy, we do not have that sense of amnesia that the Labor Party would like. I do not think that members opposite, when they formed government six years ago, consciously decided to take a budget surplus of $20 billion and a $60 billion Future Fund and to turn that into $50 billion deficits and over $300 billion of debt rising to $667 billion. I would not suggest that they were that callous that they deliberately sought to do that. But their complete and utter incompetence is something that they should hang their heads in shame over. The fact that we have members opposite now getting up and criticising the remedial measures that are only required because of that incompetence is actually breathtaking for me. In any other form of society, in any other organisation, if you had the arsonists criticising those who were there to fix the problem, there would be absolute condemnation and there will be absolute condemnation for this approach. So putting into context where we were at when we inherited the budget from the former government, let us consider some statistics. Labor delivered $191 billion in deficits plus $123 billion in deficits over the next four years. Indeed, today, because of Labor's record, we pay a billion dollars of interest every month. And without remedial action, that will rise to $3 billion of interest every month. So, in effect, Australia, if it were a household, or the Australian government, if it were a household, is paying the interest on its mortgage with its credit card. That is what members opposite are advocating for every time they criticise the remedial measures taken in this budget. Members opposite have not offered a mea culpa for the absolutely outrageous state in which they left our budget. Members opposite do not even admit that there is a problem with the budget. I suppose that is how they can justify blocking $40 billion in savings measures in public pronouncements and in the Senate. Crucially, of those $40 billion of savings that are being blocked, $5 billion of savings were those identified by the Labor Party and taken to the previous election by them as policy. Clearly, if you cannot admit there is a problem then you cannot be a part of the solution and that is the message to the Australian people. The Labor Party have vacated the space or repairing the budget and, every time they criticise remedial measures undertaken in this budget without offering solutions, without offering counter savings, that is what they are saying to the Australian people. Yesterday or two days ago, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition came out, in effect, promising $16 billion of additional spending in the foreign aid budget. It is outrageous. The Labor Party have now adopted an approach where talking about tens of billions of dollars is just a throw-away line saying 'we will just work out the numbers later on'. That was the approach of the last six years; that is not the approach of this government. The days of the Wayne Swanesque approach to the budget, which is to promise surpluses until you are blue in the face and then deliver deficits are over. This is the first honest budget that Australians have seen in six years and that is why I was elected in my great seat of Deakin. People spoke to me ad nauseam prior to the election about the worrying trajectory of debt that this country was taking on. And when we talk about the future of our children, what generation wants to be responsible for gifting to the next generation an inheritance of debt? How dare members opposite lecture us for taking the necessary decisions to fix their budget messes while completely ignoring that simple fact. We did not make the mess. We are not the arsonists. We did not start the fire but we will put it out and we will fix it because that is what we have been elected to do. Our budget, a part of the government's economic action strategy, will ensure that debt, which was projected—if no remedial action was taken—to rise to $667 billion, will be nearly $300 billion less. This is the prescription that the Australian people voted for in September last year. And, unlike the Labor Party, we will not squib the challenge. We are repairing the budget to protect our living standards, to prepare for an ageing population, to ensure that we can respond to the unexpected events in the future and to provide for future tax relief. We are not making these changes so we can squirrel more money away; we are making these changes for the future prosperity of our nation. Australia has had an enviable economic record in the last 15 years. In the late 90s we were able to successfully deal with the Asian financial crisis. In 2007-08 we were able to successfully deal with the GFC, not withstanding a lot of waste. Why were we able to weather those two storms? It was because we had put money away for a rainy day. Like any household or business, you have to have some money set aside for a rainy day, and, at the moment, I hate to say to Australians that we do not have that. If there were to be extraordinarily unexpected economic headwinds, Australia is not ideally placed. It is certainly not placed, as it was in 2007, to address those. We are not just on an economic frolic to stash money aside for grandiose plans like the Labor Party. We are doing what is fundamentally right for the country and fundamentally right for the prosperity of our children. Alternatively, Labor would have the government spend our country to ruin. I have spoken about the $40 billion of savings that the Labor Party have pronounced they will be blocking. There were significant black holes and time bombs in the forward estimates. The Labor Party, in their utter dishonesty, went to the former election claiming that there would be a surplus in 2016-17, and then we find out that, if remedial action was not taken, Australia would suffer another 10 years of budget deficits—16 years of budget deficits. There is no household or business in this country that could spend more than it earns for 16 consecutive years and still be viable, but members opposite do not care about that; they do not understand it. So what are we doing? We are fundamentally ensuring that the long-term spending trajectory of the budget is improved. To talk about cuts is wrong. The reality of this budget is that it sets the medium- to long-term spending trajectory of the budget and makes it more sustainable. When we talk about health reforms, the government are delivering record funding for hospitals. In health, we are increasing overall spending by more than $10 billion, or 16 per cent, to 2017-18. In Victoria, importantly, hospital funding will increase each year from $3.6 billion to $4.7 billion. It just does not grow at more than 10 per cent a year, which Labor put in as a line item in the budget. If that trajectory were followed, health spending would skyrocket from $15 billion to $40 billion. We know members opposite were not necessarily expecting to win the last election, so they did not feel too concerned about having these very grandiose and undeliverable promises in the forward estimates. If they did unexpectedly get elected, I am sure what was going through their mind was, 'We'll just deal with that at the time.' At the same time as increasing this funding, we are asking Australians to make a modest contribution to their own health care with a GP co-payment. I get very angry when I see the indignation of members opposite when they talk about the co-payment. For the most vulnerable people, the highest possible liability per annum that they will be subject to is $70 for 10 visits. Those same people right now are spending an additional $550 each year per household because of the carbon tax. So where is the consistency? A carbon tax of $550 is completely justifiable in the minds of the Labor Party, but a $70 contribution per annum to your health care is not. One of the proudest things—and I will not walk away from this—for me in the budget is the establishment of the Medical Research Future Fund to which the GP co-payments will contribute for the next six years to build up the corpus of the fund to $20 billion, which will then provide an everlasting dividend to medical research in this country. The absolute short sightedness of the opposition in this respect is very disappointing. Why are people living longer today? They are living longer today because of the work of medical researchers in times gone by. Why is the mitigation of health problems occurring? Because of the medical research of yesteryear. So the least we can do in this generation is to ensure that we give our medical researchers—where we have a competitive advantage; we have the best researchers in the world—the resources to find the cures of the future to improve the life expectancy of our population, the liveability of all Australians and, ultimately, reductions in health costs into the future. In education reform, funding will increase every year under this budget. None of that changes. Forget the scaremongering of the opposition. Education spending is increasing. Not only that; reforms to higher education will ensure that more people, people from less advantaged backgrounds, will have better access to higher education. I want to finish by talking about some statistics. When I started speaking, I said that in order to grasp this budget you have to understand the context in which it is being delivered. As much as members opposite would like to forget the last six years, forget the waste and profligacy, we need to appreciate that context. There is another context that we need to understand about our entire system. In 1964, when an average income for an Australian was $26,000, in today's terms, government spent three per cent of gross domestic product on welfare payments. In 2014, average incomes have increased to $66,000. You would expect welfare spending to have declined—no. It now consumes nine per cent of GDP. Nearly half, 48 per cent, of all Australian households make no net contribution through their taxes. Clearly, generous spending on welfare, health and other programs is something that Australia should and does aspire to. But a country, no matter how rich, that continues to run deficits while spending ever increasing amounts on entitlements is headed for certain disaster. So some changes to our society will be made. I believe these changes protect the most vulnerable and, most importantly, put our country onto a sustainable footing—something which the Labor Party are not interested in. They have vacated the space in that respect. 12:02 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham It is an important opportunity each year for members of this place to talk in the appropriations debate about the budget that has been presented to the nation in that year. This is important because budgets, by their very nature, are not simply the dry tallying of figures or assessment of income and expenditure; they are, indeed, a description of the priorities and the view of the nation held by the government of the day. Given the budget that was brought down in May by the new Abbott government, it would not surprise the chamber that, for an area like mine, we have grave concerns about, and take serious exception to, the priorities that are set out in this budget and also to the view of Australia that is encapsulated by the way those priorities are constructed and put together in the budget. I will go to quite a few of matters, but I want to address one matter directly that I did not have in my notes, which the previous speaker has just raised in terms of his lack of understanding of how members of the Labor Party can be concerned about the Medicare co-payment and, at the same time, be happy for the cost impact of the carbon price to remain on households. His bemusement by that position completely fails to recognise that one of the reasons we are supportive of the structures we put in place for a carbon price is that we provided a household assistance package which ensured that those who are at the most vulnerable end of our community, in particular, were protected from the cost impacts of the flow-through of a carbon price. I notice the current government has not dismantled it. We did not put an extra impost on families and households without having a package in place to provide assistance for them to manage it. This is the big difference. Families are now facing a Medicare co-payment, on top of things like additional fuel costs and changes to their payment entitlements, for which they are getting no compensation. It is an issue that the previous member needs to have a closer look at if he is still bemused by that position. He also went to the issue of the budget's financial position. I would point out to him that it was not a case, as he described it, of the sacking of Rome at the end of the Labor government in terms of the nature of the financial position. In fact, we left this country with a triple-A credit rating. That is unprecedented, and it was a very important indication that, as many nations acknowledged, we had managed the nation through one of the most difficult international times during the global financial crisis in a way that meant that our financials were on a strong footing and the impacts on things like employment that make a real difference to people's lives had been ameliorated by the sorts of measures that we had put in place. Many countries were looking to Australia to see exactly what we had done and why we had managed so well through that process. Of course, all governments always have a responsibility to look to the sustainability of their budgets over the longer term. All governments do that. The reality is that in the lead-up to the election the current Prime Minister was asked time and time again by journalists, community members and so forth: if you are saying that there is a budget problem and something has got to be done about it, what exactly are you going to do? He constantly made assurances about the things that he would not do in creating his solutions to longer term budget sustainability, and he made them pretty clearly. That is why people are white-hot angry about what has actually been put in place in this budget. They are angry in my area as well. The member for Throsby and I have had a lot of comment and contact at our offices from people who were particularly concerned about the Medicare co-payment. It has been the case that we have valued our universal healthcare system in this nation for many decades now. It is such an important part of the social fabric of this nation that those opposite and their leaders have always declared that they are, indeed, the 'best friends that Medicare has ever had'. They know it is absolutely untenable to say anything else to the Australian community, because we do value the fact that in this country it is your Medicare card that will determine your access to health care not your credit card. You only have to talk to the older generation who remember the pre-universal health care days where people were struggling to pay off massive debts that they ran up to their general practitioners during periods of illness to understand this. This is an underpinning social support network in this country that has been well supported for a long time. Australians are not fools. They know that the co-payment system will dismantle the universality of that system, and they are not going to stand for it. Stephen Jones, the member for Throsby, and I organised an opportunity for people to come together in Wollongong on the weekend to have a talk about the impacts that this decision, this GP tax, would have locally on the community. Over 300 people came together within less than a week to express their grave concerns about it. We were joined by a young doctor who is in training who indicated that the university based doctors who are in training have a national association, and that national association had joined together with that hotbed of radicalism, the Australian Medical Association, to indicate their opposition to the GP tax. Speakers opposite might one after the other say, 'This is just those terrible Labor people. They don't understand the reality.' What they need to understand is they are also telling that to almost the entire medical profession who are also rejecting the GP tax as a policy implementation out of the budget. In my own area, the Illawarra Mercury spoke to some local doctors and they repeated exactly the same concerns. We have spent quite a long time now in this country working in one of the most important areas of medical intervention. That is early detection and prevention. Those are schemes—for example, across cancers and chronic health issues—that we need to address in order to stop the expense at the other end where you get people in acute and diabolical health situations putting the pressure on the most expensive interventions. You get prevention and early detection right and not only do people have a better outcome and a better quality of life; it is actually an efficient and more financially sensible way to go. The foundation of prevention and early intervention is the general practice, having a strong relationship with your GP, going regularly and making sure you participate in all the sorts of screening and opportunities there are. If people, particularly those on fixed or low incomes, have an instance of illness and think: 'I've got a couple of days to go till the pay comes in. I've got 10 bucks in the purse. I have to get milk and bread to get me through. I can't go to the GP; I'm going to put it off,' that will be a real decision that people will be making, and that is not what we should be supporting. It will not achieve and will run absolutely counter to all of the interventions that we have been making over recent years to try to get the health of our nation on a more effective footing by getting into identifying illnesses quickly and early and treating them effectively. People are white hot with anger about the GP tax and, for all the valiant efforts at defence from those opposite, I have no doubt that they are hearing exactly the same thing in their own communities, because it is really bad policy. They cannot even put the argument—the straw horse—that it is about addressing the budget deficit that they doubled before halving, because it is not going to address the budget deficit. It is going into this specific long-term medical research task. Nobody objects to medical research and nobody objects to the investments in finding the cures for the future—of course we do not. But you do not do that off the backs, pockets and purses of the ill and sick. That is absolutely the wrong way to go about achieving that outcome. Across the board, obviously one of the very clear things that the Prime Minister said time and time again before the election was that there will be no changes to pension, and what do we see now in the budget? We see a proposal to change the way in which pensions are indexed in a way that will ensure pensioners see their increases in the pension over the future be much smaller than they necessarily would have been, because they are going back to indexing by the CPI. This is to come in in 2017, and the government is saying we will go to an election before then. If it is the case that you want to take that to an election, take it to an election. Do not build it into your budget papers in order to claim the credit for it but not actually have told people before the election that that is what you are intending to put into place. And don't even get me started—I am talking to my local councils, as I am sure many people are—about the flow-on effects of the cuts to funding to the state governments for all the pensioner concessions that are made available and how that is going to impact on people in terms of all sorts of costs across utilities, council rates and so forth. So no changes to pensions—absolutely a lie, absolutely misleading, before the election, on what was actually going to happen in the very first budget. The same, obviously, for changes to family tax benefit and the impacts on families. In terms of the family budget, my area has one of the highest commuter corridors in the country, Wollongong being an hour south of Sydney. We have tens of thousands of people who travel to Sydney and south-western and western Sydney for work. By and large many of them use a car for that purpose, so the changes to the new fuel tax will have a very significant impact on their family budgets given that quite often it is more than one person in the family travelling. That is a really significant effect for them. Finally, I want to touch on an area that is also of direct concern to our region, and that is youth unemployment. I am not going to go into it in too much detail, because I had an opportunity in the matter of public importance before the House yesterday to talk about this a bit. If you are a parent with a child over 18, you would not want to be any of the members opposite going out and talking to those families. I am a mother of sons who are in their 20s. To think that if someone under 30 were to become unemployed, they would get no income support and would have to go back home and rely on mum and dad to support them up to the age of 30 is incredible. That does not even begin to acknowledge the very many young people who do not have a family whom they can rely on to go to for support if they suddenly find themselves unemployed and have to face months with no money coming in. It is extraordinary. The question was put to the Treasurer in question time: what do you actually expect them to do? To me, the Treasurer looked confounded at that. I do not think he understands the reality for people under 30 and the fact some may have no-one to go to other than perhaps a charity to help keep a roof over their heads or food on the table. Then they say, 'They need to learn or earn.' Great, we all want people learning or earning, but what if you already have one qualification and you are not entitled to an exemption from the fees? Where are you supposed to find the money to pay for a course? You will not be given any income support. You are supposed to go and learn but you do not have the capacity to pay the fees that will be required let alone find a job. You are not going to have any money to travel to get to interviews or to dress and prepare for job interviews and so forth. It is an astonishing proposition and it is both cruel and heartless. I think it reflects the very foundation of where this budget is aiming to hit and punish people in order to address the perceived problem that the government wants to address. If you want to talk about getting the budget back into surplus and those sorts of longer term tasks, we can have a conversation about that. We have some suggestions. Perhaps the government could put off their gold-plated Paid Parental Leave Scheme for a while—there is a thought. I think secretly, and perhaps less secretly on occasions, some of those oppose would profoundly agree with us about that proposal. There are options, but what they have chosen to do as a government reflects their priorities and they will be judged on that. I would suggest that there is going to be a lot of pain ahead for members in having those conversations with their communities because their communities will not endorse the values that are at the heart of this budget and will feel doubly ripped off, because they were not told before the election what that was going to be about. 12:17 Ms GAMBARO 9K6 Brisbane I am pleased to be speaking to these appropriation bills. The sense of denial from the members opposite is absolutely staggering. The Abbott government's first budget is the medicine we might not want to take but it is necessary if we want to get the state of the nation's finances to get better. As I have said in this place previously, my nonna often told to me as a child that if the medicine tasted good, the patient would never want to get better. On that rationale, the Labor Party must love being sick because they certainly love making budgets sick. Six years of Labor in office delivered $191 billion in record budget deficits, $123 billion forecast in cumulative deficits and gross debt heading towards a staggering $667 billion, and if nothing was done that would blow out even further by 2017-18 to a deficit of at least $30 billion. Far from being impressive numbers, these are disastrous numbers, all delivered by a prime ministerial candidate who in the lead-up 2007 election described himself as a fiscal conservative. I shudder to think what would have happened to the debt if former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had been a fiscal progressive. What sort of debt levels would we be looking at right now if he had not made the comment that he was a fiscal conservative? Labor's debt performance is even worse when notice is taken of the fact that when they left office in 1996 —and I was here then; I have had the wonderful and rare opportunity of representing two federal electorates—Australia had a $20 billion surplus and $50 billion in the bank. Without the coalition's plan, Australia will be forced to continue borrowing a billion dollars a month every single month, and that is just to pay off the interest. But those opposite do not want to talk about that. As my parliamentary colleague and fellow Queenslander, the honourable Steven Ciobo, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, said in the House yesterday: to put it in household budgetary terms, that is the equivalent of paying your household debts with your credit card. It is ludicrous, it is not responsible and it is not sustainable. If we do not act now, in ten year's time interest payments on Australia's debt will be a staggering $2.8 billion a month. Right now, that is $1 billion that Australian taxpayers have to find every month just to pay off the interest on Labor's debt, and that is $12 billion a year. Just think of that, $12 billion a year. What would be the positive impacts that level of expenditure would have on our roads? Just think how much NDIS funding that would provide, how many dental services, how many positive employment programs. Just think of all those skills training courses that could be provided to get Australians up with the skills and knowledge that they need to get jobs. But we cannot do these things when we want—and we need to thank Labor for leaving this enormous debt. These are the facts that Labor does not want the people of Australia to know. In many respects, Labor's astonishing level of denial in relation to the budgetary mess they have left behind can be likened to naughty children caught raiding the pantry—hands in the cookie jar, mouths full of lollies and chocolate smeared all over their faces—while at the same time they are trying to deny that they were ever even there. This analogy, however, does not actually capture the gravity or the extent of Labor's delusion. There is a bizarre sort of political strategy to Labor's denial. Why try and defend the indefensible? Which is what the Labor's budgetary performances have been over the last six years, absolutely indefensible. Instead, what Labor sought to do was to flip the issue on its head and to make outlandish claims—that even they cannot believe—along the lines of they left the budget in a healthy state and that we do not have a budget emergency. They continually deny that there is a budget emergency. If Labor's woeful fiscal performance of the past six years was not enough to prove that they are unfit for office then their current grossly irresponsible short-term political gains just confirm it. The government has committed itself to reducing spending in a slow and measured way. But rather than taking their medicine and being part of fixing the mess they made, Labor has committed itself to blocking key measures that are worth now over $40 billion over the forward estimates. This is a strangely bizarre and very schizophrenic stance for Labor to adopt given that their very infamous Treasurer in office, Treasurer Wayne Swan, so often spoke in the last six years about 'living within our means'. He would say it over and again, 'living within our means'. But that was never something that Labor actually did in office. Their focus always was on talking the big game, but they never ever played it. At least they claimed that they were trying to but they never had the guts to go out there and make the real decisions, the tough decisions that would be good for the nation in the long term. Something that stands out in stark contrast is the change that the Abbott government's first budget set in place. It is a fact that we had the guts to face the mess that Labor left and start the difficult process. Yes, it is a difficult process; it is a very hard process. By way of contrast, Labor has no alternative policy position other than its obsessive commitment to keeping Australia in debt. They had no plan in office and they have got no plan out of office. It is so extraordinary to hear them speak and it is so obvious to all that they have absolutely no plan except playing the negativity game. This leads me to the next issue I would like to highlight—that is, the level of trauma that the Australian people have endured under the Rudd-Gillard and then Rudd circus when Labor was in office—and it was trauma. They were subjected to a level of trauma that they are still recovering from. It is widely acknowledged and accepted that Labor in office during the last six years delivered one of the worst governments in this country's history. As I spoke with the people in my electorate leading into and during the federal election campaign last year and in my ongoing conversations with them this year, they are still traumatised. This trauma makes our job that much harder. We have to do better in communicating to the Australian people exactly what we are doing, and how and why we are cleaning up Labor's mess. I am already on the public record as saying governments need to stop playing a cat-and-mouse game with the Australian public as to what is in and what is not in the budget. People are sick of these games. They have been played by all sides of politics for far too long. There has to be a better process where we have closer integration between the parliament and the executive in the development of the budget, and the reporting of these processes should be formulated in the future to provide certainty. To that end, I was concerned about the debt levy when it was first mooted in the media and was the subject of a speculated level of $80,000, which in my view would have been grossly unfair. To those commentators from the left and the right, who chose to misinterpret my comments as pandering to high-income earners in my electorate, I say this: the only thing more dangerous than a little bit of knowledge about something is no knowledge about it at all. The median personal income level in my electorate is $45,084. I am a great believer in the willingness of the Australian people to put their shoulder to the wheel. When they see a job that needs to be done, that we need to make the tough decisions and structural reforms have to be undertaken through this budget, it is a task that is worthy of them, and many people in my electorate understand that there are tough times ahead. They understand that they need to work with us to put Australia back on the right track. We cannot deny that we have an ageing population. We cannot deny that our level of expenditure exceeds our level of earnings. Again, it is not sustainable. This job is made that much harder by Labor's scare campaign, which, far from being designed to be part of the solution, is focused squarely on ensuring that Australia will always be mired in the debt that they created. In taking the medicine that this budget delivers for Australia, we want to be in a position where, as a nation, we are not comparing ourselves to the worst, and those opposite always want us to compare ourselves to the worst; we want to compare ourselves to the best. In terms of comparing ourselves to the worst, we are right up there as being the worst or very close to it. In terms of the fastest growing debt amount from the IMF Article IV assessment of advanced economies, for the six years between 2012 and 2018, Australia is forecast to have the third largest increase in net debt—that is in percentage terms of GDP amongst profiled IMF advanced economies. That puts us ahead of the likes of Sweden, Canada and the USA. So, thanks to Labor, we are getting the bronze medal—yes, the bronze medal for the fastest-growing net debt—probably not an award that we would really want. For the six years to 2018, Australia is forecast to have the largest percentage increase in spending. Again, thanks to Labor, we have won the gold medal for the fastest-growing level of expenditure. Our spending is growing faster than the likes of Korea, Canada, Germany, France and Japan. This is Labor's legacy, because of their big-spending promises and their waste. As I pointed out earlier, the longer we stay on this course, the more vulnerable the nation will become to global economic shocks. Without a fiscal buffer, governments are unable to respond to future crises, the pain of which falls on the poor and the disadvantaged—precisely the people Labor would have us believe they serve and protect. More directly, for the electorate of Brisbane, I am really pleased to confirm the Abbott government's responsible management of the budget has resulted in funding for all of the election promises and for all of them to be delivered. These projects are to commence in 2014-15 and include the GPS Rugby Club Ashgrove facilities upgrade of $200,050,000; an upgrade to the Broncos Leagues Club ground redevelopment, which will be a huge community development as well as a sports training facility for $5 million; the Brisbane Inner North Sporting Community's facility upgrade of 750,000; and a wonderful grant of $125,000 to OzHarvest, which is responsible for picking up food from restaurants and cafes, and delivering it to services that provide food for the homeless. That is a total of $6.12 million. There has also been some infrastructure spending. The Wooloowin and Milton intersections in Brisbane will benefit from infrastructure investment program spending to the tune of about $1 million. They are very dangerous intersections, particularly the one in Wooloowin, which has been the scene of many accidents. The Abbott government will be investing close to $50 billion in infrastructure across Australia over seven years to deliver vital transport infrastructure for the 21st century. In Queensland, we are investing $10.3 billion over 2013-14 to 2018-19, plus an additional $3.1 billion from 2019-20. Our investment includes $6.7 billion to fix the Bruce Highway over 10 years to 2022-23. There has been an additional $200 million in Black Spot funding over the period 2015-16, and this will be very welcome. From this, Queensland will receive an additional $20.3 million in the 2015-16 year. It will also receive the same amount in the 2016-17 year. It is a tough budget. Regrettably, every time the coalition comes to office after Labor has been in power there is a fiscal mess to clean up. I say this to the people of Brisbane: do not fall for the Labor lies. They deceived you when they were in office for six years and they are deceiving you again now. The facts are these: instead of being slashed to the bone, welfare spending continues to rise by 2.5 per cent annually in real terms until 2017-18. Far from the brutal and cruel cuts to schools that Bill Shorten has denounced, Commonwealth funding of government schools in 2018 will be 36 per cent higher in real terms than this year and more than double its level in 2003. And in the health area there will be real spending on hospitals, and the 2018-19 budget will be increased from 40 per cent to 50 per cent higher than it was in 2002-03. The pension supplement will also continue to be paid to eligible pensioners. We need to have policy reform, and currently the cost of the age pension is projected to increase by 70 per cent over the next decade to almost $40 billion a year. We have to make sure that we have funding for pensions and other programs and, like all governments around the world, the coalition will continue to make sure that we are on a sustainable path. (Time expired) Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 4947 ADJOURNMENT Budget 4947 12:33 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I rise today to raise an issue of great concern in my local community and, indeed, of great concern right around the country. This is this government's appalling proposal to bring in co-payments for Medicare. This effectively dismantles our universal healthcare system that has served our country so well. We know that for many years it was coalition policy to dismantle Medicare. In 1996, however, John Howard saw the light and realised that our Medicare universal healthcare system should not be dismantled. Unfortunately, those on the other side now have not had such wisdom. The minister has now really introduced a very retrograde step by introducing co-payments. I hear from the minister that it is important to have a price signal out there—a price signal to get people to think twice about whether or not they really need to go to a doctor. Well, this is going to have significant impacts on communities right around the country and particularly in my local community. Of course, those who will question whether or not they can afford it are those on the lowest incomes. It is people who are perhaps on low incomes or who have large families who will question whether they really need to go and see a doctor. That can have devastating impacts on our health and the health of this country. That is what I am so confused about. If we want to ensure that the burden of disease reduces on our country then surely we should be investing in prevention. This is what going to see the GP is often about. It is about getting a test, or a prostate examination, a pap smear or, indeed, being immunised. Under the new co-payment arrangement, it will cost $7 each time you go to the doctor. Those on the other side have said that it is not very much; it is just a couple of middies or a couple of packets of cigarettes. They are not living in the real world. At the train stations last week, people were directly telling me that this government is out of touch. They do not understand what it is like to live in the real world. One example, a hypothetical, is a trip to the doctor where you would pay $7; you then have to get a blood test, which would be another $7; and then you have to go back to the doctor to the get the results, which would be another $7. So what we are really talking about is a $21 fee to go to the doctor. It is not just me saying this and it is not just the Labor Party saying this. Indeed, many medical organisations have come out clearly stating their opposition to this measure. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners said that every Australian should feel comfortable about accessing clinically appropriate health care, regardless of location, cost or timing—something this model has completely undercut. The Rural Doctors Association Vice President, Dr John Hall, said the co-payment will impact significantly on rural patients, who are amongst the poorest in our country, making it difficult for them to afford basic health care. The Rural Doctors Association also said that the scheme will lead to those unable to afford a GP consultation seeking treatment at their local hospitals, resulting in extra pressure on the hospital system. As we know, seeing a GP is a lot cheaper than presenting to a hospital and taking up a hospital bed. It is a very short-sighted policy of those on the other side to say, 'Let's have a price point to deter people from going to the doctor' when this is going to have ramifications in other parts of the system. Of course, the answer of those on the other side is: 'Let's just charge them to go to emergency. Let's just put another cost barrier in the way of them getting decent health care.' I fundamentally reject that principle. I do not believe that your health care, whether or not you get good health care or, indeed, whether or not you live or die, should rely on how much money you have in your pocket. I think it is that serious that we need to be paying a lot of attention to this. In my electorate I am running a petition. I have had hundreds and hundreds of people sign that petition in a very short period of time. I will ensure that I report those results to the House. People are clearly saying that they do not believe that a co-payment will achieve the outcomes that they want, which is good health care for everyone, wherever they live and whatever means they have. We want to ensure that they get decent health care. We do not want to become America. The Americanised system costs more and it delivers less to low-income families. So I urge the government to listen to the people of Australia. Work for the Dole 4949 12:38 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite I rise to speak about the benefits that the government's Work for the Dole program will deliver for the electorate of Corangamite. I also want to give an update on how incredibly well the program has been received by my community. The Geelong region, including towns such as Lorne, Anglesea, Winchelsea, Bannockburn and Smythesdale in the electorate of Corangamite, which I so proudly represent, shall be among the first of 18 areas in Australia where we will roll out the Work for the Dole program. The coalition government firmly believes that all Australians who are capable of working should be working. This is in contrast, of course, to Labor's work-for-the-dole program, which was a mickey mouse scheme, where there was no accountability. Like so many of Labor's other programs, it simply did not deliver. We are determined that young people should not languish on the dole. We do not want them to fall through the cracks. We want our young people to know that we care. From 1 July 2004, young men and women in the Geelong region will be required to work 15 hours a week on a Work for the Dole program. Work for the Dole is an important part of the government's plan to help young job seekers gain the skills and experience they need to move from welfare to work and to make a positive contribution to their local community. Very importantly, it will also help to build self-confidence and self-esteem, and we know how important that is for young men and women entering the workforce. Then , from 1 July 2015, all job seekers aged 18 to 30 in receipt of Newstart and youth allowance will be required to undertake work for the dole for 25 hours per week. Work-for-the-dole places will be sourced in not-for-profit organisations, local councils and federal and state agencies. It is very commendable that this program has been received so positively in my community. There have been some ringing endorsements from community leaders. Today's Geelong Advertiserquoted Matchworks' general manager Michael Wasley as saying that the work-for-the-dole program would provide 'meaningful skill development opportunities'. He further said: It potentially provides them with a good opportunity to get active and do something positive and then to be able to say to a potential employer at an interview, ‘I haven’t been doing little over the last few months, I’ve been participating and volunteering in a work for the dole program.’ These views are also shared by Michael Martinez, the CEO of Diversitat, a very important agency in our region. In a column for the Advertiser today he also said: The idea that young people should be in training or working is one with which we would all agree. He echoed those sentiments on Channel Nine news last night, when he said: Our aim is to get young people and everybody to reach their full potential. You don't reach your full potential from sitting at home. The Mayor of the City of Greater Geelong, Darryn Lyons, has also thrown his full support behind the program. Mayor Lyons said: 'We've got to get off our backsides and we've got to do the great Aussie thing, work and contribute to our society. And that's the way it's going to be in this town.' This is a very positive program for our region. The Geelong region has been hit by some serious job losses. We are very focused on the important opportunities that we want to deliver to young people. There have been some challenges, but there are also some wonderful things happening in my electorate—opportunities delivered by the Geelong Region Innovation and Investment Fund. There is also the $155 million growth fund, which is another important initiative announced in the budget to ensure that we can deliver the job opportunities in advanced manufacturing for the next generation of manufacturers. I look forward to supporting these programs as they are rolled out. As we know, there are some important safety nets in the work-for-the-dole program and I am very proud to be part of a government that is caring about young people, about delivering important opportunities and about ensuring that young people do not languish month after month, year after year, on the dole, that we actively engage in caring for their interests and that they have a positive future. Budget 4950 12:43 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith The most important productivity driver, wealth creator, improver of living standards and launchpad for economic growth is, without a doubt, education. It is now well accepted that there is a direct correlation between a person's quality of life, the strength of the economy and the educational standards of a nation. This government's budget has smashed our education system: from kindy to professor education standards in Australia will suffer because of this government's budget. At all levels of education, from kindergarten right through the highest levels of university, funding has been removed, programs have been cut and, most importantly, it will be more difficult for poorer Australians to get an education. In early childhood education we know the value of early intervention. All of us understand that the value of early intervention for kids with disabilities and kids with learning difficulties can achieve remarkable results in their educational standards. To make early childhood education beyond the reach of many, particularly low-income Australians, is unconscionable, but that is exactly what this budget does. There are cuts to a number of programs that ensure access to early childhood education, in particular, cuts to the outside-school-hours care program—$450 million cut from that. The Indigenous child and family centres program—$78 million cut from that. Universal access to preschool—almost $500 million per year discontinued from that. The JET program, the Jobs, Education and Training Child Care Fee Assistance program—places cut. The Community Support Programme—$157 million cut from that. The HECS-HELP benefit, which includes subsidies for early childhood education degrees—$87 million cut from that. That is just an example of some of the cuts to early childhood education that have been undertaken by this government. In school education the government simply do not understand the connection between good educational standards at school and proper funding for school education. They have abandoned our neediest kids in this budget—kids who are struggling in our schools. The kids who are performing badly in literacy and numeracy have traditionally been the forgotten pupils in our school education system when it comes to funding, and they are going to be worse off because of the government's approach to schools funding—the ideological view that all kids have the opportunity to thrive if they apply themselves at school and work hard. That is an approach that is enshrined in the old socioeconomic-status model, which has not worked and has resulted in a reduction in our educational standards. It is misguided and it is unfair to our kids. It is also out of touch with reality. That was the whole purpose of the Gonski reforms: to put money in where it is needed. David Gonski made some comments in a speech last week, which perfectly highlighted the deficiencies in this government's approach to education. He said: This is unfortunate. I sincerely hope that in the period between now and 2017 the Federal Government will change the presently budgeted position. He went on to say: To say that many of the schools in the state systems needed further assistance, both in money and tender loving care, is to me an understatement. …   …   … There needs to be a commitment to a properly funded needs-based aspirational system and a failure to do so will be to our detriment. That is the view of David Gonski, one of the most respected business people in this country, who undertook the most comprehensive study of our school education system. That is an indictment of this government's approach to education in our schools, which completely blows the reforms out of the water. In university education we are seeing a two-tier system develop: those who can afford to get a university education and those who cannot. The government is deregulating fees and that will push them up. What that means is the more popular courses will be out of the reach of poor kids. The government is saying that you will be able to afford it because you do not have to pay up-front, but you do not see poor people driving around in Lamborghinis or buying $300 million houses. Why? Because they cannot afford the mortgage, and low-income people will not be able to afford the debt that comes with a popular university degree. (Time expired) Petition: Christians in Syria 4951 12:48 Mr SIMPKINS HWE Cowan I am very pleased to present a petition from the Barnabas Fund which highlights the plight of Christians in Syria, which has been approved by the Standing Committee on Petitions. The petition read as follows— To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the plight of persecuted Christians in Syria. We therefore ask the House to: 1. Recognise that the Christians of Syria are a significant but highly threatened minority in the current crisis, noting that Christians are facing unprecedented levels of violence from both the general conflict and targeted anti-Christian attacks from some factions; 2. Put the plight of Christians and other minorities at the forefront of their humanitarian aid programmes, ensuring that there are pro-active policies in place to guarantee equitable delivery to all communities; 3. Work towards and support only those outcomes in Syria that allow freedom, equality and justice for all without discrimination recognising that core human rights including freedom of religion and belief are the only basis for a stable society. from 11,689 citizens Petition received. Mr SIMPKINS HWE I thank the Barnabas Fund in Australia and their managing director, Mr Colin Johnson, for their work to get the petition to this stage. I also thank the churches and individuals who promoted the petition. There are 11,689 signatures, and I thank everyone of the people who signed the petition. This petition will be referred to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and I ask her to consider the concerns of the petitioners, as I know she will. It is a dangerous world for Christians. Christians are a religious group that is so often neglected because it is mainstream. As the media bends over backwards to highlight discrimination or persecution of other religions, that focus comes at a cost, because the profile of Christians is therefore lowered. This petition is designed to enable the House to focus its attention on Syria. It is designed to remind us that the level of violence facing Christians is at an unprecedented level. It is designed to highlight the need for humanitarian aid programs and proactive policies and encourage the government, and other governments around the world, to be focused on not just Christians but also other persecuted minorities in Syria. The petition asks us to look for outcomes in Syria that will allow freedom, equality and justice in that country without discrimination. Christian villages in Syria have been besieged and the Christians have been massacred. Church leaders have been kidnapped, women and girls have been raped and forced into marriage and children have been traumatised. As we know, what began as a people's revolution in March 2011 is now dominated by Islamists fighting for an Islamic state, and Christians are particularly targeted. There are very few sanctuaries left for them. In October 2013 the Christian towns of Saddad and Haffar were besieged. Forty six people were killed, 3,000 people were used as human shields and 2,500 families had to flee. Many of the rebels' abuses included killing civilians and targeting churches, and they have been confirmed as war crimes. It is, of course, not just direct violence but also violence by way of example. Aleppo, which is home to around 400,000 Christians, has been besieged by the rebels for months. Many Christians have become malnourished owing to shortages and skyrocketing prices of food and other essentials. Access to water, electricity and communications is very limited. Christian children have also been greatly traumatised and are suffering most acutely. Some have lost one or both parents. Many are in desperate need, and the jihadists have even targeted Christian schools. Syria used to be one of the easiest places in the Arab world to be a Christian. Until early 2011 its churches were large—about 10 per cent of the population—and Christians were respected by the Muslim majority. They were allowed to worship and practice their faith without much official interference. But now, with an estimated 600,000 Christians having fled the country or lost their lives as a result of the civil war, Syrian Christian leaders are concerned that the church may be wiped out altogether, despite its long history. The church has existed in Syria since biblical times. There is no doubt that Syria is a mess. It is difficult to find a side of the war that could be described as truly good and worth backing. But what is true is that the level of brutality is unprecedented. The issue then becomes: what can we in Australia to do about such a terrible mess? However, what Australians should not do is join terrorist groups. As we have known for some time, and was noted in the Australian newspaper this morning, more than 150 Australians are fighting with jihadist groups in Syria, most with the known terrorist groups Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Such extremist jihadist groups are known to have murdered, raped and persecuted Christians in Syria. I find this development that Australians could be so warped in their views that they should take up arms for terrorist groups very disturbing. I also find it naive or deceptive of those that express the view that those Australians that go to fight in Syria only want to be active in that war and would never be a threat upon their return. Such extremism has no borders. It is a sinister side of this war that shows a direct Australian involvement and shows that there are Australians that support terrorism and therefore pose a real threat to the security of even this country. From the Australian perspective, we have provided $100 million in aid to help with humanitarian issues regarding Syria, and we have provided 500 resettlement places for Syrian refugees. This is the way we should provide support in such cases, and from this petition we should always look for more ways to help where we can do so. I thank the Barnabas Fund for this petition and for their work to highlight the persecution of Christians in Syria, in this case, and indeed all over the world. Given that it has already been through the Petitions Committee, I now table this petition. Newcastle Electorate: Job Security 4953 12:52 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I rise today to voice my serious concern for the jobs of today and the jobs of the future in my electorate of Newcastle. It is a time when we are seeing job after job go out the door as industry tries to adjust to new technologies and changing global circumstances, and this government is doing nothing about it. Businesses are closing, services are being centralised and public sector cuts are hitting hard. It is not just one or two jobs here and there disappearing through natural attrition and efficiencies. It is tens, sometimes hundreds, of jobs disappearing overnight. Today we have confirmation of another 25 jobs that will go, with QantasLink ground handlers at Newcastle Airport out of work by the end of next month. This is in addition to the jobs lost locally in recent times through cuts and closures at Brindabella Airlines, Arrium, Downer EDI, the Hunter TAFE, Pacific National, Sensis, WesTrac, Bradken and UGL, to name just a few. As the Leader of the Opposition has said in the past, we do not blame this government for every single job loss. But we will always hold them to account for having no plan for future jobs. This is a government that, before the election, said they would create one million jobs within five years of coming to office. Here we are, eight months after the election, and we still see no plan for how these jobs will be created. We wait in anticipation for their masterstroke—the plan that will outline how they will stimulate employment and support industry transition. We thought we might see it in their budget: structural reform to create new jobs and some support for existing jobs at risk. Sadly, our anticipation was unwarranted. What this budget showed, was that we truly have a government with no plans for jobs. They have no plan to support the jobs of today and no plan for the jobs of the future. They have made that clear. If you are unemployed, particularly if you are under 30, you are on your own. If you are still studying or planning to study, you are going to be paying for it for a very long time. If you are a public servant, we do not want you, we do not need you, find work elsewhere. And if school is not for you, your alternative pathways for education and training are on the way out, and support to help find work just will not be there anymore. This government's approach is for everyone to fend for themselves. In recent decades, Newcastle has been the beneficiary of a decentralised government agency approach, with the ATO and CSIRO both relocating to our city and becoming major employers in our region. Both agencies have, however, been savagely hit in this budget with the ATO set to lose up to 3,000 employees nation-wide and CSIRO losing more than $100 million of funding with up to 1,000 jobs in danger. While we do not know the direct effects to Newcastle yet, we know that their future is uncertain under this budget of cruel cuts and twisted priorities. Family-owned shipbuilder Forgacs, one of Newcastle's largest employers, has warned that they will have to close their Carrington and Tomago shipyards within eighteen months, laying off more than 900 highly skilled tradesmen and women, unless the federal government expedites decisions on future naval shipbuilding projects. I have met with Forgacs management team and have taken both the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Defence Minister to the Tomago shipyard to meet with the men and women building Australia's air warfare destroyers. They are an employer that does not want to give up, even when in danger of closing, as they still employ more than 80 apprentices and continue to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on training every month. Yet, this may be all to no avail. The last two Defence white papers clearly mapped out Australia's need for more than 40 new ships. But the Abbott Liberal Government has not lifted a finger to help secure Australia's shipbuilding industry since winning the election more than eight months ago. The Defence Minister claims he has a plan to bridge the so-called Valley of Death for our Defence manufacturers, but there was not a single word about it in the budget. Forgacs and their shipbuilding counterparts across the country need action now. Newcastle and the nation deserve better than what this government is giving us. We need a plan for the future. We need a plan for jobs and we need a plan for industry. 12:57 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler There is a seedy underbelly in the contract labour hire industry in this country. It is unfairly damaging the reputation of our agriculture industry and our tourism centres. Let me say from the outset that the majority of businesses do the right thing. They uphold the law and Australia's sense of a fair go. My speech here, in this place today, is not directed at those people. In my electorate of Hinkler, it is a widely known fact that labour contractors, who act as middle men in the horticulture sector, are exploiting workers and local growers. To a small extent, the problem has always existed. But it has escalated in recent years. Many growers prefer to use contract labour hire, rather than recruit seasonal workers themselves. It reduces the regulatory burden on their business. Contractors charge growers a margin of about five to 10 per cent on top of wages and superannuation. The contractors pay the workers the bare minimum or cash, and then keep the superannuation for themselves. It can take months for the contractors to pay their workers. By then, many of the workers have moved on. They could not be bothered to fight it or do not know their rights, so the contractor never has to pay them. The contractors employ people already in Australia on 417 working holiday visas and student visas. Some even bring foreign workers into Australia illegally, and threaten to report them to authorities if they do not comply with their every demand. Contractors are demanding large sums of cash in exchange for signing off on the 88 days of specified work that 417 visa holders are required to do to get a second year in Australia. The contractors also charge the workers for accommodation and transport. They are staying in overcrowded private residential properties that do not meet fire and safety standards. The Bundaberg region has endured two major floods in three years, and is now in the midst of one the worst droughts on record. In tough seasons, growers struggle to pay their bills on time. Some contractors are on selling the debts to other contractors. This can result in contractors 'owning' growers, and influencing their business operations. In November 2012, the Bundaberg News Mail reported that two Turkish labour contractors appeared in the Bundaberg Magistrates Court accused of kidnapping a Sharon farmer over an unpaid loan of $119,000. The trial had been set down for earlier this month. But the case was dismissed when the complainant failed to show up. Unfortunately the nightmare for growers does not end at being intimidated and fearing for their personal safety. Under current legislation, growers can be prosecuted for crimes committed by contractors. Labour contractors are masters at 'phoenixing', where a business collapses, only to rise from the ashes under a new name, without debt and trouble-free. In many cases, investigators cannot locate the contractor so they go after the grower. I agree that growers who have been complicit should be fined, and in some cases jailed. But it should certainly not be the case for growers who have engaged contractors in good faith. This problem is not confined to my electorate. In Warwick late last year, newspaper reports indicated 60 backpackers were owed close to $200,000 by a Korean labour contractor. In April this year there were reports 417 visa holders in Gippsland were being forced to work 30 hours for free before the contractor would sign off on their 88 days of specified work. The problem we have in Australia is that the issue crosses so many jurisdictions—local, state and federal government; immigration, taxation, Fair Work, agriculture, police, fire, health and safety, and tourism. I recently met with a senior investigator from Fair Work. Since October 2013, the Fair Work Ombudsman has been making surprise visits to farms throughout Australia to check seasonal workers are being paid their full entitlements. In the two years before the program had even started, the Fair Work Ombudsman investigated about 230 complaints in the fruit-picking sector nationally, recovering $80,000 for 107 workers. I must congratulate the Bundaberg Regional Council and the other local authorities for the work they are doing to crack down on illegal hostels and overcrowding. State member for Burnett, Stephen Bennett, has been particularly vocal about the issue. In February I hosted The Nationals Party Room in Bundaberg, where members and senators heard about these labour issues from Bundaberg Fruit and Vegetable Growers executive officer, Peter Hockings. Peter's advocacy on this issue is to be commended. Together with Queensland Senator Barry O'Sullivan, I will next month host a small summit, bringing together representatives from the horticulture industry and the relevant state and federal ministers' offices. Senator O'Sullivan is a strong advocate for regional Australia and I look forward to working closely with him to get some action on this issue. The exploitation of workers and growers by contractors is detrimental to the economy. Not only does it disadvantage growers and contractors who do the right thing, but it reduces employment opportunities for those with permission to work in Australia. This flows through to our tourism sector due to lower occupancy rates in hostels and fewer backpackers visiting the Wide Bay Burnett region. My region needs strong tourism and horticulture sectors now, more than ever. Federation Chamber adjourned at 13:03