The SPEAKER ( Hon. Bronwyn Bishop ) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
MOTIONS
National Security
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (09:01): I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) that the Prime Minister committed to lead a Government which is transparent and open and the Coalition's Real Solutions platform stated that the Coalition would "restore accountability and improve transparency measures";
(b) the Leader of the House on 30 January 2013 committed himself to a parliamentary practice in Government to "allow any Member of any political party who has serious questions to answer, time to explain themselves through the Parliament to the Australian people"; and
(c) the Prime Minister and Minister for Immigration have adopted a new culture of secrecy and are hiding information from the Australian people. The Minister has repeatedly refused to answer questions at weekly Operation Sovereign Borders briefings. That failure to answer questions has led the Australian people to rely on the Jakarta Post for information about their own Government. Questions remain relating to attempted so-called turn backs of boats, buy back of boats and to the state of negotiations between Australia and Indonesia about a people swap arrangement with Indonesia; and
(2) calls on the Minister for Immigration to attend the House immediately and explain for a period not exceeding thirty minutes:
(a) the status of all discussions with Indonesia about the progress of Operation Sovereign Borders, including those discussions relating to a people swap arrangement with Indonesia;
(b) how the Government intends to pursue its election commitment to turn back boats to Indonesia and buy back boats in fishing villages; and
(c) whether any of the measures which have been effective in reducing the flow of asylum seeker vessels to Australia are now in jeopardy as a result of the Minister's chaotic handling of his portfolio including the Regional Resettlement Arrangements with Papua New Guinea and Nauru and the abolition of visa on arrival arrangements in Indonesia for Iranians
Leave not granted.
Mr BURKE: I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Watson from moving the following motion forthwith: That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) that the Prime Minister committed to lead a Government which is transparent and open and the Coalition's Real Solutions platform stated that the Coalition would "restore accountability and improve transparency measures";
(b) the Leader of the House on 30 January 2013 committed himself to a parliamentary practice in Government to "allow any Member of any political party who has serious questions to answer, time to explain themselves through the Parliament to the Australian people"; and
(c) the Prime Minister and Minister for Immigration have adopted a new culture of secrecy and are hiding information from the Australian people. The Minister has repeatedly refused to answer questions at weekly Operation Sovereign Borders briefings. That failure to answer questions has led the Australian people to rely on the Jakarta Post for information about their own Government. Questions remain relating to attempted so-called turn backs of boats, buy back of boats and to the state of negotiations between Australia and Indonesia about a people swap arrangement with Indonesia; and
(2) calls on the Minister for Immigration to attend the House immediately and explain for a period not exceeding thirty minutes:
(a) the status of all discussions with Indonesia about the progress of Operation Sovereign Borders, including those discussions relating to a people swap arrangement with Indonesia;
(b) how the Government intends to pursue its election commitment to turn back boats to Indonesia and buy back boats in fishing villages; and
(c) whether any of the measures which have been effective in reducing the flow of asylum seeker vessels to Australia are now in jeopardy as a result of the Minister's chaotic handling of his portfolio including the Regional Resettlement Arrangements with Papua New Guinea and Nauru and the abolition of visa on arrival arrangements in Indonesia for Iranians
The minister who was the star of the Liberal Party in opposition has become the embarrassment of the government. We are about to see where secrecy and transparency lead us when they come to power.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Minister for Education) (09:06): I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member be no longer heard.
The House divided. [09:11]
(The Speaker—Hon. Bronwyn Bishop)
The SPEAKER (09:19): Is the motion seconded?
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs) (09:19): I second the motion—
The SPEAKER: I give the call to the member for Isaacs.
Mr MARLES (Corio) (09:20): The Rambo in opposition—
The SPEAKER: You do not have the call, I am sorry. The member will desist. He has not had the call. I called the member for Isaacs.
Mr Burke: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: under standing order 67, I ask that you restate the question to the House.
The SPEAKER: I am happy to restate the question to the House. It was the one as moved by the Manager of Opposition Business. The member for Isaacs had the call.
Mr Burke: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: the motion before the House has been moved and seconded. Under standing order 67 we are entitled to invite and to ask the Speaker to restate the entire resolution to the House. Under standing order 67, we request that you do so.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business has asked that the motion be reread. It says:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Watson from moving the following motion forthwith: That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) that the Prime Minister committed to lead a Government which is transparent and open and the Coalition's Real Solutions platform stated that the Coalition would "restore accountability and improve transparency measures";
(b) the Leader of the House on 30 January 2013 committed himself to a parliamentary practice in Government to "allow any Member of any political party who has serious questions to answer, time to explain themselves through the Parliament to the Australian people"; and
(c) the Prime Minister and Minister for Immigration have adopted a new culture of secrecy and are hiding information from the Australian people. The Minister has repeatedly refused to answer questions at weekly Operation Sovereign Borders briefings. That failure to answer questions has led the Australian people to rely on the Jakarta Post for information about their own Government. Questions remain relating to attempted so-called turn backs of boats, buy back of boats and to the state of negotiations between Australia and Indonesia about a people swap arrangement with Indonesia; and
(2) calls on the Minister for Immigration to attend the House immediately and explain for a period not exceeding thirty minutes:
(a) the status of all discussions with Indonesia about the progress of Operation Sovereign Borders, including those discussions relating to a people swap arrangement with Indonesia;
(b) how the Government intends to pursue its election commitment to turn back boats to Indonesia and buy back boats in fishing villages; and
(c) whether any of the measures which have been effective in reducing the flow of asylum seeker vessels to Australia are now in jeopardy as a result of the Minister's chaotic handling of his portfolio including the Regional Resettlement Arrangements with Papua New Guinea and Nauru and the abolition of visa on arrival arrangements in Indonesia for Iranians.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (09:22): The reason standing orders should not be suspended on this occasion is that the coalition won the election two months ago and today we want to introduce the carbon tax repeal bills. On the draft daily program, the carbon tax repeal bills are listed for debate. Labor has demonstrated for the last 20 minutes that they will do anything to stand in the way of lowering electricity prices in this country. 'Electricity Bill' Shorten, as his first political act in the parliament, has desired to get his Manager of Opposition Business to block the repeal of the carbon tax.
Mr Burke: I rise on a point of order. A large number of comments were made yesterday about people being referred to by correct titles. To have the Leader of the House immediately abrogating that is inappropriate and his comment should be withdrawn.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House was not addressing a member by any title; he was merely using a description and I do not find the term unparliamentarily.
Mr Burke: On the point of order, Madam Speaker, I am not sure whether you heard the description that was given—
The SPEAKER: It was not a description.
Mr Burke: but what we had was something that even the Prime Minister yesterday acknowledged could not be used within the chamber.
The SPEAKER: I have already ruled on the point of order and you are raising the matter a second time.
Mr PYNE: The reason standing orders should not be suspended is that the Australian public expects this government to get on with its program. That is why the Australian public elected 90 members of the coalition on 7 September—to repeal the carbon tax. The draft daily program lists the carbon tax repeal bills as the first item of business, not parliamentary stunts.
Mr Burke: I raise a point of order. We have no intention of trying to gag the member's speech but we cannot have this situation. The gravity of this new ruling of allowing—
The SPEAKER: I ask the Manager of Opposition Business to state the point of order which he is addressing, numbered as it is in the standing orders. If he is repeating a point of order he has already raised, I have already ruled on that point of order and I will not entertain it again.
Mr Burke: The gravity of that ruling—to allow name-calling of any sort in this parliament—takes us to a new low.
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. I call the Leader of the House.
Mr PYNE: It is very clear that the Manager of Opposition Business does not know his standing orders. While slightly irrelevant to the debate, the Leader of the Opposition should have stuck with the member for Grayndler, who is now trying to help him in this rather embarrassing display of ineptitude on the part of the Opposition. He now has the answer; he now has the standing order number.
The SPEAKER: I say to the honourable Manager of Opposition Business that if he is intending to re-raise the same point I will consider that frivolous or aimed simply at disrupting the proceedings of the House, and I will not acknowledge him again in the course of this particular area of debate.
Debate interrupted.
MOTIONS
Dissent from Ruling
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (09:26): I move:
That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from.
Everything that was said yesterday—
Mr Pyne: I raise a point of order. It is very important that a motion to dissent from the Speaker's ruling be in writing and circulated to the government. We have not yet seen the motion.
Mr Albanese: It is with the clerk.
Mr Pyne: You have had to help him out, poor lamb, to get him started. You should have had his job.
The SPEAKER: Is the motion in writing? And is it seconded?
Mr BURKE: It is, and it is with the clerks. Everything that was said yesterday about what the standards of this House are going to be becomes absolutely meaningless if the ruling you gave is followed through on. We had a clear example of a member of parliament being given a name other than his title in this House. That is exactly what we had. It was pointed out to you and we asked for it to be withdrawn in the appropriate process, according to the standing orders of this parliament. If we cannot even get over the threshold of calling people by their titles then every word we were told yesterday becomes meaningless. Every word we were told about what the standards of this government would be, in dealings with this House, means absolutely nothing if members of the government cannot even resist the cute name-calling—if they cannot even get to stage 1 of referring to people by their appropriate titles.
In the previous parliament we had a Speaker who preferred to be called by the title 'Speaker' rather than 'Madam Speaker'. We respected that. You made clear yesterday your preference to be called 'Madam Speaker' and we respect that, but for there to be no respect for members of this House—for cheap school-yard name-calling to be the order of the day in this House—takes us to a new low. Where is the idea of the adults being in charge of the government if it is going to be a case of teasing, name-calling and cute games? That is the standard that the Leader of the House—no less—has immediately taken us to.
You, Madam Speaker, yesterday assured us and the Australian people that this would not happen. You gave a guarantee that this would not happen. We simply want you to honour not merely promises made during an election but promises made yesterday. It should not be too much for members of this House to expect that stage 1—no name-calling; calling people by their appropriate titles—is honoured.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister used a similar phrase to the one now used by the Leader of the House. The media picked him up on it straight away and he acknowledged one thing: that he would not get away with using that phrase in this chamber.
Madam Speaker, they should not get away with using those phrases in this chamber. They should not get away with being able to completely denigrate principle 101, the very beginning of the principles of the standing orders, that there will be a level of courtesy. I liked some of the interviews you gave yesterday, Madam Speaker, I just cannot reconcile them with the ruling you just gave. It is no surprise at all, when we look now, that yesterday you were brought forward by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House. It is no surprise that for the first time in defiance of Westminster tradition we have a Speaker who was physically brought here by the executive.
The SPEAKER: On a point of order I recognise the Leader of the House.
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, in a motion of dissent in the Speaker's ruling the debate needs to be very tightly delivered by the opposition or by, indeed, the government. The Manager of Opposition Business is now reflecting on the Speaker by suggesting that, somehow, your position is illegitimate because you were escorted to the chair and nominated and seconded by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House. If the opposition knew what they were talking about they would realise that the successful nominee is escorted to the chair by the persons they regard as their two closest friends in the chamber, not by their positions. Therefore, it is a disgraceful slur on the election that was conducted yesterday into the speakership to now reflect on your chairmanship not just your ruling. I would say that the Manager of Opposition Business is sailing very close to the wind of being ejected from the parliament for that unparliamentary behaviour.
The SPEAKER: I thank the Leader of the House for his point of order. The Manager of Opposition Business can proceed but he might take heed of the points that were made by the Leader of the House.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, I simply ask that the House take note of standing order 64, which has in big, bold letters—it is not necessary for them to read the fine print:
No Member to be referred to by name …
—and for people to be referred to by their parliamentary titles. It is that simple. It is there in black and white. It is not like we need to go to the big green book to see what is the fine detail on this. It is there as the most basic principle. Not only that, it is the one area of the standing orders that was held up yesterday. It is the one area, about how we treat each other and the courtesy we show each other, which was put forward yesterday. If there were ever an example of the behaviour of this government in this House being different from what we were told it would be it is this. In many examples we are dealing with what was said before the election. On this we are dealing with what the standing orders say in black and white.
Madam Speaker, I put to the House that there is no way of reading standing order 64 that makes it consistent with your ruling. There is no way at all that those words can be read and your ruling be correct. I stood up a number of times without moving dissent in the hope that you would reconsider that ruling. We did not want to be moving dissent on the first day. We did not want to be in a situation where this parliament was different from what we were told it was going to be yesterday, but through the childishness of those opposite they could not even keep their word for 24 hours. The one protection this parliament is meant to have is your office, Madam Speaker. Your office is meant to be the one protection that members of parliament have to make sure that the standing orders are upheld.
I put to you, Madam Speaker, and I put to the House that no-one can credibly argue that that ruling and the behaviour of the Leader of the House are consistent with the standing orders of this parliament. When we vote on this dissent motion this parliament is going to make a judgement call as to whether or not the standing orders matter, as to whether or not the words of the Prime Minister about the conduct of this House matter and, Madam Speaker, I put it to you, whether or not the words you said yesterday matter.
This is no small issue. It is not like we are dealing with a grey issue of standing orders or a fine judgement call. It is not like this is an area of huge discretion. It is really simple: have a level of civility and abide by the standing orders. There is nothing more to it than that. We can all bury our heads in House of Representatives Practice. We can come up with different arguments on a whole lot of standing orders, but there is no way around this one, Madam Speaker. Today, you decide on what sort of Speaker you are going to be for this chamber. Today, this House decides whether the words of yesterday meant a thing or whether they were just some cheap media lines that were put out there because they thought it was something nice to say on the first day. That is the challenge and that is the decision that is now before this House.
Madam Speaker, I actually accept that you believe in this chamber. Well, if you believe in this chamber, defend its standing orders, because there is no way in the world that your ruling did that—no way in the world. We cannot do more than stand up a number of times and invite you to reconsider before we are left with no choice but to move a motion of dissent. In doing so it was not until you said that you would regard it as disorderly for me to continue to raise it that we were forced into this situation of moving a dissent motion.
Madam Speaker, if this is going to be an orderly House, then the standing orders must be upheld. If this is going to be a place for schoolyard teasing and games, if this is going to be a place where name-calling is in the order of the day, then this House will back your ruling. If name-calling is going to be the order of the day and childishness if going to be order of the day, your ruling is about to be backed up. But, if the standing orders of this parliament are going to be defended, then your ruling must be dissented from, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs) (09:36): I second this motion of dissent in the ruling that you have made, Madam Speaker.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Minister for Education) (09:36): I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member be no longer heard.
The House divided. [09:41]
(The Speaker—Hon. Bronwyn Bishop)
The SPEAKER (09:48): I give the call to the—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker, I was clearly on my feet—
The SPEAKER: You were on your feet; I call the member for Grayndler.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (09:48): Thank you, Speaker. Yesterday in this place it was said that it should never be a place where motives are impugned or characters assassinated—
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Minister for Education) (09:48): I move:
That the question be now put.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be put. All those in favour please say aye; against no. I think the ayes have it.
Mr Albanese: On a point of order—
The SPEAKER: The vote is underway.
Mr Albanese: On a point of order—
The SPEAKER: The vote is underway. You cannot have a point of order in the middle of a division.
Mr Albanese: But you have not called the division—
The SPEAKER: I have called—
Mr Albanese: You have not called a division.
The SPEAKER: I will hear the member for Grayndler.
Mr Albanese: My point of order is, Speaker: is it the case that the Leader of the House is moving a gag on a dissent motion to the Speaker without anyone defending the Speaker's ruling—without a single defence of the Speaker's ruling?
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The question is that the question be now put.
The House divided. [09:55]
(The Speaker—Hon. Bronwyn Bishop)
The SPEAKER (10:00): The question is that the Speaker’s ruling be dissented from.
The House divided. [10:00]
(The Speaker—Hon. Bronwyn Bishop)
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (10:01): (In Division) Can you just advise the House on the status of the Serjeant-at-Arms' chair—
The SPEAKER: The definition within standing orders is:
area of Members’ seats means the area of seats on the floor of the Chamber reserved for Members. It does not include seats in the advisers’ box or special galleries, but does include the seat where the Serjeant-at-Arms usually sits. The expression is used in standing orders 128 and 129 (divisions).
The SPEAKER: The question now before the House is that the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to.
The House divided. [10:13]
(The Speaker—Hon. Bronwyn Bishop)
BILLS
Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Abbott.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (10:19): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Australian people have already voted upon this bill, and now the parliament gets its chance.
The SPEAKER: I recognise the Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, the requirements of standing order 142 have not been met. We do not have copies of this bill available to us in the chamber. We are not able to proceed with the second reading.
The SPEAKER: I did mention earlier that if a point of order were to be of a frivolous nature or meant to disrupt the orderly business of the parliament then I would not entertain that point of order. The point is that for the many years that both you and I have been in this House the practice has been to put the bills at the end of the table where they are readily available to members. That has been a practice that has been accepted by the members of the House for many years, and I say that that is meeting the requirements for the purposes of this House.
Now, if the Manager of Opposition Business wishes to persist in a manner that will disturb the business of the House, we will have to deal with it—as we will have to deal with any disorderly conduct from the galleries above. So I suggest that in the interests of this place we should let the business of the House proceed. We have had a display of the new, energetic nature of the opposition and entertained that this morning. And I think now it is proper that the business of the House proceed.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker—
The SPEAKER: If this is to be a frivolous matter or one that is designed to disrupt the business of the House, I will not entertain the point of order.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I simply want to bring to your attention the precedent during the final term of the Howard government when this exact standing order was brought to the Speaker's attention and the Work Choices bills were then fetched and brought to the House.
The SPEAKER: Order! There are copies of the bill there, which can be taken one by one—if you don't mind. When we see that they have run out, we will arrange for further copies to be brought into this place. In the meantime, I call the Prime Minister.
Mr ABBOTT: The Australian people have already voted upon this bill.
Now, the parliament gets its chance.
The 2013 election was a referendum on the carbon tax.
The people have spoken.
Now, it is up to this parliament to show that it has listened.
The Australian people have pronounced their judgment against the carbon tax: they want it gone.
This bill delivers. It delivers on the coalition's commitment to the Australian people to scrap this toxic tax.
It is also a cornerstone of the government's plan for a stronger economy built on lower taxes, less regulation and stronger businesses.
Repealing the carbon tax should be the first economic reform of this parliament—and it will be followed by further economic reforms: bills to repeal the mining tax, to restore the Australian Building and Construction Commission and to deal with Labor's debt legacy.
The first impact of this bill will be on households, whose overall costs will fall $550 a year on average.
Thanks to this bill, household electricity bills—
An incident having occurred in the gallery—
The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Prime Minister to take his seat for one moment. There is obviously an orchestrated demonstration within the public gallery today. I warn those persons in the gallery that, if they persist with this course of action, I will have no option but to clear that gallery. I would apologise to anyone who has come in good faith and is sitting in that gallery if that has to occur. So I simply say to those people who wish to behave in a disorderly manner to desist or I will have to ask that the gallery be cleared. I call the Prime Minister.
Mr ABBOTT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The first impact of this bill will be on households, whose overall costs will fall $550 a year on average. Thanks to this bill, household electricity bills will be $200 lower next financial year without the carbon tax.
Household gas bills will be $70 lower next financial year without the carbon tax.
Prices for groceries, for household items and for services will also fall, because the price of power is embedded in every price in our economy.
This is our bill to reduce the bills of the people of Australia.
When the price of power comes down, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will be ready to ensure that these price reductions are passed on to households and businesses.
But families and pensioners will keep the tax cuts and the benefit increases already provided.
The carbon tax will go, but the carbon tax compensation will stay so that every Australian should be better off.
Repealing the carbon tax will reduce costs for all Australian businesses—every single one of them.
The previous government argued that only big business paid the carbon tax.
That simply was not true. Every small business paid the carbon tax through higher electricity and gas bills and higher costs for supplies.
As well, the carbon tax also acts as a reverse tariff.
Not only does the carbon tax make it more difficult for Australian businesses to compete abroad; it makes it more difficult for domestic businesses to compete at home—because there is no carbon tax on imports.
Repealing the carbon tax also removes over 1,000 pages of primary and subordinate legislation.
Repealing the carbon tax cuts the size of the climate change bureaucracy.
So repealing the carbon tax will reduce the cost of living, make jobs more secure and improve the competitive position of our country. Why would anyone be against that, particularly when it is what the Australian people have just voted for?
Repealing the carbon tax is what the employers and the job providers of our country want now.
The Business Council of Australia 'supports the wind-up of the current carbon pricing mechanism given it places excessive costs on business and households because (our) carbon charge … is now one of the highest in the world'.
The carbon tax has ripped through the economy—hitting schools, hospitals, nursing homes, charities, churches, council swimming pools and community centres.
It has hit each and every group, and each and every individual, that uses power—and that was always its goal: to make electricity more expensive.
That was the intention of the previous government: to put power prices up, because that was their way of reducing carbon emissions.
The intention of the new government is to put power prices down by axing this toxic tax and by using other means to reduce emissions.
By reducing the cost of electricity and gas, we will help to make households better off, workers more secure and our economy stronger.
No-one should be in any doubt—the government is repealing the carbon tax in full.
We are not playing word games, we are not playing tactical political games—we are doing what we were elected to do.
Others have said they would terminate the carbon tax, but they were only renaming it.
We are not renaming it.
We are not floating it.
We are not keeping the machinery in place so that we can dust it off in the future.
We are abolishing the carbon tax in full.
We have said what we mean and we will do what we say—the carbon tax goes. It goes.
Repealing the carbon tax at the end of the financial year provides certainty for business and simplifies the transition.
It means this government will not be proceeding with the previous government's legislated carbon tax increase that would have taken effect from 1 July 2014.
Our bill abolishes the tax in full.
As well, Labor's carbon tax changes for the on-road fuel costs of heavy vehicles that were going to commence on 1 July 2014 will not happen.
That saves consumers the previous government's planned increase in the price of everything that had to be trucked around the country.
Unfortunately, the new government cannot undo the past; we can only make the future better—and that is what we intend to do.
Under this government, the carbon tax will not apply from 1 July, so there will be no need for further compensation packages. We will end the merry-go-round of carbon tax industry assistance that takes from one pocket and puts less back in the other.
But we will ensure that the benefits of repealing the carbon tax are passed onto consumers. The ACCC will have further powers to take action against any business that engages in price exploitation in relation to the carbon tax repeal.
Penalties of up to $1.1 million for corporations and $220,000 for individuals will apply.
The government is repealing the carbon tax because there is a less complicated and less costly way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions—a way that will actually reduce emissions and will not damage the economy.
The government will scrap the carbon tax and then proceed with its Direct Action Plan.
The centrepiece of the Direct Action Plan will be the Emissions Reduction Fund—a market based mechanism for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, a fund which provides a powerful and direct additional incentive for businesses to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
The fund will use positive incentives to reduce Australia's emissions.
Direct action through the fund means more trees, better soils and smarter technology—this is the right way to get emissions down.
Madam Speaker, the carbon tax is a $9 billion hit on the economy this year alone.
It is a $9 billion burden on jobs, a $9 billion burden on investment and a $9 billion burden on Australia that we just do not need.
This bill gets rid of it.
This bill is the government's bill to reduce people's bills, and I so commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Hunt.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for the Environment) (10:34): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 is one of two bills to repeal the equivalent carbon tax on synthetic greenhouse gases.
These bills are part of the broader legislative package to abolish the carbon tax. This bill amends the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Act 1995 so that importers of synthetic greenhouse gases and products containing those gases will not incur a liability to pay the equivalent carbon tax for synthetic greenhouse gas and equipment imported after 1 July 2014. This will reduce costs for businesses using these gases, including for refrigeration and air conditioning.
Debate adjourned.
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Hunt.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for the Environment) (10:36): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 is one of two bills to repeal the equivalent carbon tax on synthetic greenhouse gases. These bills are part of the broader legislative package to abolish the carbon tax.
This bill amends the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Act 1995 so that manufacturers of synthetic greenhouse gases will not incur a liability to pay the equivalent carbon tax for synthetic greenhouse gas manufactured after 1 July 2014. This will reduce costs for businesses using these greenhouse gases, including for refrigeration and air conditioning.
Debate adjourned.
True-up Shortfall Levy (General) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Hunt.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for the Environment) (10:37): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Together, this bill, the True-up Shortfall Levy (General) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, and the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 will ensure that final assistance allocations under the Jobs and Competitiveness Program are accurate, so that businesses are not over- or under-allocated assistance in 2013-14.
For constitutional reasons, this bill imposes the levy to recover overallocations to the extent that it is a duty of excise.
Debate adjourned.
True-up Shortfall Levy (Excise) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Hunt.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for the Environment) (10:39): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Together, this bill, the True-up Shortfall Levy (Excise) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, and the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 ensure that final assistance allocations under the Jobs and Competitiveness Program are accurate so that businesses are not over- or under-allocated assistance in 2013-14.
This bill imposes a levy which recovers the value of overallocated free carbon units received under the Jobs and Competitiveness Program for the 2013-14 financial year.
For constitutional reasons, this bill imposes the levy to the extent that it is not a duty of customs or excise.
Debate adjourned.
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Hunt.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for the Environment) (10:40): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 provides for an exemption from the equivalent carbon price for the import of bulk synthetic greenhouse gases between 1 April and 30 June 2014 if certain conditions are met.
Debate adjourned.
Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill 2013
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Hunt.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for the Environment) (10:41): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Australian people delivered a clear message on 7 September that they do not want a carbon tax.
The government is meeting this promise to the Australian people by repealing the carbon tax and simplifying unnecessary climate change bureaucracy.
Repealing the carbon tax will boost Australia's economic growth, increase jobs and enhance Australia's international competitiveness by removing an unnecessary tax which hurts businesses and families.
Repealing the carbon tax will reduce annual ongoing compliance costs for around 370 liable entities by almost $90 million per annum.
Repealing the carbon tax will lower retail electricity by around nine per cent and retail gas prices by around seven per cent, as opposed to what they would otherwise be in 2014-15 with the carbon tax.
Repealing the carbon tax will remove over 1,000 pages of primary and subordinate legislation.
This bill is part of a package of bills which contribute to the government's delivery of its commitment to repeal the carbon tax and remove unnecessary bureaucracy.
The government has a longstanding commitment to abolish the Climate Change Authority, because it is not needed. I say this with no disrespect to the members or staff of the Climate Change Authority. We will bring its relevant functions in house: into the Department of the Environment.
In an economic environment that demands greater rigour in the spending of public money, the Australian people want a smaller climate bureaucracy. Our pledge to abolish the Climate Change Authority will make a significant contribution to making this happen.
The government is already well placed to receive authoritative advice on climate change matters from existing government bodies.
We have the Bureau of Meteorology to advise on climate trends and climate science. We have the CSIRO to advise on the environmental effects of climate change, climate science and the most appropriate and effective technological and scientific responses to climate change. We have an entire department of state—in the Department of the Environment—dedicated to providing the government authoritative advice on environment and climate change policy.
The principal role of the authority is to provide advice concerning the ongoing operation of the carbon tax, and, without this role, the need for a separate body to do this and other things will be gone.
The government is clear—evidenced by our introduction of the carbon tax repeal bills today—that the carbon tax will be repealed.
We are abolishing the carbon tax to reduce cost pressures on households and businesses, boost economic growth, increase jobs and enhance Australia's international competitiveness.
The government is also abolishing the carbon tax because it does not work.
It does not work because, at its heart, the carbon tax is an electricity tax. It relies upon the assumption that people will either change demand for or supply of electricity.
The problem is that demand for electricity is largely inelastic because it is an essential service. This means that the carbon tax pushes up the price of electricity without actually reducing emissions.
The previous government's own modelling from November 2012, which it submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, shows that domestic emissions increase under the carbon tax from around 560 million tonnes in 2010 to 637 million tonnes in 2020.
This scheme, at this time, in this form, will not reduce Australia's emissions and will not reduce global emissions. In other words, the carbon tax does not work.
Let us be clear. The government accepts the science of climate change. The government is committed to our unconditional emissions reduction target to reduce emissions by 5 per cent below 2000 levels by the year 2020. The government will consider further actions and targets in 2015, as has been our policy and as the Prime Minister reaffirmed only yesterday, on the basis of comparable real global action, in particular by major economies and trading partners.
However, the government believes there is a fundamentally better way to reduce emissions than through a carbon tax.
The Australian government will reach its emissions reduction target through its Direct Action Plan to efficiently and effectively source low-cost emissions reductions and improve Australia's environment.
This will be done primarily through our Emissions Reduction Fund which will purchase the lowest cost abatement. The fund will provide incentives for abatement activities across the Australian economy, rather than pushing up prices.
I will now turn to the details of the bill. The bill repeals the Climate Change Authority Act 2011 in order to abolish the Climate Change Authority.
The bill makes consequential changes to other legislation to reflect the fact that the authority will no longer exist. To this end, references to the authority in other legislation will be removed, including references which allow for the sharing of information with the authority or concerning the authority's financial management.
The bill provides that the limited functions of the authority that are required in the future will continue. The bill amends relevant acts to provide that the legislated reviews of the Carbon Farming Initiative, the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme and the renewable energy target will be undertaken at the direction of the minister.
It is my intention that these reviews should be undertaken by the Department of the Environment, which has the requisite skills and expertise to do them. The review of the renewable energy target will be undertaken in consultation with the Department of Industry.
Lastly, the bill transfers any assets and liabilities of the authority to the Commonwealth and makes arrangements for the winding up of the authority's activities.
The abolition of the authority is expected to result in a saving of $22 million over the forward estimates, further improving the budget bottom line.
I also wish to thank all of the departmental staff who have worked extraordinary hours over the last eight weeks in preparing this package of legislation, and I commend the bills to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
First Reading
Bill presented by Mr Hockey.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (10:50): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 amends the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to remove the elements of this act that were legislated by the former government to apply the carbon tax through the fuel tax and excise system.
Importantly, this will reduce the increase in excise-equivalent customs duty on aviation gasoline and aviation turbine fuel that represents an equivalent to the carbon tax applied to Australian imports.
Currently, Qantas imposes a carbon price surcharge of between $1.93 and $7.25 per passenger on all domestic flights, depending on the distance travelled. Virgin Australia imposes similar surcharges.
The repeal of the carbon tax will reduce one of the major components of airline costs and enable airlines to pass on a significant saving to travellers.
Debate adjourned.
Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
First Reading
Bill presented by Mr Hockey.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (10:52): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill, which amends the Excise Tariff Act 1921, reduces the increase in excise on aviation gasoline and aviation turbine fuel that is applied when an equivalent carbon tax is applied to Australian manufactured fuels.
An estimated $196 million was raised in 2012-13 by applying the carbon charge to aviation fuel.
This bill will reduce one of the major components of airline costs, which can be passed on to travellers and consumers.
The bill also reduces the act's complexity by removing references and notes associated with the imposition of the carbon tax.
Debate adjourned.
Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates and Other Amendments) Bill 2013
First Reading
Bill presented by Mr Hockey.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (10:54): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today, the Australian government is taking the first step in honouring its election commitment to repeal the carbon tax.
Abolishing the carbon tax will deliver lower energy bills and lower business input costs.
It will benefit the economy by subtracting from inflation and generating an economic growth dividend.
I am advised that abolishing the carbon tax effective from 1 July 2014 will lower the consumer price index by around 0.7 percentage points in 2014-15.
Average retail electricity prices should fall by around nine per cent and retail gas prices by around seven per cent.
In the first year alone, abolishing the carbon tax will, on average, lower household costs by $550 for the year.
It will also improve competitiveness for trade-exposed emission-intensive industries.
Repealing the carbon tax is also part of the government's deregulation agenda. It will reduce compliance and administrative costs for businesses.
By abolishing the carbon tax, the government will repeal more than 440 pages of primary legislation and 354 pages of clean energy regulations.
The Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates and Other Amendments) Bill 2013 is part of a package of bills that remove the carbon tax.
This bill amends elements of the Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Act 2011 to repeal the second round of personal income tax cuts that are due to start on 1 July 2015.
In its final budget handed down on 14 May 2013, the former government deferred the 2015 personal income tax cuts and booked a $1.5 billion saving over the forward estimates.
But the former government never followed through by legislating this change.
The government understands households will continue to face cost-of-living pressures.
That is why we will keep the current personal income tax thresholds and the fortnightly pension and benefit increases. But with the repeal of the carbon tax, there is no longer any need for the second round of personal income tax cuts.
Therefore, this bill repeals legislated amendments to the Income Tax Rates Act 1986 so that the statutory personal income tax rates and thresholds do not change on 1 July 2015.
This bill also amends the Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Act 2011 to repeal related amendments to the low-income tax offset.
This bill also repeals legislated amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 so that the related amendments to the low-income tax offset do not take effect on 1 July 2015.
Overall, the repeal of these amendments means that the tax-free threshold will remain at $18,200, rather than increasing to $19,400.
The second personal marginal tax rate will remain at 32.5 per cent, rather than increasing to 33 per cent. And the maximum value of the low-income tax offset will remain at $445, rather than falling to $300.
This bill legislates the $1.5 billion saving that the former government announced during the 2013-14 budget but never had the guts to legislate.
Debate adjourned.
Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill 2013
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Hockey.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (10:58): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill, repealing the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Act 2012, delivers on our election commitment to abolish the $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which was funded by borrowing money.
The CEFC was established on 3 August 2012 and was given a wide remit to lend taxpayers' borrowed money.
The CEFC extended the reach of the carbon tax by creating a $10 billion fund to invest in renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency projects.
The CEFC used a full range of financial instruments to co-finance and invest directly and indirectly in these projects and technologies.
From the outset, the concept of the CEFC overlapped with the 20 per cent renewable energy target.
By itself, this target encourages investment in renewable energy. The target does not need to be accompanied by $10 billion of borrowed taxpayers' money going into the CEFC to encourage the investment that may be required.
Setting up a government bank with $10 billion of borrowed money, underwritten by taxpayers, to invest in high-risk ventures should be a thing of the past century. You would have thought that the Labor Party would have learned its lessons when it comes to government banks.
This bill also transfers the CEFC's existing assets and liabilities to the Treasury.
The Commonwealth will ensure both an orderly transition of the CEFC's investments to the Commonwealth and minimal disruption to the clean energy market so business can continue as usual.
We will of course honour all payments that are necessary as part of meeting our contractual obligations to committed investments.
These obligations will be met from the CEFC's existing funding, which will be transferred to a new CEFC transitional special account.
This account will also cover the Treasury's management costs in administering the CEFC's investments. Any other liabilities relating to the CEFC will also be covered by funds from the special account.
Future monies that were due to be appropriated to the CEFC annually until 2017 will no longer need to be borrowed and will have a positive impact on the gross debt on issue.
This bill also provides for excess funding to be returned to consolidated revenue at any stage if it is no longer needed for managing the CEFC's assets and liabilities.
With this bill the government is delivering on its commitment to abolish the CEFC.
It is also the case that with this bill we reduce the amount of money the federal government has to borrow. If the Labor Party and the Greens are so concerned about the debt limit that has been their legacy, then they should immediately pass this bill.
Debate adjourned.
Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Hockey.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (11:03): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill repeals the minerals resource rent tax, and brings to an end the tax commonly known as the mining tax.
For the amount of debate in this chamber about a tax that raised barely a 10th of what was foreshadowed, I cannot believe there are just two members of the Labor Party here, the staunchest defenders of this tax.
This bill ends a sordid history of poor taxation policy. It discontinues or re-phases measures that were intended to be funded from the expected tax, the tax that hardly raised any money.
Given that the mining tax has failed to deliver meaningful revenue and the government has had to borrow to pay for the expenditure associated with the mining tax, the total mining tax package has imposed a significant and massive cost to the budget.
Passage of the bill will not only abolish the flawed mining tax but deliver $13.4 billion in budget savings over the forward estimates. Isn't that amazing? Abolishing a tax actually saves the budget money.
It is extraordinary that only the previous government could introduce a tax that raises no money, but even worse, leaves the budget worse off.
So supporting this bill to repeal the mining tax will help to reduce the burden of debt left by the previous government and it will improve the nation's finances and put the budget on a more sustainable footing.
Schedule 1—Repeal of the Minerals Resource Rent Tax
Schedule 1 of the bill repeals the tax itself with effect from 1 July 2014.
With this tax and all of its predecessors, Australia's mining industry has suffered under the long and tortured journey of the previous government's incompetent attempt to impose a new tax.
Let us have a look at that history. The Henry tax review, commissioned by the first Rudd government, recommended the introduction of a resource super profits tax (RSPT). That came as a surprise not just to the industry but I think to the member for Griffith as well. The government forecast that the original RSPT would raise $49.5 billion in the five years from July 2012.
The RSPT was an unprecedented hit to one of Australia's most successful industries, which understandably reacted rather negatively.
For those of us that were around it became no secret that the mining industry was appalled at the introduction of the original mining tax, and rightly so.
Ultimately the announcement, consultation, and handling of the RSPT was clearly a contributing factor in the downfall of Prime Minister Rudd mark I.
Then new Prime Minister Julia Gillard made a key promise to resolve the impasse with the resource sector over the tax.
Her government negotiated with three of Australia's biggest miners. No-one else was at the table, just the three biggest miners. And out of that came the minerals resource rent tax.
The new version of the mining tax included an extension of the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax to onshore projects.
The forecasts for revenue expected from the new version of the mining tax were significantly revised down from the original tax. Now, remember: the original tax was going to raise nearly $50 billion over a five-year period. This was reduced to $26.5 billion to be collected by the new mining tax over the same period—around half.
Since its creation, forecast revenue from the tax has been repeatedly written down, with hardly a dollar being collected.
In February 2013, the former Treasurer, the member for Lilley, released information that indicated the tax had raised $126 million in its first six months—$126 million was raised in its first six months, for a tax that was expected to raise not billions but tens of billions of dollars. What a genius! Only the member for Lilley! And I know I am drifting from second reading speech protocol here but I cannot help myself on this occasion to pay tribute to the member for Lilley for introducing a tax that not only hardly raises any money and leaves the budget $13½ billion worse off but brings down a Prime Minister. That is quite an achievement. It is a new benchmark from the member for Lilley in the design of a tax that is a catastrophe at all levels.
In total, since 1 July 2012, it has collected a net $400 million.
It is a flawed tax.
It has been opaque in its operation, with key details of how the tax works not clearly articulated by the former government. They did not understand it themselves.
One such example is their failure to explain the up-front tax deduction from the market valuation method used to calculate tax liabilities for the mining tax.
This complex and unnecessary tax has imposed considerable administrative costs on resource operators required to comply with it.
Fewer than 20 taxpayers have contributed to the net $400 million raised by the mining tax to date, but around 145 other miners have been required to submit all the paperwork associated with the tax. One hundred and forty-five miners are submitting millions of dollars of paperwork for a tax that they do not have to pay. I am sorry—I should have paid tribute to the member for Lilley as well for introducing a tax that actually adds to the paperwork burden of someone who actually does not pay the tax.
In other words, it imposes a significant regulatory and compliance burden on the iron ore and coalmining industries at a time when we really did not need it. It has undermined business confidence in these industries that are critical for investment and jobs.
Repealing the tax will restore confidence—I have no doubt about that. It will promote mining activity, it will help to create jobs, it will help to deliver prosperity to the broader community and it will send a clear signal that Australia is back open for business, that it wants to be a premier destination for mining investment and that it wants to be leading the world when it comes to the delivery of resources.
While mining companies in Australia will no longer be required to pay the mining tax, they will continue to pay their fair share of tax through state royalties and, of course, company tax.
Schedule 2—Loss carry- back
Schedule 2 of the bill seeks to repeal the mining tax related company loss carry-back.
The bill provides that, from the 2013-14 income year, companies can carry their tax losses forward to use as a deduction for a future year.
This is one of the initiatives that is funded by borrowed money. It is unsustainable because it represents $950 million of cost to the budget over the forward estimates.
Schedule 3 — Small business instant asset write-off threshold
There are expenditures that the government announced against the mining tax that the coalition wishes it could keep, but we cannot keep spending initiatives that are funded by borrowed money. It is unsustainable.
So schedule 3 of the bill amends the instant asset write-off threshold provisions for small business entities.
The threshold value of a depreciating asset for the purposes of instant asset write-off provisions was increased from $1,000 to $6,500 as part of the introduction of both the mining tax and the carbon tax package.
We seek to reduce this back to $1,000 from 1 January 2014. I know it is hard. I want to say it is hard. The Minister for Small Business knows it is hard. We know it is hard, but these are the hard decisions that have to be made because the people of Australia cannot afford to have initiatives that involve a cost to the budget that is being funded by borrowing money.
From 1 January 2014, small business entities will be able to immediately deduct the value of depreciating assets that cost less than $1,000 in the income year the asset is first used or installed ready for use.
This initiative alone will save $2.6 billion over the forward estimates.
Schedule 4 — Deductions for motor vehicles
Schedule 4 of the bill deals with the motor vehicle industry.
It provides that, from 1 January 2014, motor vehicle purchases made by small business entities will no longer be eligible for an accelerated deduction of $5,000.
These purchases will instead be treated as normal business assets under the concessional capital arrangements available under subdivision 328-D of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and depreciated at a rate of 15 per cent in the year in which the asset is first used or installed and then 30 per cent for subsequent years.
The removal of this measure will save the budget $450 million over the forward estimates.
However it is hugely important to note that in an unrelated initiative the coalition will assist the automotive industry by not imposing Labor's $1.8 billion fringe benefits tax hit to salary sacrificed vehicles.
Schedule 5 — Geothermal energy
Schedule 5 of the bill seeks to repeal the geothermal exploration deduction.
As a consequence, geothermal energy exploration and prospecting expenditure will not be immediately deductible.
Amendments are included in the schedule to provide a capital gains tax rollover in cases where a geothermal exploration right is merely exchanged for a geothermal extraction right relating to the same area.
Geothermal exploration will then be consistent with the treatment of other mining rights.
This will save the budget $10 million.
Schedule 6—Superannuation Guarantee Charge percentage
Schedule 6 of the bill seeks to further delay increases in the superannuation guarantee rate for a two-year period.
The superannuation guarantee rate will remain at 9.25 per cent until 30 June 2016 and then rise to 9.5 per cent on 1 July 2016 and then in increments of half a per cent a year until it reaches 12 per cent on 1 July 2021.
I know this is hard for some—delaying the increase in superannuation. It is a big benefit to small business, I might add, having that delay in place. But it will save the budget $1.6 billion, and therefore, again, we cannot continue to borrow money to fund these sorts of initiatives.
Schedule 7—Low - income superannuation contribution
Schedule 7 of the bill seeks to abolish the low-income superannuation contribution (LISC). The contribution will not be payable on or after 1 July 2013.
When we are responsibly able to and once the budget has been returned to a strong surplus the coalition will revisit the concessional contribution caps and incentives for lower income earners.
The removal of this measure, which is going to be funded by borrowed money and is unsustainable in its form, will save the budget $2.7 billion over the forward estimates. The opposition has been trying to argue that there is some policy equivalency in abolishing the low-income superannuation contribution of $2.7 billion with the previous government's failure to introduce a tax on income and superannuation over $100,000, which was roughly $300 million. So they keep comparing a $2.7 billion cost to the budget with a $300 million cost to the budget, and the $300 million cost to the budget that they were choosing to impose on people who had earned over $100,000 on their superannuation was never going to raise that money because the industry itself did not know how to implement it, and the Treasury advised me that the complexity of the legislation was almost prohibitive. There is no policy equivalency here. The bottom line is that there were lots of announcements but there was very little action from the previous government in relation to these matters and the complexity of their announcements was little understood, not only by the people in the community and not only by the businesses that were meant to implement them but more particularly by the people that were meant to draft the legislation.
Schedule 8—Repeal of income support bonus
Schedule 8 of the bill seeks to repeal the income support bonus, which was intended to be funded from the anticipated revenue from the mining tax. This indexed, non-means-tested payment was paid twice annually to social security recipients.
This bill will abolish future payments from the date of royal assent of the legislation. It will save $1.1 billion over the forward estimates.
Schedule 9—Repeal of schoolkids bonus
Schedule 9 of the bill seeks to repeal the schoolkids bonus.
The schoolkids bonus is a payment that is not linked to education or education expenses. It was paid for by borrowing money. It was paid for by borrowing the money from our children to give to the parents today. It is not out of the revenue that is raised today by the parents. It is out of the revenue that will need to be raised by our children sometime down the track, and that is unsustainable and we do not accept it. That is the classic example of the Labor Party at its worst—when it was handing out money, claiming that it was for education related expenses when it was not, and handing out the money by borrowing from other generations of Australians simply to give it to the parents of today. It was unsustainable. It is unsustainable. Abolishing this will save the budget $4½ billion. So, in the last few days, the opposition has been so outraged about the need for the government to increase the debt limit which is going to be hit in mid-December that they are opposing everything we are trying to do to reduce the debt. They do not understand the implications of their decisions.
Conclusion
Full details of all of these measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum to the bill.
The government has consulted with key industry stakeholders since the repeal of the mining tax was announced as a priority election commitment, including a recent round of public consultation on the exposure draft legislation.
Whilst some of the related expenditure initiatives are worthy in nature, they have been carelessly linked to a complicated and burdensome tax that will, at the end of the day, never pay its way.
The Australian people have voted to get rid of the mining tax. It is now time that the Australian parliament did the same.
Debate adjourned.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (11:21): I move:
That order of the day No. 1, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
Standing and Sessional Orders
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (11:21): I ask leave of the House to amend the notice relating to the proposed amendments to the standing orders by inserting the amendment to be moved by me to change standing order 215, which is the general purpose standing committee. So, just to explain: I did ask my office to get it around to you but, in the tumult this morning, it might have got lost in the process.
The standing order changes that have been notified in the Notice Paper need to have the updated list of committees—the new names and the new House of Representatives committees. These are essentially the same as the old ones, but they reflect the new cabinet. I am happy to hand it to the Manager of Opposition Business. There is nothing controversial about it and I am sure, once he has had an opportunity to look at it briefly, he will be comfortable with it. There are no hidden barbs in it. I will give him a moment if he would like to have a quick look at it.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (11:29): On indulgence—I take it at face value that an attempt may have been made to get this to me, but I have not seen this and have not had a chance to go through it. For that reason I am not in a position to give leave. If you want to do the standing order debate after question time, that will make sure that other issues are not interfered with.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (11:23): I will go ahead with the original motion and we will do the committees after question time. I apologise to the member for Bass and the other new members of the House who are preparing for their maiden speeches—I will keep my remarks very brief—but the reason I am moving this debate forward is that the standing order changes impact on question time. I did not want to interrupt the maiden speeches halfway through and cause disservice to the family members and friends who have come for these very important opening speeches. I decided it was important to get these amendments out of the way now so they would be able to affect the first question time.
The standing order changes have been circulated to the House through the Notice Paper and today. They make a few changes. Most of them are machinery provisions recommended by the clerks and by various procedure committees over the years. I will explain a few of them. Some of the changes in the 43rd Parliament were unique to the 43rd Parliament because it was a parliament in which the crossbenchers, through the alliance they had with the government, had a majority. Some of those changes have been removed.
The matters of public importance will be reduced to one hour, as they used to be. We will sit from 12 o'clock on Tuesday. For the first two hours of that day we will not have forums or divisions. They will be delayed until later in the day. We will reduce the sitting hours by bringing the finishing time back from 10.30 on Monday and Tuesday to 9.30. These hours are, we think, more friendly to the health of our good colleagues on both sides of the House. The health of my colleagues is, of course, always first and foremost in my thinking.
We will allow the Selection Committee to refer matters directly to the Federation Chamber. In the past there has been a convoluted and complicated process involving the Speaker, but we will allow the Selection Committee to refer matters to the Federation Chamber without the Speaker's involvement. This change was recommended by the clerks and various procedure committees. We will allow the Leader of the House to refer matters to the Federation Chamber without votes in order to ensure the smooth and democratic passage of non-controversial legislation, committee reports, delegation reports and private member's business.
One of the changes we are making is the implementation of interventions in the House of Representatives. This is a matter that I have long wanted to introduce into this parliament. It is very common in the House of Commons in Westminster and it allows a more spontaneous debate, a more free-flowing debate in the chamber. During his or her second reading speech, a member would have the opportunity, if another member wanted to interrupt them, to give way to that member. That member might want to ask a question or make a statement. It does not have to be a hostile question or statement. In fact, these matters could come from either side of the parliament. This change would introduce more spontaneity into the parliament and allow a more free-flowing debate. I envisage that, over the months and years, as members become more confident with the prospect of interventions in the chamber, they would give way and allow debate to flow more freely.
We will not be continuing with supplementary questions in this 44th Parliament. I regard that as having been a pilot program of the 43rd Parliament and I do not think its benefits measured up. Unfortunately, I think the government in the 43rd Parliament abused supplementary questions—they were not really genuine. As a consequence, we are going to remove the discretion of the Speaker to allow supplementary questions.
Members on both sides of the House will be very familiar with the practice of making an outrageous statement about another member of the House, whether it is accusing me of wanting to sack one in seven teachers or whether it is accusing the Turnbull-led opposition of voting against the first stimulus package. Time and time again, members had to rise to the dispatch box to correct such misrepresentations when they knew the person making it knew it was a misrepresentation. I think all sides of the House are thoroughly sick of that pantomime and we intend to eliminate it. The Speaker will be able to decide that, if a misrepresentation has already been corrected, the continued making of that misrepresentation is disorderly. I think that will improve the atmosphere of the chamber.
Many of the other changes are machinery changes designed to give the Federation Chamber more status, to allow a freer flow of business to the Federation Chamber. We will not be continuing with the situation where the Selection Committee has a majority of non-government members on it. That would be unusual in a parliament where there are 90 government members and 60 non-government members. We will be removing the crossbench member from the Selection Committee. We are also putting into the standing orders the longstanding practice that the Prime Minister chooses the chair of standing committees in the House of Representatives and the Leader of the Opposition chooses the deputy chair.
I believe these standing orders will add to the lustre of the parliament. I think they will democratise the parliament more and they will give members the opportunity to take part in debates in a more spontaneous way. Before I move the motion standing in my name, I ask whether the Manager of Opposition Business has had an opportunity to look at the list of committees and whether he is happy for me to move that amendment?
Mr Burke: Not yet, no.
Mr PYNE: In that case, I will move the motion as it stands. I move:
That:
(1) standing orders 1, 13, 29, 34, 39, 41, 45, 55, 66A, 68, 101, 133, 138, 140, 141, 142, 143, 146, 155, 183, 192, 197, 198, 215, 222, 227, 229, 232, 235 and 257 be amended as provided; and
(2) the House adopt a resolution concerning procedures for dealing with committee witnesses as provided.
1 Maximum speaking times
The maximum time limits that apply to debates, speeches and statements are as follows.
Subject |
Time (max) |
Address in Reply Each Member |
20 mins |
Adjournment of the House or Federation Chamber—to end the sitting Whole debate in House Whole debate in Federation Chamber Extended debate (if required by Minister to reply etc) Each Member—no extension of time can be granted Member who has already spoken to the motion may speak again for one period if no other Member rises to speak Minister in extension of debate (standing orders 31 (House) and 191 (Federation Chamber)) |
30 mins 10 mins 5 mins 5 mins
5 mins
|
Bills—Main Appropriation—second reading Mover Leader of Opposition or Member representing
|
no limit no limit
|
Bills—Other Government—second reading Mover Leader of Opposition or Member representing Minister at conclusion of debate |
30 mins 30 mins 15 mins |
Bills—Private Members’—second reading Mover At time of presentation In continuation, on resumption of debate (if required by mover) (standing order 222) |
10 mins 5 mins
|
Bills—All—second reading Any other Member not specified above
(standing order 222) |
15 mins or lesser time determined by the Selection Committee |
Bills—All—consideration in detail Bills—All—consideration of Senate amendments or requests Each Member—unlimited number of periods |
5 mins |
Censure of or no confidence in the Government (if accepted by the Government under standing order 48) Mover Prime Minister or Minister representing Any other Member (if otherwise, e.g. under suspension of standing orders, see Other debates—not otherwise provided for) |
30 mins 30 mins 20 mins
|
Committee and delegation business on Mondays Announcements relating to inquiries Committee Chair or deputy Chair
Reports Each Member
(standing orders 39, 40, 192, 222) |
as determined
10 mins |
Condolence motion Each Member (standing order 49) |
no limit |
Dissent motion Whole debate Mover Seconder Member next speaking Any other Member (standing order 87) |
30 mins 10 mins 5 mins 10 mins 5 mins |
Elections of Speaker or Deputy Speakers Each Member (standing order 11) |
5 mins |
Extension of time On motion, determined without debate, a Member may continue a speech interrupted under this standing order, for one period |
10 mins, but extension may not exceed half of the original period allotted |
Grievances Whole debate Each Member (standing order 192b) |
1 hour 10 mins |
Member (standing order 66A) |
30 secs |
Matter of public importance Whole discussion Proposer Member next speaking Any other Member (standing order 46) |
1 hour 10 mins 10 mins 5 mins
|
Members’ statements 90 second statements Whole period on Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays Each Member (but not a Minister or Parliamentary Secretary) (standing order 43) 3 minute constituency statements Whole period Each Member (standing order 193) |
15 mins 90 seconds
30 mins 3 mins |
Other debates—not otherwise provided for (e.g. censure of a Minister, reference to committee, approval of public works) Mover of a motion Any other Member |
15 mins 10 mins |
Other statements—by leave of the House (e.g. ministerial statements and responses to them, committee reports) Member |
no limit |
Private Members’ business on Mondays Whole debate Each Member
(standing orders 41, 192, 222) |
as determined by the Selection Committee, subject to times set down for private Members’ bills |
Question Time Each question Each answer (standing orders 100 and 104) |
30 secs 3 mins |
Statements by permission from the Speaker (by indulgence) Valedictory remarks Member Other statements (e.g. adding to answer, personal explanation, privilege) Member If further statements referred to the Federation Chamber Any other Member (standing order 183) |
20 mins
at the discretion of the Speaker 10 mins |
Suspension of standing or other orders without notice Whole debate Mover Seconder (if any) Member next speaking Any other Member (standing order 47) |
25 mins 10 mins 5 mins 10 mins 5 mins |
Taxation or duty proposal Mover Leader of Opposition or Member representing Any other Member (standing orders 178 and 179) |
20 mins 20 mins 10 mins |
Thanks motion Each Member (standing order 49) |
no limit |
Urgent matters—allotment of time for debate Whole debate Each Member (standing order 84) |
20 mins 5 mins |
13 When Deputy Speaker and Second Deputy Speaker elected
(a) The Deputy Speaker and Second Deputy Speaker shall be elected at the beginning of each Parliament, or at any time the respective office becomes vacant. Whenever the two offices are vacant at the same time, elections for both offices shall be conducted together.
(b) The Speaker shall conduct the elections under standing order 14, and may not vote in an ordinary ballot.
(c) Only a non-government Member may be elected as Second Deputy Speaker.
(d) A Member shall propose the nomination of a Member to the vacant office by moving, without notice, that such Member ‘be elected Deputy Speaker (or Second Deputy Speaker)’.
29 Set meeting and adjournment times
(a) The House shall meet each year in accordance with the program of sittings for that year agreed to by the House, unless otherwise ordered and subject to standing order 30.
(b) When the House is sitting it shall meet and adjourn at the following times, subject to standing orders 30, 31 and 32:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
meeting commences |
adjournment proposed |
House adjourns |
Monday |
10.00 am |
9.00 pm |
9.30 pm |
Tuesday |
12.00 pm |
9.00 pm |
9.30 pm |
Wednesday |
9.00 am |
7.30 pm |
8.00 pm |
Thursday |
9.00 am |
4.30 pm |
5.00 pm |
34 Order of business
The order of business to be followed by the House is shown in figure 2.
Figure 2. House order of business
|
MONDAY |
|
TUESDAY |
|
WEDNESDAY |
|
THURSDAY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acknowledgement
Prayers |
|
Acknowledgement
Prayers |
|
|
|
|
9.00 am |
|
9.00 am |
|
|
Acknowledgement
Prayers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.00 am |
Petitions (to 10.10am) Committee & delegation business and Divisions and quorums deferred 10am–12 noon |
|
Acknowledgement
Prayers |
|
Government
|
|
Government
|
12 noon |
Government
|
12 noon |
Government Business Divisions and quorums between 12 and 2pm Deferred until after MPI |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.45 pm |
90 sec statements |
|
1.45 pm |
90 sec statements |
1.45 pm |
90 sec statements |
|
2.00 pm |
Question
|
2.00 pm |
Question
|
2.00 pm |
Question
|
2.00 pm |
Question
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
||||
approx. 3.10 pm |
Ministerial
|
approx. 3.10 pm |
MPI, Ministerial statements |
approx. 3.10 pm |
MPI, Ministerial statements |
approx. 3.10 pm |
MPI, Ministerial statements |
|
|||||||
|
|
approx 4.10 pm |
|
approx 4.10 pm |
|
approx 4.10 pm |
Government Business |
|
4.30 pm |
Adjournment
|
|||||
|
Government
|
|
Government
|
|
Government
|
||
|
|
|
5.00 pm |
|
|||
6.30 pm |
Divisions and quorums deferred 6.30–8 pm* |
6.30 pm
|
Divisions and quorums deferred 6.30–8 pm* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.30 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjournment
|
||||||
8.00 pm |
|
8.00 pm |
|
8.00 pm |
|
|
|
9.00 pm |
Adjournment
|
9.00 pm |
Adjournment
|
|
|
|
|
9.30 pm |
|
9.30 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
39 Announcements concerning inquiries and presentation of reports
(a) The Chair or deputy Chair of a committee may make a statement to inform the House of matters relating to an inquiry during the periods for committee and delegation business on Mondays ( standing order 34). The Selection Committee shall recommend time limits for such statements.
(b) Members may present reports of committees or delegations:
(i) as determined by the Selection Committee, during the periods for committee and delegation business on Mondays in the House and Federation Chamber ( standing orders 34 and 192); or
(ii) in the House at any time when other business is not before the House.
(c) Members may make statements in relation to these reports:
(i) during the periods for committee and delegation business on Mondays in the House and Federation Chamber (standing orders 34 and 192); the Selection Committee shall determine time limits for statements, of not more than 10 minutes for each Member; or
(ii) in the House at any other time, by leave.
(d) The Member presenting a report may move without notice, a specific motion in relation to the report. Debate on the question shall be adjourned to a future day and the resumption of the debate may be referred to the Federation Chamber.
(e) Unless otherwise ordered, a committee report presented in accordance with this standing order shall be made a Parliamentary Paper.
41 Private Members’ business
(a) In the periods set for committee and delegation business and private Members’ business under standing orders 34 and 192, private Members’ notices and orders of the day shall be considered in the order shown on the Notice Paper. When the time set by standing orders 34 or 192 or determined by the Selection Committee ends, the Speaker shall interrupt proceedings and the matter shall be listed on the Notice Paper for the next sitting.
Private Members’ bills—priority
(b) The Selection Committee, in making determinations:
(i) shall give priority to private Members’ notices of intention to present bills over other notices and orders of the day; and
(ii) shall set the order in which the bills are to be presented.
First and second reading
(c) Subject to this standing order, the first and second reading shall proceed in accordance with standing orders 141 and 142. The Member who has presented the bill may speak to the second reading for no longer than 10 minutes at the time of presentation and 5 minutes on resumption of the debate. The Selection Committee may determine times for consideration of the remainder of the second reading debate.
Priority following second reading
(d) If the motion for the second reading is agreed to by the House, further consideration of the bill shall be accorded priority over other private Members’ business and the Selection Committee may determine times for consideration of the remaining stages.
Alternation of notices
(e) Subject to paragraph (b)(i), the Selection Committee shall provide for the consideration of private Members’ notices to alternate between those of government and non-government Members.
Participation of Speaker and Deputy Speaker
(f) The Speaker and Deputy Speaker may participate in private Members’ business.
45 Order of government business and programming declarations
(a) The Leader of the House may arrange the order of notices and orders of the day for government business on the Notice Paper as he or she thinks fit.
(b) The Leader of the House or the Chief Government Whip may make a programming declaration in the House in relation to one or more items of government business.
The declaration may refer a government business order of the day to the Federation Chamber, or may require a government business order of the day to be returned from the Federation Chamber for further consideration in the House. The matter must be set down for consideration at a later hour that day.
55 Lack of quorum
(a) When the attention of the Speaker is drawn to the state of the House and the Speaker observes that a quorum is not present, the Speaker shall count the Members present in accordance with standing order 56.
(b) On Mondays, if any Member draws the attention of the Speaker to the state of the House between 10 am and 12 noon, the Speaker shall announce that he or she will count the House at 12 noon, if the Member then so desires.
(c) On Mondays and Tuesdays, if any Member draws the attention of the Speaker to the state of the House between the hours of 6.30 pm and 8 pm, the Speaker shall announce that he or she will count the House at 8 pm, if the Member then so desires.
(d) On Tuesdays, if any Member draws the attention of the Speaker to the state of the House prior to 2 pm, the Speaker shall announce that he or she will count the House after the discussion of the matter of public importance, if the Member then so desires.
(e) If a quorum is in fact present when a Member draws attention to the state of the House, the Speaker may name the Member in accordance with standing order 94(b) (sanctions against disorderly conduct).
66A Interventions
During consideration of any order of the day a Member may rise and, if given the call, ask the Speaker whether the Member speaking is willing to give way. The Member speaking will either indicate his or her:
(a) refusal and continue speaking; or
(b) acceptance and allow the other Member to ask a short question or make a brief response immediately relevant to the Member’s speech, for a period not exceeding 30 seconds—
Provided that, if, in the opinion of the Speaker, it is an abuse of the orders or forms of the House, the intervention may be denied or curtailed.
68 Personal explanation
A Member may explain how he or she has been misrepresented or explain another matter of a personal nature whether or not there is a question before the House. The following conditions shall apply:
(a) the Member must rise and seek permission from the Speaker;
(b) the Member must not interrupt another Member addressing the House; and
(c) the matter must not be debated.
If a Member has given a personal explanation to correct a misrepresentation and another Member subsequently repeats the matter complained of, the Speaker may intervene.
101 Speaker’s discretion about questions
The Speaker may:
(a) direct a Member to change the language of a question asked during Question Time if the language is inappropriate or does not otherwise conform with the standing orders; and
(b) change the language of a question in writing if the language is inappropriate or does not otherwise conform with the standing orders.
133 Deferred divisions on Mondays and Tuesdays
(a) On Mondays, any division called for between the hours of 10 am and 12 noon shall be deferred until 12 noon.
(b) On Mondays and Tuesdays, any division called for between the hours of 6.30 pm and 8 pm shall be deferred until 8 pm.
(c) On Tuesdays, any division called for prior to 2 pm shall be deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance.
(d) The Speaker shall put all questions on which a division has been deferred, successively and without amendment or further debate.
(e) This standing order does not apply to a division called on a motion moved by a Minister on Mondays and Tuesdays, during the periods specified in this standing order.
138 Initiation of bills
A House bill may be initiated:
(a) by the calling on of a notice of intention to present a bill;
(b) by an order of the House; or
(c) without notice by a Minister under standing order 178 (Appropriation Bill or bill dealing with taxation);
A bill not prepared according to the standing orders of the House shall be ordered to be withdrawn.
140 Signed copy of bill presented
(a) A Member presenting a bill must sign a legible copy of the bill and give it to the Clerk at the Table.
(b) The title of a bill must agree with the notice of intention to present it, and every clause must come within the title.
141 First reading and explanatory memorandum
(a) When a bill is presented, or a Senate bill is first received, the bill shall be read a first time without a question being put.
(b) For any bill presented by a Minister, except an Appropriation or Supply Bill, the Minister must present a signed explanatory memorandum. The explanatory memorandum must include an explanation of the reasons for the bill. For other bills, the Member presenting the bill may present an explanatory memorandum.
142 Second reading
(a) If copies of the bill are available to Members, the Member presenting the bill may move immediately after the first reading, or at a later hour—
That this bill be now read a second time.
At the conclusion of the Member’s speech the debate on the question must then be adjourned to a future sitting.
(b) If copies of the bill are not available, a future sitting shall be appointed for the second reading and copies of the bill must then be available to Members.
143 Bill referred to Federation Chamber or committee
After the first reading but before the resumption of debate on the motion for the second reading:
(a) a motion may be moved without notice to refer a bill to the Federation Chamber for further consideration as provided by standing order 183; or
(b) a motion may be moved without notice or a determination may be made by the Selection Committee as provided by standing order 222 to refer a bill to a committee for an advisory report. The motion or determination may specify a date by which the committee is to report to the House. After an advisory report has been presented to the House, the bill may then be referred to the Federation Chamber under paragraph (a).
(c) If, having considered a bill referred to it for an advisory report, a committee finds no issues requiring a formal report, the Chair or Deputy Chair may make a statement to the House to that effect. The statement, with the presentation of the relevant minutes of proceedings, discharges the committee’s obligation to report on the bill.
146 Amendment to dispose of bill
An amendment may be moved to the question—
That this bill be now read a second time—
by omitting ‘now’ in order to insert ‘not’, which, if carried, shall finally dispose of the bill. No amendment may be moved to this amendment.
155 Question for third reading
(a) When a bill has been agreed to, the House may grant leave for the motion for the third reading to be moved immediately, or a future sitting may be set for the motion.
The question shall be proposed on the motion—
That this bill be now read a third time.
(b) The only amendment which may be moved to this question is by omitting ‘now’ in order to insert ‘not’, which, if carried, shall dispose of the bill.
(c) After the third reading the bill has passed the House and no further question may be put.
183 Establishment of Federation Chamber
The Federation Chamber shall be established as a committee of the House to consider matters referred to it as follows:
(a) proceedings on bills to the completion of the consideration in detail stage;
(b) orders of the day for the resumption of debate on any motion;
(c) subject to paragraph (a), private Members’ notices and other items of private Members’ and committee and delegation business referred in accordance with a Selection Committee determination pursuant to standing order 222;
(d) further statements on a matter when statements have commenced in the House; and
(e) items of government business referred from the House by a programming declaration made in accordance with standing order 45.
192 Federation Chamber’s order of business
The normal order of business of the Federation Chamber is set out in figure 4.
Figure 4. Federation Chamber order of business
|
MONDAY |
|
TUESDAY |
|
WEDNESDAY |
|
THURSDAY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.30 am |
3 min constituency statements |
9.30 am |
3 min constituency statements |
|
|
|
|
10.00 am |
Government business and/or
|
10.00 am |
Government business and/or
|
10.30 am |
3 min constituency statements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.00 am |
Committee & delegation business and private Members’ business |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12.30 pm |
Adjournment
|
|
|
|
|
1.00 pm |
|
1.00 pm |
|
1.30 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.00 pm |
|
4.00 pm |
If required |
4.00 pm |
If required |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Government business |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.00 pm |
|
|
|
7.00 pm |
|
|
|
Grievance debate
|
|||||||
9.00 pm |
|
9.00 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
The meeting times of the Federation Chamber are fixed by the Deputy Speaker and are subject to change. Times shown for the start and finish of items of business are approximate. Adjournment debates can occur on days other than Thursdays by agreement between the Whips.
Return of matters to the House
The Federation Chamber may return a matter to the House before its consideration is completed.
(a) A matter may be returned to the House on a motion moved without notice at any time by a Minister—
That further proceedings be conducted in the House .
The motion shall be put without amendment or debate. If the Federation Chamber agrees to, or is unable to resolve, this question, the bill or order of the day shall be returned to the House. Consideration in the House must continue from the point reached in the Federation Chamber and the House must resolve any issues that the Federation Chamber reports.
(b) The House may at any time require a matter to be returned for further consideration, on a motion moved without notice by a Minister. The matter must be set down for consideration at a later hour that day.
(c) An item of government business may be returned to the House by a programming declaration made in accordance with standing order 45.
198 Report to the House
(a) When the Federation Chamber has fully considered a bill referred to it, a final question shall be put immediately and resolved without amendment or debate—
That this bill be reported to the House, with [out] [an] amendment [s] [and with (an) unresolved question(s)].
(b) The Clerk of the Federation Chamber shall certify a copy of the bill or other matter to be reported to the House, together with any schedules of amendments and unresolved questions. Unless otherwise provided, the Speaker shall report the matter at a later hour that day when other business is not before the House.
215 General purpose standing committees
(a) The following general purpose standing committees shall be appointed:
(i) Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs;
(ii) Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry;
(iii) Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts;
(iv) Standing Committee on Economics;
(v) Standing Committee on Education and Employment;
(vi) Standing Committee on Health and Ageing;
(vii) Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications;
(viii) Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs; and
(ix) Standing Committee on Regional Australia.
(b) A committee appointed under paragraph (a) may inquire into and report on any matter referred to it by either the House or a Minister, including any pre-legislation proposal, bill, motion, petition, vote or expenditure, other financial matter, report or document.
(c) A committee may make any inquiry it wishes to make into annual reports of government departments and authorities and reports of the Auditor-General presented to the House. The following qualifications shall apply to these inquiries:
(i) Reports shall stand referred to committees under a schedule presented by the Speaker to record the areas of responsibility of each committee.
(ii) The Speaker shall determine any question about responsibility for a report or part of a report.
(iii) The period during which an inquiry into an annual report may be started by a committee shall end on the day the next annual report of the department or authority is presented to the House.
(iv) If a committee intends to inquire into all or part of a report of the Auditor-General, the committee must notify the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit of its intention, in writing.
(d) Each committee appointed under paragraph (a) shall consist of seven members: four government Members and three non-government Members, provided that if a non-aligned Member is appointed to a committee, such committee shall consist of eight members: four government Members, three non-government Members, and one non-aligned Member. Each committee may have its membership supplemented by up to four members for a particular inquiry, with a maximum of two extra government and two extra opposition or non-aligned Members. Supplementary members shall have the same participatory rights as other members, but may not vote.
222 Selection Committee
(a) A Selection Committee shall be appointed to:
(i) arrange the timetable and order of committee and delegation business and private Members’ business for each sitting Monday in accordance with standing orders 39 to 41;
(ii) select private Members’ notices and other items of private Members’ and committee and delegation business for referral to the Federation Chamber, or for return to the House;
(iii) select bills that the committee regards as controversial or as requiring further consultation or debate for referral to the relevant standing or joint committee in accordance with standing order 143; and
(iv) subject to standing order 1, set speaking times for second reading debates.
(b) The committee shall consist of eleven members: the Speaker, or in the absence of the Speaker the Deputy Speaker, the Chief Government Whip or his or her nominee, the Chief Opposition Whip or his or her nominee, the Third Party Whip or his or her nominee, four government Members, and three non-government Members. The Speaker shall be the Chair of the committee. A quorum shall be three members of the committee.
(c) For committee and delegation business and private Members’ business, the committee may determine the order of consideration of the matters, and the times allotted for debate on each item and for each Member speaking.
(d) In relation to committee and delegation business and private Members’ business the committee must report its determinations to the House in time for its decisions to be published on the Notice Paper of the sitting Thursday before the Monday being considered. In relation to bills the committee must report its determinations as soon as practical in respect of each bill or each group of bills.
(e) Reports of the committee under paragraph (d) shall be treated as having been adopted when they are presented. Reports shall be published in Hansard.
(f) A referral by determination of the Selection Committee pursuant to paragraph (a)(ii) or (a)(iii), once the determination has been reported to the House, is deemed to be a referral by the House.
227 « « « «
229 Appointment of committee members
(a) Members shall be appointed to or discharged from a committee by motion moved on notice.
(b) Special arrangements are required for a change in membership when the House is not sitting and is not expected to meet for at least two weeks. The relevant whip must nominate any appointment or discharge of a member of a committee in writing to the Speaker. The change in membership shall take effect from the time the Speaker receives the written nomination. At the next sitting, the Speaker shall report the change to the House and the House shall resolve the membership of the committee.
(c) If a committee is considering a bill referred under standing order 143, one or more members of the committee may be replaced by other Members by motion moved on notice. This does not affect the ability of a general purpose standing committee to have its membership supplemented under standing order 215(d).
232 Appointment of committee Chair and deputy Chair
(a) Before the start of business and at any time a vacancy occurs, a committee shall be informed of the name of the member who has been appointed by the Prime Minister to be its Chair. The Chair shall have a casting vote only.
(b) A committee shall also be informed of the name of the member who has been appointed by the Leader of the Opposition to be its deputy Chair. The deputy Chair shall act as Chair of the committee whenever the Chair is not present at a meeting. If neither the Chair nor deputy Chair is present at a meeting, the members present shall elect another member to act as Chair at the meeting.
235 Proceedings and sittings of committee
(a) A committee or a subcommittee may conduct proceedings using any means approved by the House and in the following manner:
(i) in private meeting;
(ii) by hearing witnesses, either in public or in private; and
(iii) in the form of any other meeting, discussion or inspection conducted under the practice of committees of the House.
(b) A committee may conduct proceedings using audio visual or audio links with members of the committee or witnesses not present in one place. If an audio visual or audio link is used, committee members and witnesses must be able to speak to and hear each other at the same time regardless of location. A committee may resolve for a subcommittee to use audio visual or audio links.
(c) A committee or a subcommittee may conduct proceedings at any time or place as it sees fit, and whether or not the House is sitting.
257 Admission of Senators and visitors
(a) Only the Speaker shall have the privilege of admitting visitors into the lower galleries, and may admit distinguished visitors to a seat on the floor of the Chamber.
(b) No Member may bring a visitor into any part of the Chamber, or that part of the room where the Federation Chamber is meeting, which is reserved for Members.
(c) Senators shall have the privilege of being admitted into the Senators’ gallery without invitation. When present in the Chamber or galleries they must observe the Speaker’s instructions regarding good order.
Proposed resolution
Procedures for dealing with witnesses
That, in their dealings with witnesses, committees of the House shall observe the following procedures:
(1) A witness shall be invited to attend a committee meeting to give evidence. A witness shall be summoned to appear (whether or not the witness was previously invited to appear) only where the committee has made a decision that the circumstances warrant the issue of a summons.
(2) Where a committee desires that a witness produce documents or records relevant to the committee’s inquiry, the witness shall be invited to do so, and an order that documents or records be produced shall be made (whether or not an invitation to produce documents or records has previously been made) only where the committee has made a decision that the circumstances warrant such an order.
(3) A witness shall be given notice of a meeting at which he or she is to appear, and shall be supplied with a copy of the committee’s terms of reference and an indication of the matters expected to be dealt with during the appearance. Where appropriate a witness may be supplied with a transcript of relevant evidence already taken in public.
(4) A witness may be given the opportunity to make a submission in writing before appearing to give oral evidence.
(5) A witness shall be given reasonable access to any documents or records that the witness has produced to a committee.
(6) A witness shall be offered, before giving evidence, the opportunity to make application, before or during the hearing of the witness’s evidence, for any or all of the witness’s evidence to be heard in camera, and shall be invited to give reasons for any such application. The witness may give reasons in camera. If the application is not granted, the witness shall be notified of reasons for that decision.
(7) Before giving any evidence in camera a witness shall be informed whether it is the intention of the committee to publish or present to the House all or part of that evidence, that it is within the power of the committee to do so, and that the House has the authority to order the production and publication of undisclosed evidence. Should the committee decide to publish or present to the House all or part of the evidence taken in camera, the witness shall be advised in advance. A member, in a protest or dissent added to a report, shall not disclose evidence taken in camera unless so authorised by the committee.
(8) The Chair of a committee shall take care to ensure that all questions put to witnesses are relevant to the committee’s inquiry and that the information sought by those questions is necessary for the purpose of that inquiry.
(9) Where a witness objects to answering any question put to him or her on any ground, including the grounds that it is not relevant, or that it may tend to incriminate him or her, he or she shall be invited to state the ground upon which he or she objects to answering the question. The committee may then consider, in camera, whether it will insist upon an answer to the question, having regard to the relevance of the question to the committee’s inquiry and the importance to the inquiry of the information sought by the question. If the committee determines that it requires an answer to the question, the witness shall be informed of that determination, and of the reasons for it, and shall be required to answer the question in camera, unless the committee resolves that it is essential that it be answered in public. Where a witness declines to answer a question to which a committee has required an answer, the committee may report the facts to the House.
(10) Where a committee has reason to believe that evidence about to be given may reflect on a person, the committee shall give consideration to hearing that evidence in camera.
(11) Where evidence is given which reflects upon a person, the committee may provide a reasonable opportunity for the person reflected upon to have access to that evidence and to respond to that evidence by written submission or appearance before the committee.
(12) A witness may make application to be accompanied by counsel or an adviser or advisers and to consult counsel or the adviser(s) in the course of the meeting at which he or she appears. If such an application is not granted, the witness shall be notified of reasons for that decision. A witness accompanied by counsel or an adviser or advisers shall be given reasonable opportunity to consult with counsel or the adviser(s) during a meeting at which he or she appears.
(13) A departmental officer shall not be asked to give opinions on matters of policy, and shall be given reasonable opportunity to refer questions asked of him or her to superior officers or to the appropriate Minister.
(14) Witnesses shall be treated with respect and dignity at all times.
(15) Reasonable opportunity shall be afforded to witnesses to request corrections in the transcript of their evidence and to put before a committee additional written material supplementary to their evidence. Witnesses may also request the opportunity to give further oral evidence.
(16) Where a committee has any reason to believe that any person has been improperly influenced in respect of evidence which has been or may be given before the committee, or has been subjected to or threatened with any penalty or injury in respect of any evidence given or in respect of prospective evidence, the committee shall take all reasonable steps to ascertain the facts of the matter. Where the committee considers that the facts disclose that a person may have been improperly influenced or subjected to or threatened with penalty or injury in respect of evidence which may be or has been given before the committee, the committee shall report the facts and its conclusions to the House.
(17) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (11:29): In the first instance, before I get into the substance of the debate, I refer to the fact that we have a number of first speeches waiting. It is quite possible within the business of the House to stop this debate at any point, pause it, allow people to make their first speeches, and then return to this debate later. The fact that people are making their first speeches should not be used as an excuse by the government to bludgeon changes to standing orders through without proper debate. The standing orders themselves are meant to be the foundation for debates. If we are not even meant to be allowed to debate them, it says something pretty extraordinary about what the government are trying to get away with in front of us right now.
If you have a look at what has been circulated from the Leader of the House, you find example after example of speaking times being reduced—example after example of the possibility of this parliament holding people to account being taken away. They now find supplementary questions unacceptable, yet they were so happy to stand up and ask them in this chamber at this dispatch box only months ago. Never once in the last term of government did they say there was a problem with being able to ask supplementary questions. They asked supplementary questions and they used them. Yet, the moment they get on the other side of the chamber, straightaway they want to use their numbers to get rid of them.
Perhaps the most disturbing part of what has been brought to this House by the Leader of the House is the new standing order to allow the Speaker to make a ruling that it is disorderly to comment on something where an allegation has been made previously. This automatically involves the Speaker in making a political judgement call on the merits of an argument. Immediately, this change to the standing orders says that, for what is otherwise a matter of political debate across the chamber, we will put into the hands of the Speaker the authority to silence one side of the debate, not on the basis that the words are disorderly—and I am not sure what words are left that are going to be disorderly, after the charade this morning. When there is a genuine cause for political debate, where someone will stand up and claim to have been misrepresented—and they get the opportunity to do that—it does not mean that the House automatically agrees with the claim of misrepresentation that has been made. There would be no shortage of examples where Labor members have stood up and claimed to have been misrepresented and the Leader of the House would say, 'Oh, no, I do not think you were misrepresented at all.' Yet the judgement call is meant to then be placed in the hands of the Speaker to determine whether or not a political charge is true.
Today, we saw the dangers in judgement calls being made where the standing orders are crystal clear—we had a dissent motion about it. The government now wants to increase the powers of the Speaker beyond what they have ever been in the history of this House so as to allow the Speaker of the parliament to apply censorship to political views—to provide censorship to one half of the political debate.
I could not imagine any change to the standing orders that would be considered as extreme as what the Leader of the House has just brought forward here, because there is no doubt whatsoever that the Speaker should not be involved in making a political judgement call. The Leader of the House wants to create a situation where, if we make an allegation about cuts or about something else the government are doing, they can stand up later and claim to have been misrepresented and put the reverse charge, and from that moment on the Speaker of the House can make a judgement call that the Labor side of the argument is not to be heard here.
I am sure there are some parliaments in the world where the person chairing the meeting has that sort of power. They are not known as the democratic nations of the world. Yet that is exactly what we are about to see here. Debates on matters of public importance are a classic example. They are one of the few things that the opposition overwhelmingly gets. Each day of parliament, with the exception of Mondays, the opposition get the chance to choose an issue we believe is important and put it before the parliament. It is an opportunity where the front bench opens the debate and the back bench then gets an opportunity to participate. For many members of the back bench, on the government's side as well, MPI debates are their main opportunity to make a contribution to the debate of the parliament on issues of national importance beyond their electorate. It has frequently been an opportunity for members of the Liberal and National parties to show that they have more talent than some of the people who were sitting in the front row of their own show. Also, there is no shortage of people on the government back benches who are well and truly more talented than the people they have on the front benches. When MPI debates are cut by a third, these people will then not get these chances. The start of the debates, when the frontbenchers get to speak, will still be there. But the backbenchers will be denied absolutely the opportunity they had to speak and to show some of the people sitting in front of them that, to their embarrassment, they are streets ahead of them.
Supplementary questions are not a recent invention of the last parliament. The clause in the standing orders on supplementary questions has been there for a very long time. If the Leader of the House believes, as he implied in his speech, that supplementary questions were a recent invention of the last parliament, that is just plain wrong. Supplementary questions have been available for a very long time, and it has been at the discretion of the Speaker as to whether or not they are to be allowed. Taking this out of the standing orders altogether means that the opportunity to stand up and immediately put pressure back on will have been removed for those occasions—and I reckon there will be a few—where members of the government come to the dispatch box and are not able to answer questions, or are perhaps even treating the parliament the way they have been treating the Australian media, or are unwilling to answer a question, even if they might know some aspect of the answer. Not only will it have been removed for members of the opposition but also it will have been removed from what I thought was meant to be an empowered back bench. Remember backbench question time? Remember that we were told that the backbenchers were going to have all this capacity to raise issues here in the parliament relevant to their electorates? And, if the answer came back and they wanted more information, the supplementary would have been the only way to get it. But at this moment that is gone because of what the Leader of the House has brought in here.
The Leader of the House has never been somebody who has respected debate in this parliament. But he has been somebody—
Government members interjecting—
Mr BURKE: While those around him may say how unfair that is, if you look at his face, you can see that he thinks it is a fair call. But it is true that he has been somebody who has been more than willing to take advantage of every standing order that is there. Standing orders that were significant to them in opposition they want gone now they are in government.
The culture of secrecy that has been there from day one in this government is something that today enters the Australian parliament. Today, the culture of secrecy and the silencing of public discussion reaches the floor of the House of Representatives with the culling of speaking times, with the abolition of supplementary questions and—most disturbingly—with the change to the role of the Speaker to make the Speaker the chief censor in the Australian parliament. I find it absolutely extraordinary that anybody who believes in having a robust chamber could think that it was fair and reasonable for the Speaker to adjudicate on whether or not a political argument is accurate simply because someone on the government side has stood up and said that they feel that they were misrepresented.
After what we saw this morning with the interpretation that was litigated in the way that it was—and 'interpretation' is a very generous way of describing the farce of this morning—I think we have a pretty good idea that the government intend for this censorship power to be used absolutely by the Speaker. While they intend to engage in childish name-calling and in the teasing of a school playground, they also intend to make sure that political argument is shut down. This House should not let them get away with this today. This House should not stand idly by while the executive is again allowed to silence debate in this chamber.
Not only are the principles that are being undone principles that have been longstanding practice within this parliament; they are also the opposite of what this government told us it was going to do. In January of this year, the current Leader of the House made a speech explaining what changes he would bring to the new parliament if he became Leader of the House. Those election commitments, one by one, have been abrogated. We and the Australian people are discovering that those opposite are not being who they told the Australian people that they would be. Backbench question time is gone. We even had the quip from the Leader of the House earlier, saying, 'Every question time is backbench question time!' He was not saying that in January; he was not using that argument then. The Leader of the House said then that there would be an independent Speaker who would not attend party room meetings. That died yesterday. And it will be a very sad day on Tuesday of next week when, once again, the exact opposite of something that the government said they would do will happen now that they occupy the government benches.
We had from the Leader of the House example after example of reforms that he would make to the parliament. Another one, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, was about your own position. There was going to be a guarantee in writing signed by the Leader of the House that that position would go to the opposition party. That was abrogated yesterday. Deputy Speaker, we have great respect for you in this job. We have a view about a particular promotion that may have been warranted. But there is no doubt that the litany of examples of this government doing something very different to what it told the Australia people it would do has now reached the floor of the parliament.
It is bad enough that the government are not doing the things they told us they would do. What is worse is that they are now going in the exact opposite direction. They are carving up speaking times and making sure that the opportunities for dissent within this parliament are taken away. They are turning the role of the Speaker from that of an arbiter and adjudicator to that of a censorship board. That is not what the Speaker is meant to be about. I am not sure what recommendation has caused this rush of blood to the head of the Leader of the House—that somehow he thinks that the role of the Speaker should be fundamentally changed so that, instead of being the person who manages and adjudicates the debate and who looks after the House, they become the person to stifle debate and to prevent members of parliament being able to put a counterview to the executive.
If you wanted to put a counterview in speeches, those speeches have now been cut. If you wanted to put a counterview in the MPI debate, that debate is about to be curtailed. If you wanted to pursue a minister through a supplementary question, the supplementary questions are now gone. And if you thought the Speaker had any chance of being impartial, unfortunately, what is proposed here puts the Speaker in an impossible position. It puts the Speaker right in the middle of making a judgment call that is not procedural but political. The House should recognise exactly what the Leader of the House is putting forward here and should reject it.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (11:43): I rise to oppose the motion and I move amendments (1), (2), (3) and (4) together, as circulated in my name:
(1) Omit proposed standing order 34, substitute:
34 Order of business
The order of business to be followed by the House is shown in figure 2.
Figure 2. House order of business
|
MONDAY |
|
TUESDAY |
|
WEDNESDAY |
|
THURSDAY |
|
|
|
|
|
Acknowledgement
Prayers |
|
Acknowledgement
Prayers |
|
|
|
|
9.00 am |
|
9.00 am |
|
|
Acknowledgement
Prayers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.00 am |
Petitions (to 10.10am) Committee & delegation business and private Members' business Divisions and quorums deferred 10am–12 noon |
|
Acknowledgement
Prayers |
|
Government
|
|
Government
|
12 noon |
Government
|
12 noon |
Government Business Divisions and quorums between 12 and 2pm Deferred until after MPI |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.45 pm |
90 sec statements |
|
1.45 pm |
90 sec statements |
1.45 pm |
90 sec statements |
|
2.00 pm |
Question
|
2.00 pm |
Question
|
2.00 pm |
Question
|
2.00 pm |
Question
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
||||
approx. 3.10 pm |
Ministerial
|
approx. 3.10 pm |
MPI, Ministerial statements |
approx. 3.10 pm |
MPI, Ministerial statements |
approx. 3.10 pm |
MPI, Ministerial statements |
|
|||||||
|
|
approx 4.10 pm |
|
approx 4.10 pm |
|
approx 4.10 pm |
Government Business |
|
4.30 pm |
Adjournment
|
|||||
|
Government
|
|
Government
|
|
Government
|
||
|
|
|
5.00 pm |
|
|||
6.30 pm |
Divisions and quorums deferred 6.30–8 pm* |
6.30 pm
|
Divisions and quorums deferred 6.30–8 pm* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.30 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjournment
|
||||||
8.00 pm |
Private Members' Business |
8.00 pm |
|
8.00 pm |
|
|
|
9.00 pm |
Adjournment
|
9.00 pm |
Adjournment
|
|
|
|
|
9.30 pm |
|
9.30 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
(2) Add the following paragraph to standing order 100:
(g) At each Question Time, after five questions have been asked and answered, if a non-aligned Member rises to ask a question he or she shall be given the call.
(3) Omit proposed standing order 192, substitute:
192 Federation Chamber's order of business
The normal order of business of the Federation Chamber is set out in figure 4.
Figure 4. Federation Chamber order of business
|
MONDAY |
|
TUESDAY |
|
WEDNESDAY |
|
THURSDAY |
|
|
|
|
9.30 am |
3 min constituency statements |
9.30 am |
3 min constituency statements |
|
|
|
|
10.00 am |
Government business and/or
|
10.00 am |
Government business and/or
|
10.30 am |
3 min constituency statements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.00 am |
Committee & delegation business and private Members' business |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12.30 pm |
Adjournment
|
1.30 pm |
|
|
|
1.00 pm |
|
1.00 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.00 pm |
|
4.00 pm |
If required |
4.00 pm |
If required |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Government business |
||||||
6.30pm |
Private Members' Business |
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.00 pm |
|
|
|
7.00 pm |
|
|
|
Grievance debate
|
|||||||
9.00 pm |
|
9.00 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
(4) Omit proposed standing order 222(b) Selection Committee, substitute:
222 Selection Committee
(b) The committee shall consist of eleven members: the Speaker, or in the absence of the Speaker the Deputy Speaker, the Chief Government Whip or his or her nominee, the Chief Opposition Whip or his or her nominee, the Third Party Whip or his or her nominee, three government Members, two opposition Members and two non-aligned Members. The Speaker shall be the Chair of the committee. A quorum shall be three members of the committee.
The standing orders that we have at the moment are a consequence of the last parliament. One of the best things about the last parliament was the election of six members to the crossbench by the Australian people. That introduced a new era of openness, debate and transparency in the functioning of this chamber; and, despite the best attempts of the then opposition, it was in fact quite a productive time for parliament. One of the key reasons for that was that in the last parliament there was significant time for private members debate. That was not just time for debate on matters raised by the crossbench; it was for all private members. So it gave an opportunity for private members from the government side and the opposition side to raise matters that were of concern to them and that might not otherwise have had an airing. And in the last parliament there was, on average, seven hours of private members' business scheduled, both here and in the Federation Chamber, during the course of an average week. That allowed time for a number of things to happen. One was the debating of private members' bills. As a result of that, we saw in the last parliament reforms that we would not have seen had this place remained a two-party closed shop.
One of the reforms we saw made sure that firefighters who contracted cancer were able to more readily access the workers compensation that up until then would have been denied them. Before that, each time they fronted up to get compensation the lawyers and the courts would say, 'Unless you can tell us which fire the toxic smoke came from that caused you cancer, you won't get compensation.' That issue had gone unaddressed by successive parliaments for several years. In the last parliament I was able to introduce a bill to remedy that situation. That bill not only ended up getting debated but also ended up being co-sponsored by the then government and members of the opposition, and it went through this place without any dissent. Had there not been, under the last parliament, the standing orders that enabled extensive discussion of issues like that, we would not have that significant reform in place today.
Another bill that was debated—and the member for Denison may have something to say about this—ensured that there was additional protection for whistleblowers; something, again, that had been talked about for some time but that successive parliaments, under the two-party closed shop, had not taken action on. And there was, of course, another attempt by the former member for Lyne to bring before the House a bill that I profoundly disagree with but that nonetheless is on the topical issue of the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers. That was debated in a way that previously it would not have been. And it was not just bills that were debated in the previous parliament in this private members' time; we had motions debated as well. One of those motions was successful and actually got the support of the opposition, and that was to ensure that the government was put on notice to secure funding for health and medical research in this country at a time when previous budgets had threatened cuts to it.
But perhaps the motion—as opposed to the bill—that was the most significant in the last parliament was the motion to get members of parliament to go and consult their constituencies on the question of equal marriage. That motion passed. It ensured that there was lively debate in this place about a matter that otherwise would not have been debated, and it has helped set reform in this country on track so that it is now a matter of when, not if, we will have equal marriage.
All of that happened because of private members' time and because of the role of the crossbench in the last parliament. That was assisted because under the existing standing orders, which it is proposed will be amended by this motion, there was a selection committee in place. The selection committee moved this parliament beyond the situation in which the processes of this parliament and the timing were just a result of a deal done in a two-party closed shop by the whips, behind closed doors, and instead made it a committee of this parliament where non-aligned members—members not in the government or in the opposition—were able to participate.
As a result of the considerable goodwill that was shown by all sides on that selection committee, everyone got a go. It was not dominated by members of the crossbench, it was not dominated by private members from the government side or from the opposition side, and it allowed debates on matters that otherwise would not have happened. And, indeed, members of the crossbench and the government supported the now Prime Minister debating his legislation in private members' time, and it was done in an orderly way that respected not only the fact that there were six members of the crossbench elected to parliament but also that the reason those six were there—and you have seen it again at this election—was that about 20 per cent of the country does not want to vote for Labor or the coalition. They want a diversity of voices in parliament, and the way that that diversity of voices in parliament is represented and the way that we have the sunlight shining in and greater transparency in the operations of this parliament than we have had before is through the continued representation of members of the crossbench who are prepared to hold this two-party closed shop to account.
Now, that was one aspect. Another aspect was the time that was being given to private members. And another aspect that aided the discussion of issues in the last parliament that would not have otherwise have been raised was the question of questions during question time. Prior to the last parliament, members of the crossbench—members who are not on the government or the opposition side—rarely had an opportunity to ask meaningful questions during an appropriate time in question time. And in the last parliament it was agreed that the sixth question of each day—not the sixth government or opposition question, but the sixth question that was asked—would go to members of the crossbench. That resulted in matters being raised that would otherwise not have been raised, because many, many times—and we saw this on display in the last parliament—you find that the government and the opposition are voting together on a matter and it is left to members of the crossbench to raise the alternative argument. We saw that with the question of sending refugees offshore, we saw it with the question of putting refugees into mandatory detention and indefinite detention and we saw it—most importantly, especially given today—with the appalling approach taken by both sides on climate change, with an inadequate five per cent pollution reduction target, being there by so-called bipartisan commitment.
The standing orders underpinned the ability of the crossbench to raise those issues in question time. What we are seeing in this proposed set of amendments is another step in the shutting down of debate and transparency and openness in this parliament. If I have my maths right, the private members' time goes down almost by half, from seven hours to 4½ hours. That is why I am moving amendments (1) and (3): to restore that time, which resulted in the significant reforms I referred to before.
Significantly, the government is now attempting to take control of the Selection Committee—and there is to be no position for any member of the crossbench, no position for any non-aligned member, on the Selection Committee. The Leader of the House made the point that he did not think the Selection Committee should be one where the government did not have the numbers. But that is not the same as saying the Selection Committee should be one where there is not even a member of the crossbench at all—because one of the purposes of the Selection Committee is to order the private members' time. As I have explained, that is the way in which crossbench members get their say in this parliament. Taking off one member of the crossbench—even one, when there were two last time—and not even having one on the Selection Committee under these proposed standing orders is going to turn this place back into that two-party closed shop that the Leader of the House so desperately desires and ensure that they are not held to account by members of the crossbench, who are standing up for that over-20 per cent of the Australian population who said, 'We want a different kind of representation and a different kind of politics.' And that is why I am moving amendment (4): to ensure that there is a position for a member of the crossbench on the Selection Committee. That should be unobjectionable.
Even more unobjectionable should be amendment (2). This amendment seeks to ensure that members of the crossbench will continue to be able to ask a question at spot No. 6 during question time. It may be said that the last parliament was different. Well, I can say this: there were six members elected to the crossbench at the start of the last parliament and there are five now, so there is still a significant desire from the Australian population to have alternative voices in parliament. That means we need to be able to ask questions in question time. I am very pleased that the Leader of the House has written to me saying that he intends to keep that practice.
Mr Pyne: Correct. So why the amendments?
Mr BANDT: So I presume, then, that the government will support the amendment to put it into the standing orders—because having it in the standing orders will ensure that a member of the crossbench will be able, at each and every question time, to ask questions, as has been the case in the past.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
Mr BANDT: I hear the Leader of the House interjecting to say that yes, he did write that letter and that he does agree to that, so I presume that the government will support this amendment.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Are the amendments moved by the member for Melbourne seconded?
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (11:55): Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the amendments. In addressing this issue the Leader of the House says, 'I've given you a letter saying I'm going to do this.' Well, I am holding a letter with 20 items on it saying it is going to be the policy to do 'this, this, this and this'—and I think half of them have been spat upon. The ALP gave me a letter to the same effect, and half of those have not been treated with honesty and integrity, if I could put it that way. So what we have here is them saying, 'Trust me.' It is one of my standard jokes: whenever I say something to someone, I say, 'Trust me,' and they burst out laughing! The only place it is not a laughing matter, apparently, is here—it is taken seriously when someone says, 'Trust me.'
Australia is now delineated as the only country left on earth that has a two-party system. Some of you will say America has a two-party system. America has a constituency based system. It is an entirely different system from anywhere else in the world. A quick example is the ethanol debate in the United States. All 12 senators from the oil-producing states voted against it and of course senators from the other states—because ethanol is something that should be done everywhere in the world, for health and medical reasons—all voted for it. There was no voting along party lines. It is a constituency based system and entirely different.
So I defy anyone to point out to me a country left in the world that has a two-party system. It is a primitive system that dates back to 18th century England. It has been completely bypassed by every other country on earth. It doesn't matter whether it is Germany, Japan, France, Canada or Brazil—no other country on earth has this primitive system. But there is an absolute determination, not only by the Liberal Party but also by the Labor Party, that there will be no other players out there—'There will be no other point of view except our point of view and their point of view.' And since both points of view are free-market points of view then the non free-market point of view does not get aired, or even have the opportunity to be aired, by the people of Australia.
With the little power that the people have had in this place, they have exercised that power wisely. In this place Peter Andren and I moved against the sale of the Snowy Mountains scheme. Every single opinion poll that was taken in Australia said 80 per cent of the people in Australia tenaciously opposed the sale of the Snowy Mountains scheme—yet both sides of this parliament agreed unanimously, in this place and in the other place, to sell the Snowy Mountains scheme. But the rage of the people was able to assert itself and we were going to force you to vote on it in this place. So when you were going to vote on it the first time, and the rage and the wrath of people like John Laws and Alan Jones was unleashed upon you, and the power of your electorates was unleashed upon you, 11 of you went off wetting your pants, running to the Prime Minister John Howard—and, God bless John Howard: he showed the good sense and was a big enough man to reverse that decision. I use that as an example. There would not be a person in Australia, I would think, who would not have thanked Peter Andren and me for being in this place and being able to exercise that power to force you to vote on it.
What is happening here is that every effort is being made to extinguish, as far as humanly possible, every other voice except the executive voice. As the honourable speaker for the opposition side: the biggest losers here are you backbenchers! You have been reduced to nothing at all. You didn't start with much but you are going to have one hell of a lot less!
I was in a cabinet room for the best part of a decade and I can tell you what is said in the cabinet room: 'We've got to shut up some of these nutcases on the back bench. We can't have backbenchers shooting their mouths off and embarrassing the government.' So what is happening here is not so much a mugging of us; it is a mugging of you. The member for Perth, who has been on the front bench for an extended period of time, knows exactly what I am talking about.
The ethanol debate in this place was another classic example. Both sides of the parliament agreed to go in one direction. The competitive system, the adversarial system, has some advantages. The Liberals, in opposition, were pro-ethanol, as they were in Queensland; but when they get into government they take an entirely different position. The Liberals switched their position on ethanol because the crossbenchers were very strongly for ethanol—every other country on earth has moved down that path. And once again the crossbenchers were able to side with the then opposition, the LNP, and preserve the little bit of an ethanol industry that we have got left in Australia. This is a very important issue in Australia. Some 1,400 people die every year in Sydney from motor vehicle emissions; they kill more people in Australia than motor vehicle accidents.
The mining tax on metals was another issue again. The Rudd government were quite comfortable, with their numbers, to be able to whack that mining tax through, including metals. I am the first to admit that there is a case for it—although I am not voting that way—with iron ore and coal. There is still a strong case and a strong argument on iron ore and coal. But there was never an argument on metals. To put a mining tax on metals was a diabolical occurrence. It has precipitated a course of events that in North Queensland has placed a copper mine in jeopardy. Of our two big copper miners, Kagara Zinc has hit the wall and ceased operations, and Mount Isa Mines are reviewing all of their operations as well. To throw a mining tax into that mix was a diabolical move.
But once again there is a little bit of a voice of the people here on the crossbench. We represent a very wide range of views in Australia. We have the honourable member for Melbourne, who is a representative of the Greens, and we have the honourable member for Kennedy, who is the representative of the anti-Greens. So we have a divergence of opinion on the crossbench. But it is a viewpoint of Australia that is not the viewpoint of executive government. Executive government, of its very nature, comes under enormous pressure from the corporates. That is part of the system. It is a very evil part of the system but it is an integral part of the system whichever government may be in power. Whether it is ALP, Liberal or some other government, they come under pressure from the corporates.
If you people on the back bench open your mouth, you can kiss goodbye to your endorsement. We all know that that is the reality—and it is even worse over on this side of the House on that front. But we crossbenchers need to open our mouths or else we will not get re-elected; we are forced by the people to open our mouths. When you are forced to vote in here on an motion moved by the crossbench it is not a lot of fun—when you have to face up to your electorate and vote for things like the sale of the Snowy Mountains hydro scheme or the sale of the electricity industry in Australia in the state houses.
There is not a lot of analysis throughout the world. I am a prolific reader, but there are not a lot of books in the world on the performance of democracies. Except for a few interesting books that are out on California at the moment, there is not much going around in that area. But when they were forming democracies throughout the world, Alexis de Tocqueville was obviously the greatest commentator. He spoke again and again and again about the tyranny of the majority. John Stuart Mill, on probably every 10th page of his book On Liberty, makes reference to the tyranny of the majority. He says democracy is not a fair form of government, not a just form of government; it is just a form of government that lives on the majority opinion. But if the minority has no right to speak at all then injustice reigns supreme: the majority get what they want—at the very great expense of minority groups.
And that is why every country in the world has smaller parties and a multiparty system. There is a particular group of people over here who represent manufacturing interests—which, of course, have been slaughtered in Australia. There is a particular group over there, the agriculturists, which is another group in Australia that is being slaughtered. They deserve to have a voice in this place. But they do not have a voice if they are in a majority party, because that is not the majority of opinion. The majority of opinion is free market—which means there is no government that will involve itself in preserving agriculture or manufacturing. So the efforts by the government here, clearly and simply, are primarily to muzzle their own backbenchers and, to a lesser extent, the opposition—but their performance has been so appalling I suspect they do not want to muzzle them; I think they want them to speak out. Most certainly, they want to muzzle the backbenchers.
I come out of the state of Queensland. I thought the Bjelke-Petersen government were pretty bad in the way we treated our opposition, but we were kindergarteners compared with the LNP's efforts now to muzzle all opposition in Queensland. I mean, really, one has to go to the fascist states to find out what is going on: Vietnam vets who ride motorbikes are being put in jail even though they have not broken any laws. The Ulysses Club, which is made up of professional people—very well off, up market, upper class if you like to use that word—that ride motorbikes and get together and have bit of fun. They have ended up in the clink because they were riding a motorbike!
This sort of regime can be addressed if there is a voice of the people. But if your efforts muzzle the voice of the people then you are sowing the whirlwind and you will reap it, as did these people on the right-hand side. They treated the Australian people with contempt, they flew in 125,000 workers from overseas to take our jobs, they sold off asset after asset, and they paid the price—as you people did before them. If I could give you a little word of advice in governing—and I was in a pretty successful government—the best thing you can do is listen to the opposition. When the National Party in Queensland ceased to listen to the Liberal Party and tried to destroy it, from that moment forward we were doomed as a political force in that state. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, proceed. But we will do our best to ensure that the people of Australia know what you are doing—you are trying to muzzle your backbench and you are trying to muzzle the people on this side of the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the amendments be agreed to. I just have a little bit of advice for the member for Kennedy: could he please desist from referring to the chair as 'you', as he did in his address a moment ago in a reflection on the chair.
Mr Katter interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Kennedy does not have the call. He has had the call. The question is that the amendments be agreed to. I call the Leader of the House.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Minister for Education and Leader of the House) (12:09): I move:
That the question be now put.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the question be now put.
The House divided. [12:13]
(The Deputy Speaker—Hon. BC Scott)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) (12:13): The question now is that the amendments be agreed to.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Minister for Education and Leader of the House) (12:22): I move:
That the question be now put.
Mr Albanese: No, you have already moved that.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! The member for Grayndler does not have the call. The question was clear—that the amendments be put. We are now going to the amendments. The question is that the amendments be agreed to. I have called the Leader of the House and he has moved—
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (12:22): I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The question that was before the chair was that the amendments be put. That was then put and carried. Now the amendments must be put. That is the question that is before the chair, and we are not able to intervene. Therefore, the question before the chair is not that the question be put; it is that the amendment be put and you must put that, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
The House divided. [12:28]
(The Deputy Speaker—Mr B. Scott)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) (12:33): The question now is the original motion as moved by the Leader of the House relating to proposed amendments to the standing orders in the terms which appear in the Notice Paper.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Minister for Education) (12:33): I move:
That the question be now put.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): I put the question, as moved by the Leader of the House, that the motion be put.
A division having been called and the bells being rung—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Grayndler will know that I have called the division and the bells to be rung for one minute.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I appreciate the comments by the member for Grayndler and ask him to resume his seat.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( 12:43 ): The motion now is that the motion as moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to.
The House divided. [12:44]
(The Deputy Speaker—Hon. Bruce Scott)
Question agreed to.
The House divided. [12:35]
(The Deputy Speaker—Hon. BC Scott)
GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH
Address-in-Reply
Mr Nikolic, for the committee elected to prepare an address-in-reply to the speech of Her Excellency the Governor-General, presented the proposed address, which was read by the Clerk. The proposed address read as follows:
May it please Your Excellency:
We, the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Excellency for the speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament.
Mr NIKOLIC (Bass) (12:48): I move:
That the Address be agreed to.
Mr NIKOLIC: As someone who first swore loyalty to the Queen of Australia in 1979, and has held the Queen's Commission for over 30 years, I am honoured to move this address. I commence by congratulating you on your election. With your nuanced appreciation of the conventions of the House, I know you will grace the chair with patience, wisdom and aplomb. I also extend my congratulations to the Deputy Speaker and the Second Deputy Speaker on their elections.
Let me begin by acknowledging the debt of gratitude I owe to so many others, a debt that I am determined to repay through and by dedicated service in this parliament, a treasured—even sacred—privilege and trust, and one which is much sought but seldom given.
In this my first speech, I hope to do two things: firstly, to do a measure of justice—however inadequate—to the many factors which have contributed to my presence in this parliament; secondly, to articulate the strong—and I suspect not unique—burden of responsibility I feel to complete all of my duties to this House and to the nation it represents. Australia and her people deserve nothing less.
For much of the last three years I have campaigned full-time for the honour of representing the people of Northern Tasmania. Being elected as the member for Bass and serving the interests of my community, of my country, is the greatest honour of my life. I thank the former member, Geoff Lyons, for his contribution to Northern Tasmania but, above all, I thank the people of Bass for the trust they have vested in me. I will work diligently to repay that trust and to serve their interests with the same distinction shown by Kevin Newman and Warwick Smith, who were collectively elected nine times as members for Bass. I acknowledge, also, the longest serving of my predecessors, Lance Barnard.
Like most Australians, there are a small number of life-changing events that have nudged my life's journey on its unique arc—a trajectory, I admit, which has not always been elegant or graceful but one which has been consistently interesting and rich, in the best sense of that word.
One such event was my parents' decision to migrate to Australia in early 1965 from a village in the former Yugoslavia. I honour my birthplace and the decisions my parents took to seek a better life. Like most migrant families, we had highs and lows, but it is undeniable that everything I have achieved since arriving in Australia results from citizenship of this great country.
Our early years in Australia were spent in Melbourne, before we moved to the outback opal-mining town of Andamooka and then, in 1973, to Adelaide, where my mother raised three boys on her own. We received help to overcome the inevitable challenges. A Housing Trust home was allocated to us and, when our mother became ill, we received great care from the St Joseph's Home for Boys—something I will never forget. I thank the Catholic Church for its support at that time—compassion not always or fully acknowledged today.
Those years in the northern suburbs of Adelaide instilled valuable lessons in life and a sense of belonging. They reinforced the value of reward for effort, the importance of community, and the close correlation between effort and ambition.
The Australian Regular Army, which I joined as a 17-year-old private soldier, was a second great shaping influence in my life. A 31-year career followed with opportunities to lead the world's best soldiers in peace and war. My military career encompassed many postings around Australia, and the privilege of living and working in places like Israel, Syria, Southern Lebanon, the Philippines, the United States, Afghanistan and Iraq.
I consider myself fortunate to have served our country on operations—fortunate because of the quality of the Australian service men and women that stood beside me. If I can bring to the deliberations of this House just a little of the quality, character and commitment that they showed, I will be well pleased. I take this opportunity to acknowledge all who have served our country in uniform. To those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice, to Sergeant Andrew Russell and several others, I will never forget you or your service.
I stand in the shadow of other senior military officers elected to this parliament, notable Australians like a distinguished former member for Warringah, Sir Granville Ryrie, Sir Neville Howse VC, Kevin Newman, and the late David Thomson MC—the last two of whom, like me, were products of the Royal Australian Infantry. I add my own tribute to the words of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and others yesterday in support of David Thomson—a life very well lived.
I acknowledge my battalions—the 1st and 3rd battalions of the Royal Australian Regiment, where I served as both an infantry soldier and an officer. The motto of the Royal Australian Regiment, 'Duty First', retains, I think, an enduring relevance in my new role.
During over 20 postings in Australia and overseas our family has forged many friendships. I acknowledge them all and mention a few: Leigh and Liz Shepherd, Mick and Gina Callan, and Paul and Terri Landford—lifelong and loved friends—and Jim Connolly, Gary Bornholt, Mick Humphreys, Jock Campbell, Angus Campbell and Gary Hogan, from my time at Kapyong Barracks.
In more recent years, I served under Lieutenant General Ken Gillespie during Australia's first deployment to Afghanistan in 2001 and, later, when he was Chief of Army and Vice Chief of the Defence Force. Ken is an inspirational leader and I am grateful to have experienced his wisdom and professional example. I acknowledge also and thank General Peter Cosgrove, and British generals Jonathon Riley and Sir Jim Dutton of the Royal Marines, for the opportunities they gave me in southern Iraq.
For most of his time as Chief of the Defence Force, I worked for Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston. Prior to that I worked with the current CDF, General David Hurley. Both are outstanding leaders who afforded me opportunities to participate in events that have truly shaped our military history. On the civilian side of Defence, I have worked with gifted public servants like Peter Jennings and Nick Warner, who exemplify the gold standard of professional public service.
Amongst the defence ministers I have worked with, I acknowledge particularly Dr Brendan Nelson—his mastery of his brief and his close personal commitment to the force protection needs of our troops. I acknowledge also the professionalism of Senator John Faulkner and his office.
I am proud to have served with all of these exceptional leaders.
In its own quiet but rigorously demanding way, the Army, and defence, were very good to, and for, me. In my youth—as with so many others—the Army gave me order, discipline and structure, and, later still, education, training, and, perhaps most importantly, continuous purposeful endeavour and responsibility. Becoming responsible for 30 people at the age of 20 certainly has a way of recasting your priorities in life. These things sustained me and I grew professionally and personally as a result. In an age of increasing and empty celebrity, I am grateful for the substance and foundations given me by defence as a truly national and eminent institution.
But I have left the greatest influence to last. Marrying Christine almost 28 years ago is a standout. Together we have raised a family and shared remarkable times around Australia and the world. More often than not, it was Christine who was primary carer of our children, while working shifts as a nurse. She has tolerated the short-notice moves and unaccompanied postings with all the grit and grace one would expect of a Launceston girl.
We are very proud of our best ever joint project—our three children. We are thankful for their enrichment of our lives. Our elder daughter, Lieutenant Julia Nikolic, will soon complete her second tour of Afghanistan. Our younger daughter, Dr Amanda Nikolic, is about to complete her internship. And our youngest, Matthew, continues with work and study. And, just as Christine compelled me by quiet example to so often step up to the plate in life, so Matthew's sisters are inspiring both him and me with their youthful application and success. In so doing, they embody both merit and young womanhood in action—and more power to them! I acknowledge also my mother, Jelica; Sam; my mother-in-law, Margaret; and my father-in-law, the late Peter Symons, who made a wonderful contribution to Northern Tasmania. Symons Court in Launceston is named after him, and I aspire to his remarkable generosity of spirit.
Finally, before I move on to other matters, it is never lost on me that my family exemplifies what some have called the Australian compact—the provision of opportunity matched by the requirement for individuals to seize that opportunity with equivalent focus, drive and effort. Like everything in life, the Australian compact is imperfect, but few countries can genuinely boast of anything like it to the same degree as Australia can.
I know, too, that others in this House, and indeed the country, have similar stories to my own—different perhaps in the detail but united nevertheless by the consistent and interwoven threads of opportunity seized, personal ambition and sheer hard work. In short, I have seen enough of the world under all conditions to appreciate that this is a country like no other.
The electorate I am honoured to represent is a diverse and beautiful part of Australia. From the Cataract Gorge in Launceston, winding along the Tamar River to George Town and Low Head, there is much to admire and protect, as there is in the coastal areas to Bridport, the rich chocolate soils and pasture country of the north-east and the scenic beauty of the Furneaux Group of islands.
The people of Bass are rich in character and aspiration. They rely on the institutions comprising our parliamentary democracy to fulfil those aspirations. As Her Excellency the Governor-General pointed out yesterday, the election on 7 September reminds us all of how proud we should be of our democratic institutions. It was a peaceful, tolerant and open election—a valuable dividend from successive generations who have maintained a patient, purposeful and evolutionary approach to strengthening our democracy. Those of us who have witnessed firsthand the alternatives around the world are reminded that we must cherish what we have and what we sometimes, regrettably, take for granted. Modern, functioning democracy is and will remain, in equal parts, rare, precious and fragile. Widespread, active and moderate participation in it is probably its best safeguard.
I am proud to be a member of a party that puts the needs of its people first and that is committed to creating the conditions where our people's dreams can flourish in response to their own effort and commitment, a party focussed on encouraging the initiative of our citizens, not on centralising responsibility in this parliament. To paraphrase Her Excellency's remarks yesterday, we are not about bigger government but stronger people.
Earlier I referred to some shaping experiences that underpin my values and beliefs. These can be distilled to three key priorities. The first is nurturing a stronger sense of community and citizenship. Second is minimising government intervention and impact on the rights and responsibilities of the individual. Third is enabling and empowering individual aspiration and reward for effort so as to encourage and foster wider investment and entrepreneurship. Together and individually these things are mutually supporting and deserve this parliament's support.
My early priorities in Bass are simply to deliver that which we promised during the election: a significant federal boost to support a healthier Tamar River; transforming Launceston's North Bank; new mountain bike trails in the north-east; the refurbishment of Invermay Park, where Ricky Ponting first showed his talents; addressing a major traffic and safety hot spot on Westbury Road; and building Northern Tasmania's most significant stormwater harvesting scheme at George Town. In the recent election, Bass swung by almost 11 per cent, signalling a strong desire for change. My community wants me, as their voice in Canberra, and those of us on this side of the House, to focus on real and practical action to overcome the many problems confronting our state. This is unsurprising given Tasmania's performance against a range of national benchmarks. Our jobless rate of above eight per cent is shameful and is up almost 43 per cent on the decade average. Our employment participation rate is too low and the youth unemployment rate disturbingly high. We are sick of hearing the words 'slow lane' associated with Tasmania. As one of three new Tasmanian representatives in this House, as one of the three amigos along with the members for Braddon and Lyons, we are committed to redressing the parlous decline in Tasmania's fortunes. The top three priorities in our home state, now and for the foreseeable future, will be jobs, jobs and jobs.
I thank the Prime Minister for his personal commitment to a brighter future for Tasmania, for his frequent visits to our state and for his personal encouragement of me. I was very pleased that yesterday Her Excellency highlighted the new government's economic growth plan for Tasmania. The plan, announced by the Prime Minister on 15 August, will address critical deficiencies, enabling us to reset our economic course to a brighter future. That includes reinvigorating valuable industries like forestry and mining, optimising the benefits of new irrigation projects, exploring the exciting possibilities to develop the DSTO facility at Scottsdale, better utilising the training potential of the Australian Maritime College, encouraging more Tasmanians into work not welfare, transforming our educational approach in Tasmania into better tertiary and vocational pathways that accentuate quality over quantity, and ensuring that those who want to invest in Tasmania can do so without myriad unnecessary obstacles.
Delivering on these initiatives and our national priorities requires commitment and persistence. We see in Prime Minister Tony Abbott and in this government the character and commitment to do what we said. I know Australians will welcome that. They will welcome the coalition's reduction of debt and a live-within-our-means philosophy. As Her Excellency said yesterday, every dollar the government spends is a dollar made by someone else. It is important that all of us remember that.
Australians will also welcome the scrapping of unnecessary taxes and red tape, the establishment of enduring disincentives for the people-smuggling trade and the promotion of greater productivity and a cooperative workplace culture of partnership and continuous improvement. They will most certainly welcome constructive and civil engagement in this parliament focussed on solving problems beyond this chamber. If there is one thing that the 43rd Parliament sharply illustrated, and the last four years in my home state have regrettably shown, it is that government in Australia is always best served when the established mainstream political parties are strong—both the Liberal-National coalition and the Labor Party. This sets the foundation for a robust contest of ideas on the matters most relevant to our people. This strength is also more likely to generate valid alternative policy positions, and such strength may also negate the damaging pitfalls of minority party, single-focus politics, of which the Australian people are understandably weary. In addition to my primary responsibility to the people of Bass, I want to help develop good policies in the areas of international relations and defence. I will actively promote the need to reinvigorate a sense of citizenship in our country, to ensure that we more fully acknowledge the responsibilities that derive from the proud claim 'I am an Australian.'
I thank the hundreds of friends and campaign workers who have tirelessly supported my election. I cannot mention them all, but I acknowledge particularly John Oldenhof, Linda Madill, Lynn Presnell, Richard Trethewie, Kristen Finnigan, Anita Devlin, Peter Collenette, Leanne Holland, Tim Robertson and Dorothy Dehais. More recently, I am grateful for the efforts of Wendy Summers and Don Morris and my new office staff for so quickly establishing our presence in Launceston.
I thank former Prime Minister John Howard for his thoughtful advice in recent years, and acknowledge the many colleagues in this House who have supported me. In addition to the Prime Minister, I particularly recognise the members for Flinders, Sturt, Paterson and Wentworth. I acknowledge also the support of our hardworking Tasmanian Senate team, particularly Senator Eric Abetz and my Launceston based colleague Senator Stephen Parry.
I thank the state Liberal team led by Will Hodgman; Peter Gutwein, for his contribution; and especially Michael Ferguson, a former federal member for Bass. I thank Wendy Summers again for her tireless work as my campaign director; and the Tasmanian division of the Liberal Party, ably led by Sam McQuestin.
Madam Speaker, I conclude by thanking the people of Bass for the trust they have placed in me and I recommit myself to working hard every single day in support of their interests and aspirations. I commend the motion to the House.
The SPEAKER: Before I call the honourable member for Corangamite, I ask members in the House to extend the same courtesies to her as you did to the member for Bass in the making of his maiden speech. I call the member for Corangamite to second the motion and give her speech.
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (13:08): I second the motion. Madam Speaker, may I begin by congratulating you on achieving the high office of Speaker. After the past three years, I believe Australians are looking forward to a renewed dignity and order in this place. You will no doubt play a pivotal, or perhaps even formidable, role in restoring full public confidence in the Commonwealth parliament of this great nation.
I am honoured and proud to rise to speak for the first time, as the 14th member for Corangamite. To the people of Corangamite: I am deeply conscious of the responsibility and trust you have placed in me. Thank you. We live in an electorate which is vast and diverse and abounds with many of nature's gifts. Our coastline alone spans 188 kilometres, from the historic township of Queenscliff to Ocean Grove and the rolling surf of Torquay, all the way along the magnificent Great Ocean Road, past rugged limestone and sandstone cliffs and white beaches as far as the eye can see, and vibrant coastal communities, places like Anglesea, Lorne and Apollo Bay, to Cape Otway and beyond. This is a journey made possible by the sweat and toil of the returned soldiers of the Great War who built this iconic road between 1919 and 1932. It is the world's largest war memorial.
Now one of our prized tourism destinations, 1.7 million tourists travel the Great Ocean Road each year, bringing $2.1 billion to the Australian economy. The Liberal Party's $25 million election commitment to upgrade this road, matched by another $25 million from the Victorian government, is an investment not just in tourism but in jobs, road safety and our regional economy. That is why building the roads of the 21st century is so important.
In my electorate, there is much wonder to be found inland. There are the soaring rainforests and old timber towns of the Otways and further on. There are rolling hills of beef and dairy cattle and sheep, and crops of wheat, barley and canola from Winchelsea to Colac and Cressy, and from Bannockburn to Smythesdale. There is a rich diversity of industry across the landscape—timber and lamb in Colac; goats cheese in Meredith; poultry and pigs in Lethbridge; and agroforestry and organic produce through the valleys of the Otways.
Our primary producers are so important to our nation. They run businesses which help to keep country communities vibrant and which put food on the table. They are sustained by hard work, by innovation and, at times—in the face of drought and financial hardship—by sheer resilience.
With Australian farmers exporting 60 per cent of what they grow and produce, we must do all we can to open new markets and finalise free trade agreements with the likes of China and South Korea. In my electorate, our predecessor's failure to make these agreements a priority—along with the carbon tax and a raft of regulatory burdens—has taken its toll.
Corangamite stretches into the southern suburbs of Geelong, which has a history rich in wool and manufacturing. It is now also a city of administration, education and innovation. Geelong is the home of Deakin University, the Transport Accident Commission and the mighty Cats. It will be the new headquarters of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. In its Barwon trial stage, the NDIS is already providing so much hope to so many.
There are many great success stories, particularly in small business—the quiet heroes of our national economy, and we have much potential, as a centre of educational excellence and in carbon fibre production, ecotourism, high-value manufacturing, food processing, the health sciences and innovation. But we also face challenges. As I stand here today, 299 Qantas workers from its heavy maintenance base in Avalon are coming to grips with losing their jobs. Under the previous federal government, Ford announced it would cease manufacturing cars in Australia in 2016; Alcoa declared that it was reviewing the future of its Point Henry smelter, such an important employer for our region; Shell's North Geelong refinery was put up for sale.
At the 2013 federal election, the Australian people were looking for change. They were seeking stable and competent government. But with this comes great responsibility. As a government we know how important it is to get our policy settings right, to build a strong and prosperous economy, to drive investment and job creation. To do this we also need to harness the ideas and determination of the Australian people. That is because it is the enterprise, freedom and hard work of individuals which unleash our greatest potential. A nation which puts its people above its government is one which invests in its future. A nation which aspires to foster the best in its people is one which cares for those who need our help. These are the values of Liberalism which I hold so dear.
Today, I reiterate my solemn commitment that I will be the strong, local voice that the people of Corangamite so deserve. Sometimes this will require only a whisper; at other times, a roar of determination. I am up for the challenge. I have spent most of my life speaking out and standing up for others: in journalism, in law and in small business. I am humbled to continue this work as a servant of the people.
I grew up in a family which believed that anything was possible. It is wonderful to see my sister, Jodie, with her three children, Angus, Marcus and Louis, and my brother, Andrew, in the gallery today. There are other special family members here also including my aunt, Virginia Hansen, who is a bit like my second mother, and her husband, Ian. At every turn we were encouraged to be the best that we could be and to follow our dreams. My late parents, Ann and Michael Henderson, built our first family home in Belmont near the Barwon River on the eastern edge of the Corangamite electorate. They shared a strong belief in the importance of family, education and enterprise. They worked hard to give us opportunities—Mum for the likes of Legacy, Do Care and the National Trust, and Dad as one of those caring country solicitors for whom nothing was too much trouble. Our life was full of fun and adventure and my parents were always there for us. Some of my most special memories were in the simple pleasures—our summers on the back beach of Queenscliff, pumpkin soup by the fire on a Sunday afternoon, and visits to the old steam train on Belmont Common.
Mum and Dad were deeply involved in their community, and in politics. Dad was a local councillor and ran for the Victorian seat of Geelong West in the early eighties. He narrowly missed out, as did Mum when she contested the same seat, renamed Geelong, in 1988. But persistence is a hallmark in our family. Mum picked herself up and she ran again and was elected in 1992. I had a similar journey. After falling short in the 2010 federal election I cannot describe how proud my parents would be to see me here today, 21 years later, as the member for Corangamite.
As an advocate Ann Henderson instilled in me the importance of compassion, integrity and common sense. The redevelopment of the Geelong waterfront, a sparkling jewel in our city's crown, was to be her lasting legacy. As housing minister, she revolutionised waiting lists for public housing by giving priority to those most in need. The most vulnerable of families and those with a disability were no longer stuck at the back of the queue. In the best of Liberal traditions, Mum understood that good government often required thinking outside the square and challenging convention. Perhaps her finest moment was in September 1997. As minister for Aboriginal affairs she led the way in apologising, on behalf of the people of Victoria, to the stolen generations.
I could not have wished for a better education, first at Sacred Heart College, Geelong, and then at Geelong College. I was later to complete an honours degree in law at Monash University. I learnt to speak Indonesian because, even back then, I figured it made sense to learn the language of such an important near neighbour. Our government's focus on the Asian century reflects our conviction in the untapped opportunities that Asia presents to this generation and to our children and grandchildren.
I started work at the age of 17 for Channel 7 in Melbourne. Life as a television journalist took me to all corners of this continent and around the world. I reported on stories of injustice and tragedy and human achievement. Yet no-one made more impact on me than a woman called Lynne, one of the survivors of the Port Arthur massacre. She told her story with such bravery and courage. I salute Prime Minister John Howard's decision to restrict gun ownership in the wake of this utterly tragic day. The mark of a great Prime Minister is one who can bring a nation with him or with her. John Howard did this on many issues, but perhaps none more so than gun control. Australians will discover that Prime Minister Tony Abbott has that same capacity for consistent and principled leadership, exercised in the national interest. It is an honour to serve as part of his team.
Dame Enid Lyons, the first woman to take her place in the House of Representatives, spoke of the Australian character in her first speech in 1943. It was formed, she said, by a hatred of oppression, love of a fair go and a passion for justice. It is for these reasons that I decided to study and then practise law. That led to a wonderful opportunity to work in New York in the heady days of the dotcom boom and bust and to start my own business. And it is for these reasons that I stand here today.
Dame Enid made history, but she did not make gender, of itself, an issue. She knew that her success would rise and fall on her capacity for hard work, on her quest for new ideas and on her ability to empathise with the people she represented. Let us fight discrimination at every turn. Let us ensure that we are a country where equality knows no bounds. To lay false claim in the name of one's gender has never been the Australian way.
One of my most rewarding roles was with National Indigenous Television, which is now part of SBS television. I saw the joy that flows when we respect the stories and history of our First Australians. Yesterday, in the welcome to country ceremony on the occasion of the opening of this 44th Parliament, the Prime Minister spoke of his commitment to recognise Indigenous Australians in our Constitution. Like the 1967 referendum, Mabo and the national apology, the recognition of our First Australians will help to heal and unify and better define who we are as a nation.
I look forward to working hard in representing the people of Corangamite on the issues I fought for during my 2013 election campaign: doctor shortages in Colac, better postal services, safer roads and investing in the infrastructure for the future, upgrading the Great Ocean Road and duplicating the Princes Highway from Waurn Ponds all the way to Colac. My No. 1 priority is, and will remain, jobs.
In the services that governments deliver and in the infrastructure they build, I believe there must be greater equity in regional Australia. The tyranny of distance is a constant challenge for all governments. In a continent as large as ours, our comparatively small population does not deliver sufficient revenue to do all things for all people. Tough choices need to be made, yet people living in small country towns and regional cities deserve their fair share of the pie. I will doggedly stand up for all communities in my electorate, big and small, on important issues like communications, better health services, better transport, child care and equal access to education.
In March this year, the small township of Dereel in the northern part of the electorate was hit by bushfire. Sixteen homes were lost in this notorious mobile phone black spot, which to date has not been remedied. With telephone lines down, there was no way of calling for help. I am extremely proud of our $100 million commitment to fix mobile phone black spots, which reflects a genuine care for country people. So I say to the people of Dereel and to communities like Gellibrand, Birregurra and Rokewood: we are listening. We are also listening on the rollout of fast broadband, which will be a priority in regional Australia. The Australia I want to see is one where we can better connect with each other and where families can prosper, no matter where we live. The Australia I want to see is one where businesses can flourish absent of unnecessary regulatory burden, which deadens the spirit of enterprise.
I wish to raise two important issues for the people living in Corangamite. Across what is known as our G21 region, there are more than 23,000 active businesses. More than 80 per cent of these are run by sole traders or have fewer than five employees. Small business is our lifeblood. They need to be supported by policies which allow them to thrive and grow and employ our next generation of Australians. In some sectors the market share of a couple of big players is crushing small business. Our commitment to conduct a root-and-branch review of competition law is one of the important steps we are taking to stand up for the engine room of our economy. I believe in free markets and in competition. That includes combating abuses of market power. I am proud to be part of a government which is not afraid to ask the hard questions.
I also want to highlight the importance of our natural environment. In such a beautiful part of the world, Corangamite residents feel very strongly about protecting one of our most important assets. The Liberal Party has a strong tradition of practical environmentalism. It was the coalition which established stage 1 of Kakadu National Park and ended whaling in Australia. It was the coalition which put the Great Barrier Reef on a sustainable footing a decade ago. We are now delivering a 15,000-strong Green Army and tackling climate change. I commit myself to being a passionate defender of our precious environment.
There are many people to thank who have helped me along my journey. First and foremost I thank local members of the Liberal Party who work so hard. Some are here in the gallery today. I particularly acknowledge Dean Bushell, Robert Hardie, Kerry Ridgeway and my campaign team: Jocelen Griffiths, Robyn Cox, Robert Charles, Ian Smith, David Harris, Simon Terpstra, Amanda McFarlane, Helene Bender and Aaron Lane. In this Federation seat, I acknowledge those who have served before me. They include Stewart McArthur and the former foreign minister Tony Street. Both were great defenders of our Liberal traditions. The Liberal Party is a great organisation. I thank the President of the Liberal Party, Tony Snell, state director, Damien Mantach, and federal director, Brian Loughnane, for all they have done. I wish to make special mention of Prime Minister Abbott, who has encouraged me at every step, along with his chief of staff, Peta Credlin. So many MPs helped my fight. At the risk of naming names, a special thank you to Julie Bishop, Andrew Robb, Joe Hockey, Malcolm Turnbull, Christopher Pyne, Helen Kroger, Josh Frydenberg, Alan Tudge, Dan Tehan and Greg Hunt, who was there for me when the chips were down. To Michael Ronaldson, my former patron senator, thank you.
There are many other friends and supporters who cannot be here today:Jeff Kennett, Robert Doyle, Frank Costa and Jim Cousins. There are some who are here: my dear friendsAlister Paterson, Anna Warne and Angela Pearman.
We all know that preselections can be tough. My battle was no different. But you can find love in the oddest of places. I met my partner, Simon Ramsay, now a Victorian member of parliament, during the 2010 Corangamite preselection. We are a great team and I thank Simon from the bottom of my heart for all his love, support and commitment.
And then there is my beautiful seven-year-old son, Jeremy. We say to each other all the time: 'I love you, all the way to infinity.' Thank you, Jem, for your understanding and support as we embark on this new phase of our lives.
I want to end with a pearl of wisdom from my mother, who was always there to inspire me, even as she battled cancer. In January 2000 she wrote:
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss it, you will land among the stars.
In my service to the people of Corangamite, that is what I will be doing. Thank you.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (13:30): Can I congratulate the members for Bass and Corangamite on the passion with which they have delivered their first speeches and hope that they will serve their constituencies with the same energy and passion as their predecessors did.
I want to begin my remarks today with the stories of two constituents of mine: Carol and Denise. Denise has a 21-year-old son, Tim, with Down syndrome. She regularly has to prove his eligibility for a modest Centrelink payment and work within a system that has not been working for her and has not been working for Tim. Tim's chromosomes are not going to change, but the old system required her to prove that. DisabilityCare will change that.
Then there is 48-year-old Carol, who works as a cleaner. Despite working on Sundays to earn some overtime she still earns less than $37,000 a year. Carol is not alone. A lot of low-income workers in cleaning, aged care, retail and hospitality are not full time and they are predominantly women. The removal of the low-income superannuation contribution will affect 3.6 million Australians and two-thirds of them are women. All of them, like Carol, work hard to make ends meet. They are the mothers who work part time because they are looking after young children. For them, saving for later in life is not a tax strategy.
DisabilityCare and the low-income superannuation contribution demonstrate how Labor takes the initiative to defend those who are doing it tough. Labor is the party of ideas and we are the party of reform, the party with the courage to make the big decisions when they are needed. As the opposition leader said at this year's Fraser lecture:
We’re the dreamers, doers and fighters.
We have ideas, and … we’re prepared to fight to make them a reality.
I agree. Only the Labor Party is prepared to fight for a fair go for all and shoulder the responsibility for reform. Only Labor knows that reform must balance economic imperatives with social need and hope. I am sorry to say that that is in stark contrast to the approach of the Abbott government. We have already seen how quick they are to protect sympathetic vested interests and how much quicker they are to slug those doing it tough.
The Treasurer would have you believe that drastic action has to be taken because of the economic legacy left by Labor. Over the next few weeks we are doubtless going to hear, time and time again, what a terrible state the economy is in. Before the Treasurer attempts to airbrush recent history, let's take a sober and sensible look at the economy that the government have inherited and what they have done with it so far. That look has to recognise the simple, fundamental truth. The government have inherited economic statistics and public finances that are better than those of almost any country in the developed world.
In Business SpectatorStephen Koukoulas wrote, following the 2012 budget outcome in September this year, about some of the salient economic statistics. He pointed out that the budget deficit had fallen to 1.2 per cent of GDP in 2012-13, a reduction of 1.7 per cent in the deficit from the previous financial year. This was, as Mr Koukoulas pointed out, the largest year-to-year fall ever recorded for a budget deficit. Net government debt rose by a paltry 0.1 per cent of GDP in 2012-13, and a 10.1 per cent of GDP gives us one of the lowest levels of government net debt in the world.
Australia remains, despite talk of budget emergencies, one of the few countries to maintain a AAA credit rating from all three international ratings agencies. It fell to the Labor government to deal with the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. But, at the end of that, we left Australia with an unemployment rate well below the average for the developed world and with a level of public debt well below the average for the developed world.
In spite of the global financial crisis we created over one million new jobs, while the rest of the world shed 29 million new jobs. Australian families saw their interest rates fall. A family with an average mortgage of $300,000 was $5,500 better off than they had been when the coalition were last in government.
When he released the budget outcome, the Treasurer claimed that the next year's budget would be the legacy of the Labor Party. How times have changed because, when asked on 6 August, when would a coalition government own the economy, the Treasurer answered:
We will own the economy from day one, whether it's Labor's fault or not. I'm not afraid to accept responsibility and I'm not afraid to be accountable.
But as soon as he became the Treasurer the tune changed. As Stephen Koukoulas has argued, the government has inherited some of the best budget and government debt circumstances in the world. As a share of GDP, government spending is 24 per cent in 2012-13, a little less than the average of 25 per cent over the last 30 years, and approximately the same as the average spending to GDP ratio under the Howard government.
Let us not have the rhetoric of 'profligacy' and 'budget emergencies' in this place. No coalition government has ever once delivered a single year in which there was a cut in real government spending. By contrast, Labor delivered real spending cuts in the last year's budget. Not only did we deliver real spending cuts, we delivered nominal spending cuts. Despite inflation, dollar spending actually fell.
So much for the Treasurer's bluster about waste. Labor's investments were vital investments for Australia's future: DisabilityCare, Better Schools, making sure that Australia's low-income workers did not end up getting a worse deal out of superannuation than the highest income workers. I look forward to the explanations of the Prime Minister, his hand-picked adviser Maurice Newman and the Treasurer to people like Carol and Denise, who are seeing threats to DisabilityCare and who are seeing their superannuation taxes rise, and to those unemployed Australians who are seeing an effective cut in unemployment benefits through the withdrawal of the income support bonus. I look forward to them receiving an adequate explanation from the Prime Minister and the Treasurer.
Treasury estimates that 36 per cent of tax concessions for superannuation contributions went to the top 10 per cent of income earners. As for the bottom 10 per cent, they were actually penalised rather than subsidised out of the superannuation system. This is not fair. It is not fair for people on low or modest incomes to give up more to increase their superannuation savings. It is not fair that this government places a higher priority on looking after 16,000 Australians with superannuation assets over $2 million than it does on looking after the interests of three million low-paid workers, two million of whom are women.
The Prime Minister has made a great deal of the importance of promise keeping. A few days before the election he told the doyenne of the press gallery, Michelle Grattan, that he would 'move heaven and earth to keep commitments and only if keeping commitments becomes almost impossible' could he ever be justified in not keeping them. He went on to say, 'The electorate would take a very dim view of breaking promises, even in difficult circumstances.' After just three weeks in office this government had already broken three promises.
The first has been the budget non-emergency. After railing against debt and deficits, after relying on the misleading gross debt figures, the Treasurer was already looking to reclassify debt so he could borrow more for his favourite projects. The budget deficit is going to be significantly larger under Treasurer Hockey than it would have been under Treasurer Bowen. This week the Treasurer will ask the parliament to increase the debt limit to half a trillion dollars. We on this side of the House understand and support a necessary increase to the debt limit. We will move amendments to set a debt limit of $400 billion. We are not going to play Tea Party games with the economy. But we demand the Treasurer be up-front and honest with the Australian people about why he wants an increase to $500 billion, why he wants a 66 per cent increase in the nation's credit card limit. The Treasurer has refused to release the Mid-year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, his mini-budget, which would track any estimated increase in peak net debt and which would show whether those decisions were decisions for which the new Treasurer should take responsibility. It is not reasonable for the Treasurer to expect Australians to tick off a two-thirds increase in the nation's credit card limit with no information provided. I think Treasurer Hockey is probably the only person in Australia who thinks he can nearly double his credit card limit without a single bit of paper to justify it. It was low-doc loans that got the US into some of its financial strife, but the Treasurer is now effectively asking this parliament for a no-doc loan. That is not good enough. As a prominent Australians said of a prior debt increase in May 2012:
Our money, our future is too important to be mortgaged like this without government giving us the strongest possible argument for it. Every dollar they borrow has got to be repaid.
That is the now Prime Minister speaking on 2GB in May 2012. What the opposition is asking of the government is nothing more than Mr Abbott asked of us in May 2012.
The Treasurer has topped up the Reserve Bank with close to $9 billion, an increase which he has funded through borrowing, costing the Australian taxpayer a million dollars a day. Again, it is a no-doc decision. Australians do not have the information in front of them to enable them to judge whether or not that is a reasonable course of action. Last week the Treasurer announced changes to taxation that will increase the budget deficit by $3 billion over the forward estimates. He has watered down Labor's attempts to get multinationals to pay their fair share of tax. Profit shifting is a vital international issue. The G20 will be discussing this. Labor's reforms to stop profit shifting would have added $1.8 billion to the budget. But, by the coalition's reckoning, after they have finished their attempts to deal with profit shifting will only net $1.1 billion. That is money that has to be made up. That $700 million difference either means a reduction in services for Australian households or higher taxes.
As the shadow Treasurer stated:
The fiscal deterioration, the $9bn RBA grant and other major revenue announcements have all occurred since 7 September on Mr Hockey’s watch.
If, as he said on 6 August, the Treasurer owns the economy from day one and is not afraid to accept responsibility, then this broken promise falls squarely to him. Trying to blame Labor for the 2013-14 budget outcome would be like a coach who takes over a quarter of the way through the season and then tries to blame his predecessor for the finals result.
The second broken promise is the pledge that no public servants would be fired. That pledge was broken on the first full day the Prime Minister was in his job, when three agency heads were fired. It has been broken subsequently when natural attrition has been replaced—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It being 1.45, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member for Fraser will have leave to continue his remarks.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Coal Seam Gas
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (13:45): Can I say first of all what an honour it is to have been re-elected as member for Richmond for my fourth term. I will continue to represent the people of the North Coast of New South Wales in this parliament. I will certainly make sure I am holding this new government to account for a whole range of very important issues that impact the people of the North Coast.
One of the most important issues is stopping harmful coal-seam-gas mining. This has been a concern of people on the North Coast for a considerable time. Indeed, throughout the federal election campaign many people highlighted to me their concerns about the impact of CSG mining on the North Coast. The reality is that we now have both a state and a federal Liberal-National government that are absolutely committed to seeing CSG mining rolled out throughout New South Wales. I will certainly take them all on, including the new resources minister, the member for Groom, who is out there actively pushing the CSG companies to come to the North Coast. Well, I have some information for him: we do not want the CSG companies there. We will make sure we keep highlighting this at all levels of government.
The people of the North Coast of New South Wales have made their voice and their concerns very clear. They do not want to have any harmful coal-seam-gas mining in our area. We will continue our campaign, and I am very honoured to be able to continue it in the federal parliament. This is an issue right across the electorate. It is of so much concern to everyone in terms of its impacts on our water quality and our environment. It is such a concern for so many people, and I will continue to advocate for the concerns of the people of the North Coast.
Domestic Violence
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) (13:46): Deputy Speaker, may I congratulate you on your election to this highly esteemed office.
While I have the opportunity I would like to reflect on a community breakfast that was held in Bairnsdale on 1 November, where the Victoria Police Chief Commissioner, Ken Lay, spoke on the issue of prevention of violence against women. Ken has been an outstanding advocate in his role on behalf of Victoria Police. He has made it a real focus of his efforts in that position.
Violence against women is not a problem just for women, it is certainly not a problem for just the police and it is not a problem just for MPs and members of this place. It is a problem for all of us. Violence against women cannot be tolerated in any circumstance in our community.
In this context I note that White Ribbon Day is occurring this year on 25 November. It is an occasion for the entire community to refocus its efforts as a nation to never commit violence against women or to excuse it or remain silent about it. As a White Ribbon Day ambassador I encourage all members, particularly the male members of this place, to consider signing up as ambassadors and advocating the white ribbon message throughout the nation through the offices we hold as members of parliament. I also encourage other members of the public to take the White Ribbon Day oath on that day and to help fight this scourge in our society.
While White Ribbon Day is an opportunity to focus on the issue of domestic violence and violence against women, it should not be seen as the only day for that. It is a challenge for us all as a nation to pursue this issue every day of the year. I commend the organisers for their efforts. (Time expired)
Indigenous Health
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (13:48): Deputy Speaker, congratulations on your elevation. One of my first acts on being re-elected as the member for Throsby was to participate in the second annual Tour da Country, which is a two-week-long bike ride organised by Illawarra Aboriginal health workers Shane Venables and Ben Russell, who are also members of the Koori Men's Support Group, in my electorate of Throsby. They are part of a 13-rider team that completed a gruelling 12-day, 900-kilometre route from Albion Park, in the Illawarra, down to Albury to raise awareness and promote healthier lifestyles in Aboriginal communities.
It is an unfortunate reality that Indigenous Australians suffer from chronic diseases like diabetes, heart disease and kidney disease at a higher rate than the rest of the population. These guys come from communities and they have seen the damaging effects firsthand and wanted to do something about closing the gap. The aim of the ride was to encourage their mates to make small changes, like walking an extra 10 minutes a day, eating less junk food, quitting the smokes or getting a health check. These are changes that in the long run will make a big difference to their overall health.
The best thing about this initiative is that it is not old men in lab coats lecturing them about how they should live; it is their brothers, cousins and mates providing peer support and being mentors. It is a great initiative. I congratulate all of the organisers and participants and I wish them well in their future endeavours.
Edwards, Mr Grant
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (13:49): I will take this opportunity today to pay tribute to Grant Edwards of Ballajura, a constituent of mine who passed away during the period between the last election and today. He was quite a personality around the suburb and a leading light within the Ballajura Little Athletics Club.
Grant was a young man who was very much dedicated to his family. Sadly, he was taken far too early as a result of melanoma. It was literally a case of feeling sore and sick one day and then, having gone to see a specialist, being told that he had just days to live. I was called by a member of the Ballajura Little Athletics Club and visited the hospital just an hour later. I was surprised to see Grant completely laid low and on life support, with his wife, Kim, and his daughters, Alyssa and Lindsey, by his side to say goodbye to him.
I pay tribute to Grant and the great job he did for Ballajura Little Athletics Club and what a great guy he was in the Ballajura community. Whilst he was not on our side politically, he was certainly a great bloke and will be long remembered.
Wear Orange Wednesday
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (13:51): In case you missed, today is Wear Orange Wednesday. On this day, all Australians are encouraged to wear orange in a united show of thanks for the tremendous work and commitment shown by the 43,000 State Emergency Service volunteers across the country, people who voluntarily dedicate hours of their week to train or assist in operations in their local communities. We all know that the SES is primarily responsible for flood and storm operations, but they also provide the majority of general rescue efforts in parts of rural New South Wales. When the bushfires so recently devastated the Blue Mountains, the SES units from Holroyd and Parramatta in my electorate were there, providing help to the Rural Fire Service, taking calls at the RFS Hawkesbury headquarters, helping to doorknock to make sure residents were evacuated safely and heading out to Springwood to cut down trees made dangerous by the bushfires.
My SES guys are good at what they do. Earlier this year Parramatta SES ended the Hawkesbury's 25-year reign as the regional winners of the Western Sydney SES Biannual Rescue Competition. The competition is based upon a significant flash flood similar to that of an inland tsunami.
I would like to commend all those who volunteer at both Holroyd and Parramatta State Emergency Service units, and more broadly those who volunteer across the country. Thank you for your selfless and compassionate nature and thank you for your efforts. Our local communities would not be what they are today without you.
Australian Student Prize
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright—Government Whip) (13:53): Mr Deputy Speaker, I acknowledge your elevation to high office. I know that you will conduct your activities in the chair with the dignity that it deserves. In my electorate, we have four young people to congratulate and acknowledge. They are outstanding young local people who have received the prestigious Australian Student Prize for their exceptional academic achievements during the course of 2013. The Australian Student Prize is only given to 500 students across Australia, representing less than 0.5 per cent of the total year 12 students in Australia, making winners of this award truly remarkable young achievers.
I am honoured to be able to acknowledge the achievements of four gifted young people from the electorate of Wright who have dedicated themselves to their academic work and are now reaping the rewards. They are Monica Smits from Tallai, Rui Hoshino also from Tallai, Taz Jacobs from Jimboomba and Bethany Rognoni from the Upper Lockyer Valley. They deserve congratulations for this prestigious accolade and I wish them all the best into the future. Their academic excellence, work ethic and commitment will serve them and the community well.
Canberra Electorate: Australian Public Service
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:54): Congratulations, Mr Deputy Speaker. You are one of the parliament's true gentlemen.
In the lead-up to an election there is always an element of uncertainty in the economy for businesses small and large, who wonder what a change of government might mean for them. But this level of uncertainty is nothing compared to the uncertainty that has prevailed in my electorate of Canberra since this government came to power. Since the election, Canberra has been faced with rolling announcements of Public Service job cuts, but no detail on exactly when and where the axe will fall.
Prior to the election, the coalition promised that it would only cut jobs by natural attrition. However, since the election there have been redundancies rolled out across at least five departments. But there has been no word from the government on why the change in policy and what this means for the Public Service. Prior to the election the coalition promised to move whole government agencies outside Canberra. But so far there has been no word on who is moving where and when, leaving Canberrans wondering whether their job is secure, whether they are about to be asked to relocate and whether they are going to have to move their children in the middle of a school term. So far, this government has delivered nothing but uncertainty for Canberra and Canberrans. Today I ask it to answer just one question: how many of my constituents are going to lose their job by Christmas?
Hughes Electorate: Warwick Farm Public School
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (13:55): I rise to congratulate the Australian Sports Commission and Warwick Farm Public School. Last week, I had the great pleasure of opening their new dirt BMX bike track, which is in the school grounds. Many times we see government money wasted on frivolous projects and enormous amounts spent. This project cost $5,000, with $3,000 spent on building the dirt BMX track. The rest was used to buy 50 bikes for the school. These were purchased through the local Men's Shed, members of which went around to local council clean-ups and got old bikes to recycle. They fixed their tyres up and gave them to the school, at the cost of just $30.
This is a very important program for this school. Many of the students at Warwick Farm Public School are recent refugees and settlers to our country. These are kids who have never had the opportunity to ride a bike before. This program gives them that opportunity. It also gives them the opportunity to have somewhere to go after school. Many of those kids are living in high-rise apartment blocks. They do not have the backyards to play in that many of us took for granted when we were kids. I again congratulate Warwick Farm School and the Australian Sports Commission on this wonderful program to create this BMX dirt track at their school.
Climate Angels
Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (13:57): Congratulations, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your election to your important office. I want to acknowledge the climate angels who descended on Parliament House this morning, resplendent as they were in white flowing robes, wings and halos. They did have a few security issues, but nevertheless it was significant that women such as Liz Conor and Deborah Hart were prepared to come to Canberra to express their concern about the need for stewardship on the part of this nation in reducing our carbon emissions and handing on to the next generations a world that is fit for purpose, not one that is beset by extreme and severe weather events such as floods, cyclones, bushfires and droughts. They expressed concern about the actions of this government in abolishing the Climate Commission, in not even sending a minister to represent us in international climate change negotiations in Warsaw and in defunding the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. I commend them on their efforts to draw the attention of the parliament and the country to the need for resolute action to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and to be responsible international citizens.
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (13:58): Last Wednesday I was able to attend a special dinner to commemorate the centenary of the Peter Waite bequest to the people of South Australia. Peter Waite donated a large parcel of land, which is located in Urrbrae, for the purposes of agricultural education and research. It was a very far-sighted bequest and has led to the Waite Institute, which is one of the best examples of a cluster anywhere in Australia. The Waite Institute has an excellent international reputation in the area of agricultural research. There are nine partner organisations there, including the CSIRO, the University of Adelaide, the Australian Wine Research Institute, the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics and the Plant Accelerator. It attracts staff, PhD students and postdoctoral students from all around the world. It has been very important for our competitive advantage in the area of wheat and grains and in the wine industry as well.
The SPEAKER: Order! In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:00): I inform the House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be absent from question time today. She is at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Sri Lanka. The Minister for Trade and Investment will answer questions on her behalf. The Deputy Prime Minister will answer questions on behalf of the Attorney-General and the Minister for Defence.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Abbott Government
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:01): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the fact that in just two months since the last election the Prime Minister has proposed almost doubling the debt rather than cutting the debt, increased the deficit rather than cut the deficit, hindered rather than helped our relationship with Indonesia, hidden the boats rather than turned back the boats. Why isn't the Prime Minister delivering the government he promised voters he would at the election?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:01): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question, and I can inform him—and I can inform this parliament and the Australian people—that this is a government that is carefully, steadily, purposefully and methodically implementing the commitments that we made to the Australian people at the election. That is precisely what we are doing. We said we would stop the boats, and they are stopping. We said we would get the budget under control, and that is happening, through the Commission of Audit. We said we would build the infrastructure of the 21st century, and that is precisely what we will be doing, in conjunction with the states and territories.
Most importantly, we said we would scrap the toxic taxes the members opposite put in place, and that is precisely what we will do. We will get rid of the toxic taxes that members opposite put in place without any mandate whatsoever. We have an absolutely clear mandate to repeal the carbon tax, to repeal the mining tax, and that is precisely what we will do.
Carbon Pricing
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (14:02): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister please inform the House how scrapping the carbon tax will help Australian families and businesses to get ahead, including those in my electorate of Forde?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:02): I thank the member for Forde for his question, and I welcome his return to the House. And I observe that the Australian people, the voters of Forde, are people of discernment, and substance beats celebrity every time.
This is the first working day of the new parliament, and straightaway the government is getting down to business. We are getting down to business, which is exactly what the public would expect from a government that said, on election night, that this country is once more open for business, because it is under new management. The repeal of the carbon tax should be the first economic reform of this parliament. That is what this parliament should do. As its first contribution to economic reform it should repeal the carbon tax. Repealing the carbon tax will make jobs more secure. It will make businesses more competitive, it will make households more prosperous and it will make our economy so much stronger. It will do all that, and it will help the environment.
If you look at the former government's own figures, Australia's emissions were going up, not down. They were going up by eight per cent, not down by five per cent—notwithstanding a carbon tax that members opposite wanted to raise to $38 a tonne by 2020. Repealing the carbon tax will save the average Australian household, including the households of Forde, $550 a year. Repealing the carbon tax will cut $200 off people's power bills. It will cut $70 off people's gas bills. The carbon tax is not an environmental benefit; it is purely and simply an economic cost. That is why it must go. We have a mandate to repeal the carbon tax. The government had no mandate to introduce it in the former parliament. That is why it must go.
It might help the House to know that the Canadian government today issued a statement 'applauding the decision by Prime Minister Abbott to introduce legislation to repeal Australia's carbon tax': this decision 'will be noticed around the world and sends an important message.'
Budget
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:05): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's repeated commitments to help struggling families. I also refer to the fact that in the last two months since the election the Prime Minister has betrayed struggling families, cutting the schoolkids' bonus, cutting jobs at the CSIRO. Half a million homes are not getting the NBN rollout. Three and a half million are getting their superannuation cut. And the government is cutting assistance to New South Wales bushfire victims. Prime Minister, why is the government betraying Australian families and not delivering— (Time expired)
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Standing order 100(d)(ii) indicates that 'argument' should not be included in questions. I know that a wide definition has been permitted for questions, particularly from oppositions, over the years, but the phrase 'betray the Australian people' is clearly an argument and I put it to you that that part of the question should be ruled out of order.
The SPEAKER: I think on this occasion we might give a little leniency to the Leader of the Opposition and let his question stand.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:07): I understand that the Leader of the Opposition has a job to do, but the problem with that question is that it was based on a farrago of falsehoods.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr ABBOTT: Yes, we are proposing to remove the schoolkids bonus—but we were perfectly up front with the Australian people before the election. We did not hide the bad news from the Australian people before the election, unlike members opposite, who did precisely that: hid the bad news from the Australian people before an election—most notoriously when they said there would be no carbon tax under their government and there was.
The Leader of the Opposition says that we have cut assistance for bushfire victims. We have not. Australian disaster recovery payments have been made to people who were severely affected by that disaster.
The Leader of the Opposition claims that we have cut jobs at the CSIRO. Management of the CSIRO is a matter for the management of that organisation. It is as simple as that.
This all comes pretty rich from members opposite who, having said for ages that they were going to be the absolute protectors of the Australian Public Service, put policies in place that are now resulting in thousands of redundancies across the Australian Public Service.
Economy
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (14:09): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline the state of the economy the coalition government inherited? Can the Treasurer outline how responsible and prudent government will encourage growth, therefore assisting the constituents of Corangamite?
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:09): What an outstanding new member for Corangamite! I suspect she will be the best member for Corangamite in at least seven years! She is also someone who is deeply concerned about the fate of the people of Corangamite and their jobs—unlike the previous Labor member.
Of course, we did inherit an economy that has been heading in the wrong direction. Economic growth has been below trend, unemployment has been rising, the terms of trade have been coming down, and we inherited a budget that is in a complete mess. Only a few months ago the member for Lilley stood at this dispatch box and said, 'Don't worry; we're going to have an $18 billion deficit this year.' Then, a few weeks later, along comes the member for McMahon and says, 'Don't worry; we're going to have a budget deficit of $30 billion this year.' It seems to be an odd and rather eerie consistency from Labor that they always underpromised and overdelivered when it came to deficits and debt.
But I would say to the Australian people: there is a better way. The member for Corangamite knows this, and the Australian people recognise that there is a better way. Today Westpac Institutional Bank released their consumer sentiment indicator, which illustrated that it is at the highest reads since the December period in 2010. We welcome that. We think it is hugely important. And that is on the back of a Dun & Bradstreet business expectation survey for November that shows company profit expectations have reached a 10-year high. We see that as a good thing. And the NAB business survey for October shows that business confidence remains higher than over the previous three years. And retail spending in September was better than expected, with a rise of 0.8 per cent. We see that as a good thing, because Australian consumers and Australian businesses know that, under the coalition, there is a plan for a stronger economy. And that involves getting rid of the carbon tax, getting rid of the mining tax, getting rid of the CEFC and dealing with the mess that we inherited—and, Lord knows, we inherited a mess.
Prime Minister, colleagues: the Labor Party are like a really bad tenant—they trash the joint and now they are trying to stop us repairing the house. Enough is enough. The Australian people know that we will deliver better, that we will deliver a stronger economy. The bottom line is that Labor have got to get on track, back our changes, get rid of the taxes and help us to fix their mess.
Asylum Seekers
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:12): My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether Australia has approached Indonesia for a people-swap deal? Or should we just wait and read about it in the Jakarta Post?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:12): I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her question. What matters here is stopping the boats. That is what matters. I would have thought that members opposite, having failed so lamentably to stop the boats over the previous five years, would perhaps have a little respectful silence on some of these issues.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If there had been a long preamble, I would accept that something that is being said now by the Prime Minister may possibly be relevant. But this was a very tight, specific question and he should be called to deal with it.
The SPEAKER: I am very mindful of the fact that we inserted the words 'directly relevant' into standing order 104(a). I think the question was very pertinent to the question of the boats, and the Prime Minister is in order in the answer he is giving.
Ms Plibersek: Madam Speaker—
The SPEAKER: We will only have one question on relevance. Have you another point of order to raise under a different standing order? You can only have one on relevance.
Ms Plibersek: I am just repeating the question. The question did not mention boats—
The SPEAKER: I am sorry; that is out of order. There is no point of order.
Mr ABBOTT: Again, I do thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her question. The fact is that we are talking to Indonesia about a whole range of measures. We are cooperating closely with the Indonesian government at every level to stop the boats. That cooperation is close and getting closer all the time. What we are specifically talking about is how we can best handle the question of people who are picked up by Australia in the Indonesian search-and-rescue zone. I know members opposite like to identify failure very quickly here, but let me just reassure members opposite that while the boats have not yet stopped they certainly are stopping. In the first two months of the new government, illegal arrivals were down 75 per cent on the last two months of the former government, and in October illegal arrivals by boat were down 90 per cent on the peak month of the former government.
Climate Change
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (14:15): My question is to the Prime Minister, who was referred to this morning by the now acceptable term of 'Typhoon Tony'. Prime Minister, Typhoon Haiyan may be the strongest typhoon on record and, according to Australia's scientists, has been fuelled by global warming. Will you now accept the science that states climate change will make typhoons and cyclones worse and will you heed the plea of the Philippine government's delegation in Warsaw to 'take drastic action now to ensure that we prevent a future where supertyphoons become a way of life'?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:16): I thank the member for his question and I refer him to the advice of the CSIRO, which is a very reputable body. It says that no one weather event should be attributed to climate change. That is the advice of the CSIRO—that no particular weather event should be attributed to climate change.
If I may, for the benefit of the member, say, the government accepts that climate change is real and that humanity does make a contribution, but the important thing is to take strong and effective action to deal with it. The problem with the former government's carbon tax policy is that under the carbon tax our domestic emissions were going up, not down. Under this government's Direct Action policy we will deliver a five per cent cut in emissions by 2020. We are taking strong action. The former government, aided and abetted by the member in question, was introducing a policy of socialism masquerading as environmentalism.
Mr MARLES (Corio) (14:17): My question—
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I draw your attention to the fact that the member for Bass was on his feet.
The SPEAKER: I apologise to the member for Corio. I call the member for Bass, and we will come back to him.
Asylum Seekers
Mr NIKOLIC (Bass) (14:17): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. At the recent election, the people of Bass indicated their support for the coalition's plan to stop the boats by electing a Liberal member of parliament. Will the minister update the House on the government's progress?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:18): Madam Speaker, I commence by commending you on your elevation to the speakership and also commend the member for Bass on his maiden speech in this place today. The member for Bass is someone who has spent a lifetime on issues of sovereignty of Australia and it is important that we acknowledge his service, not only that which he commences in this place but his great service to our nation over many years.
The good news I have to report to the member for Bass is that for the first time in five years, since the previous government dismantled the measures that worked, the Australian government once again has the upper hand over the people smugglers. Not only are illegal arrivals down by 75 per cent in the first eight weeks of Operation Sovereign Borders coming into being but we are stopping more people coming through the region to this country, than are arriving, by a factor of 100 per cent. More people are being stopped coming through the region through our active cooperation—in particular, with Indonesia but also with Malaysia and all the way up through the region and back to source countries—and it is this combination of measures which is producing what is a very successful early result.
We said when we were in opposition and campaigning at the last election that we would make a difference from day one—and a 75 per cent reduction in the first eight weeks, I would say, is a good start. But it is not a final outcome and it is not the outcome we are seeking. The outcome we are seeking is the outcome that was achieved by the Howard government—that was the last government to stop the boats—and as each week passes we hope to see better results. But we are in the most dangerous period of all now, as we lead into the monsoon period. That means we need to be constant and ever-vigilant in our efforts.
These efforts have not only benefited Australia but also have benefited our good partner Indonesia. I can report, based on UNHCR figures, that since the election of this government the number of people coming into Indonesia has fallen from 1,638 people to 602. At the end of September, I should stress—one month after the new visa-on-arrival measures were in place in September—the figure was still 1,602. So in the month of October we saw a dramatic reduction of over 1,000, since the peak.
These are results that the government will continue to work on and continue to strive to get better. There is no single measure. We have increased our returns from our offshore-processing centres by 100 per cent. Removals from our offshore-processing centres that were occurring before the change of government and the start of Operation Sovereign Borders, and afterwards, have increased by 100 per cent. The progress is good. There is more work to be done.
Asylum Seekers
Mr MARLES (Corio) (14:21): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Can the minister provide details about a boat carrying Somalian asylum seekers arriving on Monday evening, in Darwin?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:21): I thank the member for his question. This government is not running a shipping news service for people smugglers. As promised, we are running a military-led border security operation. As I just said, it is stopping the boats. Operation Sovereign Borders was established with clear communication protocols designed by the Joint Agency Task Force led by Lieutenant General Campbell to support the effectiveness of that operation.
Before the election, the coalition made it crystal clear that communications protocols for Operation Sovereign Borders would be determined by the Joint Agency Task Force, and that is exactly what we have done. These procedures are designed not to advantage people-smugglers, by restricting the official information available to those people-smugglers. People-smugglers use official information provided by governments, especially when that information is specific, to sell and promote their product and create perceptions amongst potential illegal entrants.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If we can assist: it is no secret that the boats arrived; we just want to be able to use question time to elicit an answer from a minister. That is the fundamental of why we are here. To give an answer that is simply saying that they have a media strategy to not do that completely undermines the importance of question time and ministerial responsibility.
The SPEAKER: Thank you for your point of order. I think the minister in answering the question has indicated to you the specific information. He is giving you an answer in the negative, which is directly related to your question.
Mr MORRISON: I can understand why the Manager of Opposition Business is fairly sensitive on this issue, as he holds the record for the highest number of illegal maritime arrivals in the nation's history.
But specific information, as I was seeking to explain, is used. It was used in the information that was provided by the previous government to provide an official proof of voyage for payment. It can also be used to decipher the posture of border protection assets. And it can be used to identify potential client pools, especially when nationalities are referred to.
I am not going to be part of a process, as a minister, that helps people-smugglers. I have spent the past four years dragging the previous government, kicking and screaming, towards restoring measures that they abolished, leading to chaos, cost and tragedy, to 50,000 illegal arrivals on more than 800 boats. There is a protocol in place. It has been put in place by the Joint Agency Task Force, headed up by Lieutenant General Campbell. I am not going to violate a process and undermine an operation that is stopping the boats. I am not going to assist people-smugglers, as those opposite are urging me to do. We are going to hold the line, we are going to protect the borders, we are going to make sure those borders are secure and we are going to make sure those boats are stopped. Each time members opposite wish to bring these matters into this place, I will remind them of the carnage they delivered on our borders.
Carbon Pricing
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (14:25): My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Is the minister aware that the electricity generator Macquarie Generation, owned by the people of my state of New South Wales, has a net carbon tax expense of $299 million in 2012-13 and its value has been written down by $1 billion due to the previous government's carbon tax? Minister, has the carbon tax been terminated? And further, what action is this government taking to reduce electricity prices?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for the Environment) (14:25): Madam Speaker, may I congratulate you on your appointment. I am sorry to say that the carbon tax has not been terminated, despite what some would have led the Australian people to believe before the election. I am sorry to say that there are those who still oppose termination of the carbon tax, despite giving lip-service to the pretence that they would support it. I am sorry to say that the member for Hughes is absolutely correct in his assessment of the impact of the carbon tax on Macquarie Generation.
Let me quote from the New South Wales Auditor-General's report to parliament. Do you know what the Auditor-General reported to parliament in New South Wales on the impact of the carbon price? They reported:
The introduction of the Australian Government’s Clean Energy Act 2011 (the Act) resulted in the Corporation—
that is Macquarie Generation—
incurring a net carbon tax expense of $299 million in 2012-13. A $1.0 billion write down—
I just want to repeat that: 'a $1 billion write-down'—
to the value of its infrastructure assets in 2011-12 …
So those on the other side of the House led to a $1 billion write-down in the value of a public asset. That goes to the ability of New South Wales to help deal with funds for hospitals, for schools and for community services. They are responsible through their carbon tax. So not only does the carbon tax have an electricity effect; it also has a community effect.
There is a better way—the member for Hughes is right. We will repeal the carbon tax. That will have a $550-a-year impact on Australian households. You are standing between Australian households and that $550. It will have, according to the Australian Treasury, a $200-a-year impact on electricity bills. According to the Energy Supply Association, those costs will be reduced as soon as the Australian parliament passes the legislation and it comes into effect. According to Rod Sims of the ACCC, what goes up can come down just as quickly. It is absolutely clear that we can reduce the electricity bills of Australian families. It is absolutely clear that the former government did enormous damage, not just to the competitiveness of Australian business and not just to the cost of living for families but also to the value of public assets for New South Wales. You should hang your heads in shame and get out of the way of repealing the carbon tax.
Economy
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:29): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's comments this morning:
… we never opposed the former government’s bills to raise the debt ceiling. We never opposed them.
I also refer the Prime Minister to the Hansard record from 4 February 2009, which shows him voting against an increase in the debt cap. Prime Minister, why say to the Australian people one thing this morning when it is not in fact true?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:29): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. It is very well known that we opposed the former government's stimulus package back in 2009 because, as we said, it was too much too soon. But on, I think, five occasions—or was it four occasions—
Mr Bowen: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister refers to the stimulus bill, but in fact the Leader of the Opposition referred to the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill. The Prime Minister is misleading the House and I seek leave to table the Hansard to assist the Prime Minister—to remind him and to provoke his memory.
The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. That is not a point of order; that is an argument. If you wish to raise a point of order, kindly refer to the point of order you wish to make—and it must be one within the standing orders. That was merely an argument. There is no point of order.
Mr ABBOTT: This opposition, when they were in government, proposed on numerous occasions to raise the debt ceiling because they were addicted to debt and deficit. That is one of the many reasons why people wanted them out. While we always criticised their policy, while we always opposed the policy of debt and deficit, we never, when I was the leader, voted against it in the parliament.
Education
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (14:31): My question is to the Minister for Education. Minister, I refer you to this email from Jenny, a local nurse in my electorate of Higgins who, under the previous government's proposed $2,000 cap on tax deductions for self-education expenses, would struggle to afford to maintain and improve her accreditation as a medical professional. Minister, how has the government addressed Jenny's concerns?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Minister for Education and Leader of the House) (14:31): I thank the member for Higgins for her question on the self-education expenses cap which the previous government decided earlier this year they would introduce on deductible expenses for legitimate education. This was a classic act of self-harm and it damaged the education sector. The previous government decided that they would take funding from the university sector to fund increases in spending on schools. They made a number of serious cuts to the university sector in a climate in which they had already reduced the amount of revenue flowing to universities from our international education market—substantially reduced revenue to universities over five years. They then decided this year that they would cut higher education further. One of those cuts was to introduce a cap of $2,000 on self-education expenses. It was a classic case of Labor taking a sledgehammer to smash a walnut.
They claimed at the time that there were myriad examples of the education deduction being rorted by high-income earners. They have yet to produce any evidence that that has been the case. In fact, 80 per cent of the people who have claimed the self-education expenses deduction over many years have had incomes of less than $80,000 per annum. They were low- and middle-income earners. Greg Craven, the vice-chancellor of the Australian Catholic University described this move as 'the streaker's cap'. He said it sounded like 'a good idea at the time'. This government came to power and, on sober reflection, realised that the damage it would do to productivity and the higher education sector was not worth the savings the previous government had claimed, so the Treasurer and the Prime Minister, in their wisdom, decided that we would not proceed with the self-education expenses cap.
That means that policemen, nurses, public servants and many low- and middle-income earners in Australia will be able to improve their skills. It is a productivity measure for us to not proceed with this cap. It will help the economy. What it confirms is that the coalition is the real friend of low- and middle-income earners in this place, which is why we on this side of the House represent so many of them. It also confirms that, while Labor talks tough and big about their representation of the workers, what they really represent is not the workers, who pay their dues to join a union and then do not get the representation they were told they would get, but the workers' bosses—the union leaders.
Economy
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:34): My question is to the Treasurer. Will Australia's government debt be higher or lower at the end of this term of government than it was on 7 September this year?
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:34): I appreciate the question from the member from McMahon. I refer him to the latest published Economic Statement, which was published by—Oh! 'Chris Bowen' is on the front. On page 46 it says that the end-of-year amount this year will be $290 billion; next year, $330 billion; the year after, $350 billion; and the year after that, $370 billion. But Labor wants us to stop at $400 billion. Let me understand this. The Labor Party wants to reduce the debt that they only ever increased when they were in government. The Labor Party now says: 'Look, 400 billion is enough; let's draw a line at 400. You should be under 400 and you need to explain'—'you' being us, the government—'to the Australian people why 400'—a number based on Labor's own economic figures—'is not enough.' Let me explain something.
Mr Bowen: I raise a point of order on relevance, Madam Speaker. It was a very simple question: higher or lower.
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr HOCKEY: Labor says, 'Let's draw a line at $400 billion.' The first thing is that their own document, released only a few weeks ago, said $370 billion. But there is one person I never want to forget when it comes to debt and that is the member for Lilley. We laugh at the member for Lilley. He never let us down. In this place—and I remember this; I have a good memory for these things—in the last debt limit debate, he said, 'Listen, I've been advised by the Australian Office of Financial Management that you need to have a buffer.' He even underlined it. It is in colour. He underlined it and then he tabled it. The statement about the buffer says:
… where for policy reasons a debt cap is considered desirable, it would be prudent … to set it at a level $40 billion to $60 billion higher than the peak …
So I will just explain to the member for McMahon—I know he is not very good with numbers—that $370 billion of Labor debt plus $60 billion does not equal $400 billion. It actually equals far more than $400 billion, and I have not even got to the fact, yet, that every step of the way we are going to reduce Labor's debt. We want to reduce it by getting rid of the mining tax. That is $13 billion of Labor debt that is going. Then we want to get rid of the CEFC. That is another $8 billion of Labor debt we want to get rid of, and they are trying to stop us. The bottom line is that the tenants trashed the joint. Now we are trying to fix it and the biggest impediment is the Labor Party. They are addicted to debt and deficit.
Rural and Regional Health Services
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (14:38): My question is to the Minister for Health. I must say that it is a real honour to ask the minister his first question. I refer the minister to the funding of chemotherapy services in rural and regional areas. Can the minister inform the House of any uncertainty that has been created by policy arrangements for the funding of these services? How does the government intend to address these uncertainties?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (14:38): I thank very much the member for Wannon. He was a champion of Peter's Project over the course of the last three years. That was a local regional cancer service designed to provide support for people who otherwise would have had to travel to Melbourne. He was a champion of that service. We announced the funding, and that project will be delivered by this government.
The other person to pay tribute to is the Treasurer, for his excellent summation of the way in which the Labor Party trashed the Australian economy and made it hard for Australian families. But the problem is that Labor's trashing did not stop there. Labor's trashing moved into the health portfolio every day that they were in government. The most vulnerable of Australians are those who are delivered services—in particular, chemotherapy services—in hospitals around the country. It was the Labor Party in government that said to the 150,000 people a year being delivered 832,000 infusions each year, 'We will not provide you with certainty of those services.' The Labor government changed the rules and created uncertainty for those most vulnerable.
Ms Plibersek: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Mr DUTTON: You are very sensitive, Tanya.
Ms Plibersek: The point of order is that the member for Dickson should tell the truth in the parliament.
The SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. There is no point of order.
Mr DUTTON: Nasty, Tanya. It did not take long to come out! So what did the previous government do?
Mr Shorten: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could you please ask members of the government to refer to honourable members by their correct titles.
The SPEAKER: Will the Minister for Health kindly refer to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition by her correct title.
Mr DUTTON: I am happy to withdraw. I will aggravate her no further. The point is that there was a problem created by the previous government. It created uncertainty for those who are most vulnerable. That government created a problem because they ripped money out of chemotherapy services. And when they were made aware of the problem they did not fix it.
Ms Plibersek: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The SPEAKER: If the honourable Deputy Leader of the Opposition is going to raise again the point that she raised last time, that is not a point of order. Is there a point of order that you can name in the standing orders?
Ms Plibersek: He should tell the truth in the parliament, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, and if you do it again it will be disorderly.
Mr DUTTON: Confronted with this problem, the former government did not fix it. What they said was, 'We'll provide six months of funding to chemotherapy patients.' That took it up to Christmas last year. They sat on it for six months. They provided great uncertainty for those patients—and not just those patients but their families as well. The most shameful thing was that there was not one dollar of provision made to provide those services from 1 January on. We put pressure on the government of the day. It was a problem of the government's own creation, but instead of fixing it they continued the uncertainty. I promise the Australian people and those patients this: this government will listen to their problems. This government will fix this problem. This government will deal with the difficulty that the Labor Party created. We will provide certainty to chemotherapy patients across the country and their families. Labor created a mess—not just of the economy but of health as well.
Economy
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:42): My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the fact that, under Labor, Australia was given a AAA credit rating from each of the three major ratings agencies. Treasurer, will Australia still have three AAA ratings from these agencies at the end of this term of government?
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:43): I certainly hope so, because we were the ones that got the AAA rating in the first place.
Defence Personnel
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (14:43): My question is to the Assistant Minister for Defence. What effects did the previous government's defence budget cuts have on ADF personnel in my electorate of Solomon, and what is the coalition's plan for delivering a strong Australian Defence Force?
Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Assistant Minister for Defence) (14:44): I thank the member for Solomon for her question. I acknowledge that she, like so many members on our side, actually understands that a strong Defence Force is built on the shoulders of the strong men and women who serve. With personnel outlays being 40 per cent of the defence budget, the previous Labor government cuts have had an egregious impact on the personnel in the member's electorate.
It is not just us saying this. Last night the Secretary of the Department of Defence, Dennis Richardson, said, when talking about Labor's severe cuts to the defence budget, that they had led not only to a moving of the goalposts but to their cutting down and being used as firewood. The secretary's comments, of course, show what we on this side have known for a long time and what this mob have denied for about five years: that the cumulative cuts of $25 billion that Labor hatcheted out of the Defence budget have had a disproportionate impact on the personnel, not only in the member's electorate but in electorates right across the country.
It was this mob that reduced Defence expenditure as a proportion of GDP to the lowest levels since 1938. The 1938 levels are what they have left our country's Defence budget at, and the impact is considerable. Keep in mind that it was that Labor government that callously tried to cut the entitlement for return travel for members to go home for Christmas. We blocked that, we stopped that, and 1,500 single members of the member for Solomon's electorate will get to go home this Christmas because of the changes we wrought against what that government did.
Keep in mind it was that Labor government that promised, for six years, to have free ADF health care and only delivered a trial. I say to the member for Solomon: in 48 days we will actually start free ADF health care. In 48 days 3,200 spouses and dependent children from the member for Solomon's electorate will have all out-of-pocket costs for GPs and up to $400 per individual for allied costs covered. In 48 days we will implement that.
It was that Labor government over there that decided to cut the ADF gap year. It was a gap year that included 40 per cent of women coming through. We will put it back. We will restore the budget integrity for Defence. We will get it back to two per cent of GDP in the next 10 years. We will ensure there are no cuts. There is one side of this House that understands Defence men and women. It is this side and it is this government.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:47): I wish to inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. Larry Anthony, former member for Richmond and former minister in the Howard government, the Hon. Jackie Kelly, former member for Lindsay and former minister in the Howard government, and Mr Barry Haase, the former member for Durack. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Budget
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (14:47): My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his decision to provide an $8.8 billion grant to the Reserve Bank of Australia, which was not requested by them. Can the Treasurer confirm that this grant will increase the debt interest bill over the next four years by over $1 billion?
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:48): Correct me if I am wrong, Madam Speaker; did he say it was not requested by the Reserve Bank?
The SPEAKER: Yes, he did.
Mr HOCKEY: Well, they are wrong. The fact of the matter is—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr HOCKEY: Be calm, okay? I know you are excited on the first day. This is your best day in opposition, trust me. In February of this year, when there was quite obviously a dispute between the member for Lilley and the Governor of the Reserve Bank, I raised concern about the level of funding in the Reserve Bank Reserve Fund. That is the fund available for the Reserve Bank to offset the risk of certain investments that it may have. Of course, the risk may increase according to movement in the Australian dollar and movement in interest rates. Traditionally the Reserve Bank Reserve Fund has never been below 10 per cent of the assets at risk. In periods of volatility, following the GFC, you would not want it below 10 per cent. In fact, the Reserve Bank had been very up-front about it. In 2009-10 the Labor Party took a special dividend out of the Reserve Bank of $5.2 billion. Every year prior to that it had been around $1 billion to $1½ billion, but in 2009-10 they took out a dividend of over $5 billion.
Mr Bowen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order, on relevance. If the Treasurer does not know that it costs more than $1 billion in increased interest payments, he should admit it. If he does know, he should confirm it.
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The Treasurer.
Mr HOCKEY: They took out $5 billion. The Reserve Bank Reserve Fund dropped to 2.1 per cent from 9.6 per cent, and when we came into office it was 3.8 per cent. I spoke to the Governor of the Reserve Bank and I said: 'Are you properly prepared for the challenges that may lie ahead?' His answer, which he gave publicly the other day—and I am sure he will appear before the House Standing Committee on Economics—caused us to put $8.8 billion into the Reserve Bank to make sure that the Reserve Bank was at its strongest to deal with any challenges that come before the Australian economy. Labor does not get that.
I call on the member for Lilley to write to the government to ask that all correspondence between him and the Reserve Bank is released to the Australian people, and in return I will release the letter from the Governor of the Reserve Bank about the $8.8 billion. He is pretty quiet up there. You are on your L-plates and he knows what he is doing.
Mr Bowen: Madam Speaker, I ask the Treasurer to table the document he read from.
The SPEAKER: Is it confidential? Yes.
Live Animal Exports
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (14:51): My question is to the Minister for Agriculture. Is the minister aware of the fact that livestock cattle exporters in my electorate were severely compromised by the sudden ban on live exports in 2011? What action is the minister taking to deliver a sustainable livestock export trade that increases economic returns to farmers and exporters in the long term?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (14:52): I would like to thank the honourable member for Leichhardt for the question. Before I start, Madam Speaker, I would have to say that you are the best Speaker that I have ever experienced. In fact, you are without comparison.
The SPEAKER: I do not think you have been here before!
Mr JOYCE: It is not only the member for Leichhardt who would have an interest in this; also the former member for Durack, Barry Haase, in the gallery, would have an immense interest in this, and so would the member for Kennedy, if he were here. This issue really personified what the former government, the Labor government, was about. It was a sad day indeed when we woke up and found out that the country was not actually being run by the Labor government; it was being run by Four Corners—when we found out that one of our closest trading relationships, one of our most important partnerships, had been basically taken through the mud by reason of the rash and irrational actions of a government that just could not come to grips with the hard decisions.
Ladies and gentlemen, in the gallery, and Madam Speaker, it is very important that we understand that, from the moment the opportunity came to assist this industry, the coalition put their shoulder to the wheel—going to Richmond and actually meeting the people who were part of this fiasco that had been delivered to them not by drought but by the Labor government. We had to do what we could within our power to try and assist.
Might I also note that, since we have been in for the short duration of this coalition government, the Prime Minister, the Minister for Trade and Investment and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have been to Indonesia, and in this quarter we will more than double the number of cattle going to Indonesia. We will stand by this industry. In fact, we hope it grows, we hope it increases, because we stand by the return to the farm gate that this industry represents. We will be a responsible government. We will be a government that is not guided by Four Cornersbut is guided by the capacity to act diligently. I note that in the future we will also, within my department, take a delegation to Indonesia so that we can build on this relationship, expand this trade and show that we can bring dignity back to the people of Northern Australia and back to this industry, which is a great industry for our nation.
The SPEAKER: I welcome the minister to this chamber, and I think we enjoyed being called ladies and gentlemen today.
Budget
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:55): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's comment in May 2012 with regard to debt ceiling legislation. He said then:
The Government should be forced to specifically justify this, not to just sweep it under the carpet …
Given what was said then, Prime Minister, why won't the government come clean with the Australian people, release the budget update and specifically justify why you are increasing the debt cap to half a trillion dollars?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:55): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. The budget update will be released as part of the MYEFO in mid-December, which is roughly the time when members opposite released MYEFO in years past. It is very simple. We are dealing with a mountain of debt which members opposite left as their legacy. We are dealing with Labor's legacy of debt and deficit. We want to rule a line under this embarrassing period in our fiscal history and get on with the job of paying back Labor's debt and eliminating Labor's deficit. That is what the Australian public elected us to do. That is what we will do. I would humbly and respectfully ask the Leader of the Opposition to allow the people's mandate to be worked out in this parliament.
Mr Shorten: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister indicated to the House that the former government only released MYEFO in December—
The SPEAKER: On the point of order: I am sorry, this is argument; it is not a point of order. There is no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I call the Leader of the House.
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, I am sure you have this under control, of course, but the Leader of the Opposition, being so new to opposition, maybe does not understand that if he wants to make such claims he should make them at the end of question time and seek to deal with misrepresentations, not take them as points of order, which can only be on relevance.
The SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of the House. I pointed out to the Leader of the Opposition that it was not a point of order he was raising. Whether or not he chooses to raise it at another point of time is a matter for him. We will return to question time.
Small Business
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (14:57): My question is to the Minister for Small Business. The minister would no doubt be aware of the burden placed on business by the 20,000-plus new regulations imposed by the previous, Labor government. Many of my constituents from some of the 1,600 registered small businesses in my electorate have met with me to highlight the difficulty of doing business because of the mountain of paperwork and regulations with which they must comply. What action is the minister taking to reduce the burden of red tape on small businesses?
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley—Minister for Small Business) (14:58): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and congratulations on your election. Isn't it great that the member for Ryan is back—a fearsome advocate for small businesses in her electorate. I thank her for the question. She is indeed very right: small businesses have been absolutely crippled by the 21,000 new and amended regulations introduced by Labor in their period of government. This has been one of the many headwinds that those courageous men and women, who take risks, create opportunities for themselves, mortgage their house and lie awake at night about the opportunities that they can provide for themselves and their community, have had to face. In addition to our comprehensive plan to put the business back into small business, we are tackling this red-tape burden head on. It is not only in the portfolio that I am responsible for but led by our Prime Minister. This is a whole of government effort to see a billion dollars worth of red and green tape taken out of the economy—those excessive intrusions of regulation that serve no good public policy purpose, that overreach, gum up the opportunities and gum up our economy. That is what we are tackling. We have put in place a range of measures. Each portfolio minister has a task to reduce red tape in their areas of responsibility. We have also got the Prime Minister leading that work, ably supported by the member for Kooyong. He is evangelical about the task of reducing red tape and it is great that he is on this case.
We have already started, though, in the area of business names registration. Remember that offensive way in which home based businesses had their privacy violated, against the assurances of this government. That has been corrected as well, removing another red-tape obstacle. We have also got the red tape that will be cut by the removal of the carbon tax. And wouldn't it be great if all those opposite actually went to axe the tax that they said they were going to axe during the election campaign?
We have also made a commitment to get employers out of being the pay clerk for the Paid Parental Leave scheme. Some of my new colleagues in this place might not be aware of it, but we put that measure to the parliament twice under the previous government. They voted against it on 24 February 2011. They voted against it on 24 May, saying it could not be done. But in a thought bubble, to try and look as though Labor had some ideas for small business, guess what they proposed during the election campaign—to do the very thing we had sought to deliver to small businesses on two previous occasions in this parliament.
We are also looking to challenge the Australian Accounting Standards Board. Why is it our small businesses need to report at higher standards, with higher costs, than are set by the International Financial Reporting Standards? Why is this necessary? These are practical examples where we are going to tackle that red-tape scourge that small businesses in the Ryan electorate talk about. We want to put the business back into small business. What we need is a renaissance of enterprise in this country so that we can grow jobs and opportunities for the future, not lose 412,000 jobs in small business, which happened under Labor. We need to stop that decline, turn it around and put the business back into small business. Our economy will be stronger, our communities will be more vibrant and I look forward to working with you on that task.
Budget
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (15:01): My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to today's Financial Review, which reports economist Saul Eslake as saying:
… $400 billion would be sufficient if Mr Hockey was successful at returning a surplus by 2016-17 and avoided blowing out the deficit in the interim "as much as he’s done so far".
Will the Treasurer advise that he will not return to surplus by 2016-17, given that he is now seeking a debt limit of half a trillion dollars?
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (15:02): They have got chutzpah—they really do—and I tell you why. Labor do not know what a surplus looks like. Labor have never delivered a surplus. Oh, hang on! They did. They delivered a surplus well before my colleague Wyatt Roy was born! That is a long time ago. So now, having promised on over 500 occasions to deliver a surplus, Labor are indignant and say from opposition that they can deliver a surplus. That is quite an achievement. They could not do it in government but now the Labor Party are going to do it in opposition.
I was thinking to myself: who can you trust about delivering a surplus, given that the coalition has previously done the heavy lifting? When Labor were last in government—before the last time—they left us with $96 billion of debt; they left us with the legendary Beazley black hole. They have now left us with at least $370 billion of debt and the Bowen black hole. But it gets better. The fact of the matter is that, as we open every cupboard across the government, we find more spiders. We discover that the Reserve Bank Reserve Fund is down to just 3.8 per cent. When we have, possibly, significant headwinds next year, out of Europe and the United States, we will have to fix them. And, when we find that the ACCC has been running at a loss for four years and is going to run out of money by April next year because the Labor Party did not give it the funding to do a full year of work, you would say there is something wrong about that and that someone has got to fix it. And, as the Minister for Health and all the other ministers know, as we open up every cupboard we discover that Labor just fibbed about the state of the books. What a surprise! It goes to trust.
And no-one summarises it better than Bruce Hawker. And I promise that this will be the only time that I quote Bruce Hawker. Remember him? The member for Griffith remembers him and a few others remember him. I was not spending a lot of time reading his book called The Rudd Rebellion, but I did. He said:
Chris Bowen had gone on Lateline last night and run the 'Who do you trust?' line (on instructions from CHQ)—
that is, campaign headquarters—
and I realised how ridiculous it sounded. After the last three years, we would be lucky to be trusted to walk the dog around the block …
Fringe Benefits Tax
Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (15:05): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer inform the House how the government's pledge not to proceed with the previous government's fringe benefits tax changes will help many car dealerships in my electorate of Hasluck?
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (15:05): What a good man the member for Hasluck is. Thank goodness he is back. Labor did everything they could to stop him, but he is an outstanding representative for the people of Hasluck and Western Australia. We are proud to have him as a member of our team.
The Labor Party, just before the election, announced a $1.8 billion tax on the car industry. In fact, they were so concerned about it that the member for McMahon had to ring from Moscow to ensure that the member for Griffith had not gone weak in committing to a $1.8 billion slug on the car industry. That was instructive enough, but this goes into the category of Labor taxes designated 'what were you thinking?'
The carbon tax is in that mix, and all six versions of the mining tax are in that mix. Every tax that Labor came up with was pretty much in that mix. But the fringe benefits tax changes to motor vehicles is in the category designated 'what were you thinking?' That tax alone was like a baseball bat to the back of the car industry in Australia at a time when it was vulnerable. It actually turned out that the people who were most significantly affected by the changes to the fringe benefits taxes on motor vehicles were people earning less than $70,000 a year. What has the Labor Party got against hardworking but low- and middle-income Australians? It always does that, whether it is in relation to self-education expenses or fringe benefits tax changes on motor vehicles. It actually hit the people who were driving Australian cars, such as Toyotas, Commodores, Fords and a range of other vehicles, and it was hitting those people earning less than $80,000 a year the hardest.
The member for Grayndler went out and said they were driving Maseratis. Well maybe in the inner west of Sydney they are driving Maseratis and earning $80,000 a year—and I had better call the tax man about that—but the fact is that it hurt the lowest income Australians. It hurt the charities. As the Prime Minister knows, when we met with the charities they were the ones who were being slugged the hardest. The Salvation Army, for example, confirmed it would have to raise an additional $4 million a year to comply with the Labor Party's announced changes in relation to fringe benefits tax for vehicles. Just think of those poor buggers out there, standing outside railway stations with cans, trying to raise money for the causes they know are important—and the Labor Party did not even think about that. The Salvos were going to be hit with an extra $4 million bill. That is the problem with this mob. They do not understand the implications of their decisions. It comes back to the fact that when it comes to tax, when it comes to the budget and when it comes to the economy you cannot trust Labor.
Mr Abbott: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (15:14): I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr ALBANESE: Yes.
The SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Mr ALBANESE: I refer to an article on 10 August in a page 1 splash in the Daily Telegraph headlined 'Albo's Air Farce: Minister accused of helping MPs break curfew'. It was alleged by Sydney Airport chief Max Moore-Wilton that my office 'allowed 10 flights after the curfew between 11 pm and 11.30 pm the other night' and he is reported as saying, 'I suspect there were a few politicians on these planes.'
The facts are these. Mr Moore-Wilton would know full well that decisions about the curfew's operation are made by the delegate of the secretary of my former department. Neither I nor my office made decisions on curfew dispensations on that evening. Further, there were no planes which took off or landed after the curfew. Further again, there were no politicians on those non-existent planes.
I seek to make a further explanation. I can do them all in a job lot if you like, in order of the Daily Telegraph's coverage.
The SPEAKER: I think that is a good idea.
Mr ALBANESE: On the same day in an article headlined on page 3, 'Green light to break curfew', Mr Moore-Wilton alleged that I had written to Qatar Airways advising them not to fly to Sydney. The fact is this. Qatar is permitted right now to fly to Sydney seven times a week. Instead they choose to fly seven times a week to Melbourne and seven times a week to Perth, a fact that was relayed to the DailyTelegraph.
I have been further misrepresented in the same article. Mr Moore-Wilton is quoted as saying:
Really he is the minister for no noise over Marrickville. He will never spend a dollar on Sydney Airport because the No Aircraft Noise Party and the Greens will tear him limb from limb.
The facts are these. Sydney Airport is a privately run airport that has made substantial returns. I note it is yet to pay a single dollar in tax since it was privatised.
Further, on 19 August in a front-page splash, 'Albanese blows billions on airport curfew', John Lyman claimed:
The Deputy Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's restrictive management of the Sydney Airport curfew has cost Australia $3.5 billion in lost tourism and nearly 8,000 jobs.
The facts, which were also conveyed to the DailyTelegraph at the time, are these. The curfew was introduced after a private member's bill from the then member for Bennelong, John Howard. As minister, I made no changes to the act or the operation of the curfew. Between 5 am and 6 am the act did allow for limited exemptions for arrivals at Sydney Airport—ironically because of curfews which operate at both Heathrow and Frankfurt airports. By extension of the methods Sydney Airport used—that 11 flights a week deliver almost 8,000 jobs—this logic suggests that Sydney Airport itself is responsible for 4,195,800 jobs.
The SPEAKER: We are getting into argument there. Just show where you have been misrepresented.
Mr ALBANESE: Further, on 19 August, in an article by John Lyman on page 4 of the DailyTelegraph headlined, 'Wimpish personal politics put ahead of the national interest', Mr Lyman argued that I had let my 'fear of aircraft blind him'—meaning me—'to the enormous economic benefits in job opportunities he is denying the people of Sydney'. The fact is this. The regulation limiting flights arriving in Sydney between 5 am and 6 am each week to 24 has not been changed by any minister, including me, since it was introduced in 1995. During my time as minister I received no applications for flights outside curfew from curfew constrained destinations.
Further, on 21 August in an article in the DailyTelegraph headed 'Too few flights cater for Chinese', John Lyman accused me of undermining the Chinese tourism boom by failing to strike a deal to allow more flights in. The facts are these. Right now, more than 5,500 unused weekly sites are available to Chinese carriers flying to major Australian airports and further seats are available for flights to airports other than the gateway airports. As minister, I in fact signed off on agreements which tripled capacity with China. The last agreements were signed just last year and we announced new flights to Cairns with China Southern during the recent election campaign.
The SPEAKER: Is this next one the last one? Good.
Mr ALBANESE: The DailyTelegraph was busy during the campaign. On 4 September in a DailyTelegraph article Andrew Clennell stated that I had 'Failed to turn a single sod on a string of major Sydney projects.' The facts are these. All major infrastructure projects have significant lead times. They require extensive consultation, planning and expenditure before commencement of construction. The work I commissioned on projects such as the second Sydney airport was essential prior work that now facilitates early decisions on the merit of these projects.
The SPEAKER: The member is now getting into argument. He said you had not turned a sod.
Mr ALBANESE: The fact is that in six years the government committed more than $5.5 billion to transport projects servicing Sydney, including $840 million for the northern Sydney freight line upgrade, which was commenced with a sod turned by me and the New South Wales Premier, Barry O'Farrell; $800 million for the Moorebank Intermodal; $980 million for the southern Sydney freight line, which was concluded and opened while I was the minister; $405 million for the F3 to M2 missing link; $300 million for the Great Western Highway, work that is almost concluded; $172 million for Port Botany rail improvements; $93 million to widen the F5 at Campbelltown, which was announced, funded, built and opened on my watch; $75 million for the upgrade of the Port Botany rail line; $40 million for the Port Botany upgrade program; and $1.8 billion to deliver the M4 and M5 extension, in partnership with the New South Wales government and the private sector. The former government's contribution is 5.5 times greater than the total infrastructure investment in Sydney by the Howard government during their 12 long years.
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:15): Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the member claim to have been misrepresented?
Ms PLIBERSEK: I do, by the health minister.
The SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Ms PLIBERSEK: Sadly, the health minister sought to politicise the delivery of cancer medicines today. I need to inform the House that in fact Australia now has the best five-year cancer survival rates in the world. There was no disruption under the previous government to chemotherapy services. In fact, some older medicines came down in price. At the same time we listed $2 billion worth of new medicines, 36 new listings—
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: the member needs to show where they were personally misrepresented and correct the misrepresentation. It is not an opportunity for argument. The member for Grayndler showed her how to do it. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has failed to do it successfully. I would therefore put it to you that she has abused the opportunity to correct the misrepresentation.
The SPEAKER: To the Deputy Leader of the Opposition I would say that the member for Grayndler did show how it is done correctly. The deputy leader is not doing it properly. She is indulging in argument. Perhaps the member can show precisely where she has been misrepresented, with a statement and a response.
Ms PLIBERSEK: I do not have the health minister's response in writing, but my recollection of his wording was that there was the suggestion that chemotherapy services were disrupted under my watch as health minister. That is completely untrue. New medicines were listed on the PBS for 17 different cancers.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House is seeking the call. I know he is going to say that that is not a proper exercise of the function of correcting the record. But, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has concluded, we will leave it there.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (15:17): Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the member claim to have been misrepresented?
Dr LEIGH: Most grievously.
The SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Dr LEIGH: In today's Australian the Treasurer attempted to draft me as a supporter of his $200 billion increase in the debt cap, quoting my words from May 2012. In those statements I was referring to a $50 billion increase, one that had been justified weeks earlier in the 2012 budget. I have been misrepresented, because this increase is four times larger and no justification for it has been provided. The Treasurer cannot conscript me into his service.
DOCUMENTS
Department of the House of Representatives
Presentation
The SPEAKER (15:18): Pursuant to section 65 of the Parliamentary Service Act 1999, I present the annual report of the Department of the House of Representatives for 2012-13.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
COMMITTEES
Reports
The SPEAKER (15:18): I present reports from committees of the 43rd Parliament received by my predecessor, after the last sitting of the House in 2013, pursuant to the standing orders, and joint committee reports tabled in the Senate prior to the dissolution. Details of the reports will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Ordered that the reports be made a parliamentary papers.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
Annual Report 2012-13
Reports Nos 1 to 9 of 2012-13
The SPEAKER (15:19): I present the Auditor-General's annual report for 2012-13 and performance audit reports Nos 1 to 9 for 2013-14. Details of the reports will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Abbott Government
The SPEAKER (15:20): I have received a letter from the honourable member for Maribyrnong proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government’s failure to be the Government they promised the Australian public they would be.
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—
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (15:21): Australians, over the last eight weeks, have become very aware that the government they thought they were voting for, the one that was promised, is not materialising into the one that they have. To support this submission, I would put forward to the House and to those listening that this is a government which Australians are getting to learn about. It is a government of broken promises. It is a government that implements cuts that will hurt Australian families. It has divisions in its cabinet and it has unprecedented levels of secrecy.
Before the election, the now Prime Minister said, 'I will keep my commitments. We will do exactly what we say we will do.' But, less than eight weeks since the election, we are seeing the exact opposite. This is not the government that Australians were told they would be getting.
Let me talk about the challenge in the economy. Before the election, the Treasurer said, 'If debt is the problem, more debt is not the answer.' What do they do when they get into government? They run crazy on the government taxpayer credit card and are now seeking to almost double the debt levels. Before the election, the Prime Minister said that governments should be forced to specifically justify raising the debt ceiling and not just sweep it under the carpet. That was the coalition standard in opposition. It is a different and lower standard in government. Instead, they want to raise our debt to a historic level—$200 billion extra, the fastest and largest increase and the highest level of government debt in the history of federation. To be fair, this is not just secretive; it is sloppy.
Before the election, the coalition famously said that they would be a government of no surprises and no excuses. They said that they wanted to return to surplus as quickly as possible. But why on earth do they need to raise the debt level to $500 billion if they are planning to get into surplus by 2016-17? There is simply no case to raise the debt cap to $500 billion if you intend to get into surplus by 2016-17. If they have no plan to get into surplus, that is a different argument. But they cannot have both.
Instead of paying back the debt, they are inflating our deficit. And where do we start with their rash decisions? They have given a nearly $9 billion handout to the Reserve Bank of Australia, despite Treasury advice that it would be counterproductive. But, not content to increase the deficit by $9 billion, what do they do when they look at people with superannuation accounts of over $2 million? They give them extra tax breaks. If you are one of the 16,000 Australians who has an account of over $2 million, this government is on your side. But, if you are one of the 3.6 million Australians who earn less than $37,000, this is not the government for you.
The government want to give tax breaks to multinational companies. Indeed, they want to provide tax breaks for companies that seek to borrow to invest not—as you would think—in Australia but overseas. There we have it: in coalition-land, Australian taxpayers give tax breaks to those who do not need them, to multinationals and to companies to invest overseas. Why on earth didn't we think of that?
I will now talk about the priorities of the government. They made some simple promises before the election, ones that you would not have thought would be too hard to meet. The Prime Minister said that he would visit Indonesia in his first week. Bad luck, Indonesia: no Tony Abbott. He said that he would visit Arnhem Land in the first week. Bad luck, Arnhem Land: no Tony Abbott. Minister Ley promised to commence a Productivity Commission inquiry into child care in the first week. The poor little kids of Australia in child care have waited for eight weeks, and no Productivity Commission inquiry has started.
These serial repeat offenders in breaking promises famously said—and I like this one—that they would not have a Geneva focused foreign policy but a Jakarta focused foreign policy. I am sure that the Swiss are happy that there has been no focus on them, because what do a coalition frontbench do when they focus on you? They start abusing you. I love it: the coalition, fresh from being elected to government in Australia, have decided to try and run Indonesia. Why didn't we think of that?
Even more seriously, we have seen small businesses devastated by the bushfires. I ask the government—even if nothing I say convinces them—to please reconsider their approach to bushfire assistance to small businesses.
Whatever the problem, the Prime Minister says, 'Neck a public servant; get rid of a public servant.' But he says—and this comes from the lovely bubble-world that the coalition live in when it comes to industrial relations—that they can get rid of 20,000 public servants through natural attrition. They are going to wait for them to retire, supposedly. But instead what we are actually seeing is that they are not even keeping to that strategy. We are now seeing redundancies being offered.
And we have the famous boats promises. They were going to stop boats. Then they were going to buy boats. I bet that we never hear about the 'buy a tinny' strategy again. Now they are simply hiding the boats.
This is not the worst of it. Before the election, the coalition accused Labor of running a massive scare campaign when we said that the coalition would attack families in Australia. After eight weeks, we are seeing our claims coming true. These cuts are occurring. We know the list. Australians are learning about that list, to their disappointment. When you are in the coalition, why not cut the schoolkid's bonus? Why not take money off 1.3 million families? For a typical family, over the course of their children's schooling the coalition have put their hand in your pocket for $15,000. Only the coalition could dream of that.
Fresh from robbing the money from the kids, they moved on to people's superannuation. The government famously said that they would do nothing adverse to superannuation. Then they froze the superannuation increase. If you do not think that is adverse, go out into the real world. The coalition policy of keeping the superannuation guarantee at 9.25 per cent means that working Australians will have tens of thousands of dollars less. That is not the right way to ensure that Australians have decent retirements.
And 3.2 million small businesses get tax hikes worth $4.6 billion. Just because you say that you are the friend of small business does not make you the friend of small business. It is deeds, not words. The AI Group Chief Executive, Innes Willox, said this about the Prime Minister's tax hikes on small business: 'They will add complexity and compliance costs for eligible small businesses. It will subtract from their cash flow over the next few years at a time when many small businesses are struggling.' Do not just take our word for it; take the word of the Australian Industry Group.
We also understand that the Prime Minister's commission of audit is really a commission for cuts in drag. If we needed to be reminded or convinced of this, the chair of the Prime Minister's business advisory council went rogue on Monday—they let him out; I am sure that in the Prime Minister's office the red alarm lights went off. He is another very well off businessman proposing more crazy ideas that the coalition secretly love. Do you know what he said? He said that the minimum wage is too high. Do those opposite think that the minimum wage is too high? In fact, do those opposite even know what the minimum wage is?
They said that the NDIS is 'reckless'—thank you, very much, Maurice Newman! And we have seen the reports that the commission and the government are considering. We could not even dream up this list of scare campaigns in the election, because even we thought it was being unfair to the coalition. Why didn't we think of telling Australians that those opposite, looking to privatise HECS debt, were going to privatise Australia Post? They are going to outsource Centrelink and Medicare—and why not outsource the National Disability Insurance Scheme? So much for commitments about no surprises, so much for commitments about no honesty, so much for this government's priorities.
And we have seen the attack on experts. When you have a problem, why not blame an expert? The Prime Minister has never seen an expert that he did not want to sack. And we have seen disagreements within the government—not a promising sign. You have poor old Minister Macfarlane trying to stand up for the car industry. I love getting a lecture from the other side about the car industry! They want to rush down and just close the whole game down. What Mr Macfarlane said in the Financial Review is that if you do not subsidise the industry it will not be there. He then says, 'I accept that argument'—I am sure the Nats do, as frustrated agrarian socialists—'but I'm not sure that my colleagues do.'
Now we have seen the Treasurer, and we have seen the remarkable saga which is the difference of opinion between the Treasurer and the Deputy Prime Minister on GrainCorp. How good is it? We have an independent Foreign Investment Review Board, but we have those in the coalition feuding like cats and dogs about the future of GrainCorp. That is not business certainty. Indeed, the communications and finance ministers—this was a classic one— (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to respond to the statement when I say that your time has expired, and not go over time.
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley—Minister for Small Business) (15:31): Wasn't that an interesting insight into what Labor has learnt from its election loss? It has learnt absolutely nothing. Despite this charade of democracy, trying to find who will take over a Labor Party and a Labor movement that believes in nothing, has no ideas about the future and thinks every public outing is a branch meeting, we have just seen writ large that nothing will change under this Labor government—this Labor opposition, I should say; isn't it interesting how you can get into that habit, having listened to that kind of rant over six years and realise, 'Gee, it is a different side of the chamber, but nothing's changed.' You have seen the new opposition leader trying to scratch around for some attack points as some kind of red meat for Labor backbenchers who realise that they have a leader who believes in nothing, who got through a beauty contest to become leader for a party that has not learnt anything from the election results and can offer nothing new in terms of the future prospects for this country.
What is clear, though, is that nobody has lamented the Labor loss. People greeted the change of government with optimism and positivity. You have seen that in some of the survey results that have already been released. You have seen that in the engagement of Australian men and women in the governing of our country, the bringing forward of ideas—that you do not need to be a big union boss to get the ear of the government. This Abbott coalition government is interested in and values everybody's views, and we are keen to support all their ambitions, not just those of the union hierarchy, which still seems to be coming through from those opposite.
The opposition leader sought to make the case that somehow the government has not done what it promised to do. Isn't it interesting? Normally when he is on talkback radio he is complaining about the consistency of the government's agenda. He is trying to mock what he believes is a mantra of our election commitments that actually represent the key cornerstones of a plan to restore hope, reward and opportunity in this country; to build a prosperous economy; to see that through that prosperity opportunities are available to all, not just some; to see our economic security strengthen and to see our national security strengthened. This is what this debate is about. (Quorum formed) Isn't it interesting? Day one, MPI, it is supposed to be Labor making the killer blows at the politics of the day, and they are trying to run down the shot clock by some simple facts that this is a nonsensical motion—from a Labor movement and a Labor leader who believes in nothing, has no plans for the future and has learnt absolutely nothing from the election result. Let's have a look at their allegation—some suggestion that the government has not done what it promised. Isn't that extraordinary? It seems as if the Labor movement has not recognised the election result and the basis on which the coalition took a very positive plan about the future to the electorate.
Is it strange that the Labor Party have not picked up that we are trying to abolish the carbon tax? Can anyone remember a discussion about a carbon tax? I remember a discussion about a carbon tax. I remember very clearly the commitment made by the coalition that, if we earnt the support of the Australian public, we would get on and, as the first order of business, abolish the carbon tax—something so cruel, so punishing to too many Australian households; an impost that so many small businesses are finding is pushing them right to the edge of viability. We have done exactly what we said we were going to do. The first order of business in this parliament was to abolish the carbon tax—and we have Labor suggesting we are not doing what we said we were going to do!
Do you remember a message, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead'? Wasn't that a statement made by a Labor leader prior to the election before the one just held? Isn't that a rolled-gold, world-leading example of promising to do something and then not doing it—or, in this case, as Labor did, promising not to do something and then going ahead and doing it anyway? The hide of Labor coming in here making this allegation can only be matched by the insensitivity of Labor to the reality of the election result. We have got on with abolishing the carbon tax.
What about the FBT hit on the car industry? We promised that we would knock that off, too, because that was like a dagger to the heart of the car industry. The last thing they needed was a Labor induced reason for people not to buy Australian cars. We have got on and dealt with that. What about the Clean Energy Finance Corporation? Didn't we say that that was going to be abolished? Again, we have got on with that very clear commitment. What about having a military led effort to protect our borders? I seem to recall that that has been happening as well. Has anyone noticed some discussion about that? Even those opposite recognise an awful lot of effort and enterprise has been going into that area. Establishing an Indigenous advisory council—tick, done: promised and delivered. A business advisory council is another example of where the government is getting on and implementing its commitments.
There is the engagement with Indonesia. The Prime Minister's first overseas visit—tick, another commitment delivered. There is a review into training and education programs for Indigenous people. We are looking at a genuine compensation scheme for Australian victims of terrorism. The list goes on and on. What we have seen time and time again are examples of the coalition making clear, straightforward commitments and then getting on with implementing them. A one-stop shop to streamline environmental approvals has already been endorsed through bilateral arrangements with two states—another example of getting on with our work. It is all about giving our country its best prospects to be its very best.
There is the Commission of Audit, trying to end the binge of spending that we saw under Labor. Remember that Labor election commitment that they were 'fiscal conservatives'? If you could bring in revenue for irony, there would have been an enormous budget surplus under Labor! So much for fiscal conservatives—they wouldn't know a surplus if they fell over one. Now we have to try and restore the finances of this nation so that not only are we delivering our promises, as we committed to doing; we are delivering improved opportunities for Australians—not just now but into the future. Ours is a government that is doing the hard work to put in place its plans so that our nation can be its very best.
The Leader of the Opposition talked about budget decisions. Wasn't it Labor that promised on over 500 occasions that they would deliver a surplus? They sent out newsletters to households around Australia. Isn't it a little bit rich for them to come in and say that we are not doing what we said we would? They are saying they did things they didn't do, like deliver a surplus—and then produced newsletters to that effect. They went on about the debt limit. At least there was some integrity in the former Treasurer, when Wayne Swan admitted that there was a problem but someone else would have to deal with it. That was his candid observation. And now we are getting criticised by Labor for actually dealing with it.
On natural disaster assistance for small business: is this not the height of all irony? We have acted decisively to implement our election policy. What Labor are complaining about is that we have not done in six weeks what they didn't do in six years! They did not even have a policy. But time and time again we made the simple point that small businesses can be indirectly affected by natural disasters. They may not be in the direct path of those natural disasters but they were impacted by them. We are working to implement that commitment, a commitment those opposite did not even have the wit to come up with over six years.
What you have is this vivid contrast: a careful, competent coalition government led by an outstanding Prime Minister with a terrific team, an emboldened backbench with more talent. This is an outstanding political gene pool of great people getting— (Time expired)
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:41): This government is not the one that Australians voted for. They have failed to be the government that they promised they would be. They promised, for example, that their foreign policy would be 'less Geneva and more Jakarta'. That has worked really well over the last few weeks, hasn't it!
The Leader of the Opposition and I met with a delegation from the Indonesian government this morning, and it was a very constructive meeting. It was a meeting that underlined the importance of our long and deep relationship. Indeed, the relationship was never better than it was under the previous Labor government. We handed over a relationship in fine working order. In just a matter of weeks we have seen misstep after misstep from this government. I strongly urge the government to repair this important relationship with one of our nearest neighbours.
The government also promised to be open and transparent. We saw that at work this morning, didn't we! We saw not just the government voting to gag the minister for immigration; we saw the minister for immigration voting to gag the minister for immigration! So much for openness and transparency. Since coming to office, this Prime Minister has created a culture of secrecy. It started before the election, with backbenchers banned, with candidates banned, with even frontbenchers banned, from speaking to the media. We had one candidate talking after the election about how he was banned from attending a shopping centre with the Prime Minister. He was not even allowed to walk beside the Prime Minister, the then opposition leader, through a shopping centre! Since the election, this culture of secrecy has become deeper and it has become worse. Today we were debating a set of standing orders that reduce the opportunity for debate and discussion in this House, that reduce the opportunities that private members have to raise and debate the issues that are important in their electorates, the issues that matter to their constituents.
This government is not the government that it promised it would be—not when it comes to transparency and accountability and not when it comes to being an adult government. We wasted time this morning because the Leader of the House wanted to defend his right to call people names in the House of Representatives! He wanted to defend his right to act like a schoolchild in the House of Representatives.
The people of the Blue Mountains and the people of the Hunter region who were affected by bushfires have faced perhaps the deepest and most distressing let-down by the government—perhaps the deepest and most distressing difference between what the government said before the election and what they are doing now.
The previous member spoke about the grants to small business. He was somehow intimating that this was all happening, that it was all underway. I would like him to tell the House whether any business that has been affected by bushfire has received any payment. Now is when they need it, not in six months time, not in a year's time. Has any business received any of the money they were promised? Having been Minister for Human Services during the time of the Queensland floods, I know that the criteria that are now being used to evaluate who is eligible for a $1,000 emergency relief payment for adults and a $400 emergency payment for children are different. There are people who are missing out after these bushfires who under Labor's rules would have received that modest amount of money to help them at a time of unparalleled, unprecedented needs when they have been confronted by probably the worst days of their lives, evacuated from their homes not knowing whether they will have a home to go back to and let down by this government. When did you say prior to the election that you would take money from bushfire victims? When did you say to the Australian people that bushfire victims would suffer if you were elected?
And not only that but they have failed to deal with the New South Wales government to properly deal with the asbestos clean-up in the bushfire affected areas. It means people are facing delays that they should not be facing. It means the construction effort is being hampered and hindered—because the federal government has refused to work properly with the New South Wales government in the way that happened after the Victorian bushfires and the Tasmanian bushfires. Again, they are letting down people who have been affected by bushfires in New South Wales.
They said they would improve the relationship with Indonesia; they have not. They said they would be open and transparent; they are not. They said they would be adults; they are not. And they never said they would betray bushfire victims.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): I would advise the member for Sydney that the use of the word 'you' is a reflection on the chair. It was common in the last parliament on both sides of the chamber. On this first sitting day it is time to remind all members that the use of the word 'you' is a reflection on the chair; it is through the chair that you are speaking. I take this opportunity to bring that to the attention of both sides of the House.
Ms PLIBERSEK: I apologise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would never intend to reflect on you.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for Sydney.
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (15:47): Mr Deputy Speaker, congratulations on your appointment. Getting a lecture from the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition about promises and trust is like getting a lecture from Eddie Obeid on ethics: it is not credible. The opposition has chosen to focus on this question. Frankly, I thought there was nothing more that the Labor Party could do that would shock me, but today it has again shocked me. This is from Labor, which failed to do as it promised in government. It promised it would not bring in a carbon tax, yet what it did immediately after forming government was to introduce it. It promised that it would deliver a surplus, at a time when we were experiencing our highest terms of trade; it delivered not one surplus. It promised it would limit debt, yet it had to increase the debt ceiling from $75 billion to $200 billion to $300 billion. And now we are forced to deal with Labor's debt, which will mean we need to raise the debt ceiling to $500 billion. It promised that it would be responsible with taxpayer money, yet the Labor Party delivered pink batts and overpriced school halls. The Labor Party promised that, when it formed government, it would be more humane on boat arrivals, and yet, in dismantling the very successful Howard government initiatives, we saw more than 1,000 people die at sea. So I will not take a lecture from the Labor Party on trust, integrity and promises.
We on our side of politics take this very, very seriously. We said that we would restore hope, reward and opportunity for all Australians. We said we would restore dignity to this place, and we have done that. The appointment of Speaker Bishop and Deputy Speaker Scott has restored dignity to this place. We said we would have respect for the Australian taxpayer and their hard-earned dollars; indeed, we do. The very first thing we have done in this place on our first day of parliamentary business is bring forward legislation to repeal the carbon tax. It is a promise we made before the election and it is a promise we will deliver. The only way this promise will be obstructed is if those opposite do not listen to the Australian people and try and stop us from delivering this promise to get rid of a carbon tax that puts our businesses at a competitive disadvantage to those overseas and costs the average Australian household more than $550 a year. That is point No. 1: we are delivering on the carbon tax.
We are also delivering on respect for taxpayers' money. We have set up a commission of audit; it is well underway. We are going through the budget, line by line, to make sure that not one dollar of hard-earned taxpayers' money is wasted. That audit will shortly be delivering its findings. We have also said we are going to cut $1 billion of red tape and regulations. Under the previous government, we saw more than 21,000 new regulations introduced; they promised it would be one regulation in and one regulation out, yet we have seen an explosion in regulation. Already we have cut green tape by signing up with the states on a one-stop shop. The Queensland government is already on board, and other states are signing up as well, to make it easier for businesses to grow, for investment to occur and to employ people in jobs.
We said before the election that we would stop the boats. We have seen a very significant reduction in boat arrivals through the suite of policies that we promised to put in place before the election, which are now in place today. The minister has been reporting week by week. In his Friday report just gone, there had been not one boat arrival for two weeks. We are a government that delivers on our promises. Those opposite simply shriek from the sidelines and try and hold us to a standard that they themselves were not prepared to deliver. They never met that standard and they do not intend to meet it now. They do not intend to listen to the Australian people now.
The Prime Minister also promised that the very first country that he would visit when he was Prime Minister was Indonesia and, again, that is something that we have done in government. We will deliver on our promises. We just ask the Labor Party not to stand in the way.
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (15:52): There is so much to choose from when speaking on this MPI. We could talk about immigration and how this government is not what it promised to be—how they promised to turn back the boats, and buy the boats. We saw the spectacle today of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection saying that that was an operational issue, and treating this parliament with contempt. That is not how we recall him behaving when he stood at this dispatch box on this side of the House—it was a very different attitude from the member for Cook in those days. But we cannot go past the other spectacle and the other prime example of this government's breach of promise to the Australian people, and that is the management of debt and deficit—the prime example—
Government members interjecting—
Mr BOWEN: of this government's hypocrisy. On 22 October the Treasurer, with equal parts chutzpah and hypocrisy, stood in the blue room and said: 'By the way'—casually, he said—'we are going to increase the debt limit to half a trillion dollars.' Around Australia, voters, even conservatives, scratched their heads and said: 'Is this the same Joe Hockey? Is this the same Joe Hockey who told us—not that debt was a challenge, not that debt was a problem, not even that debt was a crisis—that we had a budget emergency?' Well, some emergency—especially if the way to fix it is to increase the debt limit to half a trillion dollars! When this government said, 'We will pay back the debt,' did the Australian people think that that meant increasing the debt limit to half a trillion dollars? The Prime Minister stood in the chamber today and said: 'We never voted against an increase in the debt limit when we were in opposition—we might have voted against stimulus measures.' That is just plain wrong. It is misleading this parliament and misleading the Australian people. He and all his colleagues voted against increases in the debt limit. Now they are proposing the biggest one in history: a 67 per cent—$200 billion—increase in the debt limit of this country. Why? Because debt is going to increase. 'Debt going to surge, Abbott admits'—is that what the he told the Australian people before the election, Mr Deputy Speaker? Is this a headline we would have seen before September 7? Is this a headline you would have put in your election pamphlets—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for McMahon will not use props. He knows it is disorderly.
Mr BOWEN: I think I have made my point, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don't force me to make another point!
Mr BOWEN: There is no budget emergency to be seen after the election. And it is not just that: last year on 11 May, we heard the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, talking about debt limits. He went on radio 2GB—just for a change, to face a hard-hitting interview—and he said about the previous government's debt limit: 'The government has to justify this. Our money, our future is too important to be mortgaged like this without the government giving us the strongest possible arguments for it, because every dollar they borrow has to be repaid. Give us the strongest possible arguments for it.' Now, in office, they casually release an increase in the debt limit to half a trillion dollars, with no argument—and with no mid-year economic forecast—to justify this. And again, we saw the Prime Minister standing at that dispatch box today saying, 'We will release MYEFO in December, just like the previous government did.' That is the second misleading of the parliament in his first question time—one question time, two misleads of the parliament from the Prime Minister—because not once during the Rudd or Gillard governments was the mid-year economic forecast released in December—not once. A clear mistruth from the Prime Minister of Australia, standing at that dispatch box in question time. This is not something he told the Australian people before the election: that his government would seek an increase in the debt cap without releasing MYEFO—that is, a mini-budget. This is not something he said before the election; it is something he misleads the House about after the election, in the first question time. That is two misleads by the Prime Minister of Australia—two misleads of this parliament. That is treating the parliament with contempt. At least the member for Cook did not mislead the parliament; he just did not tell us anything! But the Prime Minister has misled this parliament twice on matters of economics.
We had the Treasurer standing at this dispatch box on 21 May 2012—you can just imagine him; he would have been in full flight, all bluff and bluster—and saying:
Now they are saying they are living within their means but are also saying, 'Just in case, please give us an increase in the credit card limit to $300 billion.' It does not sound like a lot if you say it quickly but it is a hell of a lot of money that Australians have to repay.
Three hundred billion dollars was a lot before the election; $500 billion is a mere trifle after the election—a mere bagatelle that this parliament should apparently approve without debate, in 24 hours, because the Treasurer says so in his arrogant way.
This parliament will approve a debt limit but not the one this Treasurer arrogantly calls for. (Time expired)
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson—The Nationals Deputy Whip) (15:57): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and may I congratulate you on your reappointment as Deputy Chair. We have just heard from the member for McMahon, Blowin' Bowen—blowin' in the House and blowin' the budget—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CHRISTENSEN: but the member for McMahon just shows the hypocrisy of this government. The reality is, we are being the government that we promised to be. More than that, we are being the government that the Australian people expect us to be. A government that actually says what it means and does what it says. An adult government—a government committed to axing the carbon tax and the mining tax; a government committed to stopping the boats and securing our borders; a government committed to getting rid of the red tape in order to build this nation.
What hypocrisy we have seen in the speeches from those opposite. These were the people who said they were going to be fiscal conservatives before one election and then went in and blew the bank. They blew everything that was in the kitty—on Pink Batts, on overpriced school halls; you name it, they blew it. These are the same people that promised over and over again, hundreds of times in fact, that they were going to achieve a surplus. But where is the surplus? Debt and deficit is all we got from the last regime. And finally, these were the guys that promised, infamously, before the 2010 election that there would be no carbon tax under the government they led, and what did they do immediately after that? They brought in a carbon tax that has helped to wreck this economy. More than that, they promised just before the last election that they were going to get rid of the carbon tax—they actually said that they had gotten rid of it—but it is still here. And here they are in this chamber, these hypocrites, opposing our measures to try and repeal the carbon tax. They can't even keep their own promises. We have seen it time and time again. That is what we have come to expect from this lot. But now they are trying to stop this government, this adult government, from keeping its promises. They have the hypocrisy to come in here and talk about keeping promises and lecture us. In the last parliament 149 out of 150 members had gone to the election promising there would be no carbon tax, and Labor gave us one anyway. In this parliament, 149 out of 150 members went to the election promising again that there would be no carbon tax, and now they want to keep it.
Let us look at what the Liberal-National government promised the Australian public before the election and compare that with what is happening right now. We promised a number of important things to get this country back on track. We promised to build a strong and prosperous economy and to build a safe and secure Australia. At the election, the people agreed with our plan, giving a strong mandate to implement that plan with a resounding yes. We promised to axe the carbon tax, to end the waste, to stop the boats and to build the roads of the 21st century. Repealing the carbon tax is a key initiative in removing the roadblocks that Labor and the Greens put into our economy. We promised to remove that tax to get the monkey off the back of industry and to lower power prices for families. We told the Australian people that the carbon tax repeal would be our first order of business, and it has been, despite the efforts of those opposite to frustrate things today. We promised to scrap the mining tax, and indeed that is coming. We promised to stop the boats, and since Operation Sovereign Borders has commenced, the number of boat arrivals has fallen by 75 per cent. In contrast, these guys—Labor—dismantled the Howard government's proven border protection policies, which resulted in more than 50,000 illegal arrivals by boat on their watch, creating a blow-out of $11.6 billion.
We promised to cut red tape. Already we have commenced a commission of audit to end duplication and ensure that people get value for their tax dollars. We have already identified needless red and green tape that is choking industry. We have got agreements in place with Queensland and New South Wales to move towards a one-stop environmental assessment shop. That will create huge savings in time and money for business while enforcing environmental standards. We have already started making the tax system fairer by cleaning up the books that these guys left. Last week the government dealt with 93 tax measures that were left unlegislated and unresolved by the Labor government. We have already moved to get rid of Labor's $1.8 billion FBT hit on the car industry.
We have made these promises and we are delivering them because we want to get on with building the nation that people actually want. We are keeping the promises that we made, because they are about building a strong economy, like the one we should have. We are about being a government that we promised we would be—an adult government that is axing the taxes, stopping the boats and cutting the waste in order to build the nation. (Time expired)
Mr MARLES (Corio) (16:02): Yes, indeed, an adult government is what was promised. Open and transparent government was the commitment before the election, but what we have in the Abbott government is a government which is characterised by secrecy. Who would have thought before the election that the way in which media would be done by this government after the election would be based on the most rigid command and control operation run by the Prime Minister's media office? Already we have got ministers being refused permission to appear on programs to say their word, and we know about it. It is the first working day of this government in this parliament and the cabinet is already bleeding.
We are seeing the culture of secrecy being applied most significantly to border protection. On 23 September the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection announced to everyone that there would be a weekly briefing about border protection in this country. What he made clear first and foremost in that briefing was not what he would say but what he would not say. He was not going to tell anybody—he would not be briefing on—anything which constituted an operational matter. Since then we have learnt that just about everything constitutes an operational matter. A boat which the whole of the country knows is already in Darwin—the fact of that—is an operational matter which could not be confirmed in this parliament today in question time. Where ministers are meant to be held to account, the minister for immigration today put himself above question time and refused to confirm the fact that there is a boat in Darwin Harbour—a fact that the whole country is aware of.
We are now in a situation where we learn more from the Jakarta Post about the circumstances of our border protection than we do from our own government. We learn more about an interception at sea—as we did last Thursday evening—from Indonesian search and rescue authorities than we do from our own government. Having promised open and transparent government before the election, what we have after the election is a government which is operating on a need to know basis. The Australian people are being given information about what this government is doing on a need to know basis.
What we are seeing from this government—having declared that the adults are now in the room, that the adults are back in charge, that there will be no bickering—is more division in its first two months than we have seen from any government in the history of federation. There is more division between the National Party and the Liberal Party today than there has been in the history of the coalition.
Let us take foreign investment as an example of that. We hear the Minister for Trade and Investment talking about the need to enter into a free trade agreement with China—a laudable objective, might I say. Hundreds of thousands of future Australian jobs are dependent upon that, but we hear everyone in the National Party demonising foreign investment in this country, running to the decks of xenophobia. There is as big an ideological division between the National Party and the Liberal Party today as we have seen since the coalition has existed. In the last few days we have seen this turn into high farce in terms of the contradictions which have occurred between the various cabinet ministers in relation to border protection.
On Monday we saw the Minister for Foreign Affairs being asked a question about a significant matter—the relationship between Australia and one of our nearest neighbours, Indonesia; that is not an unimportant bilateral relationship. What did she say? She ducked for cover; she vacated the field. Probably fairly for her, she decided that discretion was the better part of valour and she pointed directly to the immigration minister. So we go to the immigration minister, and what does he have to say about the relationship with Indonesia when it comes to asylum seekers? He says he can see no rhyme or reason for the behaviour of Indonesia when it comes to asylum seekers. The Prime Minister, having said before the election that he would not engage in megaphone diplomacy, does precisely that and starts lecturing Indonesia from Australia about its obligations to take people back. We have even seen the minister say that there is no people-swap deal on the table, and we have had the Prime Minister in question time this afternoon refusing to rule it out. The adults are not in the room; what we have on the other side is high farce.
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Government Whip) (16:07): Congratulations to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your position. I know that this is the first sitting week of the new parliament, but clearly the opposition may need some more time to work out how to be an effective opposition. If you look at this MPI you would not think that this was the most effective way to be an opposition. In fact, we have seen some almost hysterical contributions. After all, the election was a couple of months ago, and they have had two months to plan this first MPI. How are we going to do it really well? What is the key thing we are going to come up with to hold the government to account? What have we got?
All we have is hypocrisy—absolute hypocrisy—and nonsense from the opposition. This MPI is about the apparent failure of the government. We are what we promised the Australian people we would be. I look at what they are saying is a failure, and I look at my colleagues and I think, 'Are the opposition referring to our attack on removing the carbon taxes?' Do you think that is what they are actually referring to when they say we are not doing what we said we would do? That was the main thing we took to the election. We said we would do it. What was the first business that came in here today? The carbon tax! We must be doing something that we said we were going to do. Is it perhaps our promise to get rid of the mining tax? We are doing that, as well. Perhaps we are failing in our promise to reverse Labor's fringe-benefit-tax hit on the car industry. But, no; we are doing that as well. If that is failure, I would hate to see what success is.
We are doing exactly what we said we would do, and we will keep doing it. If these are the arbiters, how do they compare with what the Labor Party did in government? Just before the 2010 we had that now infamous promise that there would be no carbon tax under a government they led. However, after the election, what did the Labor government do? They introduced a carbon tax, and for three years the now Prime Minister Tony Abbott, then the Leader of the Opposition, said that the government he led would repeal the carbon tax. That is exactly what we are doing. That is our first order of business. We are doing what we said we would do. All we are seeing is sheer, unmitigated hypocrisy from Labor in this motion. It is fooling nobody; it will not be fooling anybody out there. No Australian will be fooled by this. Of course, one of the reasons Labor lost the election is that they lost the trust of the Australian people, because they did not do what they said they would do. In fact, they did the exact opposite. We are doing what we said we would do from day one of the new parliament. We have not let the Australian people down like the Labor Party did; we are doing what we said we would do. We are not going to be dragged down by this Labor opposition; we are going to keep doing what we said we will do. Not content with having trashed the standing of this parliament, Labor continues to try to trash and smear this parliament from opposition.
We will continue to uphold the values of this parliament and do what we say we will do. For six years the Australian people dealt with an amount of hypocrisy from that government. For example, for the economic conservatives we had what I would call Labor's designer label: it was not just ordinary debt and deficit, this was designer label, top of the range. This was a new design for Australia in debt and deficit, thanks to the previous Labor government. This was top of the range. We have, as I have already said, started to fill our commitments. They are commitments that the people of Australia gave us a mandate to enact, and we will get on with those commitments. It is not just the carbon tax and it is not just the mining tax, but also the fringe benefits tax on cars that we said would not proceed under our government: it will not.
On asylum seekers we have heard repeatedly there has been a 75 per cent fall in the number of people coming to this country, and that is counted by the Labor opposition as a failure. What do you define as success? The 50,000 people that you allowed to come into this country? People who put their lives at risk: is that what you would define as success? Or the massive $11 billion blow-out in the budget? (Time expired)
Ms KING (Ballarat) (16:13): Can I congratulate again, Mr Deputy Speaker, on the position and wish you all the best in it. It is unusual for an opposition to move an MPI like this on the first sitting day of parliament. It is unusual for us to do that, but we face some unusual circumstances. Normally, there is a bit of a honeymoon period where we start to see a government implement some of the things that it said it was going to do during the election campaign, but what we have actually seen is a government already paralysed—two months in already shutting down debate and trying to make sure there is as little information in the public domain as possible about areas that are not going too well for it. We have seen that already today with the gagging of the Minister for Immigration. In fact, the Minister for Immigration voted to gag debate on himself being able to provide information to the parliament—a mockery in question time with the Minister for Immigration believing that he does not have responsibility to answer questions in parliament or to provide information to the opposition or the Australian public.
We have seen ministers literally terrified of being the first ones to stuff up. Their tweets have stopped. They were prolific tweeters when they were in opposition, but now suddenly they are failing to engage at all in social media. The Minister for Health was one of them, but I do not think he has sent a tweet out for the last two months. They are terrified that somehow or other they are going to be the ones to stuff up first; they are going to be the ones to get the call from the Prime Minister's chief of staff. They are terrified that they are actually going to say something that may not necessarily be on message. They are not engaging in debate. That is what we are seeing. The media have been well and truly onto it. The media are sick of not being able to get answers to their questions. They are not getting their phone calls returned. They are asking us to respond on issues that normally a government would respond to—but the government is not. The media are not getting anything at all out of this government.
Even by the most modest measure, this government has failed to keep up with its own promise. It said that there would be no surprises. Let me tell you about some of the surprises that people in my own electorate and in the electorates of the new members have had. I see that the new members have not been told that they do not have to stay for the opposition speakers' MPI. It is great that your team is looking after you! I am so pleased that you are staying in here for the debate. It is great that your team is looking after you.
Let me tell you about some of the surprises that may not have necessarily made it into the media. In the area of health, we have seen the Advisory Committee on Infant Formula Marketing abolished overnight. It is the only committee that people can go to when they have a complaint about inappropriate marketing of infant formula. It is the only response Australia has to the WHO code on the marketing of infant formula. The Australian Breastfeeding Association is outraged by this decision. I am outraged by this decision. The government have not stated what they will be replacing that advisory panel with. They are not honouring what many members who are now in government who sat on a breast feeding inquiry wanted—that is, the MAF agreement strengthened. What we have seen as the first act of the Minister of Health is the abolition of the only committee which people could go to to complain about the inappropriate marketing of infant formula.
Then there is the schoolkids bonus. The Prime Minister in question time said, 'We were upfront up about that.' I do not remember any campaign literature from Liberal Party members saying: 'Yes, we're pretty proud of this decision. We're going to get rid of this schoolkids bonus. We're really going to campaign on this.' I do not remember any of you doing that in the campaign literature which you put out. You are, as I am, being inundated by emails. I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker: new members in the House are being inundated by emails from people in their constituencies—
Government members interjecting—
Ms KING: just you wait—who have just realised that they are not going to get the schoolkids bonus. The impact that that will have on low-income families, including families who are on the disability support pension, will be enormous. If you say you want to support families, you have to do it. You do not do it by cutting the schoolkids bonus.
Ms Henderson interjecting—
Ms KING: The member for Corangamite interjects. I have not seen you standing up for the millions of dollars that are being cut from the Golden Plains Shire for their important project to make sure that there are more jobs in and around Lethbridge. I have not seen you standing up to make sure that they get the money I signed off on as regional Australia minister for the Meredith community hub. I have not seen you out there, in the local media, standing up for that. There are cuts in your electorate. This is what we are seeing from this government. Shame on you. (Time expired)
Mr IRONS (Swan) (16:18): I take this opportunity to congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, on your appointment. I know your passion for and commitment to the processes of parliament. It is great to see you in that position. I would also like to take this opportunity, as it is my first speech in the 44th Parliament, to welcome back all the members who have been here before and the new members who have just arrived who make up the 44th Parliament.
Today in question time the Prime Minister stated that this government will carefully, steadily and methodically get down to the business of government. So this MPI is a bit of a quandary for me. Some of the statements made by members on the opposite side of the chamber are—as my friends the member for Higgins and the member for Forrest have said—quite hypocritical and sanctimonious. The arguments that they have made are not relevant to the MPI.
The Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Treasurer and the member for Corio have said that there is division within the coalition executive. I just wonder whether the opposition remember what happened in the last six years in this place. We had three Prime Ministers. We had people backgrounding. We had people working against each other. There was complete division within the Labor Party. Yet the member for Corio stands up here today and says there is division within our executive, within this government. I have not seen any of that. I think the government is solid and the executive is solid as well.
The opposition, the previous government, have no record to stand on. Let us for a moment consider how the previous government lived up to its promises. In 2010 the then Prime Minister told the Australian people that there would be no carbon tax under the government that she led. The Labor Party government said that there would be a return to surplus in 2012-13, come hell or high water. They would stop the boats through a deal with East Timor. This was the Labor government that promised to be economic conservatives, to have a one-in, one-out approach—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for the discussion has expired.
COMMITTEES
Membership
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) (16:14): Madam Speaker has received messages from the Senate acquainting the House that Senator Stephens has been appointed as a member to the Joint Committee on Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings; Senator Lundy and Senator Stephens have been appointed as members to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights; Senator Furner and Senator Singh have been appointed as members to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement; Senator Gallacher and Senator Lundy have been appointed as members to the Joint Committee on Public Accounts and Audit; and Senator Gallacher has been appointed as a member to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works.
GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH
Address-in-Reply
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the Address be agreed to.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (16:22): I rise to speak in continuation. In the intervening period since I last spoke we have had an extraordinary intervention. I was speaking about broken promises by this government and we just had a question time in which the Treasurer was asked whether we will have three AAA ratings at the end of this government's term in office. He responded: 'I would certainly hope so. We were the ones who got them in the first place.' I have heard of a wing and a prayer, but that is, frankly, a hope and a mistruth, because of course three AAA credit ratings came under Labor, not under the coalition.
The second broken promise was the pledge that Public Service cuts would come by natural attrition. In my electorate, a postgraduate student, Dionne Wong, is one of dozens of young people deeply disappointed after their contracts were terminated. After having signed a contract with AusAID, DFAT has told her she is 'surplus to requirements'. That is not natural attrition; that is smashing the dreams of young people. At the same time we have seen AusAID staff being brought into the DFAT atrium, herded in like cattle, while DFAT colleagues look down upon them from the higher floors and one of them mimes machine-gunning the AusAID staff. That is not the way to bring about change management in an organisation.
Maybe I should not be surprised that a government without a science minister is slashing the CSIRO. Again, it is not by natural attrition but brutal cuts that will soon turn into forced redundancies.
There is a third broken promise. On 26 September the Prime Minister said:
The assurance that I give the superannuants and the superannuation savers of Australia is there has been no adverse changes to their superannuation arrangements under this government.
This is false. Three million low-income earners will have the low income superannuation contribution taken away from them. For them, this is indeed an adverse change.
In his Fraser lecture the Leader of the Opposition recounted how at his campaign launch Paul Keating had said Labor was on the side of the angels, and that the angels are:
… the men and women of Australia … who make the place what it is, the ones who've got nothing to sell but their labour, nothing to sell but their time. No capital, particularly, and who need the support of the political system to give them a better standard of living, a better way of life and a better future.
This is what Labor stands for and that is what we on this side of the House will be fighting for over the next three years.
The SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the member for Lindsay, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech. I ask the House to extend to her the usual courtesies.
Ms SCOTT (Lindsay) (16:25): It is with much pride and humility that I speak for the first time in this place as the member for Lindsay. To the people who have elected me as their representative in this most esteemed of institutions I say thank you. Thank you for your trust, thank you for the belief you have shown in me and, most importantly, thank you for the opportunity to be your voice in the next chapter of our great nation.
Madam Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment as Speaker of this House. I take this opportunity to thank you for the pathways you have created. Yesterday you spoke to only represent yourself as the best individual for a new job. I agree with your sentiment. I believe people should always be selected on merit. But, Madam Speaker, your journey has broken many a glass ceiling and I believe it is important to also recognise your achievement as being the first elected female senator for New South Wales. You set an extraordinary benchmark for others to follow, and I am proud to say I stand here today a product of your legacy. You are a pioneer of Australian politics and have always been a good friend to the people of Western Sydney.
My family history can be traced back to Hannah Stanley, another pioneer. Born in 1788, Hannah, a mere servant, came to Australia a convict at only 22. Her crime was to steal a goose feather bed, sheets, blankets, seven pairs of cotton stockings, a couple of dresses, four petticoats and six handkerchiefs. Fortunately for me, her death sentence was commuted and in 1810 she arrived in Botany Bay—the very same year Lachlan Macquarie was appointed Governor of New South Wales. I say 'fortunately' as Hannah and her husband, Daniel Clarke, were granted 30 acres of land on the western bank of South Creek, a place we now know as Llandilo and that is for me, proudly, within the Lindsay electorate. Hannah and Daniel were like so many other farmers of that time. They grew the crops that fed and ultimately saved the early settlement. This resourceful, courageous and resilient spirit I identify in my early ancestors continues to be the beating heart of the people of Lindsay to this day.
It is the spirit of the totem turtle that the local Darug people identify as the spirit guide of these lands. Lindsay is freshwater country within the Darug nation, resting on a sweeping woodland plain where a blazing western sun retires behind a sapphire misted mountain. Historically they have been both friend and foe, testing our resolve in times of flood and fire. These challenges strengthen us as a community, forging the unique character which is the people of the Nepean Valley. Our river is a gateway, where the mountains meet the plains and where the country meets the city, where Aboriginal people traded and where Governor Macquarie established the first food bowl for the early colony. To this day, it is our freshwater river that sustains the 3.7 million people of Sydney and the Blue Mountains. We are a proud and industrious people, with a rich history to which I am privileged to be intrinsically entwined. I too believe, as in the words of our Prime Minister, 'there is no limit to what Australians can achieve'.
In 1936, my grandparents, Jim and Doreen, opened their service station on High Street, Penrith. It was a one-stop shop and serviced all the automotive needs of the community and, in turn, became a part of it. From selling the car new, servicing it through its life, to towing it when it broke down. Eventually, the business was passed onto my father and my uncle Dennis, but my grandparents always kept a firm hand on the reins and lived above the shop. My brothers and I would spend out school holidays there—at my grandparents' place, above the shop.
Like so many family businesses, it was all hands on deck and we would all pitch in to do our part. We were taught at an early age about the dignity of work and the importance of participation. Threats of banana republics, hyperinterest rates and 'the recession we had to have' all took their toll on family businesses and for small businesses everywhere. My dad would often opt to pay the staff before he paid himself and would work well into the night to ensure he was able to support and provide for our family. It is these personal experiences where I have gained an appreciation for the true value of small business.
My dad tells a funny story about my grandfather. He sold 15 brands of fuel from 15 difference fuel bowsers, yet they all came out of the same underground tank. But for me, Winston Churchill sums it up as only Churchill can:
Some see private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot, others as a cow to be milked, but few are those who see it as a sturdy horse pulling the wagon.
The previous government burdened small business with 21,000 new regulations. Their fiscal mismanagement and reckless spending destroyed business confidence, pushing up the cost to do business, guaranteeing to lame even the most noble of sturdy steeds.
Small business is the engine room of the economy. In the private sector it employs one in two people. It is my belief a strong, innovative small-business sector is key to ensuring the wealth of this nation. The irresponsible fiscal reforms of the 43rd Parliament did so with an utter disregard to Australian businesses and families alike. We will re-energise the economy and restore business and consumer confidence.
This morning, the 44th Parliament introduced legislation to repeal the carbon tax—essential for working families throughout Lindsay who feel and need relief to their household budgets. I hope the people's mandate is honoured in this parliament. Together, we can remove the handbrake that has been placed on our great nation and, in doing so, reduce the cost of doing business, encourage investment, create employment, build productivity and restore our international competitiveness, and therefore secure a prosperous economy for a stronger Australia.
In 1959, my mum's baby brother John was tragically killed on an Army base in Darwin. Being so far from home the young family were supported by the local Aboriginal people, who led them through the mourning process. The tribesmen embraced my grandfather, Les, holding a corroboree to release little John's spirit. I am told my pop was the first whitefella this clan had ever included in such a symbolic way.
This had a huge impact on the life of my grandparents, Les and Nola, my uncle Gary and, in particular, my mother, Robyn. It is a debt my mum still feels towards the Aboriginal people. My mum's legacy to my brothers and me was to ensure that we felt and respected this connection. She ensured that we were raised with an acute appreciation of our nation's Aboriginal heritage. We were sent to school in the old Castlereagh hall with 77 other children. Our principal, Bill Oates—an Aboriginal man—further built on this link by sharing the Aboriginal dreaming side by side with the Christian theology.
It has only been over the past few years that I have appreciated the significance of this and that it has not been the standard of education afforded to all young Australians. As such, I fully support the proposed constitutional change to recognise Aboriginal people. I also believe every parent should have the right to choose their child's education, and schools should have more autonomy in decision making that will best suit their school and their community.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words and if that is true, my pop's video—movie camera—of the Warragamba Dam would fill a library. McCanns Island, near Emu Heights, was the starting point for a major extractive operation which saw in excess of 2½ million tonnes of gravel extracted from the Nepean River and delivered to the Warragamba Dam construction site. A flying fox aerial line was established, consisting of 600 open-air buckets at 30-second intervals, operating 24/7, from June 1953 until the dam was opened in 1960.
My pop, Jim Scott, a larger-than-life character, on a whim jumped into one of these buckets, hitching a ride on the ropeway. He filmed the journey from Emu Heights to the dam wall and back again. The legacy of his exuberance remains to this day and is held in trust by the Nepean District Historical Society.
For over half a century the dam has been the protector of the Nepean Valley and its people. It is widely recognised as one of the world's largest domestic and most efficient water supplies. Alongside the Snowy Mountains Scheme and the Sydney Harbour Bridge, it stands as a testament to the ingenuity and vision of Australians. Time and again it has proven to be the cornerstone of our national growth.
I firmly believe we in this place must lead our communities and provide real solutions in planning future infrastructure for Lindsay, the Greater Western Sydney region and the people of Australia. We are a proud people. We choose to make sacrifices if it means providing for a better future for our families. We aspire to a lifestyle of choice and freedom, and resent those who would attempt to take these things from us.
We demand a federal government who believes in us, as we believe in ourselves. Unfortunately, successive governments have failed the people of Western Sydney. Every day, two-thirds of the Lindsay workforce are forced to leave the region for employment. Sadly, their return trip sees them arriving home with the sun setting or, worse still, their children already in bed. Furthermore, over the next 20 years, it is projected that an additional half a million people will make Western Sydney their home.
Our challenges are to meet this existing demand and also the needs of future generations. We must encourage investment that creates local jobs and provide the vital services and infrastructure to this region. Lindsay has a leading role to play in securing the future success of the Sydney Basin. Our region is one of the fastest growing in Australia and is key to unlocking the two-speed economy that hinders our national prosperity. I will ensure the people of Lindsay have their seat at the table and a voice in this place.
The time has come for us, in our unique and diverse part of the Cumberland Plain, to stand up and embrace the destiny so many great men and women have long foreseen. In realising the economic and social potential of this region, we must believe in ourselves and plan for a sustainable future. Lindsay is the sturdy horse waiting to be harnessed, ready to pull the wagon.
I come to this place a proud member of the Liberal Party of Australia. In its traditions, as a conservative, I believe we should look to our past to better shape our future. Yet, as Liberals, we should also fight to preserve freedom: freedom of opportunity, freedom of speech, freedom of choice and freedom of religion—freedom without fear or favour. This, and the empowerment of the individual, is a consistent feature throughout the Liberal Party platform. I believe this also captures the spirit of the Lindsay community, which I am proud to represent—that is:
In the innate worth of the individual, in the right to be independent, to own property and to achieve, and in the need to encourage initiative and personal responsibility.
Lindsay does represent the true face of liberalism, where individuals are given freedom. We embrace and respect the rights of others, knowing they will be afforded to us in return. I too am, in the words of the Prime Minister, 'determined to contribute in a party that delivers hope for the future, reward for hard work and an opportunity for all.'
We must embrace the spirit of what it means to be a proud Australian. Our story, the Australian story, is one of determination and resilience, often against the odds. It should inspire us and uplift us, and it should challenge us to reach for new heights. We endure, challenged by our volatile environment, tested by war and enriched by the fusion of many diverse cultures. The character of Lindsay is unique to Australia as it provides a direct link to our heritage and a gateway to our nation's future.
I stand here today a product of my family, of the heritage of my ancestors, and of my tutors, teachers and mentors, but also of the community which has raised me. My journey could not have been possible without the love and support of my father, John, my mother, Robyn, and her partner, Scott; my brothers, Stephen and Glenn, and their wives, Alyssa and Joanne; and my nieces and nephew, Brianna, Zachary, Ella-Marie and Phoebe.
I would also like to thank the Prime Minister and the three generations of his family for their unrelenting support, inspiration and leadership. To my good friend Senator Payne, thankyou seems hardly enough for your passion, wisdom and advice. To my state parliamentary colleagues, Stuart Ayres, Bart Bassett and Tanya Davies, thank you for your assistance. To Councillor Ross Fowler OAM, the Mayor of Penrith, I thank you for encouragement and support—something you have always shown me.
I would also like to thank my amazing team of volunteers, led by Brian and Glenda Cartwright, supported by Joshua Ballard. Together we doorknocked over 30,000 houses. I thank you for your patience, understanding and commitment. Thank you to the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party for your support, in particular the Lindsay conference. To Dean Carlson and the Young Liberal Flying Squad, thank you for your energy and enthusiasm. To my friends who gave up their warm beds to volunteer at train stations—often on very cold mornings—your support will be forever valued.
To the people of Lindsay, my pledge to you is that I will represent you to the best of my ability. I will be a strong voice on issues that affect our lives, our families, our region and, most importantly, our future. My door is always open to you. Together we will work through our challenges and opportunities. I will endeavour to reignite your belief and confidence in our parliamentary system and your representatives. We in this place should always remember that this is the people's parliament. We do not sit on top of the hill but within it. We must all remember that we stand here, in this place, as common people—common ourselves—holding our nation's common hopes, our common future and our common struggles, commissioned to build a commonwealth for all Australians. In the immortal words of Sir Henry Parkes of Werrington we are 'one people, one destiny.'
The SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the honourable member for Kingsford Smith, who is to make his maiden speech in this place, having come from another place, I again ask the House to extend him the usual courtesies.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (16:46): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to follow in your footsteps and deliver my second first speech in the parliament. I acknowledge the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people and pay my respects to their elders. I also acknowledge the Bidgigal and Gadigal people who are the traditional owners of the land in Kingsford Smith and pay my respects to their elders.
I thank the people of Kingsford Smith for their trust and confidence in bestowing upon me the wonderful honour of representing our community in our nation's parliament. I represent a special part of our country. Kingsford Smith is home to natural beauty, such as the magic beaches from Clovelly to La Perouse and the historic Botany Bay. Our community boasts some of our nation's most important institutions: the National Institute of Dramatic Art; the University of New South Wales, of which I am a proud alumnus; the Prince of Wales Hospital, the Royal Women's Hospital and the Sydney Children's Hospital; Sydney Airport; and Royal Randwick Racecourse. Our area was the original home of Sydney's postwar settlement from both world wars and our people are enriched by the work of many wonderful community organisations.
But the most striking feature of our community is not our natural beauty; it is not our institutions—it is our people. Kingsford Smith is well known for its incredible sense of community. Our people look after each other and we care for our community. This is evident in the fact that very few people ever leave Kingsford Smith once they settle there. Consequently, there is a wonderful family lineage that goes back centuries. I am in the fourth generation of my family to have grown up and lived in the area and I am very proud of my ancestry in our community. I grew up surfing the challenging waves of Maroubra Beach. I have taken on that ocean since I was five years old. My father spent his life surfing at Maroubra as did his father before him. I feel a special connection with that surging body of water and its sands. Three generations within an area, a heritage, creates a deep relationship and a sense of belonging.
I have friends whose family connection with that area dates back 7,000 years. For many millennia our Aboriginal forebears have lived in, related to and tamed those waters and that area. This is not a characteristic unique to our community. Throughout most of Australia the connection of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people dates back thousands of years, with evidence that Aboriginal culture may be the oldest continuing culture in the world. In human nature, time matters. We celebrate the longevity of centenarians. A 50-year marriage is a special bond. Significant time in a community earns a person the right to call themselves local. Time illustrates connection, belonging and experience. For up to 40,000 years Indigenous Australians have inhabited this land, respecting it, learning from it and nurturing it. The way we live today derives from the lessons and subtle hints our colonial forebears took from our original inhabitants. It is believed that 'Maroubra' is an Aboriginal word for place of thunder—a wise reference to the crashing waves of the beach that bears that name and a rather sensible warning of the perils for the inexperienced who may venture there.
Our nation's Constitution is a symbol of our people and our land. Yet it makes no reference to those who have had the longest, strongest relationship with our continent. It makes no mention of their contribution to the nation that we have built together—and it should. Our nation's defining document should reference the existence, and contribution, of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait forebears because in our culture, in our society, in our nation embodied in that Constitution, time matters, relationships matter and who we are is related to their connection with this land. It is important that we, as parliamentarians, lead the discussion about the importance of recognising in our Constitution the contribution of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander forebears to building the nation that we are today and the wonderful community that I call home in Kingsford Smith. We must amend our Constitution to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians.
In 1788 a remarkable event occurred at the southern tip of our community. After sailing into Botany Bay days earlier and deciding that the water supply was insufficient, Captain Arthur Phillip headed out of the bay to sail north in search of an appropriate place to establish a new colony. As he left Botany Bay another flotilla was entering, that of the French navy commanded by Jean-Francois de Galaup La Perouse. How extraordinary that the naval representatives of two of the world's most advanced societies should meet on the other side of the globe, at the same time, in Botany Bay!
That area of our community where La Perouse came ashore—and, importantly, where his expedition was last seen alive—is now named in his honour. Whilst the expedition was camped on those shores a French naval priest, Father Receveur, passed away and became the first scientist, importantly the first Catholic, and the first priest to be buried on Australian soil. His grave is marked by a monument and is a symbol of the connection between the French people and our community. That is further demonstrated by the presence of the Lycee Condorcet French school in Maroubra and the very absorbing La Perouse Museum, which I am proud to be the patron of.
As Sydney began to industrialise, the very assiduous English and Irish migrants began to settle to the south and east of Sydney. They travelled south to establish new cities. Struggletown became known as Randwick, and was the first local government municipality to be established after the City of Sydney. It was followed closely by the municipality of Botany Bay.
The new settlers worked hard to quickly establish businesses and an airfield at Mascot, and tramlines to the seaside. Their contribution to the area and their heritage is important, and is still evident in social and sporting groups—best illustrated by the Irish green colours of the mighty Randwick Rugby Union Club, which has produced many wallabies.
I live in a street called Menin Road in Matraville—so named because of Australia's contribution to the World War I battle of Menin Road Ridge in Flanders. Much of the suburb in which I now live was built to house the veterans of the Great War upon their return. So, too, the south of Maroubra was built to accommodate those returning from World War II. It offered them a place to call home. Proudly the streets and parks of these suburbs bear the names of historic places of battle, and are a tribute to partnerships with our allies.
Post-war our community, like Australia, was enriched by waves of European migrants. In particular, the Greek and Italian communities are great contributors to our area. In the 1980s Chinese students at the University of New South Wales and their families settled in the area and enlivened Kensington and Kingsford. The Indonesian consulate is located right on the top of the biggest hill in Maroubra and represents the bond between our nations and our peoples. Many Indonesian people live in our area. In recent decades migrants from the Subcontinent—in particular the Bangladeshi community—and the Assyrian communities have made our area their home. These are people who value education, and their children relish the opportunity of learning and are diligent students.
I grew up in a family that valued and encouraged community activism and volunteering. My grandfather Ralph Thistlethwaite was the postmaster at Mascot and a life member of the South Sydney Rabbitohs Rugby League football club. Every Sunday you would find him on the gates volunteering his time at Redfern oval. 'Always vote Labor and always support the Rabbitohs,' was his simple message to me. Whilst the Rabbitohs often test my patience, I can proudly say that I have never deviated from that wise advice.
My father Bruce has been an active member of Maroubra Surf Lifesaving Club for decades, and when I turned 13 years old he took me down to join the surf club. I remain an active member to this day and am honoured to have been elected the president of one of Australia's oldest and proudest surf clubs and to have held that position in the club's centenary year in 2006.
Through surf lifesaving I have had the privilege of working with some great community activists—people who volunteer almost every hour outside of work and family to serve our community, and who regularly risk their own lives to save others. I am also fortunate to be a long-term member of my local Police Citizens Youth Club. The PCYC is a great organisation that mentors young people, provides new learning and vocational opportunities and assists kids who fall on tough times.
Our community is also blessed with some special social welfare organisations such as the Kooloora Community Centre, the Deli Women and Children's Centre in Eastlakes, Eastern Respite and Recreation, The Shack Youth Services, South East Neighbourhood Centre and our wonderful Rotarians, Lions Clubs, RSLs, Vinnies, Salvos and church groups. My interest in politics derived from my work in community organisations, and I see my role as a member of parliament as an extension of that work. I thank and pay tribute to all of the volunteers in our community who commit their spare time to helping others and making our community such a wonderful place to live.
Madam Speaker, 2013 marks the 100th anniversary of the establishment of the Maroubra Junction Public School, of which I am a former student, and Our Lady of the Sacred Heart College in Kensington. Both are fine educational institutions and play a significant role in our community. I was fortunate to be educated at high school by the Marist Brothers in Pagewood, and value the role that my high school education played in developing my beliefs and values. The greatest gift our generation of decisionmakers can give our kids is a quality education. Education unlocks our abilities. It overcomes disadvantage. It creates opportunity.
As a wealthy nation our people have the right to expect a first-class education system from early childhood right through to university. In recent years our nation has identified deficiencies in the funding of our schools. Those deficiencies are inhibiting our children's abilities and personal opportunities, and are putting a brake on productivity. Historically, our federal schools funding model created unfair outcomes. Two high schools in my community—one public, one private—with almost identical student numbers and teachers and with similar courses, receive vastly different allocations of federal funding. There is no apparent logic to the funding differences, just historical inertia.
I am concerned that there is a risk that our public education system, particularly at a high school level, is being drained of opportunity. In my community we are seeing some public high schools losing students. Whilst the population grows we are seeing the numbers dwindle in certain public high schools. We are seeing teachers put under more pressure. I am hearing parents say they avoid enrolling their kids in some public schools because of the schools' reputations in the community. This is deeply concerning. The hallmark of a nation's progress as a people, a society and an economy is in the strength of public education. Strong public education equals civility. Strong public education drives productivity. Strong public education unleashes creativity and builds stronger communities. We must not allow our public education system to be a second-class system with inferior learning options for students. We must invest in public education.
For years Labor in government investigated the problems with funding of our schools and developed a new model to rectify historical deficiencies. It is based on years of consultation with students, teachers, parents and experts, and with research that is thoroughly based. It is a fairer funding model that delivers additional funding where it is needed to struggling students and to schools where students are disadvantaged. The new model will produce better students, create more opportunity and strengthen our economy. I implore the new government to continue to implement and to fully fund Labor's Better Schools Plan to ensure a better future for our kids and our nation. If delivered, this will be a wonderful legacy for this parliament, for our children and for our future. I pay tribute to my predecessor Peter Garrett for his commitment and drive to develop and deliver a new funding model for our nation's schools and for his hard work as the member for Kingsford Smith.
Australia is a mature nation. We enjoy high living standards and we have built a diverse economy. We have a unique culture and our own identity. But our nation's defining document, our Constitution, does not reflect this. The Australia of today is not the Australia of Sir Edmund Barton and Alfred Deakin. For a Constitution to remain relevant it must evolve. It must reflect growth and maturity. Ours does not. Having a foreign monarch as our head of state does not reflect who we are. We are proud, independent Australians capable of determining our own destiny.
I despair that my daughters or any other Australian child cannot one day aspire to be our nation's head of state. As a nation we must ask ourselves one simple question: is an Australian capable of performing the duties of our nation's head of state? If the answer to that question is yes—and indeed it is—then we should get on with the job of rectifying those deficiencies and amending our Constitution to make that a reality.
As a parliament and a nation we must again begin to discuss our identity and our constitutional arrangements, and I pledge to do my best in this place to highlight this issue and campaign for change. I hope that during my time in this place we see our nation fully recognise our maturity and become a republic. I want to issue a challenge to the young people of Australia to embrace and drive this campaign, to agitate for discussion, to seek to change attitudes and to drive change and campaign for recognition of our identity.
It is a humbling experience to have been elected to represent the community that I love and cherish and have lived in for my entire life. My election was very much a team effort and I was privileged to have the support of hardworking and passionate volunteers who believed in our campaign and the issues we stood for. I thank each and every member of my campaign team, in particular Leigh Heaney, Nick Moncrieff Hill, Trent Murray, BJ Jafari, Jess Winnall, Jacquie Henfrey, Kate Minter, Steve Novak, Phil Kessey, Krystal Validakis, Noel DeSouza, Simon Zhou, Sheikh Raman, John Procopiatis, Riley Campbell, Ruth Soto, Daniel Wiezman and Salim Barber.
I give a special thanks to our local state members of parliament, Michael Daley and Ron Hoenig, who were a great support and worked hard for the Labor cause. I owe deep, deep gratitude to the members of the Labor Party in Kingsford Smith whose hard work and commitment to equality and justice is an inspiration and a privilege to represent. I thank the New South Wales union movement ably led by Mark Lennon at Unions NSW.
To my parents, Lorraine and Bruce, I thank you for your love and unconditional support of me throughout my life and for planting the seed of education and community activism. I thank my sister, Amanda Doonan, and her husband, Tom, and my brother, Chris, and his partner, Roy. Thank you for your lifetime of support, advice and hard work during the election campaign. I thank my very big family of in-laws, the Casamentos, for their support, in particular Joe and Lis who are incredible people and wonderful community activists.
Election campaigns are tough on candidates, but they are even tougher on families. I am blessed with the enduring support, patience and wise advice of my beautiful wife, Rachel, who I love and respect. My election is testament to our partnership. My beautiful daughters, Amelie and Scarlett, remind me every day how proud I am to be your dad and how lucky we are to have you. I hope to make you proud of my work here.
I also thank the officers of the House of Representatives for their assistance in my transition from the Senate, and whose commitment to our democracy is admirable. It is a privilege to serve in our nation's parliament and advance our great democracy. We are people that value peace, equality and stable government. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make our democracy even stronger and our communities better places to live.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the honourable member for Rankin, I remind honourable members that this is his first speech and I ask that the House extend to him the usual courtesies.
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (17:06): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In my 35 years I have experienced three moments of immeasurable pride. The first, my mother's graduation from university in 1991. The second, marrying Laura Anderson in March this year. The third, standing here now on ancient Ngunawal and Ngambri land in the people's house of the Australian parliament.
Members come here with different backgrounds, carrying different values, from different parts of the nation. Many of us share a common bond: not just representing our electorates but being representative of them. It is what Tennyson's Ulysses described as being 'part of all I have met'. Growing up in Logan City and southern Brisbane, the suburbs of my electorate, I know his meaning. I feel part of all I have met there: the local parents and pensioners, cleaners and kitchen hands, businesses and battlers, tradies and truckies. Part of their diversity and dedication, pride and perseverance.
My upbringing taught me to judge a society by the opportunities it creates for all its people but especially its most vulnerable, and that the best communities look out for each other, look after each other and empower people to improve their own lives and get ahead. Above all, growing up in Rankin sowed the seed of a powerful belief—that social inclusion and economic growth are complementary and not at odds. It is a belief I share with the party I joined half a lifetime ago and the caucus I join now. This conviction comes from my neighbourhood, from my constituents and from my heart. It comes from the countless conversations of life in a vibrant and diverse place. It is formed and furthered by the loving bonds of friendship and family.
To properly thank my wife, Laura, for her sacrifices and support so that I can stand here, I would need an extension of time. There is so much I cherish in her and value about our relationship, and without her I would not be here. My mother, Carol, is also up there in the public gallery. For most of my childhood, Mum worked night shift as a nurse. For a great portion of that, it was just the two of us. It was not easy for her and at times I made it harder, but what I know of selflessness and service I learnt from her. I will always be grateful for that gift. Ours is what used to be described as an 'unconventional' family, but I have always felt fortunate to be the son of Carol and Graham and the little brother of Chelley and Jenni. We went to great local schools where I met lifelong friends Gaz and Pickle, Dimi and Spud. There a formative teacher, Norbert Greulich, taught me the history of our nation and introduced the beginnings of an idea—that even people with a background like mine could maybe one day help write it.
I turned 18 the very day that the Keating government lost office. I will not claim to remember much about the late evening of 2 March 1996—
An honourable member: Albo's birthday.
Dr CHALMERS: Albo's birthday—but I do recall that election being a formative experience. It helped me decide I wanted to be part of a vision like Keating's: bold, progressive and exciting. He convinced me of Labor's greatest strength: that we are the only ones capable of combining market economics with an active social contract and global engagement. He championed the economic vision, Asian integration and republicanism' that I admired. So that year I applied to join the great Australian Labor Party. Since then a combination of Labor, higher education and generous mentors has given me a purpose for my life and work, a way to represent my community and the opportunity to meet and learn from remarkable people. People like my great mate of almost two decades, Anthony Chisholm; longstanding friends like Geoff Walsh, Linus Power, Paul Howes, Andrew Fraser, Senator Sam Dastyari, who joins us today, and Annie O'Rourke; people like Ben Swan and Scott Connolly, leaders in a labour movement which does so much to protect and advance working people. At Griffith University and then at the ANU, educators like Pat Weller and Glyn Davis, John Warhurst and John Hart. I thank all of them for the example that they set for me.
After 1996, I came to agree with those who argue Labor's great mistake was its failure to defend the towering achievements of the Hawke and Keating governments. For a time this denied us a rich inheritance—the marriage of sweeping economic reform with progressive social policy—leaving us without a solid foundation from which we could rebuild and renew. We will not make the same mistake this time around. The Rudd and Gillard Labor governments have a phenomenal legacy and we are proud of it. I pay tribute to both prime ministers—indeed, all of our former standard-bearers. I particularly thank Julia Gillard and Kim Beazley for their guidance and encouragement over the years.
I am honoured to be joined here by so many colleagues that I admire. I am especially proud to see the member for Lilley here. He has been such a tremendous influence. I pay tribute to his strength, perseverance and vision, particularly through the global financial crisis. Australian history will come to regard him as one of the great warriors for the fair go, just as the global community already recognises him as a highly accomplished Treasurer. He taught me that it is what we do together that makes us strong. Working with him, alongside the amazing people of the Treasurer's office and the Deputy Prime Minister's office, some of whom have joined us today, was a cherished experience. I consider them family and I thank them for the spirit and camaraderie we built together.
Almost a million jobs were created on our watch, despite other nations shedding tens of millions of jobs. Australia did not just avoid recession; we grew solidly. In Rankin, that meant more people got to keep jobs, pay bills and feed the kids. It meant the unemployment queues did not get longer, that life did not get harsher. I am proud that Labor was part of that. In the end, Labor bequeathed this incoming government historically low interest rates and contained inflation, and low unemployment relative to the rest of the developed world. We laid foundations for better schools and faster broadband technology, emissions trading and a better life for people with a disability.
Yet as we defend this legacy we also accept collective responsibility for our failure to convert an impressive record into a third term in office. None of us should escape our share of the blame for that. But if we look beyond the commentary we see a deeper story of the past six years: policy progress and economic success, poisoned by a form of hyper-partisan politics practised by some in our country and the way we let this feed the deterioration of our party's culture and relationships. Where small sections of our society dominated the debate in a way that pushed it to the extremes and away from the sensible centre, magnifying the opposition of a select few at the expense of policies designed to benefit Middle Australia. The 2013 election was more a rejection of this kind of nasty politics than it was a rejection of Labor's core beliefs, but we still have lessons to learn. We need to comb through the trash and trivia of polls and personalities, re-establishing principles and policies and finding a loftier purpose.
Labor begins this task with tremendous advantages: the constructive way the members for Maribyrnong and Grayndler contested our leadership, the tremendous economic and policy foundations we built over the last two terms—indeed, over the last three decades—and a long history of rising to Australia's biggest challenges. For us, the global financial crisis confirmed two things: the interconnectedness of our world, its economy and institutions, and Australia's capacity to meet the tests set for us with courage, imagination and, ultimately, success.
It is a remarkable milestone that this current quarter begins the 23rd year of uninterrupted expansion in the Australian economy—remarkable not only because this long upswing is unique in our own economic history but also because it is unparalleled in the recent history of advanced economies of similar or greater size. The overriding responsibility on this chamber is to do all we can to build on the prosperity we have been blessed with for so long, to make sure all Australians participate in it, and to widen the opportunities for Australians to fulfil their own potential.
I do not pretend that the decisions of governments are all that matters, or even most of what matters. Our prosperity depends on the quality of our workforce and the decisions people make about their careers. It depends on the quality of management decisions, on decisions about innovation and new products, and on what happens in markets like China's. But government can have some influence, and what worries me today about the other side of this House is that there are plenty of things they say they will not do, plenty of reforms of the previous government they want to kill off, but I am not aware of a single major proposal or initiative or idea which could be said to sustain our prosperity in any major way.
We will need courage and imagination in the coming decade and beyond, as we deal with the intersection of three closely related phenomena that will spell a new economic reality for all of us. They are: rapid technological advance, the globalisation of the workforce and the rise of intergenerational disadvantage. Each will collide with and cascade into the others, challenging us to find new ways to prosper and grow. At worst, this creates a scenario described by one analyst where populations are 'divided into two groups: those who are good at working with intelligent machines and those who are replaced by them'. Australians must not wake up one day on the wrong side of this gulf. We cannot let the rise of technology benefit only a small part of our society. We must not let others choose our place in the global value chains of the future. We are called to prevent this new divide of technological haves and have-nots, a new frontier in global inequality, and to repair the situation that international research now proves so clearly: that, without dedicated action, inequality in one generation breeds inequality in the next.
Those who dismiss these big global trends or pretend Australia can opt out of them entirely are kidding themselves. Globalisation will speed up, not slow down, despite its critics. We will not choose the global circumstances we face in the coming years, but we can choose how we deal with them. In one sense, Australia has options. But the first is unacceptable: to pretend these pressures do not exist or that they do not matter. Whether in Australia, North America or Europe, this is the approach taken by conservatives. They cling to an idea long disproven: that concentrated wealth and influence will trickle down to the most disadvantaged. The second option is equally poor: to pretend and protect the absurdity that says we can go it alone—that, in a world of multinational companies and global value chains, we can be unaffected by the ebb and flow of the world's tides and trends and that we can have redistribution without growth.
The third path for Australia is the only way: to combine digital inclusion, innovation and human capital into a potent and productive mix; to find a well-paid place for our workers in the links of elaborate global value chains; to provide more people with the tools of success, the capacity to get ahead and improve their own lives, beginning in our schools; most of all, to build the intergenerational mobility necessary to draw more fully on the talents of our entire population in the Asian century. This means carving out a meaningful role for more people in the economy. It means more than fairness and redistribution, but also inclusion, mobility, dynamism and creativity. More than anything else, these are the wellsprings of new growth in Australia. They also mark out the greatest difference between the labour movement and the conservative side of the House. That side dismisses intergenerational mobility as some sort of class warfare, when it is the antithesis of that. They pay lip-service to opportunity but are content to see Australia's success stories selected from an ever-shrinking pool, a society marked by growing inequality, and a small group rent-seeking from the rest.
I believe in market economics and social justice. I reconcile them in a very simple way, by believing that inclusion and growth are complementary and not at odds. I believe in a decent minimum and fair working conditions and then providing, beyond that foundation, the tools of success so we can empower Australians to be confident and self-sustaining actors in a dynamic and innovative economy. I believe in economic mobility because I believe in the contested political ideas and choices that underlie it: that the circumstances of your birth must not dictate your life chances and that there is a role for the state in helping to create better opportunities for the disadvantaged, both through enhancing their capabilities in a way outlined by the great economist Amartya Sen and through breaking open networks of privilege to admit people on merit. So I believe in reorienting public spending away from a grab-bag of concessions for those who need them least, towards more strategic investment in human capital and digital inclusion for those with the most to gain and the most to contribute.
The right type of economy, fuelled by genuine intergenerational mobility, is the most important thing I want to see while I am here. But it is not the only thing. Our otherwise successful nation has unfinished business. As my friend the member for Kingsford Smith said, we need to agree on an Australian republic, we need to advance the cause of the original Australians, deliver marriage equality, provide security to an ageing population, entrench for all time a market mechanism to combat the dangers of climate change and much more.
I meant what I said to my community in the campaign: that Rankin can set the example for the rest of Australia. We can look out for each other and look after each other. We can be the epicentre of opportunity in a nation which can be the benchmark for economic mobility in the wider world. I will cherish many moments from the election: meeting young Xavier from Mabel Park School and Victor from Woodridge shops; getting to know Peter, who carted my sign around on his mobility scooter up and down Paradise and Wembley roads; seeing people stream through the door to help out and to sign up in big numbers; and witnessing the dedication and commitment of our local branches and supporters. I could not ask for a more devoted campaign team, more eager volunteers, more supportive community leaders or more enthusiastic staff. There are too many to name, so in thanking every one of them, I will single out Teresa and Crystell Lane, Peter Power, Elliot Stein, Aaron Broughton, John Chirgwin, Barry Ramsay, Lisa Banyard, Dolly Chang and Mitchell Watt.
I reject the notion that members of this House must ultimately choose between being a good local representative or making a contribution to national ideas. My two accomplished predecessors, Craig Emerson and David Beddall, have shown me there is a way to do both. The differences between local, national and global issues were once blurred. Now they are almost non-existent. Globalisation is part of life in the suburbs, and life in the suburbs is part of globalisation. The success of my community rests on us getting the big things right, here in this House. That is why I am here and why I also thank the Leader of the Opposition for the additional opportunities he has given me as his parliamentary secretary and for trade and investment.
The task for my generation is not to double back and retrace the steps of our predecessors, even our heroes, but to leave new footprints by walking further and forward in their same direction. Finding Australia's place in the world is key to finding the jobs of the future for the community that I grew up in, live in and love, one which has been burdened for too long with higher unemployment than elsewhere, particularly, but not exclusively, among our young people. Providing them the tools of success, the keys to a new economy, and genuine intergenerational mobility are our most pressing objectives. I am proud to be here making their case, representing them and being representative of them as well. I thank the House.
Debate adjourned.
BUSINESS
Consideration of Legislation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Minister for Education and Leader of the House) (17:26): I seek leave to move a debate management motion on the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2013.
The SPEAKER: Is leave granted?
Mr BURKE: The opposition have indicated we are happy to facilitate making sure that the debate is fully dealt with tonight. We cannot agree to leave for this resolution which effectively cuts out the second reading debate altogether.
The SPEAKER: Leave is not granted.
Mr PYNE: I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following applying in respect of proceedings on the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2013:
(1) Notice no. 5 relating to the bill being withdrawn;
(2) the bill proceeding through all stages on Wednesday, 13 November 2013;
(3) at the conclusion of the second reading debate, not including a Minister speaking in reply, or at 7 pm on Wednesday, 13 November 2013, whichever is the earlier, a Minister being called to sum up the second reading debate and then without delay the immediate question before the House to be put, then any question or questions necessary to complete the second reading stage of the bill to be put;
(4) if the second reading has been agreed to a Governor-General's message recommending an appropriation for the bill being announced and the bill then being taken as a whole during consideration in detail for a period not exceeding 60 minutes, and notwithstanding the automatic interruption for proposing the question that the House do now adjourn, at which time any Government amendments that have been circulated shall be treated as if they have been moved together with:
(a) one question being put on all the Government amendments;
(b) one question being put on any amendments which have been moved by non-Government Members, and
(c) any further questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of the bill being put;
(5) the House being adjourned immediately after the conclusion of the proceedings on the bill; and
(6) any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister.
The effect of this motion is not, as was suggested by some members of the opposition, to have the second reading debate completed in the next 15 minutes. In fact, the effect of this motion is to negate the adjournment at seven o'clock, as it is now, in order to allow a full 60 minutes of debate on the consideration in detail stage between seven and eight and to allow—from now until seven o'clock—an hour and a half's debate, starting with the bill being introduced by my colleague the Treasurer. I am sure it will be responded to by the shadow Treasurer, amendments may well be moved, a debate can be held and the House can consider this Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2013.
In arguing for the suspension of standing orders, I do not intend to delay the House at great length, because I think we all want to get on with the issue. We would rather not have to suspend standing orders to have this debate truncated. There is no point in pretending we are not truncating the debate, because we are truncating it. We would prefer to have the matter lie on the table for a week or so, as is normally the case, to have the opposition go through the procedures of their standing room and backbench committees, which we also would prefer, of course. But this is the first day of the sitting of the 44th parliament and the first day, let alone week, of the first sitting fortnight of a parliament always requires unusual circumstances because no bills have been introduced until the parliament begins to sit. Yet, the parliament needs matters to deal with, apart from the address and reply, as does the Senate, of course, which needs bills to deal with, and these have to come from the House of Representatives. So we are having to introduce various bills today and start the debate on them—for example, the carbon tax amendment bills for the abolition of the carbon tax have been introduced successfully by the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment. Also, the Treasurer introduced earlier today the legislation for the abolition of the Minerals Resource Rent Tax. We have debated and introduced new democratising standing order changes, which I think will be an improvement for the House.
Also, as I promised some time ago, we will deal with the debt management bill issue today, because unfortunately the opposition has left us in a position where we are very likely to crash against the debt ceiling in the not-too-distant future. The government believes—and I am sure the Treasurer will expand on these remarks when he introduces the bill—that it is tremendously important to send a very strong message to the economy and to the markets that the government understands the need for confidence in the markets and the economy, and by introducing the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2013, which deals with a debt ceiling limit of $500 billion, we send a very clear message to the economy and the markets that we want to have a stable, adult, calm and methodical approach to the economy.
To allow this debate to drag on and to not get this bill through the parliament and into the Senate tomorrow would be to risk a lack of confidence in the market and in the economy. I think most financial commentators and most people interested in the economy—which of course would not be members of the opposition—would recognise that this is an emergency situation we face in terms of the budget deficit and debt, and that we have to act decisively, so we are acting decisively. I am moving this suspension of standing orders in order to allow a debate management motion to be introduced and passed. It will allow a full debate of the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2013.
I would add that the longer my honourable friends in the opposition choose to debate this motion the less time they will give to themselves to debate the actual substance of the bill. I note that the Manager of Opposition Business has given me a hint, for which I am grateful, and so I commend the motion to the House.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (17:33): I will not speak for long, but I do think it is important to note a couple of things. First of all, the motion on the Notice Paper would have had this debate concluding in less than 15 minutes time. As to the idea that there has been a change, we have now been made aware of it for the first time. Certainly, there was no way we were going to give leave to the motion on the Notice Paper, going forward.
I would also note that my speech earlier today about standing orders has become somewhat redundant. I complained about the adjournment debate being knocked down from one hour to 30 minutes, but it has now gone to zero.
Ms Macklin: On day one.
Mr BURKE: Yes, on day one. Notwithstanding that, the resolution before the House does itself constitute a gag. I constitutes yet another abuse of the opportunity of members of parliament to make contributions. We have made it clear that we were happy to facilitate debate to make sure that it happened tonight. This is right on the draconian end of that, and we will be opposing the suspension.
The SPEAKER: The question is that so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent certain things applying in respect of proceedings on the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2013.
The House divided. [17:38]
(The Speaker—Hon. Bronwyn Bishop)
BILLS
Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2013
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Hockey.
Second Reading
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (17:50): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr HOCKEY: It is with regret that I stand here today to give the second reading speech in relation to a bill that has to increase the debt limit of the Commonwealth of Australia. It is with regret that I am doing it, but I am not surprised that I have to, because the previous government recognised that ultimately whoever was elected after the election would have to deal with this issue. The proposal before the House increases the legislative debt limit from $300 billion to $500 billion. The legislative limit has been lifted three times since it was introduced by Labor in 2008. Of course, we never had to have a debt limit, because we paid off the debt that we inherited previously from Labor. And, what's more, we left the previous Labor government with more than $50 billion in the bank. So, we did not need to have a debt limit, because what we did was wipe out all of the net debt and left money in the bank.
But the member for Lilley, previously the Treasurer, thought it was a terrific idea to put a speed-limiter on his own colleagues and have a debt limit of $75 billion in 2008. The problem was that the Labor Party could not keep to that debt limit and it was increased in 2009 to $200 billion. That was part of a package of measures designed to stimulate the economy in the wake of the GFC. We said the stimulus was way too much. Labor pledged never to get near the $200 billion. In the interim, they kept spending and spending. Then they came back to the parliament in 2011 and said, 'Hang on, we just need an extra $50 billion—but, don't worry, we're not going to get to $250 billion'. We were sceptical; we argued the case against it. But we did not vote against it, because we knew that it would be irresponsible, in those circumstances, to create the uncertainty associated with blocking the appropriations and the associated increase in the debt limit.
And of course, in this place, the member for Lilley, well after the GFC had finished, then said, in the 2012 budget, 'We need to increase it to $300 billion'. He said that was only necessary because they needed to have a buffer of between $40 billion and $60 billion so that the Australian Office of Financial Management, the AOFM, could properly deal with the refinancing lumpiness. We had extensive debates in this place about whether that buffer was needed, and the member for Lilley tabled, in an unprecedented way, the advice, the minute, from the Australian Office of Financial Management, warning that they needed to have a buffer of between $40 billion and $60 billion above what they expected peak debt to be so that there could be a proper refinancing regime that would not in any way disarm the markets. And we did not oppose that bill. We accepted the advice of the AOFM, in opposition, and we accepted the government's statement that the debt would not go above $250 billion—in fact, because he was going to a $300 billion debt limit, the then Treasurer pledged that the Labor Party would never need to take the budget beyond $250 billion. We were sceptical, and we were right to be.
The member for McMahon, in an economic statement literally just weeks ago, said the debt is going to get to $370 billion. But the debt limit is $300 billion. The debt limit is $300 billion and he said, 'We're going to have to go to $370 billion'. Did he raise this during the election campaign and accept that they were fully responsible for this mess, that the debt was going to $370 billion and they were going to have to deal with it? No: it was just buried in the papers. But I want the member for McMahon to explain how he can now be so wedded to $400 billion when he delivered a number of $370 billion and he had received written advice that you need a buffer of between $40 billion and $60 billion. As I said in question time: it doesn't add up. A peak debt of $370 billion, plus $40 billion to $60 billion for refinancing, means that the $400 billion does not add up. What a surprise: the Labor Party couldn't add up when they were in government; how would you expect them to add up when they are in opposition!
Mr Bowen interjecting—
Mr HOCKEY: I'm going to send you a calculator for Christmas—that's what I'm going to do! The old abacus has gone a little wobbly, old son! I'm sending you a calculator. And I'm going to make sure it's not a scientific one—I'm going to keep it simple, with nice big digits! That is what we are going to do.
So the member for McMahon—this is a cracker—walks into caucus and says, 'Hey guys, I've got a great idea: let's lock 'em into $400 billion; they'll need to explain themselves when they get to $400 billion'. But he failed to tell the caucus that in fact he was taking it to $430 billion. How did that happen? My Lord, what a surprise!
And of course the Greens were roped in. There is the Leader of the Greens, Senator Christine Milne, thinking, 'It's a terrific idea to have a limit of $400 billion'—but, only weeks ago, she put out a press release saying you shouldn't have a debt limit at all! There is no problem with debt! Go your hardest on debt, she said, a few weeks ago. But now, all of a sudden, this is a very serious issue. The Labor Party, in partnership with the Greens, caused the debt and they are now trying to stop us from dealing with it.
It is not just the $430 billion, though—that was the last published number from the Labor Party. We have introduced bills today that seek to reduce the debt by $20 billion. We are getting rid of the mining tax and the associated expenditure. That saves over $13 billion. We are getting rid of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the CEFC. That saves over $7 billion. It was $10 billion of borrowed money, but we cannot stop what has gone out the door from going out the door—it already has, and we are meeting our contractual commitments—but I tell you what: we don't want to have to borrow another dollar to put into the CEFC.
So, hang on, let me get this right. Labor say the debt should not go past $400 billion but, even on their own advice, it was going to $430 billion. Then they want to stop us from paying down $20 billion. So that would take us closer to $450 billion, I would suggest. But there is more. And why is there more? I will tell you why there is more: because the Reserve Bank—
Mr Bowen interjecting—
Mr HOCKEY: The member for McMahon came before this place today—
Mr Bowen interjecting—
Mr HOCKEY: Hey, listen mate: you're not Treasurer anymore; you haven't seen the details. I would urge the member for McMahon—
Mr Bowen: Release the documents; you know you have to!
Mr HOCKEY: Oh, you don't want me to release those documents, mate! I tell ya: there won't be a rock that is big enough for you to hide under!
You don't want me to release those documents. I don't want to do what Labor does and use the Treasury and the RBA and others as a shield and a sword. But I’ll tell you what: the Secretary of the Treasury is going to appear before estimates next week and the Governor of the Reserve Bank can appear before the Economics Committee in this place—with Labor Party members on it—and go your hardest! Go your hardest about the Reserve Bank's $8.8 billion and go your hardest about the debt limit, because it is Labor's debt. There is no excuse.
The world did not stop on election day—it is just that the sun came out. That is the only thing. The world did not stop turning and we cannot turn back the ship of Labor's debt immediately. We cannot do that. Do you know why we cannot do it? It is because we would need to close down—immediately—payments for the payment system and payments in relation to welfare. We would need to close Medicare straight away. We would need to start closing the government. Why? Because the debt limit is being hit. We are going to reach the debt limit on around 12 December.
So if the Labor Party wants to oppose this bill, let me be very blunt: we will stare you down on this. Why? It is because the debt limit is being hit on 12 December. And I want to know if the Labor Party thinks it is so heroic to go down the path of closing down government services, because we may need to exceed that debt limit. I want to know if that is what they really believe.
Madam Speaker, this is a game they are going to lose. They are going to lose because they are responsible for it. The difference between the Tea Party and the Labor Party on opposing debt-limit increases is that the Tea Party did not create it, the Labor Party did—the debt. They are the ones responsible. It is quite telling. This does not come as a surprise.
Neil Mitchell, on 3AW, asked the former Treasurer Wayne Swan on Wednesday, 15 May 2013: 'Will whoever wins the next election need to raise the debt level?' Wayne Swan said: 'That will be a matter for them.' Everyone look around you. We are surrounded by 'them'. We have to deal with this.
You had a Treasurer who did not have the guts to front it up, who was delivering a budget that actually increased the debt beyond the debt limit and he did not have the ticker to come into this place and deal with it. Now we have another former Labor Treasurer—who never had the ticker to own up to it—who delivered an economic statement that took the debt to $370 billion and with an increase in the capacity needed for the AOFM took it to $430 billion. He never had the ticker to come up and deal with it. We will, because we have to clean up the Labor Party mess. You people have no shame. There is no sense of embarrassment about dealing with this mess, but we will deal with it in the national interest—because we must.
I know whenever the Labor Party see a figure, they feel the need to have it. Here's a tip: the debt limit is not a debt target. You do not have to do your best to get there. The Labor Party think that a limit is about spending it all and more. I would not want to be your bankers.
Mr Keenan: Yes, you would!
Mr HOCKEY: As long as they vetted the interest repayments, I suppose you would! But I would want to make sure I had a lot of security. I would want to go out and inspect the homes, have a look at the cars and check out the health of the first born! I would want to be absolutely sure. If I were leaving money to someone in the Labor Party I would want to make sure I had a lot of security—because Labor has broken every debt limit it has had. They see it as a debt target, not a debt limit. That is the thing. We do not want to have to come back to this place and increase the debt limit. We want to deal with it now, get it out of the way and get on with the job of starting to pay down the debt, get on with the job of paying off the mortgage, ensuring that no future generation has to cop the economic incompetency of Labor.
To be frank, who knows what lies ahead? We do not know. I hope that the economy continues to get better. I hope that the world economy continues to get better. We do not know, but we are being responsible. What we do know is that every cupboard we open has spiders in it. What we know is that Labor trashed the joint when they were in government and now they are trying to stop us from fixing it. How do we know? As we go through individual agencies we are starting to discover that the agencies were significantly underfunded. The former Treasurer says that it is okay to run at a loss. It is okay to run at a loss until you run out of money that is actually covering the loss.
That is exactly where the ACCC is, for example. They were instructed to run down their reserves, until the point where they had no reserves left, but they were still making a loss. It is inconceivable, from my perspective, and it is unacceptable, from my perspective, that you should ever allow any entity—whether it be a taxpayer entity or a private-sector entity—to continue to run at an unsustainable loss, because sooner or later it ends up in tears. I would say to the member for McMahon and his colleagues in the Labor Party: you are fully responsible for this, whether it be the ACCC or a range of other institutions that we are going through now, and we will identify where those problems are.
It is also patently clear that the economic growth forecasts have been revised down into the future. Why? It is because the Labor Party was not fair dinkum about the terms of trade coming off. The Labor Party was not fair dinkum about the growth forecast. The Labor Party was not fair dinkum about the unemployment rate.
The Reserve Bank recently published a downgrade in its forward estimates, in its forecasts for economic growth. As the former Treasurer knows, they are not significantly different to where the government will go. Therefore, it is going to have an impact. It will obviously have an impact on the budget bottom line. But they knew this was coming. We were warning about it after the budget was delivered. And, in the 11 weeks between the budget being delivered and this man, the member for McMahon, delivering an economic statement, the budget deteriorated by $33 billion—in 11 weeks. That is quite the record—$33 billion! The only person that has surpassed that record is his predecessor. The member for Lilley has a record I hope no-one will ever beat—a deterioration in budget numbers.
It comes back to basic incompetence, like with the mining tax. They originally forecast that tax would raise nearly $50 billion over five years. It ended up raising less than $5 billion. In fact, it raised $400 million—a tax that originally, as an RSPT, was going to raise $50 billion. The problem was that they committed the expenditure against it. That is why we have to get rid of the mining tax and the expenditure against it—because the expenditure against it is costing the budget over $13 billion. If we do not do that, the debt will go up. This is what we have inherited. We have inherited a legacy of debt and deficit. Our predecessors trashed the house, they were terrible tenants, and now they will not let us go to the bond to try and recover just a fraction of the challenges associated with the costs of clean-up.
The Labor Party are now playing a game of Russian roulette, but what they do not understand in relation to debt limits is that the barrel is fully loaded. If they choose to pull the trigger, there can only be one outcome for them. The problem is that there will be ancillary pain for the Australian people. We will not let Australia in any way reach a point where we have to breach the debt limit. I will not do it; the coalition will not do it. We will put in place a responsible approach to this issue. When they pick up a paper or when they listen to the TV or the radio, they need look no further than the diabolical position in the United States, which will deteriorate again in January and beyond.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
Mr HOCKEY: What the member for McMahon just cannot get into his head is that, if you do not reduce expenditure, if you have a lower debt limit, you actually have to have more severe cuts. And the Labor Party will own those cuts. Let me be sure.
Mr Bowen: You are a disgrace.
Mr HOCKEY: You will own these cuts. You will own every single cut, and why? Because the Labor Party likes to spend other people's money, but sooner or later other people's money runs out. That is the thing about the Labor Party: they are very good at spending everything that they do not own. They are very good at placing obligations on people who do not have a voice in the Labor ranks.
So I say to the Labor Party: stop the games. This is your debt limit. It is your debt. You have to at some point accept personal responsibility for your actions in government. If you do not, you will wear this like a crown of thorns and we will ensure that the Australian people know at every single point that you are incompetent managers, not just in government but also in opposition.
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (18:11): The Treasurer quoted Paul Keating. I know Paul Keating, and you are no Paul Keating. Here we are on the first full sitting day of this new government.
The SPEAKER: I think you were quoting Ronald Reagan.
Mr BOWEN: The millions of Australians who voted for this government were told, 'This new government's going to stop the boats and pay back the debt,' and on their first day, at the first question time on the first full sitting day, we see the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection refuse to answer questions about stopping the boats and we see the Treasurer move a piece of legislation, to be rammed through in an hour, to increase the nation's debt limit by $200 billion, a 67 per cent increase—the biggest ever increase in our debt limit. This happened on the first day of this government. That is the clearest sign, the clearest symbol, that the party opposite campaigned on one platform and is governing on a very, very different one.
We heard the Treasurer just then say, 'We didn't vote against the debt cap in some cases,' and he is right: in some cases they did not vote against it. What he did not tell us—despite his rhetoric about responsibility, the Tea Party and who will wear the blame—is what they did in opposition. We had the former Leader of the Opposition, the now Prime Minister, on 11 May, in relation to the debt cap, say:
… the Government has to justify this. Our money, our future, is too important to be mortgaged like this without the Government giving us the strongest possible arguments for it, because every dollar that they borrow has got to be repaid.
'Give us the strongest possible arguments for it,' the then Leader of the Opposition said. And what do we see from this government? No MYEFO, no economic update. They are taking decisions—which we will get to—in relation to the Reserve Bank and refusing to give an economic update.
The Prime Minister again, today in question time, says, 'We'll give you MYEFO in December like you used to.' There is one little problem for the Prime Minister: in the six years of Labor governments, not in any year was MYEFO released in December—not once. In his first question time the Prime Minister misleads the House of Representatives—in his first question time. He does not mislead the House of Representatives once; he misleads the House of Representatives twice in his first question time, because the other thing he said was, 'We never opposed increases in the debt cap when we were in opposition.' When the Leader of the Opposition and I pointed out that they voted against one in 2009, he changed his story real quick. On the run in question time he said, 'Well, not when I was Leader of the Opposition we didn’t.' So it was somebody else's fault—it was Malcolm Turnbull's fault!
There was one little problem for the Prime Minister—they voted against an increase in the debt cap last year. In 2012, as I recall, the member for Warringah was the Leader of the Opposition. If you look at the Hansard for the Senate, the other place, you will see 'ayes 35; noes 30'. The noes are the Liberal Party and the National Party in the Senate. As I recall, the member for Warringah, the now Prime Minister, was Leader of the Opposition. So do not go lecturing us about Tea Party politics. Do not go lecturing us about our moral obligation to vote for an increase in the debt cap when you voted against it in 2009 and 2012.
What about the justification? We saw the Prime Minister, the then Leader of the Opposition, say, 'Give us the strongest possible arguments for it.' One of the arguments could be the mid-year economic forecast, and I thought, in fairness to the government, that they might provide more of an update in the explanatory memorandum. I thought I had better wait and see what was in the explanatory memorandum—I thought it might provide a new peak debt figure. I thought it might provide more information about the state of the books. We got the explanatory memorandum a few moments ago. I will share it with the House. It is 11 pages long. Page 1 is the glossary. There it is, page 1—more blank than not. Page 2 is completely blank. Page 3 is a general outline. Page 4 is blank as well. We get to page 5 and there is a bit in there. We have a figure on page 5, so we are getting somewhere, making progress. Net debt is $370 billion—they have repeated my economic statement in the explanatory memorandum. There is no new figure, no update—they have repeated the economic statement on page 5. On page 6 there is a detailed explanation of the new law. Page 6 is not too bad. On page 7—now this is a good one—the House needs to know this—
Mr Craig Kelly: Madam Speaker, under standing order 66A, I request that you ask the member for McMahon whether I may ask a question of him on this bill.
The SPEAKER: Does the member for McMahon accept the intervention?
Mr BOWEN: I would be absolutely delighted.
Mr Craig Kelly: I ask the member for McMahon if, during his time as Treasurer, he was aware that the debt limit of $300 billion would be exceeded. If he was aware, why did he not attempt to legislate to increase that limit while he was the Treasurer? Why is he leaving it to the coalition to clean up Labor's mess?
Mr BOWEN: I have rapidly become a fan of these new standing orders. I was a little bit sceptical this morning, but I have since rapidly become a fan. It was in the pre-election forecasts. The previous government released it. The answer to the member's question was in the pre-election forecast. It was released publicly. We held a press conference. Thanks for coming! Ask another one. Do you want another one? I will give you another go if you like.
We need to get back to the explanatory memorandum because I was only up to page 7. This is an important part. The House needs to know that this bill is compatible with human rights. It is there on page 7. That was important to include in the explanatory memorandum: it complies with human rights. Page 8 is blank. We get to page 9 and that is the index. So the contents and the index takes up two pages of the 11-page explanatory memorandum. Pages 10 and 11 are blank too. We do not get what the member for Warringah would have called, when he was Leader of the Opposition, the best possible arguments for it—or maybe we do on pages 10 and 11. We get the best possible arguments for this bill on pages 10 and 11 of this arrogant explanatory memorandum—treating this House with contempt. It is the same contempt we were treated with in question time by this executive that says they will only answer the questions they choose to answer. They even choose whether they answer them accurately—the Prime Minister of Australia misleading the House twice in his first question time as Prime Minister. It was not just the member for Warringah who said quite a bit about the debt cap when they were in opposition.
Mr Briggs: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. We are in a wide-ranging debate, but if you are going to accuse a member of misleading the House, you need to do it by substantive motion.
The SPEAKER: The member for Mayo has drawn attention to the fact that the member for McMahon needs to adhere to the motion before the chair.
Mr BOWEN: I thank you for not upholding the member for Mayo's point of order, Madam Speaker. It was not just the member for Warringah who made a habit of talking about debt caps. We heard a lot from the then opposition about debt of course. It was at crisis levels, a budget emergency, we were like Greece. Our children and our grandchildren would have to pay it back, and their children. But, specifically about debt caps, we had the then shadow Treasurer, the now Treasurer, in this place at this dispatch box on 21 May last year say this:
Now they are saying they are living within their means but are also saying, 'Just in case, please give us an increase in the credit card limit to $300 billion.' It does not sound like a lot if you say it quickly but it is a hell of a lot of money that Australians have to repay. Enough is enough.
So $300 billion is a lot of money, but $500 billion—that is OK. He was in full bluff and bluster mode, as only the member for North Sydney can be, as he was just now. They went on of course to vote against the increase in the debt cap in the other place. So we will not tolerate for one second the member for North Sydney lecturing us about why we must vote for increases in debt caps when he did not vote for one—or instructed his senators not to vote for one—just a little over 12 months ago. He said this:
The quest for a debt ceiling increase is also the clearest evidence that the claim of returning the budget to surplus is a hoax.
If you are going to return the budget to surplus, as the government says they will in 2016-2017, he says the need to increase the debt cap demonstrates that it is a hoax. Now that he is the Treasurer he has changed his tune quite remarkably.
We saw the Prime Minister of Australia say on television this morning: 'We never opposed the former government's decision to increase the debt limit. We were critical but we never played fast and loose. We never did that. They are bunging on a Tea Party situation.' Wrong yesterday, wrong today on Channel 9, wrong in the House at question time—the Prime Minister should apologise for misleading the House.
In 2009, the now Prime Minister voted against the increase in the debt cap. Hansard does not lie. It records 78 ayes and 53 noes—the 53 who sat on this side of the chamber. In the Senate the Hansard records 36 ayes and 34 noes. The 34 votes came from the Liberal and National parties. They even voted against it at the third reading. You only do that when you feel really passionately that a piece of legislation should not pass. They voted against an increase in the debt limit at a third reading, so they should not lecture us about the Tea Party.
These are important matters to discuss. The government, in its infinite generosity, has given us an hour to discuss this 67 per cent increase in the debt cap! The Labor Party will not take the same irresponsible approach that the Liberal Party took in opposition. We will not oppose an increase in the debt limit. We will support an increase in the debt limit and we will pass the bill in this House and in the other house, with an amendment. We will move an amendment in the other place and in this place—I think our chances of getting it through the other house are slightly better than getting it through this House!—to authorise a debt cap increase to $400 billion. A $100 billion increase is not an insubstantial amount, but we will authorise it because we recognise, for the sake of responsibility, that an increase in the debt cap is not only warranted but is necessary.
We will move an increase in the debt cap to $400 billion. We will even facilitate it through this House and the other house very expeditiously. It could pass tonight. We would pass this debt cap increase tonight. We are happy to sit late. I am sorry to tell the backbenchers that we are happy to sit late tonight if that is what is required. We would pass it tonight, but this government have come nowhere near close to justifying a half-trillion-dollar debt cap. The government say, 'We may need to come back to the House in six or 12 months to ask for more if you only give us $400 billion.' Well, if they need to come back for more they should come back, and we will consider it based on the evidence put before the House. And we will be constructive, just as we are being constructive on this occasion.
Here is an important point: the Treasurer says, 'We are going to get to $370 billion, at least.' I agree with that; that is what the pre-election forecast said. We are prepared to go to $400 billion, which provides a $30 billion buffer. The $370 billion net debt peak comes in 2016-17. That is not now. My old friend the member for Hughes clearly did not read the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook, because he asked me a question about it before. If you look at PEFO—I strongly recommend it to you; it is a great read—you will find that it says:
Based on current estimates, CGS—
that is, Commonwealth government securities—
outstanding is expected to reach the limit within the 2013‑14 financial year (around December 2013) and will remain around that level from December 2013 onwards.
It will remain around that level. Here is an important sentence in the PEFO. It says:
It is important to note that there is a debt issuance strategy for the budget year only.
The Australian Office of Financial Management does not, this year, issue Commonwealth government securities to cover debt in 2016-17. The Australian Office of Financial Management issues Commonwealth government securities year by year. So what is going on here? What is the Treasurer's tactic? Why is he moving this extraordinary increase that he did not tell the Australian people about before the election? Why is he doing this? I think we saw the reason during his contribution in this second reading debate. He was at pains to say, 'This is your debt; you'll have to wear this.' He was playing politics. He is trying to make this year's budget deficit bigger than it might otherwise be. He is trying to ram this through now, just after the election, so that he can, in a political point, paint this as Labor's debt.
Mr Briggs interjecting—
Mr BOWEN: I have a news flash for the member for Mayo, who is now a minister. He has been sworn in; he might remember popping down to Government House and taking the oath. The news flash: you are now responsible. The Treasurer is now responsible for decisions which increase the debt and deficit—like the decision that he has taken to transfer $8.8 billion to the Reserve Bank. That decision was taken to blow out this year's deficit in a quite transparent political tactic. Maybe the Treasurer thinks we were born yesterday. Maybe he thinks the Australian people were born yesterday, but it is a pretty clear and cheap political tactic, which tries to blow out this year's deficit. But I correct myself: I said it was a cheap tactic. I apologise: it is a very expensive one. Why?—because he has to borrow that $8.8 billion, and that comes at a cost.
We asked the Treasurer today to confirm or deny that the impact of the borrowing of $8.8 billion is more than an extra $1 billion in interest repayments over the next four years. He would not answer. He would not confirm nor deny that to the House. He could not deny it, and he would not confirm it, because he does not want to admit that the cost of his cheap political tactic is to give the Australian people a bill of more than $1 billion in increased interest repayments. There is no better example than this of the hypocrisy of this government. The Treasurer came into this chamber and bluffed and blustered. He is like a B-grade actor in the C-grade sitcom which is this government. Maybe he is a C-grade actor in a C-grade sitcom, but the bluff and the bluster will not work.
The Treasurer stood on the opposite side of the chamber a few moments ago and tried to bully this House. He said, 'If you don't pass the debt increase you'll be responsible.' He said, 'We'll have to make cuts so that we do not go over the debt limit.' He will not have to make cuts so that we do not go over the debt limit; he can just accept the will of the parliament. The will of the parliament is to increase the debt cap to $400 billion if that is what happens in the Senate. I feel that, because of the indications that are coming from the Senate, the simple fact is that the government will not get parliamentary approval. If you get parliamentary approval good luck to you, but if you do not get parliamentary approval you will have to accept the will of the parliament. The will of the parliament is to give you an increase in the debt limit, but not half a trillion. You have not justified it. You have not made the case. You have not done what you said you would do in opposition. You have treated this parliament with arrogant contempt.
We will move an amendment in this House, Madam Speaker, in the consideration in detail stage. The amendment will replace the term '$500 billion' with '$400 billion'. We will press that amendment in the House. It will probably not pass. My colleagues in the Senate will move the same amendment. If it passes this government has a choice. The Treasurer can beat his chest and do his old huff-and-puff act, which he is very, very good at. He can say, 'We won't cop it.' He has a choice. He can have an increase in the debt limit tonight or he cannot. It is up to him.
If he wants to hold this parliament and the Australian people to ransom, because he has made the political calculation that he does not want to come back before the House and justify further increases in the debt limit, then that is a matter for him. But I can tell him, through you, Madam Speaker, that we will be holding him to account. If he thinks that we are going to blithely go along with his arrogant theatrics and say, 'Okay, Joe, you said you'd pay down the debt, but now you're not going to, and you're going to increase the debt to half a trillion. We'll go along with it,' well, he has made a mistake.
I hope the Treasurer does the responsible thing. I hope he remembers at some point that he is the duly commissioned Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia and has responsibilities. It is a very high office and it is an office that I have been honoured to hold—it is a huge honour—and it is an office that I will hold again someday. It is a great responsibility that the Treasurer has, and he should live up to that responsibility and do the right thing by the Australian people and accept the will of the parliament. He should accept the view of the parliament that this is a clear example of where the government has campaigned for one thing and is governing to do another. It has campaigned to reduce debt and is governing to increase the debt limit. If he does not do that, he will be held responsible for the results.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (18:32): Madam Speaker, before I rise to speak on this bill I would like to congratulate you on your appointment to the Speaker's chair. I would say that, seeing you sit there for the first time, it looked as if that chair was actually made for you.
Today, we commence the almighty task of cleaning up the absolute financial mess that the previous Labor government left and we inherited. This bill, the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2013, is effectively increasing the limit on our nation's credit card. The government seek to raise the limit from $300 billion to $500 billion. As the Treasurer said, 'To raise the debt limit is simply an unfortunate but necessary step that the coalition must take as we commence to clean up this massive financial mess that the members of Labor left us.'
There is some urgency, for we know that in a few weeks time, maybe as soon as 12 December, we will crash through that $300 billion current debt limit. That raises the question: why didn't the previous Labor government take this step when they knew—as the Assistant Treasurer, the member for McMahon admitted—that they would go above that $300 billion limit. This is a job that should have been done by the previous Labor government. We know why they did not do it. It was because they were too ashamed of the six years of the waste, the mismanagement and the reckless spending, which started with them inheriting $50 billion in the bank and saw them crash through every single debt limit that they set. They were simply too ashamed before the election to go ahead and do what was needed, and that was to increase the debt limit, and they are now leaving that to the new coalition government.
Let us wind the clock back six years to see where we were. Australia did not even have a debt limit then. We did not need one because the previous coalition government not only paid back the $96 billion of the previous Labor government's debt but, along the way, paid back $50 billion worth of interest on top of that $96 billion. Then, after that, they managed to put $50 billion away in the nation's bank account. That is what the previous Labor government inherited and, when they came into the government, the interest that they were receiving was $1 billion a year. So, $1 billion a year was coming into the federal Treasury to be spent on all the things that are necessary for the government to provide because the previous coalition government had that $50 billion in the nation's bank account.
We know the history. We have seen reckless spending and waste on an unprecedented scale in our nation's history. What has that resulted in? We have seen the fastest deterioration of debt outside of wartime. Look at how we were promised, time after time, that the debt ceiling would be set and there would be no need to break it. If we go back to July 2008, before I became a member of this place, Labor raised the debt limit to $75 billion. I remember at the time listening and watching the speeches in this place. They talked about it being a one-off temporary deficit. They said that there would be no need to go above the $75 billion.
Fast forward to February 2008. They said, 'Now we need $200 billion. Let's raise it to $200 billion, but we'll never need to go above that.' Then, when I was in this place at the budget of 2011, Labor again had to raise that debt, up to $250 billion. Then we heard on over 500 occasions, time after time in this place, the then Prime Minister and then Treasurer promising to return the budget to surplus. The $250 billion would be the cap—it would never be broken—but, come the budget in 2012, again Labor could not keep their promises and they had to raise the debt limit to $300 billion.
What Labor members often forget, and they never mention this, is that this debt comes at a cost. Now the incoming government has to pay $10 billion in interest payments every year. That is close to $192 million every single week that we need to take from the economy to pay the interest bill on the debt that Labor left. What is even more concerning is that something like 75 per cent of that money, three-quarters of that money, is actually sent overseas. It is sent overseas to foreigners. I would like every member of parliament to think about the many things that they need or would like to see money spent on in their electorate. We could each have over a million dollars a week to spend in our electorates if it were not for Labor's debt, the wasteful spending and the interest payments that we must now make. Every single week throughout the country there is $192 million less money that we have to spend on hospitals, less money that we have to spend on roads and less money that we have to spend on kids with disabilities that simply pays the interest on Labor's debt. We have to do that until we start paying that debt down.
I have seen criticism of the coalition government for having to take this step, but to do so is to confuse cause and effect. To criticise the coalition government for coming in, fixing up this mess and unfortunately having to raise our debt limit is simply akin to criticising a fire brigade when they turn up to a house to put out a fire, lit by an arsonist, because they might cause water damage.
We have heard the Treasurer refer to the 'spiders' that Labor have left in almost every cupboard. I think there is another analogy that could be added to that: booby traps. There are not only spiders but also booby traps in every single cupboard that we go through. We know that Labor were unable to achieve a surplus and that even in their attempts to do so they cooked the books. They used every accounting trick under the sun. They pulled revenue forward and they pushed expenses years into the future. Just look at a few. They raided over $5 billion out of the Reserve Bank to bring into their budget numbers to try and make them look better. One of the tasks of cleaning up Labor's great mess is that we have to recapitalise the Reserve Bank. We have also seen the ACCC, the Competition and Consumer Commission, reach the stage where they have simply run out of money and may no longer be able to fulfil their role. They need an injection of close to $100 million just to make sure that they can continue to do their function.
There is also the repayment of the unclaimed money that Labor looted from the accounts of everyday Australians. You may remember that legislation, where they changed the law on unclaimed money. They determined that, for any bank account in our nation, if the deposit holder had not put in a deposit or made a withdrawal in the last three years, that money was all of a sudden unclaimed. We know that the raids on the accounts of mums, dads, kids and pensioners who had put money aside netted Labor $640 million. All that money went into their coffers while they were in government and now, as Australians open their bank balances and find at times that their money is gone, it is up to the coalition government to repay the money that was taken.
Labor has got us into a financial mess and the job of turning it around is like turning around the Queen Mary. We know that on current trends we are going to exceed $400 billion before the coalition has a chance to turn the ship around. And we know that the Australian Office of Financial Management has said—and the former Treasurer himself tabled the advice that he had in parliament—that any prudent government should have a buffer of $40 billion to $60 billion above any projected peak debt to allow for any unanticipated events. That is simply all the coalition want to do. We hear the shadow Treasurer, the member for McMahon and other Labor members trying to stop this important legislation when they know it is urgent. Instead, they should be hanging their heads in shame; they should be cringing with embarrassment that this step is necessary. Instead, all we are seeing is political game after political game.
It is regrettable that we have to raise the debt limit to this amount, but it is not raising debt; it is simply raising the limit. It will be a very long and hard road to pay that debt back down, but the coalition have done that before. The coalition have a track record of success in paying back Labor's debts, and we will do it again. The way we will do it is to cut the waste and the reckless spending. We will cut the feel-good projects simply designed to win votes that were, sadly, simply the hallmark of the previous, Labor, government. And we will grow the economy, because that is truly the only way to pay back debt and that is how the previous coalition government did it. We will grow that economy by making sure that we give the opportunities to people out there in our small business community; we will encourage them to innovate and experiment, and to develop those new businesses that will take our nation forward and to repay this legacy that Labor has left us.
So we hope that the Labor government does not continue to play political games. We hope that they will admit the error of their ways. We hope that they will acknowledge that this is an unfortunate but appropriate number, as a prudent government would do. We also hope that they realise the urgency. There is urgency that this bill passes, because, as the Treasurer said, come 12 December we will breach that $300 billion debt limit. It will be breached because of expenditure that Labor has locked in. So I call on the members of Labor and the Greens to do the right thing by the nation: stop playing political games, get behind us and do not block this legislation.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (18:47): At the outset, I wish to register my concern about the duration of this debate. In September 2011, the coalition described as ridiculous this House's decision to schedule 35 hours of debate on the carbon price bills. They were bills which, according to the Climate Institute, ultimately had an 'undetectable impact' on the overall economy. Yet this House is now scheduling 70 minutes to debate $200 billion—that is $47 million per second of this debate. Every second of this debate that elapses, the debt limit will rise $2 for every single Australian. That is how little this government regards debate in this House.
Fundamentally, what we are debating today can be best understood through the lens of AFL. In AFL there is a tactic that teams sometimes engage in when they are getting towards the bottom of the ladder. They know the best draft picks come from being at the bottom of the ladder, so they engage in a strategy called tanking. They hope to put themselves in a better situation in the next season by doing worse in this season. In Carlton versus Melbourne 2007, fans were hanging their heads in shame. And that is what the Treasurer is attempting to do for the 2013-14 budget: the Treasurer is attempting to tank the 2013-14 budget because he wants that budget to be regarded as Labor's budget. Of course, that is not what the Treasurer said when he was asked before the election what his attitude would be after 7 September. He said, 'If we are to win we will own it from day one.' But actually it appears that what he meant to say was, 'We will own it from day 300.' The Treasurer wants to load as much debt as possible into 2013-14 because he thinks he can blame it on someone else. He wants to tank the 2013-14 budget.
That has a considerable cost for the Australian economy. Mark Kenny in today's Sydney Morning Herald said that when discussing the unprecedented rise in the debt ceiling—the $200 billion rise in the debt ceiling which we are debating at a rate of $47 million a second—Mr Abbott:
… appeared to acknowledge it was essentially a political move crafted to avoid the need to seek another increase during the 2016 election year.
And of course when the boot was on the other foot the attitude was very different. At the National Press Club on 16 May last year, the member for North Sydney said: 'Labor has now sought increases in the debt limit of the Commonwealth from $75 billion, to $200 billion, to $250 billion and now $300 billion. On each occasion they promise not to exceed their limit. Well, enough is enough. We are going to keep them to their promises.'
Well, that is what Labor is doing today: we are holding the government to its promise to provide open and accountable government. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself told 2GB in May 2012: 'Our money, our future, is too important to be mortgaged like this without the government giving us the strongest possible arguments for it, because every dollar that they borrow has got to be repaid.' And yet we have not heard substantive arguments from the government. We have not seen the mini-budget announced which would provide details as to why this increase in the debt limit to $500 billion rather than $400 billion would be appropriate.
In question time today the Prime Minister said that the coalition had not voted against increases in the debt limit. That was in fact untrue, and I am disappointed to see that the Prime Minister did not follow the example of former Prime Minister John Howard in coming to the dispatch box at the end of question time to correct the record, to admit that he had made a mistake—to admit that in fact what he had said was not true.
In the National Press Club address that I referred to earlier, the member for North Sydney said that budgets are 'a window into a government's honesty and honour, a government's competence and capacity, a government's substance and sustainability'. In the Australian today, the Treasurer quoted my words in speaking about the opposition's attack on raising the debt limit. What he failed to alert readers of the Australian to was that I was referring to not a $200 billion increase in the debt limit but a $50 billion increase in the debt limit. I was referring not to an increase in the debt limit which was unjustified by the economic papers but to one for which the case had been made in the budget brought down just weeks beforehand.
The coalition has campaigned in front of debt trucks and now they are looking at increasing the government debt limit, just about doubling it. Frankly, that debt truck has now become a double-decker. They are standing in front of the debt truck—and it had better be a B-double because that is the size of the debt increase. One can make reasonable arguments for debt, but those arguments have to be articulated. You cannot simply go to the bank and say, 'I would like to just about double my credit card limit or my mortgage', without providing some documentation. No Australian household would do that, and this House should not allow the government to do it.
When Labor took on modest levels of debt, some of the lowest levels in the developed world, we did so to save jobs and save small businesses. If you think Australia should have no debt, then fundamentally you think when the global financial crisis hit we should have had more unemployment and more small businesses hit the wall.
But now we have debt increasing because the Treasurer is choosing to give $8.8 billion to the Reserve Bank. Why is he doing that? In question time today the Treasurer referred to dividends which had been taken out from the Reserve Bank by the Labor government. That is a great question to look at. Let us have a look at the dividends that have been taken out from the Reserve Bank. In an article in Business Spectator, Stephen Koukoulas pointed out thatthe Reserve Bank of Australia's annual report detailed dividends paid by the bank to the government since 1997-98. Under the Howard government, the Reserve Bank paid a total of $20.2 billion in dividends, $1.83 billion a year. In today's dollar terms, that would be $30 billion or $3 billion per annum. Under Labor, the Reserve Bank paid a total of $7.9 billion in dividends or around $1.3 billion each year on average. In today's dollar terms that would be $1.5 billion per annum.
So when those opposite refer to Labor raiding the Reserve Bank, they should have a look at their own behaviour in office. What the coalition under the Howard government took out of the Reserve Bank was twice as large per year as what Labor took out. Hypocrisy, thy name is Hockey. Those opposite took out $3 billion a year in real terms from the Reserve Bank; we took out $1.5 billion a year. So let us not have any talk about how it is necessary to give $8.8 billion to the Reserve Bank to recapitalise it. Fundamentally, this is about tanking the budget and ensuring that in future budgets the Treasurer can take a larger dividend from the Reserve Bank. This House should approve an increase in the debt limit, but only to $400 billion—unless the Treasurer is willing to bring forward an economic statement that justifies a $500 billion debt cap.
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright—Government Whip) (18:55): I do not intend to speak for long on the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2013 because I believe that very early in the course of the day our Treasurer articulated the argument quite simply. Before I go to my notes, I would like to address some of the points raised by my colleague the last speaker. He spoke about a lack of time with this bill—that they have not had long to consider it. I remind the parliament and I remind my colleagues that when we last left government there was no debt. There was no debt ceiling. We did not need a debt ceiling. This government came along and said, 'If we put a $75 billion debt ceiling in place, that will be enough to get us out of strife.' Then I think it went to $200 billion and we heard, 'That will be enough and then we will not have to touch it again.' Then it went to $250 billion and then I think it went to $300 billion. And yet they come into this House and oppose our request for a debt ceiling limit. If we look at the bleeding obvious and the evidence before the House, it is clear the forecast of the previous government has been absolutely atrocious. It is accurate to say that the previous government has not been able to sit hit the side of a barn with a budget forecast. He also went on to talk about tanking.
Mr Bandt: What is your debt ceiling?
Mr BUCHHOLZ: There was an interjection there from the Greens member. I am going to love hearing you. Your party leader said the other day that there should not be a debt ceiling, so I am going to love hearing what your backflip on this one is, cowboy.
The member for Fraser also spoke about tanking. This is a new term that I have not heard because I am from Queensland and I follow rugby union and rugby league. I know the previous speaker to be a man of integrity. He sits on the Economics Committee and he knows quite well the concerns that have been raised. Look at me now—you know quite well the concerns that have been raised publicly by the Governor of the Reserve Bank about the drawdown of capital. He has made those statements openly to the public. It is wrong of you not to acknowledge the Governor of the Reserve Bank's concerns about the behaviour of the previous government. It is wrong and you should acknowledge that.
You mentioned that we had not as a government articulated an argument or given good enough reason for the debt ceiling should be increased. The argument put today by the Treasurer was simply that peak debt was going to be $430 billion and that there was a requirement for a buffer of $40-$60 billion. That is the argument: peak debt plus a buffer of $40-$60 billion. You work it out. I had another couple of pages, but I am done, thank you.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (18:59): I think what is surprising, what has most of the community in awe, is how these guys in opposition said one thing—they talked about debt and they talked about budget emergencies—and then came here and have suddenly become financially responsible. They are suddenly realising all the things that affect a budget—things that they refused to acknowledge before, when they were in opposition—and which frame budgets in a massive way and need to be dealt with. But they have never had the decency or honesty—and certainly not during this debate—to actually say why they have changed their mind on the way in which and the direction in which they are now taking the budget. The have not, for example—
The SPEAKER: It being 7:00 pm, and in accordance with the previous resolution passed today, I call the parliamentary secretary to sum up.
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (19:00): Thank you Madam Speaker, and may I like others in this debate take this opportunity to congratulate you on your elevation to the role of Speaker.
It has been an interesting debate. It has been fascinating to hear members of the Labor Party, now in opposition, lecturing the government about what should be happening with respect to the debt limit. I have to say that it must be a novel approach for a large number of the Labor Party members, because I suspect that many of them would have had to check their speaking notes before walking into the chamber to confirm that they were in fact going to be arguing for a lower debt limit rather than an increased debt limit, because it stands in stark contrast to the last six years of the Australian Labor Party's track record of their performance in government. We all know the narrative, which is that when the coalition lost office in 2007 we left no debt and actually left assets in the bank, so to speak. Over the next six years, the Australian Labor Party ran this down substantially.
We know that the Australian Labor Party has poor form when it comes to budgeting. We already know that the shadow Treasurer—who has just walked back into the chamber—clearly has trouble doing numbers and adding up. This is the shadow Treasurer who could not work out that the PEFO, the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook, was for $370 billion of gross debt. That is gross debt, not net debt, shadow Treasurer—he kept getting that number confused. Couple the $370 billion in gross debt with the fact that the Australian Office of Financial Management made it clear that you needed a $40 billion to $60 billion buffer, and you find that the $370 billion plus $60 billion puts you north of $400 billion to begin with.
Although the Labor Party's form is to come in and say, 'Well, we'll set the debt limit at X level and then we'll come back and ask for more if we need it,' that is not the approach of this government. We do not want to have to keep coming back and asking for more money. We already know—to pre-empt the amendment the shadow Treasurer has made clear he is going to introduce—that the Labor Party says, 'No, we think the limit should be $400 billion.' And, strangely, the Greens have also signed up to a $400 billion debt limit—but with that you would be flat out funding one of their policies, I suspect. That notwithstanding, the Greens and Labor have once again done a deal, and it is appropriate that a deal should be done on the first day of this new parliament, because it is entirely consistent with the deals that were done between the Greens and the Labor Party over the past six years.
What is it that we are actually talking about here? This bill seeks to amend the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911 to increase the legislative debt limit from $300 billion to $500 billion. The legislative limit has been lifted three times since it was introduced in 2008. It was effectively increased from $75 billion to $200 billion in 2009, then increased to $250 billion in 2011 and then increased to $300 billion in 2012. The face value of Commonwealth government securities on issue that are subject to the limit has increased from around $50 billion when the limit was introduced in 2008, to over $285 billion today. Commonwealth government securities on issue are projected to increase further. We do not want a repeat of this situation—
Mr Bowen: This is a summing up for a half-trillion-dollar bill. Shouldn't the Treasurer be doing this himself?
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. I call the parliamentary secretary.
Mr CIOBO: Entirely consistent with Labor's form today, they continue to abuse the standing orders and play games.
With respect to the bill at hand, we do not want a repeat of Labor's form. By setting a limit of $500 billion we signalled that it is not our intention to return to parliament seeking further increases to the limit. Did you hear that, Labor: it is not our intention to follow your track record. We will not be coming back here seeking a further increase in the limit.
Both the former government's economic statement in August and the 2013 Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook reported that the face value of Commonwealth government securities on issue that were subject to the legislative limit were projected to reach $300 billion in December 2013. That is only weeks away. If Labor has their way we will break the $300 billion limit in only a matter of weeks. These budget documents also show that the face value of the Commonwealth government securities on issue is projected to continue to increase over the forward estimates and reach around $370 billion by 2015-16. In addition to the $370 billion, as I mentioned, the Australian Office of Financial Management has previously advised that it is prudent to maintain a buffer of $40 billion to $60 billion above peak debt projected in any year. This advice from the AOFM is not a new development. In fact, as the Treasurer mentioned in question time today, this advice was provided and tabled by Treasurer Swan, the member for Lilley, in this very House at this dispatch box on 10 May last year. It was based on the advice that the limit was last raised to $300 billion.
So, even on Labor's own numbers and advice a $400 billion limit would be inadequate. Let me repeat that point, and I hope the shadow Treasurer listens. Even on Labor's own numbers and advice, a $400 billion limit would be inadequate. The opposition has never understood this, and this has always been the case, because they treat the debt limit as a debt target. But as I and others have said clearly before, the budget has deteriorated since PEFO. I am advised that on current trends peak debt will now exceed $400 billion.
The debt limit needs to be increased to $500 billion to provide sufficient headroom to ensure that there is stability and certainty for financial markets. There must be confidence that the government has the capacity to finance its operations for the foreseeable future. The debt limit is a ceiling. It is not a debt target.
I also took note that the shadow Treasurer went to great lengths to make an issue of the fact that the explanatory memorandum that has been issued by the government was 11 pages in length. How extraordinary that once again we find hypocrisy! I heard one of the Labor members opposite talking about hypocrisy, but I had a look at the explanatory memorandum from 2009 and, unlike this hefty tome of 11 pages, Labor's was four pages in length. Once again, let the Australian public not be under any illusions about the fact that Labor walks into the chamber now with a very different set of expectations to those they had when they were in government. What Labor says should not be listened to. Any analysis of Labor should be based upon their performance.
The reality is that this is a Labor Party opposite that is now seeking to frustrate this government in the job that we have to do. Our job is clear. The task at hand is to start to pay down Labor's debt, get the budget back under control and to repair the damage that Labor left behind. But one of the most crucial aspects of doing that is to provide the financial markets with stability and certainty. We do not want to be like Labor and keep coming back to this table and to this chamber asking to increase the debt limit. We want to do it once. This is Labor Party debt that we are dealing with. We want it finalised. For that reason, I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Consideration in Detail
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (19:09): I move the amendment circulated in my name:
(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 6), omit "$500", substitute "$400".
This bill just passed the House. The Labor Party supported it. Unlike the Liberal Party in 2009 and 2012, we will support an increase in the debt cap. That is the responsible and measured thing to do. The Prime Minister erroneously claimed that the Liberal Party did not vote against increases in the debt cap. He did it in question time today. He misled the House in his first question time as Prime Minister, an inauspicious start. But the Labor Party takes a more sensible and mature approach. We have approved the increase in the debt limit. But we do have an amendment, which I have moved. The amendment is that we only authorise an increase in the debt cap of $100 billion. That is not a small or a trifling amount of money. It is a significant increase.
Let the member for Moncrieff or the Treasurer say here at the dispatch box that that would not be enough to get them through December. Would it be enough to get them through December? Of course it would—unless the budget has deteriorated more than the Treasurer has let on, or unless he is planning more giveaways, like the ones he has made since he became Treasurer, like the grant to the Reserve Bank of $9 billion. The Treasurer claims that the Reserve Bank asked for that. The Treasurer claims that the Reserve Bank asked for $8.8 billion. I asked him to release the request. He refused. I FOI'd the request. The Treasury refused to release it under FOI. We have moved in the Senate that the Senate demand the release of the document. If that passes the Senate, the Treasurer will be obliged to release the letter. He says that he would love to. If he would love to, he could release it. If he has nothing to hide, he could release the letter from the Governor of the Reserve Bank that says, 'Please give me $8.8 billion this year.' He says that he would like to release it. He could release it, but he has not and he will not, unless he is forced to.
Mr Husic: Along with the incoming Treasurer's brief.
Mr BOWEN: He could release the incoming Treasurer's brief. It was released in 2007. It was released in 2010—and not just the incoming Treasurer's brief, but the incoming government brief. I got an incoming Treasurer's brief not that long ago. But this Treasurer is refusing to release his. That is part of the culture of secrecy of this government.
We have moved an amendment that would give the government a $100 billion increase in the debt cap. That would see it through and allow for the net debt to peak and allow for a buffer. The last figures before the Australian people, which the Treasurer quoted today, were released by me. This Treasurer has refused to release a mid-year economic statement. We saw the Prime Minister again mislead the House today when he said, 'We'll release it in December like you did.'
The SPEAKER: I would remind the member for McMahon that he is getting perilously close to a disorderly statement, and I would ask him to return to the subject matter.
Mr BOWEN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. With respect, the release of the MYEFO is very related to the subject matter before the chair.
The SPEAKER: I was referring to your statement about misleading. That was perilously close.
Mr BOWEN: The Prime Minister said today that the previous government released MYEFOs in December, and that is an incorrect statement. It was not released once in December under the previous government—not once—contrary to what the Prime Minister asserted in the House today. The Treasurer could justify this increase in the debt limit by releasing his mid-year economic forecast, which is in effect a mini budget. It would reflect his decision to give $9 billion to the Reserve Bank. It would reflect his decision to reverse tax changes made by the previous government in relation to tax integrity as part of the G20 agenda, which Australia will soon chair. It will reflect his decision to give a tax break to individuals with more than $2 million in their superannuation accounts—good people who have worked hard but to whom it is not a priority to give a tax break in the view of the Labor Party but apparently it is a priority in the view of those opposite, the government and the Treasurer.
All these things will be reflected in the mid-year economic forecast—the Treasurer's mini-budget. So when the member for Moncrieff, representing the Treasurer—who has not bothered to turn up to sum up this very important bill—says, 'It's Labor's debt', well, the Labor Party fully acknowledges that the debt limit needed to be increased. That was acknowledged in the pre-election economic forecast. (Time expired)
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson—The Nationals Deputy Whip) (19:15): Congratulations are in order for the opposition. The dog of a debt that Labor birthed, fed and nurtured with the Greens is just about nearing maturity. Having force-fed what was a little puppy with a steady stream of record deficits for six years, Labor and the Greens watched their dog of a debt outgrow its doghouse four times, from a debt ceiling of $75 billion in 2008 to $200 billion in 2009, and from $250 billion in 2011 to $300 billion in 2012. And the member for McMahon talked about being responsible and measured with this amendment. Well, it is their irresponsible spending that has led to the near immeasurable debt that this country is going to be in. They raised the debt limit by 300 per cent in four short years. And their dog of a debt is now even outgrowing that. They abandoned it on the doorstep of this new government, ringing the bell and running away. Well, congratulations: your puppy is moving into a $500 billion doghouse. And they sit opposite pointing the finger at the size of the doghouse needed to house their dog of a debt, deliberately oblivious to their own heinous budget crimes. The opposition should stand back in awe of the sheer size of their success and proudly say, 'This is Labor socialism at work'—created by reckless Labor-style socialism and nourished by true socialist economic ignorance.
The previous Labor government made it clear where their sights were set, holding up Greek debt as the model to which they aspired. Every time those opposite came in here, they said, 'Our debt isn't as bad as Greece's.' They established these boundaries of acceptability for socialist-inspired debt. They spread the field to give themselves more room—room for bigger government; room for more bureaucracy, more welfare and more handouts; room for more failed policies to be paid for by the taxes of hardworking families and by saddling future generations with this huge tax burden.
If you keep spending like there is no tomorrow, as those opposite did while they were in government, tomorrow will always come, because someone—some day—has to pay the debt off. And that someone is the taxpayer. Today's taxpayers are already being hit up for more than $200 million a week just to pay the interest on Labor's legacy of debt. Every month that goes by, $1 billion worth of taxes are wasted to service Labor's debt. So, in the month of January, we could have completely funded the Mount Isa to Townsville rail corridor upgrade and all the scheduled Bruce Highway safety upgrades—in just one month. But we cannot, because we have to spend that money on servicing Labor's debt. In February we could have funded the upgrade of the Warrego Highway between Helidon and Morven in just one month, but we cannot, because we have to service Labor's debt. In March we could have done the Swan Valley bypass, but we cannot, because we have to service Labor's debt. In the month of April, we could have done the inner-city regional bike network as well as the capacity improvements and expansions of the Metro commuter rail network in New South Wales, but we cannot do it in that month because we have to spend money servicing Labor's debt. In the month of May we could have done Western Sydney bus and road upgrades as part of the North-West integration package, but we cannot in that month, because we have to service your debt. In the month of June we could have done the improvements to the Dandenong rail capacity, but we cannot, because we have to spend that money servicing Labor's debt. In July through to November, in fact, we could have done the Brisbane cross-river rail project and the entirety of the Ipswich Motorway upgrade, but we cannot, because all that money is going to servicing Labor's debt. And then we could have had December off, because we would have done it all, but we cannot, because Labor's debt needs to be serviced.
So, every month that goes by, that money is wasted, and I say to those opposite: congratulations; your work is done, our country is broke, your party is the one that broke it, your party itself is broken, and your ideology is bankrupt. You have left this nation holding your massive dog of a debt, and we will fix it up. We will fix it up. This Liberal-National government will fix it up, because we have been here before and we have done it before. We will get this country back in business. We will actually cut the wasteful spending that you guys presided over, and we will cut the red tape that is strangling productivity, the red tape that you brought in over your lifetime in government. But we will not take responsibility for this record debt conceived by Labor, birthed by Labor and allowed to run rampant by Labor. This is Labor's debt that we are sorting out.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (19:20): That was an extraordinary proposition from one of a group of people who are learning that you cannot run a country with three-word slogans. That is what they did prior to the election. But now, today, we are seeing something very different. We are seeing something rammed through this parliament with just two hours of debate to increase the debt cap by $200 billion. Before the election, they said that there was an economic crisis. They said that there was a budget emergency. Today, what we see is that they actually have nothing to say in terms of MYEFO, nothing to say in terms of what the state of the budget is, but come in here and make absurd statements such as the previous speaker—I get them all confused; one of those North Queensland Nats—the member for Dawson has made. He is the bloke who we funded the Mackay ring road for and put money in the budget for and who has gone out there and campaigned against infrastructure spending. Then, in that contribution, he spoke about the things that the government could not do. Well, I will give him a big tip: the Dandenong rail, just like other rail in Melbourne, is necessary, but a precondition is the Melbourne Metro project. We have $3 billion in the budget for it, but they are ripping it out. Unless you fix the Melbourne Metro, you cannot do anything else. You cannot have an airport link, you cannot have a Dandenong extension. Similarly, unless you do the cross-river rail project in Brisbane you cannot satisfy the needs not just of people in Brisbane but also of the people of the Sunshine Coast and the Gold Coast. It is a precondition.
Those on the other side have an ideological objection to funding any public transport because they believe, like Margaret Thatcher did, that, if you find yourself in your late twenties on a public bus then you consider your life to be a failure. That is the attitude that those opposite have towards public transport. Those opposite want to increase the debt by $200 billion, without putting an argument up, at the same time as they are making massive cuts to infrastructure projects, such as the cross-river rail and Melbourne Metro, and major cuts in important projects. Forty-eight hours before the election they put out their hit-list of infrastructure projects: projects like the Tourle Street bridge in Newcastle, and Bolivia Hill. These projects disappeared under the weight of their ignorance as to the need for future productivity investment. We see them wanting to increase the nation's credit limit up to $500 billion at the same time as they are making massive cuts, including to important infrastructure such as regional projects and local government projects.
As the minister for local government, in June this year I announced the next stage of the Regional Development Australia Fund: $150 million allocated, according to the Commonwealth grants formula, between $30,000 and $2 million to each and every local government area. So large councils, such as Blacktown and Newcastle, got more than the smaller councils, but every council benefited, with weighting particularly for regional councils and those in disadvantaged communities, which tend to be in regional Australia. The then spokesperson, now minister, went along—they were all happy to go along and speak to the Australian Local Government Association and say how fantastic all this was and how they supported local infrastructure. Now we are seeing them ripping this money away from local councils, even though the local councils have planned for these projects.
What we see from those opposite is absolute hypocrisy when it comes to this question. They are finding out that government is a bit more difficult than just saying, 'No, no, no', as they did when they were in opposition—just wrecking things. They actually have to build something now that they are the government.
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (19:25): I see what is going on here: the lights opposite are on but there is no-one home. The shadow Treasurer and the member for Grayndler have stood up and said, 'We haven't heard any arguments about why the debt limit needs to go above $400 billion'. As has been said, indeed by the shadow Treasurer: in the now opposition's own pre-election fiscal outlook, gross debt was anticipated to reach $370 billion. The opposition's own tabled information, from the Australian Office of Financial Management, said that there must be a buffer of between $40 billion and $60 billion. So, based on Labor's own numbers in isolation, $370 billion plus $60 billion is $430 billion. Based on those numbers alone, I have news for the Labor Party: $430 billion is more than $400 billion! Members of the Labor Party stand at the dispatch box and say, 'We haven't heard any arguments; what possible arguments could there be?' How about your own numbers, Labor Party?
In addition to that, the extraordinary thing is that the member for Grayndler stands up and says, 'What's the urgency? What's the rush? They're trying to ram this bill through; it just shows that the government can't be trusted.' How extraordinary that another member of the Labor Party would make a comment like that. We know, again based on Labor's own information, that the debt ceiling will be reached in December—in weeks. Now, I have news for the Labor Party: the Senate is not sitting next week. The reality is that there is urgency to this bill, and it is because of the parlous state that was left by the Labor Party. Never forget: it was the former, former Treasurer—or, I should say, the former, former, former Treasurer—who said, 'Well, it'll be someone else's problem to deal with the debt limit.' So Labor, under the member for Lilley, said, 'Someone else can deal with this problem; we're not going to deal with it.' And now the shadow Treasurer says, 'Let's make it $400 billion because we don't see any reason why it should be more than $400 billion'—even though their own numbers make it clear that it is $430 billion.
But the real cherry on top of the cake came from the shadow Treasurer. The shadow Treasurer stood up at the dispatch box, with a straight face—he would make a great poker player, I am sure—and said, 'Well, government, the reality is that this will get you past December,' as if in some way that is an appropriate approach to take to good governance. And the Labor Party stands up, with the pinnacle of economic excellence on the Labor Party side, the shadow Treasurer—
Dr Leigh: Hear, hear!
Mr CIOBO: That was a half-hearted 'Hear, hear' from the member for Fraser! But, anyway, we will just leave that! I think he got the joke. I am not sure that the shadow Treasurer did—I think he thought I was being serious! But the reality is that we do not intend to manage Australia as a month-to-month proposition. We think economic security is more important than that. We think sending signals to the market is more important than making decisions on a month-to-month basis. We know that that is Labor's approach—we get it. The government gets that Labor's approach is to come and ask for an increase in the credit limit, scurry off, spend more money, come back, ask for another increase in the debt limit, scurry off, spend more money, come back and ask for another increase. That is not our approach.
Let us be clear: once we have fixed up the damage that Labor has left behind, once we have got the budget back in a state of repair, once we have Australia back on her feet, then we know we will be able to start paying down Labor's debt. But we need those opposite to get out of the way. We need the Labor Party to stop blocking us from saving money.We need them to support us when we try to consolidate the amount of debt that this country has We need to repair the damage that they left behind. Those opposite should not stand up and make caricatures of themselves by saying, 'We don't understand why it needs to be more than $400 billion'. Let us make it clear: we do not support the amendment that has been put forward by the Labor Party. We do not support it because, on their own numbers—the forecasts which they left behind—the ceiling will be breached.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (19:30): I rise to support the amendment. I spent what must surely have been some of the worst hours of my life here in this place listening to the then shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey import the worst of American Tea Party tactics into this House and, together with some of the members who are sitting at the table at the moment, rail against the evils of debt. And it was not just when motions were brought before this House to increase the debt limit. On almost every day we heard the then Leader of the Opposition channelling the worst of United States politics telling us there was never a conceivable reason why a government might want to borrow. And they fought tooth and nail against any attempts to increase the debt limit.
It came as a significant surprise then when one of the first orders of business of the new Treasurer was to ask for half a trillion dollars as the new debt limit, a significant increase on the current debt limit. The Greens response to the new government was straightforward and simple: 'If you want such a significant amount of money, an increase of an order that has not been approved by this parliament before, tell us what you want to spend it on.' On the available information that has been published at the moment, which this government has endorsed, we can accept that, by December, there will need to be an increase to the existing limit. But not a single argument has been put forward as to why, in December, half a trillion dollars is going to be needed.
The Greens take the approach that most orthodox economists take to debt: if you are borrowing to fund recurrent expenditure, then you might have questions to look at; but if you are borrowing to fund world-leading infrastructure that sets this country up for the 21st century, then it could be a sensible investment. Every time we tried to mount that argument in the last parliament, we were met with resistance on this side. So we are perfectly entitled to say, 'If you want such a large sum of money that hasn't been approved by this parliament before, tell us what you're going to spend it on.' What was the government's response to that? It was not to come and sit down and say, 'Here's what we want to do, so let's discuss how we can get it through.' The response has been consistent with everything we have seen in the last few days of the last few weeks, which is to treat this parliament with absolute contempt, to withhold information and to try and use the sheer force of numbers to ram it through.
I suspect that this will get through this House tonight, given the numbers in this place. But at the last election 20 per cent of this country said it did not want Labor or the coalition and voted for someone else. When it comes to the Senate, you are going to find there is a sizeable proportion of the population who are saying, 'No, we're going to exercise some accountability on you.' A government that has a large majority in the lower house cannot expect to get its own way by treating the parliament with contempt. This high-handed arrogance will not wash. This should be a salutary lesson for this government: if they intend to continue as they have started, they are going to meet resistance when they withhold information and treat the parliament, the media and the people with contempt. We the Greens are prepared to act on the published information which suggests that there is a need to increase the credit limit, but we are not prepared to write a half-a-trillion-dollar blank cheque for a government that has not explained what it wants to spend the money on.
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (19:35): I think we finally have a few explanations, after listening to the member for Melbourne's contribution to this debate. If he thinks the Greens vote is sitting at about 20 per cent in Australia following the last election, then there is a good explanation as to why he does not understand why we need to lift the debt limit to $500 million.
Mr Bandt interjecting—
Mr HAWKE: Well, you keep using the figure of 20 per cent. If the member for Melbourne represents economic orthodoxy, then I confess to being a radical evangelical—praise God!—because I do not believe the Greens could be associated with economic orthodoxy. In this debate the Labor Party has been completely disingenuous. We have seen the shadow Treasurer come in here and say, 'We're increasing the limit,' and the member for Melbourne back him up and say, 'What are the arguments? Why do we need to increase the debt limit? This money hasn't been spent already.' Well, Member for Melbourne, the forecasts already show us that this debt will peak past the debt limit already; the money has been spent. It is not for the government to show what we will spend the money on; the money has already been spent by your coalition partners in government, the Labor Party. The money has gone; the horse has bolted; you cannot shut the gate.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
Mr HAWKE: Hearing a lecture on economics from the member for Melbourne is bad enough. If you can be the world's best Treasurer, the member for Lilley, you have certainly got a lot of economic advisers on the backbench; but I do take umbrage at getting economics lectures from the member for Moreton, who is continuously interjecting, 'Why does the Reserve Bank need a reserve fund?' Don't give up your day job, member for Moreton, because you are certainly not going to make an economic adviser!
The facts of this debate are that the Labor Party created the debt, they created the debt ceiling, and they busted through that ceiling over four times. And now the Labor Party is getting in the way of the people that have been elected to fix the debt problem that it created.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr HAWKE: You created the problem, you created the ceiling, you busted the ceiling, and now you're trying to tell us that we cannot do our job—that is, responsibly manage the economy and bring us back from your high debt levels. What are the arguments; what is the principal argument? What is this really all about? The shadow Treasurer is telling us that he will approve $400 billion. We are going to go past $400 billion, shadow Treasurer. It won't be enough.
Mr Bowen: When?
Mr HAWKE: We do not know when, but it is forecast to be quite soon. We will go past $400 billion. The principal argument that we are having here is about a buffer. The Labor Party is pretending that there is no need for a buffer—fully in defiance of the advice from Treasury and the advice that the government has received. A buffer is essential. A buffer must be given to a government, because we don't know the state of the world economy and we don't know how the situation will change—a buffer is necessary. We already know it is going to be $430 billion. The advice is, a buffer must be there for the government to do—
Mr Perrett: Not $70 billion!
Mr HAWKE: Yes, a buffer; $70 billion is about right. That is what you need. So $500 billion is a reasonable request for this government to make, given the context of the budget mismanagement that you have put together.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr HAWKE: And it is galling for you to be sitting here lecturing us on economics. It is galling for the member for Melbourne to be lecturing us on economics. You have created this problem. This is a problem of your making. For the shadow Treasurer to say that Labor has approved an increase just to $400 billion is, I think, completely disingenuous and rude to the Australian people. I think the Australian people are going to see through this debate. Talk about Tea Party tactics—I mean, this is a Tea Party tactic. I have got a newsflash for you. You have been studying over the break because this is exactly what the Tea Party would do in the United States—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Mitchell will listen to my explanation for a moment. I have been giving a lot of leniency to a number of members today. This is a general comment for all members in this chamber. Would you desist from referring to the occupant of the chair as 'you'? It is not me; you are speaking through and not at the occupant of the Speaker's chair. It is a common habit. It is not good and it is not parliamentary practice. It is very disrespectful to the occupant of this chair.
Mr HAWKE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to put on the record that I regard you as a model of fiscal rectitude. But I do not regard the Australian Labor Party that way, and certainly not the Greens. It is offensive for them to lecture us and say that they are lifting the debt ceiling when, quite clearly, they are deliberately using a Tea Party tactic here to attempt to spike our early days in government. The Australian people will see through it, and we see through what is going on here, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (19:40): Mr Deputy Speaker, who are these people? Who are these people who, before the election, were talking about budget emergencies and railing against debt, and then come in here saying something different? It is like they have been to one of these RSL hypnosis shows and they have been told, 'When you hear the clap, you will no longer be vandals and you will no longer rail against debt and deficit, and you will say, "We need to increase the debt limit."' This is magic! It is amazing to see. The problem for the coalition is that they are all of a sudden doing something that the rest of the public would never expect them to do. The public would never expect them to suddenly become the friends of debt, lifting up the debt limit to $500 billion. You would never believe it, but the Treasurer has been talking about the need, possibly, for stimulus. After telling us we should not be having it, he has been saying, 'We need stimulus.' And he has been talking about the need to invest in infrastructure. The coalition is suddenly talking about all these things. Their problem is that the message now does not match with what they said before.
There is a way to fix it though—that is, give us the facts. How could those facts be presented? Here is a suggestion: why not release the incoming Treasurer's brief? We had PEFO; it outlined the state of the books. Now you have the incoming Treasurer's brief. And what happened? Apparently, Treasury will not release the detail because they think the working relationship is more important than the relationship with the Australian public. Apparently, their emotional intelligence is more important than giving us the actual economic data that can help, potentially, paint a clearer picture of where things stand. They will not do it. The Treasurer comes in today, like he did in question time, talking about everyone else's stats. He quotes every source other than—I don't know—Treasury! He does not actually quote Treasury to the Australian people, as to what the state of the books are.
We are prepared—as the shadow Treasurer has indicated through his amendment—to allow $400 billion right now. We will allow $400 billion to accommodate what was already anticipated in the Pre-election Economic Forecast. We said we would do that. And if you want to go above it, come back and tell us why. And the way to do it—
Mr Hawke: Next week!
Mr HUSIC: Next week—the member for Mitchell seems to know something that the rest of the public does not know, as to how quickly the government is looking to rack up debt. So you guys know, but you won't release the figures. Here is the other thing: we have said that if you come back and put the case, we will allow it to go further. The best way to do it is to release MYEFO. But they will not do it, because they are gutless. They will not allow the public to scrutinise it. They have this whole control approach in other portfolios. Scott Morrison, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, is hiding the boats and he has hidden himself. You can't even see him in the chamber anymore because he is in hiding behind the Speaker over there. And now they want to hide the state of the books until Christmas. Effectively, when Santa is getting soot on his suit, that is when they will release MYEFO—when no-one can really analyse it and look at it. So why won't they do it? They are saying they want to lift the debt limit to $500 billion—with no data, with no figures, with no substantiation. Why do they want to do it?
They have also suddenly realised that revenue is soft. Well, we have been saying that for ages. When we were in government, we had been saying for ages that the world economic outlook, as soft as it is, is going to impact on us. Exchange rates are going to have an impact on us as well. And they said—about all these things—'No, this is an expenditure issue, and you have got to get your house in order.' But they are not announcing anything at all that they plan to do to address expenditure. What have they done? They have set up a commission of audit. By the way, I love this commission of audit. They have put Amanda Vanstone on it—how much money did she spend on her renovations in Italy?—but they would not even put Peter Costello on; their own Treasurer! They were too embarrassed to put him on their commission of audit. They are going ahead with this commission of audit, but when will it report? Down the track sometime they will put forward their expenditure cuts, but they will not put them in now. This is the problem. As I said, they need to come up with the data and the facts, and explain precisely why they reckon debt is going to go the way it is going to go, and take the public with them.
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (19:45): Mr Deputy Speaker, congratulations on re-election to your high office. It is always interesting to follow my colleague the member for Chifley, and I always appreciate the comments along the way from the member for Moreton. We stand here again to reflect on the financial mismanagement of the former Labor government over the last six years. It is a situation that reminds me of a party. The Labor Party has had a party for the last six years and has woken up with a hangover the next morning—beer bottles all over the lawn, a few bottles of wine off to the side—and said, 'Party; what party?' The Australian people are paying the price as a result.
It is well within the sensible economic management of the future of this country to look at increasing the debt limit once and doing it properly. That is unlike what we have seen from those opposite over the past six years, where they started off at $75 billion, went to $200 billion and said, 'We've had another deficit. We wonder what's going on. We can't manage our finances. Let's increase it to $250 billion,' and then said, 'Let's increase it to $300 billion to give us a bit of a buffer.' They used up that buffer and now, when we say that debt is going to peak at about $370 billion, so we want an extra $40 billion or $60 billion as a buffer, based on the advice of the Australian Office of Financial Management, they do not want to entertain that idea. Yet that is exactly the argument they have used previously. The Greens have not helped the situation over the past few years, aiding and abetting the former government in their spendathon.
As we have constantly seen, it is about controlling your expenditure and, in the process of reviewing what we committed to in this election—to cut the waste and get the budget back in order—that is the very thing we need to do. That debt limit increase gives the flexibility to adjust, to get budget expenditure back under control, but at the same time to reflect varying economic circumstances so that we do not make cuts at times when it is going to hurt our economy. We have to have flexibility within our fiscal arrangements to accommodate any shocks in the global economy. It is prudent to do that up-front and to be honest with the Australian people about why we are going to do it—
Mr Perrett: Six months ago you said, 'Come and state your case every time you want to increase it.'
Mr VAN MANEN: Well, we do it once and we do it properly, unlike you guys, with constant budget deficits—always more than you originally anticipated because you were not able to control spending. Even the member for Lilley, earlier this year on national radio, said that he knew the debt limit would have to be increased but that that would be somebody else's problem. What is the benefit of passing the problem off down the track to the never-never and hoping that somebody else will fix it? That is exactly the problem that we have; it is the reason we are in this situation.
Over the past six years we have witnessed the greatest deterioration in our nation's financial situation. We have seen a government that, despite over 30 tax increases, still racked up record budget deficits and almost $300 billion in debt. We have seen this example in Queensland as well, where the former Labor government stripped government entities of dividends over and above what was prudent. We have seen the situation arise with the Reserve Bank, where dividends have been stripped out, leaving the reserves for the bank below what they should be. Again through prudent economic management, we restored the reserves of the Reserve Bank. We make no apologies for that, because we want to set this economy up for future generations in this country—something the former Labor government never thought about. They just thought about the here and now.
This is about the future of this country. It is only a coalition government that is going to get our finances in order. That is what this bill is about—working to get our finances in order in a sensible, measured, methodical way for the future benefit of this great country.
Mr NIKOLIC (Bass) (19:50): A while ago the member for Chifley said that the public had no inkling of the need to raise the debt cap. He must have missed his own Treasurer's media statements, when he said it was someone else's problem. In an interview with Neil Mitchell on 3AW on 15 May, he said, 'It's a matter for them; it's a matter for someone else.' The member for Chifley must have missed numerous interviews in which the member for North Sydney was calling the former Treasurer to account. This issue was known not only to the Australian public; it was well known to the former government, and it is shameful that they ignored it.
In 2½ years as a full-time candidate, I have found that the issue of debt and deficit has featured prominently in my electorate. I have sent out surveys and those that were returned mostly mentioned local issues, but a whole swag of them talked about the debt and deficit that had been racked up by the previous government since the 2007 election.
The first responsibility of the Treasurer is to be responsible when it comes to matters of economic management. The former Treasurer failed to deal with this issue, and the reason for that is abundantly clear: it was politically unpalatable. There was a lack of courage in the lead-up to the election to accept responsibility and to deal with the consequences of their reckless spending. The need to increase the debt limit was frequently foreshadowed by the member for North Sydney. Just as he foreshadowed that those opposite would never achieve a surplus, he correctly foreshadowed that debt would run out of control, and so it has proven to be the case.
What this bill represents is a redressing of the failure of the former government. NAB, UBS and the Bank of America have all said the debt limit would be reached. We had indicators last June from Treasury officers that the face value of Commonwealth government securities, which of course make up most of the debt, would hit $290 billion by this December—just $10 billion short of that $300 billion limit. The pre-election fiscal outlook indicated that the $300 billion limit would be breached by Christmas. In short, there is irrefutable evidence that the debt ceiling must be increased—irrefutable evidence that debt is projected to reach $370 billion in financial year 2015-16. With the deterioration since the 2013 PEFO, the current economic trend suggests peak debt will now exceed $400 billion.
Those opposite have said, 'Don't worry about debt; debt is not a problem in comparison with those European countries that have been spending unsustainably for decades with debt-to-GDP ratios above 100 per cent. Let us benchmark ourselves against the sick men of Europe.' And so the debt increased under the former government. Members opposite do not talk much about the growth of that debt over time. What is the speed of the growth of that debt since 2007—that comfortable straight line extrapolation of debt in the last six years? Why not benchmark ourselves about where we were at the 2007 election with money in the bank, with a Future Fund, with a Higher Education Endowment fund, with responsible fiscal management during the Howard government that had put us in a wonderful financial position.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Moreton.
Mr NIKOLIC: Those opposite in the chamber say, 'Let's ignore AOFM advice about prudent buffers.' They repeat their reckless approach to fiscal management by ignoring the advice from AOFM, which was formally tabled in parliament by the former Treasurer 18 months ago on 10 May 2012, advice that said it was prudent and responsible to have a buffer of between $40 billion to $60 billion of additional headroom. Their debt kept rising. Labor economic policy—
Member for Moreton interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Moreton will find himself out of the chamber shortly.
Mr NIKOLIC: There was irresponsible spending, imprudent promises. So rapid was their erosion of the AOFM-recommended headroom that they raised the debt limit on four occasions. Instead of headroom, Labor saw it as a target for accelerated spending. Every few years another target and another opportunity for the Rudd-Gillard governments to keep spending—$75 billion, $200 billion, $250, $300 billion. Our message to those opposite is: let us get on with fixing the mess that you have created. The former government was unwilling to deal with this issue during the election; it is time they let us get on with the job.
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (19:55): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal statement.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the member for Kennedy claim to be misrepresented?
Mr KATTER: Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. It has been claimed that I and another backbencher will not be here for the vote tonight, because we do not want to vote on it. I most certainly want to vote on it; I most certainly want to support the government, because I think an incoming government should have latitude in these areas. I do not want to mention names—people can speak for themselves—but I just want it established in the House that I would have supported the government very strongly on this issue. They need to be given latitude, just as the outgoing government deserved latitude in their period. We are very worried about the debt and we call upon the government to acknowledge that.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will take that as debate, rather than a point of order. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Bill agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The House divided. [20:00]
(The Deputy Speaker—Hon. BC Scott)
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Member for Griffith
Mr RUDD (Griffith) (20:12): I wish to make some remarks to the chamber, Mr Deputy Speaker. There comes a time in our lives as parliamentarians when our families finally say, 'Enough is enough.' My family has reached just such a time. We ask much of our families in this place and, in the case of my family, well above and way beyond the call of duty. The truth of this place is that the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, which regrettably have become part of the stock and trade for so many of us in public life, hit home to our families as well. This applies particularly to the families of our parliamentary leaders. For our family, recent statements since the September election have been particularly hurtful. As parliamentarians we might say that we become inured to all of this, although I doubt it. For our families, however, I believe that it becomes harder, not easier, with the passing of the years and it affects their ability to get on building their own lives and careers as well. My family have given their all for me in public life and for the nation. It is now time that I gave something back to them. This has been the product of much soul searching for us as a family over the last few months. The decision that I have made has not been taken lightly, particularly given the deep attachment that I have for the community that I have proudly represented in this place these last 15 years. But for me, my family is everything and always has been and always will be. That is why I will not be continuing as a member of this parliament beyond this week.
I also believe that it is right and proper to report my decision to the parliament at the earliest opportunity, and that day is today. I have chosen to do so now to create minimal disruptions to the normal proceedings of the House. My predecessors as Prime Minister, Prime Ministers Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke and Keating, reached similar decisions to leave the parliament before the subsequent election, as did would-be Prime Ministers Costello and Downer. Perhaps Prime Minister Howard would have done the same had he retained the seat of Bennelong, although we will never know.
I wish to thank my local community, the good burghers of Griffith, for electing me to this place. They are very good people and they are a great community. I am proud of the new libraries, classrooms and multi-purpose facilities we have built in each and every one of my local primary schools and I am proud of the hundreds of new laptops in high schools, which before had none, or very few. I love the smiles on the kids' faces and on the teachers' faces as I visit them, and schools like them, right across Australia.
I would also like to thank the people of Australia for electing me as their Prime Minister. To have served as Prime Minister of Australia has been a great honour afforded to very few in our country's history.
For the future I wish the Prime Minister and his government well. I do that because I wish Australia well. The prime ministership of this Commonwealth is not easy. It is the hardest job in the land. The expectations of whoever holds the office are infinite, while the resources available are finite. I wish Tony, his wife, Margie, and their family all the best for the rigours of high office that inevitably lie ahead.
This is a good country. Australians are by instinct a very good people. The rest of the world, more often than we perhaps think, looks to us to help provide answers to the challenges facing humankind, and not just to tend to our own. So, too, I would wish my good friends the Treasurer and the foreign minister, wherever she happens to be, all the very best for the complex global challenges that lie ahead, as I do my good friend the member for Wentworth, who remains a particular adornment to the parliament.
To the Australian Labor Party, the party of which I have been a proud member for the past 30 years or more, and a parliamentary member for 15 years, the future of Australian progressive politics lies within your hands. I wish the newly elected leader, Bill Shorten, all the best in the great task that lies ahead. Having served as the Leader of the Opposition myself, I know this is never a position for the faint-hearted. Bill, there are always long, dark nights of the soul. But believe it or not morning does come, often sooner than you think. Bill brings great strengths to the position. I have every confidence he will lead Labor's return to the Treasury benches.
I also wish to thank Albo for his extraordinary service as Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the House. Albo is the most formidable parliamentarian in this place, as is recognised on both sides of the chamber. He also has a passionate commitment to the cause of progressive politics. In my long years in this House his loyalty has been beyond reproach. I also thank Chris Bowen for his great contribution to our party and government and his future contribution, as well.
It is a singular honour to serve in the high office of Prime Minister of Australia. I have in the past few days looked at my first speech in this place, back in 1998. You will all be pleased to know that none of us has changed one bit since then! I said back then that I believed politics was about power, and whether that power was for the few or the many. Fifteen years later, that remains my view. I said back then that I believed in the politics of hope, not in the politics of fear. Fifteen years later, that remains my view, because, as Martin Luther King famously remarked, 'The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.' I also said way back then that I had no interest in being here for the sake of being here, that the only point of being here was to make a difference for the benefit of all. Fifteen years later, that remains my view as well. In fact, I found nothing that I would change from my first speech all those years ago.
I set out to achieve many things as Prime Minister. In some of these I succeeded; in others I did not. Such is the nature of politics. But when the history is one day written, detached from the passions of our time, perhaps it will be remembered that we did navigate Australia through the worst global economic crisis since the Depression without a recession, without the scourge of mass unemployment—a terrible thing when you see it in Europe today—and with our AAA credit ratings intact. It may also be remembered that we helped establish the G20 as the premier institution of global economic governance as well as securing Australian membership of it; that we ratified Kyoto, because we believe in the reality of climate change, and we acted on our commitments to reduce carbon emissions; that we brought into being Australia's first ever national curriculum, our first ever paid parental leave scheme and the biggest age pension increase in our history; and that as a nation we finally delivered an official apology to Aboriginal Australians.
Nothing has brought me greater joy in political life than the smiles I have seen on the faces of our Aboriginal brothers and sisters, young and old, country and city, as a result of the apology. I hope, though, that what we have achieved through some healing of the soul will be the first step. The second, of course, is closing the gap to achieve a healing of broken bodies as well.
It was also my privilege to be asked by my parliamentary colleagues, including Bill and Albo and Chris, to return to the prime ministership earlier this year. This, too, was not a task for the faint-hearted. I was glad that together we were able to, as they say in the classics, save the furniture—and in fact, I think, do considerably better than that. I am glad that all you folk on the frontbench were returned in one piece as well, and that we returned Labor as a fighting force for the next election. More importantly, we have also begun the process of reforming the party through the new democratic processes for electing our leader. This was a great experience for our party. But I also believe it is but the first step. Our party must continue to reform and to be the party of the reforming progressive centre of Australian politics, the party of the future economy of social equity and of environmental sustainability, the party of working people, the party of small business and the party of our local communities, and a fully democratised party where we also see the election of our national conference, our national executive and our Senate candidates through direct democratic election by our party membership and, in time, primaries for our candidates for this House as well, through a shared electoral college of both our party members and our registered supporters. In the meantime, I look forward to a full democratic preselection process for all local party members to elect our next candidate for Griffith.
For the future, my passion remains with Indigenous reconciliation. In the year ahead I plan to establish a National Apology Foundation to keep alive the spirit and substance of the apology that I delivered in this place six years ago. I will also continue to support the great causes of homelessness, organ donation and the future of multicultural Australia, including foreign language education and inter-faith dialogue. As members of this House will know—in fact, members of Senate estimates committees will know even better—I am both passionately Australian and passionately a citizen of the world. I intend to be active in the international community in areas where I can make a genuine contribution to peace and stability, global economic governance and sustainable development, including climate change. In this context I will also focus on China's future role in the region and the world. As Australia is the voice of the West in the East—and in time I hope a voice for the East in the West—I believe there is a useful role for Australians to play as an engaged, intelligent and sympathetic bridge between these two hemispheres, between China and the United States in particular, in the challenging half century that lies ahead.
Deputy Speaker, I wish to thank, through you and the Clerk, all the parliamentary staff for their unfailing professionalism and friendship all these years. It is they who uphold this great institution of the parliament. I wish to thank the Australian Public Service as one of our great national institutions, and its professional commitment to the defence of the continuing national interests of our Commonwealth, irrespective of who happens to be the government of the day.
I wish to also thank my staff, past and present, prime-ministerial, foreign-ministerial and electoral, for their loyalty, hard work and friendship over the years—and, above all, for their over-riding commitment to Australia. I thank, too, the press gallery, who are here in such numbers this evening!
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr RUDD: Sorry, they have bundied off! I thank the press gallery for their coverage, both good and bad, and encourage them to continue to apply all necessary programmatic specificity to the task of holding the government of the day to account! To the members of this parliament, friend and foe—and I can confidently say they are spread equally across both sides of the chamber: I thank you for the privilege of working with you. Whatever has been said—and a lot has been said—that was hurtful over the last three years, I have chosen not to respond. I bear no-one in this place any malice. Life is far too short for that. It is time, however, for the baton unequivocally to be passed to others.
To the new members in this place: I wish you well. This parliament is a great institution. As members you will choose what type of parliamentarian you wish to become. It is not preordained: you make the decisions, whether you become positive or negative, knowledgeable or otherwise, and you shape your own future here. But, whatever you choose, I will just say this: be gentle with each other.
To my life partner, Therese, for enduring 32 years of marriage, as of tomorrow—which I think stands close to the established miracles of the church—to my daughter, Jess, her husband, Albert, and our beautiful grand-daughter, Josephine; to our son Nick and his wife, Zara; and to our youngest son, Marcus: you mean everything to me.
In the days ahead Therese and I will be spending some time together overseas, to plan the next phase of our lives. So I would ask our good friends in the Fourth Estate to give us a little privacy when I cease being a public figure. And I am not planning on any interviews anytime soon—everyone on this side of the House can rest assured!
Australia truly is a remarkable country. It is a land of remarkable opportunity. To think that the son of a dairy farmer, whose family didn't really have much money, could secure a place at university through the Whitlam reforms, and upon graduation become a diplomat and then serve as chief of staff to a Premier, be elected to the parliament to represent the great Australian Labor Party and ultimately to be elected as leader of the party and then as Prime Minister, says everything about how extraordinary this country is. For these remarkable opportunities I will always be grateful. Thank you, Australia.
So, Madam Speaker—thank you for your presence—and friends one and all in this place: having said all of that, on this final occasion in the parliament, and as is now officially recorded in the classics for occasions such as this, it really is time for me to zip.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (20:29): This is a special occasion. The former Prime Minister, the member for Griffith, who has just addressed us, has been a very significant part of this parliament for the best part of two decades. Whether we are on his side of the parliament or the other side of the parliament, whether we have been his friends or his foes, or at times both, this is a significant moment in the life of this parliament—to lose someone who has been one of the big figures in this parliament and one of the big figures in the public life of our country over the best part of two decades. As a political opponent, but as someone who has known the member for Griffith quite well for a long time, I salute him and I wish him and his family all the best for the future. I express my confidence that, one way or another, he will continue to serve our country and his party and that he will continue to support the causes he believes in, many of which are causes which all of us right around this chamber and right around our country support as well.
The member for Griffith has just said, rightly, that we are an extraordinary country. We are an extraordinary country, and I hope, Madam Speaker, you will forgive me if I say, in reference to the member for Griffith, that it does take an extraordinary person to lead an extraordinary country. The member for Griffith won an election which pitted him against the person whom I believe to have been the most successful prime minister in modern Australian times. It takes extraordinary ability, insight, guts and focus to win such a contest. He did not just win that contest in 2007, he triumphed. He absolutely triumphed in that contest. We must pay tribute to someone of such stature who was able to vanquish, in fair political fight, someone of at least equal stature. I pay tribute to the member for Griffith tonight for his capacity, for his achievements, for his ability and for his commitment, because a man of his ability—a person of his ability—could do many things in this life, but he chose to serve our country as a public servant in Queensland, as a member of this parliament, as a frontbencher, and eventually as a party leader and as a prime minister. We salute that service.
Sooner or later everyone outlives their usefulness. It does not matter how well they have done. It does not matter how important the cause is that they are serving. Sooner or later everyone outlives his or her usefulness. It will come to every single member of this House that, at some point in time, we will have outlived our usefulness, and the wisdom is to know—
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr ABBOTT: Yes, fair enough, I suppose I invited that observation, but it is the essence of wisdom to know when the time has come to serve one's country and to serve one's ideals in a different capacity. Again, I salute the member for Griffith for appreciating that although there are good things that he could have continued to do in this parliament for his party, for our people and for his constituents, he can do better things for all of those important causes elsewhere.
It remains only to observe that, whatever disagreements the member for Griffith and people on this side of the chamber have had, there were many things to celebrate in his prime ministership. Certainly, that which I celebrate most of all, and which I am sure every single member of this House celebrates, is that extraordinary apology on the first day of the parliamentary sitting in 2008. Ancient wrongs were addressed. Ancient injustices were, at least in part, atoned for, and our country had a unifying and healing moment the like of which we very, very rarely see. It was a great moment in our history. To the credit of the member the Griffith, it happened because of him.
Much as I admire, appreciate and put on a huge pedestal his immediate predecessor, in this respect at least, his immediate predecessor had lacked the imagination to grasp that opportunity, and the member for Griffith, Kevin, had the decency to see that here was something that needed to be done. He did it with aplomb, with courage and with decency, compassion and magnanimity. That alone is an extraordinary achievement. That alone is something to crown an amazing public life.
We thank you and we salute you.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (20:35): Tonight we have heard the news that the member for Griffith will be resigning. He has cast a large presence across the national political stage for an extended period of time. He can leave this place with his head held up. As the member for Griffith he has been a very active local member, and amongst the many things he has done he has strongly campaigned to represent his residents in their quality of life in terms of Brisbane Airport.
As Prime Minister his most significant achievements will be recorded—the apology; helping steward the nation through the global financial crisis with Treasurer Wayne Swan; putting climate change as a national political issue in the mainstream debate; championing the National Broadband Network; and before entering parliament and during his time as Prime Minister—and, indeed, as foreign affairs minister—representing Australia with distinction. In large part our presence on the United Nations Security Council was due to his vision for that post and for Australia's role in the world.
He has been the Leader of the Labor Party during difficult circumstances for the party. He has been part of tumultuous debates within our party over the last few years. I do think that most fair minded people will recognise that, when he returned to the task of Prime Minister in those weeks before the last election, his contribution helped improve the quality of Australian democracy. Although Labor was unsuccessful at the election, I believe that his contribution in improving Labor's electoral fortunes in a range of seats meant, even though the majority of Australian people selected the coalition to form the government, that they were well served by having a relatively strong opposition in numbers able to help hold the government to account.
This is a tumultuous era in Labor and with the member for Griffith's resignation tonight part of it comes to a close. I do not believe that we will see his like again in the Australian parliament. Even his harshest critics—of which there are some—would say that he does have a special relationship with the Australian people. You can go to any shopping centre in Australia—most politicians will achieve some degree of above-politics celebrity—and see that people like him.
He has, for better or for worse in the digital era, popularised selfies. Even more importantly than that, what he said tonight reminds us of something which we all in this place hold dear. He is putting his family first. His family have lent us Kevin Rudd for the last number of years. In the harsh battles of politics, in the harsh public analysis, I can only but wonder about his children, their partners and his wife. They have to read the unkind things that get said as well as the kind things. In many ways they have no shield against the unkindness. What we have seen tonight in the words of Kevin Rudd is that enough is enough and it is now time for him to be there for those who have given so much to him. I wish to thank Therese and his family because they have supported Kevin Rudd in good times and in bad, and now they get their husband, their father, their father-in-law and their grandfather back.
In conclusion, regardless of one's politics, the propositions put by Kevin Rudd in his first speech and which he again articulated tonight are good guides for all of us. They are that the political debate should be about hope, not fear; it should be about the future, not the past; and it should be about an inclusive Australia. As Leader of the Opposition, I wish the member for Griffith and his family all the best in the future. Thank you very much.
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (20:40): I, like many others in this place, am a little surprised by the speech from the member for Griffith. I suppose many of the new members today would have witnessed the highs and the lows, the darkness and the light of what politics is really about, because we have had it all today in this chamber. But I know the Kevin Rudd that perhaps many do not know. I have seen the Kevin Rudd that many have not seen, including sharing semi-nakedness with him in a river in Papua New Guinea—an unforgettable experience, I must say!
I say to the member for Griffith that I think he is, in many ways, the luckiest guy in Australia. He married a beautiful woman, a very special woman, who has been not only a partner on the journey in politics but also a great supporter, raising three magnificent children. And now they are grandparents to someone I know they dearly love. I suppose your grandchild will reflect on the fact that grandpa was Prime Minister, and I think she can be well satisfied that her life is better for his contribution to our nation.
The member for Griffith has had the extreme experiences of public life over the last few years. Very few of us actually get the opportunity to see someone come in as a new member, serve as Prime Minister and leave. It is very, very rare. But we have witnessed an extraordinary career, with great highs, as the Prime Minister recognised—defeating who we believe to be Australia's greatest Prime Minister in an election defeat that was of enormous significance—to experiencing the very deep lows, even at the hand of his own party. But the fact is he is still a decent man; he deserves all the very best for his future.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (20:43): I pay tribute to former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on this very significant day for the parliament. He is someone who respects our institutions, including this great parliament, which is why he made the appropriate decision to inform the parliament here first. Giving respect—a lesson for all of us.
Others have said that Kevin Rudd led Labor to a historic victory in 2007. That is certainly the case. Having experienced 12 long years in opposition, it was indeed a timely victory for the class of '96, let alone the classes of '98, 2001 and 2004. It is particularly significant for Labor. Labor governed for around about one third or less of last century. There are only three people who have led Labor to government from opposition—Kevin Rudd, Bob Hawke and Gough Whitlam—since the Second World War. That is how significant that victory was, and all the more significant because John Howard—whilst I would have a couple of differences with him—was a very formidable Prime Minister and political leader, indeed.
Kevin Rudd's tenacity and determination on behalf of the Labor cause was something to behold and it explains something about my position around the events of 2010—a position I will hold forever—that we should respect our leaders. The apology to Indigenous Australians, the ratification of the Kyoto protocol as the first act of the Rudd Labor government, the largest ever increase in the age pension, the expansion of affordable housing, action on homelessness, and the National Broadband Network are all part of the Rudd government's legacy.
I believe the most significant part, though, was seeing Australia through the global financial crisis. That was regarded by people like Jo Stiglitz as the world's best designed economic stimulus plan. Treasury estimates it kept 200,000 Australians in work. Running the economy is the fundamental objective of government. If you do not do that, then you cannot create the space for the social and environmental policies that you would like to have. For a Labor government there can be no greater legacy than safeguarding the jobs of Australians.
Kevin's greatest foreign policy achievement was his international leadership in elevating the status of the G20 during the GFC. I had the honour of going with Kevin and the Treasurer Wayne Swan when I was the infrastructure minister to that first conference in London. For the past 200-plus years our nation has had a European heritage but we are centred in Asia-Pacific region. I saw first hand a great example of Australia punching way above our weight in terms the size of the economy. I saw the work that Kevin was able to achieve in the negotiations on the floor. His leadership was quite extraordinary. I have no doubt it played a role in securing Australia's position on the United Nations Security Council.
His dedication to nation-building meant that it was a pretty good time to be infrastructure minister, because Kevin backed me up—doubling the roads budget, increasing the rail budget by more than ten times, and recognising, through his advocacy, the need for projects like the cross-river rail project and the Moreton Bay Regional Rail Link, first promised in 1895 but delivered by the Rudd Labor government and under construction right now. Kevin also continued to advocate for his local community. With an airport-affected seat, I certainly related to Kevin's advocacy there.
I am very proud that I got to serve as Deputy Prime Minister to Kevin when he returned to the Prime Ministership earlier this year. It is something that does not get taken away. I will probably regret the fact that Kevin called me Albo at that first press conference and now everyone calls me Albo. It used to be just my friends.
Kevin's leadership during that difficult time was quite extraordinary: taking on the leadership of a party that had been through a very difficult and turbulent time, preparing for an election campaign and then campaigning right around the country with energy and vigour in a campaign in which the odds were always against us. To repeat a private conversation—I don't do that—I said to Kevin at one stage on the day, 'I don't know why you've just made this decision; it's not in your interests.' He could have retired having led Labor to victory in 2007; 2010 changed, and no-one could have questioned what the outcomes might have been in 2010. He could have retired as an undefeated Prime Minister from the Australian electorate. He chose to put the party that he loves first, before his own interests and the interests of his family. And I thank him for that, because Labor is competitive.
Finally, I thank him for what he has done for our party: the democratic reforms that he championed, in having a leadership ballot of the party where more than 30,000 people got to vote in that democratic election—I believe, a process that showed that you can have a democratic election without rancour and emerge stronger as an organisation if people actually accept processes and participate in them with goodwill. We emerged, after a significant election loss, with a party that is more united, stronger and more cohesive than it would have been if that reform was not put in place under Kevin Rudd's leadership. And it must be, as Kevin said, the first step. We also need to democratise and have greater direct participation—I think it is the way forward, not just for Labor but for all political parties. The world has changed and people demand a direct say, not just sitting in halls; that is a thing of the past. And I intend to continue to champion an extension of the democratic reforms which Kevin began.
He leaves the parliament with my best wishes and my enduring friendship. I also extend my thanks to Therese and other members of Kevin's family for their contribution to the cause of Labor, and also for their contribution to the cause of our great nation, Australia. Our families give up an enormous amount for the decisions that we make to be in this place. And the sort of scrutiny of them that occurs, sometimes most unfair, is something that comes with the job. But for Kevin, who has given so much for Australia up to this point: I look forward to watching his contribution outside the parliament and on the issues he has indicated—Indigenous welfare, homelessness, organ donation and others—that I have no doubt Kevin will take up with passion and commitment. And I pay tribute to him and honour him here tonight.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Minister for Education and Leader of the House) (20:52): I do not wish to detain the House at great length tonight, but I do think it is appropriate that, as Leader of the House, I say a few words about the retirement of the member for Griffith. Proverbs has a statement in it, that from those to whom much is given much is expected. The member for Griffith is a highly intelligent individual, a tremendous communicator and a man of great passion and ability, and he could have turned all of those talents to any kind of path in life. He could have been a very successful CEO of a business and earned tremendous amounts of money. He could have been a tremendous academic in one of Australia's many tremendous institutions. But he chose to pursue public life because, for him—as, I hope, for all of us in this chamber—parliament is the highest form of public service.
There are so many things a person of Kevin Rudd's talents could have done, and yet he put his family through, and himself through, what we all know is a very tough life. I am the father of four children, still happily married—after only 19 years, unlike the 32 years of Kevin and Therese. But we all know the extraordinary sacrifices that families make in this place to support their fathers, their husbands, their wives, their partners to pursue public service. It is, in so many respects, a very selfish life, but in so many respects it is a selfless life as well.
So it is important to pay tribute tonight in a public way to a person who rose to the highest office in the land of the 13th biggest economy in the world—a very significant country, not just in our region but in the world. To become leader of a great party, whether it is the Liberal Party or the Labor Party, is a tremendous achievement. To lead that party to victory, to secure the confidence of the Australian people, is a crowning glory. Nobody can ever take that away from the member for Griffith.
While I have called him all sorts of names over the years—some of them more memorable than others—as part of the cut and thrust of this chamber, on a personal basis I have never had a cross word with the member for Griffith. I will reveal a secret tonight, now that he is retiring: he and I were once both members of the same prayer group in this place. Thirteen years ago, when my twins were born—after a very difficult pregnancy and a long period of time getting there—the member for Griffith could not have been more supportive to me as a human being. He was entirely true to his words tonight: 'Take care of each other.' In spite of the argy-bargy that goes on in this place, we are all human beings.
I am so pleased to be able to give Kevin Rudd back to his beautiful family and his wife. I am sure he has decades of contribution to public life, in one respect or another, ahead of him. But I am sure he will also be putting his family first into the future.
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (20:56): We are in this House privileged from time to time to be part of history. Tonight the member for Griffith has once again shared that privilege with us. My proudest moment as a member of parliament, some years ago, was sitting where the member for Ryan is currently sitting while Kevin Rudd delivered the apology to Australia's Indigenous people. It was, I think, the proudest moment many of us—I say this without a hint of partisanship—on this side of the House have felt and are likely to feel.
It has been commented by members opposite that Kevin Rudd defeated the person those honourable members think was the best Prime Minister in Australia's history. We would beg to differ, but we would say this: he defeated the most formidable conservative campaigner in Australia's history, and that is no mean feat. In delivering that election victory to our side of politics, he enabled many people on this side of politics to do many good things. The apology has been mentioned. The abolition of what we would say, then and now, was a very unfair set of arrangements through Work Choices was achieved because of that election victory. In good time, it enabled education reform and the establishment of an enduring social reform through the national disability scheme, DisabilityCare. He worked with his colleagues on this side of the House for those reforms—reforms which will stand the test of time.
In 2007, those of us on this side of the House, who were here in opposition, were not convinced we were going to win that election. History has a habit of looking inevitable in retrospect. There was nothing inevitable about that victory, just as there was nothing inevitable about the Prime Minister's victory in this election. History is made by those of us who participate in it. The Labor Party asked the member for Griffith, Kevin, to take the leadership and thus to deliver that victory over Australia's most formidable campaigner—certainly of the postwar era.
I associate myself with the remarks of all. We are often critical of the Prime Minister, but I think the Prime Minister just gave the best speech he has ever given in this House. His gracious remarks towards the member for Griffith were well meant and well received.
Being Prime Minister is, as has been mentioned, an enormous honour, but it is also an enormous sacrifice. As the member for Grayndler mentioned, the party called upon Kevin to return to the leadership earlier this year. It was not a call that was necessarily in his best interests to accept. He could have sat back and declined the call. He knew when he took the prime ministership that the odds were long. He knew when he took the Labor Party's leadership that it could well end in defeat—that it most likely would. However, he saw it as his responsibility to take the leadership and he has much to be proud of, as does Julia Gillard and as does everybody who served as ministers and supporters of the previous government.
I am very proud to regard myself as a friend of Kevin, FOK. It is quite a ride being a friend of Kevin. He does provide thrills and spills. But it is always an honour, as it has been tonight. In what I regard as the finest political autobiography I have been able to read, Dennis Healy's autobiography, The Time of My Life, he wrote about being regarded as the greatest Prime Minister Britain never had and reflected on that. He wrote that it would have been better to have been Prime Minister than to not have been because of the opportunity to contribute. He is right about that, of course. From the member for Griffith's point of view, it was better that he became Prime Minister, because he had the chance to do much good for his nation and much good for his party.
His party reforms will endure, just as his national reforms will endure. The process that we have just gone through—and both the member for Maribyrnong and the member for Grayndler would agree—was a good one. The member for Maribyrnong might agree a little more strongly with that, but they would both agree on that. I believe that in time it will infect other political parties and Australia's body politic will be all the better for it. I also believe that the member for Griffith as a relatively young man has much to contribute to Australia and to the world and will do so in another form and in different ways. But the contribution that he has made is there for all to see.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Minister for Communications) (21:01): This is indeed a momentous day. The resignation of a former Prime Minister from the parliament, in the House, is a day that all of us here will remember. We will all remember, Kevin, being here when you resigned from this parliament, a parliament in which, as the Prime Minister has said, you have had a leading and often decisive role for so many years. You have been a leader in Australia; a leader of Australia—a formidable leader. You were the leader of the Labor Party that defeated John Howard in an election campaign that all of us who participated in it remember as in effect a presidential campaign for you. All of my colleagues who campaigned in that election remember. We would go from one electorate to another and there would be one or two corflutes of the Labor candidate and then hundreds of Kevin Rudd. It was a presidential campaign; it was Kevin Rudd's victory in 2007.
When you became Prime Minister, there were quite a few things that we disagreed about, as you know. But your apology to the stolen generation is, as the Prime Minister tonight said, one of those signal moments; one of those moments when a leader is able with his imagination to capture the tenor of the times and make a mark in history, a mark that will never be erased. All of your other achievements—about which we have differing views of course—that your colleagues in the Labor Party have spoken so warmly about tonight, including the handling of the global financial crisis, the National Broadband Network and others, will all pass into forgetfulness. But that apology to the stolen generation will never be forgotten. It is not just one of those marks in the sand of history to be blown or washed away by time, but carved into the granite—into the bedrock—of history. That is your achievement.
When I was the Leader of the Opposition, you were a formidable and ferocious opponent—and indeed an unforgiving one. We differed on a number of occasions. We still occasionally have gentle arguments about your response to the global financial crisis. I still believe that, with the benefit of hindsight, you could have spent less and perhaps spent more wisely. But these are not details for tonight.
What I want to speak about tonight is Kevin Rudd, the man. All of us in politics experience great joy, great highs, and often suffer great lows and setbacks. I will never forget the day that you gave your press conference following your removal as Leader of the Labor Party by your colleagues. It is etched in my memory. It was one of the cruellest moments I have ever witnessed. I had lost the leadership of my own party but, frankly, that was in a dispute about policy. The current Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, and I and various members of the party had a difference about policy and it was resolved in a ballot. It was well flagged. We were bringing it to a head; it was something we had to resolve. It was, if you like, a very fair fight.
The betrayal of you as leader of your party was one of the most shocking events I have ever witnessed. I think it would be one of the most shocking events any of us have ever witnessed in politics—the scale of it. The idea that the man who had won, in this presidential campaign, an election against John Howard was then going to be disposed of, discarded like another course on a lazy Susan in a Vietnamese restaurant—the cruelty of it was extraordinary! I remember watching your wife, Therese Rein, standing there, as the political wives and husbands so often do, the mute spectator to the cruelty inflicted on her husband. As the Prime Minister has often said—and it is one of the truest things you have ever said, Prime Minister—all of us here are volunteers. Our spouses and families are conscripts. The way your family stood by you, Kevin Rudd, is something that also will never be forgotten. But your resilience and your determination— derided by so many of your colleagues and by people in the media and by people on our side as well—was, again, an example to all of us.
The member for Griffith was kind enough to refer to me as his friend. I am touched by that, Kevin, I really am. We did not have any relationship when I was Leader of the Opposition and you were Prime Minister, beyond the antagonistic one in this chamber. But after you lost the leadership I did get to know you a lot better. Initially, I was very worried about you, because I had known how low I had sunk in a much less difficult loss of leadership—a much less difficult loss of leadership. I was very worried about you. As I got to know you I realised what an extraordinarily tough individual you are. Your determination is unequalled by anyone I have worked with in politics. I do not know anyone who is so filled with energy and determination and a preparedness to overcome any setback. That is a triumph of the human spirit. Even if we disagree about one policy or another, it is an extraordinary triumph of the human spirit that you could overcome those setbacks, that betrayal that would have crushed so many other people.
So, together with my colleagues, and indeed with yours, I salute you tonight. I thank you for your service to the people of Australia and to this parliament. I wish you a long and happy life with Therese and your family. As a fellow grandfather, I am sure that you will have a lot of wonderful time with your grandchild, and indeed the many more grandchildren that are to come. Thank you very much, Kevin Rudd, for your service to Australia.
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (21:09): A number of speakers on both sides of the chamber have spoken tonight about how they remember so vividly where they were when the historic apology was made to our nation's Indigenous Australians. Of course I remember it very vividly too. One of the elements that I remember most vividly is the fact that the Prime Minister went to see Nanna Fejo before the apology and spoke to her about her experiences, her life, what it had meant being taken from her family at such a young age and what she had missed of her culture and her family. The reason I raise this is that, in my experience of working with the former Prime Minister on the issues of homelessness, that was so typical of his approach—to speak to the people who were working in the area of homeless but most particularly to sit and speak with, and most importantly listen to, those Australians who were experiencing homelessness.
Before the 2007 election, before we had made any announcement about homelessness policy, we went together to the Mission Australia homelessness facility in Surrey Hills and with no media present, just the then Leader of the Opposition and me, we sat there for several hours talking with those men—some women but mostly men—about their lives: how they had become homeless, what had happened in their families, what had happened in their backgrounds and how we could change things so that not only would they have roofs over their heads but also they could leave homelessness behind and find permanent homes. That personal discussion and investigation that the then Leader of the Opposition brought with him into attacking and addressing the issue of homelessness was very important.
The other thing I noticed then, and I think it was typical of his time as Prime Minister, was that, as well as that deep understanding of the personal stories connected to the issues that he was addressing, he spoke to every expert, he read every piece of work, he asked every question and he investigated every issue as deeply as he possibly could. Colleagues will remember that we started to call it 'kevidence' because it was the most evidence-based approach to these large questions of public policy that we had ever had in Australia—the most intellectual approach. I saw that again most recently when the former Prime Minister went to see some amazing biomedical research facilities in Brisbane—facilities that he had supported the funding of. The depth of understanding that he had and the questions that he asked of those biomedical researchers I know surprised the scientists on the day. The policy lessons that he drew from those conversations and what he saw first hand of course informed the decisions that we made.
I think we have seldom had a Prime Minister of such prodigious intellect and with such a wide variety of interests and such a capacity to translate personal stories and evidence from so many different experts into policies that have made our nation a better place.
The SPEAKER (21:13): The member for Griffith is a man who is out of the ordinary. He evoked an amazing reaction in the chamber tonight. He laid his emotions bare, and we have also seen that from those others who have spoken.
I first came to know you, Kevin, on the television, when I used to fill in for Joe Hockey when he could not make it. We would spar a bit, but then we came to know each other better. I had the delight of meeting your grandchild, and I talked about mine. There are many policy areas that will go on being debated and where there will be furious disagreement for years to come. But there is something about an emotional tie, and you have sparked something tonight by speaking to the parliament in the way you did. You sparked an empathy across the chamber that says something of the human side of those of us who come and seek to serve our nation in this place, where just over 1,000 people in the entire history of the Commonwealth parliament have served, and know the honour that it is to serve. In the concept of serving the nation there is no higher aspiration.
In your candid baring of your emotions, and indeed part of your soul, you have evoked that spirit that I think binds the parliament, whereas the fast and furious politics that divide us so often are the reality of the body politic. Yet, to see that humanity, and the response to that humanity, has, I think, given us another dimension tonight.
Kevin, enjoy your next life. Be returned to the bosom of your family, and enjoy.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (21:16): Madam Speaker, a large number of members of parliament would like to provide the gift to Kevin's family of some gentle words, and those you referred to. With that in mind, by leave, I move:
That further statements by indulgence in relation to the resignation of Mr Rudd be permitted in the Federation Chamber.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Minister for Education and Leader of the House) (21:16): I second the motion.
Question agreed to.
House adjourned at 21:17
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr Hunt: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, and for related purposes.
Mr MacFarlane: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to customs, and for related purposes.
Mr Turnbull: To present a Bill for an Act to amend legislation relating to telecommunications, and for other purposes.
Mr Turnbull: To present a Bill for an Act to amend legislation relating to telecommunications, and for other purposes.
Mr Joyce: To present a Bill for an Act relating to the establishment of the Australian Grape and Wine Authority, and for other purposes.
Mr Pyne: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009, and for related purposes.
Mr Pyne: To present a Bill for an Act to deal with consequential and transitional matters arising from the enactment of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2013, and for related purposes.
Mr Pyne: To present a Bill for an Act to re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner, and for related purposes.
Mr Pyne: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Research Council Act 2001, and for related purposes.
Mr Pyne: To move:
That standing order 47 be amended to read as follows:
47 Motions for suspension of orders
(a) A Minister may move, with or without notice, the suspension of any standing or other order of the House.
(b) If a suspension motion is moved on notice, it shall appear on the Notice Paper and may be carried by a majority of votes.
(c) If a suspension motion is moved without notice it:
(i) must be relevant to any business under discussion and seconded; and
(ii) can be carried only by an absolute majority of Members.
(d) Any suspension of orders shall be limited to the particular purpose of the suspension.
Mr Pyne: To move:
That standing order 215 be amended to read:
215 General purpose standing committees
(a) The following general purpose standing committees shall be appointed:
(i) Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry;
(ii) Standing Committee on Economics;
(iii) Standing Committee on Education and Employment;
(iv) Standing Committee on the Environment;
(v) Standing Committee on Health;
(vi) Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs;
(vii) Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications;
(viii) Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs; and
(ix) Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue.
(b) A committee appointed under paragraph (a) may inquire into and report on any matter referred to it by either the House or a Minister, including any pre-legislation proposal, bill, motion, petition, vote or expenditure, other financial matter, report or document.
(c) A committee may make any inquiry it wishes to make into annual reports of government departments and authorities and reports of the Auditor-General presented to the House. The following qualifications shall apply to these inquiries:
(i) Reports shall stand referred to committees under a schedule presented by the Speaker to record the areas of responsibility of each committee.
(ii) The Speaker shall determine any question about responsibility for a report or part of a report.
(iii) The period during which an inquiry into an annual report may be started by a committee shall end on the day the next annual report of the department or authority is presented to the House.
(iv) If a committee intends to inquire into all or part of a report of the Auditor-General, the committee must notify the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit of its intention, in writing.
(d) Each committee appointed under paragraph (a) shall consist of ten members: six government Members and four non-government Members. Each committee may have its membership supplemented by up to four members for a particular inquiry, with a maximum of two extra government and two extra opposition or non-aligned Members. Supplementary members shall have the same participatory rights as other members, but may not vote.
Mr Pyne: To move:
That so much of Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent:
(1) the Selection Committee:
(a) meeting on or after today, if necessary by teleconference, to determine the order of consideration of matters and the times allotted for debate on each item and for each Member speaking, for private Members' business and committee and delegation business, for Monday 18 November 2013;
(b) communicating its determinations to all Members of the House prior to that Monday; and
(c) reporting its determinations to the House following prayers on Monday 18 November 2013;
(2) the Selection Committee's determinations being shown in the Notice Paper for that Monday under 'Business Accorded Priority' for the House and Federation Chamber; and
(3) in the absence of a fully constituted Selection Committee, that the arrangements for private Members' business for Monday 18 November 2013 provided for in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this resolution be determined by the Speaker, Chief Government Whip and Chief Opposition Whip.
Mr Ruddock: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that in East Timor between December 1941 and January 1943, 700 Australian troops engaged some 20,000 Japanese troops through guerrilla warfare, and:
(a) this severely hampered the Japanese war effort by preventing its troops from being deployed elsewhere; and
(b) in this endeavour, Australian troops were assisted by the East Timorese people;
(2) recognises that while Australian troops were in East Timer between December 1941 and January 1943, and after they had left, some 40,000 East Timorese are estimated to have died as a result of protecting Australian soldiers; and
(3) commends and thanks the people of Timor-Leste for the sacrifices they made in supporting Australia during World War II.
Mr Husic: To move:
That this House:
(1) extends its sympathies to the people of the Philippines who have been affected by the devastating super-typhoon Haiyan;
(2) acknowledges the anxiety and concern this terrible event has caused for the Filipino-Australian community, that is worried about the safety and well-being of family and friends in the Philippines;
(3) in particular, has regard for the:
(a) officially estimated 2,500 casualties reported to have been caused by the super-typhoon;
(b) growing concern about the possible widespread outbreak of disease along with the lack of food, clean water and medical supplies; and
(c) displacement of 800,000 people as a result of a complete destruction of homes, schools, hospitals, roads and infrastructure; and
(4) welcomes the Australian Government's provision of $10 million in assistance to the Philippines, and urges the Australian Government to maintain close dialogue with the Philippines Government to ensure that further meaningful support may be extended in a timely way, where required.
Mr Ripoll: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) superannuation savings are vital for the retirement lifestyles of all Australians;
(b) the former Government had planned to increase the Superannuation Guarantee from 9 per cent to 12 per cent;
(c) this Government plans to delay, for two years, the proposed 9 per cent to 12 per cent increase of the Superannuation Guarantee; and
(d) stakeholders have estimated that the delay in the Superannuation Guarantee will reduce aggregate savings by $40 billion; and
(2) calls upon the House to:
(a) condemn the Government's attack on the superannuation savings of Australians; and
(b) compel the Government to adhere to the timetable proposed by the former Government for the increase in the Superannuation Guarantee.
Mr Ferguson: To move:
That this House notes that:
(1) March 2013 marked the 25th anniversary of the genocidal chemical attack by the regime of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein on Halabja in the Kurdish region of Iraq that took at least 4,000 lives within a few minutes and displaced many thousands more, and was part of Saddam's brutal Anfal Campaign of the 1980s, targeting Kurdish and other minorities in Iraq;
(2) some 4,000 villages, 2,000 schools and 300 hospitals were destroyed, including through the use of chemical weapons across dozens of Kurdish villages;
(3) the Saddam regime was also responsible for the:
(a) deportation or forced relocation of tens of thousands of Faili Kurds on the basis that they were not considered Iraqi;
(b) abduction and execution of an estimated 8,000 Barzani Kurds who were subsequently buried in mass graves in southern Iraq; and
(c) arrest, execution and subsequent burial of up to 100,000 Iraqi Kurds in 1988, including women and children; and
(4) the former dictator Saddam Hussein and Ali Hassan al‑Majid, known as Chemical Ali, were subsequently prosecuted and convicted for these and other crimes.
Mr Christensen: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) that the television series Doctor Who will celebrate its 50th anniversary on the 23 November 2013;
(b) that the 50th anniversary of the first screening of Doctor Who in Australia will take place on the 12 January 2015;
(c) the many connections between Doctor Who and Australia including (but not limited to):
(i) the very first Doctor Who story, 'An Unearthly Child', written by Australian scriptwriter Anthony Coburn;
(ii) the score for the signature Doctor Who theme tune, written by Australian composer Ron Grainer;
(iii) the incidental music in the series throughout most of the 1960s and 1970s, written by Australian composer Dudley Simpson;
(iv) Australian actress Janet Fielding, playing an Australian character Tegan Jovanka in the series (alongside the Doctor as portrayed by Peter Davison);
(v) actress Katy Manning, playing the character Jo Grant in the series (alongside the Doctor as portrayed by Jon Pertwee), and becoming an Australian citizen in 2004;
(vi) Australian horse racing icon Gai Waterhouse, playing the character of Presta in the Doctor Who episode 'The Invasion of Time' (alongside the Doctor as portrayed by Tom Baker); and
(vii) Australian pop star Kylie Minogue, playing the character Astrid (alongside the Doctor as portrayed by David Tennant) in the 2007 Christmas Special 'Voyage of the Damned'; and
(d) the fact that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has been the main broadcaster for Doctor Who in Australia; and
(2) request that:
(a) in celebration of the 50th anniversary of the first screening of Doctor Who in Australia, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) consider filming the 2015 series of the television show in Australia; and
(b) the ABC, Screen Australia and the various State-based film funding bodies consider offering finance to entice the BBC to film the 2015 series of Doctor Who in Australia.