2015-02-10 44 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 10 February 2015

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

 

STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 1 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER Parliament House: Security 1 12:01 The SPEAKER SE4 Before we begin with the business on the blue, I have a statement concerning enhanced security arrangements at Parliament House. I have kept members informed about enhanced security arrangements at Parliament House to ensure the safety of Parliament House and its occupants. As I have noted in my statements to the House, the security arrangements are constantly under assessment. For obvious reasons, I do not comment on the operational detail of security arrangements. However, I inform members that, as part of the continuing upgrade of security, I have agreed to an armed AFP presence in the attendants' booth adjacent to the chamber in line with security advice. The AFP officers on duty in this role will be operating under strict protocols. As is my practice, I will continue to keep members informed about additional enhancements to our security arrangements in Parliament House. DELEGATION REPORTS 1 DELEGATION REPORTS Parliamentary Delegation to the Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly in Switzerland and to European Parliaments and Institutions 1 12:02 The SPEAKER SE4 I am pleased to present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation that participated in the 131st Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly held in Geneva, Switzerland from 12 to 16 October 2014 and the associated bilateral visit to various European parliaments and institutions. It was my privilege to lead this delegation, which also included Government Whip and member for Forrest, Ms Marino, the member for Makin, Mr Zappia, Senator Bernardi and Senator Sterle. As this report attests, this was a hardworking delegation, with all members playing an active role throughout bilateral visits and the assembly. Between 4 and 10 October the delegation visited various European parliaments and institutions in Rome, Brussels, including West Flanders, and Vienna. The delegation first visited Rome and the Holy See and attended meetings with senior Vatican officials, members of the Italian parliament and representatives of various international organisations, including the International Organization for Migration, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Food Program. The longstanding and close ties between Australia and the Holy See and Italy provided a positive foundation for useful and positive discussions. While in Rome I attended the Asia-Europe Parliamentary Partnership Meeting, which discussed the role of parliaments in fostering Europe-Asia dialogue, sustainable growth and stronger governance structures. The delegation then spent two days in Belgium and attended high-level meetings at the European Council and parliament. It was again my privilege to present to a Vice-President of the European Parliament an Aboriginal artwork and a copy of the apology to the stolen generations made by our parliament to Indigenous Australians in 2008. Following this, the delegation undertook a series of productive meetings with a range of members of the European and Belgian parliaments in both formal and informal settings. The delegation then travelled to West Flanders and paid our respects at the Tyne Cot and Buttes New British war cemeteries. In a simple but moving initiative, delegation members laid commemorative crosses inscribed with messages from Australian schoolchildren at a number of individual graves of Australian soldiers. Our visit to Belgium concluded with meetings at NATO headquarters, where the delegation received high-level briefings on progress that has been made in Afghanistan as the NATO involvement in that country draws to a close. The delegation concluded the bilateral visits with a day in Vienna, where we received briefings from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the International Atomic Energy Agency, before visiting the Austrian parliament and meeting a number of our parliamentary counterparts. Four of the Austrian parliamentarians were preparing to depart for the IPU Assembly in Geneva, so this was a good chance to discuss matters of common interest related to that forum. The delegation then travelled to Geneva to attend the 131st Assembly of the IPU. The IPU is the international organisation of parliaments of sovereign states and provides a focal point for worldwide parliamentary dialogue. Australia has a proud history of active membership of this forum and our delegation attended all formal meetings of the assembly and its governing council. In addition, the delegation participated in meetings of the Asia-Pacific and 12-plus geopolitical groups, the meeting of women parliamentarians as well as attending meetings of a number of standing committees. The topic of the general debate was achieving gender equality and ending violence against women. Another important feature of the 131st assembly was the work of the Standing Committee on Sustainable Development, Finance and Trade, which hosted a panel discussion on water governance. The member for Forrest was invited to participate on this panel and gave a presentation on the role taken by the Australian parliament to support equitable access to water in this country. During the governing council proceedings I tabled the report of the parliamentary meeting of the 20th International AIDS Conference, which I addressed in July in Melbourne last year. A key activity of the governing council was the election of a new president to replace Mr Radi of Morocco. As honourable members would be aware, I was one of four candidates who nominated for this important position. The candidates were from Bangladesh, Australia, Indonesia and the Maldives. The result of the first round of voting was Bangladesh 108, Australia 99, Indonesia 76 and the Maldives 57. After two rounds of voting, when the Maldives candidate was eliminated and 19 fewer votes were cast, Mr Chowdhurry from Bangladesh won the ballot. This was the first time that an Australian candidate had nominated for this important role. My candidacy gave the delegation the opportunity to meet with every geopolitical group in the IPU and hold bilateral talks with a number of presiding officers and delegations from a range of countries, proving to be valuable for all members in the delegation. I congratulate Mr Chowdhurry on his appointment and look forward to working with him at future IPU Assemblies. In addition, the Deputy Clerk of the House, Ms Claressa Surtees, also attended meetings of the Association of Secretaries General of Parliaments which was conducted alongside the IPU Assembly. Ms Surtees has provided information on those meetings in this report. Once again, the IPU Assembly provided an effective forum for parliamentarians to engage and increase their understanding of a range of issues of global interest and concern. Planning is underway for the Australian delegation to attend the 132nd IPU meeting to be held in Hanoi in late March. On behalf of the delegation, I would like to thank everyone who contributed to making this a successful delegation. On a personal note, the foreign minister and the Prime Minister provided a great deal of assistance in our campaign for the presidency of the IPU. Particular thanks are also due to Ambassadors John McCarthy QC and the Hon. Mike Rann in Rome, Dr Mark Higgie in Brussels, Mr David Stuart in Vienna, and Mr John Quinn and Mr Hamish McCormick in Geneva, as well as their staff. I should also like to acknowledge the practical assistance provided by the Geneva mission's first secretary, Ms Jeffie Kaine. I would like to extend the delegation's thanks to officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and to staff of the Parliamentary Library for providing comprehensive and timely briefing materials prior to the departure of the delegation. Thanks are also due to Mr Russell Chaffer, Mr Geoff Barnett and other staff of the International Community Relations Office for the high standard of support provided to the delegation. I particularly want to thank Mr Brien Hallett, the delegation's secretary from the Department of the Senate, who accompanied us. Mr Hallett's organisation and hard work was of great value to this parliament and all members of the delegation. I would also like to thank Mr Damien Jones and Ms Talitha Try from my office for their assistance in our campaign for the presidency of the IPU. Finally, I thank my fellow delegates for their valuable participation in the delegation's meetings and their commitment to our program of work. I commend the report to the House. COMMITTEES 2 COMMITTEES Joint Standing Committee on Treaties 2 Report 2 12:10 WYATT ROY M2X Longman Thank you very much Madam Speaker, and can I also commend you on your campaign for the presidency and the way in which you conducted yourself throughout that campaign. On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report 146 entitled Treaties Tabled on 30 September 2014and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. WYATT ROY M2X Today I present the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report 146. The report contains the committee's views on the treaty between Australia and the Netherlands regarding the presence of Australian personnel in the Netherlands in response to the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17. I echo the sentiments that have already been expressed by this parliament in sending the committee's condolences to the victims and their families and the loved ones of the Australians who tragically lost their lives in the downing of MH17. We would also like to pay tribute to the dedicated Australian personnel who have worked so hard to bring home the victims' remains and to investigate the causes surrounding the downing of MH17. I think it is important that we acknowledge the tragic and difficult circumstances in which Australian personnel were deployed to the Netherlands. This treaty did not follow the usual treaty-making process, as it was not tabled in parliament for 20 days before binding treaty action was taken. Instead, the treaty was fast tracked under the national interest exemption, an arrangement designed to facilitate urgent treaty action in exceptional circumstances. The treaty entered into force on the date it was signed by both Australia and the Netherlands, on 1 August 2014. The treaty was tabled on 30 September 2014 by the foreign minister with an explanation, for her urgent action. I also commend the foreign minister and the then acting foreign minister, the Attorney-General, on their work to bring this together in a very short period of time so that Australian personnel could be immediately deployed to the Netherlands. We are all familiar by now with the tragedy that necessitated this treaty: the downing of MH17 and the need to recover and repatriate the bodies of 38 victims who called Australia home, the launch of Operation Bring Them Home by the government, and the deployment of personnel from the Department of Defence and the Australian Federal Police. These personnel required certain rights and protections to facilitate that deployment and, in order to grant those, the Netherlands required a binding treaty. It was necessary for the deployment to take place as quickly as possible, so the national interest exemption was invoked. This is the only the seventh time that the exemption has been invoked since it was instigated in 1996, and on three of those occasions it was to ensure similar protection for Australian personnel deployed abroad at short notice. In this instance, prompt action was required to allow the deployment to take place quickly and to ensure that the legal framework was in place to enable this sensitive and important work to be undertaken. The committee is more than satisfied that, in this case, there was justification to invoke the national interest exemption and supports the treaty. On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I commend the report to the House. 12:13 Mr KELVIN THOMSON UK6 Wills by leave—When the Australian treaty-making process was reformed in 1996, the new process was designed to accommodate urgent treaty action in the case of exceptional circumstances. Such treaties would be exempt from the usual requirement to be tabled in parliament at least 15 sitting days before the government takes binding treaty action; however, any exempt treaty was to be tabled as soon as possible, together with an explanation of the reasons for the urgent action, and the government undertook to use the provisions sparingly and only where necessary to safeguard Australia's national interests, be they commercial, strategic or foreign policy interests, and this process has become known as the national interest exemption. As the chair pointed out, this is the seventh time that the national interest exemption has been invoked, and on three of those occasions it was to ensure similar protection for Australian personnel deployed abroad at short notice. This treaty authorises Australia to send personnel, associated equipment and assets to the Netherlands for the purpose of responding to the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17. This was, of course, a flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur which was shot down over separatist held territory in eastern Ukraine on 17 July last year, killing all 298 passengers and crew on board. Amongst those killed were 38 victims who called Australia home. I want to join with other members of the committee in expressing our condolences to the victims' families and their loved ones and paying tribute to the dedicated Australian personnel who worked very hard to bring the victims' remains home and investigate the cause of the downing of MH17. This treaty will terminate no later than 1 August this year, and it is worth noting that the original 500-strong contingent has been reduced to approximately 25 as at 7 November last year. Like other members of the committee, I pay tribute to their efforts. The shooting down of a Malaysian civilian plane, with the loss of everyone on board, was shocking. This tragic event and many others make it clear that we need to do more to make the world safe for civilians. I think there should be United Nations peacekeepers in Ukraine, in Gaza and around the world wherever there is conflict and wherever there are civilian lives at risk. I believe in collective international action to solve problems, and of course we have the United Nations, established precisely to solve international problems and to seek to improve on the abysmal record of the first and second world wars. I know that the United Nations does a lot of good, but the level of global violence suggests that it needs to be doing much more. Over my years of political life, I have come to realise that a key measure of political integrity is what political leaders are prepared to tolerate by way of misconduct from people in their camp. And, at present, the big powers, instead of working together to put an end to war and political violence, are prepared to tolerate way too much. In this case, it is Russia who is at fault, but in other places around the world other big powers have been at fault. Of course, getting the big powers to lift their game is no easy matter. But I think that people who are concerned about global conflict should seek to breathe new life into the doctrine of the 'responsibility to protect'. This doctrine took a long time to develop and was very quickly put into cold storage after it was used in Libya. But it does have the potential to save civilian lives, and we should demand that the United Nations Security Council uses it when outbreaks of violence occur. Some people might think that this will require a lot more resources for the UN, but it is not true to think that we do not have these resources readily at hand. Countries like the United States, Russia and China have massive numbers of troops and equipment at their disposal. What is required is for some of these resources to be handed over to the UN to operate for the 'blue helmets'. I commend the work of the Treaties Committee in relation to this report and I commend the report to the House. BILLS 4 BILLS Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2014 4

Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2014

Returned from Senate 4 Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014 4

Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014

12:19 Mrs McNAMARA 241589 Dobell Put simply, the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014 represents the most significant reform to Australia's higher education sector in a generation. The bill presents major benefits for students and universities. The bill before the parliament is the result of this government working closely with crossbench members who acknowledge the importance of this reform. The amendments within are the outcome of lengthy consultation and negotiation on the part of the Minister for Education and Training, who is steadfast in his determination to enhance our tertiary education sector and ensure accessibility for all. One measure includes the retention of the consumer price index for HECS debts rather than moving to the 10-year bond rate. This will reduce the financial burden on graduates who take time out of the workforce—for example, to raise children or for other reasons—and for those engaged in low-paid employment. We will also introduce an interest rate pause on debts for primary carers who are earning less than the minimum repayment threshold and are caring for children aged below five years. These two measures alone offer greater support for families where a parent has undertaken or completed tertiary education. Changes in this bill recognise the challenges faced by families in juggling work, education and supporting their children. This is a good thing for new parents, and it strengthens and improves the HECS system, making it better than ever for our future scholars. The government's reforms are supported by the higher education peak bodies, and the need for reform has been acknowledged by the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Our commitment is to work with Australian universities to ensure a smooth transition to the new funding model through the establishment of a structural adjustment fund. This fund will assist higher education providers operating in markets where there is low capacity to immediately achieve significant additional revenue. Another important amendment is the guarantee that domestic fees will be lower than international fees. This is a fair measure that will support domestic students to obtain tertiary qualifications. Importantly, the government will also ensure that university fees are monitored by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. As I stated in my previous contribution regarding legislation changes, the government is not increasing fees. Universities will have the freedom to determine their fees within a competitive market. Coupled with monitoring from the ACCC, this will ensure that fee prices are competitive and reflective of the institution and course provided. This new legislation and way forward will be looking after all Australian citizens who hold higher education aspirations. We will establish a dedicated scholarship fund for universities, with higher proportions of low-socioeconomic-status students that will be funded directly by the Commonwealth. For the benefit of members opposite, I would like to emphasise the last point: the government will establish a dedicated scholarship fund to assist low SES students' access higher education. This is in addition to the existing generous Commonwealth Scholarship scheme that will see thousands of students from disadvantaged backgrounds as well as rural and regional communities provided assistance to attend university. The 2011 census identified that in Dobell the average weekly family income was $1,294. By comparison, the New South Wales average is $1,477 per week. Over a year this means the average family income in Dobell is approximately $9,500 lower per family against the state average. While a family's income is in no way indicative of their capacity to succeed in educational aspirations, it can be an influencing factor as to whether a parent or school leaver enters into tertiary education. For students in Dobell, an electorate which exhibits a higher than average youth unemployment rate, this reform will enable young school leavers to receive the support required to study either locally or in neighbouring regions such as Sydney or Newcastle. Since my election I have welcomed and encouraged opportunities to engage with schools in Dobell. I have done so because I understand that education is one of the greatest gifts given to a young Australian, a gift that is essential in shaping their futures and offering hope and opportunity for life ahead. As I have previously highlighted in my initial contribution to this bill, in Dobell only 50 per cent of students attain a year 12 qualification. Under the current system, students who do not achieve their Higher School Certificate and Australian Tertiary Admissions Rank face increased difficulty and less opportunity to attend university. With only 16 per cent of Central Coast residents possessing a tertiary qualification, it is essential that we open the door and encourage more people to enter into the higher education arena. This legislation strives to do just that. I also previously discussed the future demand of university education on the Central Coast and how this reform would encourage private institutions and non-university higher education providers to establish themselves in our region. It is currently estimated that the Central Coast and Hunter districts have a shortfall of 7,600 university places. With significant population growth forecast for our region, this number will grow. I am currently working with state and local governments to progress the development of a new university precinct within Dobell to address this forecasted shortfall. This reform will see Commonwealth subsidised courses available in a market in which such courses are currently not available. Ultimately, as a result of a new university precinct in Dobell, we could host a diverse range of institutions. We could see a university campus, private college and TAFE facilities co-located in such a precinct. For the Central Coast this means increased access to world-class education facilities that will enhance the prosperity of our region for years to come. The minister, in his second reading speech, confirmed why this legislation deserves the unanimous support of this parliament, stating this bill represents: … at their heart Australia's future economic security and opportunities for students. This is certainly true for the Central Coast and you must wonder and ask yourself why members opposite see fit not to support local students on the Central Coast. Members opposite have comprehensively failed to outline with any substance their opposition to this bill. What we have heard is duplicitous rhetoric from members opposite that fuels a baseless and misleading scaremongering campaign. Never before in this nation's history have members of this parliament fronted university campuses with the sole intention of discouraging engagement in higher education. And we hear from members opposite throwaway lines claiming this government has no commitment to the fair go. These claims must be repudiate for this bill, in truth, significantly expands access to higher education by removing current limits on Commonwealth supported sub-bachelor places. Any Australian seeking to study an accredited undergraduate qualification will be able to do so with Commonwealth support. No longer will students who seek to enrol at private universities and non-university higher education institutions, including TAFEs, be locked out of accessing HECS. Our reform will also provide unlimited support for diplomas, advanced diplomas and associate degrees—important pathways into higher education for students who may not have obtained year 12 qualifications. This will broaden access to university courses and open the door for more skills based courses to be undertaken with Commonwealth support. I will vote to ensure that thousands of disadvantaged higher education students receive additional assistance to access a place at university and receive support for their living costs through the new Commonwealth Scholarship scheme. Measures contained in this bill will see an additional 80,000 students per year receiving Commonwealth subsidies by 2018. These 80,000 students will include people from disadvantaged backgrounds, rural and regional communities and others who require additional assistance to complete their studies. A further 80,000 students who are studying in vocational education and training will benefit through the abolition of the 20 per cent loan fee for VET FEE-HELP. An additional 50,000 students will benefit from the abolition of the 25 per cent loan fee for FEE-HELP. Removing these loan fees will make the system fairer and will simplify and improve the consistency of loan arrangements for students and institutions. It also removes pricing inequity between public universities and other institutions, bringing particular benefit to students who choose to undertake higher level courses at institutions such as TAFE. In total, these reforms will benefit more than 200,000 students each year over the next four years. Due to the economic vandalism of the former Labor government it is crucial we deliver sustainable expenditure outcomes now and into the future. This includes our higher education sector. In 1989 the Commonwealth supported just under 300,000 higher education places. By 2013 this number had almost doubled. The uncapping of Commonwealth supported places has seen a sharp rise in student numbers. By 2017 this number is forecast to reach 700,000. This year the government is providing more than $5 billion in HECS loans, and this will increase to $10 billion by 2017. We do this to support our students and to ensure that every Australian who seeks higher education has the opportunity to participate and achieve a qualification. I would like to emphatically place on the record that HECS is here to stay. No Australian student will need to pay a cent up-front. Our education system is envied by the world. It is also a system requiring ongoing support from the government. For us to do so requires implementation of a sustainable system, where the costs of higher education are evenly and equitably shared between the student and the taxpayer. These reforms will establish a fair and equitable repayment scheme where students repay 50 per cent of their costs and the taxpayer meets the remaining 50 per cent. Currently, Australian taxpayers are paying 60 per cent and students 40 per cent. Research indicates that over their lifetime graduates earn on average around 75 per cent or $1 million more than those without a degree. As a government we face many challenges. Ensuring sustainability of our higher education system is one we must approach with the utmost seriousness and commitment. We must enact necessary reforms to ensure the long-term sustainability of our higher education system and we are determined to do so. In spite of the baseless scaremongering campaign members opposite have embarked upon, we are determined to pass this legislation and ensure this reform succeeds. We owe it to future generations of Australians to provide a competitive and successful higher education sector. There is no doubt that the current system is outdated. Without reform, we will see Australian universities become uncompetitive against international institutions. This government proposes reform to allow our universities the flexibility to respond appropriately to challenges, including student mobility, technological advancement and rapid innovation. This is in addition to the other benefits previously outlined in my contribution. Those who oppose these reforms offer no alternative plan of action. They fail to even accept the reality of a changing global environment, which is increasing the strain on Australia's higher education sector. One thing that we do know is Labor has no plan. Labor were the ones who announced $6.6 billion of cuts to higher education and research when they were last in government. Labor were the party who left funding cliffs for research fellowships and infrastructure after the economic stimulus ran dry. Labor cannot be trusted with providing our universities with the resources they need. The Leader of the Opposition proudly boasted that 2014 was defined by the force of Labor's resistance. Well, at what cost? Shamefully, some people are willing to trade away the educational future of so many Australians for a political catchphrase. I look forward to these reforms passing the parliament and I look forward to the benefits that will flow to students across Australia, particularly in my region of the New South Wales Central Coast. These reforms will encourage renewed investment from higher educational providers and see more students engaged in higher education supported by the Commonwealth. Our economy will benefit from higher paid jobs, more innovative industries and more businesses as a result of a better educated workforce. The only concern for students should be the actions of members opposite, who have so recklessly threatened higher education with their misleading claims. These reforms are logical. These reforms are good and sound. Importantly, they are sustainable and equitable. Above all, they are necessary to securing our future competitiveness both at home and abroad. In concluding, I quote from the minister's second reading speech: 'These reforms will allow our higher education to be the best in the world. It will ensure that future generations of Australians can get a world-class education to support them in the jobs of the future. It will provide the backbone of our future economy.' I commend this legislation to the House and I call on members opposite to join me. 12:33 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014 and join with my Labor colleagues in standing against this terrible legislation—this terrible policy. We do so to protect higher education. 'We will ensure the continuation of the current arrangements of university funding.' Those were the words of Christopher Pyne, the Minister for Education, prior to the election. 'No cuts to education.' Those were the words of the Prime Minister prior to the election. This legislation is further evidence that the promises of those opposite are meaningless. What does this legislation do? In total, the Abbott government's budget measures cut $5 billion from higher education teaching and learning, and university research. That is an awfully big cut from a government that promised again and again 'no cuts to education'. Despite the government giving up on $3.5 billion of its $3.9 billion of savings, it has not fixed the inequity that lies at the heart of this bill. The bill still contains $1.9 billion in cuts to Australian universities. It still contains $100,000 degrees for undergraduate students. It still contains $171 million in cuts to equity programs. It still contains $200 million in cuts to indexation of grant programs. It still contains $170 million in cuts to research training. It still contains fees for PhD students for the first time ever. And it still contains $80 million in cuts to the Australian Research Council. This legislation still slashes funding for Commonwealth supported places in undergraduate degrees by an average of 20 per cent and for some courses up to 37 per cent. This legislation still cuts indexation for university funding, costing universities $202 million over the forward estimates period. On top of these cuts, the government has stripped almost $174 million from the Research Training Scheme, which supports Australia's PhD students. This legislation also introduces fees for PhDs. The Liberals want the scientists and academics of tomorrow who are already giving up three years' income to pursue a PhD to pay for the privilege. It is astounding to hear those opposite claim that this unfair education policy will not necessarily result in fee increases. Despite all the bluff and all the bluster on government benches, there is absolutely no doubt that fee deregulation will lead to substantial fee hikes. The University of Western Australia has already said it will charge all students $16,000 a year—more than doubling the cost of an arts degree overnight. We just have to take a look at other countries around the world to see that deregulation has not led to price competition and has not led to lower fees for students. In the UK, fees were deregulated in 2012 with a cap of £9,000. For the 2015-16 academic year, there will be only two universities out of 123 that will not be charging £9,000 fees. And now, just three years after deregulation, experts in the UK are saying their new system is unsustainable, finding that it, 'Represents the worst of both worlds where all parties feel that they are getting a bad deal' and 'Government is effectively funding universities by writing off student debt rather than investing directly in teaching grants'. Let us look at the United States, where university fee rises are out of control and student debt now exceeds credit card debt. By how much would university fees increase under this unfair policy? According to Universities Australia, the cost of important courses like engineering and science will have to increase by 58 per cent to make up for the government's funding cuts. Nursing will need to increase by 24 per cent, education by 20 per cent, agriculture by 43 per cent and environment studies—in this time of climate change and the challenges that we have with climate change—will have to increase by 110 per cent. Labor will never support a system of higher fees, bigger student debt, reduced access and greater inequality. Canberra is lucky enough to be home to several excellent universities, including the Australian National University, where I did my undergraduate degree, the University of Canberra, where I had the great honour of tutoring and mentoring students, and also the Australian Catholic University. There are over 30,000 Canberrans currently enrolled in one of these three universities, so it is not surprising that Canberrans are very passionate about this issue. Since the budget, I have spent a lot of time talking to Canberrans about what they think of it. I have been doorknocking. I have held community forums. I have held mobile offices. I have spoken to Canberrans about how the budget will affect them, and I have been inundated with emails, letters and phone calls from constituents who are unhappy with one aspect—or, in many cases, multiple aspects—of this government's horrendous budget. Almost every single person I have spoken to has felt that the government's higher education policies are unfair and are an attack on our social fabric. In fact, I can be confident in saying that of the many people I have spoken to since the budget, more opposed the cuts to higher education than opposed any other single policy. That is saying something, because there are some real stinkers of policies in that budget—most importantly, the GP tax, which has had multiple iterations over the last six months, or last six weeks really, and we still do not know where we are at with that. I know that the cuts to Newstart were also of great concern to the Canberra community. Of these people who are very concerned about these cuts to higher education, some of them—a lot of them—did not necessarily go to university themselves. But they do have aspirations for their children or their grandchildren to one day go. And they do have aspirations that one day they may become a mature age student. Sometimes they just simply believe that every Australian should be able to choose whether or not they go to university based on their interests, intellect, skills, talent, hard work and career goals, and not on their bank account. I have heard these concerns from Canberrans, who had always considered themselves lucky to have such great universities right here in their own city, but who now fear that their children will never have the opportunity to study at these universities. Canberrans are united against the Abbott government's changes to higher education. They know that they will make university study inaccessible for people from disadvantaged backgrounds. They know that they will create a two-tiered system, where only the very rich can access our best universities—it is going right back to the fifties. They know that these changes will saddle our kids with enormous debts, preventing them from ever entering the housing market or getting ahead in life. They know that these changes will be bad for our country. I want to read out a letter from one of my constituents that I received some time back, because this issue has been debated extensively over the last six to eight months. This constituent said: What a nightmare the budget is! I understand that we, as a country, need to make changes to reduce our deficit and plan for the increase in cost in some areas of the future, but we are so disappointed that this budget is just so unimaginative. The policy that distresses us most at the moment is the deregulation of the university fee structure and the resultant higher fees. Please Gai we need you and your colleagues to do something about this terrible policy. What amendments can you propose, what parts can you block? How will our young people ever be able to afford to buy houses when they will be saddled with an $80,000 debt? How will they afford higher degrees and what will it do to their general spending power. None of this can be good for the economy. We want to commend and encourage you in your fight for the best for this country. As I said, that was received from one of my constituents some time back, but it echoes the views that I have picked up from doorknocking, from mobile offices, from community forums and from across the Canberra community. A few months back I recently visited my alma mater, the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, where I was union president. I had the opportunity to meet with a number of engineering students, mainly, who had come from all over Victoria, and particularly from your electorate, Deputy Speaker Broadbent. I was shocked to hear from a number of students that they knew people who were planning to move to Europe to attend university, because even with the cost of moving to Europe and the cost of living in Europe, it would still be cheaper than studying in Australia. What also concerned me was the fact that these young engineers, these young men and women from your part of the world, Deputy Speaker, were looking at doing post-graduate degrees in engineering, but they were thinking about doing it overseas. They also made the very relevant point that Germany, particularly, has a manufacturing industry, whereas the future for manufacturing here in Australia is looking pretty dire because of a lack of support from this government. As a result of this, Australia will lose the precious intellect and potential of these bright young Australians. There will be a brain drain. I also believe these changes will result in fewer people doing post-graduate research, particularly when it comes to medical research. My little sister is a neurologist. She does research in dementia and stroke. She is a very accomplished and internationally recognised neurologist. Her great concern is the fact that, with these outrageously expensive degrees, particularly at the postgraduate level, young Australians are not going to want to go into research because they are going to be burdened with such a debt as a result of doing their tertiary education and their study and laying the groundwork for a strong and successful research career. She is concerned at the fact that they will not be prepared to go into research, which is traditionally not a high-paying area. They will not be prepared to go into research for altruistic reasons, because they just will not be able to afford it, because of the high cost of their fees. Again, she is concerned about the brain drain, or the lack of creation of talent, in the research field, particularly the medical research field. So not only does this legislation potentially create a brain drain in Australia of engineers and others; it also creates a complete dearth of potential research talent. Most of those opposite have defended these policies by talking up the scholarships that are part of this legislation. 'Lower income students won't be disadvantaged, because they'll have access to scholarships,' they have argued. In fact, the Minister for Education often claims that his higher education reforms will actually benefit students from low socioeconomic backgrounds because they include the so-called Commonwealth scholarships. But, like so much of this package, the scheme is fundamentally flawed. The scholarship scheme will receive no Commonwealth funding. It is to be funded entirely by students. Under the scheme, universities will be required to direct 20 per cent of the additional revenue raised by higher fees to providing scholarships. Universities are being forced to slug students to pay for these scholarships. The design of the fund is flawed in other respects too. The current proposal is that each university simply keep its additional revenue and direct this towards its own scholarships. Because the elite Group of Eight, the sandstone universities, will presumably be able to charge higher fees than their regional and outer suburban counterparts, they will have more money in their scholarship funds. This means that the universities with the lowest proportion of disadvantaged students will have the most money to support such students. Essentially, it means that these already privileged universities will be able to use the money that other students—including students from low-income backgrounds—pay to attract the best and brightest kids from regional areas. Meanwhile, the local university has to choose between raising fees for all to offer scholarships for some or watching talented students being lured away to the city. Young people should not have to move overseas to pursue higher education. They should not have to choose between higher education and homeownership. They should not have to choose between higher education and starting a family. Under the Abbott government's plan, they will have to make those choices. Labor believes that no Australian, young or old, should be deterred from going to university because of cost. A decision to study should be based on intellect and ambition, not on your bank balance. This policy is bad for low- and middle-income earners. It is bad for rural and regional Australia. It is socially regressive and is, in fact, bad for all Australians and Australia. 12:48 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I would like to bring to the attention of the House a few basic issues that seem to have been lost in the rhetoric. First of all, I would like to talk about why this legislation, the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014, is being brought in and what is different from its previous iteration—namely, what amendments have been put in place because of discussions with the university sector and with members in the other house. But I would just like to start to point out the hypocrisy of some of the members opposite and their scaremongering about fees. Members on the other side talk about a place where university fees were in some utopian age where the government paid 100 per cent of student fees. I would just like to bring to the attention of the House that that is not the reality, and it has not been since 1989. We are changing things because the university and research sector is calling for these changes. The reality is that, since HECS was introduced in 1989, we have gone through a period where there have been vast numbers of students entering tertiary education who were not there before. Back in the mid seventies and eighties, there were much lower numbers of students at university, and the government did fund all the fees, but now we have a different system altogether. We have a demand driven system which has meant that hundreds of thousands more students are in tertiary education, and the growth of those numbers far outstrips the available funding. As the head of the AT Network, which educates 150,000 students, says, universities have been in slow decline in funding since 1989. They have had their base funding cut away in a thousand little cuts, but I might just remind the House that, in 2012-13, members of the other side, when they were in government, had the audacity to cut $6.6 billion out of tertiary education and move it over into the Gonski initiatives. So it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, yet again. Secondly, the universities, almost in unison, want deregulation, as they see that their slow decline in funding is going to result in quality receding and their specialisation and their abilities being hidden in a very competitive market. The higher education market generates about $17 billion for the Australian economy, and it is hypercompetitive. Universities are growing in the subcontinent of India and in Asia, in Korea and Japan—all over the place. For us to maintain our quality product, the universities are saying, 'Please deregulate us,' with certain caveats: with deregulation and competition, diversity and subspecialisation of universities, rather than enrolling droves of people in undergraduate degrees that do not lead to quality or to employment as a secondary phenomenon—which is what we will continue to be. We are trying to fix that situation. Many amendments were argued for last year, and with this bill we can see five key amendments that address the issues that the higher education sector, members of the Senate and the crossbenches argued for. The new legislation changes the interest fee back to the CPI rather than the bond rate. There is an interest rate pause for people's HECS debts if they are carers of children under the age of five, so when they are child-rearing at home and not working, their debt is not growing. The legislation introduces a structural adjustment fund, particularly for regional universities, to cover the costs of transition and provide time to adjust to the new way the market would work. There is also going to be a dedicated scholarship fund for those particular universities, some of them in the regions, with high numbers of low-SES students. This dedicated fund will be in addition to the Commonwealth scholarship scheme that will be administered by the universities. We have responded to criticism about the possibility of domestic fees matching the international fees, by stating in the legislation that domestic fees must be lower than international fees. To strengthen that, the ACCC will monitor university fees. After a review concluded that the demand-driven system has given opportunities to hundreds of thousands of people who would not have gone to university under a system with a fixed number of students at university, the aim of this legislation is for the demand-driven system to continue. To fund increasing numbers of students in this demand-driven system, an initiative is to expand Commonwealth assistance to students doing diploma courses, advanced diplomas and associate degrees. We estimate that that will be 48,000 students a year and cost $371 million. Expanding Commonwealth funding to bachelor degrees at the non-university higher education providers will deliver assistance to another 35,000 students. That will cost $449 million. We are spreading the opportunity even wider from what it has been with the demand-driven system. How liberating is that? Those 80,000 students that were going to receive no help from the Commonwealth government will now get the opportunity to share in the benefits of Commonwealth-assisted higher education. As I mentioned, the dedicated low-SES fund will be in addition to the Commonwealth scholarships that will be set up by the universities. Twenty per cent of the fees that they charge will have to be rolled into Commonwealth scholarships. We are also removing loan fees, which are quite considerable. That was a 25 per cent fee for FEE-HELP loans. There was a 20 per cent fee on VET FEE-HELP loans—and they are being removed. That will help a lot of people in that education demographic doing VET training courses. There will be alternative pathways to higher education through diploma, advanced diploma and associate degrees. This legislation will also deliver certain funding for the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy. That will be 100 new research scholarships—PhDs; $26 million for research on dementia; $42 million for research on tropical diseases; and $24 million for the Antarctic Gateway Partnership. All of those will be funded with certainty. I must say the previous government left things in limbo there too. More students at university will be the reality. I know people on the other side, in their arguments, referred to $100,000 degrees and made all sorts of outrageous claims. But if you look at the actual peak bodies of the universities—whether it is the RUN group, Universities Australia, the Group of Eight, the TAFE directors or the Australian council of private education providers—they are all in support of the deregulation as long as we put these amendments in—and they have been included. So much for the $100,000 degrees! The University of Western Australia has announced that the average cost will be $16,000 per year. Their most expensive degree, a 5½-year degree doing business law: $74,000 to $75,000—and that is for a 5½-year degree. Some of the other fees quoted from the council of private education providers are nursing from $11,000 to $14,000 per year and education degrees at $10,000 per year. Sydney University is looking at expanding their Commonwealth scholarships sevenfold from less than 1,000. That is a vast increase in the number of scholarships available at a major metropolitan university. If you multiply that around the country—in Adelaide, Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne—a lot of students that would have received no assistance will be eligible for these Commonwealth scholarships. There are a lot of sensible adjustments that have been incorporated in this legislation. As I mentioned, the critical thing for people to realise is the universities are encouraging us to go ahead with this deregulation. We have a huge industry which is and was suffering from a slow drain long before this current government was responsible for administering education. It is a competitive world. The previous ALP government stripped $6.6 billion out of universities. This is a lifeline that the universities want. There will be many more students able to access Commonwealth help. All the lies and scaremongering have to be called out for what they are. 12:59 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I rise for the second time in this place to join with my Labor colleagues in opposing this so-called reform that the Abbott Liberal government seeks to force upon Australia. At the outset let me be very clear about Labor's position so as to avoid any misunderstanding or confusion. Labor will oppose the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill. We will do so because it is wrong. It is wrong for the nation, it is wrong for students and it is wrong for Australian families. It is inequitable and rotten to its core. Labor cannot support a higher education system of higher fees, bigger student debt, reduced access and greater inequality. The first version of this so-called reform was rejected by the Australian public and the Senate and version 2 should get the same treatment. Despite being dressed up as a new and improved bill, version 2, the bill that is before the House today, still contains: $1.9 billion in cuts to Australian universities; $100,000 degrees for undergraduate students; $171 million in cuts to equity programs; $200 million in cuts to indexation of grants programs; $170 million in cuts to research training; fees for PhD students in Australia for the first time ever; and $80 million in cuts to the Australian Research Council. Nothing of substance has changed in version 2. The massive cuts to universities remain, new fee imposts for students remain, and Labor's resolve to fight this bill also remains. I remind the House again that this is not a higher education policy that the Australian people have endorsed at any stage. This is not a policy position that the government took to the Australian people prior to the election. Put simply, this government has no mandate as is claimed. The first we heard of this government's plan to smash the very foundations of our higher education system was on budget night last year. Despite ongoing denials from the education minister that the government did not have a higher education policy before they were elected, it was in fact there for everyone to see in black and white in that now infamous Real Solutions catalogue. It was alleged in Real Solutions that a Liberal government would in fact strengthen higher education and encourage Australians of all ages to further their education so they could gain the comparative advantage to get ahead in the new global economy. Significantly, it was also alleged in the same Real Solutions document that current arrangements for university funding would continue. There was no ambiguity. This was a commitment to higher education that the government took to the last election. That is right—the Abbott Liberal government's documented commitment on higher education for the 44th Parliament was that current arrangements for university funding would continue. Make no mistake, condemnation of the government's plans has been broad, it has been loud and it has been clear. But rather than scrap the reform after it was thrown out by the Senate, for the second time, here we are still debating a higher education bill that will increase the cost of university for students, increase debts for students and cut Commonwealth funding for universities. All the while, the government is spending millions of taxpayers' dollars to spruik their higher education changes to the Australian public. It is unconscionable that this government and this education minister signed off on a massive advertising campaign, spending more than $14 million of precious public funds in a desperate bid to sell their propaganda about higher education reforms to the Australian people. That the Australian people had stopped listening to this government long before their advertising campaign began makes this expenditure even more wasteful. The Leader of the Opposition made clear Labor's strong commitment to education during the debate on the government's first version of this bill when he argued: Opportunity in education is a pact between generations. It is a solemn promise to pass on an education system that is better than the one you inherited. He went on to warn this government: You do not meddle carelessly with one of the great markers of life—and education is indeed one of the great markers in the line of life. This government is breaking its pact with the Australian people and is recklessly tearing up the social contract that underpins our education system. Labor believes in equality of opportunity. Labor believes in affordable, accessible higher education for all Australians. We will vote against the doubling and tripling of university fees. We will vote time and time again against this government's cuts to university research. We will never consign the next generation of Australians to a debt sentence. We will not support a system where the cost of university degrees rises faster than the capacity of society to pay for them. We will never tell Australians that the quality of their education depends upon their capacity to pay. Education is a birth rite in Australia, not a privilege for the few. I have previously told the House about a woman in my electorate and her plans to return to study as a mature age student. Today I can add the next chapter to her story, with some good news, but not without some trepidation too. Last year she completed the Open Foundation program so she could attend university as a student for the first time. She has raised a family and worked in retail for more than a decade but wants to undertake university study to retrain and improve her future employment prospects. She knew it would be tough to balance work, study and family life but she was willing to work hard and thought getting a degree would be worth it in the long run. But she was concerned that this so-called higher education reform was a step too far. After this government announced their proposed changes, she became anxious about the level of debt she might incur. From her perspective, she already had a mortgage and could not afford another one. I am sure she is not the only woman asking herself, 'Is it really worth it?' She did, however, take the gamble, applied to university and was accepted to study this year at the University of Newcastle. When I congratulated her on being accepted to university, she replied, 'I'm a little excited about going to uni but not excited about the debt.' While ever this government's bill hovers over the higher education sector and the broader community, I know that many potential university students will be questioning their capacity to afford a higher education. For those enrolling this year, they have no idea of what their study will actually cost them. This is not a situation any student, prospective or otherwise, should be in. The effect on students is just one side of the higher education debate. There is also the effect on universities and regional communities more broadly. My electorate of Newcastle is proudly home to a university ranked in the top three per cent of universities in the world and the University of Newcastle is one of the top 10 universities in Australia for research funding and teacher quality. The economic and social capacity of regions and regional cities like Newcastle is vastly improved by the research and innovation being delivered by world-class research intensive universities like Newcastle. At the University of Newcastle, excellence is always coupled with equity; it is not in spite of it. The student body is representative of our broader region—lower than average socioeconomic status and often the first university students from their families. Nearly a third of enrolled students are from low-SES backgrounds, which is nearly double the sector average. When compared to the two Group of Eight universities in New South Wales, the University of Newcastle does considerably more to ensure equity of opportunity in our state. Some 24 per cent of students admitted to the University of Newcastle come from low-SES backgrounds, while the University of New South Wales and the University of Sydney, at 8.5 per cent and seven per cent respectively, are way behind. It is not the old sandstones that are doing the heavy lifting when it comes to access and equity. The University of Newcastle also has the highest number of Indigenous students in Australia and the highest rate of students beginning study through enabling programs rather than through the traditional pathways. In the university's submission to the Senate inquiry into the first version of this bill, they stated clearly that they did not support the Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding cuts or deregulation of student fees and that research intensive universities based in regional areas, like Newcastle, James Cook University in Queensland or the University of Tasmania, were uniquely vulnerable to the changes proposed. These universities conduct research in high-cost disciplinary areas including engineering, science, medicine and health and offer associated premium degree programs which are recognised internationally and in high demand locally. Research in these areas carries high fixed costs and any funding cuts would limit the capacity of these universities to sustain the investment in infrastructure and talent required to deliver world-class research innovation. The University of Newcastle emphasised that, if the government did continue to pursue student fee deregulation and cuts to Commonwealth funding of universities, a transition package would be needed that directly recognised the unique role of highly research intensive universities located in regional areas affected by disadvantage and that supported their continued delivery of critical world-class research and innovation in a newly deregulated environment. I do note that in version 2 of this bill—the bill before the House today—the government has included a transition fund, but this fund is woefully inadequate and very poorly targeted. The industry calculated that some $500 million would be required to transition to a deregulated environment. The day that the first version of this bill was defeated in the Senate, the education minister told Universities Australia the transition fund would be $300 million. So you can imagine the dismay of universities when the second version of this bill proposed just $100 million for the so-called transition fund. The Regional Universities Network has said that regional universities alone will need $100 million each and every year, not so much as an adjustment package but rather a straight out acknowledgement that regional universities and regional communities will be the biggest losers if deregulation goes ahead. Without adequate Commonwealth funding, funds will have to be sourced from the student body. While this bill would allow that to happen through deregulation, very few students would be able to meet the costs without enduring a massive lifelong debt. For regional universities like Newcastle, which draw a significant portion of their student body from lower SES regions, recouping lost Commonwealth funding from students will be near impossible, even with deregulation of fees. Regional students simply will not be able to afford to study high-cost disciplines and it will be difficult for research standards to be maintained with the loss of overall funding. Like my community, I fear these students will be lost to higher education altogether. Under this legislation, non-university higher education providers, or NUHEPs, along with approved overseas universities, will now have access to student subsidies at 70 per cent of the rate for public universities. What the education minister whispers, but is loath to say loudly, of course, is that he is relying on these NUHEPs and outposts of overseas universities to deliver the cut price courses that he believes will cater for those students from low-SES backgrounds. Regretfully, I do not share his sense of optimism here at all. What he fails to understand is that the for-profit institutions he is so very keen on will skim the cream from the public system, delivering the cheap courses and leaving the less popular or more expensive yet vital degrees to the public universities, which have a good public mission—disciplines like foreign languages, engineering and pharmaceutical sciences. These are all skills and expertise we need, but in fact they may well be lost in this new environment. I also want to touch briefly on the government's proposed Commonwealth Scholarship scheme. Ignoring all of the evidence of higher fees and crippling debt, the education minister often claims his higher education changes will actually benefit students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds because they include the so-called Commonwealth Scholarships. This is possibly the cruellest con job in the whole package. Make no mistake: the government's proposed scholarship scheme will receive no Commonwealth funding—not a cent. It is to be funded entirely by students. Like so much of this higher education package, the scholarship scheme is fundamentally flawed. Labor will vote against these cuts to university funding and student support. We will not support a system of higher fees, bigger student debt, reduced access and greater inequality. 13:15 Mr HUTCHINSON 212585 Lyons It is just all too hard for the Labor Party. How is it that you can take $6.6 billion out of the higher education sector and then, when a solution is offered that not only allows it to thrive and proper but also is something that is being demanded by the sector, oppose the solution? The hypocrisy of the Labor Party is writ large. It is so disappointing to see the standard of our public debate in respect of good public policy. I heard the member for Newcastle talking about equality of opportunity. The reforms in the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014 will, more than anything, deliver for those kids who come from low socioeconomic backgrounds more opportunity than they have ever had—unless we want to go back to the 1970s when Gough Whitlam, in his wisdom, brought free education to the people. The difficulty with Gough Whitlam's reforms was that those students from privileged backgrounds who were finding themselves a way to go to university—remember, a lot fewer people went to university in those days—were the same people who had always been going to university. And who was paying for it? The tradespeople and the people working on the shop floor were the ones who were paying the fees of people going into higher education. We know that people who go on to higher education earn 75 per cent more over their lifetimes, roughly a million dollars more, than people who do not. Do not talk to me about fairness. Just what does it say? Once the sector is reformed, more students will have the opportunity to go on to higher education, and the regional universities will be the big winners. I spoke passionately on the original bill because I believe that this is not just good reform but necessary reform, and that is confirmed by the sector. One aspect that I want to talk about is the exports. Seventy per cent of the Australian economy is services—whether it be tourism, health services, aged-care services, finances, legal services or education—yet only 17 per cent of our exports are in the services sector. This is the opportunity. The students who come in from overseas who are attracted to universities and higher education institutions in this country do so for one reason. Yes, the beaches are good; and certainly the University of Tasmania is located in one of the most beautiful places on earth. But they come here because the quality of the education they get for the price they pay is great value. They get high-quality education when they come to this country. But guess what? If we sit on our laurels, if we dine out on our reputation, we are going to be overtaken at a million miles an hour by countries to the north—whether it be India, Singapore, Hong Kong, China or Japan—because those are the countries where those students who subsidise and cross-subsidise all of the students in Australia to go university will go, and they will be jeopardised. This is why the sector is calling out for change. This is part of the reason we have been able to deliver the free trade agreements: for the first time we are going to see the opportunity to attract more students out of Japan, China and South Korea to study in Australia. We are not an island in this sense. Our higher education institutions are competing globally. All they are asking for is a chance to compete. We must reform this sector. Only last week the Hon. John Dawkins AO—I do not know the man but I believe he was a member of the Labor Party—came out in support of the plan. And there was another one; I think it might have been the Chancellor of the Australian National University, Mr Gareth Evans. I think he was also a member of the Labor Party. They are supporting the plan. Another one is Maxine McKew, also a member of the Labor Party. She has come out in support. Even the shadow Assistant Treasurer has written it down in black and white. He also supports reform in the higher education sector. It is overdue, it is necessary and it allows the higher education sector to compete. Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER MT4 I am not going to protect the member for Lyons from the abuse from the left-hand side of the chamber, because the member for Lyons has a reputation for giving it himself. It is a free-for-all, and I expect that there will be a robust exchange in the parliament. Mr HUTCHINSON 212585 I touched on the article by Andrew Trounson before, titled 'Get over Gough', and I will not go back there. But I look at the way the minister has negotiated this. He consulted broadly—long before the budget that was apparently so unfair. There is nothing more unfair than stealing from my kids, I can tell you; but the minister has consulted with the sector. He engaged with the sector and they could not sustain more cuts. So we have come up with a package that is supported by the sector and that is all about getting more students in Australia into university. I truly appeal to the crossbenchers because we are going to get no help from those on the other side. They are all complaint and no solution. But I do appeal to the crossbench senators. I appeal to my Tasmanian colleague, Senator Lambie. I noted comments that were made this morning, and I just say: former Senator Brian Harradine was not on our side of politics, Mr Deputy Speaker Broadbent, but you would have known him. What would Senator Brian Harradine have done in this situation? I ask Senator Lambie to contemplate. There was a man who delivered more for our state in the time that he was a member representing the state of Tasmania. He certainly would not have taken his bat and ball and gone home. He would have been in the minister's office, and he would have been talking to the relevant ministers about what he could get for our state. I strongly encourage her to take a leaf out of that book. What about the scare campaign on fees? I have never seen anything like it. We will start with the Queensland University of Technology, with not a $100,000 degree in sight. You cannot find one. One of the best business law degrees— Ms Butler interjecting— Mr HUTCHINSON 212585 The member for Griffith probably knows all about these things. One of the best business law degrees in the country: 5½ years and around $30,000. There is not a $100,000 degree in sight. Then we have the University of Western Australia. Ms Claydon interjecting— Mr HUTCHINSON 212585 I acknowledge the comments made by the member for Newcastle about the quality of her university in her town. It is fantastic to hear that. The University of Western Australia is one of the top 100 in the world—and it is $16,000 a year for a three-year degree. It is not $100,000, is it? No. Opposition members interjecting— Mr HUTCHINSON 212585 The hypocrisy! I cannot use some words in this chamber and I will not, but it is indeed frightening. Opposition members interjecting— Mr HUTCHINSON 212585 No up-front fees. Not one student in Australia going to the university of their choice will pay one cent—not one cent, and this is fantastic. More of my colleagues will talk more about this, but 80,000 more students will have access to higher education institutions in our country as a result of these reforms. Regional universities will be the big winners. Take for example the university in my home state of Tasmania. It is the biggest employer in the state of Tasmania. It is a university that can also compete at the research end. It is capable of attracting research dollars for things like marine and Antarctic studies. I note the member for Lyne made reference to some of the money that the federal government has contributed to those research efforts. Fundamentally—certainly in northern Tasmania, certainly in the campus in Launceston and certainly in the campus in Burnie—the high proportion of students that first engage with this wonderful institution are going through pathway courses, sub bachelor degrees and the like. It is those courses that will, with these reforms, now be able to access the HECS loan scheme, which is a truly a generous scheme. I will give an example of the capacity of the University of Tasmania to be able to keep up. I have mentioned this before. The third-largest course they have at the University of Tasmania is their degree in dementia care. It has been born out of their MOOC, which is an online free course there. They have identified a gap in the market. And, I can tell you, with the free trade agreement we have just signed with China there will be huge opportunity for our capacity now that we are able to own and operate profit-making aged-care facilities, childcare facilities and hospitals in China. As a result of the free trade agreement, there are going to be huge opportunities for increased training of those people who will staff those facilities in China. This is why this is so important. We are talking about multiple campuses. I sort of believe in competition. You have got the University of Tasmania—a fine institution. Yes, it has some challenges. We understand that, and that is the conversation that I have been having with the minister—a conversation I would encourage Senator Lambie to have with the minister—in terms of Burnie and the Launceston campuses and how they could be assisted. Tell me if I am wrong, but you have got a monopoly institution, you have got a captive market and you have got a high-quality provider. Heavens above, if they cannot compete in this environment I will give it away, and I believe they absolutely can. Regional universities can be the big winners, because what you will see is reverse migration. If the University of Melbourne prices themselves out of it, and even if they did have $100,000 degrees, students will be able to judge whether that is good value for money or whether they are better off doing the course at the University of Tasmania or even the University of Newcastle. This is what we will see. You will see this happening, and that is really exciting for regional universities in Australia. There will be more scholarships for students from low-SES backgrounds. I note also the University of Sydney— Ms Butler interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER MT4 Member for Griffith! Mr HUTCHINSON 212585 They have been outrageous, Deputy Speaker, but we are up for it. I do not know where the University of Sydney stands in the ranking, but I am pretty sure they would be in the top 10, 15 or 20 in the world. The University of Sydney have already stated that their scholarships—now wait for it, Member for Newcastle; hold onto your seat—will go from 700 places to 9,000 places. Just contemplate that for a minute. That is for kids from low-SES backgrounds—the very ones that you were rightly sticking up for, and the higher proportion that do end up going to the University of Newcastle currently. We might have a complete reversal. You might have all the really wealthy smart kids going up to the University of Newcastle and all those low-SES kids from Newcastle coming down and doing degrees at the University of Sydney. What a result! This is a fantastic thing. It is indeed one of our nation's biggest export earners. The cross-subsidies that we get from international students are absolutely critical. It is the reason that education in this country is very reasonably priced. Our markets do work. I mentioned that there is no lack of competition within the higher education sector in Australia. I will be damned if anyone is going to tell me that if there is not good and high-paid employment opportunities there. If somebody is paying a little bit more for a degree, they will make a judgment and the market will actually make a judgment. There is no shortage of supply of providers within this sector. If there was, some of the arguments that are being made by those on the other side may have some resonance. In summary, these are true reforms. I started by saying that I have been in this place only a short time. I guess we all come into this place believing we can make a difference. This is true reform. This is about the future of our country. This is about enhancing one of our natural competitive advantages and being a leader. The DEPUTY SPEAKER MT4 Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue his remarks at that time. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 15 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Death Penalty 15 13:30 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler Together with more than 110 of my parliamentary colleagues from both sides of this parliament, I have signed a letter to the President of Indonesia setting out our concerns and objections to capital punishment and requesting his reconsideration of the cases of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran. The cases of the Bali nine and in particular the application of the death penalty has been a very significant issue for me throughout my whole parliamentary life. It is important to note that these arrests were the result of an investigation initiated by the Australian Federal Police in which they shared information and sought the cooperation of their Indonesian counterparts. Capital punishment is a cruel and inhuman treatment and one that violates the most basic of all human rights—namely, life itself. Chan and Sukumaran have lived now almost 10 years on death row under the constant threat of execution. Clearly they have committed a serious crime and deserve punishment, but I cannot accept that the death penalty is appropriate under any circumstances. I encourage the Indonesians to review their decision on Chan and Sukumaran, even to the extent of deporting them to face charges in Australia. I seek leave to table the letter that was signed by more than 110 of our parliamentary colleagues. Leave granted. Mr HAYES ECV I thank the House. I welcome further contributions on this matter. Cystic Fibrosis 15 13:31 Mr MATHESON M2V Macarthur On Thursday night DA Global CF Swim Macarthur are launching their 2015 campaign at the Camden Valley Inn in my electorate of Macarthur. The auction night and dinner will raise money for the cystic fibrosis swimathon that will take place at Wollondilly Leisure Centre on Saturday, 21 February. Over the past six years this event has raised over $400,000 to help find a cure for cystic fibrosis. It is hoped that this year's event will push that total to $½ million. Cystic fibrosis is Australia's most common, life-threatening, recessive genetic disease. A child is born with CF in this country every four days. I am saddened to say that there are more than 80 people, mostly children, living with cystic fibrosis in Macarthur today. The DA Global Swim Macarthur started in 2009 with one swimmer wanting to raise money for cystic fibrosis. Since then it has a made a huge difference in raising awareness and supporting those living with this awful disease. Until a cure is found DA Global Swim Macarthur will continue to grow and be supported by the goodwill and generosity of our local community. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the organising committee for their hard work and dedication in putting this event together. I would also like to thank the event's sponsors for their continued support because without it it would not have been possible to raise so much money for this cause. Last but not least I would like to thank the people of Macarthur for again showing that we are the kindest and most generous community in the land. Let us hope that one day 'CF' means 'cure found'. Death Penalty 15 13:33 Ms PARKE HWR Fremantle Last week a letter endorsed by more than 110 federal members and senators from across the political spectrum was sent to the Indonesian government and parliament requesting that the death sentences of Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan be urgently reconsidered and commuted. I thank those colleagues who indicated their endorsement of the letter and remain hopeful that we may see a reversal of the Indonesian decision to execute these young men. As one of the legal team said in an interview last week, 'Where there's life, there's hope.' My message to the Indonesian government is as follows. One, these men are rehabilitated and reformed and they can be a vital part of your campaign to educate young people on the dangers of drugs. Their execution will serve no useful purpose. Two, drug offences are serious crimes. So are crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide, yet these do not attract the death penalty in international tribunals. More than two-thirds of the world's countries have abolished the death penalty. Three, your own constitutional court has recommended that the death penalty be amended to a term of imprisonment if a prisoner shows good behaviour for 10 years. Myuran and Andrew have done just that. Four, your country fights for mercy for your own citizens sentenced to the death penalty in other countries. It is in your nation's interest to consider mercy for people on death row in Indonesia. Finally, I say to Myuran and Andrew: your families and your country are proud of you and we are fighting for the wonderful human beings that you have become and the things you are still to do. Hold your heads high. We send our love and courage. Fuel Prices 16 13:34 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia Over the summer break many of our city colleagues may have enjoyed the benefit of lower fuel prices as a result of dropping international oil costs. Regrettably, in regional Australia, where I live, this was not so. Despite crude oil prices plummeting to the lowest level in decades, fuel companies and service stations failed to pass on these savings to motorists in my electorate of Capricornia. In response I wrote to the boss of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Rod Sims, asking him to include Rockhampton, Yeppoon and general Capricornia in future investigations into why prices in our area remain so high. Our coalition federal government recently provided the ACCC with new powers to probe such disparities. In a reply to my letter, the ACCC have given me an assurance that they will consider Rockhampton when it comes time for them to determine which parts of the country they will target. In rural and remote Australia we have bigger distances to cover than our city cousins and we are disadvantaged by reduced access to public transport. I again remind the House that it is rural and regional Australia that provide the commodities for this nation to export. Death Penalty 16 13:36 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle Last week I joined with 110 of my parliamentary colleagues from all sides of the House and the Senate in calling for the death sentences of Australians Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan to be commuted. In our letter to the Indonesian Ambassador to Australia we emphasised that, while we were not seeking to minimise the serious nature of the crime committed, we stand together in opposition to the death penalty for any crime. There are so many reasons to oppose the death penalty, and international trends are overwhelmingly moving away from capital punishment towards the imposition of lengthy prison sentences for serious crimes, where prisoners have the opportunity to reform, rehabilitate and have a positive impact on the lives of many. Mr Sukumaran and Mr Chan have demonstrated genuine remorse and have become model prisoners, working constructively at Kerobokan, not only on their own rehabilitation and reform but also strongly for that of other prisoners. On Tuesday last week I stood alongside members of the Newcastle community in solidarity at a candlelight vigil for all prisoners waiting on death row. I commend the families and friends of Mr Chan and Mr Sukumaran, Amnesty International, artist Ben Quilty and the thousands of Australians who have joined together to keep hope alive for those on death row. The criminal justice system is fallible. We know this, even though we rarely like to admit it, and it is this fallibility that, at the end of the day, is the most compelling, persuasive and winning argument against the death penalty. Anzac Centenary 16 13:38 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn As part of the Anzac 2015 celebrations, a heritage steam train will re-enact troop movements from Winton to Brisbane at the beginning of World War I, a 1,700 kilometre journey. During the five-day trip we will remember those that served and did not return from the blood stained battlefields. It also commemorates the 100-year celebration of Anzac. We will bring together ex-service men and women and their families, schoolchildren and the wider community. Thousands of Queenslanders will experience the Anzac memorial as the train passes through their communities. Approximately 500 men from surrounding properties enlisted in Winton, of whom 66 per cent made the ultimate sacrifice. Wreaths will be laid at 10 cenotaphs, including in Gladstone. In Gladstone there will be a ceremonial march from the station to the cenotaph by the full light horse brigade and military re-enactment troops. Also, two retired police officers will march, honouring police who enlisted in World War I. I thank the committee headed by Graham McVean, and including Vaughan Johnson, Bryan Ottone, Lester and Mary Anderson and Lofty Wendt. Participating organisations include the Gladstone RSL, the Longreach RSL, the Capricornia RSL, the Maryborough RSL and Robyn Stephens from the Winton Outback Festival. I thank my colleagues Bruce Scott, Michelle Landry and Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss for their support in this program. Indi Electorate: Public Transport 17 13:39 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi The provision of effective, efficient and timely public transport services are an essential precondition for quality regional living. I believe it is one of our foundation infrastructure services. In my electorate of Indi we have issues with our public transport, particularly our passenger rail services. Last Thursday I had the pleasure of attending very productive meetings with some of the key rail decision makers in Victoria—the Victorian Premier, senior staff of V/Line, the CEO of Public Transport Victoria and members of the Public Transport Users Association. We have all agreed to work together on regional network rail transport. Today, I would like to publicly acknowledge and thank the members of BRAG—Border Rail Action Group—who accompanied me on these meetings. Thank you Bill Traill, John Temple, Bill Reynoldson and Dennis Toohey. BRAG has played, and I hope will continue to play, the most important job of keeping rail on the agenda. Thank you, team. Fuel Prices 17 13:40 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson While petrol prices have fallen in the last few months, there is still a clear difference between the costs at the pump in my electorate of Robertson when compared to service stations just 35 minutes down the road in Sydney. People on the Central Coast are paying up to 20c a litre more for their fuel than some Sydney residents, and it is just not fair. That is why we have launched the Robertson petrol price petition, which calls on the ACCC to select the Central Coast as a location to be investigated over fuel price disparity. The member for Dobell has also launched a petition to the ACCC on behalf of Central Coast residents, and I thank her for joining with me in this fight. I am pleased to report to the House that more than 800 residents and businesses in my electorate have already signed our petition. This includes the Central Coast Community Council, who co-launched the petition with me, and I want to thank regional development officer Ed McCarthy for his fantastic support in this fight. We have already handed over 800 signatures on the petition to Minister for Small Business, Bruce Billson, and I also thank the minister for his strong support for the Central Coast and for listening to small business owners at forum I held recently in West Gosford. There are around 30,000 commuters in my electorate, many of whom travel on the M1 every single day. It is time for some positive action. I urge people to sign the Robertson petrol price petition to help us fight for the spotlight to be shone on the Central Coast region in relation to fuel price disparity and for a fair go for our region. Death Penalty 17 13:42 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I rise today to express the deep worry and concern that is being felt in my community about the decision that Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran will face execution in Indonesia. There is absolutely no doubt that these young men did something gravely wrong, which has seen them imprisoned in Indonesia, but we also know that since that time these two young men have shown themselves to be exemplary in their prison life. We know they are deeply engaged as leaders in their community, that they devote much of their time to the welfare of others and that they inspire other prisoners to do better. I do not believe that these two young men deserve to die. To the people of Indonesia, you show us your great generosity in so many ways. You welcome, every year, thousands upon thousands of Australian visitors. You are our close neighbour and our very good friend and we do ask that you show mercy to these two young men and grant clemency. To the families of Myuran and Andrew, and especially to their mothers Helen and Raji, what you are going through is beyond comprehension. Your sons did the wrong thing and we know that. But in the dark actions and the dark consequences that have followed they have still made valuable lives helping others and they have so much more to do. We are praying for your sons. We are thinking of your sons and asking that mercy be shown to them. Helen and Raji, we stand in solidarity with you in what must be the most difficult days of your lives. Local Government 18 13:44 Mr IRONS HYM Swan I am pleased to inform the House that there was a great result for City of South Perth ratepayers last weekend, with the region's local government amalgamations referendum returning a majority of no votes. I have been vocal in my opposition to the Western Australian state government's idea to cut the number of councils from 30 to 16 by making local government regions amalgamate. Thankfully, the City of South Perth and the Town of Victoria Park's petition for a referendum was approved on the question, 'Should the City of South Perth and Town of Victoria Park be abolished and amalgamated to form a new local government?' I congratulate all those who took the opportunity to have their say, and in particular those, like Cecilia Brooke, who led a grassroots campaign to oppose the amalgamation. Approximately 54 per cent of issued votes were returned, including informal votes, and there were 50.8 per cent eligible votes. Ratepayers in the City of South Perth and, by extension, the Town of Victoria Park, along with ratepayers in East Fremantle and Kwinana, have sent a very clear message to the state government that they do not want to amalgamate. I am also aware of a number of other councils who are vehemently opposed to amalgamations but unfortunately were not successful in their calls for a referendum, including the City of Canning in my electorate of Swan. If this is not a wake-up call for the state government, then WALGA's withdrawal of support for reform earlier today should be. I now call on Premier Barnett to accept the ratepayers' overwhelming rejection of amalgamations and to scrap the reform process for all metropolitan councils who do not wish to amalgamate. A very good reason for this is that Labor initiated it and it is a bad idea. Death Penalty 18 13:45 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham In recent times, people in my electorate of Cunningham have been holding prayer vigils in deep concern about the decision to implement the death penalty for two Australians, Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan. Tonight again there will be a prayer vigil, organised by the Illawarra People for Peace, which is a multifaith group that has been doing some wonderful work in our community. Previous vigils have been held by the Wollongong based Amnesty group. I want to take this opportunity in the parliament, on behalf of my community, to say that I have joined with some of my colleagues from across the parliament in signing the letter to the Indonesian Ambassador to Australia asking them to reconsider the imposition of this death penalty. We make it clear that we have a very good understanding of how serious the offences committed by these two young men were, but we also think it is important to recognise their sincere and important attempts at rehabilitation and our opposition to the use of the death penalty. As a mother of adult young men, I can only begin to imagine the distress for their mothers and their families, and I want to let them know that, along with my community, I stand beside them in calling for the Indonesian government to reconsider this decision. Xynias, Mr Nicholas, AO BEM 18 13:47 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan I rise today to pay tribute to an official Queensland great, Nicholas Xynias AO BEM. Nick was a dedicated member of the Brisbane community working tirelessly to improve the lives of those from culturally diverse backgrounds. Born in Egypt to Greek parents, he came to Australia in his early 20s. However, feeling homesick, he joined the Greek Orthodox Church, where his life of volunteering began as a scout leader and, more importantly, he met his future wife. He became involved as a volunteer for many Greek and multicultural organisations. He cofounded the Ethnic Communities Council of Queensland and served on its board, including as chairman for many years. He also helped to establish a multicultural nursing home in 1988—Berlasco Court at Indooroopilly. Nick was a member of many different committees and councils and was most recently appointed by the Premier to chair the Queensland Multicultural Roundtable. He was personally awarded his British Empire Medal by Her Majesty the Queen. He was also awarded the Order of Australia and Officer of the Order of Australia, as well as being Brisbane's Senior Citizen of the Year in 2008. Although he will be remembered for his dedication to and leadership of the community, Nick was above all a devoted husband to his wife, Pat, a loving father to Rick, Kerry, Angela and Demitri and their partners, Maria, Mark and Julie, and a wonderful grandfather to Nicholas, John, Alexander, Zac and Isabella. He lived life to the full and made every day count. Death Penalty 18 13:48 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor In Australia, we believe that serious crimes should be punished, and we believe drug trafficking is a serious crime, but we believe that criminals should be punished in a way that allows them to acknowledge their mistakes, demonstrate remorse and be rehabilitated. We believe, too, in sentencing being a deterrent to others. We also believe in a country's sovereignty and political independence but would ask that the Indonesian government note that the international trend is to move away from capital punishment and towards lengthy imprisonment for serious crimes. Currently we face the prospect that Mr Sukumaran and Mr Chan may be executed for their serious mistakes in Indonesia. There is no question that their actions deserve the punishment they have received to date. However, they have demonstrated genuine remorse and are working constructively on not only their own rehabilitation but also that of fellow inmates. Isn't that what society wants—prisoners who are genuinely making amends for their wrongdoings? They are working within the Indonesian Constitutional Court's recommendation, which also had a majority of judges find that the death penalty did not deter any more than a life sentence or a lengthy sentence. By executing them, what would we really achieve? Two men gone and their families heartbroken. Alive, they continue as a deterrent to others. Alive, they can make further contributions in the war against drug trafficking in Indonesia and Australia. As an Australian, I implore the Indonesian government to show mercy. As a mother, I implore them. As a member of this House, I implore them. Ellis, Mr Dylan 19 13:50 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker Over the summer recess, I was privileged to attend the Waikerie Australia Day Extravaganza, where I saw Dylan Ellis awarded the Waikerie Young Person of the Year Award. I am inspired by and in full admiration of Dylan. He is a great role model for our young people in Australia. Dylan was a national dirt kart title holder and a state title holder. As well as that, he was a talented knee boarder and an accomplished footballer. In 2013 Dylan was travelling home from schoolies. Four minutes away from home, Dylan, through no fault of his own, was involved in a serious accident with a B-double wine tanker. Dylan almost lost his life on that day. He spent over 40 hours on the operating table, and there was uncertainty about whether he would ever walk again. Nine months and five days from the accident, Dylan was back on the knee board and had plans to race again, on a smaller scale. Although the accident has taken a huge toll on Dylan personally, he does not feel sorry for himself. Now, at the age of 19, has made a documentary entitled Desire—Dylan Ellis, on his journey, which was released on YouTube in early November. The documentary serves to warn young people that, just because you do all the right things, it does not mean that bad things still will not happen to you. Dylan also spends time counselling youth, and his message is simple: focus on your goals, never give up and be positive, because anything is possible. Death Penalty 19 13:51 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin I join with my colleagues in calling for the lives of Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan to be spared. Both are right now on death row in Kerobokan Prison, awaiting execution. Both were arrested in 2005 and convicted in 2006. Their final appeal to the Indonesian Supreme Court in 2011 failed, and I understand that a recent appeal to President Joko Widodo also failed, although I also understand that they have now lodged an appeal against that failure. As we heard earlier, there have been candlelight vigils held in Australia calling for their lives to be spared and praying for them, and I understand there is another one tonight, according to the member for Cunningham. I do not in any way want to trivialise or minimise the gravity of their offences or to criticise the Indonesian justice system, but I do not support the death penalty and I have argued against it in this place in the past. And I do note that most other countries around the world have also now abolished it. There would seem to me to be other forms of punishment that would be appropriate for the crimes that have been committed. It is my view that the death sentence will not only end the lives of the two men concerned but it will also destroy the lives of their family members, who have also suffered so much in this ordeal. East West Link 19 13:53 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I rise today to again highlight the community's anger in my home state of Victoria due to Labor's attempted destruction of the East West Link project. This is a major problem entirely of the Labor Party's making, reversing its previously long-standing support of the East West Link project just to appease some inner city Greens voters. Residents in my electorate of Deakin are overwhelmingly in support of the East West Link and just want it built. No arguments, no evasion, no deception: they just want the East West Link built now. This is a shovel-ready project; it is fully funded and work can commence immediately. Not only will this vital infrastructure save commuters more than three hours of travelling time per week but it will also create more than 6,700 jobs during the construction phase and improve the productivity of all Victorian businesses. As many Victorians have said to me, this is the economic shot in the arm that Victoria needs. But all this is now being placed at risk due to the actions of Dan Andrews, Bill Shorten and Labor. Rather than just building the East West Link, Labor would rather spend $1 billion not to build the road. So I say to Labor, Dan Andrews and Bill Shorten: if you continue down this path, you will once again be abandoning the people of Melbourne's eastern suburbs, denying us the economic benefits of this infrastructure and threatening the great reputation of our state. Death Penalty 20 13:54 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Throsby On 6 February this year I joined with colleagues from the Australian Labor Party and members from the coalition—indeed, members from right across the political spectrum—to show our support for the Australians who face execution on death row in Indonesia at the moment, Mr Myuran Sukumaran and Mr Andrew Chan. We call for clemency and we call on the Indonesian government to spare them, and their families, their horrible fate of execution. In this country we oppose the death sentence. It is something that has united us right across the political spectrum. We do not believe, as indeed the majority of judges on the constitutional court who heard the appeals of those in the Bali Nine who appealed, that it acts as a sufficient deterrent for those who are committing the sorts of crimes for which they have been charged. I would also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of a constituent of mine, world renowned Australian artist Mr Ben Quilty, who has given up his own time and resources, who has spent time in the jail in Bali both comforting and assisting them, and also doing art classes and fund raising and helping to raise attention of the terrible plight of these people. We hope in these final hours that they can be spared some hope themselves. Tasmania: Agriculture 20 13:56 Mr HUTCHINSON 212585 Lyons This week I have written to the Minister for Justice, Michael Keenan, on behalf of Tasmanian farmers who have been trying to get a diversified industrial hemp industry up and running in my home state for at least a decade, led ably by Mr Phil Reader from my electorate of Lyons. Tasmania's cool climate and good soils make it an ideal location for this crop at a time when farmers, particularly those in my electorate, are searching for new opportunities to boost the economic viability of their businesses. But their hopes were again dashed last month when the Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation resolved at its meeting in New Zealand to reject a variation to regulations that would allow hemp to be grown for human consumption. The Tasmanian government supported it, the New Zealand government supported it. Forum members have again expressed concern about law enforcement issues, particularly from a policing perspective in relation to roadside testing. This body has been supplied with all the information that it has asked for, and much more, over many years, including strong evidence that industrial hemp grown for human consumption does not have high levels of the THC content found in cannabis. Many countries around the world have been growing hemp as food for many years and have had no problems. And the tragic irony is that you can buy imported food products from those countries here in Australia. It looks like bureaucratic bloody mindedness at best; it looks like obstructionist behaviour at worst. It is a very risk averse society we live in, and I would love to see it changed. Death Penalty 20 13:58 Ms HALL 83N Shortland As a long-term opponent of the death penalty, and a humanist and a person who values human life, I implore the Indonesian government to reconsider its decision to take the lives of our two Australians who are currently being held in jail in Bali. Our fellow Australians Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan are in prison and are facing execution for the crime of drug trafficking. We do not seek to minimise the seriousness of the nature of their crime given the damaging effects that illicit drugs have within our society, but we do believe that both these prisoners have been rehabilitated. They are absolutely committed to leading a new life; they have helped people who are in prison with them. We really believe it is time for the Indonesian government to reconsider their decision. I implore them to reconsider their decision, just as other members have stated. As a mother, as a member of parliament, as a woman, as somebody who really cares about human life: please reconsider this decision; spare the lives of our two Australians who have recognised that they made a big mistake and they would like the opportunity to lead a fulfilling life. Boothby Electorate: Repatriation General Hospital 20 13:59 Dr SOUTHCOTT TK6 Boothby I rise to speak about the South Australian Labor government's decision to close the Repatriation General Hospital in my electorate. This will disadvantage veterans and it will disadvantage residents of the southern suburbs. I encourage those people to join the 12,000 people who have already signed on the online petition at savetherepat.com. The SPEAKER SE4 Order! In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members’ statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 21 CONDOLENCES McMahon, Mr James Leslie (Les) 21 14:00 The SPEAKER SE4 I inform the House of the death on Friday, 23 January 2015, of James Leslie—known as Les—McMahon, a member of this House for the division of Sydney from 1975 to 1983. As a mark of respect to the memory of Les McMahon, I invite honourable members to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— The SPEAKER SE4 I thank the House. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 21 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Abbott Government 21 14:00 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has promised 'good government starts today'. If good government starts today, what on earth has the Prime Minister been doing for the past 521 days? Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 Order! We will have some silence. The question has been asked and we will now listen to the answer. Mr Husic interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 And that includes the member for Chifley. 14:01 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah Good government in this country stopped at the end of 2007. It started again in September 2013. It might have had a bit of a holiday last week, but it started again yesterday. That is exactly what has happened. I tell you what a good government does: it does not waste billions, it does not put lives at risk— Mr Husic interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Chifley will desist! Mr ABBOTT EZ5 and it does not jeopardise key relationships with our important neighbours. The only problem this good government has had is in the Senate where the former members of a bad government are sabotaging the solutions to the problems that they created. That is what is happening. This government said it would scrap the carbon tax. The carbon tax is gone—$550 a year in the pockets of the average household. This government said it would stop the boats. The boats have stopped. As a result, hundreds of people are no longer dying at sea. This government said it would build the roads, and they are building. This government said it would repair the budget. Already, $16 billion worth of budget repair has passed the Senate. This is a good government. Look over the aisle, Madam Speaker, and you see the former members of the worst government in Australia's history. They have learnt nothing and they cannot change. That is their problem and that is why they will never be back on this side of the chamber. Mr Husic interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Chifley is warned! Free Trade Agreements 21 14:03 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister explain to the House how the three free trade agreements delivered by the government will help businesses in my electorate and right around the country gain access to new markets? 14:04 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah What a great question from a great local member. She understands that trade means jobs and more trade means more jobs here in Australia. For six years members opposite were talking about free trade agreements and they delivered almost nothing. But after years and years of talk from members opposite, within 12 months the Minister for Trade had the trade trifecta—free trade agreements with Japan, with Korea and with China; free trade agreements covering 61 per cent of our merchandise exports. What that means is better markets for Australian farmers, better markets for Australian manufacturers and lower prices for Australian consumers. The free trade agreement with Japan came into force on 15 January. It provides much better access for our key agricultural products—beef, cheese, horticulture and wine. It is a great windfall for Australian beef—by far our biggest agricultural export to Japan. It is a $1.4 billion trade now. Tariffs will come down from almost 40 per cent to under 20 per cent as a result of this deal. The free trade agreement with Korea means that cars are cheaper already in this country. The free trade agreement with China means that when it is fully in place 93 per cent of our exports will go into China absolutely duty free. All of this is giving our manufacturers and our exporters a competitive advantage that they did not previously have. Last week, I was at Bulla Dairy Foods in Colac with the member for Corangamite. This is a 100-year-old Australian family company now employing 500 people. Thanks to the free trade agreement, Bulla Dairy Foods will have a 10 to 19 per cent competitive advantage in its deals with China that it does not now have. The Australian Lamb Company—again, in Colac—is a local business employing 400 people. Under the free trade agreements, sheepmeat to China is duty free and sheepmeat to Japan is duty free. As a result of these deals, the Australian Lamb Company is putting on 25 more staff. That is good news from this government for the people of Colac. What we are on about is a stronger economy with more prosperous businesses, more jobs and happier families. That is what this government is delivering. Abbott Government 22 14:07 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is for the Prime Minister. Since the Prime Minister has promised that good governance starts today, when is the Prime Minster going to scrap the GP tax, the $100,000 fees and the $6,000 cuts to families? When is the Prime Minister going to tell the truth—that in fact absolutely nothing is changing? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 There will be silence on my left. That includes the Member for Gorton. 14:07 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah The big lie came from members opposite going into the last election, when they told us that the deficit would be $18 billion. That was the big lie from members opposite, who went into the last election telling us that the deficit would be just $18 billion. It turned out to be $48 billion. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The Member for McMahon will desist. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 A $30 billion budget black hole that they knew about, that they would not tell us about and that they created. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The Member for Isaacs will desist. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Members opposite delivered a debt and deficit disaster, and this government is doing what it can— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The Member for Parramatta will desist or be warned, one or the other— Mr ABBOTT EZ5 to end the intergenerational theft that members opposite have inflicted on our children and grandchildren. That is what this government is doing. We are saving our children and our grandchildren from the chaos that members opposite created. Having created the problem, they are in denial about it and they are sabotaging the solution. Savings worth $28 billion are currently being obstructed in the Senate by the Leader of the Opposition, including $5 billion worth of savings that they supported before the election. This is a Leader of the Opposition with not a single positive idea for our country. Every single thing we have put forward is opposed by this Leader of the Opposition. The South Australian Premier actually come up with a positive idea. He said we better have a look at nuclear energy. The Leader of the Opposition is even against that. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The Member for Sydney will desist. The Member for Sydney! The Member for Sydney is warned. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 He is so negative that he will not even say yes to a positive idea put forward by the South Australian Labor Premier. It is all very well to complain. It is all very well to engage in sneer and smear across this dispatch box, but you cannot become Prime Minister of this country without having a positive plan, and we have had absolutely nothing from this Leader of the Opposition except 'bring back the carbon tax'— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The Member for Rankin! Mr ABBOTT EZ5 'bring back the mining tax and bring back the people smugglers'. That is his plan. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The level of noise is quite unacceptable. It will stop or there will be many people who will be ejected. National Security 23 14:10 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I remind the minister of the recent atrocities committed by the Daesh death cult in Iraq and Syria. Will the minister update the House on the threat posed by foreign fighters and how the government is combating this threat? 14:11 Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P Curtin I thank the member for La Trobe for his question, and I know the concern that he has about this issue. The world has expressed outrage over the further atrocities committed by Daesh, or ISIL, including the beheadings of two Japanese journalists and the burning alive of a captured Jordanian pilot. These brutal acts have been carried out or aided by foreign fighters, sickeningly, from countries that include Australia. I can update the house on the latest details on foreign fighters. Approximately 16,000 foreign fighters from some 90 countries are believed to be in Syria and Iraq. Ninety Australians are believed to be in the conflict, along with 3,000 fighters from western European states—around 500 from the United Kingdom and from Germany, about 1000 from France and also from Russia, and we estimate about 100 to 200 from Indonesia. We believe that over 20 Australians have been killed in the conflict in Syria and Iraq. They are not martyrs. They are just cannon fodder for an evil cause. Disturbingly, the demographic of those fighting tends to be younger. There are people in their teens. We are seeing more women who either are seeking to join their foreign fighter husbands or are becoming what are called 'jihadist brides', and otherwise taking part in the conflict in Iraq and Syria. Per capita, Australia's number of foreign fighters is high—well above the United States, for example. That is why our defence personnel are in the Iraq. They are advising and assisting the Iraqi government so that it can bolster the Iraqi defence forces to take back territory and disrupt and defeat Daesh, or ISIL. To address the threat we have cancelled around 90 passports of those seeking to travel to Iraq and Syria, or to return from there. I have suspended five passports under our new counter-terrorism legislation, and I have refused to issue a further 10 of those to people who we believe pose a national security threat. We are working with our communities to counter the spread of radicalisation, to build resilience through a program worth about $545 million, investing in social inclusion initiatives, a program to counter violent extremism, and other initiatives. Internationally, we have taken a lead role through co-sponsoring the UN Security Council resolution on foreign terrorist fighters, requiring all nations to prevent the activities of terrorists, through their financing, their travel and other activities. We are strengthening our cooperation with our partners, including Great Britain. Next week, our Attorney-General will attend a summit in Washington that will focus on a global response. This is a shared global challenge, and Australia has been playing a leading role in keeping our country and our people safe from terrorism. The SPEAKER SE4 I understand that the member for Sydney wishes to associate herself with those remarks. 14:14 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney On indulgence, Madam Speaker: I would like to say that of course the opposition continue to work with the government to combat Daesh and other foreign fighting organisations, and we share the concerns of the government about the increasing number of Australians who have gone to fight in Syria. Defence Procurement 23 14:15 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Since the Prime Minister has promised that 'good government starts today', isn't it the case that, until the Prime Minister commits to a full and open tender process to build Australia's future submarines, nothing has changed at all? 14:15 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah At least the Leader of the Opposition is now asking a question on a very important subject, and I am grateful for that. But that question is only being asked because the Labor Party did nothing for six years. They did absolutely nothing for six years. Decisions about the future submarine fleet should have been made years and years ago, but the Labor Party could not decide what mattered more— Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Isaacs will desist! Ms Macklin interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 And the member for Jagajaga will also! Mr ABBOTT EZ5 They could not decide what mattered more, electoral politics or the defence of this nation. That is what they were incapable of deciding. I want to make it absolutely crystal clear that, one way or another, we will have a bigger submarine fleet, and more submarines means more jobs in South Australia. I want to make that absolutely crystal clear: more submarines means more jobs in South Australia. Let us look at the fundamentals. The fundamentals are that we want the best possible submarines because it would be almost criminal to send Australian submariners to sea in anything other than the very best and most capable submarines. We want the best possible submarines at the best possible price—because, again, we have to be fair and reasonable to the taxpayers of this country. But of course, while we want the best possible subs and the best possible price, we want to maximise Australian participation in this particular arrangement. We do want to maximise Australian participation in this arrangement, so there will be a competitive process. Of course there will be a competitive process. You would expect a competitive process— Mr Champion interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Wakefield! Mr ABBOTT EZ5 and Australian entities should be part of it. They are certainly encouraged to be part of it, and I expect them to be part of it. The bottom line—because we are at the beginning of this process; we are not at the end—is: more subs means more jobs for South Australia, and that is more good news for South Australia from the Abbott government. Health Care, Renewable Energy 24 14:18 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne My question is to the Prime Minister. Now that you are listening to the public, will you firmly commit to ditching policies like the GP co-payment or the GP payment and your crusade against renewable energy, or will you just be putting your bad ideas through a competitive evaluation process? Mr Conroy interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Charlton will desist or leave us; the choice is his. 14:18 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah We absolutely support renewable energy. We always have and we always will, but we want to support renewable energy in a way that delivers the lowest possible power prices for consumers. The thing to understand about members opposite is that, every chance they get, they want to increase power prices. Ms Owens interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Parramatta is warned! Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Every chance they get, they want to increase power prices. They just cannot help themselves. They hate lower power prices. They want to bring back a carbon tax to slug Australian families— Mr Hutchinson interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Lyons will desist! Mr ABBOTT EZ5 with $550 a year more, and they want to keep the renewable energy target not at 20 per cent but at more like 27 per cent, which means much higher power prices for the people of Australia. That is the problem. They talked about a 20 per cent target. They want to deliver a 27 per cent target—typical of the deception and the duplicity of members opposite. They were incompetent in government, and they are wreckers from opposition. That is what members opposite are. On the subject of Medicare, I was a health minister for four years, and I am proud of my record as a health minister for four years. I was the best friend that Medicare ever had as health minister, and I will be the best friend that Medicare now has as Prime Minister, because these are the principles. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 There will be some silence on my left! Mr ABBOTT EZ5 These are the principles. We will protect the vulnerable. We will deliver a better health system. But, above all else, we will keep Medicare. Under members opposite, Medicare simply was unsustainable. We will ensure that we have a very good and strong Medicare system for ever. That is what you will get from this government. Economy, Small Business 25 14:20 Dr HENDY 00BCM Eden-Monaro My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the green shoots in the economy? How will stronger and more profitable small businesses create more growth and jobs for all Australians? Ms MacTiernan interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Perth is warned! In fact, the member for Perth can leave under 94(a). The member for Perth then left the chamber. 14:21 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney I thank the honourable member for Eden-Monaro for his question. I must say— Mr Champion interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 And the member for Wakefield can join her under 94(a). The member for Wakefield then left the chamber. Mr HOCKEY DK6 That collectively lifted the IQ of the Labor Party! The member for Eden-Monaro raises a very good question. The question is: how can we help small business to be more profitable and more successful? Last week the member for Eden-Monaro and I visited the Central Cafe in Queanbeyan and met the Mastoris family. In that family business they employee 20 Australians from seven different countries. As I grew up in a small business and as so many of my colleagues have been involved in small businesses, we know that small business is the engine room of the Australian economy. We know that people in small businesses people work damned hard to pay the bills. Ms Collins interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Franklin will desist. Mr HOCKEY DK6 They work damned hard to make some money in order to give their families the quality of life that they would like to have. The coalition is the best friend of Australia's small businesses. One of the things that illustrates that is that last year more than 200,000 new businesses were started up in Australia—a record level of new businesses. It is the coalition that understands the challenges that small businesses face. That is why the Prime Minister identified that we have to remove the challenges that small business was facing under the Labor Party, such as the carbon tax. We got rid of the carbon tax and all of the pain associated with the carbon tax. We got rid of the red tape. Seventeen thousand pages of red tape were abolished by this government in just the first 12 months in government, with dedicated days in this parliament to repeal red tape. Importantly, we are starting to see the benefits flow through in retail sales figures, which are up by 4.1 per cent over the year. We are starting to see a fairer deal for small business on interest rates. But there is still much more work to be done. The federal government, in operating its own budget, is no different to small business. We have to live within our means. Under the legacy of the Labor Party, the federal government spends $100 million a day more than it collects in revenue. That is the equivalent of two new schools every day. That is the equivalent of 14 kilometres of new road. If we did not have to borrow that $100 million a day to pay for excessive spending, we could build a new teaching hospital in Australia every week. On top of that, we have to pay $40 million a day on the interest of Labor's debt. Just like any family business, the Australian government has to live within its means—and we will. Defence Procurement 25 14:24 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Liberal Senator Sean Edwards said in relation to the Future Submarine Project: 'I am very pleased with the decision of the Prime Minister that now commits the government to a full and open tender.' Did the Prime Minister start the week promising South Australian backbenchers a full and open tender, or is this just another case of the Prime Minister lying to obtain a vote? The SPEAKER SE4 The question in its current form is out of order. You will remove that unparliamentary term. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will rephrase it. Senator Sean Edwards has said that the Prime Minister— The SPEAKER SE4 We are familiar with that bit. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG I beg your pardon? The SPEAKER SE4 It is the last bit where the offence is. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Okay. Did the Prime Minister start the week promising South Australian backbenchers a full and open tender, or is this just another case of the Prime Minister misleading people to get a vote? The SPEAKER SE4 Misleading is also an unparliamentary term. Try again. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG I will have one more go. Mr Pyne 9V5 Madam Speaker, on a point of order: You have generously given the Leader of the Opposition another opportunity to rephrase his question, and he has made another mistake. He should not be given a third chance. Clearly Labor are simply trying to make a political point. I believe the question should be ruled out of order, and the next member should be given the call. The SPEAKER SE4 The Leader of the House is making a very persuasive point. However, on this occasion I will give the Leader of the Opposition one more opportunity—but this applies for all questions. If there are any more that are out of order, there will be no opportunity to rephrase. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG All right. Thank you, Madam Speaker. With regard to what Senator Sean Edwards said about a 'full and open tender', did the Prime Minister start the week promising South Australian backbenchers a full and open tender, or is this just another case of the Prime Minister being tricky to obtain a vote? The SPEAKER SE4 The question is out of order. Mr Burke interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The Leader of the Opposition was given more than a fair chance. Infrastructure Projects 26 14:26 Mr MATHESON M2V Macarthur My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on how the government is delivering on its promise to build infrastructure for the 21st century for all Australians, particularly in Macarthur? 14:27 Mr TRUSS GT4 Wide Bay The member for Macarthur certainly knows full well that this government is getting on with its commitment to build the infrastructure of the 21st century. Projects right across the nation are a demonstration of this commitment in action. Our $50 billion commitment to infrastructure is a record—more than any other government has ever provided. Mr Albanese interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Grayndler will desist if wants to stay in the chamber. Mr TRUSS GT4 It is at least $16.4 billion more than what Labor had committed over the same period and, if you take in the Asset Recycling Initiative, then Labor was behind another $70-odd billion in the delivery of infrastructure. This is already creating thousands of jobs and increasing the capacity of our nation. I was a bit surprised to see the shadow minister at a doorstop today making a quite extraordinary statement when referring to the roads of the 21st century. He said: 'Well, it's now been 16 months, and no projects have commenced.' There are 85 projects currently under construction and another 94 are in development. Many of them were never even dreamed of by the other side—and certainly were never funded. They had so many conditions attached to their funding that they were never going to come through. All of the money was coming out of the proceeds of the mining tax—the mining tax that did not raise any money. The member for Macarthur was in his electorate when work began on the $509 million Bringelly Road upgrade, which is a key part of the new roads of the Western Sydney project— Mr Albanese interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. Mr TRUSS GT4 something Labor had never thought of. The SPEAKER SE4 I said the member for Grayndler will resume his seat. The minister has the call. Mr TRUSS GT4 Thank you, Madam Speaker. The NorthConnex project is under construction and will be completed by 2019. Over 60 per cent of the Pacific Highway has now been duplicated. Mr Albanese interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Grayndler is warned! Mr TRUSS GT4 And there is a range of projects underway. There are 11 projects presently underway on the Bruce Highway and many more to come. The Gateway upgrade in Brisbane—a project Labor had never thought of—is a $1-billion project with work underway. The North Sydney freight corridor, the North-South Road Corridor in Adelaide, the North West Coastal Highway in Western Australia, the Midland Highway— Mr Albanese interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Grayndler has been warned! One more utterance and he will leave the chamber. Mr TRUSS GT4 were projects that were being funded by Labor with mythical mining tax money. We are getting on with building the roads of the 21st century. The work is underway, there is a lot more to be done and the country will be so much the better for this superior infrastructure being provided. Treasurer 27 14:30 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's statement in the House last year that Senator Johnston enjoyed his 'full confidence' and deserved the full support of the parliament as Minister for Defence. Does the Treasurer similarly enjoy the Prime Minister's full confidence? And given the Prime Minister was last year so confident that Senator Johnston would still be Defence Minister come February, will the Prime Minister deliver a similar commitment that the member for North Sydney will deliver May's budget? 14:31 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I have full confidence in the Treasurer. I have full confidence in my team. Why wouldn't our nation have full confidence in a Treasurer— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The only one who is going to be gone is someone on my left. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 who has brought economic growth from 1.9 per cent a year ago to 2.7 per cent now, who has presided over an economy that has created more than 200,000 jobs in the last year—a jobs growth rate three times what was managed by the professional failure who asked that question—and who presided over an eight per cent increase in export volume and a 10 per cent increase in housing starts? Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Sydney has been warned and will desist or leave the chamber. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 This is a Treasurer who is delivering for the people of Australia. While the member who asked that question— Mr Conroy interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Charlton will leave under 94a Mr ABBOTT EZ5 was a part of a succession of failures who presided over 3.6 per cent real growth in government spending over six years, he mortgaged the future of our children and grandchildren to pay for their political fantasies. That is what the person who asked the question did. By contrast, this government is setting up Australia for the future with sound fiscal policies, with good budget management and with three free-trade agreements, which will be the foundation of future prosperity. Education 27 14:33 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong My question is to the Minister for Education. Will the minister update the House on the progress of the government's Independent Public Schools program designed to expand school autonomy? Ms Kate Ellis interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Adelaide will desist. 14:33 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I thank the member for Bennelong for his question. In more good news from the Abbott government, I can inform the House today that New South Wales has signed up with the Independent Public Schools initiative. Now New South Wales, the Northern Territory, Queensland, the ACT, Victoria and South Australia have all signed up to the government's Independent Public Schools initiative. We are delivering on more election promises made before September 2013. The only state that has not signed up is Western Australia and, to their great credit, it is because they have gone further than any other state and they want to be able to continue to go further than any other state in school autonomy and, amazingly, they want to pay for it themselves, which is a unique thing for a state or territory government and I welcome it. But New South Wales signed up today, which means we are spending $70 million on independent public schooling, delivering on the promise we made before 2013 to expand autonomy across schools. Mr Perrett interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Moreton is warned! Mr PYNE 9V5 It is very important to deliver as much autonomy in schools as possible. The jury is in on school autonomy but not for the Labor Party—the Leader of the Opposition is still happy to sing the tune of the Australian education union on school autonomy. He still opposes it— Mr Perrett interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Moreton can leave under 94a. Mr PYNE 9V5 because he never put students first; he has a teachers-first policy. This government has a students-first policy. All the evidence indicates that the more autonomy in a school, the better for students. The higher the expectations on those students, the more likely that they will get better results. The UK schools white paper said: Across the world, the case for the benefit of school autonomy has been established beyond doubt. The OECD says: PISA show a clear relationship between learning outcomes and the relative autonomy of schools in managing instructional policies and practices … So this government is unashamedly in favour of more autonomy in our schools across Australia. This Independent Public Schools initiative will deliver increasing delegation for principals to manage teacher under performance— Ms Claydon interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Newcastle is not in her seat and will desist. Mr PYNE 9V5 school leadership training for principals; delegation of budget management to schools and capability building for school councils. So I am very pleased to welcome New South Wales into the Independent Public Schools initiative. Some states like Queensland and the Northern Territory will go further than other states but the reality is that we have delivered the promise that we made that 1,500 schools in Australia would have more autonomy over the next four years. We have delivered it in one year. Next year, 2,000 schools across Australia will benefit from the Independent Public Schools Initiative and that is good news for students and their parents. The SPEAKER SE4 I wish to advise the House that we have in the chamber with us the Honourable Peter Lindsay, the former member for Herbert and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence in the Howard government. We make you welcome. Budget 28 14:36 Mr BURKE DYW Watson My question is to the Minister for Communications. Under broadcasting licences issued by the Commonwealth, last year Australian television stations relayed footage of an interview the Minister for Communications did on the Alan Jones program. These broadcasts asserted that the minister said: I support unreservedly and wholeheartedly every element in the Budget. Every single one. Minister, were these broadcasts accurate and appropriate uses of the broadcasting licences? 14:37 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I have to compliment the honourable member on that rather elaborate way he has tried to make this question relevant to my portfolio. But of course every single member of the government supported every element in the budget—of course. We are a united government. The Labor Party make the great mistake of seeing their opponents through the prism of their own disunity, of imagining that we are as fractured and faction ridden as them, of imagining that we have dissension in our ranks in the way they do in the Labor Party. I see the smiling opposition leader. This is the hero of the Hoang Hau lazy Susan. There he was, turning the table on his leader. He has not only deposed one leader; he has deposed two. He had second thoughts. Mr Abbott EZ5 A second course! Mr TURNBULL 885 A second course—the Prime Minister is quite right. The first course was Rudd, the second course was Gillard, and then he went back to the first course. Well, you can do that at a Vietnamese restaurant, I suppose. You can just go back to the beginning of the menu. But really the truth of the matter is interviews with Alan Jones are always entertaining. He is a very colourful interviewer and I was delighted to see parts of that interview broadcast. It was a colourful one and one where each of us stood our ground. You could say of Mr Jones, and I think he would probably say it of me, that we are often wrong but never in doubt. It is important to stand up to him and to not be bullied by him. I must say that over the years the great mistake that politicians have made—including, the member for Watson knows, a Labor Premier of New South Wales—is to allow yourself to be bullied by the media. It is absolutely vital to win the respect of the public and indeed of the media itself, to stand your ground, stand up for what you believe in and not be bullied into an echo chamber. That is the critical— Mr Shorten interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 'Climate change,' says the Leader of the Opposition. This is the man that persuaded Kevin Rudd not to go to a double dissolution. This is the man that led Kevin Rudd over the cliff into an abyss, where he then stabbed him in the back. You have no credibility on integrity, Leader of the Opposition. Child Care 29 14:40 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore My question is to the Minister for Social Services. Will the minister update the House on the challenges facing families accessing the child care that they need so they can participate in the workforce if they choose to do so? 14:41 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Gilmore for her very important question on something that I know concerns many families all around this country. For many families, the choice to go back to work is a choice, and it is a choice that families make in consideration of their own circumstances. They may choose to have one parent stay at home, and that choice comes at a great cost to those families and they make that earnestly. Other families are in a position to choose to go back to work. But there are many families in this country where the choice for them to go back to work is a necessity. It is an absolute necessity and it is a necessity because, for them, to remain on two incomes gives their family the opportunity to get ahead. It gives their family the opportunity to provide for a better life for their family, to allow their children to have a good start. This is incredibly important. This government and previous governments have spent a large amount of money to ensure that we can help people make these choices and they do not get caught in the childcare catch-22, where all they might do is go back to work simply to pay the childcare expenses. We want to help them get out of that, and this government is spending $31 billion over four years. That is twice the amount those opposite were spending in the first four years. It is important that we continue to make this investment in these families so they can make these choices, so they can get ahead. But we have to be honest about how we are spending this money and whether we are targeting it in the best way we possibly can to help these families get in a position where they can make these decisions for their families. We need to address the affordability issues, and it is true that under the previous government costs for child care did rise by over 50 per cent. That is true and it continues to rise at around seven per cent a year. We need to ensure that we are not feeding those price increases with inflationary policies in the way we deliver payments to families. We also need to ensure that we do not just continue to shovel money at this problem in a way that does not deliver the outcome. The previous government increased the rebate from 30 to 50 per cent but at the same time it did not help more women in those situations, who are having families, go back to work when they needed to go back to work. These are the honest issues we need to address. The previous government said they were going to build 260 centres, or thereabouts, and they built 30. But we need to have an honest assessment about how the $6.6 billion we are spending is addressing the very real issues. So this government is going to do that through the package we are working on now— Ms Kate Ellis DZU Can we see it? Mr MORRISON E3L and I invite the opposition to be part of that debate and to be part of that process. We have a Productivity Commission report which will soon be released which will provide the opportunity for us to engage on this issue. I have indeed written to the shadow minister in this area just today about these issues and I look forward to her response. But these are the things we need to address in this portfolio to help families make the choices that help them get ahead and deal with the very serious issues that they are facing. Budget 29 14:44 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. This morning on Sky News the minister said, 'The whole cabinet has to take responsibility for the budget.' As a member of cabinet, does the minister take responsibility for not just the aid cuts but every element of this unfair budget? 14:44 Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P Curtin The shadow deputy leader ought to understand that a budget process is a cabinet process. It is undertaken by the entire cabinet. I am sorry if that was not the case in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments, but it certainly is in ours. In relation to the aid budget, I think it is worth noting that Labor ripped $5.7 billion out of the aid budget in its last couple of years. Labor moved funding from the aid budget into the onshore processing of asylum seeker claims. Labor so debauched the aid budget that we had to stabilise the aid budget and introduce a new paradigm so that the spending would be more effective, more efficient and targeted to outcomes. This is a party that spent the aid budget on building a statue in the UN plaza in New York. This is a party that spent the aid budget on building a parliament house in the Caribbean, and this is coming from the shadow minister for foreign affairs who thinks that Africa is a country. Seriously! Asylum Seekers 30 14:46 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister inform the House of the effect on Australia's humanitarian immigration program of the government regaining control of Australia's borders? 14:46 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the member for his question. There is a bit of a theme of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years in this question time today, and I would like to continue it in my response to this very important question. All Australians know that it is very important to maintain the integrity of our borders, and this government is absolutely determined to make sure that we keep our borders strong. The Howard government was successful at stopping the boats, and when the Rudd government was elected in 2007 they changed the policy and the boats started again. They started again and they flooded in. Under the Abbott government, the boats have stopped. The boats have stopped under the Abbott government and we are determined to make sure that we keep those boats stopped because of a few reasons. Firstly, we do not want people drowning at sea. During the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd chaotic and dysfunctional years, we had 1,200 people die at sea. So those people opposite who would get up on their high horse and preach to this government and somehow pretend to us that they are on some sort of higher moral ground, 1,200 people died at sea under the Labor Party and they should be ashamed of it. Not only that but over the course of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, during which Bill Shorten was a member of that cabinet making those decisions, 800 boats arrived with over 50,000 people. John Howard stopped the boats, 50,000 people came under Labor's period of government, and we stopped the boats. During 2014, one boat arrived. In 2013, under Labor, in a 12-month period 302 boats arrived. People die at sea. There are billions of dollars in cost blow-outs and all of that means that we cannot afford to put money into the humanitarian program. Not only have we saved billions of dollars by stopping boats but, more importantly, we have saved the lives of people who would otherwise have drowned at sea and we have been able to extend the humanitarian program from its current levels up to 18,750 places over the course of the next four years, which will make us one of the most compassionate countries in the world. Labor took a decision to lock kids up in detention. Two thousand children were locked up in detention under Labor. We have got that number down to under 200 and it will reduce further. We are working to do that. But if we do not keep our borders strong, if we do not keep Labor out at the next election, the boats will start again, people will continue to die at sea, there will be cost blow-outs and the Labor Party will preside over the same dysfunction that the Leader of the Opposition presided over during the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years. We do not want to return to Labor and, in particular, we do not want to return to Labor because the boats will not stop and people will drown at sea again. Budget 30 14:49 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Is there a single measure from the budget that the Prime Minister has abandoned since promising 'good government starts today'? And, Prime Minister, will you tell the truth? Absolutely nothing has changed. 14:50 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah It is interesting that we should be asked this question, because some 80 per cent of the budget measures are actually implemented. Some 80 per cent of the budget measures are actually implemented and $16 billion worth of savings over the forward estimates in this budget have already been implemented. But we are serious about giving our children and our grandchildren a financial future. We are serious about setting this country up. Mr Burke DYW Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order on direct relevance. The question asked what has been abandoned— The SPEAKER SE4 The member will resume his seat. There is no point of order. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Everyone knows that the budgetary position was simply unsustainable under the former government. The former government knew that the budgetary position was unsustainable; that is why they kept promising to deliver a surplus. In fact, they did not just promise to deliver a surplus; they said they had delivered a surplus when in fact in their last year the budget deficit was $48 billion. It was $48 billion in the financial year of their last budget. We are the solution, they are the problem. They are doing their best to sabotage the solution but we will not be deterred. We will not be deterred. We owe it to our children and our grandchildren to do the right thing by the future of this country— Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Isaacs will desist or leave. The choice is his. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 As for the Leader of the Opposition, what are his policies? Other than to say no to everything, his policies are: bring back the carbon tax, bring back the mining tax, and bring back the boats. Shame. Agriculture 31 14:52 Mr BROAD 30379 Mallee My question is for the Minister for Agriculture. As a farmer myself, a producer of prime Australian lamb, will the minister update the House on the government's plan for Australian agriculture for the coming year? 14:52 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I thank the honourable member for his question. I am happy to say that the other day I was loading sheep at $99 per lamb. They were second run lambs, so that was very good. I was selling cows the other day, like yourself. They were over $1,300 a head, which is very good. I was thinking about what a difference the government makes. I have been going through a few of the differences, and nothing tells a story like the numbers. Under those opposite, light steers out of Darwin were 165 cents a kilogram. Under us it is 270 cents per kilogram. That is up 63 per cent—63 per cent of a difference. Under those opposite, light heifers were 145 cents per kilogram. Under us it is 255 cents per kilogram. That is up 75 per cent because of our government. At the Roma Saleyards, big steers—over 500 kilograms—under them it was 160 cents a kilogram; under us, it is 232 cents a kilogram. That is up 45 per cent. If you go up to Roma, under them it was 164 cents a kilogram; under us it is 233 cents a kilogram. It is not just in the cattle market; go to dairy exports. Under them, Murray Goulburn opened up at 41 cents per litre Under us, it has opened up this year at 44 cents per litre—up seven per cent. Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister was invited to share with the House his plan for agriculture. The SPEAKER SE4 What is the point of order? Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 It is obvious he does not have one. The SPEAKER SE4 The member will resume his seat. Mr JOYCE E5D Our plan is exactly what we are doing. We are increasing the standard of living of people on the land by reason of our government. By reason, not just of rhetoric—what we are actually doing; what we are actually delivering. We are actually delivering a better price of dairy. We are actually delivering a better price for a sheep. We are actually delivering a better price for beef. Under them, the price of a bail of cotton was $470 a bail; under us it is $520 a bail. Under them, lambs were 435 cents per kilogram; under us it is 664 cents per kilogram. Under us everything is better. Under us in agriculture everything is better. Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Gorton will desist. Mr JOYCE E5D Under them we had the live animal debacle and we had the Murray-Darling debacle. They halved the sized of the agriculture department. They had three agricultural ministers, two Prime Ministers and they have still only got one farmer. I am checking the record and that one does not seem very reliable. Under them we had the carbon tax. Under us we have a formidable white paper that is actually going to make people's lives better. Under us we are actually going to build the dams, because we are not going to be held to ransom by the Greens. Under us we have the lowest interest rates on record. That is the plan under us. Our plan is a better future and we are delivering. Budget 31 14:56 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Minister for Finance's statement on Sunday, and I quote: 'No minister has ever said to me that the budget was unfair.' So, just to be clear: has any minister in your government ever said to you that the budget is unfair? 14:56 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah The unfairest thing of all is the intergenerational theft that members opposite perpetrated on our children and our grandchildren. That is the unfairest thing of all. Opposition members interjecting— 14:57 The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Lingiari will desist as will the member for Bendigo. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 As a result of the profligacy of members opposite, as a result of the incapacity of members opposite to exercise fiscal discipline, this country is saddled with debt and deficit stretching as far as the eye can see. It is saddled with repaying a billion dollars every single month just to pay the interest on Labor's debt and deficit. That is the challenge that this government is dealing with. Thanks to members opposite, thanks to the fundamental unfairness against the future, this government is wrestling with a big fiscal challenge—but we are up for it. Some 80 per cent of budget measures have already been implemented and some $16 billion worth of budget savings are now in place. But what we are not going to do is rip off the future to satisfy ourselves. That is what members opposite did. They ripped off the future to try to buy an election. That is what they did. They were prepared to sacrifice our children and our grandchildren's future for their own political purposes. That is the ultimate unfairness and that is what we are saving this country from. Government Services 32 14:58 Mr EWEN JONES 96430 Herbert My question is to the Minister for Communications. Will the minister update the House on what is being done to bring government services into the 21st century and make sure that the Public Service is more efficient and productive? 14:58 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question and note his very keen interest in technology. Governments across the board represent a bit more than a third of our economy. Making government efficient is not simply a matter of cutting costs and saving money; it is a matter of making our whole economy much more efficient. The fundamental challenge that we face, which the Prime Minister and the Treasurer explain every day, is: how do we ensure that we as a high-wage, generous-social-welfare-net, developed economy maintain that in the face of a far more competitive world, where we have convergence, where developing countries that used to compete with the low-wage, low-skill jobs are now competing with the high-wage, high-skill jobs and of course where the internet and globalisation are making so many things trade exposed that were not before? We are living in a world of much greater competition but much greater opportunity. So we have to, across the board, be more productive, more efficient, more innovative, more technologically sophisticated. And government is a big part of that; it is a third of the economy. So, the Prime Minister has established a Digital Transformation Office within my department, the Department of Communications. And its job, my goal, is to ensure that by 2017 all major transactions between citizens and government can be completed digitally online end to end. This is going to ensure that government services are vastly more compelling, vastly more attractive to citizens, and of course it will save them time and money. Now, the human services minister, Senator Marise Payne, already has in her department an outstanding product, which I am sure many honourable members use, which is myGov. There are six million active users for myGov. This is a digital platform that is now being made available to state governments—and in time local governments as well. I was talking to the chief information officer of the Department of Human Services, Gary Sterrenberg, only the other day, when I was visiting a myGov shopfront. And he made the point that to bring a state government agency onto myGov costs only $50,000 in onboarding costs. Now, we are going to make this platform available to all local and state government for no charge from the Commonwealth. This is going to revolutionise the way government services are delivered. It is going to make government more efficient. It is going to drive our national target of productivity, competitiveness and innovation that will deliver us the growth and ensure our children's jobs in the years to come. 15:01 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I seek leave to move the following motion: That this House: (1) censures the Liberal-National Government for misleading the Australian people before the last election and hitting Australians with its: (a) unfair GP tax, hurting Australians every time they go to see the doctor; (b) $100,000 university degrees, making it harder for Australians from modest backgrounds to further their education; (c) $80 billion cuts to schools and hospitals; (d) attack on pensions, meaning older Australian will be up to $80 a week worse off; (e) $1 billion cuts to child care; and (f) cuts to family payments, slashing $6,000 from a typical Australian family; and (2) given the Prime Minister promised good government starts now, 521 days late, calls on the Government to immediately dump its: (a) unfair GP tax; (b) $100,000 university degrees; (c) $80 billion cut to schools and hospitals; (d) attack on pensions; (e) cuts to child care; and (f) cuts to family payments. 15:01 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt As it is a pack of lies, leave is not granted. The SPEAKER SE4 The Leader of the House will withdraw the unparliamentary language. Mr PYNE 9V5 I withdraw. MOTIONS 33 MOTIONS Liberal-National Government 33 Attempted Censure 33 15:03 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion forthwith—That this House: (1) censures the Liberal-National Government for misleading the Australian people before the last election and hitting Australians with its: (a) unfair GP tax, hurting Australians every time they go to see the doctor; (b) $100,000 university degrees, making it harder for Australians from modest backgrounds to further their education; (c) $80 billion cuts to schools and hospitals; (d) attack on pensions, meaning older Australian will be up to $80 a week worse off; (e) $1 billion cuts to child care; and (f) cuts to family payments, slashing $6,000 from a typical Australian family; and (2) given the Prime Minister promised good government starts now, 521 days late, calls on the Government to immediately dump its: (a) unfair GP tax; (b) $100,000 university degrees; (c) $80 billion cut to schools and hospitals; (d) attack on pensions; (e) cuts to child care; and (f) cuts to family payments. We saw yesterday in that weird kidnapping— 15:05 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I move: That the member be no longer heard. The SPEAKER SE4 The question is that the member be no longer heard.

The House divided. [15:09]
(The Speaker—Hon. Bronwyn Bishop)

 87 AYES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Baldwin, RC Billson, BF Bishop, JI Briggs, JE Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Brough, MT Buchholz, S (teller) Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Cobb, JK Coleman, DB Coulton, M (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Fletcher, PW Frydenberg, JA Gambaro, T Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Griggs, NL Hartsuyker, L Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hendy, PW Hockey, JB Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Hutchinson, ER Irons, SJ Jensen, DG Jones, ET Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Ley, SP Macfarlane, IE Marino, NB Markus, LE Matheson, RG McNamara, KJ Morrison, SJ Nikolic, AA O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE Randall, DJ Robb, AJ Robert, SR Roy, WB Ruddock, PM Scott, BC Scott, FM Simpkins, LXL Smith, ADH Southcott, AJ Stone, SN Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Truss, WE Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Varvaris, N Whiteley, BD Wicks, LE Williams, MP Wilson, RJ Wood, JP Wyatt, KG 53 NOES Albanese, AN Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AE Burke, AS Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Danby, M Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Feeney, D Ferguson, LDT Fitzgibbon, JA Giles, AJ Gray, G Griffin, AP Hall, JG (teller) Hayes, CP Husic, EN Jones, SP King, CF Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE Owens, J Parke, M Plibersek, TJ Ripoll, BF Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Swan, WM Thistlethwaite, MJ Thomson, KJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 15:12 The SPEAKER SE4 Is the suspension motion seconded? I call the member for Watson. 15:13 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I would like to quote backbenchers from the Liberal Party— The SPEAKER SE4 The member will resume his seat. 15:13 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I move: That the member no longer be heard. The SPEAKER SE4 The question is that the member be no longer heard.

The House divided. [15:15]
(The Speaker—Hon. Bronwyn Bishop)

 87 AYES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Baldwin, RC Billson, BF Bishop, JI Briggs, JE Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Brough, MT Buchholz, S (teller) Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Cobb, JK Coleman, DB Coulton, M (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Fletcher, PW Frydenberg, JA Gambaro, T Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Griggs, NL Hartsuyker, L Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hendy, PW Hockey, JB Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Hutchinson, ER Irons, SJ Jensen, DG Jones, ET Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Ley, SP Macfarlane, IE Marino, NB Markus, LE Matheson, RG McNamara, KJ Morrison, SJ Nikolic, AA O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE Randall, DJ Robb, AJ Robert, SR Roy, WB Ruddock, PM Scott, BC Scott, FM Simpkins, LXL Smith, ADH Southcott, AJ Stone, SN Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Truss, WE Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Varvaris, N Whiteley, BD Wicks, LE Williams, MP Wilson, RJ Wood, JP Wyatt, KG 53 NOES Albanese, AN Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AE Burke, AS Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Danby, M Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Feeney, D Ferguson, LDT Fitzgibbon, JA Giles, AJ Gray, G Griffin, AP Hall, JG (teller) Hayes, CP Husic, EN Jones, SP King, CF Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE Owens, J Parke, M Plibersek, TJ Ripoll, BF Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Swan, WM Thistlethwaite, MJ Thomson, KJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 15:21 The SPEAKER SE4 The question is that the original motion be agreed to. Mr Burke DYW No, Madam Speaker, it is not. 15:16 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I move: That the question be now put. Mr Burke DYW Madam Speaker, on a point of order, it was never seconded. The SPEAKER SE4 Yes, it was. Mr Burke DYW No. The SPEAKER SE4 Yes, you got up. Mr Burke DYW I was about to say that I seconded it, and you told me to sit down. The SPEAKER SE4 No, sorry. Mr Burke DYW The motion has not been seconded. The SPEAKER SE4 Excuse me. The member will resume his seat. When I gave you the call, I asked, 'Is the motion seconded?' and I called you to answer that call. Mr Burke DYW And, Madam Speaker—on the point of order—you instructed me to sit down before you allowed me to answer that call. The SPEAKER SE4 No, by getting to your feet and speaking at all, you answered the call. The question before the House is that the question be now put.

The House divided. [15:18]
(The Speaker—Hon. Bronwyn Bishop)

 87 AYES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Baldwin, RC Billson, BF Bishop, JI Briggs, JE Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Brough, MT Buchholz, S (teller) Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Cobb, JK Coleman, DB Coulton, M (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Fletcher, PW Frydenberg, JA Gambaro, T Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Griggs, NL Hartsuyker, L Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hendy, PW Hockey, JB Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Hutchinson, ER Irons, SJ Jensen, DG Jones, ET Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Ley, SP Macfarlane, IE Marino, NB Markus, LE Matheson, RG McNamara, KJ Morrison, SJ Nikolic, AA O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE Randall, DJ Robb, AJ Robert, SR Roy, WB Ruddock, PM Scott, BC Scott, FM Simpkins, LXL Smith, ADH Southcott, AJ Stone, SN Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Truss, WE Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Varvaris, N Whiteley, BD Wicks, LE Williams, MP Wilson, RJ Wood, JP Wyatt, KG 53 NOES Albanese, AN Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AE Burke, AS Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Danby, M Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Feeney, D Ferguson, LDT Fitzgibbon, JA Giles, AJ Gray, G Griffin, AP Hall, JG (teller) Hayes, CP Husic, EN Jones, SP King, CF Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE Owens, J Parke, M Plibersek, TJ Ripoll, BF Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Swan, WM Thistlethwaite, MJ Thomson, KJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 15:18 The SPEAKER SE4 The question now is that the original motion moved by Mr Shorten be agreed to.  

The House divided. [15:20]
(The Speaker—Hon. Bronwyn Bishop)

 53 AYES Albanese, AN Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AE Burke, AS Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Danby, M Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Feeney, D Ferguson, LDT Fitzgibbon, JA Giles, AJ Gray, G Griffin, AP Hall, JG (teller) Hayes, CP Husic, EN Jones, SP King, CF Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE Owens, J Parke, M Plibersek, TJ Ripoll, BF Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Swan, WM Thistlethwaite, MJ Thomson, KJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 87 NOES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Baldwin, RC Billson, BF Bishop, JI Briggs, JE Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Brough, MT Buchholz, S (teller) Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Cobb, JK Coleman, DB Coulton, M (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Fletcher, PW Frydenberg, JA Gambaro, T Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Griggs, NL Hartsuyker, L Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hendy, PW Hockey, JB Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Hutchinson, ER Irons, SJ Jensen, DG Jones, ET Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Ley, SP Macfarlane, IE Marino, NB Markus, LE Matheson, RG McNamara, KJ Morrison, SJ Nikolic, AA O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE Randall, DJ Robb, AJ Robert, SR Roy, WB Ruddock, PM Scott, BC Scott, FM Simpkins, LXL Smith, ADH Southcott, AJ Stone, SN Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Truss, WE Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Varvaris, N Whiteley, BD Wicks, LE Williams, MP Wilson, RJ Wood, JP Wyatt, KG 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 15:23 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 39 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 15:23 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER SE4 Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr ALBANESE R36 Yes. The SPEAKER SE4 Having so claimed, you may proceed under indulgence. Mr ALBANESE R36 Today in question time, the Deputy Prime Minister referred to my doorstop this morning when I stated that the government had broken its commitment that construction would begin on a range of new projects in the government's first year. He then claimed that my statement was wrong and named a number of projects which had actually been begun by the former Labor government. In the interests of time I will not go through each of the misrepresentations— The SPEAKER SE4 You would not be permitted to do so. Mr ALBANESE R36 but I will name just six. There are the Pacific Highway upgrades and the Bruce Highway upgrades, and I refer to nation-building infrastructure, in May 2013. There is the North-South Corridor in Adelaide—and I have a photo of the South Road Superway that is open—and the announcement of the Torrens to Torrens projects in Adelaide. I seek leave to table those photos. The SPEAKER SE4 The member knows he is not permitted to use props. Do not abuse the indulgence given. Mr ALBANESE R36 No. 4 is the Gateway Upgrade North, and I refer to the budget papers of May 2013— The SPEAKER SE4 You are using props again. I said not to. Mr ALBANESE R36 I am going through each of the misrepresentations. I could take a lot longer by not doing this. Mr Pyne 9V5 Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order: the member for Grayndler is not making a personal explanation about a matter where he has been misrepresented. He is making a debating point. If he wishes to, he can lodge an MPI and debate it on the MPI or he could take an adjournment. But this is quite out of order. He needs to have been personally misrepresented and therefore to be correcting the record. He is not doing that; he is debating about who said what, and when, about how much money was being spent and when. The SPEAKER SE4 The member will resume his seat. Normally the member for Grayndler is a very good example of the way to make a personal explanation. He is saying that he wishes to move six personal explanation points— Mr Albanese R36 No. I have put them all in one. The SPEAKER SE4 but the point is, this is in the area of debate. Now you may rise and say that you were misrepresented, you believe; you may list the statements that were made and that your position is that this is not the case; but you may not go on to debate the issue as you are currently doing. Mr Albanese R36 I am doing that, Madam Speaker. The SPEAKER SE4 No, you are not. You have been using props and debating the issue. Mr Albanese R36 To the point of order raised by the Leader of the House— The SPEAKER SE4 There is no point of order as such. Mr Albanese R36 I am now addressing the Leader of the House's point. The SPEAKER SE4 I have ruled that there is no point of order so there is none for you to address. Now, you can be very specific, but you may not debate this. Mr ALBANESE R36 The final two statements, when the Deputy Prime Minister said that I was wrong in saying that these projects had not begun, were on the F3 to M2 in Sydney— The SPEAKER SE4 The member will resume his seat. Mr Albanese R36 I am in order. The SPEAKER SE4 You are not entitled to get up there and debate what you believe is your record. Mr Albanese R36 Madam Speaker, a point of order: I am not debating. I am naming the projects. The SPEAKER SE4 The member will resume his seat. You have been given ample opportunity to make a personal explanation. Mr Pyne 9V5 You've had a very good run! The SPEAKER SE4 I do not need any interjections from the Leader of the House, either. The member will resume his seat because he has completed the issue. He is debating. Mr Albanese R36 I seek leave to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER SE4 You were given leave to make a personal explanation. I do not grant you further indulgence. It is an indulgence and it is not granted. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 40 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 15:27 The SPEAKER SE4 (): I present the Auditor-General's Performance Audit No. 21 of 2014-15 entitled Delivery of Australia's consular services: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. DOCUMENTS 40 DOCUMENTS Presentation 40 15:28 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 40 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Budget 40 15:28 The SPEAKER SE4 I have received a letter from the honourable member for McMahon proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The government promising change but failing to drop its unfair Budget. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:28 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon In all the chaos and confusion of the last 48 hours, one thing is very, very clear: the government just does not get it. We see all the speculation, all the backgrounding, all the backstabbing about who wants what job. We see the positing of who will be the next Treasurer across the newspapers of Australia. We see all the backbiting against each other and all the blame shifting about whose fault the mess is. One thing is very clear: they do not understand the problem. All the speculation about staff members, about who said what to who, and who is on the outer in the Prime Minister's office—none of that matters if a government is going well. None of that matters if the Australian people have trust in their government. None of that matters if the bonds of trust have not been broken between a Prime Minister and the nation. And the fundamental problem with this government—that the government still just does not understand and get—is that those bonds of trust have been broken by the entire government with the Australian people. They were broken in May by the Treasurer who brought down a budget with unfairness at its core. They were broken in May by the Treasurer who brought down a budget which— systemically, methodically, calmly—broke every election commitment they made. Can you imagine them going through the real solutions document saying, 'We missed one! We haven't broken that promise yet.' They are very methodical when it comes to breaking their election promises. They went through and ticked them off, one by one, and said, 'Now we have. Now we've broken every promise.' That was the trust that was broken with the Australian people. They knew it. The Treasurer knew it. That is why the Treasurer prepared the table showing the impact, on Australian families, of the budget—just as they have done for every treasurer since Peter Costello—and they said, 'Here they are, Treasurer; here are the tables.' He said, 'Don't put them in the budget. That would be too open and transparent for my liking,' said the member for North Sydney, the Treasurer. 'We can't tell the Australian people the impact of our decision. Take them out of the budget.' The first Treasurer who did that, he knew the impact on the Australian people of their budget. Has anything changed in the last 48 hours? Has anything changed in the last three hours? The Prime Minister apparently said the budget was too ambitious; too bold. So what elements have been dropped.? It is a very fair question. Has the GP tax been dropped? No. He told the party room, 'We might drop it,' but then we had a bit of cleaning up and a bit of speculation and, 'No, it's still government policy.' Has the decision not to put the submarines out to open tender been dropped? No. That is now very clear. He won a couple of extra votes from the South Australians by telling them he would—and then it did not. Nothing has changed. Have the $100,000 degrees for Australians been dropped? Not on your life. They have not been dropped at all. What about the decision to take $80 a week away from Australia's pensioners over the next 10 years by cutting indexation? It has not been stopped. It is still their policy. The decision to make Australians work until they are 70—a longer working life than any other country in the world—has it been dropped? Not by this Prime Minister; not by this Treasurer. The decision to create an underclass by removing the ability of young people to receive Newstart in Australia, the decision to deliberately, calmly and methodically create an underclass in Australia, by taking away the right to unemployment benefits when people fall on hard times—no it has not been dropped. The government just does not get it. They do not get it at its core. Their problem with the Australian people is not who is in what job, it is not the sales job—as bad as it has been for the Treasurer—it is the product. It is the product of his budget, it is the product of their dishonesty and is the product of their strategy, their collective strategy—agreed among all of them—to mislead the Australian people at the last election. We know it was agreed between all of them. We saw the Prime Minister today reassert that none of the budget measures have been dropped. We saw the deputy leader of the Liberal Party say, 'This was a cabinet process.' Confirm it was a cabinet process. And we heard the Minister for Communications say, on 2GB, 'I support unreservedly and wholeheartedly every element in this budget, every single one.' That is his position now, that was his position then and that is his position as he circles the Prime Minister of Australia, waiting for the right time to strike. The Minister for Finance belled the cat on Sunday. Nobody on the entire frontbench has raised with the Minister for Finance that the budget is unfair. Not one of them has gone to the Treasurer or Minister for Finance and said, 'I think cutting the pension is unfair. I think cutting young people out of Newstart is unfair. I think making Australians work until they are 70 is unfair.' Not one single one of them has had the gumption or courage to stand up for Australians who know that this budget is unfair. They know that they are in deep trouble the Australian people. They do not know how to fix it, because they will not drop and cannot drop their unfair budget. Whether they drop the Treasurer or not, what needs to change is the budget and the approach to the Australian people. We know that this has had an impact on the economy, because the Australian people say this: 'We expect Liberal governments to be unfair, but we expect them to be competent as they go about it,' and they have not even managed that. We have seen the mixed messages, we have seen the loss, we have seen the change in approach day after day. We have seen the Prime Minister who cannot have the same message in the morning as the afternoon. He tells the senators from South Australia one thing and his ministers another. The Treasurer cannot decide whether he is brilliant because he has passed the entire budget or the parliament is terrible because it will not pass the budget at all. He cannot work it out. He cannot work out whether the savings are necessary for budget repair, the creation of a medical health and research fund or for tax cuts. They are apparently all three, all at once. No wonder the Australian people have lost confidence in this Treasurer and in this economy. No wonder the Australian people have seen consumer confidence and business confidence fall on this Treasurer's watch. It was 93.2 in January, said the Westpac-Melbourne Institute. This unfair budget has smashed consumer confidence. Westpac's chief economist, Bill Evans, said 'Pessimists still outnumber optimists by a significant majority.' Why would the Australian people not lose confidence when the Australian government does not have confidence in the Treasurer? Why would the Australian people not lose confidence in their government when they see headlines like this? If the government does not have confidence in the Treasurer, how can the Australian people have confidence in the Treasurer? They are the best headlines since this one that I am holding— The DEPUTY SPEAKER MT4 Order! The member will— Mr BOWEN DZS Why would the Australian people not lose confidence in their Treasurer? They lose confidence in their Treasurer because he is being dishonest with them. We know he breaks his promises. Now we know he breaks the law as well. The Charter of Budget Honesty is very clear. The DEPUTY SPEAKER MT4 Order! The member for McMahon will withdraw the assertion that the member has broken the law. Mr BOWEN DZS The law is very clear and the government is in breach of the law. The DEPUTY SPEAKER MT4 No. Withdraw unreservedly. Mr BOWEN DZS I withdraw. The DEPUTY SPEAKER MT4 Unreservedly. Mr BOWEN DZS Unreservedly, I withdraw. We know the Treasurer breaches his promises. We also know that the government has not complied with the Charter of Budget Honesty. The Charter of Budget Honesty, which is the law of the land—very clear—says that the Intergenerational report shall be released five years after the last one. Five years has been and five years has gone, and the Treasurer has not released the report. The Intergenerational report is not a Labor invention. It is something instituted by Peter Costello as Treasurer. It is something that the Labor Party honoured in office, because we could see the benefit. We could see it has become an important document. We welcome the discussion around the Intergenerational report. And what does this Treasurer do? He cannot even get his homework in on time. He sits on the report. Why? Because he sees the Intergenerational report as his political plaything. He sees the Intergenerational report as his excuse—his political opportunity to try and reboot the budget debate. 'Let's have another go,' he says. 'We've only had 76 reboots; let's have another go. Let's release the Intergenerational report.' But he releases it in a time frame which is not allowed for by the Charter of Budget Honesty—very, very clearly. As much as the government may try to ignore or deny the fact, the fact is clear: the law is clear and this government is in breach of it. And, when the Treasurer eventually gets around to releasing the Intergenerational report, it will be clear that he has used it as his political plaything. He has used it as his political plaything to make up for the fact as an excuse that he has a budget which he cannot sell. And the fact of the matter is he cannot sell it because it is an appalling document; it is a bad product to sell by bad salesman who has seen consumer and business confidence fall on his watch. Now, we are about to get a job application from the Assistant Treasurer. We are about to get a job application from him. If he does his job, he will comply with the law. He could release the Intergenerational report. He could to do it. He could say, 'I'm not going to breach the law', but he will not. He will not, because this government— (Time expired) 15:38 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong After being KO'ed last night by Alan Jones on Q&A, here comes disco Chris into the chamber to show us how he has forgotten the last six years of chaos on the Labor side. Who remembers that famous statement that chills the bones of every Labor member: 'The four years of surpluses I announce tonight'? Mr Chester IPZ Who said that? Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Who said that? The member for Lilley. The member for Lilley was so good at his job that it quickly went to the member for McMahon. Who remembers that? We certainly remember that on our side. If you talk about false hopes and about expectations that are never met, that is the best example. The member for McMahon knows so much that he is texting the member for Lilley just to check that everything is true. The members on this side know two things: firstly, they know what a failure the Labor side was; and, secondly, they know how significant our achievements have been in less than a year and a half in office. They know we are not shirking the challenge of budget repair. We are not shirking that challenge because we know that if we do so we would be as bad as you in that game of intergenerational theft—the game in which you left a bill of $25,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia as a result of your debt bill. So let's remember: when those opposite inherited the Australian balance sheet, there was zero government debt. When we inherited it we were fast on a trajectory of $667 billion of debt—an interest bill of $1 billion a month. As the Treasurer has pointed out to this House, we are now borrowing and spending $100 million a day more than we are taking as revenue. And $40 million of that $100 million is just going to the interest payments on Labor's debt bill. That is the legacy they have left us in addition to 400,000 jobs being lost in small business, a rotisserie of small-business ministers—six in just the same number of years—the Pink Batts and the school halls fiascos. So far everyone seems to forget what a job we have done in stopping the boats. Not only did we save thousands of lives at sea but also we saved the taxpayer over $10 billion, because that would have been the bill if it was business as usual as it occurred under Labor's watch. Of course, they gave us a mining tax, which was expected to produce $26½ billion in revenue. And do you know what it produced in revenue? Just over $300 million—less than three per cent of the expectation after the ATO had spent $50 million in administering it. They gave us a carbon tax, which was hit on the average Australian family of $550 a year. They reduced Defence spending to its lowest level since 1938. They took money, as the foreign minister has reminded us, from the aid budget to help fill the gap in their border protection policies. And, of course, on the NBN they turned what should have been a nation-building project into an expensive white elephant which was out of time and out of budget. So that is the record of those opposite. When we came to government the adults were back in charge, and we commissioned a Commission of Audit. We got a respected businessman in Tony Shepherd to tell us what really needed to be done. And he laid out a blueprint for reform. The hard reform was to bridge that structural deficit—the gap between spending and receipts—that this Labor opposition had left us after their time in government. He pointed out that in Australia we face an ageing population where currently we have five working Australians to every single retired Australia but by mid this century that ratio will fall from five to one to 2.7 to one. We cannot afford to have health spending go from $8 billion 10 years ago for Medicare to $20 billion today and to $34 billion in just a few years time when only half of that $20 billion is coming from the Medicare levy. We just cannot afford the increasing cost of an ageing population without tightening our belts and without getting smaller and more efficient government. So what have we done? We have done exactly that. As a result of our reforms, the government's debt will be $170 billion less than it would have been under Labor in 10 years time. The interest bill will be significantly lower so more money could be spent on roads, hospitals and schools. We have gone on with the job of microeconomic reform, particularly deregulation. We have taken 57,000 pages out of the statute books, significantly reducing the red tape burden for small business and for big business alike and for the not-for-profit sector. Getting $1 billion a year of red tape reductions was something that those opposite thought was impossible but, in fact, we more than doubled that with more than $2 billion of red tape achievements being reached. We have the largest infrastructure spending projects on record underway as a result of the $50 billion stimulus in last year's budget and an asset recycling plan which incentivises the states to take those decisions to sell existing infrastructure and reinvest in new infrastructure. But, no surprise, those opposite block our attempts to reboot the Australian economy and to boost supply by investing in appropriate infrastructure. That is what we have tried to do. On top of that the member for Goldstein has been heroic in his efforts to get through free trade agreements. Those three free trade agreements will be the bedrock of this Australian economy in the years to come because they lock us into the growth economies on our doorstep—to China, to Japan and of course to Korea, three of our largest export partners, with China being our No. 1 trading partner with $150 billion a year of two-way trade. Of course, we are not stopping. Indonesia and India are also where we are going. Things stayed in the Labor Party's in-tray for way too long and never had their i's dotted and t's crossed. We have achieved that. As a result our dairy exporters, our beef exporters, our resource producers and our service providers—because 70 per cent of the Australian economy is services but only 17 per cent of our exports are services—will all benefit. That is going to be a result of the initiatives that are underway. Members opposite try to say that the Australian economy is not going well. I can tell you that the Australian economy is strong, sound and improving under our watch. Just consider this. In the last year growth was 2.7 per cent compared to 1.9 per cent under Labor. Job advertising levels are at their highest in over two years. Over 200,000 jobs were created on our watch, which equates to 600 new jobs every day. The Dun & Bradstreet business expectations survey released on 3 February this year found that outlook on employment is the most positive it has been in 10 years. Australia's retail trade numbers have now risen for seven consecutive months to be 4.1 per cent higher through the year. Of course, the four-week average of the ANZ consumer confidence index sits around its long-term average levels and last year there were 223,000 new companies registered in Australia, which was an increase of 10.2 per cent from the levels we saw in 2013. Dwelling approvals are also up—8.8 per cent higher than last year. This is a very good story. When you combine that story with the fact that we have just had an interest rate cut by 25 basis points, which for an average family with a $300,000 mortgage will mean $750 extra in their pocket, with the fact that petrol prices are at their lowest levels in many years and as a result the average Australian family will save about $1,000 a year and with the fact that electricity prices are now $550 lower because we have abolished the carbon tax, that is good news for the standard of living for an average Australian. That is a good news story. We have more investment, greater exposure overseas and the cost of living is coming down. On this side of the House we do not just talk; we do. In our 17 months in office we have been very proud of the work in budget repair that we have undertaken. We have been very proud of the infrastructure projects we have underway. We have been very proud of the free trade agreements we have secured. We have been very proud of the deregulation we have undertaken. That is all now making its way through the Australian economy in terms of increased job advertisements—jobs being found for people who have previously been unemployed. Housing dwellings are up, retail numbers are strong and at the end of the day the Australian people looked to those opposite and said, 'You never delivered anything in your six years of office other than debt and deficit.' There is a better way and it stands with the coalition. 15:48 Ms KING 00AMR Ballarat We have had now two question times and media appearance after media appearance of those opposite saying: 'We have learnt. We have been chastened by the experience of the leadership spill motion we had in our party room. We have been chastened. We are going to promise change.' What have we seen in the two question times and in the speech just delivered? Absolutely no change. No change to the unfair budget. Which measures have you dropped? What have you learnt from the experience? It is not about who sits in the Prime Minister's chair; it is about the strength of your policies, and your policies stink. The Australian people have said to you very clearly that they think your GP tax is unfair. If you are not experiencing in your electorates GPs coming to your door telling you what the outcome of the policies of this government will be on bulk-billing and on their practices then your doors are obviously not open. If you are not having families tell you about $100,000 university fees and what that will mean for the aspirations of their young people then you are clearly not listening. Have you not talked to pensioners about what this government has done and is deciding to do to our pensioners and the unemployed? Look at the cuts that are happening to emergency relief services, to homelessness services across the country—some of the most vulnerable people in our community. You have not been listening. What we know is that this government has not changed at all. It has tried to have a reset and claimed to have a reset but it has not. We have had the same language and the same speeches over and over again and the same policies are sitting as a stinking carcass around the neck of every single one of your backbenchers. Let us talk about health. We had at the Press Club last week Tony Abbott giving the great reset speech after a disastrous 2014 and not one single mention of health was made in that speech. It was a speech that confirmed yet again that the Prime Minister and his government have absolutely no interest in listening to anybody and remain committed to this deeply unfair budget—every one of them. Nothing more graphically illustrates that than this government's commitment to its GP tax, a tax that has destroyed the electorate's trust in the government. After three attempts—three rewrites of this policy—and now two health ministers the government is still determined to introduce it. This government still intends to introduce $2 billion worth of cuts directly to general practice, which will be passed on to patients across this country. This government has not said it is walking away from the freeze on indexation or the $5 reduction in rebate, which is the GP tax. The government still has $2 billion worth of hits to general practice that will be passed on to patients. We know that general practices across the country have put up notices about their new fees and what those fees will mean for patients across the country and what they will mean for bulk-billing for general patients. It will see a collapse in bulk-billing rates. This government has absolutely not changed one iota when it comes to its attack on Medicare—its attack on the universal health insurance system that is Medicare—and its attack on bulk-billing rates and general practice in this country. Two health ministers have now publicly committed to this tax and, while the new minister promises to consult, she insists that no matter what she hears, the GP tax is still absolutely and utterly on the table. And we know that every single member of the front bench and every single member of the backbench is committed to this policy because they have stayed with this budget, and they have stayed with this Prime Minister. The members of the front bench on the ERC—every single one of them—have supported this GP tax. And we heard the member for Wentworth, in particular, when he was asked about the budget, say very clearly, 'I certainly do support it. I support all of the budget.' That includes, of course, the GP tax measure. During the Griffith by-election, when we raised the possibility that the government was going to introduce a GP tax, what did the foreign minister say? She said that the Labor Party and the now member for Griffith—the fantastic member for Griffith—was scaremongering. She said: 'No, we haven't got any of these sorts of policies at all. You're scaremongering.' This government has not changed its spots at all. It still wants to destroy. 15:53 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins When we had the change in government in 2007, we saw a great change in the position of the budget. We went from a position of budget strength to a position of budget weakness. Why is it important? With a strong budget you can deliver surpluses. You can pay back the debt that has been created by those opposite. The previous coalition government was left with $96 billion of debt. With a strong budget you are able to deliver personal and company tax cuts. You are able to invest in the future through such things as the Future Fund, and you are able to withstand global economic shocks such as the Asian financial crisis and the dot-com bust. When you go to a position of budget weakness you have deficit upon deficit increasing debt. The previous government, the Labor government, increased debt to a position where, if there were no changes, it was going to be $667 billion—$25,000 for every man, woman and child—leaving us in a position where future generations would need to pay this back, at a time when we know our population is ageing, when there will be increased pressures on the budget and when we will be even more vulnerable to global economic shocks. Since we handed down our first budget, all we have heard from those opposite is this simplistic chant of 'fairness'. It reminds me of that great literary classic Animal Farm, written by George Orwell, in which we heard, 'Four legs good, two legs bad.' And the reason the characters in that book repeated this chant was so that it would become an orthodoxy. Those opposite, again, want this to become a chant—an orthodoxy—that they can try and con the Australian people with. Well, let us examine the statement. At the heart of Labor's charge is that fairness is defined as making no change to policy settings—no matter what the circumstances, no matter what the potential impact. This is quite wrong. Underlying their proposition is that not giving something to someone or scaling it back is, prima facie, unfair. Now, clearly this is a nonsense. Let us examine the way that this situation has changed. We are now, today, spending $100 million a day more than we receive. This is borrowed money. This is increasing debt for future generations. Those on the opposite side of the chamber are not worried about debt. They are not worried about bequeathing debt to future generations, but I think that they should be. One of my great colleagues, Senator Brett Mason, today highlighted the fantastic work of the economist Niall Ferguson, a historian who has focused on economic history. He said in one of his recent books, The Great Degeneration: how institutions decay and economies die: The heart of the matter is the way public debt allows the current generation of voters to live at the expense of those as yet too young to vote or as yet unborn. We, on this side of the House, care about those people. In my present condition, I can certainly say that I care about the future generations who will have to pay back this debt, who will have to withstand lower living conditions because they have been saddled with this debt. If we want to talk about fairness then we need to talk about intergenerational fairness. We need to talk about the legacy that we will be leaving to those generations that will follow us. How fair is it to lock-in spending that we know we cannot afford? How fair is it for those who will follow us? The debts today that we build up will be paid for by future generations. That is why on this side of the House we are serious in engaging in budget repair over the long term and getting the policy settings right for a competitive and resilient economy. It is only by doing this that we will be able to create the very best future for future generations and for those present in this current generation. That is our responsibility. That is our duty. 15:58 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin The Prime Minister's claim that he would lead a stable, adult government has gone from a political promise to a political punchline. In 521 days of government we have not had one single budget passed. There have been fewer budgets passed than leadership spills during the Abbott government, and that is why the government has become a joke. They are led by a figure of some ridicule. They have a much diminished figure as Treasurer. Government members interjecting— Dr CHALMERS 37998 All of these characters that pipe up now just reinforce my point that they have become a joke. We have got a Treasurer that cannot even secure his own job, let alone the jobs of Australians. The Prime Minister stood there yesterday, hand on heart, and said he would change, but not a single policy changed yesterday. Even the promise to properly consider Australian-built subs only survived about as long as that creepy, quivering silence he subjected Mark Riley to in the courtyard out there that day. Let us take stock of the policy suite of those opposite. They still have, after this big reset, cuts to the age pension, the disability support pension and the veterans pension. They are cutting the pensioner education supplement and axing the seniors supplement. They have still got a GP tax. They are still increasing the petrol tax and they are still radically increasing the cost of a university education. That is why yesterday was not a restart; it was a re-run. That is why it did not matter, at the end of yesterday's leadership ballot, who was left holding the axe, because people on low and middle incomes were still under attack from this Liberal government. As entertaining as it has been to watch them stagger around in a haze of confusion and contempt for each other, it does have serious consequences for our economy. It has consequences for our business community and for people on low and middle incomes. For those people, the government's disarray is no joke. Economic growth and jobs are at stake while they fail the nation. That was a point made very well by Peter Martin from The Age today, who said: The government itself has become an impediment to economic growth. It had the ability to make a fresh start. On Monday it didn't take it. They said there would be an adrenaline charge and they would be open for business. Confidence is way down. Consumer confidence is down 16 per cent since the Abbott government was elected. Mr Watts interjecting— Dr CHALMERS 37998 As the member for Gellibrand says, it is like they are trading while they are insolvent. Half of company directors surveyed said that they were making negative decisions about their decisions based on the performance of the Abbott government. They said over there that they would be part of the solution. Instead, they are part of the problem, whether it is the budget, which they have made worse, whether it is the cost of living, which they have made worse, whether it is stability and confidence, which they have made much worse, or whether it is employment outcomes, which they have made much, much worse. It beggars belief that the government lecture us about budgets when, after 521 days of government, they still cannot pass one. There is a simple reason why they cannot. It is that this budget asks the most vulnerable people in our community to carry the heaviest load. For as long as the fair go lives and breathes in this country, for as long as the fair go is cherished by the Australian people, a budget like this will be rejected. It says it all about those opposite that the Minister for Finance on Sunday, and the Prime Minister today, confirmed that not a single minister around the cabinet table said this budget might be unfair. As much as the member for Wentworth and the member for Curtin want to pretend that this budget was drawn up in a cabinet room that only had the Prime Minister and the Treasurer in it, they are all part of this same mess. And, when the member for Wentworth stood up today in that avalanche of arrogance that he always brings to the dispatch box, he confirmed that he supports every part of this budget. No matter how far and how fast the member for Curtin runs in the morning, she will never escape the fact that she supports this budget. The member for Wentworth will wear this budget like a leather jacket on Q&A. He will wear this forever like a leather jacket on Q&A. On this side of the House, we will keep standing up for people on low and middle incomes, because that is what we do. On that side of the House, nothing has changed. Monday was not a restart, as they claim. It was a re-run of a budget horror show. 16:04 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume It is indeed a delight to have the opportunity to speak on this MPI, because I have spent much of the last 12 months being lectured by those on the other side of the House about fairness, or at least their version of it. Indeed, I was so interested in the topic of fairness that I read and thought deeply about it over the holiday break. It is interesting, because what we are dealing with here is a party whose definition of fairness is knifing two leaders—not one, two—in their disastrous time in government. And they were good at it. They could teach us a thing or two, I am sure. They allowed 40,000 people to jump on boats, and 1,200 of them died. And that is fair? They poured money into school buildings that have never been used. They funded pink batt programs responsible for deaths and phenomenal wastage. And that is fair? But, in this budget context, their approach to fairness is absolutely extraordinary. Let's go back to basics. The Parliamentary Budget Office tells us that Labor locked in spending growth of 6½ per cent a year. For those of you who are not economically literate—and I realise that is a fair whack of those over that side of the House—that is significantly faster than GDP and tax. So guess what you have to do if you are going to do that. Option 1 is debt. Do not demonise debt. I have heard it from the former Treasurer. You can run that option if you really want to. Your other alternative—and I suspect this is the real plan—is to raise taxes, not once but every year from now till forever. They are your options. We have a plan to fix this problem, but, given Labor's complete refusal to manage its spending, it only has those two options. Labor needs to come clean with Australians about which path it is going down. Are you taking us to European-style debt or are you going to raise our taxes every year from now until forever? The real question here is: who will pay for Labor's largesse? Is it today's taxpayers or tomorrow's Australians? That is your choice: today's taxpayers or tomorrow's Australians. Come clean. But we have hints. The member for Fraser has told us that Labor could balance the budget by bringing back carbon and mining taxes. So we have been told. It is clear. We know the answer. And we know he echoes the views of others in his party. Whack middle Australia with a tax to fund your handouts. Never mind that the mining tax revenues never eventuated and the carbon tax was simply shifting jobs, emissions and tax revenues offshore. But the member for Fraser knows well there is an alternative, and that is to pass on the debt to your kids. A lot of people say that government debt is different to household debt, and that is quite right. It is different. And there is one big difference: you can pass it on to your kids. And that is exactly what the Labor Party plans to do. And let us look at the situation of younger Australians. House prices have been rising for 20 years: cheap mortgages, supply shortages and a lack of investment in infrastructure have resulted in high house prices across Australia. We have amongst the highest levels of household debt in the OECD, and you want to add on more? In fact, the Grattan Institute tells us that you have already added $50,000 for every young Australian through your debt—and that is fair? Please, please, please have a think about what fairness is really all about. In a recent opinion piece I made the point that Labor is treating middle Australia and young Australians like Boxer the draught horse in George Orwell's Animal Farm, and I was delighted to hear Animal Farm raised by the member for Higgins. As a reminder, the pigs—the socialist revolutionaries in Orwell's novel—exploited Boxer's good nature, strong work ethic and commitment to his community for their own selfish purposes, and then sent him off to the knackery when he could not work anymore. I read Animal Farm as a 10-year-old, and I knew that was unfair. (Time expired) 16:09 Mr GRIFFIN VU5 Bruce Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, as one or two of us have sometimes said maybe you and I are heading in that direction; maybe we are not far from the knackery. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 Is that a reflection on the chair? Mr GRIFFIN VU5 I think when we are talking about knackeries, let us have a talk about this government. Let us have a look at what has happened. Government members interjecting— Mr GRIFFIN VU5 Hey, at least I've got knackery things! But let us have a look at what we are dealing with here: a government that hit the reset button, a government that said: 'Okay, we're going to change. We made some serious mistakes, but now we're okay.' Before Christmas it was, 'Let's get the barnacles off'. I do not know if it was Jack Sparrow or Captain Pugwash, but either way the clown is the member for Warringah. He is supposed to be the leader of this country, and he was out there saying, 'We're going to change'. Of course he must have had a hint that there really was a problem on the backbench. I note we have around 10 to 12 government backbenchers over there, so on the basis of that roughly two-thirds of you did not vote for the Prime Minister. I am just wondering: I know it was not the member for Bass, I know it was not him; I do not think it was a member for Hume; I am not sure, but I have my suspicions about the member for Barker. I really do. He is just too loud, he is just too noisy. They always say about babies that the ones with the dirtiest nappies always scream the loudest. He cannot help himself. The member for Hume—he is a very serious man, just ask him—is always someone who will give you a lecture about the nature of the serious economic situations we face. He does look a bit like a parliamentary Ken doll—Brad Pitt, without Angelina Jolie. But the bottom line is this: he is no Alby Schultz. Alby had at least one eye, as we know. The member for Bass is a man I have known for some many years and whom I have some time for, but having said that let us not forget I have been here eight long terms and in that time there have been seven members for Bass. An opposition member: Soon eight! Mr GRIFFIN VU5 No, seven. There is only one who has been re-elected in that entire time. I wish the member for Bass luck—not much—and frankly I think he is going to need a lot of it. The point is: what we see in this government and the circumstances they are facing is real difficulty. People mentioned, 'We learnt about leadership stoushes from you guys'. I might have been involved in one or two, that is true, but I will tell you what: it took me longer than 16 months! It took me twice that time, frankly! You guys are faster than us, I will give you that; much faster. You ought to think what that means. You reckon we were bad after six years, what do you reckon you are going to be like in three? What do you think? I will tell you what we will see: it is going to be chaos. Mr Taylor interjecting— Mr GRIFFIN VU5 Go and find Barbie! The bottom line is when you look at the question that we are facing here today on this budget, and this government, they are saying: 'Let's change. We're going to change.' But then the circumstances are: 'But we're not going to change anything. We're actually going to stick with a GP tax. We're actually going to stick with $100,000 university degrees. We're actually going to stick with very unfair changes to the pension indexation. We're actually going to stick with petrol indexation. So we're going to change, but we're not actually going to change anything.' I did note the chief of staff of the Prime Minister seemed to be missing in action today. I am not sure if she is on leave, I am not sure if she has been hidden—I am not sure what is happening there. Maybe she was out having a go at somebody, which seems to be, from what we hear from the other side, what happens on a regular basis. But the bottom line is: she was not here. Maybe that is a change? But I do not think there is any real change in respect of this government going forward. And when a budget has been met in the community in the way that it has, you know, because the backbench showed you, that when you go out there into the community, they hate it. They hate what you are trying to do, they hate what it is about, they hate what it says. You can sit back and talk about how, 'We're taking the principled line'. Joe Hockey made one speech two years before the last election, 18 months before the last election, saying there was a problem and then he shut up. You all went around your electorates, you went around the country saying, 'No, there's no problem; there's no need to move on all these issues', while you are now saying there are major problems. You are lying. You have lied in every one of your electorates, you lied throughout the country and now you are dealing with the aftermath of that. The fact is the Australian community has seen what you have done and has heard what you have said and has realised and recognised that you are a fraud of a government and you have done it so quickly. Well done. Reap the whirlwind of your lies; reap the whirlwind of your behaviour. In the months ahead you know what is going to be happening: 39 is going to go 42 and then to 45 and then to 48 and then to 51 and then to 52—and even some of you are going to be in that cart and you know it! (Time expired) 16:14 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page Quite fortunately this morning I was in a meeting with probably one of Australia's most esteemed businessmen, and I think it fits with today's MPI. He quoted Condoleezza Rice. The quote was: Today's headlines and history's judgment are rarely the same. It went on: If you are too attentive to the former you will most certainly not do the hard work of securing the latter. So in looking at today's MPI, I thought let us look at a little recent history because this budget and the discussion about the budget needs some context. Thinking back on previous Australian governments, I can remember Whitlam. With all due respect to the great man, he was passionate. He had passion and he had values. He might have been misguided economically, but he certainly had values. Look at the Fraser government. I think history has judged the Fraser government as a steady government; some view that it certainly missed some opportunities that it could have taken. Look at the Hawke-Keating government. I think history has judged them as reformist. They obviously overspent a bit and left us some debt, but I think people have judged that government as pretty good performers. I think history has judged the Howard government as good economic managers. I think history already has judged the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years as a disaster. Unlike Whitlam, they had no values. Unlike Hawke and Keating, they were not reformists; they were populists and they were valueless. That quote comes back to haunt them because they were permanently looking at the day's headlines. That is how they governed and that is why they have gone down as not good governments. As many have previously mentioned, they gave us the six biggest deficits; therefore, the largest debt this country has ever had. The member for Lilley on the television a week or two ago was saying: 'We're hung up about debt. It's not a problem.' That shows the folly of that side of politics. Isn't it wonderful being a politician and running around the country throwing out money. That is an easy thing to do. It is a populist thing to do, but it is not sustainable. They have proven it is not sustainable and we see many examples around the world right now as to why it is not sustainable and the problems that that causes. While it might feel good in the short term, and while it might be good for the short-term headline, it is not good and history will not judge you well for it. The other side also talk often about how righteous they are environmentally. They talk about the environment, about energy and about sustainability. Sustainability is their mantra. Do you know what we are into? We are into economic sustainability. We are trying to bring this country's finances back into something that is ongoing. To the member for Lilley who says that debt is not a problem, I will give one example of why it is a problem. We are now spending close to $1 billion a year in interest. It is not hard to work out that it is well over $10 billion a year. We are not going to being spending that sort of money. That sort of money is not even budgeted for in Gonski going forward. They talk about the NDIS and about Gonski. That is money that we are spending in interest before you even start spending money on programs like this. Again, populism works in the short term— An opposition member interjecting— Mr HOGAN 218019 Someone on the other side said, 'You need to learn from your mistakes.' Even in opposition, you can go down in history as having been a good opposition. I think the Howard opposition was a good opposition. They could have taken short-term populist shots at the then Hawke-Keating governments. The Hawke-Keating governments did some real reforms and this side of politics could have played the populist and said, 'We'll oppose everything to win votes in the short term.' That was not for the good of the country. Even in opposition, the Howard opposition showed that you could have real values in opposition as well. While the short term may give you popular votes, history will judge you badly. They have proven that in government and they are proving that in opposition. 16:19 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand Well, in the immortal words of Ron Burgundy: That escalated quickly … Just 521 days after the election of the Abbott government, less than 18 months after the current Prime Minister promised a 'grown up, adult' government, the current Prime Minister made history by facing the fastest motion to spill their leadership position of any Australian PM since Federation. This flutter certainly attracted a lot of attention. It really got out of hand fast. It really jumped things up a notch. I think I even saw Wyatt Roy throw a trident at one point. Historians were particularly interested to see whether Tony Abbott would officially take the crown from William McMahon and become the worst Prime Minister in modern times. For the record, though, the Prime Minister still needs to survive another 116 days to best Billy in the worst PM stakes—in terms of tenure at least. So that is something to keep in mind for the inevitable post-budget challenge. Tony has until June to avoid ignominy. But, despite the attention on the spill, the result was a bit of a fizzer. None of the mooted saviours of the Liberal-National government put up their hands. The failed opposition leader, the failed former shadow Treasurer and the failed former managing director of Tourism Australia all kept their powder dry. As a result, when the spill eventuated, only 39 Liberal MPs were terrified enough to put their hand up and vote for 'anyone but the current PM'. 'Tick-tock' Tony lives to bungle another day! He didn't waste any time and pronounced with a beguiling lack of self-perception in a press conference that very afternoon, 'Good government starts today'. But here's the rub. Despite his admission that Australia has been subjected to a 'bad' government from this current ministry, we have seen absolutely no change in what they are serving up to the Australian public. The morning after the day before, can anyone in this place name a single policy that has changed as a result of yesterday's events? As the Bard once said, this attempted spill has been: … a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. It is true that the Prime Minister is: … but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more … But, despite the PM's effective political death, there has been no rebirth of this government's connection with the Australian people. As the finance minister told the ABC on the weekend, not a single minister in this cabinet, none of the contenders in the 'Game of Tones', has complained, even privately, that the measures in this government's budget were unfair—not the $80 billion in cuts to schools and hospitals; not the attack on the pension; not the tax on the sick, the GP tax; not the $100,000 university degree debt sentence. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 Order! The Member for Gellibrand will resume his seat. The Member for Lyons on a point of order. What is the point of order? Mr Hutchinson 212585 It concerns parliamentary language. It is not appropriate to be describing the Prime Minister in such a way. There should be some modicum of respect shown for the Prime Minister of our country. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 Member for Lyons, I would suggest that would apply to a lot of speakers on both sides of the parliament. I think that is a timely intervention. This House should respect people on both sides of the House, whether they are the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition or anyone else. I call the member for Gellibrand. Mr WATTS 193430 I accord the current Prime Minister the dignity of his current office. The problem with this government is not their current leader; it is the values of their MPs and ministers—the values that have led every one of them to support the extreme, ideological agenda of this government, the values that led the Minister for Communications to tell Alan Jones, 'I support unreservedly and wholeheartedly every element of the budget. Every single one,' and the values that led the Minister for Foreign Affairs to declare, 'The whole cabinet has to take responsibility for the budget.' The Prime Minister might claim that 'good government starts today' but the unfair policies of his bad government remain unchanged. Even the one policy that the PM tried to change to save his bacon, his alleged backflip on the broken promise not to build Australia's next round of submarines in Adelaide, is less than meets the eye. Instead of the 'full and open tender' for the construction of these submarines promised to Senator Edwards and other South Australian MPs before the vote on his leadership, we are now told that the PM intends to run a 'competitive evaluation process'—a mystery process unknown to anyone in the Australian defence community. Perhaps the member for Bass can inform us in his upcoming contribution. In this respect, at least, the Prime Minister has helped to reconnect South Australian MPs, including the Member for Hindmarsh, with the Australian public. South Australian Liberal MPs now know exactly how the rest of the country feels after being lied to by the Prime Minister before he asked them for their vote. I am sure that South Australian Liberal MPs now wish they could hold their very own 'competitive evaluation process' of the Prime Minister's job. This government has not changed, and it will not change until the next federal election. 16:24 Mr NIKOLIC 137174 Bass After those failed lines, the member for Gellibrand should be on the stage—the next stage out of town. Can I also thank the member for Bruce for supporting my re-election campaign. I will be looking forward to his campaign donation when I run strongly for the seat of Bass. Can I also congratulate the member for Hume, who made some excellent points about fairness. But I am going to focus on hypocrisy, because getting a lecture on economic performance from the Labor Party is a like being lectured by North Korea about the value of the UN, or a Daesh lecture about human rights, or Bill Shorten's lecture in question time yesterday on the importance of loyalty to prime ministers. All of those things highlight the sort of rampant hypocrisy we get from those opposite. Everyone knows that Labor have dealt themselves out of the rational debate when it comes to the economy. They know about the Labor forecast in 2012 of a $2 billion surplus, which at their 2013 budget suddenly became an $18 billion deficit, and then in the aftermath of the 2013 election turned out to be a $48 billion deficit. That represents a $50 billion negative turnaround in our economic circumstances. But is gets worse. Because of debt repayments and Labor locking in spending growth above inflation, the Treasurer made very clear that this country today spends $100m each and every day more than we earn in revenue. Today we paid $40 million in interest repayments on Labor's debt. Tomorrow it will be another $40 million; the next day it will be another $40 million. The opportunity cost of that is appalling. It costs $50 million to build a new school in this country. So when you think about that, we could pretty much build a new school every day from those interest repayments—from that opportunity cost. What that means, and we have heard other speakers say it, is that we are mortgaging the future income of our children and grandchildren. Labor may not wish to listen to us, but they should listen to the honourable leaders of Labor's past. They should read that wonderful article from Bob Hawke, Paul Keating and John Howard, on 1 January this year. I hesitate to use the word 'leader' on that side, because former Prime Ministers Hawke and Keating belled the cat on what an appalling lack of leadership we have seen from Mr Shorten. Mr Hawke said Australia's deteriorating budget must be addressed and 'governments cannot just keep pushing up taxes'. Keating calls for a return to the bipartisan economic reform of the past, where surplus budgets and structural economic reform were normal. They long for a return to the lengthy period of fiscal responsibility that allowed Australia to weather the global financial crisis. Recently-retired Treasury Secretary Martin Parkinson warned that failing to act now 'consigns Australia to a deteriorating future'. Chris Richardson, of Access Economics, says, 'If we haven't repaired the budget starting now, we will really regret that down the track.' Phil Bowen, from the Parliamentary Budget Office, says debt and deficit does not improve with age: 'The longer you leave it the more exposed you become and the harder it is to wind it back.' John Edwards, an RBA board member appointed by Wayne Swan, and who was Paul Keating's Principal Economic Adviser, says: 'We're accumulating debt as a higher share of GDP and of course in absolute terms, it is absolutely astronomical compared to far more serious episodes in Australian history.' Put simply, a more sustainable and prosperous economy cannot be achieved through yet more borrowing and spending. If it could, the wise Australian people would have given the Rudd-Gillard Rudd-Milne model of economic management a third term, to spend our way out of trouble. But they did not do that. They decided that they would take a different path, and we are taking those hard decisions that you were never able to take. The fourth Intergenerational Report will highlight some important things, but if you are looking for a 'canary in the coalmine' insight of what lies ahead for Australia, look no further than Japan, where the sale of adult nappies today exceeds those of the baby variety. The implications for healthcare, for pharmaceuticals and for residential aged care facilities are potentially horrendous. I say to those opposite: listen to the wise heads of the past, who have been there and have done that. Work with us on those big strategic issues confronting our country, and let's take a more prosperous future back to the Australian people. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 Order! The discussion has concluded.   COMMITTEES 51 COMMITTEES Membership 51 16:29 The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 The Speaker has received advice from the Chief Government Whip and the Chief Opposition Whip that they have nominated members to be members of certain committees. 16:29 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff by leave—I move: That: (1) Mrs K. L. Andrews be discharged from the Standing Committee on Education and Employment and that, in her place, Mr Hutchinson be appointed a member of the committee; (2) Ms Parke be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and that, in her place, Mr Griffin be appointed a member of the committee; (3) Mrs K. L. Andrews be discharged from the Standing Committee on Petitions and that, in her place, Mrs Griggs be appointed a member of the committee; and (4) Mr Sukkar be discharged from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit and that, in his place, Mr Wyatt be appointed a member of the committee. Question agreed to. BILLS 51 BILLS Crimes Legislation Amendment (Psychoactive Substances and Other Measures) Bill 2014 51

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Psychoactive Substances and Other Measures) Bill 2014

Consideration of Senate Message 51 Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014 51

Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014

Second Reading 51 16:31 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith I rise to oppose the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014, which of course is one of the many measures that this government has failed to get rid of, notwithstanding the Prime Minister yesterday saying that it was going to be day one of good government. Despite him having said that, not one of the substantive budget measures that are so unpopular with the electorate has been discarded. In that vein, this bill, which is the bill to change the way that higher education works in this country, remains before the House. I might say that it is disappointing but not surprising that the Liberal Party and the Liberal-National government are continuing to pursue this radical agenda of deregulation of higher education fees, along with the other changes in this legislation. I say 'disappointing but not surprising' because the fact is that every single member of the Liberal front bench—and, in fact, every single Liberal and National in this place and in the other place—supports the radical agenda of the coalition government to deregulate higher education and change the way that higher education operates in this country. For some reason, it did not occur to the Liberal-National government and the members who voted in the recent spill that maybe it was their policies that might be the problem—that maybe this policy to deregulate higher education, among others, might be part of the problem. They blamed things like the knights and dames fiasco on Australia Day or the terrible result in the Queensland election or the Prime Minister's delivery style or whether a good enough sales job had been done, but of course that is actually not the root of the problem for this Abbott government or for any government that succeeds it, whether it is a Turnbull government or a Bishop government. The problem is that the Australian people absolutely cannot stand, and they abhor, the policies that were announced in last year's budget. It is no wonder that we have had such a discombobulated coalition over the last few days. They are in such a state that 39 of them voted for a blank space in the leadership spill—39. I think there must be some Taylor Swift fans amongst the coalition when there are 39 voting for a blank space—there was no other candidate looking for the prime ministership, at least not publicly, and yet 39 of them voted for that blank space—and of course there was one informal vote. When I heard about it I, like other Taylor Swift fans, assumed that the person had just written on the ballot paper 'Taylor Swift for Hottest 100'. I know that is how I voted in the Hottest 100. I just assume that there are some Taylor Swift fans on the other side of the House who are voting for Shake It Off. But no-one in the coalition is shaking off the regressive and radical policies of this government that were announced in the 2014 budget. It is a budget that is a terrible shame, really, for the coalition. Last year, at the beginning of 2014, the Prime Minister had a chance. He was standing there on the deck of the ship looking up at a beautiful albatross. That albatross was the chance to set a budget that really set the agenda for what his government would do for this nation. Instead of appreciating that opportunity, instead of appreciating that albatross, he killed the albatross. He killed it with ideology. He took aim at the albatross, and what have we seen ever since? The ancient mariner has been standing there with the stinking carcass of the albatross hanging around his neck, while the thousand thousand slimy things of his front bench look on. My colleagues know, very much, how unpopular that albatross around the Prime Minister's neck has been because we have all had so many people making representations to us about this stinking budget and about the measures such as the measures that are the subject of this debate today. I am proud to stand here and defend the right of all Australians to pursue a tertiary education, no matter their circumstances. This bill represents the Liberal-National coalition's view that only people of great means should get a higher education. We reject this view. We believe that university education should be accessible to all Australians who show the aptitude, who work hard and who have the merit, regardless of their personal financial circumstances or those of their parents. Thanks to past Labor governments, including the Whitlam government, Australian students today are not, as in the United States, subjected to crushing lifelong debt when they get a university education. But, under the Liberals' radical and regressive agenda, this will change if this legislation is passed. The Liberals' plan for $100,000 degrees will make a lot of people think twice before they pursue a university education, whether they are school leavers or they are mature-age students who are considering improving their opportunities and improving their skills and their knowledge. Women students from low-income backgrounds and students from regional Australia will be hardest hit by higher fees. It is a plan for Americanisation of our university system. It is not a plan that passes the fairness test. It is not a plan that passes the national interest test. It is just another broken promise from this Prime Minister and this government. It was a promise that was made solemnly to the Australian people on the night before the election: there would be no cuts to education. It was made among many other promises, such as the promise that there would be no cuts to health—and we know that that promise has been broken. There was the promise that there would be no cuts to the ABC and the SBS—and we know that that promise has been broken. There was the promise that there would be no change to the GST—and we all know that the $80 billion cuts to health and education over 10 years to the states was intended to put the states in a position where they would have to argue for changes to the GST. The cuts to education are yet another broken promise. Despite the minister's attempt to make this bill more palatable to the crossbenches and more palatable to the people of Australia, this bill still means $1.9 billion in cuts to Australian universities. It still means $100,000 degrees for undergraduate students. It still means $171 million in cuts to equity programs; $200 million in cuts to indexation of grant programs; $170 million in cuts to research training; fees for PhD students—for the first time ever; and $80 million in cuts to the Australian Research Council. The cuts to universities remain. The new fee imposts remain. Nothing of substance has changed—and Labor's position remains unchanged. Despite speculation in recent weeks that the government would give up its budget attacks to achieve its ideological goals—attacks aimed at making it harder to get a higher education in this country and making it more expensive to visit the doctor—and would finally see sense and realise that it is its policies that are making this government so unpopular, this bill still intends to change the face of higher education in this country. It still slashes funding for Commonwealth-supported places in undergraduate degrees by an average of 20 per cent—for some courses up to 37 per cent. It still cuts indexation to university funding, which would cost universities $202 million over the forward estimates. On top of these cuts, the government intends to strip almost $174 million from the Research Training Scheme, which supports Australia's PhD students. The legislation will also introduce fees for PhDs—for Doctors of Philosophy higher research degrees. The Liberals and Nationals want the scientists and academics of tomorrow, who are already giving up at least three years of income to pursue a PhD, to pay fees. People who are studying for PhDs are already being penalised for the time that they are giving up to pursue higher education. To now impose new fees on them is counterproductive for the agenda for productivity and prosperity for this nation. What we want to see is more people engaging in higher level research, engaging in PhDs and contributing to the wealth of knowledge of this nation. Instead, the government would like to impose fees on PhDs for the first time. Like everything that this government has done since being elected, this bill just seeks to entrench in this country a society of haves and have-nots. You can see that from the policies that are so unpopular. The reason people hate the changes to the indexation of the pension is that that would make it more difficult for pensioners to bear their living costs and would put them in an even more difficult situation than they are already in. It is for the same reason that people hate the changes to the indexation of the Defence Force pension and the disability pension. It is for the same reason that people are so angry about the changes to Medicare—because they will change the way that people have access to health care in this country. Labor will never support any sort of policy approach that makes your ability to get health care contingent on your credit card as opposed to your Medicare card. We believe in universal health care. We believe in access to health care for everyone. This bill's changes to higher education are actually about moving back to a Menzies-era idea that the worthy poor will have some charitable scholarships thrown to them while the rich will be able to pay for the expensive, elite degrees. You see situations in the US where working-class kids have to find sporting scholarships to go off to university. This country does not believe in a system where the more money you have the greater your access to higher education. We believe in a system based on merit, aptitude, hard work and attitude and not the financial circumstances of the person going to university or of their parents. That is because we are an egalitarian nation, and that goes to the very heart of our national identity. It is for the same reason that Bill Shorten has been talking about an Australian republic. We believe in this country that anyone who works hard can succeed—can even become the head of state. It is not about which class you were born into. It is not about whether you were born into wealth. It is not about the financial circumstances of your parents. It is for the same reasons that we believe in opportunity for everyone. Yes, there has to be hard work. There is no such thing as handouts. But if you are prepared to work hard and if you are prepared to have the utter persistence that it takes to get through university and to get the marks you need to get in the first place, then we want to see you go to university. We do not want to see you having to decide between a lifelong debt and going to university. It is not part of what Labor stands for. We will always stand for the right of everyone—whether they be working class, middle class or otherwise—to get a university degree, if that is what they want and if they have aptitude for it. Despite everything the government and the minister has said, there is no evidence that deregulation in education markets acts to reduce costs to students and their families. The experience of deregulation or the removal of price controls across the world in higher education is that fees increase and people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, women and mature age students get left out of higher education. As Labor have said consistently, we will fight this plan in this parliament and we will fight it in the community. Ultimately, we will win, because the community opposes this radical attack on our egalitarian way of life and the values that form a core part of the Australian identity. We oppose in the strongest terms the removal of price controls on the cost of bachelor and subbachelor degrees. There is modelling that shows that this has the potential to see some degrees cost students $100,000. These are debts that will inevitably lead bright students to have to weigh up whether they can afford to study at the expense of buying a home or raising a family. It is just a nonsense to say that an extra $100,000 of debt is not going to be a material consideration for someone in deciding whether to go to university. It is just a nonsense to say that. It is inconceivable that any government in this country would seek to hamper the future opportunities of this country and of its people. We are seeing an economy that is transitioning away from reliance on mining to one that will rely on knowledge, innovation and services for future economic growth. So why would we hobble the opportunities available to our best and brightest? It is economic vandalism. Of course, we have heard from the other side the predictable accusations that Labor is running a scare campaign. I love it when I am accused of running a scare campaign! I remember one year ago this month running in the by-election in Griffith and having the Foreign Minister come to town and accuse me of running a scare campaign about a GP tax and having the Prime Minister come to town and tell 612 ABC that he had no plans for a GP tax. Of course, what transpired a few short months later in the budget? The GP tax transpired. So I know when Liberals accuse Labor of running a scare campaign, of scaremongering, that is code for saying that we are onto something—and we are certainly onto something with this radical change to the way that universities are funded and students are charged. Does anyone seriously believe the scaremongering accusation? And for that matter, can anyone really believe anything that this government says? I do not think anyone can and I do not think anyone will. The program director at the University of Melbourne's LH Martin Institute, Geoff Sharrock, says the Go8 universities will significantly increase fees to fund research. After the budget he wrote: Most universities will raise fees to at least offset their loss of income from government subsidies. Many will go further to boost the total level of income they'd receive, above 2014 levels. Either way, Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) debts will balloon. He also wrote: For Go8s especially, fee deregulation is almost a license to print HELP debt. Given their high cost base and market leader power they'll want to raise fees considerably, to finance their ambitions in teaching and research. We know that when you take away price controls, it is just a nonsense to say that fees are not going to go up. Of course fees are going to go up—that is the whole point of taking away price controls. The NTEU has also done some modelling and found that the average degree could cost from $40,000 to $65,000,with medical degree costs potentially increasing to $180,000.It has been said that those are fair. I do not accept that and neither does Labor. (Time expired) 16:46 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest Given the statements of the previous speaker, I would like to read one quote. To reject the legislation out of hand—the easy path of populism and publicity—would be to sign the death warrant on a globally respected higher education system. The demise would not be overnight of course, it will be slow and painful. That was from Vicki Thomson, the former education director of the Australian Technology Network in The Australian 2 July 2014. The Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014 is the main piece of legislation providing funding for higher education in Australia. It will reform higher education by deregulating fees and extending demand-driven funding to higher education qualifications below the level of bachelor degree including higher education diplomas, advanced diplomas, associate degrees, and also to private universities and non-university higher education providers. This will expand pathways, opportunity and choice for students seeking higher education in Australia. I repeat those wonderful words: expand pathways, opportunity and choice for students seeking higher education in Australia. As members would know in this place, I have been a long-term advocate for more equitable access to tertiary education for rural and regional students—the students from electorates just like mine in the south-west of Western Australia. I had a very direct example of just how important access is when Labor changed the eligibility for access to Youth Allowance. The response was immediate. Young people and their families were just distraught. For many of them, this meant the end to their higher education plans and dreams. They knew that without Youth Allowance there was no way their families could afford to support their living costs in the city. I will never forget that mother who was heartbroken by having to decide which one of her children she could afford to have living in the city to attend university. Many of us who represent rural and regional electorates on this side fought Labor's unfair cuts and changes to Youth Allowance for young students living in rural and regional Australia, the words 'expanding pathways, opportunity and choice for students seeking higher education in Australia' represent exactly what we have been working for, for many years. So often, all our young people—the great young people from the south-west of WA in my electorate and right around Australia—are asking for is the opportunity to have a go, the opportunity to simply access higher education, to pursue their education and career dreams, to simply be able to afford to live in Perth and go to a university, which is something students in metropolitan areas take for granted. Often their only issue is: which university offer will I take? For rural and regional students and their families, the decisions and often sacrifice are much tougher. Students and their families in rural and regional areas are well aware that the HECS-HELP loan scheme means they do not have to pay a dollar up front for their university tuition fees. However, often their hardest problem to solve is: how on earth can I actually afford to live away from home in Perth? I heard it often during the whole Youth Allownace debate and I can still hear it now, 'Can my family afford the at least $20,000 or $30,000 a year extra costs for me relocating to the city and living away from home?' and 'Can my family afford to send not just me but any one of my brothers and sisters to live and attend university in Perth?' As I said repeatedly, some families had the heartbreaking choice of deciding which one of their children they could afford to send to university. They could afford the university process because it was covered by HECS and HELP but they simply could not afford the living-away-from-home costs. So I cannot overstate the importance of measures in this bill that are directly designed to improve access to higher education. It is intended that providers will use measures in the bill to provide opportunities for disadvantaged students. Scholarship funds will be used for accommodation, travel, learning support, tuition, and other basic living costs. Some of the positive news I have heard with this Higher Education and Research Reform Bill is the response from the University of Western Australia, often the university that so many young people in my electorate aspire to attend. Given my experience with the youth allowance issues, there is some very good news for rural and regional students. The headline in the Australian Financial Review stated, 'Uni of WA targets help to rural students'. UWA has identified that students living outside the Perth metropolitan area are, in their words: … specifically disadvantaged in terms of access to university. …   …   … … students from regional and remote Western Australia are likely to attend university at about 60 per cent of the rate of their city counterparts. Sixty per cent! This is not because they lack university offers: Analysis shows that WA rural applicants are receiving offers at a comparable rate to metropolitan students, but their acceptance rates are considerably lower. So what does that tell you? To put it simply, UWA is directly aware that students who live in rural and regional areas in Western Australia are disadvantaged in their access to university education. The article states: … 50 per cent defer them in order to meet the "financial independence" requirements to qualify for Austudy and obtain financial support for their living costs while studying. And that is not all the students. Even worse: Many who defer do not subsequently take up their offers. So we lose them. But with the passage of this legislation UWA will have a dedicated scholarship stream to direct to disadvantaged rural and regional students; for instance, those who cannot afford living away from home while they attend university in Perth. UWA has identified that the scholarships they will offer as a result of the passage of this legislation will be targeted at increasing the participation of these types of disadvantaged students. So as well as with relocation costs, such scholarships may help the young people who have to work to support themselves while they are living away from home so that they can actually spend more time on their studies than on ever-increasing amounts of time in paid employment to help with those simple living-away-from-home costs. In addition to this, there will be a dedicated scholarship fund for universities, with a high proportion of low-SES students funded directly by the Commonwealth on top of the university based scholarships. But, firstly, before any aspirational young student who desperately wants and needs the opportunity of this university education and living away from home gets that opportunity, the legislation has to be passed by Labor. Labor is blocking this legislation. Labor is saying 'no' to rural and regional students who cannot afford to live in cities. UWA has said that they will fund these types of students and Labor is saying, 'No. No, you can't have that opportunity.' Labor is saying 'no' to students in the south-west of Western Australia who desperately need that scholarship pathway. Labor is actually saying 'no' to young people right around the country; it will not just be UWA that offers this opportunity. I just wonder why Labor is so determined to entrench and extend disadvantage for students, the disadvantage that is clearly acknowledged by UWA. We need to remember in this place that these students will be disadvantaged for life; it is not short term. Our regions—the growing regions that underpin the economy in this country—will miss out on the economic and social benefit that young professionals bring back to our communities. They go away, they do their education, they often get experience and work elsewhere, and they come back. They know what quality of life they have and they know the opportunities in regional areas. They go on to become a critical part of the future development and the ideas that drive regional areas: the young people in my electorate and in other parts of rural and regional WA and Australia who cannot afford to live away from home while they go to university. These are the people we are talking about. Labor is also saying 'no' to students right around Australia—again, often those in rural and regional areas. They have to take alternative pathways to a higher education. The South West Institute of Technology, once accredited, could attract federal government funding through the funded students and courses offered. Most importantly, the availability of the HECS-HELP program will be extended and, of course, this will assist in making a range of pathways for providers. This is a really important thing in my part of the world—a range of institutions that have developed out of technical and further education will be able to offer courses and pay off for the first time under the HECS-HELP system. It is important for education providers that face challenges in servicing a state that is the size of Western Australia—a huge geographical area. And most of the population outside of Perth is located in the south-west, in my electorate. In spite of this, for some regional campuses critical mass—the number of students—is a major issues. For students the choices and availability of course options are even more critical, especially if the student comes from a low-SES background. There is a much higher percentage of students from lower-SES backgrounds in regional areas than in the broader higher education system, again reinforcing why expanding the demand-driven Commonwealth funding system for students studying for higher education diplomas, advanced diplomas and associate degrees is so important—the extension of Commonwealth funding to all Australian higher education students in non-university higher education institutions studying bachelor courses. We will see thousands of students each year given additional support by 2018. This bill also removes all VET FEE-HELP and FEE-HELP loan fees for students. But with no changes, the universities are facing even greater challenges. I have said repeatedly in this place—and it has been said by others as well—that no change is not an option. Current settings and viability are unsustainable and no change will see continuous decline and long-term damage to the university sector. And it is a sector that is facing global challenges, because it faces disruption through online courses. Some of the best universities in the world are now in this space of online courses, and that offering will expand more and more. The competition for our universities is now global. It is not just domestic. They are in a globally competitive market that will keep changing, so the universities are going to have to constantly adapt to change. There will be new and emerging top 100 universities from around the world, from China and Asia. Saying no to this legislation means there will not be the largest ever Commonwealth scholarship scheme ever seen in Australia's history. There may be young students sitting out in my electorate, or anywhere around Australia, for whom that type of scholarship is their only opportunity to be able to afford to live away from home and go to university. How do you think those young people are feeling right now, with Labor saying no to their opportunity? That is exactly what is happening. I commend the bill to the House. 17:01 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I rise to speak on the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014. I feel a sense of deja vu, because I spoke on a similar piece of legislation back in September last year. I thought that this legislation might get pulled because we saw a change, allegedly, by the Prime Minister. He was going to reboot, refit and refurbish the government. I thought that this was one of the barnacles that he talked about at the end of last year that he might get rid of, but no. It is before the chamber yet again. So all we are seeing is no real policy change by the refitted, rebooted, refurbished Abbott government but in fact we have seen the love, affection and amity in the caucus room today, and we are seeing a sort of Liberal Kumbaya coalition cuddle but no change at all to the legislative program that they were going to bring to the House or Senate. The refit, reboot and refurbishment is simply a nonsense. This bill is very similar to the previous bill. It is a radical re-engineering of Australia's higher education system, and that is what Liberal governments do. When John Howard had the opportunity to bring in Work Choices, he linked funding, when he was in power after 2004, to the higher education sector to workforce protocols and commitments by universities to bring in an industrial relations scheme which was not fair on staff members—whether they were lecturers, cleaners or security guards. Now the Liberals are in power again, having not said anything about this before the election. We now see legislation that had stalled and failed before the Senate back in a refitted, rebooted and refurbished form that is almost exactly the same as the legislation that was debated last year. So we have got a blueprint for $100,000 degrees, we have got the inevitability of universities lifting their fees at least to cover the Abbott government's cuts, and we have got a bill that talks about interest as well. They cut $5.8 billion in the previous legislation, and it is similar here. There is a 20 per cent cut to university supported places. It is a road map for the education sector of haves and have-nots. There is nothing about higher education affordability, accessibility or availability. This is a bolt from the blue for students, for parents and for anyone interested in a fair, accessible and affordable higher education scheme. We did not hear a thing about this before the last election—nothing. In fact, it is completely at odds with the manifesto that the Liberals took to the last election. In September 2012 the future education minister said, 'While we welcome debate over the quality and standards in our universities, we have no plans to increase fees or cap places.' In February 2013 the now Prime Minister, then the Leader of the Opposition, spoke at a Universities Australia conference and said the following: If we have to change it, we will consult beforehand rather than impose it unilaterally and argue about it afterwards. We understand the value of stability and certainty, even to universities. On election eve, he said, 'I want to give people this absolute assurance, no cuts to education'. That blue booklet, 'real solutions', which was hugged so tightly—the bible for Liberal candidates around the country—was absolutely rock solid on the subject of university funding. It said, 'We will ensure the continuation of the current arrangements of university funding.' But then they get on the treasury bench and what happens? It changes. It did not change straightaway. On Sky News in November 2013, the education minister said, 'we want university students to make their contribution. But we're not going to raise fees.' What happened? The budget in May 2014. In November 2013 he said, 'We're not going to change university fees because we promised we would not do it before the election', but in May—a few months later—up it goes. This is a government that cut $30 billion from the education sector in last year's budget. Labor opposed the legislation last year and we will oppose it again. I was one of many people who spoke about it. We on this side of the chamber think that higher education offers a pathway for greater opportunity. We do not believe that the quality of Australia's education system should depend on your credit card and your ability to pay. My electorate of Blair in South-East Queensland is home to terrific campuses of the University of Southern Queensland. The first is at Springfield and recently the University of Southern Queensland took over the campus in Ipswich central which was formerly run by the University of Queensland. It is also home to a number of other higher education providers, such as Evocca College. I was there last week with branch manager Mark Cresswell, speaking to the staff and students. They offer qualifications in youth services, community services and counselling. We have a TAFE campus at Bremer and, indeed, there is also a campus at Bundamba, where staff were sacked by the Campbell Newman government and many courses have gone. I am honoured, as many members of this chamber would be, to attend many graduation ceremonies across Blair—joyful occasions filled with families and friends. We know how important it is for a highly skilled and trained workforce. We understand the contributions universities make to the public good and how they enrich our communities—not just employment but provision of opportunity and research as well. They really are engines for our innovation system. Their research drives the jobs of the future. The coalition has never ever understood this. Now, faced with our opposition to their proposal to radically re-engineer Australia's higher education system, the Minister for Education and Training tried to bring his renowned charm on the crossbenchers and he failed. The subtle persuasion failed, because even the crossbenchers understood that this is a recipe for a have and have-not system of higher education. But the education minister is not one for turning. He declared that parliament would inevitably support this bill. Well, here we are today. Labor is inevitably not going to support this bill, because we think it is wrong. To add further insult to injury, we have seen on TV the disgraceful advertising campaign, costing $15 million, according to media reports. What an utter waste of public money. The minister for education claimed that the advertising campaign was requested by Independent senator, John Madigan—a claim that the senator flatly and angrily rejected. On his Facebook page he says this: 'Unequivocally, I never called for an advertising campaign using tax payers' money and I would never support such a measure.' Nothing of substance has really changed in this bill and our opposition to it remains. It is a recipe for massive cuts to the university sector and a new fee impost in students. There is $1.9 billion in cuts to Australia's universities, $171 million in cuts to equity programs; $200 million in cuts to indexation of grant programs; $170 million in cuts to research training which supports PhD students—fees for PhD students, for the first time ever, will be subject to what impost this government is doing in terms of the bills; and $80 million in cuts to the Australian Research Council. The bill boasts—and I have heard members opposite talking about this—the biggest Commonwealth scholarships fund in Australia's history. This is nothing more than a sham. The only thing the Commonwealth will contribute to the Commonwealth scholarships fund is the adjective, saying it is the Commonwealth's. It is nothing. There is not a dollar put in by the Abbott government into the Commonwealth scholarships fund. There is not a cent put in. It is entirely funded by students paying higher fees. One dollar for every extra five dollars these students will pay in extra fees will go into these scholarships. And those opposite have the nerve and hide to come into this chamber and talk about us opposing Commonwealth scholarships. There is not a dollar of public funds put in. It is all being funded by higher fees in the higher education sector. The education minister will not say how big the scholarship fund will grow to, because then it will reveal how much low- and middle-income kids will pay to fund other kids who are just a little poorer. The Commonwealth scholarships fund is a red herring. In reality, this is a fundamentally flawed package, reducing the number of people from low- and middle-income families who attend university. It will force thousands and thousands of capable students to choose between a university education and a debt it will place them under. It will force them to consider the hindrance that that debt will place on them starting a family or buying a home. We know the financial institutions are already asking applicants for the details of their HECS debt. Through this bill, the Abbott government is determined to increase the cost of university degrees and place it fairly and squarely on students. This is a plan for university degrees to cost tens of thousands of dollars extra. We know the central two measures in this rehash bill will force fees to skyrocket up. First, the bill still cuts funding to universities for Commonwealth supported places that subsidise the cost of undergraduate degrees for most Australian students. The bill still cuts funding to universities. While the funding cut varies across the degree types, it averages out to about 20 per cent. According to Universities Australia, courses such as engineering and science will increase their fees by about 58 per cent, nursing by 24 per cent, education by about 20 per cent and agriculture by 24 per cent. Where are the Nats on that, by the way? The Abbott government will change course indexation. We are talking about massive cuts to the higher education sector. Where did those opposite mention this before the election? Where did they ever campaign on this before they took their places in this chamber? Second, the government provides universities with the means of recouping these funds by deregulating course fees. This will see the cost skyrocket. Anyone who thinks that the deregulation will reduce the cost to students has to look at the UK where it is a finance fiasco and the sustainability of the system is really in peril, according to recent reports, or the United States where university fee costs exceed credit card costs and the total amount of the debt that people owe. This will see the skyrocketing of university costs and debts to students—a dissuasion, a hindrance, an obstacle to low- and middle-income families to go to university. Under the current system the amount a university can charge for an undergraduate degree is limited by the maximum student contribution cap for that type of degree. This cap, in conjunction with the legislated Commonwealth funding levels for all undergraduate degrees, protects students from excessive course fees. This bill scraps the maximum student contribution cap and allows universities to set their own fees. We know analysis—and my colleagues on this side of the chamber have quoted this before—from the Group of Eight universities to the National Tertiary Education Union agrees that student fees will rise by about 30 per cent just to make up for the Abbott government's cuts. We know also that there has been modelling done by the National Tertiary Education Union that sees an increase in student fees by $2,120 per student per year, 27.5 per cent. Some degrees, according to modelling, will go up to 60 per cent. The University of Western Australia has already settled to charge students $16,000 extra a year—more than double the cost for an arts degree. So what those opposite will do, yet again, when it comes to voting on this bill is make the cost of education for the young people and the mature age students in their electorates more difficult. This is an attack on those people who aspire to better their financial security, better themselves educationally and professionally, and help with their future prospects. Many of these people will never had anyone in their family go to university before. Those opposite say that they are a party of aspiration. What they are doing here is putting a roadblock in the way of young people and those people who aspire better financial security. Labor will never support this type of legislation. It is unfair. It creates a disproportionate impact on the poor and middle income families and it creates a country where there will be an education divide—division of wealth and postcode. The Nats and those from rural areas should hang their heads in shame. They should never support this legislation. 17:16 Mr BROAD 30379 Mallee It is appropriate that I get to respond to that talk from the member for Blair on this Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014 as I am a member of the National Party representing a rural area and have a passion for the value of higher education and how it can help people. There is no doubt that we need to diversify our rural economies. One of the ways we will diversify our rural economies is to make sure our country kids have access to higher education. Higher education has a purpose; it has a role. We have some very smart and dedicated country people. 'Labor will never support this' is what I heard. I listened to that speech for 15 minutes. I sat here quietly and did not interject. 'Labor will never support this' seems to be the theme running through this parliament. We need to look at reforms; we need to look at things and how we can make them better. Sometimes change is bad and sometimes change is good. To have a blanket rule that 'Labor will never support this' does make it very difficult to take them as a credible future government, because they have not put forward any ideas. I listened to the last 15 minutes. There was lots of criticism about what is wrong with it but not one solution, one suggestion or even hint about how we can make it better. Do we need change? Yes, because the fundamental problem is we are encouraging more people to do higher education. That is not a bad problem, but it is one that raises the issues of affordability and sustainability. If we want people to do higher education we need to make sure that both they can afford it and the country can afford it in order for them to be able to follow their dreams and aspirations. Will these changes improve things? When I spoke on this bill the first time round I said there were some key things that did need to be seriously considered and amended in the legislation. I said we needed to be looking at freezing HECS to the CPI and not the government bond rate. That has been amended in this legislation now. I said we needed greater spending on the Higher Education Participation Program to recognise that some of our poorer regional towns have some disadvantage and there needed to be an additional scholarship program. That has been addressed in this legislation. I still think there is value in socialising the Commonwealth scholarship funds. They do have 'Commonwealth' in the name for a reason—because they are to make the common people enjoy the wealth of Australia. They should be socialised so people in country towns can access the opportunities that some people in the cities have. I do think there does need to be additional recognition of the burden on families when a person is not able to do a course in the regional city and has to travel. One of the greatest costs for country kids that many city kids do not have is the cost of living away from home. It can be in the vicinity of $20,000 per family. That is a significant cost. That is well above consideration of HECS. I was told the story the other day of a father who was so proud that he had sent his three kids to university. This was the first time in his family's history that anyone had had higher education. He was so proud that his son had a business card. He said to me, 'Can you imagine, my son has a business card?' When he went to the open day at the university he was inquiring about accommodation for his son. He was living in Mildura where the family was and he had to travel to Melbourne, so it was a six-hour drive. The lady there he was talking to was complaining fiercely about the price of HECS, the price of fees—fees, I might add, under this legislation that have a very low interest rate and you do not actually pay back until you earn over $50,000 a year. She was waxing lyrical about this. The humble farmer said: 'I am not actually so worried about the HECS fees. That is an amazing system. You do not have to pay that until you are earning. I am worried about how we are going to come up with $100,000 over the years, considering where grape prices are and what we are getting paid, to keep a roof over his head and keep him fed.' This is one of the concerns about higher education—ensuring equity. Country kids have to travel further. Country kids whilst they are living away from home feel somewhat guilty that the family is working very hard to put a roof over their head and they sometimes do not finish their course. I listened to the 15-minute rant I suppose from the Labor Party asking what the Nats are doing. It showed me that they have no comprehension of the issues about regionality and access to higher education. I also tackle them on what I think has been one of the greatest travesties out of this whole debate—and that is the politicking around it. There is no doubt that we do need to change within our universities. We want to have affordability for the student, affordability for the country and sustainability. We do need change, but in the debate around this we have had the Labor Party going out publicly and talking about $100,000 degrees. La Trobe University has a campus in Mildura and they have made it very clear that next year the fees to enrol will only go up by a maximum of 10 per cent. So you are talking about $16,000 to do a degree. To scare people and play politics and talk about $100,000 degrees is so irresponsible. I do not usually get very angry in this place, but I do get angry about that, because in my electorate in 2015 enrolment numbers are down. People are saying to me that they do want to do a degree but not a $100,000 degree. The misinformation—which was made, just to score a political point—has taken away the aspirations of some of the young people in my electorate, and I think that is appalling. I think that people in this place should be able to engage in a political debate without exaggeration, without overstatement, and with an understanding that the impact of the words they say in this place can have a bearing on other people's lives. I say this to the Labor Party. I am happy to have a discussion with you about whether we need change. If we do need change, I am happy to have a discussion with you about how we can make it better. But I am very unhappy indeed, that there are probably hundreds of teenagers—17-, 18- or 19-year-olds—who are now probably not going on to university because of your callous way of having a debate. Surely to goodness we can have a reasoned debate in this country that is built on fact and not built on misinformation just score a political point. That has been very disappointing. The role of regional universities is very important. When we think about how we should change our university funding, there is some scope to make sure that the campus where a student studies receives the benefit of funding for that student. I am concerned that Federation University and Latrobe University—both good universities—want to pool resources back at their main hub. I want to see a program that certainly pushes towards expanding regional opportunities, because not everyone can shift away. I want people—like the single mum, who lives in a town, or the person who, for social or cultural reasons, is not able to move away from their family—to be able to become teachers or nurses, or to pursue their dreams, and not have to shift away, because sometimes they are just not able to shift away. I am disappointed that Federation University, which used to offer years 1, 2 and 3 of nursing in Horsham, is now only offering years 1 and 2, and the third year is offered back in Ballarat. I know that, usually, where people complete their university is where they put their roots down. Those people that are likely to stay there. We have actually seen this. When La Trobe University did teaching and nursing training in Mildura, that is where our teaching and nurses came from. We spend so much time talking about how we are going to attract people from the city to the country. It is so much easier to skill-up people who are already from the country to stay in the country. In doing that, the funding mechanism has to be developed to recognise the specific campus where people are doing the training and get funding to that campus. We cannot survive the way we have been. We have significant financial challenges and we have a population that has greater university aspirations. I know that universities can increase your earning capacity. I think it is important that we teach our young people out there that university education is an investment. It is not just a right; it is an investment. I did not have the luxury of going to university. We tend to think that everyone in this place has higher education and has great skills in that area. I got my education in shearing sheds north of Broken Hill. It was a different education, but it was in education nonetheless. There is good value in educational opportunities in our universities, but we need to make them sustainable and affordable and we need to look after regional Australians. Change can be good. Change can certainly benefit. I continue to ask for four key things. The first is that HECS—our student loan system, which is a good system—is based on CPI and not the government bond rate. That has been amended in this legislation. The second is that there should be greater spending on the Higher Education Participation Program. That has been amended in this legislation. The third is socialising the Commonwealth Scholarship Fund to make sure that more people can access that fund. The fourth is introducing assistance for those who need to travel a greater distance for their university course. These are four changes that I think we need to adopt. This bill has a lot of good in it. To scare people and run the narrative that $100,000 university fees are somehow going to be the result of this government policy is irresponsible. I wish the Labor Party would partake in debate for the betterment of the country, rather than creating misinformation and trying to score political points. 17:28 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Throsby We learn that the member for Mallee is angry. I can say that however angry he is—and I regret that—it is nowhere near the red-hot anger that the people of Australia feel from the trail of broken promises they have had to endure from this Abbott government—broken promises on Medicare; broken promises on education funding; and, indeed, broken promises when it comes to the bill before the House today. He calls for a reasoned, rational, calm debate. I say to the member for Mallee, and to everyone else on that side of the chamber who has contributed to the debate, that it does not fall well from their mouths when they represent the party that promised that Whyalla—I understand it is a town just up the road from the member's electorate—was going to be wiped off the map and that lamb roasts were going to cost somewhere in the vicinity of $100. When you are able to make claims like that, you really do not have a firm basis on which to call for a calm, rational debate. So I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on higher education reform and the bill before the House, the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014. It appears in very, very different form, in some respects, to that which was presented to the House before Christmas. I have had a close look through it. There are no offers of submarines to members who voted in favour of the Prime Minister in yesterday's party room, but there are some changes. One of the changes, I regret to say, has not been a change to the title of the bill. I take exception to the word 'reform' being used in the title of the bill, because when most Australians hear the word 'reform' they think that it is going to be attached to a program that is going to improve a subject matter. There is no improvement in the bill before the House. The bill is not an improvement; it is an act of plain vandalism. It is cutting $1.9 billion from Australian universities. It will introduce $100,000 university degrees for undergraduate courses. It represents $171 million in cuts to undergraduate programs and $20 in million cuts to research funding and it will, for the first time in this country, introduce fees for PhD students. It will also cut $80 million from the Australian Research Council. Nowhere, in no reasonable debate, could any of these initiatives be described as reforms. In fact, if the government, with its bill before the House, were bound by the ACCC, it would be slapped with a charge of deceptive and misleading conduct. The advertising for the bill is just as misleading and deceptive. We have seen an outrageous $8.5 million advertising campaign for a set of changes that have not even passed this House and do not look likely to pass this parliament any time soon. That $8.5 million could have been much better spent on enhancing university education, certainly at the University of Wollongong near my electorate in Throsby. The bill will lead to the complete deregulation of university fees. The member for Mallee and a number of other speakers complained about some of the facts that the Labor members have attempted to inject into the debate about the consequences of these changes. They do not trust our words. They like to lean upon some of the statements made by Universities Australia. Perhaps they would like to take note of the figures that have been cited by Universities Australia when they talk about the impact of the cuts to funding that are enclosed within this bill. We are told by Universities Australia that to compensate for the near 50 per cent cut to university funding in some courses, an environmental science degree, for example, will need to increase its charges by 110 per cent, a lot more than the 10 per cent that we heard about just previously from the member for Mallee. The cost of engineering and science degrees will increase by about 58 per cent and the cost of nursing degrees by 24 per cent. I know that this is a profession close to your heart, Madam Deputy Speaker Griggs. If you were enrolling in your nursing degree now at a university in Solomon, you would be slapped with a 24 per cent increase in the cost of that degree. An education degree will have a 20 per cent cost increase. I see Parliamentary Secretary Chester there, a member of the National Party. I would have expected him to go a lot harder in his party room over the foreshadowed 43 per cent increase in the cost of an agricultural degree. So, far from spreading fear; these are the facts, the figures, that have been produced by Universities Australia. Let us not forget that this is on top of the increases that universities will have to put in place to compensate for the money that the government has ripped out. There are two levels of fee increases that are going to occur here. There are the fees that universities will have to put in place to compensate for the money that the government has ripped out, and then there are the fee increases that will flow from an uncapping of university fees. We have talked about $100,000 degrees, and we stand by that. This figure has not been derived by sticking a wet finger in the air. We have looked around at the cost of deregulated degrees in this country and elsewhere. You need look no further than Bond University, a university whose fees are not capped. It is a private university; therefore its fees are not capped. The cost of a law degree at Bond University last year was $127,000. That is right. It is not the current $30,000 that a student would pay if they were enrolled at my university or any other public university throughout Australia but over $120,000 that is being currently paid in an uncapped institution for a law degree today. So, far from being fanciful; this is fact. You will not hear members opposite talk about that, because they are living in cloud-cuckoo-land. They are living in a complete state of denial, the same state of denial that leads you to think that it is the bloke who is riding the horse, not the horse itself, that is the problem that you are encountering as a government. But that is the state we see those members opposite in. Is there a country around the world that you could look to where the deregulation of university degrees has seen a decrease in the cost of those degrees? The answer, quite obviously, is no. If you look at the UK experience, it is probably the worst of both worlds. You have seen a dramatic increase as a result of the deregulation of university degrees and the charges for those degrees in the United Kingdom. In the United States—and let us not forget this is the country that the Minister for Education, the member for Sturt, is trying to mimic with these changes—we see that student debt has overtaken credit card debt. That is not a situation that we want to see foisted upon students and their families here in this country. This is why—quite sensibly, quite rationally—we stand with families in Australia and say, 'You should aspire to have your kids going to university'. They should not be saddled with $100,000 debts and 30 years or 40 years' worth of repaying those debts. They should be able to enjoy the same sorts of benefits as members of the House—not the same sorts of benefits that the member for Sturt enjoyed because he got a free education, but that other members in this House have enjoyed—and that is fair and reasonable. They should be able to aspire to send their kids to university without being saddled with a $100,000 debt. Because of the way the government has approached these changes, the entire university sector and all of those students within the university sector are enrolling in courses or deciding whether to enrol in courses this year with uncertainty about the cost of those courses and uncertainty about the money they will have available to them to run those institutions. This is not the way to go about reform; this is the way to wreck a sector, and that is indeed what this government is attempting to do. There are two groups of members over on that side of the House, and we have heard from many of them in this debate. Apparently there are about 61 one of them who say all is good, this is a great reform, the budget is absolutely fantastic; they stand behind each and every one of the initiatives within the budget and all is good. And then there are about 39 of them who say the problem is with the boss. He is just not cutting through and they have to sack the boss. We on this side of the House say you are both wrong. The problem is not with the jockey, it is with the horse; the problem is not with the message, it is with the product you are attempting to sell. I saw this in the contribution that was made by the member for one of my neighbouring electorates, Gilmore, in this debate. The member for Gilmore said this is a good bill; it has her 100 per cent support. 'I am 100 per cent supporting this legislation.' After observing that she represents a relatively poor electorate compared to many of those members who sit in this place, that she represents an electorate with people from a low SES background, she went on to make some extraordinary claims in her contribution. This included that it is going to be easier for those people from a low SES background—in fact, it is going to encourage them—to attend university if you jack the fees up. I know they do not like price signals on that side of the House, but if it is true for Medicare, then it must also be true for higher education. If you jack up the price of a good or service, then people are going to sit back and say: 'Should I use that? Should I purchase that? Can I afford that?' That is exactly what is going to happen with these outrageous increases to university fees and it is why the member for Gilmore should reconsider her position. If the member for Gilmore is to truly represent the needs and aspirations of the people in her electorate, in which the University of Wollongong has a campus, then she should be opposing this legislation. She should not be cheerleading for this legislation. She should be standing here and she should be standing in her party room and saying: 'This is not the way to go. It's going to hurt people in my electorate—in fact, it's going to hurt our government—and instead of talking about tossing out the Prime Minister, we should be talking about the policy problems at the heart of this government.' But instead of this, we see the member for Gilmore not only in lockstep with the Prime Minister but also in lockstep with his policies, and that is very unfortunate indeed. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence, the member for Gippsland, is in the chamber, and that is very good. I know he is a decent fellow. He is a member representing regional Australia and a member of the National Party. There are some coalition members who do not share the member for Sturt's vision of sandstone universities, crammed full of strapping lads in blazers and boater hats, on their way to the dormitory or rowing lessons and sipping their Pimms and lemonade. I know there are some members who do not share that vision, who see that there are universities that do not fit that mould and there are students at universities who do not fit that stereotype. I suspect the member for Gippsland may be such a member. In fact, the National Party, in its policy, said: … regional universities and regional campuses of city universities play a valuable part— and— The Nationals advocate policy solutions to assist students from regional areas in achieving their full potential … I ask the member for Gippsland, and I ask all the Nationals MPs: how is it going to assist regional universities, how is it going to assist the students that you claim to represent, get to those universities and get on with their lives and get a higher education if you are jacking up the fees, thus making it less likely they return to those rural areas, where wages are generally lower, when they are going to be saddled with these astronomical debts? I call on them, and the member for Gilmore, to do the right thing and reject this legislation. 17:43 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I rise to again lend my support for the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014. It is sad to see the Australian Labor Party reduced to this. It is not the way to go about reform the previous speaker said, and then he offered absolutely nothing in alternative plans or visions for the education sector. What we have seen from the Labor Party over the past 16 or 17 months is one long whinge session. Unfortunately, the modern Labor Party seems to have perfected the complaints department, but it does not have an ideas department. It is disappointing. It is disappointing for the people who actually voted for Labor members that they have actually given up on being constructive participants in the democratic processes in this parliament. As the member for Throsby leaves the chamber, I encourage him to get on board with the government's attempts to reform the higher education sector and to come up with some constructive suggestions just as other senators have in the other place. As a regional MP, I think it is important to speak on this bill again because a lot has happened in the months since I last spoke in September last year. Obviously as this bill stands, it is destined to pass the lower house. I would like to congratulate the Minister for Education for the mountain of work he has done in developing and refining this bill and I would like to pay special mention to the minister and his staff for being prepared to listen and negotiate with members from the crossbench in the other place. For reasons which I will go into in a little more detail later on, I believe this bill should pass through the Senate. I will be urging those crossbench senators to consider their position on this higher education reform. It is good to see that the majority of the crossbench senators have actually been acting in very good faith in assessing these reforms and taking the time to negotiate with minister. I pay special mention to Senators Day, Xenophon, Madigan, Leyonhjelm and my Gippsland senator Senator Ricky Muir for being prepared to at least listen to the government's case in relation to this which is in stark contrast to the Labor Party's position in this debate. At least the senators were prepared to provide some feedback on the original reforms that passed through the lower house. That feedback has been acted on largely by the Minister for Education and included in this latest package of reforms. Feedback has also been via the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee. It was chaired by my good friend and Nationals colleague Senator Bridget McKenzie. I congratulate Senator McKenzie for the work she has been doing not only on higher education reform but also on the broader issue of access to universities for regional students. The committee that was chaired by Senator McKenzie sought input from the vice-chancellors of all the Australian universities, who articulated very well what is at stake here. The bottom line is deregulation is the only option and in fact it is the only plan that is on the table. The Labor Party seem to have vacated the field in relation to higher education reform. The support for the government and its work in this regard has come from across the sector. I will not go through every single quote of support but support has come from Universities Australia, Regional Universities Network, Australian Technology Network, Innovative Research Universities, Group of Eight, TAFE Directors Australia, Australian Council for Private Education and Teaching and Council of Private Higher Education. They all support the higher education reforms with amendments as proposed by the minister. There is broad community support and broad sector support for the reforms proposed by this government. It is regrettable that governments in any circumstance have to make savings through budgetary pressures. I know those opposite would understand that because when they were in government they actually cut $6.6 billion from higher education. So it seems odd that they are not prepared to be part of the debate about how we make sure that the university sector is sustainable in the longer term. The vice-chancellors have told us that deregulation is a sensible development from the early reform process that the previous government undertook. In fact, it is regarded as one of the most significant reforms since the Dawkins review itself. I challenge the Labor Party, as I did the previous speaker, to outline their alternate plan. What is their alternate vision? Surely the Labor Party are not going to be in here all day, as we have seen in the last couple of hours, and just whinge and complain, and suggest that there is no need for any reform whatsoever in the university sector. Surely, that is not the Labor Party's position. Are they seriously saying that there is no reform required? If that is their position, that is fine. They can say that the university sector can stagnate into the future. Surely, if they recognise that reform is required, they should be prepared to get on board and do the responsible thing and suggest possible alternative policy positions that the minister could take on board. I fear it is going to be left to the crossbench senators to negotiate this important reform through the Senate. There is an alternative. The Labor Party could come to their senses and offer some bipartisan support. I am not sure why they have chosen this path of relentless negativity. Surely, the Labor Party could at least consider some bipartisan support. There are actually a few things we agreed on in this place when it comes to higher education. We all want better access to high quality tertiary institutions. I am sure that those opposite agree that we all want a sustainable HECS system. We all want our universities to provide world-class courses and training. We all want more young people from the country to go to university. We all want young people who cannot get the ATAR score they need to still have the opportunity through different pathways to go on to tertiary studies through the expansion of the number of Commonwealth supported places that are available. Members opposite would also agree we all believe we should have a sustainable HECS system so tertiary education remains affordable with no upfront costs and where you only pay it back when you earn a decent wage. I think members opposite would also agree with me that we all believe that people who desire a tertiary education should have to pay a significant proportion of the course they benefit from. One other area where I think regional members would agree with me is that we want those young people who are the first in their family to go to university to be given that chance to achieve their full potential. The coalition have a plan on the table to achieve these things. I commend the minister for the work he has done in this regard. I do not understand why the opposition, with no alternative plan on the table, choose to simply obstruct the government in its efforts to make the higher education sector more sustainable in the longer term. I think it speaks volumes that the Minister for Education has been so willing to listen to universities and students on this particular issue. Some significant changes have been made to the original bill that was before the House last year. Some of the changes the government have been willing to make include withdrawing the proposed Treasury bond rate and retaining the CPI indexation for HECS debt; providing the indexation pause for new parents; providing a structural adjustment fund to help universities adjust to the changes, in particular for our regional universities; introducing an additional scholarship fund for universities with high proportions of disadvantaged students; and guaranteeing domestic fees are lower than what international students are charged. That is an indication that the minister has been prepared to listen and to negotiate with senators in the other place. I implore and encourage the Labor Party to consider being part of the solution rather than just being involved in this 18-month long whinge session, and not providing any constructive alternative policies or alternative plans for the Australian people. Access to university education is something that I have been passionate about since I was first elected in 2008. In fact, in my inaugural speech I mentioned that one of the biggest barriers for country youth is the cost of moving from home to another town or capital city to go to university. It is not just about the cost of the course fees. That is why I have been so passionate over these past six years in advocating for a proper system of student income support, or a tertiary access allowance, in addition to the existing youth allowance scheme. I have heard other members speak in relation to this. The member for Forrest spoke extensively on the challenges facing regional students. Throughout the course of this government I am very keen to work on that with members from regional electorates so that we can achieve. Access to university is a critical issue for Aboriginal students, and their families are at a huge cost disadvantage right now—not in relation to the course fees, but in relation to the costs of living away from home. I think we can do a lot better and a lot more in that regard in the months and the years ahead. It is an important point when we look at the bigger picture of the higher education reforms, because earlier this month my parliamentary colleague the Deputy Prime Minister—the member for Wide Bay—and my fellow Nationals colleagues— Mr Briggs IYU A good man; a very good man. Mr CHESTER IPZ I agree with the member for Mayo: he is a very good man. The member for Wide Bay has made an important contribution in this place and made an important contribution in relation to the debate on higher education reform. The Nationals team met in the beautiful city of Wodonga for our annual start-of-the-year party-room meeting, and one of the big issues that was discussed at that meeting was the need for a more complete regional youth policy which includes improving access to tertiary education. This is at the crux of the argument. The previous speaker talked about it, but the problem is that the Labor Party only ever talked about it. In government, the Labor Party made some amendments to youth allowance which made it even more difficult for a lot of students in regional areas, and since then has failed to participate in the debate in any constructive way. This is the crux of the argument for deregulation, with these important changes that are before the House this evening. There will be improved access to tertiary education for young people from regional areas under these reforms, and the coalition government is committed to expanding the demand-driven Commonwealth funding system for students studying for higher education diplomas, advanced diplomas and associate degrees. The coalition is also committed to removing all HELP loan fees, which are currently imposed on some students undertaking higher education, vocational education and training. It is good that throughout this debate some members opposite have shown an interest in a little thing called debt. They have been worried about young Australians being burdened with debt. It is good that they have finally come to the conclusion that burdening future generations with debt is a problem, because this government has been left with the Labor legacy of debt which is already costing about $1 billion a month in net interest payments. But the claim that there will be $100,000 degrees has really just been reduced to a sloganeering scare campaign which is grossly misleading and withstands no scrutiny whatsoever. But worse than that, over the past six months, that scare campaign has been effective in scaring students away from even applying for university. The vice-chancellors I have spoken to inform me that from the moment the Labor Party started its scare campaign the level of interest and inquiry in relation to future study at their campuses has reduced, such was the diminished confidence amongst the students who had been scared by the Labor Party's campaign. It is irresponsible to conduct such a scare campaign. It is okay that those on the opposite side of the chamber would want to score a political point. I do not mind that. I do not mind the Labor Party scoring political points at our expense. But when they start running scare campaigns of any substance, members opposite need to realise they are playing with the lives of young Australians. The scare campaign has to stop because it is irresponsible and it is completely inconsistent with the facts. What the Labor Party refuses to acknowledge in its discussion of this issue is that no student actually has to pay a cent up front. No-one needs to pay anything until they are earning over $50,000 a year, so higher education is guaranteed to be affordable and accessible for people in that regard. The Labor Party knows—or at least some Labor Party members know—that deregulation of fees will have no negative impacts on disadvantaged students, because the shadow Assistant Treasurer himself, Andrew Leigh—I am not sure if he is on the list to speak—did say in relation to deregulated fees, 'There is no reason to think that it will adversely affect poorer students.' So at least some members opposite understand that in terms of people from rural, regional and lower socioeconomic areas, the deregulation debate is not the bogeyman they have tried to present it to be. I call on those opposite to think before they conduct their scare campaign. They are actually having an impact on the choices that people are making in the community today. In summary, all the vitriol, the attempts to scare students and the Labor Party zingers are not going to get us anywhere in relation to this debate. Those who are responsible members of this place, those who are interested in this debate in the Senate, understand that the status quo cannot continue in relation to higher education in this country. It is easy to sit back and criticise, but the relentless negativity from the Labor Party has to stop. Doing nothing is not an option, and I call on those opposite to think about putting forward a constructive plan as part of this debate. I am yet to hear a credible alternative proposition from the Labor Party. I encourage those opposite to try and put aside their partisanship and to look beyond the short-term politics of this. They should not be thinking about the next opinion poll; we need some bipartisanship on this issue. It is up to this parliament to implement a reform which I believe is fair and which will enable universities to provide more places for students from right across the country, particularly—from my point of view—from regional communities. These are reforms that will ensure that students are not burdened with unreasonable debts, despite the scare campaign of the Labor Party. They are reforms that will help our nation grow. It is time for the Labor Party to sit down with the government in relation to this issue and work through it in a constructive way, to ensure that the higher education deregulation can proceed. I would hate to see the Labor Party—which likes to claim a proud history of involvement in education reform—leave itself out there on a limb, alone, not playing an important part in ensuring that we continue to have a high-quality, sustainable tertiary education system in this country. I commend the bill to the House. 17:58 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo One of the things I am quite proud of, which this parliament has done since the budget, is that it has blocked these terrible higher education reforms. I am proud that it has blocked these terrible higher education reforms because these reforms would limit access and would prevent thousands and thousands of young people, thousands and thousands of students from low SES backgrounds and from regional backgrounds, from accessing university. The system we currently have, which is a legacy of Labor governments, has increased students' participation and people attending university. Because of the efforts of this parliament to block these reforms, there are thousands of students right now preparing themselves to go to university under the current system—students who are packing up and getting ready, some who are moving away from home, to take up an offer to go to one of our many institutions around this country. It is a time of great excitement and great hope. Two students in my own electorate who are taking up this opportunity and moving to Melbourne to take that first step into higher education are this week spending a week volunteering in my office here in parliament. I asked Jacob, 'What's your story about going to university?' His story is that he has just finished year 12 at Girton Grammar and completed his studies with an ATAR score of 94.55. It is a very high score, for those who know the Victorian education system. Why the University of Melbourne? After attending an open day, he discovered that he really liked the model that they had put forward. Jacob will be studying criminology and politics, a Bachelor of Arts. He liked the diversity of the courses on offer. When asked, 'What are some of the things you might be worried about?' he said, 'Moving out of home brings excitement, but it's a big step.' Moving to a much bigger and busier city, from Bendigo to Melbourne, can also be quite daunting and a challenge. When asked, 'What are you excited about?' he said the degree excites him—the passion that he has for the potential subjects and courses he could be studying. To be able to be in control of his education, especially after a greatly controlled high school system; to begin a new chapter in his life, moving out of home and starting afresh in a completely new city; to learn about the great variety of things and to become more involved in the world—these are Jacob's hopes. These are exactly the people that we want to be entering education, regardless of where they live, regardless of their demography. Catherine, who is also with us this week, completed year 12 in Bendigo with an ATAR score of 97.6—again, a bright person who should have a bright future. It should be her entrance mark that determines whether she goes to university, not the size of her parents' pay packet and not how much debt she is willing to get herself into. Catherine was raised by a single mother, a teacher with four children, who managed to put Catherine's three older brothers through university, including postgraduate degrees for two of them, and intends to do the same for Catherine. This is a mother with an ambition that her children would still go to university, all made possible because our current system is not based upon the amount of debt that you are willing to get into or the amount of money your parents earn but upon your ability, your education and your scores. When I asked Catherine, 'What are you worried about?' again it was the cost of living. Catherine will be moving from Bendigo to the University of Melbourne, and the cost is expensive if you choose to live on campus. She believes that lots of rural students worry about that big change in moving from the country to the city and the costs associated. She is excited about being able to learn not only in depth about subjects but about the breadth of subjects that interest her, history, literature and politics; living in a city that is vastly different to Bendigo and that has its own political interests and cultural events; and meeting, through her course, students from all over the country and the world that have the same interests as she does—the hopes and dreams of young people today. This is exactly who we want to be going to university. Yet, under these reforms, next year's year 12 students may not have that opportunity if these changes go through. The goal of any government should be that demography should not determine your destiny and whether you go to university. It should be your ability, not your ability to pay, that determines whether you get access to university. What I find so frustrating in this debate is that they are a frontbench that either had free university education or had access to university through an affordable HEC Scheme as long as they had the mark. This proposal is not an affordable HEC Scheme. This proposal of deferring up to or more than $100,000 worth of debt is not an affordable option for so many students. The Catherines, the Jacobs and the thousands of other Bendigo students seeking higher education might not have enrolled if these reforms had been passed last year in this House. The government's proposal to change higher education tears down the idea that background and circumstance of birth are no barrier to educational excellence and that every Australian can contribute to our nation's success. A university education is one of the most important pathways and opportunities for individuals, for their families and for our communities. It is really rich for the members opposite to say that Labor is not contributing to this debate. That is why our speaking list is full. This is debate. Just because we do not agree with their ideas and their proposals, it does not mean that we are being obstructionist. It means we are disagreeing with their proposals because they are bad proposals. For members opposite to stand up here and say that these changes will not result in higher fees that students have to pay means that they are not actually reading the detail of the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014, the bill before us. If you cut by 20 per cent the university funding for student courses, student funding, then the universities have to cut the quality of their courses, find the money from somewhere else or increase fees. And all the universities are coming out to say that if that fee cut goes ahead, if their funding is cut, if the fee per student that they currently get from the government is cut, they will be forced to increase fees. The government has virtually guaranteed that fees will increase because, in these reforms before us today, that 20 per cent cut to student funding for universities is still on the table. In a recent article in the Bendigo Advertiser, a spokesperson for the university in my electorate, the La Trobe Bendigo campus, said that the university shared my concerns about the government's higher education policies. He said that the university does oppose the 20 per cent cut and has constantly, in its lobbying of the government through the Innovative Research Universities as well as through the peak body Universities Australia, put this case to the government. Wait a minute! Where is the minister for higher education standing up and saying that to this House? The minister for higher education is very quick to quote La Trobe University, but he is not giving the detail that it opposes the 20 per cent cut to student funding. Not many of the speakers opposite have mentioned that in their speeches either. This is why we are continuing to say that when you deregulate university fees and cut the student funding provided to those universities for those courses it will guarantee an increase in the fees that students will have to pay. At the University of Melbourne some modelling was done to suggest that courses like medicine could cost between $100,000 and $200,000 over the course of the degree. That is a lot of money to be asking somebody to get into debt for. This is what is on the table if we do not set the fees through our government legislation. If you deregulate university fees and allow universities to set the fees, we will see the cost of courses go up as much as that. We will see that happen sooner than the government might like, because they are also cutting funding to the universities. All experts agree that fees will rise. In some cases, the average cost of degrees could be up from $40,000 to $65,000—for your social work degree or your teaching degree. Medical degrees, as I have said, could be as high as $200,000. The University of Western Australia, the University of Canberra and the University of Melbourne have all come forward to say what would happen at their campuses if this package were to go through in its current form. The impact on regional campuses will be huge. We have already seen regional campuses express their concerns about what will happen to the cohort of students that have come in. My own campus, La Trobe Bendigo, employs close to 500 people and injects millions of dollars into the local economy. The university is a vital part of our city's culture through the courses that it offers and the students that live here, as well as its academic and support staff. The story for 2015 has begun well for this campus, because these reforms have not gone through. The uptake of university student offers continues to be healthy. The La Trobe campus recently made first-round offers for just over 1,500 places, which is on par with previous years. Forty per cent of those were made to local students. The most popular courses were those within the School of Rural Health, which was funded and built by the former Labor government. The university expects the offers to rise to 1,800 in the next few weeks as it goes to second and direct round offers. The campus this year will have another healthy year of students—but next year it will not, if these reforms go through. Fee deregulation is a barrier. Saying to somebody that it is okay because you can defer the cost of the course does not give people confidence. Do not place young people in this country in the position that you were never placed in by saying to them: 'You can get yourself into $100,000 worth of student debt, but don't worry. You can defer it.' If this young person then chooses to buy a home or to work overseas, the banks will look at the debt they have to decide whether they will lend them the money or not. We are already hearing cases of people saying that, because they will not earn as much if they choose a career in social work or teaching, they are concerned that over the life of their courses they will not earn enough to pay off this debt. If we are genuine about trying to ensure that students from low SES go to university and that regional students have the same access to higher education as Jacob, Catherine and thousands of other students from central Victoria moving to university for the first time over the next few weeks, then we have to have an education system that is fair. We have to have an education system that is not based on your willingness to get into debt but upon your ability and on the scores that you have from school. I just want to mention my second cousin Hayley. She is the first in her immediate family to be offered a university place. My cousin Amanda had Hayley at the age of 18. I was taking my gap year when Hayley was born. In a few weeks, she will start her teaching course at Griffith University. Her family is so proud that one of their children—Hayley—will start university at Griffith to become a teacher. Do not deny other Hayleys the opportunity to be the first in their family to go to university by saying that it is acceptable and okay under fee deregulation for Hayley to pay upwards— (Time expired) 18:13 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack Some say that I am a little obsessive when it comes to education in the bush. I make no apology for that. Today I am very pleased to be speaking on the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014 which will lead to great benefits for students in the bush and in the city. For those who can take a long-term view, there will be paybacks for the Australian nation. We will be making possible the world-class education that Australian students need and deserve, opening up higher education to those from low socioeconomic backgrounds and in remote areas, and creating the largest Commonwealth scholarship scheme ever, which can be accessed by my constituents in regional and remote Durack. The bill will provide Commonwealth support for tens of thousands of students who currently do not get support, with over 80,000 students each year being provided with additional support by 2018. This benefit, this pay back will provide pathways into higher education for tens of thousands of students. Higher education support will be extended into non-university institutions, and unfair loan fees will be abolished. This is fair, this is reasonable and it makes sense. All higher education peak bodies such as the Regional Universities Network and TAFE Directors Australia support the reform. This scare campaign on fees, of course, is false. Let's think like a business would think. If fees were too high, universities would have empty lecture theatres and the institutions would collapse. Clearly, this is not about to happen in Australia with this bill. The adverse implications are severe if the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill is not passed. We must take a long-term view because we do not want to lapse into mediocrity. We do not want our young people heading offshore in droves for a more competitive higher education experience. Our research capability will wane. There are no credible alternatives to our higher education reforms. We know now is the time and now is the hour. If only we could all put politics aside, because our focus now needs to be on our young people including those living in the seat of Durack. Deregulation of higher education is the big bang reform that we have to have to open up education to more Australians, not fewer. It is indeed a compelling cause, and I ask those opposite—not that there are many there—to work through any impasse for the sake of your children and your grandchildren. This bill is a game-changer, a major piece of legislation that provides significant reform and benefits. It positions us for the 21st century and it deserves full support from both sides of the House. Whilst Australian universities are developing strategies to boost performance, reputation and marketing, so also are institutions throughout the world; the game is on—global competition is increasing. There is nothing like competition to improve quality, value and options. We see that many times. So we must provide a policy and legislative framework that enables our higher education institutions to do their best. We must ensure they are able to attract our best students and increase our foreign student numbers. If we do not, Australia will be left behind—make no mistake. The successful passage of this bill will be meaningful in my large electorate of Durack. Meaningful because higher education directly impacts the liveability of my communities such as Karratha and Port Hedland as well as towns in the Pilbara, Gascoyne, Kimberley and mid-west regions, and also in parts of the wheat belt. It resonates because opportunity and access to higher education drives families out of regional communities and into cities, and because it underpins decisions made around predominantly FIFO options. Words I hear all the time, and I am sure you have as well are, 'Can we afford to stay in this region and send the kids to Perth for uni or must we relocate the family to Perth, and then take on the FIFO option?' The bill will enable reforms to increase access and opportunity in higher education. All providers with more than 500 Commonwealth supported places will be required to invest 20 percent of new revenue in a Commonwealth scholarship scheme for disadvantaged students, thereby enhancing access. It will be new money for scholarships which will enable universities to offer more scholarships. I understand some universities are now indicating that they will use these funds for accommodation costs for underprivileged, disadvantaged and regional students. This is a huge boost for young people and their families, and excellent news for Durack families in particular. FEE-HELP will be available to students studying at a sub-bachelor level—again, good news for young people in Durack who wish to study at TAFE for a trade or the like. I remind you that my electorate of Durack does stretch far and wide, from the tip of Western Australia—that is, the Kimberley, Moora—to just 150 kilometres north of Perth and east out past Merredin. You may not be surprised to learn that there are limited opportunities for young people to attend higher education institutions. However, one institution is the University of Notre Dame Australia, which is a private Catholic university established in 1989 in Western Australia. Although it is a private university, Notre Dame receives substantial government funding like many others. It established a significant campus in Broome in 1994. Over the last 20 years its offerings have included degrees in nursing, education, the arts and sciences. Regrettably, last year, Notre Dame made the strategic decision to transition its Broome campus into an education pathways, professional training and research hub. Notre Dame ceased offering bachelor degree qualifications in nursing, education, arts and sciences and is now 'teaching out' their current students in these disciplines. Notre Dame is repositioning itself in Broome to ensure it is providing the people of the Kimberley with higher education opportunities in areas of demand. In offering tertiary enabling pathways and VET programs in Broome, Notre Dame is providing Kimberley students with training and qualifications as well as pathways into higher education degrees. Through the changes in the scholarship scheme proposed in this bill, Notre Dame will be able to use funds to assist Broome students to finish off their higher education degrees at its Fremantle campus, ensuring access and unique learning opportunities for the people of the Kimberley. That is indeed very good news. And now to the Pilbara, which is such a significant contributor to the national economy. Acting Deputy Speaker Griggs, I know you have heard me say that numerous times. The Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia heard evidence from a very passionate woman Jan Ford of Port Hedland. She talked to us about the Pilbara community's strong desire to have tertiary education service providers in their region, in either Port Hedland or Karratha, or perhaps both, if we were fortunate enough. Jan advised that the community is not seeking a large campus—perhaps initially an offering of first year accounting, engineering and nursing. This keeps families together, provides opportunity, access, and importantly, better affordability, given that the student can continue living in their community rather than relocating to Perth or Melbourne universities, which are often unaffordable. Essentially, a first year regional tertiary offering in the Pilbara would keep the young adults at home for that little bit longer, help the family budget and provide the young adult with an opportunity to perhaps earn some money while living at home, before heading to the city to continue with their education. It would also dissipate or perhaps delay a decision around family relocation and, potentially, a FIFO arrangement. Another passionate woman in the Pilbara—and there are plenty of them there—is the mayor of the Town of Port Hedland, Kelly Howlett. She agreed with Jan's sentiments and explained that the Pilbara Development Commission has funded a Pilbara tertiary education study, which is currently being undertaken by the University of Western Australia. The study will determine the feasibility of establishing a university offering in the Pilbara, against a background, as Mayor Howlett advises, of declining TAFE services. Further south, in the mid-west, the City of Greater Geraldton is able to present the successful Geraldton Universities Centre, which is an independent, not-for-profit, incorporated body supporting university courses in Geraldton on behalf of a range of universities, including Central Queensland University, Charles Sturt University and the University of Southern Queensland. This very successful co-operative model is bearing results, with degree courses available in accounting and business, communication, psychology and nursing, early childhood and primary education, and an associate degree in engineering. The objective of the Geraldton Universities Centre is to facilitate, deliver, promote and provide access to university education for people residing in the regional mid-west. It was established in 2002, but was reconstituted in 2010 to the current co-operative model. More than 200 students have graduated with degrees and around 200 students are enrolled for this year. Their key platforms of success are: they always use online teaching, accompanied by face to face; they ensure equity—that is, value for money—as well as quality, for regional students; and they have local partnerships that are mutually beneficial. By way of example, local accountancy and engineering firms are placing their young staff, on a part-time basis, through the university centre programs. It is a great initiative. This is a model that is working and that might be investigated for wider application not only in the north-west but in other regional areas around Australia. I have spoken recently with the vice-chancellor of the University of Western Australia, Professor Paul Johnson, about providing tertiary education offerings in WAs north-west. His view is that universities could be encouraged to invest in tertiary education in the north-west if there were possibilities to use existing infrastructure, such as partnering with local TAFE's. There are several local TAFE's in Durack, so I think the plan is feasible, at least on the surface. You may note that, when I mentioned who was in Geraldton, there is not one Western Australian university currently providing course offerings in Geraldton, which is disappointing for me personally, but so be it. So I would encourage all the Western Australian universities to consider investigating these possibilities and to look at the successful Geraldton Universities Centre model. I reiterate my support for this bill, which will reform higher education for the 21st century. 18:26 Ms HALL 83N Shortland The Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014 differentiates the government and the opposition. It really is a 'line in the sand' piece of legislation. It shows the difference between this side of the House and the government in relation to higher education. It is defining legislation. Labor believes in equity and in empowering Australians through education. On this side of the House we realise that it is imperative that all Australians have access to quality education and that a person's ability to attend university, to access university, should be determined by his or her academic ability and not by their ability to pay for education. We know that education and in particular higher education leads to greater prosperity, more choices in life, and a higher standard of living. Australia needs an educated population, and for that matter an educated well-trained workforce. This is obtained by allowing maximum access to university education. When you have an educated workforce and population then you have an Australia that is ready and prepared for the challenges of the 21st century—an Australia that can engage in the global economy. I think those on the other side of the House think of a university as just an institution that trains students. But universities are very diverse and have a very diverse role in our community. They are a hub for research. They are a hub for innovation. They provide teaching and create an environment where students are keen to research and learn and think outside the box, all of which are really important attributes for people when they enter the workforce. They are really important attributes that we as a society want to encourage. One of the most important roles that universities have is to create a partnership with the communities in which they operate. Higher education is the cornerstone of an advanced Australian society. Medical students go to university and then save countless lives in the future. Engineering students go to university and then build a better and more prosperous Australia. They learn and then go out into the community prepared to undertake and oversee innovation. We need quality teachers in universities. We need to encourage students to become quality teachers. Higher education is an investment. We tend to think about higher education particularly at this time of the year, when students around Australia are preparing to start or re-enter university. For the record, I would like to say that students, their parents and grandparents have been telling me that they do not like the Abbott government's assault on universities and students. They are able to see the implications for the future and they are able to see the implications for themselves. Next week I will be at Newcastle University for O-week and I will be talking to students, listening to them and hearing what they are saying about the Abbott government's changes to higher education. And I will make a commitment to them that Labor will not support an assault on higher education. Labor will not support this legislation, just as we did not support it when it first came to the House. We will continue to oppose it. It is wrong for the nation, it is wrong for students and it is wrong for families. The government has given up $3.5 billion of its $3.9 billion in savings but it has not fixed the inequity that lies at the heart of this bill. It is still unfair, and that is because this government is unable to make a commitment to fairness. It is a government with a very jaundiced outlook on how it should govern Australia—and, for that matter, how it should govern itself. The bill contains $1.9 billion in cuts to Australian universities and $100,000 degrees for undergraduate students. I will be talking a little bit more about that later in my contribution to this debate. It contains $171 million in cuts to equity programs—which shows where equity stands as far as this government is concerned. It has $200 million in cuts to indexation of grant programs and $170 million in cuts to research training. That is a $170 million cut to research that could lead to cures for cancer, that could lead to innovation and that could have put Australia at the forefront in the future. But this government does not look at things in that way. This government only looks at now. The bill contains fees for PhD students for the first time ever. So rather than encouraging PhD students, this government wants to put a fee on them. It also contains $80 million in cuts to the Australian Research Council. The massive cuts to universities remain. The new fee imposts for students remain. Nothing—I repeat, nothing—of substance has changed. And similarly, Labor's position remains unchanged. We will not support unfair legislation which is going to lead to inequity. We want more students at university, not fewer. We want more innovation, not less. We want access to universities to be fair and equitable for all Australians, which is why we opposed the higher education bill the first time it was introduced. Our position remains exactly the same. Labor will continue to oppose this government's unfair attack on higher education. We oppose the government's cut to public funding to undergraduate courses by 37 per cent, we oppose $100,000 degrees and we oppose the Americanisation of our universities. Research conducted by the Group of Eight universities points to an increase in fees of 30 per cent under deregulation. I live in one of the great regions of Australia, the Hunter region. Under this legislation, regional universities will suffer. The issue for regional universities is that we have a much thinner market than metropolitan universities have, so we do not have the same density of students for the market to operate. That has been said by the Executive Director of the Regional Universities Network, Caroline Perkins. Prime Minister Abbott's cuts will further widen this gap, and regional universities such as the University of Newcastle will be adversely impacted. Newcastle University is a fantastic university. It is linked into the Hunter Medical Research Institute and it has a strong connection with the community. It has worked really hard to build those connections. Thirty per cent of its students come from lower socioeconomic regions, but it is a university that reflects the community in which it operates. It is a university that provides a first-class education. It was one of the first universities to introduce a medical degree that was not based just on academic marks but incorporated going out and talking to students, understanding and evaluating whether a student had the skills that would make them a good doctor. It is a university that approaches things in a very different way. It has a fantastic engineering department that has worked very closely with organisations such as Hunter Water; with other countries, such as China; and with overseas consortiums. It is a university that has been at the cutting edge and it is a university that will be particularly disadvantaged by these unfair cuts proposed by the government. In actual fact, it will lost $153 million over three years. Newcastle University has two campuses. It has the Hunter campus and it also has a campus on the Central Coast. The Central Coast is the region in New South Wales that has the lowest retention rate and the fewest people going on to higher education. A number of programs have been put in place to try to increase the number of people attending university and higher education and, once again, this is going to be jeopardised. To be quite frank, people living in our region cannot afford $100,000 degrees. Some degrees will go close to increasing by 60 per cent. Under deregulation, university students are looking at a minimum average fee hike of 30 per cent. To be very honest with everyone in this House, that will act as a disincentive for the young people of the Hunter and the young people of the Central Coast to be able to go to university. Nowhere in the world has deregulation led to price competition and lower prices. Deregulation will lead to substantial price hikes. In the UK fees were deregulated in 2012 with a cap of 9,000 pounds. For the 2015-16 academic year there will only be two universities out of 123 that will not charge the 9,000 pounds. So the maximum becomes the minimum and what it does is ensure that fees are going up. What it does then is ensure that students, like the students in the Hunter and on the Central Coast, cannot afford to go to university. Even without having a 20 per cent cut to contend with, every single university has put its students contribution up to the amount that it was at the time that the Howard government introduced the increases under then minister Brendan Nelson. I talked a little bit about partnerships with the community. Cuts to universities will have much wider impacts than just limiting the number of students and making it much more unaffordable for students to attend university. It will lead to a lack of innovation in communities and it will also lead to a situation where students are disadvantaged. I could talk on this subject for hours; there is so much to say. It is unfair legislation. It is legislation that is going to disadvantage the people that I represent in this parliament. It is legislation that is turning the clock back. It is legislation that is going back to the pre-1972 days, before Gough Whitlam came to power. It is legislation that is driven by ideology. It is not legislation that is driven by what is best for Australia. What is best for Australia is for the maximum number of students that can possibly attend university to attend. We do not want a system that is going to be Americanised. We want a system that is going to ensure that all students, all young Australians, have the opportunity to go to university if they are good enough—not if they can afford it. Labor is opposed to limiting numbers of students attending university. Labor does not believe that universities are money-generating machines. Instead, we believe higher education is an investment in Australia's future—an investment to build a more innovative Australia and an investment for a more equitable Australia. 18:41 Mr WILLIAMS 249758 Hindmarsh We just heard from the member for Shortland, and we hear this a bit from Labor, about access and equity. Let me put on the record and let us have the member for Shortland and other Labor members opposite listen to a couple of points about access and equity. They fail to acknowledge that the government's reforms will provide better access and more opportunities for low-socioeconomic status students and those living in regional Australia. As part of this package we require universities to invest one dollar out of every five dollars of additional revenue in new government scholarships for students from low-socioeconomic status backgrounds. Ms Hall interjecting— Mr WILLIAMS 249758 These scholarships will support access for disadvantaged students, Member for Shortland, by assisting with living costs and study pressures. Moreover, the Higher Education Loan Program, HELP, will continue to ensure that no Australian student needs to pay a dollar up-front. This is access at its best—no dollar up-front. Students can borrow their full share of the cost of their education through HELP and not a cent of the university's money needs to be paid for by Australian students up-front. No-one has to repay their HELP loan until they are earning a decent wage—over $50,000 a year. Some might earn $30,000 or $40,000, and they do not need to pay it back. Member for Shortland, you might have just overlooked that when you were thinking about your concept of equity. You have no idea what equity means, Member for Shortland. I move on to congratulate the minister, Christopher Pyne. I see Mark Butler, the member for Port Adelaide, here smiling because he knows that the minister has done a fantastic job with this. His vision and his consultative approach with the universities have put a fantastic bill, the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014, before the House. It is great to see the member for Port Adelaide acknowledging that this afternoon. I am proud to have an education background. My father was a teacher. I have been involved in the governing council of my local primary school and I went to two fine universities in South Australia. So it gives me great pleasure to speak on these reforms. The government wants to have the best higher education system in the world—something that the member for Shortland and others on the other side just want to sweep under the table. We believe this education reform package will produce the results we are wanting. Through our reforms, Australia will be in a great position to create some of the best universities in the world and the best higher education system. We are good at the moment, but we can get better. We have attracted many great students in the past to universities in South Australia: Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam, who studied a PhD in Mathematics at the University of Adelaide and is the current President of the Republic of Singapore; and Dr Kong Cheong, the current chairman of the Overseas-Chinese Banking Corporation and a former CEO of Singapore Airlines. The list goes on with a number of others that have dominated the world stage whether it be in business, community, politics or otherwise. Like the universities in South Australia, universities around Australia have produced many fine graduates. But the thing is, this is being threatened because those out of Hong Kong and those out of Singapore are now looking to universities in other parts of the world like China, the US and Europe rather than maybe going to Australia where they have looked previously. This is backed up by comments from Australian government representatives overseas. Also we have heard the High Commissioner in Singapore say one in 30 Singaporeans had studied in Australia. That is a significant number of students. What does the university sector say? We have brought the university sector with us on this one. The peak body representing Australia's universities says the reforms are a once in a generation opportunity to shape a higher education system that is sustainable, affordable and equitable for students and the nation. Universities Australia Chief Executive Belinda Robertson said the failure of the package will condemn the university system to an 'inevitable decline'. That is a warning. What have we heard from Labor on this? It is probably best to quote the Labor luminaries, whether it be Gareth Evans, John Dawkins or others. Gareth Evans wrote in The Australian that the university system badly needs rethinking. He made the pertinent point that every university in the country is funded in exactly the same way for its undergraduate students, regardless of the quality or type of education experience its students receive. It is a common factor of our society that you get value for money. The question could be asked in universities: are you getting value for money from the degrees that are consistently funded across Australia? Let me move to other members of the Hawke-Keating government. John Dawkins recognised the necessity of these changes and told us openly they are appealing to a Labor opposition to listen. Other Labor figures, such as Maxine McKew and the current shadow Treasurer, Andrew Leigh, are supporters of the deregulation. Other peak bodies around Australia—and I have touched on Universities Australia—such as the Regional Universities Network, the Australian Technology Network, the Innovative Research Universities, TAFE Directors Australia and the Council of Private Higher Education, all want to see change. They all know change is important for the betterment of their institutions. TAFEs too know that, with the significant challenges they are facing, the funding arrangements we will provide to TAFE students will be beneficial to their constituency. We are providing more funding for those with associate diplomas and more funding for those who want to do TAFE courses. We will be extending access to 80,000 new students a year. There will also be significant adverse implications if the higher education reform bill is not passed. As Universities Australia warned, competition for students will increase. Key research infrastructure and fellowships will be unfunded because these reforms are needed to meet the funding cliff that Labor left. We know that Labor cut close to $3 billion out of the university sector in their last years in office. I return to access because expanding the demand-driven Commonwealth funding system is at a cost of $371.5 million over three years. I mentioned before that we are supporting 80,000 new students, including an estimated 48,000 students in diplomas, advanced diplomas and associate degree courses. We are removing all FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP loan fees which are currently imposed on some students. I now want to touch on Australian universities' global position to put in context where this debate lies and the crossroads our universities are at. They are dropping in world rankings. We cannot afford to be left behind with the rise in the power of Chinese universities and other universities around the world. As the group of eight said recently: Unless there is reform we will continue to drift, we will fall behind the emerging universities of Asia and we will fall out of touch with the vital global centres of knowledge. It goes further than that. It goes to one of our largest export industries, which is education, that contributes around $15 billion per year. International students we know impact positively on our local economies. They buy apartments, eat in our restaurants and visit local tourism centres. They invite their family and friends to visit and, importantly, they sometimes stay and make a huge contribution to our society. In closing I want to make a few vital points. These are historic reforms. These are visionary changes. I again congratulate Minister Pyne on his commitment to these reforms. I also want to put on the public record the work of his office in continuing to pursue these reforms and the work they have done in preparing this vital reform package. These reforms are essential for the future prosperity of our nation and the future success of our universities. Through this package we will have a strong competitive research system. We will have the potential to have some of the best universities in the world. The alternative is unacceptable. We have heard that from former Labor members. We have heard the arguments for presented by our own side. If we do not take this opportunity to transform higher education, we will retain an unsustainable, outdated system. We risk that system declining into mediocrity and leaving Australia behind. We do not want to be on the wrong side of history. If we do not make change now, our universities are threatened. I support this bill. Debate adjourned. MOTIONS 72 MOTIONS Sydney: Martin Place Siege 72 18:51 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith On behalf of the people of Kingsford Smith I offer sincerest condolences to the families of Katrina Dawson and Tori Johnson, who tragically passed away in the Lindt cafe siege on 15 December 2014. We offer our sympathy and support for those hostages who were fortunate to survive this senseless act. We thank and pay tribute to the New South Wales Police and our security and intelligence services for their work in bringing this terrible situation to an end. On the morning of 15 December 2014, on the eve of Christmas, Martin Place was busy, as it usually is in the morning. Sydneysiders were going about their day. Many were on their way to work. Some were doing Christmas shopping in the city. Many of them were working in Martin Place. They were living their lives. Unfortunately, 18 of those Sydneysiders—mums and dads, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters—left home that morning with an expectation of seeing their loved ones in the evening, and for some, tragically, that did not occur. On that morning at about 9.15, in the very popular Lindt cafe in Martin Place, horror struck. Pure evil was thrust upon the patrons of the Lindt cafe. Katrina Dawson was a very well respected and talented barrister, someone with a very big future at the New South Wales bar, a mother of three young children from a very, very generous family. Katrina's father, Sandy Dawson, was a long-term chairman of the Salvation Army in New South Wales. It was a role that he passed on to his son, Sandy Junior, who is currently the chairman of the Salvos in New South Wales. The family lives in Randwick, in our community. Katrina's husband, Paul Smith, is a very well respected partner at Mallesons law firm, where I worked prior to entering the parliament. To Paul and the family, I simply say that words cannot do justice to the life of Katrina, a loved mother, a loved wife, and someone with a very big future, whose life was cut down in terrible circumstances. I say to Katrina's family that our community mourns with you. Our thoughts are with you. Know that if there is anything we can do to help you in any way, please feel free to get in touch. Tori Johnson was a young man in the prime of his life. From all accounts, he was a very good manager and great with people. That showed through in his actions on the day. To the very end he worked to protect the patrons of his store. He was a leader—someone who ultimately gave his life undertaking that duty. To Tori's family, I say: we commiserate with your loss. We find your strength admirable. The fact that you harbour no hatred is a measure of the people you are, and that is inevitably why Tori was the person he was, and why he took those actions. To the hostages who managed to escape, we say that we are here for you. John O'Brien, one of the first hostages who managed to escape the cafe tragedy, lives in our community. I have spoken to John on numerous occasions. He has relayed to me the troubles he has had in the wake of this terrible tragedy. To John and the other hostages, again we say: we are here for you. To any of those hostages, I know I speak for other MPs in this place when I say that if there is any way that we can help, feel free to pick up the phone and call, even if it is just to talk through things and through the events. To the New South Wales Police we say an enormous thank you. Thank you for the work you do day-in and day-out, risking your lives to help others. Thank you for the training that you do, which showed through on the night of this terrible tragedy. In the wake of events such as this we always have inquiries. There will inevitably be criticism of the roles that some have played. But know that that is part of the process of ensuring that in the future we do things better. It is not a criticism of individuals for going to work and doing their jobs. The only person to blame for what occurred in that cafe on that day is the gunman himself. Everyone else—the hostages, the staff, the police, the intelligence agencies, those that worked to end the siege—is a victim of his evil. Those involved, particularly our police force, deserve our praise, respect and thanks for the work that they do. 18:59 Mr IRONS HYM Swan I also rise to offer my condolences, on behalf the electorate of Swan and the Western Australian people, to the families of Katrina Dawson and Tori Johnson, and all the others who were involved in the siege that day. As you would know, many Western Australia families had to deal with the atrocities and suffering that came from terrorist acts of the Bali bombings on two occasions. I rise to pass on their best wishes and condolences to the families. I, like many other Australians, awoke on 16 December to witness one of the worst events of inhuman behaviour ever seen in Australia—an atrocity that each day people wittingly, or perhaps sometimes inadvertently, invent new ways to unleash on our fellow man: murder. To simply call what took place at the Lindt Chocolate Cafe in Sydney's Martin Place murder does not, however, begin to describe the horror and the destruction of that day. It is not a strong enough word to describe how evil a person is who would hold people against their will for 16 hours, resulting in the death of an innocent man and woman who did nothing more than be in the wrong place at the wrong time. While Australians have not been sheltered in our history from the brutalities of war, I believe all members in this place would agree that we as a nation have been relatively sheltered from the atrocities of terrorism. Terrorism is something that happens in other countries and to other people, even though Australians have been victims of terrorism overseas. That is the Australian mindset. It is what we told ourselves when 9/11 happened—and the London bombings, the Boston Marathon bombing and, closer to home, the Bali bombings—for, although we lost Australians that day, we placated ourselves in the knowledge that this act of terror did not occur on home soil and we as Australians were not the specific target. On 16 December the face of terrorism could not have been harsher, more heart wrenching, more tragic or more of a reality check for all Australians. No Australian expects to wake up to such acts of terror on our home soil as we witnessed that day, particularly by someone who was accepted into our country and into our communities, to share all the prospects that our great nation offers each and that every one of us shares. That reality and its associated threat of home-grown terrorism is what made that fateful day even more frightening. On 16 December, it is true, Australia was rocked to its core, but our spirits were not broken, and nor will they be. Instead, the people of our nation joined together and stood united against all those who seek to do us harm, and we will do so into the future. While 15 hostages of the Martin Place siege survived this horrendous ordeal, through their own courage to escape or through police officers' efforts to remove them from the cafe, there are two people who were not able to return to their loved ones. Katrina Dawson and Tori Johnson are names this country will never forget. They will be remembered in each of our hearts for the courage they had in the face of insurmountable danger and for the lives they touched while they were with us. Yes, our nation has been rocked, but many eyes have also been opened to the very real threat that we face in Australia from terrorism, not just abroad but here on our doorstep. Terrorism is a threat that seeks to destroy every one of us because of our unwavering belief in freedom, our belief in democracy and our belief in the right of every individual to live as they choose within the laws of this country. I do, however, highlight that this threat is not from Islam, the Muslim religion, as has too often been crassly publicised. The Muslim religion is one that preaches peace, in the same manner as Christianity and all other religions. No—this threat is from a group of radicals and extremists who are trying to spread their barbarism and their messages of hate and violence as far as they can, and the Sydney siege has shown us all that Australia is not immune. They have stolen the good name of Islam to pursue their fanatical terrorism. We watch our televisions and we hear and see that 148 children were massacred by Taliban extremists during a raid on a Pakistan school on the same day as the Sydney siege, or we hear that more than 185 people, including women and children, were kidnapped by Boko Haram fighters in the north-east of Nigeria. We as a country do not accept or condone atrocities like that and what happened here—quite the opposite. We revile them and condemn them. But we also separate ourselves as Australians from such savagery. Now our hearts and our minds are open. When we think of terrorism, we will think of the 15 hostages who survived the Martin Place siege, and we will think of Katrina and Tori. But I also hope that we will think of the thousands of people who have been massacred and kidnapped by extremists this year and last year, let alone the thousands in years prior to that. This is the reason we as a nation are doing everything we can to stop ISIL and to stop anyone who seeks to aid or join them here in Australia. As Australians, we have a responsibility and a duty to do whatever we can to prevent another attack like the Sydney siege, and to stop the slaughter of men, women and children in places such as Iraq and Syria which is happening not just every month or week but every day. This government, with the support of the opposition, has committed and will continue to commit Australian resources to achieve this, so that every Australian can continue to go about their normal lives with the knowledge and understanding that their government and police and intelligence services are doing everything they can to protect the safety of all Australian communities. I commend all the volunteers who assisted in the collection of the tens of thousands of floral tributes and messages that were laid at Martin Place for Katrina and Tori and I commend the New South Wales Premier, Mike Baird, for his efforts in ensuring that all tributes were preserved until an appropriate memorial could be created. As I have said, this government is currently doing, and will continue to do, everything in its power to do prevent terrorism in Australia. As members know, this government has also implemented key legislation to strengthen Australia's national security by ensuring that our security agencies have the resources and authority they need to investigate suspected terrorist operations and the reasonable means to prevent acts of terrorism on home soil. Western countries around the world are being faced with terrorism. We all stood shell-shocked as we watched the three-day reign of terror unfold in Paris last month, but it is what people around the world witnessed during and after those atrocities that depicts the core of our Western values and our need to protect them. We believe in peace, freedom of religion and generosity to our fellow man. Those are values that we should all be proud of. On 11 January we saw over 3.5 million people, including more than 40 world leaders, walk in a unity rally through Paris streets and across France to mourn the victims, to defend their freedom of expression and to stand united against the Islamic State. Hundreds of people in Sydney also joined the rally in Martin Place to express their own defiance against all those who seek to destroy our way of life and our values, and to pay respects to Katrina, to Tori and to each of the 17 victims of the Paris massacre. The message was clear that day and remains just as strong: we will not be defeated and we will not let these barbaric terrorists change who we are or what we stand for. We will stand united for Tori and Katrina and we will stand united for the thousands of people who have fallen victim to terrorism around the world. My heart goes out to the family and friends of those thousands of people, and in particular to the loved ones of Tori, including his parents, Ken and Rosemary, his siblings, Radha and James, and his partner, Thomas. It also goes out to Katrina's husband, Paul, her children, Oliver, Sasha and Chloe, her parents, Sandy and Jane, and her brother, Angus. I know that many people have been touched by Katrina and Tori's personalities and lives and that they would have had a ripple effect across everyone they touched. As I said, on behalf of all Western Australians, I submit our condolences to the families. To Katrina and Tori: you will be remembered forever. 19:07 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham I would like to take the opportunity to also make a contribution in this place in support of the statements made to the parliament by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in recognition of what were terrible and tragic events that unfolded in Martin Place in Sydney on Monday, 15 December. Seventeen people started their days with the simple rituals that so many of us are familiar with—that is, buying a cuppa, having a quick catch up with friends or colleagues, grabbing a quick takeaway perhaps to take to work with them—and these 17 were then caught up in just over 16 hours, as the Leader of the Opposition said, of an 'unimaginable nightmare of one man's making'. Like so many other Australians, as the member who spoke before me, the member for Swan, just outlined, I watched the events unfold with great concern for those who were caught in the cafe, and for their terribly anxious families and friends who waited and hoped for their safe release. We watched the police, the AFP and emergency service personnel as they worked professionally to achieve that result. And we grieved for the loss of two Australians who had a lifetime ahead of them; we grieved for their families and friends who had simply wanted them home. We share the loss of Katrina Dawson, who was loved by a husband and three children, her wider family and very many friends. She was a person who was respected and, as the Leader of the Opposition acknowledged, a brilliant barrister. We mourn with the partner and family of Tori Johnson, who was the cafe's manager. A beautiful story emerged the next day of his kind and loving gesture to a Wollongong family, as reported in Fairfax Media newspapers by journalist Lisa Visentin, including in the Illawarra Mercury. I will just quote part of that story to the House. It said: When Tori Johnson heard that six-year-old Henry Hinchcliff had never eaten a Easter egg, he was determined to fix the situation. The Lindt cafe manager invited Henry and his family to visit him in Martin Place and collect a bag of Easter goodies he'd had specially made for them. And so one day in April, Mercedez Hinchcliff and her children, Henry and Kate, set off from their home in Wollongong for the ultimate chocolate experience. "It's definitely something that stuck out in his mind as being one of his best days," Mrs Hinchcliff said of her six-year-old son, who has a rare disease that limits his diet to fewer than 50 foods. "It taught him that people go out of their way for people." It was the only time Mrs Hinchcliff met Mr Johnson, 34, who was killed in the siege on his cafe, but the kindness he showed her family on that day has stuck with her. The article tells us of a thoughtful and caring person lost to his partner, Thomas, his parents and his family. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and all members contributing in this debate pay our deepest respect to the families of Katrina and Tori and affirm our promise to hold them in our national heart. We extend that deep care and concern to all of the other hostages who survived the events but who still live with its effects, as do those who love them, and to the all the police and emergency personnel affected by that day and night. The legacy of this loss and suffering should be the renewed strength of our care and concern for all in our community and a reaffirmation that our national character is one that does not give into hate, to fear or to prejudice. On 25 November last year I reported to this parliament about the formation of a wonderful group in my local area called Illawarra People for Peace. This is an association that was created to establish a commitment to peace and harmony throughout the Illawarra. It is comprised of members from the Lumen Christi Catholic Parishes in Wollongong, the Bilal Mosque in Cringila, the Omar Mosque in Gwynneville and the Church on the Mall in Wollongong; representatives from other faiths; and people who are community leaders, like myself and the member for Throsby. The group came together to form an organisation to promote peace between people of faith and people of no faith. It promotes coming together in harmonious ways in our communities. On that occasion I reported to the House that we had gathered together for a large community barbecue. There were jumping castles, face painting and families just sharing a meal together and having a lovely time. On that occasion we heard from Father Aloysius Mowe from the Jesuit Refugee Service, who is a priest with a Malaysian background who has worked with both Christian and Muslim communities. He recited a very moving story of his own father's funeral in Malaysia. I said to the House at the time: It was a wonderful event that I have to commend the organisers for. I look forward to many harmonious events in Wollongong in the future. Only too soon, on 19 December, we saw the need to gather the group together again with our community to hold a peace service for those affected by the Martin Place siege. Local leaders, including our lord mayor and councillors, met in Market Square with families, children, students and individuals as well as a very strong presence of local police officers to demonstrate our determination to remain a united and peaceful community and nation. Gary Ismail and Father Ron Peters welcomed everyone and opened with a prayer, we heard a recitation with translation from the Koran and reading from Matthew's Gospels, the Beatitudes, and joined in silent reflection and prayer for peace. I would also like to acknowledge the wonderful spontaneous participation of so many locals and so many Australians in the #illridewithyou hashtag action to express our rejection of any expression of hatred and division through social media. In my area this also developed into a very Illawarra event, as reported by Joshua Butler in the Illawarra Mercury on 17 December. He wrote: The "I'll Ride With You" movement took over social media this week, a show of solidarity for Muslims who feared retribution in the wake of the Sydney siege. A team of water safety educators hopes its "I'll Surf With You" tagline picks up as much steam. A group of 11 Muslim women took to Sandon Point Beach on Wednesday for a safety program run by Surf Educators International and Welcome To Australia. Afghan, Iraqi and Indonesian women learnt about rips and safe swimming, but Kathleen Bleakley of Illawarra Multicultural Services said the program had taken on new meaning after recent events. "At a time like this, it's important to choose unity over division," she said. "It's about fun, but also helping people appreciate beach culture. It is such an important part of Australia, and it's good to welcome these women and have them be part of that." Clara Saddi, of Welcome to Australia, said the program was trying to push the "I'll Surf With You" line as a way of encouraging Australians to interact and embrace those with foreign backgrounds. "It's so easy to ask someone to the beach, and so rewarding to share that with someone," she said. Husna Alatat arrived in Australia from Indonesia two years ago. She had swimming experience from home, but said Wednesday's program gave her a new appreciation of Australia's beach culture. "I used to swim, but I got some information about things like swimming in the flags," she said. "It has given me more confidence and knowledge." Sadly, only today Illawarra journalist Agron Latifi has reported that the ugly face of racism reared its head again with an event that left local lady Nina Trad Azam 'shaken but far from beaten'. His story tells of an occasion last month when an elderly woman made racist comments and threw religious abuse at Mrs Azam as the pair waited in line to at Officeworks in Fairy Meadow. Mrs Azam also tells of the abuse she suffered 13 years ago by three young men in a car that caused her to stop wearing the hijab and that she had only recently found the courage to start wearing it again. I would like to read directly from the conclusion to Mr Latin's article: A medical practice manager and palliative care social worker, Mrs Azam only recently found the courage to wear the hijab again. The 44-year-old said her desire for world peace is far greater than her desire to look attractive as a woman. She wants a stronger spiritual connection and is adamant that nothing will deter her from wearing the hijab - not even the "hate crime" on January 20. "She [her abuser] was persistent in her determination to disempower, provoke and demonise me and my faith purely because I was wearing a hijab," Mrs Azam said. "She said Muslims were all evil people who caused trouble all over the world. "I tried to reassure her that she should not believe everything she hears in the media but she wouldn't let up," Mrs Azam said. "Even when I tried to tell her about my experience of victimisation when I was seven months pregnant, she kept going, saying that Muhammad had 66 wives. "Having devoted most of my life to voluntarily caring for the elderly, I was in fact shocked and genuinely hurt that she could be so hateful, bigoted and offensive without personally knowing me." But it was only after Mrs Azam nearly drowned while kayaking that she decided to report the incident to police. "I felt helpless, I felt stupid, I felt vulnerable and scared that I would drown but at the same time I was bargaining with God that if he helps me get back to my family I won't be the coward I was 13 years ago and I'll stand up for those who can't stand up for themselves," she said. I will meet Mrs Azam next week, and she has reported the incident to the police, who are investigating. As so many others have stated in this place, in our communities and in our media; the tragedy and loss of Martin Place will not be replaced by fear and division in any of our communities. 19:17 Ms SCOTT 165476 Lindsay I rise tonight to offer my condolences to the families of Katrina Dawson and Tori Johnson, to the 16 hostages whose lives will forever be changed, to the many friends and families who are now left with a hole in their heart. To our police and emergency services: you have truly gone above and beyond the call of duty. We as an Australian community are blessed to be served and protected by such fearless and brave guardians. Ten days before Christmas, we watched on, hopelessly, as an act of unspeakable evil unfolded before our eyes: Martin Place, a setting so familiar to so many Sydney-siders; the Lindt cafe, a venue that is home to the daily caffeine fix for inner-city workers—or, for me, a treat before or after a meeting in Martin Place. But it was in that familiar place that true evil showed its face. A man driven by mad hatred held 18 people at gunpoint, concluding with the tragic loss of two innocent lives—the tragic loss of Tori Johnson and Katrina Dawson. Many people have remarked how ordinary yet extremely exceptional these two individuals were. Katrina: an expert lawyer, dux of her school, mother, daughter, wife and friend. Tori has been acknowledged as a man of honour and respect. He in fact worked with my cousin Melissa for many years. She remarked to me what a beautiful man he was, that he was a friend to everyone and that his death is an absolutely tragic loss. The tragic loss of the lives of these individuals, cut down in their prime, is wrong in every sense of the word. The loss of their lives will never make sense to me—and perhaps it never should, because trying to fathom an answer, in a strange way, gives the perpetrator some sick type of credibility, and they do not deserve any of that. Sadly, the events of last year became a confirmation that home-grown terror in this country is so sad, but, sadly, it is real. But Martin Place also became a place of resilience, or a line in the sand drawn by the Australian people, because as the horror of 15 and 16 December was realised, a single posy of flowers was laid as a mark of respect near the edge of the cordoned zone in Martin Place. Within hours, from a single tribute grew a field of flowers—a field that would grow to cover four areas of Martin Place as well as an area in Phillip Street, outside the offices where Katrina Dawson worked. A few days before Christmas, and it was surreal to be in Martin Place. There was an eerie quiet in the air as thousands of people stopped to line up and pay their tribute that week. People were quiet and courteous in a way that made it noticeable. The normal ebb and flow of people rushing about, for that short while, had disappeared. The Christmas tree down at the George Street end felt so far away, and kind of out of spirit. And it seemed unbelievable that this all happened 10 days before Christmas, because 10 days before Christmas our home had changed forever; 10 days before Christmas it was not about shopping or Santa Claus; 10 days before Christmas it seemed that time itself was simply standing still, even as the GPO chimed. By Thursday evening you could stand beside the Lindt Cafe on Martin Place, and perhaps it was the saddest scene—workmates and friends using the seating there to congregate and comfort each other. There would be quiet talking and spontaneous tears, then silence. Then, perhaps between the embraces, someone talking. Others who did not know this group would simply stand nearby looking at the floral tributes. All of them walked away with tears in their eyes because, out of something vile and horrific, people power had prevailed. And flowing on from the day that it happened, a very simple hashtag: #illridewithyou. The resilience of the Australian people arose—our digger spirit, our camaraderie, our mateship. No evil we face will stop the peace we love in our country; no extremist will ever take away our freedoms. As a nation we stand united. We fight for our home—our Australia. And like that floral tribute that flowed, our national character stands stronger, more resilient, unified against evil. To the 16 survivors of that terrible day and night: you will forever be the guardians of that horrific event. You are the witnesses who must forever keep the bravery of Katrina and Tori alive. I know that for many of you that will be extremely hard, and I know that a number of you are still battling with the wounds and scars of that horrible event—people like Robin Hope from Emu Plains. Robin was in the Lindt Cafe that morning with her daughter, Louisa—normal people doing a normal thing. But because of that day Louisa remains in hospital. Her left leg around her ankle and shin is still infected from the wounds caused when bullet shrapnel ricocheted around the room. She has had three operations and is having skin grafts. Robin had shrapnel removed from her shoulders, but she lives up to it as well. She simply says: 'At the end of the day, two people lost their lives. Our injuries are only setbacks.' But there is something else about Robin and Louisa Hope that makes them as heroic as Katrina and Tori. These two women made a pact; a pact that they were willing to die, willing to do whatever they could to let the younger ones escape. In the face of evil they made a decision to allow good the best chance of winning. They are heroes, but they did make the decision to be heroes. Of Katrina and Tori, Robin says: 'Katrina was a beautiful person, and she died beside me in hospital. Katrina was hit by police shrapnel. He didn't take two lives; he only took one.' Let the chimes of the GPO clock forever bear witness to that horrible 16 hours, 10 days before Christmas, and let those chimes forever be a reminder of the 18 innocent people, and their families, whose lives will be forever changed. As Kenneth Slessor wrote about his mate, Joe: Why do I think of you, dead man, why thieve These profitless lodgings from the flukes of thought Anchored in Time? You have gone from earth, Gone even from the meaning of a name; Yet something's there, yet something forms its lips And hits and cries against the ports of space, Beating their sides to make its fury heard. Kenneth is describing how a person dies three times: the physical, the memorial service, and when the name at last is spoken or remembered. We must never forget Tori Johnson or Katrina Dawson. In closing, when we reflect on this event, we as a nation must always be stronger. And in the words of Jack Layton: My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world. 19:26 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I think one of the reasons that the events of last year like MH17 and the Sydney siege affected us so much is that we could all imagine ourselves on that plane or in that cafe. A lot of terrible things happen every day here and overseas, but most of the time we imagine that it could never happen to us. But not this. This was different. A lot of us have been overseas on an aeroplane; even more of us get a cup of coffee in the morning on our way to work as part of our normal daily routine. I was in the Lindt Cafe only a couple of days before the siege; my wife goes there all the time. Like most Australians, on 15 December I was transfixed to the TV screen all day and all through the night. I sat there thinking about the people in the cafe just going about their normal routine until suddenly they were caught up in what can only be described as anyone's worst nightmare. I thought about their mums and their dads. I thought about their husbands and their wives receiving a phone call—or as it turns out, a text message—telling them that their loved ones were in there. They are still in our thoughts, and it was wonderful to see them in the gallery yesterday. However, there were two people who were not in the gallery yesterday: Tori Johnson and Katrina Dawson, victims of a sick and evil person and a warped, demented ideology. I rang a mate of mine who is a barrister in Selborne Chambers and I asked him if he knew Katrina. He did; he worked on the same floor as Katrina, and they had been friends for 10 years. The day before, Sunday, they had both been in their chambers working on different cases. Katrina had brought her kids into the office, and they were there laughing and joking and talking about what they were going to do for Christmas. He told me she was 'just lovely'. Because of the actions of a madman, this beautiful, bright, lovely person has gone forever. It is so unfair and so wrong. The same is true of Tori Johnson. And for those who survived—they carry with them the physical and mental scars of those 16 or so hours, and will continue to do so for the rest of their lives. Later this month, the Prime Minister has promised to release a review by federal agencies into this tragedy. It is an important document. Two people died, and more could have. It is important that we ask the hard questions and look at what we need to do differently to try to stop something like this happening again. That is not an easy thing. But we owe it to the people that were in the gallery yesterday and we owe it to Katrina and Tori to do that. That includes looking at how we use intelligence to monitor deranged and fixated individuals like Man Monis and looking at what role the TAG East team, the 2nd Commando tactical assault group based at Holsworthy, should play in situations like this, given their extraordinary capabilities. Finally I just want to say something about the community response in the aftermath of this terrible tragedy. I expected, and I think many people expected, the sort of backlash against the Muslim community that we saw in September last year after the police raids, where people were spat on, pushed and abused. But that did not happen. We saw something very different in December. A Muslim friend of mine who visited the makeshift memorial flooded with flowers on several occasions told me about one of those visits. He was crying, and an Anglo-Celtic woman came up to him, put her arm around him and said, 'Are you okay?' As tears rolled down his face, she gave him a hug. This Muslim mate of mine said that he had never felt like he belonged as much as he did at that moment, and I think there is a very special message for us in that. What is happening in Iraq and Syria is a lightning rod for deluded people who want to go there and fight or want to wreak terrible damage here at home—people poisoned by a putrid ideology, triggered into action by what they see on TV, what they read on their phone, their tablet or their computer at home, or what they hear in a prayer hall. Ottawa, Paris and Sydney are all evidence of that. But if the purpose on that day was to divide us then it failed. It has only brought us closer together. It has only helped my mate to feel like he belongs. And that is a message that we should all take with us—a message of hope in the midst of all this violence and pain. 19:32 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson The events around the siege of the Lindt cafe in Sydney's Martin Place on 15 and 16 December last year were indescribably tragic. In rising to speak on this important motion, may I extend my deepest and heartfelt sympathies to the families and friends of Katrina Dawson and Tori Johnson for their tragic loss, and may I also associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister and of other members who have spoken so far in this place in honouring their lives. In remember Katrina and Tori, we also remember those who demonstrated such courage in the Lindt cafe. The men and women who were held would truly have undergone a life-changing experience that all of us here would find quite tough to comprehend, let alone to process. It is thanks to our law enforcement and security agencies and emergency services personnel that this difficult and dangerous situation was not made worse, and I thank them. The courage and focus of all those involved in this most difficult of scenarios is to be commended. This was an act of terror we hoped would never occur in this country, and it is a sobering reminder that the threats we hear about beyond our shores can strike here. But tonight I rise on behalf of my community as the member for Robertson to speak in honour of one of our own. Tori Johnson is a former student at Terrigal High School, and I know that there are many in my community who have been touched and changed personally by this tragedy because they were touched and forever changed for the better because they were lucky enough to know Tori. In the aftermath of this testing day for our country, many people from the Central Coast community gathered at Martin Place in Sydney, where the steadfast response of Australians to this tragedy was so clear and so beautiful. The sight of thousands and thousands of flowers and petals side by side in unity of grief at this awful event certainly moved me deeply, as I know it did millions of others. Locally, another impromptu memorial with messages and flowers was also set up in Terrigal, where people in the community could sign a tribute book. It was set up by a local resident, Jordyn Steel. Ms Steel told our local newspaper, the Central Coast Express Advocate, that just an hour after she put the book at the war memorial at Terrigal there was a handwritten message from a child which simply read, 'I prayed for you.' In Terrigal, former schoolmates of Tori Johnson have since described him as a sensitive, strong and loyal friend who always put others' needs above his own, and I think that was demonstrated on that day. He was part of the class of 1998, which I understand is a very tight-knit group of friends on the Central Coast. Others who knew him, and those who knew his family, spoke movingly and sincerely about his talent, his artistic nature and the fact that he was a good listener to all those he talked with. They described him as a very loving man, as perfect and as a loving son. It came out a number of times that Tori was a very, very loving son. He loved gardening, because he loved nature and creativity. He was often seen in the gardens of people's homes on the Central Coast, gardening, doing what he loved and being with his family. These are all wonderful, timeless, honourable traits of a man lost far too soon. May his legacy and his love of life, of people, of friends, of family, of nature and of the beautiful country in which we live be an enduring reminder of all that we can be and, indeed, all that we are as individuals, as a community and as Australians. I commend this motion to the House. 19:36 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fraser One of the things that strikes me about the job of a parliamentarian is how often we touch tragedy—how often we find ourselves speaking in our communities or in this place about those who have passed. Sometimes there is, amidst the sadness, a sense of satisfaction—of a full life lived well—as there will be shortly, when this House pays tribute to Tom Uren. But at other times the pain is overwhelming, as it is in the case of young lives cut short in the midst of their success. The member for Robertson has spoken movingly of Tori Johnson, one of the two victims of this tragedy. I want to speak about Katrina Dawson. Katrina Dawson was at Sydney university law school a couple of years after me; I was closer in cohort to Sandy Dawson, her brother. But Katrina's brilliance shone strongly. She scored a perfect hundred in her HSC. She was a star of the Sydney bar. She had three extraordinary young children and she touched so many lives. The former Governor-General, Quentin Bryce, has spoken about Katrina Dawson's example. Those at the Sydney bar have spoken about her role in mentoring women there. She worked in the Redfern Legal Centre, for Medecins Sans Frontiers and for Make a Wish at the Starlight Foundation. She has been honoured by Ascham School and the principal there, Andrew Powell, has noted how she was affectionately known as 'Tree' in her student years. Friends of mine at the Sydney bar have spoken about how the loss of Katrina Dawson has left a hole in their lives—about how they looked forward so much to her presence at the Sydney bar, to her intellectual brilliance and her sense of warmth. And, as somebody who is the father of three children, I can only imagine what it is like for those three little children to be growing up now without their mother. The Leader of the Opposition put it beautifully, I thought, when he said: We understand that no words in this place or elsewhere can restore that vanished touch or bring back a voice too soon silenced. All we can offer is Australia's embrace—a promise to honour forever the memory of those lost to you and to all of us. We honour, too, the police officers whose first instinct when shots rang out was to run towards the danger, not away from it. Without their swift response more lives would surely have been lost. We offer our condolences to all of the family and friends of the innocents and to the survivors whose lives, too, have been scarred by this awful tragedy. But as others have noted in this debate, as we grieve there is also a shared hope that, through this tragedy, there may arise a source of strength. One such source of strength arose when, watching a Muslim Australian on a train silently remove her hijab on 15 December—the day of the tragedy—Brisbane woman Rachel Jacobs stopped her and said, 'Put it back on. I'll walk with you.' Reading this account on Twitter, Sydneysider Tessa Kum started the hashtag #illridewithyou; and soon hundreds of thousands of Australians were offering to take public transport alongside Muslim Australians. My favourite tweet came from Sean Murphy who wrote: I am an Australian atheist and #illridewithyou (I am also 6'2 and very muscular, so no-one will mess with us) If violent ideology has a counterpart, it is the 'I'll ride with you' movement. It is grounded in the Australian values of egalitarianism, multiculturalism and mateship. It is a reminder that love is not simply more beautiful than hate, it is also stronger, funnier and more imaginative. I commend the motion to the House. 19:41 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I rise to echo the remarks of other members of this House in welcoming this motion we have before us today. If there is a beating heart of the city of Sydney, it is hard to think of anywhere that has more of a sense of place than Martin Place. It is the centre of our commercial district—a place where people gather to meet with friends, to reminisce with each other and to visit together at daily lunches and meals. That is exactly why people in Sydney have been so affected by the events we saw on 15 and 16 December 2014 during the 16½-hour stand-off. People in Sydney understand that any single person in the city of Sydney, at any given time, could have been in that cafe at that moment and subject to those events. We saw the horrors of a terror attack here on our own soil for the first time—and also the bravery of all of the victims of this awful tragedy, including Katrina Dawson and Tori Johnson, who are no longer with us. I particularly want to say, on behalf of my electorate, that Katrina Dawson and her family were well known to the Hills community and to my community in the Dural area. She was a gifted barrister and a mother of three—Chloe, Oliver, and Sasha. Her loving husband, Paul, her parents, Sandy and Jane, and her brothers, Sandy and Angus, have lost a dear member of their family. It is such a great tragedy for my community and for the city of Sydney that this occurred in this place and in this way. Perhaps the most affecting moment we have seen in this House for some time was seeing all the hostages—minus, of course, Katrina and Tori—and their families here in the gallery this week. You could read the emotion on their faces—the tears and the horror and the underlying strength within them—while they were listening to the Prime Minister. Every member of this House was affected by seeing them here in person and every member of this House has the utmost respect for all the people that were affected by this tragedy and their families. These events have brought out the best in our country. They are a reminder that we share our values of liberty, individual rights and freedom and our fundamental respect for each other as human beings. They have drawn out the most significant and positive outpouring of grief that we have seen here in our nation for some time. The Martin Place tributes brought everyone together from Sydney, from all walks of life and all corners of our city, to pay tribute to the lives lost, to the bravery and to the victims and their families. It was the most welcome outpouring that we could expect from our society. It brought out the best in all of us. Regardless of how you look at it, we ought to be proud of the way our society has responded to something so damaging and difficult for us to deal with. The strength of the police and all those who handled this tragedy is to be admired and congratulated. Plenty of people had put their lives on the line to do their jobs, to ensure our freedom and liberty was secure. I pay tribute to the police and the operation they ran and to all of our security services that keep us so safe. The real story of this tragedy is that we have some significant failings in our system. I thank the Prime Minister for immediately announcing that there will be a serious and substantive review of all facets of the tragedy and implications of it. It is important at these junctures that we examine the hard things honestly, that we ask what failings there are in our system that could allow for someone who had such malice in his soul not just to commit this particular atrocity but to have had a lifetime of ill treatment towards others. If you examine the life of this evil figure, there is a litany of wreckage of human lives and a litany of wreckage of our society. There has to be a point where we can say: enough is enough. We have to stop such people. We have to identify such people. We have to prevent such people. This person's ex-wife was stabbed to death and burnt—set alight in a stairwell. Other victims of his infamy have come forward. We need to ask ourselves: how did this happen and how can we ensure that similar people, and I have no doubt there are others, can be prevented from doing such things in the future? I welcome the review and report that will come. We must, together as a House, together as a parliament and together as a nation have no boundaries for dealing with these sorts of issues. We are all together on this. We all want to prevent this violation of human rights, we all want to protect our freedoms and liberties and, most of all, we all want to prevent a repeat of such an awful tragedy—for the people involved and the families who have now suffered so much from the actions of someone so terrible. I end by praising our leaders of all sides of politics—whether that be the Prime Minister and the opposition leader here in this place, the Premier, who was magnificent in the hour called upon him, the police commissioners or those of us who were asked something, all of us have responded from the top of our society all the way down to the ordinary street level. Every Australian has responded in a way that we can be proud of. To the families and loved ones, our thoughts and prayers are with you during the unimaginable grief that you would be experiencing. We pray for all of those to recover who are still injured. I am so proud of the unity of all Australians. I commend this motion to the House. 19:48 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I rise to associate myself with this motion and the comments made by all members of this place. I believe this is an incident where we will look back—we even do that now—and know the place, the moment, we were when we learnt that this terrible tragedy had begun. Going to my diary, I see it very clearly. I remember—as many of my colleagues would—it was a Monday morning, and a lot of us would have been attending school presentations. I left my office and went to Seven Hills Public School. Somewhere between going to Seven Hills Public School and Schofields Public School, straight after it, I happened to check my phone and saw the headline that a siege was taking place in the middle of the city. I did what I think thousands of people did: I rang my loved one. When I did not get an answer I panicked, and I kept ringing. Finally, when my husband called back—his office being literally down the road from where these events were taking place—I screamed at him, 'Where are you?' He said he was fine. Unfortunately for so many people, too many people who made that call did not get an answer. They were attempting to call loved ones who had been taken hostage. I raise these things not to presume that anyone is particularly interested in my day-to-day movements but simply to emphasise that this was a normal day. This was a normal day for Sydney. It was a normal day for everyone, including us members of parliament. When we went to bed that night we went to bed uneasy. We went to bed after having watched the live footage. We went to bed praying for a peaceful end to this outcome. It was not to be. For me, and I am sure for a lot of Australians, I could not stop thinking about Katrina Dawson's children, more than anything else. There is that awful moment—I know it—for some of us when you wake up and remember that your mother has died. I remember that having happened as a child. It is the worst feeling I believe you will ever feel. I felt so much for those three children. As it transpired, when we learnt the identities of the two deceased, Katrina Dawson was well known to my husband. He was at Mallesons before becoming a partner at Corrs Chambers Westgarth. He knew Katrina in her capacity as a solicitor and barrister. He attended the service for Katrina and came home with the service booklet. Just to see the photos from that booklet, there was a woman so full of life. There were photos from her wedding day. A photo with the love of her life, her husband, and a photo of her in her wedding dress holding a cat—a cat that obviously meant something very important to her. Something that I think a lot of people were considering at the time was how Sydney was going to react to this terrible tragedy. Above all else, this was a perpetrator who sought to divide us. But instead I do not think even he could comprehend how much he brought us together. On the Wednesday, along with a lot of other people who had been doing so for some time earlier, I happened to be in the city and I managed to obtain some flowers. It was actually very hard to find flowers in the city. As I came up through Martin Place Station, I just wanted to place them on the side quietly, which I did, and walk away in silent prayer. But you could not help but be moved by seeing the number of people and the sheer scale of that floral tribute to Tori Johnson and Katrina Dawson in particular. I was in the city again last week and I happened to be walking down Martin Place at the moment when I saw the scaffolding being taken down around the Lindt Cafe. Even then the people of Sydney stopped with reverence and paused and I believe that in their hearts, just as I did, said a prayer for Tori and Katrina. One of the things to come out of this aside from the fact that this unified our community rather than divided it was that we got to know what beautiful people Tori and Katrina were and what beautiful families they had. It actually comes as no surprise to learn that this is how the children of those families grew up. The inquest, of course, started very recently, and it would be a very difficult time for all those involved, just as it was obviously a very difficult time for those who were in the gallery yesterday. For the soul mates of Tori and Katrina, for Katrina's children, this is going to be, obviously, a very difficult time. It will also be a very difficult time for one of my constituents: Marcia Mikhael, a 43-year-old mother of three from Glenwood, where I live, who was one of the victims. It does raise the issue, I believe, of how one as a member of parliament conveys the feelings of one's local community to the families and the victims. I do not say this to trivialise the issue but to point out that it was actually quite a vexed question. Do I send flowers to her home? Do I send flowers to the hospital? Do I send a card? Do I put a message on social media? The reality is that, at the end of it, I believe that all those victims ended up knowing that they were in the hearts of all Australians. I believe that all Australians demonstrated the best of themselves and the best of our country in their response. At the memorial service for Katrina Dawson it was reported that Ms Dawson's mother made the comment, 'We are adjusting to sharing our wonderful daughter with the world.' Both Katrina and Tori Johnson have indeed been shared with the world. They have been shared in the most wonderful way of remembering them, remembering the fruitful lives that they led. In associating myself with this motion and the comments, I would like to conclude by praising all personnel who were involved in bringing this incident, this tragedy, to an end—all of our police force and everyone involved in caring for the victims, all those health professionals and all those professionals who will still have a job to do from here on, including everyone from the inquest to the ongoing care of the victims and their families. 19:57 Mrs McNAMARA 241589 Dobell It is with great sense of sorrow and feeling of loss that I rise to speak to this condolence motion. We stand today reflecting upon the events of the 15th and 16th of December 2014. It was a day that started like any other which would soon be forever altered by an unimaginable act of terror. Like many people who work in the Sydney CBD, in a previous career I sat many times with work colleagues at the Lindt Chocolate Cafe at Martin Place enjoying a cup of coffee and having meetings. When I heard of this tragedy I thought straightaway of my previous work colleagues who worked directly across the road in Elizabeth Street. I thought about the amount of time that I myself had spent in that cafe. Never could we envisage how the routine activity of meeting friends, family or coworkers for a coffee or chocolate would become a living nightmare, and tragically it did—a nightmare that saw 10 customers and eight employees of the Sydney Lindt Chocolate Cafe enduring 16 hours of being held hostage by a lone gunman blinded by religious idealism in the extreme; 16 hours that are now remembered as a time when Sydney stared terror in the face; 16 hours that many of us remained glued to the television set. I myself, like the member for Greenway, went to bed that night hoping that everything would be okay, waking up in the morning to find that, tragically, two innocent young people had lost their lives. Hostages Katrina Dawson and Tori Johnson tragically lost their young lives. They were two brilliant, talented and much-loved individuals with so much potential and opportunity ahead of them. Every Australian will remember Katrina and Tori for their bravery and tragic loss. On behalf of the Dobell community I extend my deepest and heartfelt sympathies to the families and friends of Katrina Dawson and Tori Johnson. As Australian families celebrated the Christmas season with their loved ones we all paused to remember Katrina's husband, Paul Smith, and their three children—Chloe, aged eight; Oliver, aged six; and Sasha, aged four—along with Tori's partner, Thomas Zinn. The Central Coast united in grief over the tragic loss of Katrina and Tori. The loss of Tori Johnson, a former student of Terrigal High School, brought this horrific crime home to many Central Coast residents. Our nation's collective grief manifested itself in floral tributes, which spread throughout Martin Place and also Terrigal beach. Never before had Australia's rejection of and resilience to terror and hatred been so beautifully demonstrated in floral tributes. Ordinary Australians descended upon Martin Place to pay their respects and lay a floral tribute. I heard so many stories from residents of the Central Coast who actually travelled to Sydney to mourn and pay their respects. We also united to thank and acknowledge the efforts of our law enforcement and emergency services personnel. This terrifying event demonstrated what law enforcement and emergency service personnel do every day, which is to abandon their own safety in difficult and dangerous situations to help protect others, and for that we are eternally grateful. We are immensely grateful and proud of their service to our community in this nation and we thank them. Australians of all races and religions united to illustrate the power of what makes us Australian. Our unity will always prevail over those who seek to divide us. Instantaneously, we reached out to one another and were bound by common values. The various paths that make our great nation the nation that it is converged into one—a united people defiant in the face of adversity and tragedy. We struggled to comprehend how, in a country as richly diverse as ours and as peaceful as ours, someone could be so intent on destroying our social fabric. Last year, I spoke in this parliament about the greatness of Australia. I spoke about how Australia is the lucky country and how a democracy was not born from bloodshed, civil uprising or war. We are the envy of the world and sadly those who disagree with our democratic freedom pose a constant threat to everything that makes us unique. Last year, I said in parliament that for many Australians the threat of terrorism may seem a world away. Following the events of the Martin Place siege, this is no longer the case. Australia has lost its innocence to those who hate our freedoms and values. Many people never imagined such an event transpiring on our soil. We are all too familiar with images each night on the news depicting intolerance abroad, but never in our own backyard. Like those in Paris who marched in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo massacre, the people of Sydney and all Australians stand tall and defiant in the face of terrorism. We speak as one in that we will not tolerate hatred in our community. We will not tolerate those who sympathise with terrorist organisations or those willing to cause Australians harm due to their own reckless actions. We are stronger than ever before in our defiance of those who hate us and seek to do us harm. Australia is a beacon of hope and liberty throughout the world. Our values will never be compromised by those who want to suppress the freedoms of innocent men, women and children. Our resolve has never been stronger. In time, Martin Place and the streets of Sydney will return to normal. We will never forget those tragically lost and those who suffered in this terrible act of hatred and madness, nor will we forget the reasons behind this attack or our resolve to ensure the safety of Australia and her people. We join with the family and friends of the victims of the siege and with a united voice say we will never surrender to the hatred of a minority. We will forever remember this atrocity. We will forever remember the victims. I express my deepest condolences to the families of Katrina and Tori, their friends and work colleagues, and the communities whose lives have been touched and changed forever by this heartless tragedy. We should never forget those injured and those who escaped this tragedy, and ensure we support them as they deal with the horror they endured whilst held captive. I commend this motion to the House. Debate adjourned. CONDOLENCES 83 CONDOLENCES Uren, Hon. Thomas, AC 83 20:04 Mr GRAY 8W5 Brand I rise to speak in this condolence motion on the life of Tom Uren. Tom Uren was simply a great man. It sounds easy to say but a simple contemplation of his life leads you to no other conclusion. I think it is instructive in looking at Tom's life to reflect that we are all in this place and all of us in our lives patterned by our experiences as children and by our families. For Tom, the major shaping influence on his life was the Depression. One would normally think that growing up in Depression affected Sydney and Balmain would be enough to shape a life, but for Tom it also became his life in the Australian Army and the work that he did thereafter. It takes lots of different characters to make up this place, but in the life of Tom Uren you can speak of a father; you can speak of a fighter, a boxer; you can speak of a prisoner of war; you can speak of a great legislator; you can speak of a man whose passions and loves led his life. You cannot really speak of an economist. You cannot really speak of an economic rationalist. Tom spoke too often from the heart. Tom died at the age of 93. He was born in Balmain. He had a life which became in many ways almost the stuff of a Russell Crowe movie. He became a lifesaver, a rugby league player and a boxer until he joined the Army. I will just quote here from the obituary that Tony Stephens wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald. After Tom had arrived in Darwin, he went to Timor and then further north. Tony writes on what Tom went through in World War II, as follows: As the Australian force was being overrun in February 1942, Uren volunteered to go forward in a vehicle armed with a single Bren gun to support a Tasmanian battalion, the 2/40th, which was making what has been described as the last bayonet charge in Australian military history. Witnessing the Australian advance up Oesaoe ridge under machine-gun fire marked the 20-year-old for life. Forced to surrender, the prisoners were taken early in 1943 to Singapore, from where Uren was loaded into a railway goods truck which ended up at Konyu River camp, where the surgeon Lieutenant Colonel Edward 'Weary' Dunlop was commanding officer of the men slaving to build the Burma-Thailand railway for the Japanese. It is a remarkable thing, and many speakers have spoken of Tom's love of life and of his fellow man and woman, and his ability to raise himself and those around him from the horror that he saw and faced down at that time. Our parliament is made better by people like Tom Uren; our lives are made better by the contributions of people like Tom Uren. But when Tom entered the federal parliament there blossomed a view of our urban environment, of urban design, of the character of our cities and of the importance of our heritage. There blossomed of view of what our cities can be—not in the simple built fabric, but in the art of those cities: in great walkable cities, in cities where people enjoy to live, and in cities that are our living and our built heritage. Tom saw that, in so many ways, before any of us did—before any of his contemporaries did. God bless Tom for doing that. With great passion, he built government instruments, such as The Department of Urban and Regional Development, to help aid in that cause. Friends of mine who worked with Tom in the 1970s recalled that whenever the Fraser government brought down a budget he would look with great passion to see where DURD was in the scheme of things. I can recall the staff that Tom had on board. In this place, you can often tell a good parliamentarian and a good politician—they attract good staff. Tom attracted a fellow called Professor Rolf Gerritsen to work with him. Professor Gerritsen became one of the eminent professors in public policy at the Australian National University, and now at Charles Darwin University. Tom attracted Anthony Albanese to work for him, who was, and remains, one of the great powering intellects and drivers of the Australian Labor Party. He had wonderful people working for him all of his professional working life, when I knew him in my role as a national organiser and then assistant national secretary of the Australian Labor Party. Tom had a young and enthusiastic media adviser, Kathy Collier, who was filled with passion and pride at working with and for Tom, and with and for the great mission that Tom had—which, for a while in the middle-1980s, seemed as if it was simply rebuilding the old Department of Urban and Regional Development. Tom had passions that he did not let go of, and God bless him for that good heart. He was the Labor Party's first spokesperson for the environment, and what a terrific shaping of Labor's approach to the environment we enjoyed while Tom was in that role. Labor in government went on to create a number of enduring institutions, but, more than those institutions, they created for Tom a great public service, a great public dedication. A man whose early life was shaped by the depression became a man whose life and contribution was shaped by his love for his fellow man. I can recall a story of my father-in-law making reflections in the Senate about a Liberal senator. Tom took a deep dislike to Peter Walsh's reflections and went to see Peter to set him right about the things that bind us in this place, and the things that divide us. Only a man as passionate as Tom, as understanding as Tom, with as big a heart as Tom, could have done that in that environment. Tom was a great man. Tom made a wonderful contribution, and at 93 he made a contribution that I am sure his entire family would be proud of, as we should be in this place. 20:12 Mr RUDDOCK 0J4 Berowra It was a great privilege to represent the Prime Minister at the funeral for the Hon. Thomas Uren AC. I did so in the Town Hall in Sydney last week. He was remembered with great fondness, as we have heard from the member for Brand, who has just spoken. I was pleased to see former prime ministers present—Paul Keating, Bob Hawke and John Howard. I was particularly pleased to see, seated with John Howard, Sir John Carrick. Sir John Carrick had served in the military with Tom Uren. He was one who was also in Singapore and later on the Burma railway. Tom joined the army at 20. He served in Timor, and he was a prisoner of war, suffering that great brutality on the Thai-Burma railway. I think it was very special to be able to see Sir John Carrick there to remember Tom Uren. They were people of different political persuasions but served Australia, in Australia's interests, together. Tom was born in Balmain in May 1921 and elected to the House of Representatives as the member for Reid in 1958. He served for some 31 years. I had the great privilege of being elected to this parliament in September 1973. I thus served with Tom Uren for some 17 years in the parliament. I saw him as a minister in both the Whitlam and Hawke governments. I saw him as the Deputy Leader of the Labor Party. I saw him as the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, the Minister for Territories and Local Government, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Community Development and Regional Affairs and also the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services. But there was far more to the man. I am reminded of my own maiden speech. Many of you will not recognise me, but I spoke about Parramatta and its heritage. I spoke about the Parramatta River and the need for it to be cleaned up. For me, these issues were important, but they were of even greater importance to Tom Uren. He was the chair of the Parramatta Park Trust from 1997 to 2013. He was named as an Australian National Living Treasure in that same year, 1997. He was a strong supporter of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust. More importantly, he played a particularly important role in emphasising the importance of the creation of the National Estate, protecting large areas of Sydney—Glebe and Woolloomooloo—for future generations. He presided over decentralisation and the establishment of those unique areas of Albury-Wodonga and Bathurst-Orange. He was about sewering the suburbs of our great cities. He was about public transport. He had a view that our city skylines should not look like Manhattan. Interestingly, he said he was: … not promising miracles or even instant answers. The problems are too big. But he promised 'a new direction'. I did speak recently on the condolence motion in relation to the late Gough Whitlam, Prime Minister of Australia. I lauded Prime Minister Whitlam for his many achievements, but I have to say that I also noted the budgetary circumstances in which they were implemented and the high levels of inflation and unemployment that arose too soon from so much that was sought to be achieved. Equally, with Tom Uren, I greatly admired what he sought to achieve, but it came at a cost. It may have been pursued over time in a more successful way. Nevertheless, I think he will be fondly remembered for his great achievements. Even more, I think he will be remembered because I will remind people of his comments about Sydney's second airport needs. Speaking in Parramatta in 1985, Tom said, 'I have been a strong environmentalist all my life,' adding particularly that he hated noise pollution. 'But we need industry and we really need jobs,' he said, explaining that he believed residents of the west and south-west would benefit from having an airport in the region. 'Whether it's Wilton or Badgerys Creek,' he said, 'we can only benefit.' I will look forward with pleasure to continuing to cite Tom Uren and his support for a western Sydney airport. But I do fondly remember him. I served with him for over 17 years. He was a very special person, a very likeable person. He treated me like a son, as he did so many others. To his wife, Christine, his daughter, Ruby, and his adopted children, Michael and Heather, I extend my personal commiserations on his passing. 20:19 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fraser It is a pleasure to follow the Father of the House in speaking on this motion. One of the most brutal tests of national identity was described by Gavan Daws in his study of prisoners of war. Looking at men who had been starved and beaten down to what he called 'barely functioning skeletons' weighing less than 40 kilograms and surviving on less than 1,000 calories a day, Daws imagined that perhaps the national characteristics would all disappear, but it was not so, he found. He wrote: The Americans were the great individualists of the camps, the capitalists, the cowboys, the gangsters. The British hung on to their class structure like bulldogs, for grim death. The Australians kept trying to construct little male-bonded welfare states … Within little tribes of Australian enlisted men, rice went back and forth all the time, but this was not trading in commodities futures, it was sharing, it was Australian tribalism. In his first speech in this place, Tom Uren spoke about his experience as a prisoner of war under Edward 'Weary' Dunlop. He said that the Japanese paid their officers and medical orderlies an allowance, but the non-commissioned officers and men who worked on the railway were paid a smaller wage. In the Australian camp, the officers and the medical orderlies paid the greater proportion of their allowance into a central fund, and the men who worked did likewise. As Tom Uren said: We were living by the principle of the fit looking after the sick, the young looking after the old, the rich looking after the poor. And he contrasted it with what happened when a British force arrived: The officers selected the best— tents— the noncommissioned officers the next best, and the men got the dregs. Soon after the British arrived, 'the wet season set in, bringing cholera and dysentery'. Six weeks later, only 25 of the 400 British who had marched in were alive. As Tom Uren put it, only a creek separated the two camps, but on one side the law of the jungle prevailed, and on the other the principles of collective sharing. Egalitarianism is a powerful force in Australian national identity. Anyone who has read Richard Flanagan's The Narrow Road to the Deep North will recognise not just the quality of the writing but the ability to tap the national character. But sharing and looking after the most vulnerable are not just Labor values—they are Australian values. Tom Uren pursued them vigorously and with a wonderful sense of humour. I think my favourite point in his maiden speech is not so much the 'Weary' Dunlop sharing story but a little sideline where he says: 'I lived in Asia for quite a long time'—not going on to labour the point that under much of that period he was a guest of his Japanese captors. Tom Uren did not harbour bitterness. He managed to speak so happily about love and about peace. He phoned me completely out of the blue last year to talk about egalitarianism and about what Labor was doing. I asked him how he felt about his time as a boxer and having been close to the pinnacle of Australian boxing. He said he always felt a bit funny about it, as though it did not quite fit with the rest of who he was. His principles had been to stand up for the most vulnerable, and boxing did not encapsulate that. His was a big life lived large on the Australian stage. He was involved in conversations over whether Australians should be involved in the Vietnam War and, more than just conversations, he charged a constable who he said had assaulted him in an anti-war demonstration in 1970. He was vital in building the role of cities in Australia, speaking about the protection of the environment and in recognising the vital role of looking after the most vulnerable. And he always carried a great sense of who he was—a sense of self. Bruce Childs told me the other day that Tom Uren would often come along and join them at Labor Party meetings that were held in Sydney pubs. He said that Tom did not drink much, but he felt he needed to consume something—so he frequently turned up with an ice cream in his hand. Bruce Childs said it was quite a spectacle to see a tough Sydney pub, everyone with a schooner in their hands, and in the corner a tall, ex-boxer, ex-minister was licking on a little ice cream. Tom Uren is a part of the great Labor story which recognises that our purpose is the purpose of the Australian story—because Australian history is, in so many fundamentals, Labor history. Whether it was bringing our troops back to defend the homeland in World War II or the establishment of Medicare and universal superannuation, Tom Uren was there at so many points in our history. He did not practice bitterness. He recognised that hate hurts the hater more than the hated. He taught so many of us about the Labor story. In 1994, when I was just a whippersnapper doing my honours thesis on trade liberalisation in the Labor Party, he had just put out his autobiography, Straight Left. But he was happy to invite me over to his home to talk about Labor history, about his achievements and about how he saw the role of Labor in the world. He was an instinctive internationalist, not just because of those days spent in Asia, but because he knew deep in his bones that if being a social democrat means anything it is to engage with the world and to recognise the challenges of the vulnerable around the world are not someone else's problem—they are our challenge too. Tom Uren believed in foreign aid. He believed in Australia engaging in the councils of the world. He did not see us as a little nation that had to resile from speaking our values, but as a proud, bold nation that could step up on the world stage and speak out on behalf of the vulnerable wherever they were. He lived a great life. I think of his life as similar to that of my maternal grandfather, Roly Stebbins, who was born just a year after Tom. That generation, born in the early 1920s, saw a transformation of Australia from a country where horses plied the streets to a nation of the internet. We owe them so much. They were a generation forged through the Depression and World War II and came back not crushed but bigger in spirit and wanting to generate a better Australia. My condolences go to Tom Uren's family, and I pay tribute to a truly great Australian. 20:28 Mr LAUNDY 247130 Reid I rise to join with my colleagues on both sides of the House, as the current member for Reid, to acknowledge the outstanding service and life of a former member for Reid. It is a pleasure to support this condolence motion for the Hon. Tom Uren, AC. I, some 16 months ago, made my maiden speech in this place. In talking about the honour and the humility of which I accepted the trust of the people of Reid, I mentioned some previous holders of the seat of Reid who I considered legends. One of them, of course, was Tom Uren. The status and gravitas of Tom is not lost on me. I mentioned in the maiden speech that I actually come from a Labor family. In the time when Tom was growing up in Balmain, my grandparents bought their first hotel—the first lease of their hotel—at Rozelle. And I know from stories that my father told me that Tom in those days, post World War II, was larger than life. Tom was of course a Labor hero and a Balmain icon, but you do not need to move far in the inner west community for very long before you appreciate that his reputation and good work extended far beyond that Balmain peninsular. Members have noted how he spent his 21st birthday, and the following three birthdays, as a prisoner of war of the Japanese. Living through the horrors of the Burma-Thai railway, he dedicated his life to looking after others, particularly those within our community that needed a hand up. In 1958 he entered federal parliament as the member for Reid and represented the electorate, which I have the honour of doing, for 31 years, leaving as Father of the House. I can confidently predict that I will be unable to match that record—if not by the people's hand, it will be by my wife's. His role in preserving the heritage of Sydney is a legacy that will live on. He was a strong supporter of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust and the preservation of much of the magnificent heritage architecture that we see today in my electorate and beyond can be in attributed in a large part to the work of Tom. We have seen through the tributes of those on the other side, most notably that of Tom's good friend the Member for Grayndler, that Tom Uren was a great warrior for Labor, a great warrior for his community and a great Australian. However, perhaps most importantly he was a great friend and source of support to so many. People like Tom Uren do not come along often. And unfortunately in my 16 months here, we seem to be standing in this place honouring them far too often of late. Australia is the poorer for having lost him. As the current member for Reid, I extend to his family my sincere gratitude for his service and my deepest condolences. He lived his 93 years to the absolute fullest whether fighting for his country and its sovereignty on the field of battle or in the halls of parliament, he made Australia a better place. May he rest in peace. 20:32 Mr CONROY 249127 Charlton I associate myself with the fine remarks from the member for Reid; it was very generous of him. Tom Uren was many things, but to me he will always be a fighter. He fought against entrenched interests his entire life. He fought for: peace and led the opposition to the disastrous Vietnam War; free speech; democracy and the right to assemble; and democracy within the Labor Party and took on the Sussex street machine opposed to that principle. I will not detail his personal background as the many speakers before me have detailed this brilliantly. His political philosophy is best demonstrated by his experience as a prisoner of war. I will quote from his first speech in the old chamber that so many people have returned to. In our camp the officers and medical orderlies paid the greater proportion of their allowance into a central fund. The men who worked did likewise. We were living by the principle of the fit looking after the sick, the young looking after the old, the rich looking after the poor. A few months after we arrived at Hintock-road Camp, a part of 'H' force arrived. They were about 400 strong. As a temporary arrangement they had tents. The officers selected the best, the non-commissioned officers the next best, and the men got the dregs. Soon after they arrived the wet season set in, bringing with it cholera and dysentery. Six weeks later only 50 men marched out of that camp, and of that number only about 25 survived. Only a creek separated our two camps, but on one side the law of the jungle prevailed and on the other the principles of socialism. That principle, as espoused in that quote from his experience as a PoW was the philosophy that was to be the foundation of the rest of Tom's life. As a former prisoner of war, ultimately, Tom fought for peace. He was the first member of parliament to oppose the Vietnam War. This was as early as 1962. This was a full four years before the 1966 election when Harold Holt rode a jingoistic wave to defeat a Labor opposition that took a principled stand., a stand that has stood the test of history, unlike the cynical, reactionary Vietnam policies of other actors at that time. It is not well known that Tom was the organising genius behind the Vietnam moratorium marches. Jim Cairns was the public face, but Tom led the mass mobilisation that remains to this day the largest mass movement this country has seen. He also fought for nuclear disarmament and many other causes to advance world peace. This principled stand brought him into conflict with the powerful media oligarchies who accused him of treason in the early 1960s. Let me pause for a moment. They accused Tom Uren, a man who volunteered for the Army in May 1939 as storm clouds formed, a man who fought courageously in Timor against the advancing Japanese, a man who spent four birthdays as a prisoner of war—including time on the infamous Thai-Burma Railway. This colossus of a man defamed in an attempt to silence his opposition to the Vietnam War. Well I am proud to say that Tom took on Frank Packer and the Fairfax family. He took them on and won the largest defamation damages case in Australian history. He remarked that he named his two houses he bought with his settlement, 'Fairfax House' and 'Packer Lodge'. It has been quoted that as he berated Sir Frank Packer during his case, Sir Frank Packer came to respect Tom. I think that is a nice story. The truth is Tom also fought oppressive governments wherever he saw them. He fought the attempts by the corrupt Bjelke-Peterson government to establish a police state in Queensland. He led the street marches against the ban on public protest. He was arrested and imprisoned for his efforts. However, his defiance continued. For a man who survived the Thai Burma Railway, this intimidation failed. In fact he was consistent in his principles while imprisoned, refusing to salute the Queen nor call the guards 'sir'. This commitment to democracy and tolerance also dominated his activism within the Labor Party. Winning a rank and file preselection against an incumbent MP, a win he attributed to countless cups of tea with preselectors, Tom quickly became the leader of the parliamentary left. His skills in establishing a collective approach guaranteed that the left played a large role in the post war Labor caucus and produced some great ministers and policies. Prime Minister Hawke called him the 'conscience of the Labor Party', and Tom understood that to be effective you had to combine principles with the acquisition and exercise of power. This leadership extended to leadership of the broader New South Wales left. Together with Senator Gietzelt and Bruce Child, Tom Uren shaped and mentored generations of the left, including the members for Grayndler and Sydney, who we heard speak yesterday on this motion. I got to know Tom after 2002, when I began work for Senator George Campbell. Tom would visit our office quite often to discuss politics and talk about his various writings. A generation of young staffers such as I were his unpaid typists. We would type up his letters and his manuscripts. It was a role we were proud to perform and we learned much from this colossus of Australian politics. Tom had many other achievements. His fight for Timor Leste independence is well known, as is his position as Labor's first environmental spokesperson and Minister for Urban and Regional Development. Tom made a massive contribution to preserving and enhancing our natural and built environment. My colleagues have explored this area thoroughly. I will simply say that his policies and his management of the Department of Urban and Regional Development were magnificent. I remember studying them at university. So much has been said about Tom Uren. One contribution that stuck with me was the conclusion to Mungo Macallum's obituary to Tom, which stated: He will be remembered as a model of personal political integrity. Australia has produced politicians who were cleverer, wittier, more polished and more sophisticated, but few, if any, have been more decent. I want to acknowledge that at Tom's state memorial last week it was a great pleasure to see former Prime Minister John Howard there, along with his old sparring partner Sir John Carrick, a former POW. I think that was a great tribute. When Tom left politics the fanfare and the tributes were not just on one side of the chamber. They were from both sides. When you live in a very partisan environment it is very important to acknowledge when someone had the respect and admiration of all sides of politics. To conclude, I return to Tom Uren's first speech in the House of Representatives. The speech is as current now as it was then. He identified as his central political objective that of the labour movement, which is the struggle to improve living standards. He called for the diversification of Australian industry and warned against the over-reliance on primary industries—something that is very relevant today. Interestingly, as we see some in this place campaign for a higher goods and services tax, Tom railed against the regressive nature of indirect taxation. He concluded, as I conclude my contribution, with Ben Chifley's 1951 speech entitled Things Worth Fighting For. This quote, in his first speech in this place, set out the consistent, principled approach Tom Uren took in his decades of public service, an approach all Labor Party members should be guided by: I hope that the defeat at the last elections has not discouraged members of the Labour movement from fighting for what they think is right—whether it brings victory to the party or not. The Labour movement was not created with the objective of always thinking what is the most acceptable thing to do—whether this individual will win a seat or whether the movement will pander to some section of the community. The Labour movement was created by the pioneers, and its objectives have been preached by disciples of the Labour movement over the years to make decisions for the best for all the people. If, from time to time, the policy is not favoured by the majority of the people, there is no reason why the things we fight for should be put aside to curry favour with any section of the people. I believe that what we are fighting for is right and just. We must continue and justice will prevail. On behalf of the people of Charlton, my condolences to Tom Uren's family and friends. Rest in Peace, Tom. 20:41 Ms PARKE HWR Fremantle It is a privilege to say some words in condolence for Tom Uren and to give recognition to his personal leadership in Australian politics and in Australian life more broadly. On behalf of my electorate I particularly want to remember the contribution he made to Fremantle—and I will say more about that shortly. As everyone who knew Tom Uren has said, and as the pages of history show, he was a person who led by doing in all things, small and large; who led by his personal conviction, built on experience, and driven by his strength of purpose and his commitment to the persuasive task of politics at its best. Tom Uren was a leading light in the anti-war and anti-nuclear movements, as a man who had fought in the Second World War, been imprisoned as a POW on the Thai-Burma railway, alongside Weary Dunlop, and witnessed the afterglow of the atomic destruction of Nagasaki. It is no surprise then that his conviction on these matters went a lot further than a strongly worded radio interview or a widely shared Facebook meme. Rather than his traumatising experience as a POW being a cause for hatred, he redirected his enormous energy and passion into love and generosity towards his fellow human beings, and for the natural and built environment. He supported the just cause of East Timor and believed in helping those less fortunate, in giving a helping hand to those who need it wherever they may be. He was the epitome of Ben Chifley's light on the hill. Tom Uren, as a member of this place, was jailed for his part in an anti-Vietnam War march and, separately, for protesting Joh Bjelke-Petersen's ban on such demonstrations. It was only a few months ago that we farewelled the great Gough Whitlam, and as many noted it was the Whitlam government that forged new ground in shaping policy for Australian cities and for the protection of Australian history and heritage. Those two imperatives intersected to great effect in the City of Fremantle. Indeed, following from Whitlam's statement that government 'should see itself as the curator and not the liquidator of the national estate', the Prime Minister was subsequently on the record saying that 'Fremantle will receive special attention as it is one of the few towns in Australia that retains its historic character and is at the same time a thriving community'. It seems too easy sometimes to mark a person by their achievements—their firsts. But in the case of Tom Uren, they speak to the interests and character of the man, and they certainly resonate with the community I represent in Fremantle. For example, Tom Uren opened Australia's first dedicated bike path, and he was Australia's first Minister for the Environment. More directly, as Minister for Urban and Regional Development in the Whitlam government, Tom Uren played a vital role in supporting the conservation and rehabilitation of Fremantle's West End, now regarded by many as the best preserved 19th century port cityscape in the world. It was through his department's Hope Inquiry into the National Estate that a critical record of Fremantle's historic sites was first produced, in 1973, through the work of the newly created Cities Commission. Two key documents, Fremantle Historical Buildings—Initial Study and Fremantle: Guidelines for Development were produced, and it is no exaggeration to say that they have formed the blueprint and the protective covenant of modern Fremantle. Under the Interim National Estate Committee, the forerunner of the Australian Heritage Commission, Fremantle was the beneficiary of more than $300,000 dollars in National Estate grants, in 1973-74, which included funding to save and restore the beautiful Fremantle Markets and undertake conservation work on the Round House, Western Australia's oldest building. This absolutely crucial work, led by Tom Uren, was only possible through the local advocacy of the Fremantle Society, an organisation that continues to provide strong and constructive community input—and I acknowledge its members, past and present. I am especially grateful to Ron Davidson for his wonderful recall and storytelling when it comes to Tom Uren's Fremantle significance, and I thank Ron and his wife, Dianne, for their authorship of the recently published book, Fighting for Fremantle: the Fremantle Society Story. I note that when Prime Minister Bob Hawke was in Fremantle in February 1987 to open the new customs building and associated Commonwealth offices within the west end, he was accompanied by Tom Uren. On that occasion, the Prime Minister said: 'I know Tom Uren will be getting tired of me saying this, but it is fitting that he who has played such an outstanding part in working with local government throughout Australia should be here today at the opening of another project that embodies the close cooperation he has built up between the local and federal tiers of government.' Labor in the 21st century has continued the productive engagement between federal and local government that Gough Whitlam and Tom Uren pioneered, not least because Labor continues to recognise the importance of well-designed, properly resourced and healthy cities and urban environments. To a large degree, we owe that to Tom Uren—just as we owe Tom for marking out the fundamental principles that should guide our opposition to war, to nuclear proliferation and to so many other good causes. As the member for Fremantle, I express the gratitude of my electorate for the policy and program innovations that have helped save the precious and distinctive built heritage of the port city. The significant federal heritage grants that were provided by the recent Labor government to further conserve treasures like the Princess May Building and the World Heritage listed Fremantle Prison continued this work. I join with the many contributors to this motion who have paid their respect to Tom Uren, and I thank those who knew Tom well for their heartfelt stories of his friendship, influence, force of nature, solidarity, gentleness and love. I offer my condolences and those of the Fremantle community to Tom's family and his many friends. 20:46 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I rise to pay tribute to a great Australian and a lion of the Labor left, Tom Uren. I associate myself with the remarks of the member for Fremantle, the member for Charlton, the member for Reid and the member for Fraser. It was a real privilege to be in the chamber to take heed of those excellent contributions. Others have already paid tribute to Tom's contribution to serving Australia and to giving voice to a range of at times unpopular but always important issues. It is clear to me that his courage undoubtedly advanced a fairer and more decent Australia. In this regard, I particularly acknowledge the contribution of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Sydney, and also that of the member for Grayndler. In the case of the member for Grayndler, I acknowledge his contributions in this place and in other forums. It is clear to me that in so many ways the member for Grayndler is the inheritor of much of what Tom Uren did and stood for. In this contribution I want to briefly pay particular tribute to Tom's work as minister for urban and regional development. In this capacity he reminded Australians that we are an urban—indeed, suburban—nation. Tom was appointed to this ministry, the first of its kind, at the start of the Whitlam government in December 1972. The member for Charlton just described his stewardship of this portfolio as magnificent. I simply say: I agree. This was also a watershed moment in Australian politics, as it recognised the role the Commonwealth can and should play in our cities. Before I was born Minister Uren wrote: The Australian Government believes it must be positively involved in the life of our cities and that it has a significant role to play to ensure that they are our servants rather than our masters. In doing this, we are concerned that all people will get fair access to a full range of public services and utilities such as schools, recreation, health services, public transport, adequate housing at reasonable cost, choice of employment, an adequate range of commercial and shopping facilities, community welfare services and essential services such as garbage and sewerage. These facilities need to be blended together in cities which retain a sense of human scale and a sense of belonging and liveliness. These are essential conditions ought to be available to everyone. He reminded us that equality has a geographic overlay. Of course, it still does. Where we live determines how we live, to too great an extent. As a member of parliament representing a constituency urgently in need of a comprehensive cities policy, his words continue to carry special resonance. More than 40 years on it is, to say the very least, disappointing that his vision has been abandoned under the present government. I take heart and hope from the fact that his imagined significant role for the Commonwealth in this space was realised by such luminaries as Brian Howe and the member for Grayndler. I am sure that a future government will rectify this present neglect. In 1988, Tom said that infrastructure and housing was one of the areas where he felt proud to have made a personal contribution. He said: 'I am what you call a William Morris socialist. I've always tried to create a more beautiful, gentle, serene world to live in. I got a tremendous amount of joy out of working with people. I felt like a bricklayer: you like to leave bricks and mortar so you can see what you've done for people.' The monuments to people which Tom felt he had left behind—and which he had—include the National Estate register; the Australian Heritage Commission; the land commission; urban transport plans; diversion of freeways out of inner Sydney and, in particular, low-income housing redevelopment; decentralisation; dozens of regional parks and botanical gardens; and, critically, the system of untied grants to local government. It is an extraordinary and transformative legacy; but of course, as we have heard from other contributors to this debate, it is only a small portion of Tom Uren's overall contribution. His character looms large over our movement and, indeed, our nation. It is hard to conceive of a more full life, and it is extraordinary to see that it was lived in such large part for others. Tom Uren's faith in humanity is something that strikes me. His rejection of hatred continues to inspire. The example that he set, despite personal reason to think otherwise, to reject rancour, to reject bitterness, his continued confidence in what we can do together: these things continue to inspire. Others who would like to be as unwavering in our pursuit of social justice should heed his words and heed his example. On behalf of the people of Scullin, I extend my condolences to all who knew Tom: his family and his friends. 20:52 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari I am pleased to be able to get up, as I think the final speaker, on this condolence motion. I have been moved by the presentations which have been made by members of both sides of the parliament, all of whom have eloquently laid out Tom's life, his achievements, his influence inside the labour movement and in the Labor Party, in particular, and his impact on the Australian community as a result of his commitment to the values which he held from his wartime service, the hell of being a prisoner of war and his respect and love for his comrades who were also prisoners of war. His ultimate goal of opposing war was marked by, as we heard earlier, his contribution to anti-Vietnam war campaigns. I did not know Tom before I entered this parliament, but I think I am right in saying that only the Chief Government Whip and I had the privilege of serving with Tom in the House of Representatives. I came into this place in 1987—a leftie. Coming from the Northern Territory, I did not have a lot of interaction with the sorts of internecine disputes inside the left of the Labor Party or the different elements of the labour movement. It was more about me actually learning about these things when I arrived here. I do remember I was very active in the anti-uranium and anti-nuclear campaigns of the seventies. When I came to this place I readily identified with the strength of character that Tom showed in his life's work. I have to say he was an enormous influence inside the left of the Labor Party, inside the Labor Party itself and in government and indeed, as a direct result of that influence, had a dramatic impact on the lives of every Australian. More lately I had cause to interact with Tom as Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Tom, as you know, had achieved an outcome with Prime Minister Julia Gillard about recognition of surviving prisoners of war. It was my great privilege to be the minister who had carriage of this within the government and therefore to be at Kirribilli House when we bought together these magnificent men, these great brave men, who were surviving prisoners of war—Tom of course being among them. Knowing what I now know about his service and knowing what I now know about Tom's role in this place, but most particularly about his wartime service and the sacrifices, which we can never really imagine, and to see him at Kirribilli House in concert with these other old mates from that period was extremely moving. It was moving because we saw these brave heroes, these brave men who had survived that dreadful experience, go on and make enormous contributions to the Australian community—Tom's prime among them. As I stand here and reflect upon his life, I think of his endearing love for his fellow man, summarised in a way by that overwhelming conviction that we needed to and must finally give due recognition to these surviving prisoners of war. He achieved this with the then Prime Minister. They had a chat—well I think they met actually at Tom's place—and then had a number of conversations. I then got involved, because I got the nod from the Prime Minister's office that there was a thing I must do. 'Why am I doing this?' I say. 'I am the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I should be initiating this stuff.' And the reply: 'Well, no, sorry mate; this is from Tom. We are doing this because of Tom and his discussions and agreement with the Prime Minister.' As a result of that we were able to do what Tom had requested. It was a great privilege for me to serve in this parliament with Tom, even if it were only for a very short period—three years—and to learn from him and others of the left at that time. They were an incredibly interesting bunch I have to say. I was there goggle-eyed watching what went on and seeing who was belting who, in the metaphorical sense—as they did—and of course it was a vibrant community outcome that we all achieved with great love for one another. I know we are nearing the adjournment. It has been a great honour to be able to participate in this debate and I thank all of those who have contributed. They have done a great justice to a great man in what has been said in this chamber today and previously by those who contributed yesterday. 20:58 The SPEAKER SE4 I thank the honourable member for Lingiari for his contribution. I think if I continue to thank him for a few more lengthy comments, I am sure very soon we will get to nine o'clock and we will be able to move to the adjournment. So I can simply say that I think the contributions to the debate about the Hon. Tom Uren have been very distinguished. The fact that this parliament has seen two remarkable men who have served at Changi and on the Burma railway, in Tom Uren and John Carrick, says something quite special about our parliament. The comments that have been made have reflected the fact that we are, all of us, very grateful for the service that they gave our great nation.   ADJOURNMENT 91 ADJOURNMENT Dementia and Severe Behaviours Supplement 91 21:00 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair Last week the coalition government finally responded to the dementia care crisis it created when it axed the dementia and severe behaviours supplement. It took the government eight months to make a decision and follow calls for action from the Labor opposition, the aged-care sector and thousands of ordinary Australians. So, while I welcome the announcement of restored funding, it is with some reservations. My first reservation is that funding is no longer going directly to aged-care providers on the ground, as the original supplement did. The funding is going to be used for severe behaviour response teams, which some call flying squads and others call dementia SWAT teams. Whatever the name, the government's response was inadequate and long overdue. This is a government that has been preoccupied with giving knighthoods to royalty, backflipping on empty promises and having internal debates on the future of the Prime Minister rather than focusing on the challenges facing Australia's future. Another reservation is that this funding is capped. I am concerned that many older people suffering from severe behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia are going to miss out on the care they desperately need. Those opposite need to appreciate that, when it comes to dementia care, demand is greater than supply. A further reservation is that the SWAT teams are unproven. I am concerned with this government's move away from a preferred model of case management to an unproven quick fix. The flying squads are unlikely to be able to provide adequate support to residential aged-care providers. There are many questions which remain unanswered about the SWAT teams. Will they be available on a 24/7 basis? Will they be deployed on an ad hoc basis or a needs basis? Will the teams be large enough to service remote, rural and regional communities? Aged care and dementia are very real issues facing older Australians and they need a responsive approach with genuine planning and investment. The oversubscription of the original dementia and severe behaviours supplement highlights the extent of the dementia crisis in Australia at this present time. This is not a future issue; it is the present reality. Those living with dementia, their families, our communities and the aged-care sector deserve an adequate response to this complex issue. I am concerned that the severe behaviour response teams will deal only with behaviours and symptoms rather than individuals. While those with dementia may experience loss of their memories, changes to their personalities and a reduction in their normal faculties and functions it does not change the fact that these are symptoms of a terrible disease of the brain. The individual remains. Their sole and spirit remain. We cannot treat those living with dementia as simply a collection of symptoms or issues to be managed. They are individual people who deserve to be treated with dignity, care and respect. At the same time their loved ones, friends and communities need to be well supported, informed and appropriately skilled. Those with very severe behaviours make up a relatively small percentage of those with dementia. Their behaviours need to be managed appropriately while maintaining dignity and respect for the individual. One of the biggest challenges in aged care is ensuring we have the workforce required to face the mounting challenges and in particular ensuring we have appropriately skilled professionals to deal with the challenges of dementia. This government dismantled Labor's aged-care workforce supplement and has yet to detail any strategies to deal with the workforce needs we presently face and will face in the future. Combined with the axing of the dementia and severe behaviours supplement the government has made it more difficult for aged-care providers to meet the challenges of dementia and other severe behaviours. These teams are unlikely to contribute to skilling and preparing the current workforce to meet the day-to-day needs of those living with dementia. Aged care needs to be at the forefront of the government's thinking. Currently it is buried within the Department of Social Services and overseen by an assistant minister. Aging is more than aged care. The ageing of the population impacts many different portfolio areas. It needs to be considered within a wider context in order to focus the government's and the public's view of 'age'. Labor has a strong record in aged care. It was Labor that did the heavy lifting in reforming the aged-care system and setting it up to be fairer and more sustainable. The government's aged-care legacy will be the axing of the dementia and severe behaviours supplement, cutting the $652.7 million aged-care payroll tax supplement, cutting pensions, demolishing the $1.1 billion aged-care workforce supplement and abolishing Health Workforce Australia. It is time for the Abbott government to stop ripping money out of the aged-care sector and make the necessary investments for a dementia friendly future. (Time expired) Cairns Airport 92 21:05 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt I rise today to congratulate Cairns Airport on punching well above its weight and breaking the record of total passenger numbers. Some 4.3 million passengers passed through the airport in the last financial year, and we are on target to exceed 4.55 million passengers this financial year. This is the largest number yet achieved through this wonderful facility. To put that into perspective, this is the equivalent of every man, woman and child in Sydney coming to visit our fair city of 150,000 people in one year. Madam Speaker, if you have not already done so, you and your friends from Sydney should consider doing so in the coming winter to escape the cold. The record was driven by growth through the domestic terminal, which is great to see. Cairns has done it tough over recent years and it is heartening that domestic visitors are now returning in very significant numbers. December is traditionally a busy month domestically, with locals travelling away for the festive season and visitors coming to Cairns for their holidays. Local hotels have reported a very good level of occupancy over the Christmas-New Year period and Port Douglas is really getting back on its feet with a buzzing winter season coming up. International numbers though the airport were slightly down, mainly due to the chopping and changing of some international services, but the pointers are for continued healthy growth during 2015 as a result of more convenient international connections being established and a more competitive Australian dollar. Considering we are not a capital city, our airport is a phenomenon. We are serviced by 15 carriers and can fly direct to Auckland, Port Moresby, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Tokyo, Osaka and Guam. From the end of March we will be able to fly directly from Cairns to Bali. And from the end of May, SilkAir will offer us direct flights to Singapore. Singapore is truly the gateway to Asia. The tentacles of Changi Airport reach to more than 200 cities around the world. The new flights will equate to up to 20,000 extra passengers and an economic injection of $14 million annually. There is no doubt that this will open up a whole new world for local businesses. An editorial from the Cairns Post at that time stated: Cairns now has stronger links to markets that were once far-off and logistically unfeasible. The Middle East and many major European cities are just two flights away, giving local operators more opportunity to harvest potential buyers and clients in lucrative markets The tyranny of distance is less of an obstacle now. Cairns Airport sits just six kilometres from the city centre. I know you have been there, Madam Speaker, many times. The airport is an integral part of the community and a vital supporter of our tourism industry—connecting the world with the Great Barrier Reef and our beautiful Daintree Rainforest. This year they have worked with industry to launch a new tourism campaign called, '101 things to do in Cairns & Great Barrier Reef'. It is a long list, ranging from sky diving to scuba diving, horse racing to cane toad racing, and cruises to feed crocodiles. But it is only the tip of the iceberg, highlighting the endless activities available once you step off the plane and into that warm embrace that we call Cairns. Just the other year, Cairns Airport underwent a $200 million redevelopment—a redevelopment that won a Queensland Master Builders Association award for best tourism and hospitality project. At the same time, it was awarded Major Airport of the Year in the 2013 Australian Airports Association National Airport Industry Awards. In December last year, Airport Operations General Manager Kate McCreery-Carr received the Australian Airports Association individual award for airport excellence in a major airport. Well done, Kate; your leadership and determination has certainly, well and truly, been noticed. I am going to end by saying that, as we look ahead to another freezing winter here in the south, I am thankful that I am able to head back to the sun, sand, beach and rainforest in Cairns. I am not rubbing it in; I am saying that the invitation is there for my colleagues, their families and their constituents to visit us at any time. Our airport has certainly proved it is well able to cope with the ever-increasing interest in Far North Queensland. Closing the Gap 93 21:10 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi On the eve of the Closing the Gap event, I am proud tonight to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land and pay my respects to the elders past and present, particularly to the traditional owners and custodians of the country within the electorate I serve and represent—the electorate of Indi. On my election in 2013, I committed to three tasks relevant to Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islander people in my electorate, and tonight I would like to report on progress made to fulfil those commitments. Firstly, I committed to form an advisory group to seek the advice of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people from Indi's communities concerning, amongst others, the issues of health, education and employment. Tonight I report that I have met with representatives of the Bangerang community, the Taungurung Clans Aboriginal Corporation, members of the Dirrawarra Indigenous Network, members of the Gadhaba Local Indigenous Network, staff and representatives of the Mungabareena Aboriginal Corporation including the Koorie First Steps Kindergarten in Wodonga, the Hume Regional Healthy Lifestyle Workers Tackling Tobacco and Healthy Lifestyles, and liaison staff from the many providers of educational and health services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people right across Indi. In this work, I am grateful for the assistance and advice of Darren Moffitt. Darren is the Indigenous community development broker working with the Office of Aboriginal Affairs within the Hume region. In acknowledging the warm and frank advice I have received from the representatives of those organisations and communities, I also wish to acknowledge Matt Burke OAM, who in July 2014, completed nearly four years of service as the CEO of Mungabareena Aboriginal Corporation, in Wodonga. Amongst the many achievements of the corporation during his service as CEO, was the establishment, in partnership with Wodonga based Wilson Transformer Company, of a unique and successful Aboriginal youth traineeship, which has successfully skilled and employed 19 young people. I am delighted to let this House know that this model is now being copied by other Australian enterprises. In acknowledging Matt Burke's service, I also welcome to Indi Mr Michael Cutmore, who is following Matt into the CEO role. Secondly, I committed to making a public statement, at every available opportunity, to acknowledge and recognise past mistreatment of the stolen generations. On the 28 May 2014, I rose in this House and fulfilled the first part of that commitment and in doing so, closed in part, the gap in the recognition of the grief, suffering and loss which has remained open for a generation of children and their families for so long. Thirdly, I committed to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land. Members of my office and I are now very proud to acknowledge the traditional owners of country and pay our respects to elders past and present. We will continue to recognise the significance of such acknowledgment and the respect it is due. In this work I have been advised, assisted and encouraged by many. Tonight I would particularly like to thank, for their friendship, wisdom and advice, and for the representation they give to their communities, Uncle Wally Cooper, Uncle Freddie Dowling, Aunty Bernadette Franklin, Uncle Sandy Atkinson, Uncle Roy Patterson, Aunty Sylvia Terare, and Aunty Pam Griffin who, in December last year, retired after 20 years work at TAFE. Thank you all very, very much. You have taken a raw recruit, polished her, and put her in a place where she can now speak on your behalf. In considering the continuing national commitment made by successive governments to Closing the Gap, tonight I acknowledge the work being done in our local communities, which is where the hand-to-hand and heart-to-heart tasks of Closing the Gap are undertaken, by those people already mentioned and by organisations such as Northeast Health in Wangaratta, Benalla Health, Albury-Wodonga Health, Women's Health Goulburn North East, Gateway Health, the many rural primary health providers, La Trobe University, Wodonga TAFE, Goulburn-Ovens TAFE and our many secondary colleges and schools. Well done. In closing, last year the government announced the Indigenous Advancement Strategy as a means to consolidate and provide a more efficient, effective and consistent— (Time expired) Abbott Government 94 21:15 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright There is not a day that goes by when I do not feel immense pride in the privilege of being able to wear this badge that I wear on my lapel. It is the badge that I was given when I was first elected to this parliament by the good people of my electorate of Wright. This badge means so much to me. It is a constant reminder to me of the very early days when I campaigned in my electorate on the issues that I would help fight for. I campaigned that I would fight for more money to be put into the pockets of mums and dads throughout my whole electorate and into the pockets of business and everyone else. I campaigned that I would fight to provide better prices at the farm gate for my dairy sector, for my beef sector and for my vegetable sector—and I acknowledge that AUSVEG are in the House this week; they do an outstanding job advocating for the vegetable industry. And I campaigned that I would go after the bureaucracy and government about the countless amount of hours that are wasted on red tape. I now have the privilege to stand in this House, and, when I look back at the government's contribution over the last year, I can put my hand on my heart and say that tonight I can go to bed and put my head on my pillow knowing that every day I have been working to deliver on those core principles that I committed to delivering for my electorate under the leadership of Tony Abbott, our Prime Minister. When I first came to this House, there was a taxi service of boats coming to this country. We campaigned saying that we would stop the boats. We did it, and, as a result, saved our country $2.5 billion in the budget. When there is $2.5 billion extra in the budget, that is more money that mums and dads can get back in their pockets. We campaigned that we would get rid of the mining tax—to stimulate growth, to stimulate employment. I compliment Greg Hunt's office, which to date has approved projects worth no less than $1 trillion—just under the size of the Australian economy. These environmental approvals will stimulate the next wave of infrastructure projects that will drive the job market. I compliment Andrew Robb, our Minister for Trade and Investment, who has done an outstanding job. Never before in the history of this parliament has there been an investment minister. I say to the nation: what a great return on investment that man is for our country. He is doing an outstanding job. For my cattle producers, we have fought the fight that had to be fought to try to fix the mess of the live cattle export trade, and we have opened up six more trade markets. To our Minister for Agriculture, Barnaby Joyce: our agriculture sector owes you a debt. We heard today in this very House pretty well a market report on the exponential growth that this nation is experiencing at the saleyards right across the country. The Minister for Agriculture is doing an outstanding job. We are moving forward into 2015 and, as on my first day here, I come here with a mantra, because I listened to my public, listened to my electorate, and they told me what they wanted me to deliver. I assure the electorate of Wright, the people of Queensland and the people of our nation that this government will continue to listen and will continue to produce policy that delivers on the principles that I stood for in coming here. We can have all the flash slogans, all the flash marketing, but to me there are three basic principles: we as a government want to deliver more money into the pockets of Australian mums and dads, we want a better price for our products at the farm gate and we want to reduce the burden of red tape for our businesses. (Time expired) Iran 95 21:20 Mr DANBY WF6 Melbourne Ports Commentators have spent a lot of time focusing on the situation in Syria and western Iraq, with the atrocities committed by Daesh, yet dangerous gains by Iran seem to slip under the radar. Iran, as most people in this House would know, has diligently been pursuing nuclear weapons for years, in violation of its treaty commitments and despite ongoing negotiations with the US, the UK, France and Germany to prevent break-out capacity. Iran's military aid to its friends has allowed Iran to accumulate incredible influence in four regional capitals—Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad and, most recently, Sana'a, in Yemen—to the detriment of those who want to resist Iranian hegemony in that region. That Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons capability is blindingly obvious. Report after report from the International Atomic Energy Agency—the UN's nuclear agency—have highlighted discoveries of things that are only used in weaponisation programs. UN inspectors, who, according to the NPT, should have unfettered access to all nuclear sites, are regularly barred from entering. In response to these breaches of the NPT, the Security Council has passed numerous sanctions against Iran. The Security Council sanctions, as well as autonomous sanctions imposed by numerous countries—including, I am very proud to say, this country, under the previous government, supported by the then opposition, now government—slowed down Iran's progress. They did not stop it. A military strike against Iran was looking dangerously possible. In an effort to avoid violence, President Obama launched negotiations with Iran and these negotiations, clearly preferable to violence, will need to keep in mind what the purpose of these negotiations were. As far as I understood, Australia never agreed to Iran keeping 10,000 centrifuges or a ballistic missile program. The objective of the negotiations was to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability and the means to deliver it. Unfortunately, as time has marched on the objectives of these negotiations appear to have morphed more into a desire to achieve an agreement, regardless of the consequences. Or, as the Washington Post recently put it: … a process that began with the goal of eliminating Iran's potential to produce nuclear weapons has evolved into a plan to tolerate and temporarily restrict that capability. This is not something I have signed up to, it is not something the Australian people have signed up to and it is not something, as far as I know, this parliament had signed up to. This evolution has occurred because Iran has stuck to its objective of acquiring nuclear weapons capability and has been inflexible in negotiations. Negotiators have bent over backwards in a desire to achieve consensus with Iran; they keep offering it compromises. Iran pockets those compromises, and then demands more. When, in five or 10 years, intelligence emerges that Iran has achieved a nuclear breakout capacity, the fault will lie in part with this policy of trying to achieve agreement at all costs. Veteran US commentator Walter Russell Mead said he had noticed there were a number of very influential US foreign policy advisers who have expressed concern about the way the negotiations are developing. Mead writes: What's interesting is that the growing disquiet about our Iran policy isn't over the basic decision to negotiate with Iran … It is about how to ensure that those negotiations advance important American interests. He says: The debate over Iran negotiations is really a debate over Middle East strategy … I could not agree with Mr Mead or the Washington Post editorial more. To accept Iran as a regional hegemon, as we did with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, is a mistake. The Washington Post said the US: … has declined to counter increasingly aggressive efforts by Iran to extend its influence across the Middle East and seems ready to concede Teheran a place as a regional [hegemon]— Everyone knows that Iran founded, funds and directs Hezbollah. Hezbollah, which is the political party with a private army in Lebanon, has a veto over the Lebanese government and is now fighting in Syria. Iran has long backed Syria as well with the 200,000 deaths that have taken place over there. Iran has enormous sway over Iraq, a fact which should be seen as a defeat for our common Western interests. Most recently, Iran's rebels have overrun the Yemeni capital and deposed its president. It is very important to notice all of these things, to notice the continuing bellicosity of its leadership and to be fearful of its nuclear weapons capability, the 10,000 centrifuges that seem to be at the centre of this agreement and above all its ballistic— (Time expired) Australian Labor Party 95 21:25 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks Over summer, largely on the pages of The Australian, the Australian Labor Party revealed some quite disturbing views on taxation policy. It is very important to reflect on what the opposition said about the tax policy over summer, because what it basically means is that the opposition will be increasing the tax burden on ordinary Australians. I will come to the specifics in a moment, but it is very important, when we talk about tax reform, which of course is an important and somewhat fashionable term, to differentiate between what tax reform is and what it is not. If you say you are conducting tax reform but at the end of the day all you are doing is simply raising taxes, that is not reform; that is just an old-fashioned tax increase. If, on the other hand, you consider the tax mix and you say, 'What is the most efficient way of raising tax so as to create as many jobs as possible', that is real reform. That can be done without raising the overall tax burden on Australians. The question is this: is it about the efficiency and the right taxes and not increasing the tax burden on Australians, which is the wrong thing to do? That is not reform, that is just raising taxes. And that is what those opposite want to do. It is interesting to reflect on some of the comments that were made by senior members of the opposition over summer, and in particular a comment made by the shadow Treasurer in The Australian. He advises that serious policy work is underway, and he is stating very clearly, as the alternative Treasurer, that revenue and spending measures need to be on the table. So revenue measures, very clearly stated by the shadow Treasurer, need to be on the table. We can speculate about what those might be. Would they be, for instance, increases in superannuation taxes on Australians? Would they be further increases to fringe benefit taxes, as proposed prior to the last election to the tune of $1.8 billion? Would they be other job-killing business taxes, like the carbon tax and the mining tax? We do not know yet, but hopefully some time before the next election we will. The fact that just a week later, in what seemed to be a somewhat coordinated approach on the editorial pages of The Australian, the shadow assistant Treasurer wrote an op ed, which he does quite often, and in this one he wept uncontrollably at the graves of the carbon and mining taxes. He really did. It is worth a read: in was in the 27 January edition and I highly commend it to you. He said the Abbott government has thrown out significant sources of revenue like the carbon tax and the mining tax, like these were just wonderful sources of revenue that we have foolishly thrown out. Of course, all we have done is substantially reduce the cost-of-living burden on ordinary Australians through the carbon tax and taken away so much uncertainty for the critical export industry of mining through the abolition of the incredibly poorly targeted and ineffective mining tax. But that is very clear from the opposition as to what they are proposing. We know this is right because we know they introduced other taxes. We know they introduced capital gains tax in the eighties; we know they were behind the proposed increase to FBT prior to the election. So this rings true, doesn't it? The notion that the Labor Party would come to this place and say, 'The only way we can fix problems is by raising taxes'—that is absolutely what they will do. Tax reform is only reform if it is focused on the efficiency of the tax system. Supposed reform, which is just about making people pay more tax, does not deserve the use of the elegant term 'tax reform' because it is just old-fashioned left-wing politics. It failed in Western Europe. The last thing we want is to see that happen here in Australia. You know when they do come out with this—I am sure there will be lots of big announcements, lots of flags and so on—and they put it in documents they will describe these increases as 'saves'. You will recall that the member for Lilley was quite fond of that actually. The notion that if you took money from Australian companies and businesses it was a 'save' is a really novel approach to the language. It is the wrong approach for Australia. It must be rejected. But let us be clear on what is coming from those opposite. House adjourned at 21:30 NOTICES 96 NOTICES QUESTIONS IN WRITING 99 QUESTIONS IN WRITING G20-IEF Gas Market Dialogue meeting (Question No. 659) 99 659 Mr Conroy 249127 asked the Minister for Industry and Science, in writing, on 18 November 2014: In respect of the G20-IEF Gas Market Dialogue meeting, held at the ‘Fairmont Pierre Marque’ in Mexico on 11 November 2014, how many staff from his department were in attendance, and of those, what was the total sum of their (a) flights, (b) accommodation, and (c) other associated travel costs. Mr Ian Macfarlane WN6 The answer to the honourable Member's question is as follows: Three officers from the Department of Industry attended the Dialogue. Their roles included: i) Chairing the Dialogue. ii) A gas policy expert to ensure Australia’s interests were represented at the Dialogue. iii) Providing G20 Energy Sustainability Working Group (ESWG) specific policy support to ensure that gas dialogue outcomes support broader Australian G20 objectives and are consistent with the related G20 ESWG discussions. The total sum of their flights, accommodation and other associated travel costs was $40,60 7. The Dialogue was held over one day, and preceded the Fourth IEF – International Gas Union Ministerial Forum. The G20-IEF Gas Market Dialogue involved 41 participants from 24 countries/organisations comprising international bodies (5); government (12); academia (1 ) and the corporate sector (6).